Disney films to ban depictions of smoking

[Tom Morrow]

Disney-branded films to ban depictions of smoking



Disney-branded films to ban depictions of smoking (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2007/07/epcot-rededicat.html)
Reuters

Walt Disney Co. on Wednesday became the first major Hollywood studio to ban depictions of smoking, saying there would be no smoking in its family-oriented, Disney-branded films and it would "discourage" it in films distributed by its Touchstone and Miramax labels.

Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger also said in a letter to U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, whose committee last month held hearings on the effects of movie images on children, that the studio would place anti-smoking public service announcements on DVDs of any future films that feature cigarette smoking.

He said the company would encourage theater owners to show screen anti-smoking public service announcements, or PSAs, before such films. Iger cautioned, however, that "cigarette smoking is a unique problem and this PSA effort is not a precedent for any other issue."

Markey described Disney's commitment as "groundbreaking" and urged other studios to follow suit.
complete article (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/business_tourism_aviation/2007/07/epcot-rededicat.html)





Sent from Ezra (http://www.visionsfantastic.com/forum/z/Ezra/)

[Kileli]

Yay!!! Lets hope other G and PG movies that come out by other companies do the same.

[tomserwin]

I don't think it will make much difference. Our society has had warnings against smoking for decades and yet people still smoke. I appreciate Disney's gesture but I fear that it will have little, if any, effect.

[Disney_Guy]

I suppose the move they're making wont hurt them either.
I don't mind it. Then again, I don't smoke. But I guess all these messages that are being brought out by companies over the dangers of drugs are only for good.

[Kileli]

I think it will promote non-smoking to kids. They see all the warnings and have the talks in school, then go home and see their Disney characters doing it, the stuff at school would be pointless. Now, the Disney characters give them a good example.

[tomserwin]

Now, the Disney characters give them a good example.

I don't think that Disney is known for it's smoking characters.

[Disney_Guy]

I have seen old Disney cartoons that involved smoking.
Including a Goofy short that was all about Goofy trying to get over his smoking addiction. He never got over it in the end.

[BCC]

No more Smoking Davy Jones!

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Doesn't really matter if they're currently known for it or not. The fact that they have come out and said 'we're never going to have a smoker in any family-oriented movie again' and discourage it from the other movies is a very positive statement to make.

-- PMM :cool:

[tomserwin]

I have seen old Disney cartoons that involved smoking.
Including a Goofy short that was all about Goofy trying to get over his smoking addiction. He never got over it in the end.

Yes, but back in the day, smoking wasn't viewed as negatively as it is today. Besides, I don't think that this smoking-ban is retroactive.


I don't smoke, but honestly, I'm not gonna hold it above everyone's head. Everyone knows the effects of smoking and some still choose to do so. People actively harm their bodies playing sports, but that doesn't stop anyone from body-slamming each other up and down a football field. People rock climb without safety equipment. No one tries to stop them becasue they figure that it's their choice. Besides second hand smoke, I fail to see any reason why people are so against smoking.

[Disney_Guy]

^ Ah that was just my response to your post in a "This one time I saw..." manner.
Nothing more.

[tomserwin]

Sorry. I didn't mean for it to come out negatively. Actually, I like "This one time I saw..." stories. Smoking and drinking was pretty common a while ago in cartoons.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I don't smoke, but honestly, I'm not gonna hold it above everyone's head. Everyone knows the effects of smoking and some still choose to do so. People actively harm their bodies playing sports, but that doesn't stop anyone from body-slamming each other up and down a football field. People rock climb without safety equipment. No one tries to stop them becasue they figure that it's their choice. Besides second hand smoke, I fail to see any reason why people are so against smoking.

People don't play football because they are mentally and physically addicted to it. People continue to smoke because they're addicted. The addictive effects of nicotine are well-documented.

Smokers think they can just stop whenever they want, but very VERY few are ever able to just stop cold turkey. Fortunately there have been recent advancements in gums and patches, but those can also be abused and turned into smoking-alternatives. Smoking is EXTREMELY hard to quit once you're addicted. That addiction leads to extremely negative health consequences, the majority of cases leading to death.

Not to mention all the negative effects that others experience because they breathed in the smoke from smokers. That's called second-hand smoke. Thousands have died from the effects of second-hand smoke, and they were never given the choice.

