May 11th, 2007
Welcome once again to the New America, where anything that's considered hazardous to your own health -- like overeating, not wearing a motorcycle helmet and enjoying the occasional marijuana cigarette -- is something to be vilified and condemned. A happy fantasy world where knee-jerk activist groups work tirelessly to enact pointless solutions to faux problems, and we all applaud ourselves for Doing Something.
The MPAA, which many hoped would become a smarter, more reality-based operation following the death of ratings czar Jack Valenti, has announced that they'll begin considering cigarette smoking alongside sex and violence when rating films. (New York Times story here.)
Of course, there are exceptions. Like, it's okay to smoke if there's an appropriate historical context. So we won't be seeing a movie with Winston Churchill munching on carrot sticks any time soon. And the policy group that's driving the MPAA's decision says that it's okay if the depictions “unambiguously demonstrate the health issues.” So if, for example, the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction had a big coughing fit and spit up a little phlegm, that would be okay. Except that, oh yeah, that movie was already rated R, so it's a moot point.
Thank you MPAA, for taking an important stand on something completely inconsequential. I'm waiting for the next update, wherein you announce that you'll also be considering scenes that involve the eating of fast food or drinking sugared sodas when rating films ... except that you'll never do that because it would destroy the lucrative product-placement market.
The MPAA, which many hoped would become a smarter, more reality-based operation following the death of ratings czar Jack Valenti, has announced that they'll begin considering cigarette smoking alongside sex and violence when rating films. (New York Times story here.)
Of course, there are exceptions. Like, it's okay to smoke if there's an appropriate historical context. So we won't be seeing a movie with Winston Churchill munching on carrot sticks any time soon. And the policy group that's driving the MPAA's decision says that it's okay if the depictions “unambiguously demonstrate the health issues.” So if, for example, the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction had a big coughing fit and spit up a little phlegm, that would be okay. Except that, oh yeah, that movie was already rated R, so it's a moot point.
Thank you MPAA, for taking an important stand on something completely inconsequential. I'm waiting for the next update, wherein you announce that you'll also be considering scenes that involve the eating of fast food or drinking sugared sodas when rating films ... except that you'll never do that because it would destroy the lucrative product-placement market.
It's always fascinating to me -- and more than a little sad -- when a studio feels like they have to fool people into seeing a movie. Especially if the movie's really good, and ought to be sold on its own merits.
Take, for example, Waitress. This is a terrific little film. Really, really good. Smart, quirky, acerbic and charming, it avoids chick-flick sappiness with a twisted, ever-so-slightly dark tone yet ends up sweetly optimistic.
Take a moment to consider the current, late-model ad campaign for the film, which takes sunny scenes from the movie's ending and uses out-of-context dialogue to make it look like just another saccharine movie for women: (click here for Trailer 1.)
Now watch the film's original trailer, which does a pretty good job of representing the actual film: (click here for Trailer 2.)
It's pathetic when a studio has such a marvelous product on its hands yet doesn't trust that accurately depicting the film will result in it finding its audience. In this case, they're actually limiting its appeal by cutting most male viewers out of the equation, selling it as just a generic girl's movie.
Take, for example, Waitress. This is a terrific little film. Really, really good. Smart, quirky, acerbic and charming, it avoids chick-flick sappiness with a twisted, ever-so-slightly dark tone yet ends up sweetly optimistic.
Take a moment to consider the current, late-model ad campaign for the film, which takes sunny scenes from the movie's ending and uses out-of-context dialogue to make it look like just another saccharine movie for women: (click here for Trailer 1.)
Now watch the film's original trailer, which does a pretty good job of representing the actual film: (click here for Trailer 2.)
It's pathetic when a studio has such a marvelous product on its hands yet doesn't trust that accurately depicting the film will result in it finding its audience. In this case, they're actually limiting its appeal by cutting most male viewers out of the equation, selling it as just a generic girl's movie.
If you're a Netflix customer and have yet to take advantage of their used DVD sales, let me take a moment to pimp them. Not that I get anything from pushing Netflix, but as a satisfied customer I want to pass on the recommendation.
I've purchased used DVDs from them on several occasions, and every time I've gotten like-new quality discs for very cheap. They obviously overbuy on a lot of titles, and I'd be willing to wager that many of the DVDs they sell have never been rented out.
I just bought three discs at $5.99 each for Patrick's birthday, and aside from not having stickers or shrink-wrap they're just like new. Not a speck or a scratch on 'em. It may be different if you buy a movie that had been hugely popular a year ago and they're getting rid of stock as requests dwindle, or maybe family films that might have been rented by people with sticky-fingered children. I dunno.
But my birthday-gift copies of The Descent, District B-13 and Three Extremes II are pristine, as if they've never been touched by human hands. And they arrived just a couple of days after I ordered them.
So ... thumbs up for Netflix used movies.
I've purchased used DVDs from them on several occasions, and every time I've gotten like-new quality discs for very cheap. They obviously overbuy on a lot of titles, and I'd be willing to wager that many of the DVDs they sell have never been rented out.
I just bought three discs at $5.99 each for Patrick's birthday, and aside from not having stickers or shrink-wrap they're just like new. Not a speck or a scratch on 'em. It may be different if you buy a movie that had been hugely popular a year ago and they're getting rid of stock as requests dwindle, or maybe family films that might have been rented by people with sticky-fingered children. I dunno.
But my birthday-gift copies of The Descent, District B-13 and Three Extremes II are pristine, as if they've never been touched by human hands. And they arrived just a couple of days after I ordered them.
So ... thumbs up for Netflix used movies.
In order to further implore you to go spend some money and see Waitress, I'd like you to read Mike Russell's review in the Oregonian. He says everything that I would have said were I half as articulate as he.
Thank you. Carry on.
Thank you. Carry on.
