Author Topic: If you get cancer, blame Bond (Read 668 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** November 20, 2002, 02:20:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So far left liberal dominated states like California and New York aren't leading the charge to ban smoking just about anywhere?

And yes Sandman that is happening in the real world not your la la land....

Are these same liberal dominated states leading the charge to ban smoking by fictional characters as well?

I don't understand the la la land comment...

Leslie · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2002, 03:48:46 AM »

I agree with SOB on this one...it's the glorification of modern society. In the early Bond movies, 007 could handle hand to hand combat and did a lot of grappling.

Nowadays, the James Bond character relies far too much on fancy moves and gismos to get out of a tough situation.

One of the things that makes Bond so great is, he can fight and kick ass, then make love to beautiful women. All the while indulging in drinking and smoking without deleterious effects, because he works out and keeps in shape. That's why Bond is so cool.

Afraid the days of the cigarrette smoking Bond are over for good. It's a shame, but makes the early Bond movies just that much more enjoyable for me. A politically correct James Bond would just not be the same.

I still say Connery was the best 007 in Goldfinger...a classic movie with a cool soundtrack, and even cooler popsicle Galore and her flying circus.

George Lazenby is my next favorite Bond character, because he doesn't depend on much else besides his fighting and grappling abilities, street smarts and physical condition to accomplish his missions. Nothing fancy about Lazenby. Bond actually got married in "On Her Majestie's Secret Service" Think this was the only Bond movie where Lazenby played Bond.

Les

SOB · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2002, 10:16:20 AM »

Dammit Grun, what in the hell are you babbling about?!

I can't stand cigarette smoke either, but don't see what that has to do with a fictional character smoking on a movie screen.

SOB

Wlfgng · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2002, 10:29:45 AM »

Quote

glorification of modern society

says it all... sob

there's a lot of toejam besides smoking going on in movies, etc,, it doesn't mean you have to go "lemming" on us

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2002, 11:48:28 AM »

Am I the only only one here who sees a direct parallel between those people who want to ban smoking in public places and the people who want to ban and/or discourage it in a widely released work of popular fiction? The idea is to ban/discourge smoking, no? Is it that complicated?

midnight Target · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2002, 12:04:50 PM »

So GRUN! You are pro smoking and want to ENCOURAGE smoking to our young people? What is wrong with you man? Your either with the smokers or against them and I demand to know which side you are on Mr. Smoke lover!

BTW, that was sarcasm....

Ripsnort · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2002, 12:08:20 PM »

Wonder how many of those anti-smoking advocates are indeed alcoholics? And, can they sue Bond for their booze problem?

jonnyb · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2002, 12:34:42 PM »

You make a very good point rip. People sue the creators of Beavis and Butthead because children imitate the retards and try to light things, including themselves, on fire. Led Zeppelin was accused of having satanical lyrics in Stairway to Heaven, and people tried to ban the album. The list just goes on and on.

It is ok and acceptable for us to show pictures of mutilated bodies and mass terror on television, but one cannot show a naked human being. We assault our senses every day with mindless insanity we like to call news. We hear about rapes, murders, arson, assault, terrorists. Rarely, if ever do we ever hear about Mrs. Johnson's favorite recipe for homemade apple pie, or the Smith's just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

It's a simple matter of being responsible. There is no such thing as a "phase plasma rifle in the 40 watt range." We can accept that. Why is it so difficult for us to accept that James Bond doesn't exist either? He's a womanizing, over-the-top, bad-guy-butt-kicking, world-saving, drinking, smoking, way-cool-gagdet-wielding *FANTASY*.

johnathanh18 · « **Reply #23 on:** November 20, 2002, 01:42:18 PM »

you are so right jonny.

ComradII

Sandman · « **Reply #24 on:** November 20, 2002, 02:43:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Am I the only only one here who sees a direct parallel between those people who want to ban smoking in public places and the people who want to ban and/or discourage it in a widely released work of popular fiction? The idea is to ban/discourge smoking, no? Is it that complicated?

Yes.

Banning smoking in public places and discouraging the use of tobacco products is a health issue or can be argued as one.

Banning smoking or depictions of smoking in works of fiction is a censorship issue.

There really is no end to the number of things that are done or can happen in movies and television and video games that would land you in prison, or out of a marriage, or in the hospital if you tried the same thing at home.

To consider behavior by fictional characters as tacit approval or endorsement of the same behavior in the real world is just silly. I believe the courts will laugh at you if you use it as an argument.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #25 on:** November 20, 2002, 05:25:40 PM »

Yea so how many cigarette ads do you see on TV now? Or news anchors and talk show hosts lighting up nightly on national TV... Apparenty somebody with influence did not see that as all too silly...

Sandman · « **Reply #26 on:** November 20, 2002, 05:39:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yea so how many cigarette ads do you see on TV now? Or news anchors and talk show hosts lighting up nightly on national TV... Apparenty somebody with influence did not see that as all too silly...

Television ads and nightly news are not considered fiction.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #27 on:** November 20, 2002, 08:25:52 PM »

Why does it matter if it's fiction? It's still censorship if cigarette companies arent allowed to sponsor gameshows or news/interview programs. What in your mind gives fictional programs greater "anti-censorship" protections than gameshows or the like.

And this all about censorship anyway IIRC.

Sandman · « **Reply #28 on:** November 20, 2002, 08:53:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why does it matter if it's fiction? It's still censorship if cigarette companies arent allowed to sponsor gameshows or news/interview programs. What in your mind gives fictional programs greater "anti-censorship" protections than gameshows or the like.

And this all about censorship anyway IIRC.

What makes you think that the broadcasters aren't possibly censoring themselves?

Hell... remember Tom Snyder on late night? The guy used to chain smoke during the show.

Also... one thing to keep in mind even though it might not be quite relevant... The frequencies used by the networks belong to us, the public. That puts them under the direct control of the government. The same cannot be said for a fictional movie created by a private company for display in a private theatre using private equipment.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2002, 09:05:23 PM »

So fictional movies are never broadcast? Or the creators never forsee such a possibility...

Well the US federal government banned cigarette company advertisements on TV programs and radio in 1971... Maybe that makes me think they "aren't possibly censoring themselves"..