Is that enough reason to be against smoking?

-- PMM :cool:

[Executioner]

I am not against Disney doing this. I think it is fine and dandy. They are trying to set an example and change things for the better. I do find it ironic that it's founder and namesake was a chain smoker that died of lung cancer. I do remember that goofy cartoon too, but don't expect to ever see it shown on TV again.

[tomserwin]

People don't play football because they are mentally and physically addicted to it. People continue to smoke because they're addicted. The addictive effects of nicotine are well-documented.

Smokers think they can just stop whenever they want, but very VERY few are ever able to just stop cold turkey. Fortunately there have been recent advancements in gums and patches, but those can also be abused and turned into smoking-alternatives. Smoking is EXTREMELY hard to quit once you're addicted. That addiction leads to extremely negative health consequences, the majority of cases leading to death.

Not to mention all the negative effects that others experience because they breathed in the smoke from smokers. That's called second-hand smoke. Thousands have died from the effects of second-hand smoke, and they were never given the choice.

Is that enough reason to be against smoking?

-- PMM :cool:

Smoking damages the body. So can sports. That's where I was going with that. Anyway, to answer your question...

Yes and no.
I am not exactly a fan of second hand smoke. I am just as much at risk as anyone else. However, I'm also not going to stop anyone, because it is physically impossible for me to do so. But like I previously posted, I am not talking about secondhand smoke.

Assuming that second hand smoke was not a factor:

Everything that you said is common knowledge. I know that it is addictive. I know that it can killl you. However, I also know that everyone else knows. That being said, it is a concious decision to begin smoking.
So... If you know that smoking will do all of these things and you choose to smoke anyway...

Once people have the facts it is each person's responsibility to decide for themselves if they will smoke. There is no more you can do at that point. Taking away someone's right to decide is completely out of the question, leaving one to beg the question: What can you do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So no, I'm not against it because everyone has a choice, despite the fact that it can kill you. However, I am against the damage of secondhand smoke. Ultimately though, I don't care.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Everything that you said is common knowledge. I know that it is addictive. I know that it can killl you. However, I also know that everyone else knows. That being said, it is a concious decision to begin smoking.
So... If you know that smoking will do all of these things and you choose to smoke anyway...

Once people have the facts it is each person's responsibility to decide for themselves if they will smoke. There is no more you can do at that point. Taking away someone's right to decide is completely out of the question, leaving one to beg the question: What can you do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

So no, I'm not against it because everyone has a choice, despite the fact that it can kill you. However, I am against the damage of secondhand smoke. Ultimately though, I don't care.

Individual personal choice is one thing, but this Disney announcement is them saying that they are not going to put anything in their movie that might influence a child to want to start smoking. Does it get rid of all smoking influences? No. But, it sends a message that they're not going to do anything to sucker kids into becoming lifelong smoking addicts.

Remember Joe Camel? That was banned for a good reason. In fact, smoking isn't allowed to advertise at all anymore, because of the influences affecting that personal choice. Adults can make a choice, at least we hope. But kids are at the mercy of their influencers, and kudos to Disney for saying they aren't going to even maybe be an influence for a child to make a very-likely fatal mistake.

-- PMM :cool:

[Disney50]

Interesting move on Disney's part.I see it as just let's join the band wagon of bashing smoking and smokers.I'm a non-smoker and think its a nasty habit but the whole mentality has been lets wipe out decades of smoking in 10- 20 years. My thought is wheres the same outrage over drinking ??? 20,000 + people a year die from drunk driving incidents,not to mention the big problem with under age drinking ect ect plus the health effects drinking has on people.Prime example of how this whole thing is messed up. People don't want you smoking around them or their kid's but they don't mind going to a sporting event with their kid's where people drink the whole time in front of their kid's then get in their car and get on the road with these individuals who been drinking beer the whole event and are drunk off their rear end. Hypocritical .Or pass a law where you can't smoke in bar's and resturant's but you can drink to your heart's content. Disney should throw in a no drinking in family movie's to. Now that would be New's worthy.

[Executioner]

And how about not showing the people in their movies over eating or eating unhealthy foods like from a Fast Food Chain or Burger Stand. Let's make it fair now. If you want to start setting a good example for the future generation of kids, let's do it right. Ban all drinking, smoking, and eating of foods that are not healthy from all the new movies. And reckless driving. How about stealing too. And making jokes about people that hurt their feelings. Weapons. Shall my list go on? I mean... Let's make it fair. All these things I am sure every parent deems bad for their children. But why are they still in the movies and TV too?

[Big Disney Fan]

Get a load of this:

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20070725/118539394400.html.

It explains that Disney has completely banned smoking from films it releases. Now, it's all to the good, but what of the Disney films in the past, like "Pinocchio" or "Alice In Wonderland" or "101 Dalmatians"? Will they go back and delete all that stuff? I fear for the future.

[toratorakisa]

I always thought that smoking always went hand-in-hand with the antagonists of the movies. Take Cruella de Vil for instance. I distinctly remember her having one of those long cigarette holders. So when I was younger, I always thought, "Smoking is what bad people do. I don't want to be bad. I won't smoke."

Anyway, I'm absolutely not saying that Disney's new stance is bad. Kudos to them for taking this stance. But I'm just saying that the way that they associated smoking as a negative habit by using the villains was not necessarily bad either.

Media influences kids so much. I'm very pleased to see that Disney is using this influence in a good way.

[Ezra]

What Disney is doing is not bashing smokers, it's just ignoring them. It's not like their saying "In all our movies we're going to have a person light up and then have a small child next to them immediately keel over and die from lung cancer". They're just saying "you won't see people light up in our movies". I don't know why smokers react to this as though they are being personally attacked. They're not. Unless they work for R.J.Reynolds or Phillip Morris, that is.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Interesting move on Disney's part.I see it as just let's join the band wagon of bashing smoking and smokers.I'm a non-smoker and think its a nasty habit but the whole mentality has been lets wipe out decades of smoking in 10- 20 years. My thought is wheres the same outrage over drinking ??? 20,000 + people a year die from drunk driving incidents,not to mention the big problem with under age drinking ect ect plus the health effects drinking has on people.Prime example of how this whole thing is messed up. People don't want you smoking around them or their kid's but they don't mind going to a sporting event with their kid's where people drink the whole time in front of their kid's then get in their car and get on the road with these individuals who been drinking beer the whole event and are drunk off their rear end. Hypocritical .Or pass a law where you can't smoke in bar's and resturant's but you can drink to your heart's content. Disney should throw in a no drinking in family movie's to. Now that would be New's worthy.

Actually, I agree with you. Drinking alcohol, like smoking, should be treated in a similar manner. But, the difference is, it's at least possible to drink alcohol in moderation, or at least that's what all the ones who drink alcohol will tell you. Moderation does not exist with smoking. Once it starts, that's it, you're hooked, and there's no turning back. All it takes is a kid making a poor choice out of ignorance and curiousity, and they will very likely regret it for the rest of their life, and shave a few decades off their life span and likely others' life spans in the process. Does that also happen with alcohol? Yes. But, must take this one step at a time.


People don't want you smoking around them or their kid's but they don't mind going to a sporting event with their kid's where people drink the whole time in front of their kid's then get in their car and get on the road with these individuals who been drinking beer the whole event and are drunk off their rear end. Hypocritical .


This I take a bit of an issue with because I've been to many a NASCAR race before with my family. My parents and I always disparaged the drinking at 10am & earlier that is seen by some of the people who attend the races. We didn't want to see it, we didn't want it around us, and we sure didn't want people to splash it on us trying to reach their seats in the grandstands as happened a few times.

Fortunately, smoking was banned out of the CA Speedway grandstands. But when we went to a local racetrack, or to Phoenix Raceway 10-15 years ago, there was a smoker almost always right in front of us maybe 1 or 2 rows down. So us and about 15 others all had to breathe in the smoke from that 1 cigarette, and involuntarily ingest whatever's in that smoke, lest we prefer suffocating ourselves.

That in my mind, is the biggest difference here. It's easier to involuntarily negatively affect others with smoking than with drinking or any other drug. Not to say alcohol doesn't negatively affect others, but hopefully with some perspective you can see how when things must be taken one step at a time, smoking must be dealt with first, then we'll talk about fattening foods and alcoholism.

I'm just happy that Disney is taking this positive step forward.

And how about not showing the people in their movies over eating or eating unhealthy foods like from a Fast Food Chain or Burger Stand. Let's make it fair now. If you want to start setting a good example for the future generation of kids, let's do it right. Ban all drinking, smoking, and eating of foods that are not healthy from all the new movies. And reckless driving. How about stealing too. And making jokes about people that hurt their feelings. Weapons. Shall my list go on? I mean... Let's make it fair. All these things I am sure every parent deems bad for their children. But why are they still in the movies and TV too?

Well, as has been said, the difference is addiction. McDonald's doesn't addict you to their hamburgers, despite what some people claim. Alcohol is not as addictive as nicotine and can be used in moderation, so its users claim. Paintball also doesn't addict. The thrill of driving like a maniac doesn't addict. Being a jerk once doesn't make you a jerk for life. But with smoking, smoking does addict and it's very very dangerous because of that. Kids deserve to be protected from that addiction and the effects of others smoking, because both lead them on a road straight to 6ft under.

-- PMM :cool:

[Neo]

What are we arguing here? That smoking is addictive? That showing someone smoke will influence others to smoke? Honestly Is it our place to tell people what to do? Certainly a kid shouldn't be able to get cigarettes till he is 18 and if he has learned anything from public schools is that smoking is addictive and leads to so many "bad" things. I really don't care either way if Disney takes smoking out or not its far to late to start doing something to help an old problem. They should have taken smoking out 20-30 years ago if they really wanted to help cut down on underage smoking.

YAY for Disney for jumping on the bandwagon finally after how many years?

*sarcasm is implied in the last comment*

[CA Screamin Dude]

Another 'good for PR' story, but it is positive, and this way there will be no hesitation for parents taking their children to a Disney movie on this certain issue.

[Big Disney Fan]

I am not against Disney doing this. I think it is fine and dandy. They are trying to set an example and change things for the better. I do find it ironic that it's founder and namesake was a chain smoker that died of lung cancer. I do remember that goofy cartoon too, but don't expect to ever see it shown on TV again.

Luckily, like all other Goofy cartoons, the one you mentioned has been released on the Disney Treasures DVD line. Have you got that DVD?

But anyway, I appreciate the gesture and the example they're trying to set. But now there are some things that bother me. Will the Disney people really be so foolish and go back and remove ALL scenes from their films involving smoking, like say "Pinocchio" or "Alice In Wonderland" or "101 Dalmatians"? I really hope that's not the case. Then the movies would look just awful.

[tomserwin]

Remember Joe Camel? That was banned for a good reason. In fact, smoking isn't allowed to advertise at all anymore, because of the influences affecting that personal choice. Adults can make a choice, at least we hope.-- PMM

Actually, cigarettes can still advertise in magazines. They can't advertise on TV of movies. Wait! Advertising effects personal choice?! Amazing... simply amazing...


Well, as has been said, the difference is addiction. McDonald's doesn't addict you to their hamburgers, despite what some people claim. Alcohol is not as addictive as nicotine and can be used in moderation, so its users claim... Being a jerk once doesn't make you a jerk for life. But with smoking, smoking does addict and it's very very dangerous because of that. Kids deserve to be protected from that addiction and the effects of others smoking, because both lead them on a road straight to 6ft under. -- PMM

People are mentally addicted to McDonald's. Some people litearlly cannot stop eating it. It makes them feel good. They become dependent on it. As far as I'm concerned McDonald's might as well be druged. "Driving like a maniac" and such actually can be addictive. The adrenaline and serotonin kick can be mentally addictive.

Smoking once doesn't make you addicted. You don't just light up once and say "Oh, gee wiz! I'm addicted to cigarettes!" That isn't how it works. Addiction happens once smoking has become an established habit. You cannot achieve the necessary levels of nicotine to become addicted after a couple cigarettes. And like I said, everyone has a choice to smoke. Besides, if you can protect children from advertising, ambient images, and peer pressure then you should captialize on that. You would make billions. But until then, I guess we'll all have to use (God Forbid!) self-control and rational thought.

What are we arguing here? That smoking is addictive? That showing someone smoke will influence others to smoke? Honestly Is it our place to tell people what to do? Certainly a kid shouldn't be able to get cigarettes till he is 18 and if he has learned anything from public schools is that smoking is addictive and leads to so many "bad" things. I really don't care either way if Disney takes smoking out or not its far to late to start doing something to help an old problem. They should have taken smoking out 20-30 years ago if they really wanted to help cut down on underage smoking.
YAY for Disney for jumping on the bandwagon finally after how many years?


Thank you!

[Disneyland Fan]

Great news!!!

[Big Disney Fan]

Great news!!!

Yes, but what about Disney's past movies? The news article said, and I quote:

In what was regarded as a largely symbolic gesture, the Walt Disney Co. on Wednesday said that depictions of smoking would be barred in all films released under the Disney brand.

That, to me, means that all scenes from Disney's 70+-years past that involved smoking would be completely banned, period. Does anyone know if Disney will actually go back and edit out all smoking scenes from their films? Or are they just gonna put out a PSA/disclaimer thingy on them? I hope that it's the latter choice they go with. I mean, it's one thing to set an example for a healthier lifestyle, which is all to the good, but it's another to set that same example by deleting scenes from their movies. I mean, I can't imagine how they could actually delete the scene of smoking in, say, "Pinocchio", for example.

So anyway, one more time, will all smoking scenes from classic Disney movies be deleted completely?

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Rest easy Disney Fan, I really don't think they're going to go to the time and trouble editing out every Cruella DeVille scene and re-releasing 101 dalmatians. That would be foolish. If any kid ever asks 'why is she smoking' any parent can say that's a bad thing that many years ago we didn't realize how bad it was, but now we know and no one should be doing something like that.

Editing out all the scenes would take too much time & trouble, highly unlikely I'd say.

Smoking once doesn't make you addicted. You don't just light up once and say "Oh, gee wiz! I'm addicted to cigarettes!" That isn't how it works. Addiction happens once smoking has become an established habit. You cannot achieve the necessary levels of nicotine to become addicted after a couple cigarettes. And like I said, everyone has a choice to smoke. Besides, if you can protect children from advertising, ambient images, and peer pressure then you should captialize on that. You would make billions. But until then, I guess we'll all have to use (God Forbid!) self-control and rational thought.

Do you know what a 'gateway drug' is? Have you ever wondered why cigarette companies used to fall over themselves giving out free samples? Smoking once or twice WILL make you addicted. You may not realize it, you might even still have enough control to maybe resist it, but believe me, it's there.

But beyond that, we also have to consider how much more dire the effects to the rest of the population who made the choice not to smoke are from the ones who made that choice. The more smokers there are in the world, the worse everyone's health becomes, not just for the ones who chose it.

If rational thought was used, no one would smoke, drink, or do anything else that would be harmful to themselves. But let's face it, people are morons when it comes to their own personal health. They'll eat so much saturated fat that they'll need gastric bypass surgery. They'll drink alcohol so much that they become a menace to society. They'll smoke like a chimney and then expect Medicare to cover their oxygen that they'll be on for the last 30 years of their life. Our society does a DEPLORABLE job of promoting self-health. If anything, it's the exact opposite. What's valued is the ability to ruin yourself. That is the sad part.

What I've never been able to understand is why anyone, when you are fully aware of the consequences, chooses to do something that would seriously jeopardize your own health, and the health of others. But yet, it happens all the time. To be honest, I don't want to understand, because I'm sick of hearing all the rationalizations people make. You can rationalize it all you want. It will still kill you like it killed Walt and millions of others.

-- PMM :cool:

[Big Disney Fan]

Rest easy Disney Fan, I really don't think they're going to go to the time and trouble editing out every Cruella DeVille scene and re-releasing 101 dalmatians. That would be foolish. If any kid ever asks 'why is she smoking' any parent can say that's a bad thing that many years ago we didn't realize how bad it was, but now we know and no one should be doing something like that.

Editing out all the scenes would take too much time & trouble, highly unlikely I'd say.

Well, I hate to break this to you, Matt, but with Disney, you never really know. I mean, when they released "Melody Time" on DVD, not only did they edit the Pecos Bill scene to remove all scenes of Bill smoking, but they did so thus: the entire scene with Bill rolling a smoke and lighting up using a bolt of lightning was deleted and all other shots of the offending cigarette had been digitally edited. And in "Saludos Amigos", Goofy smoking was deleted, too. How long did it take to edit those scenes?

Actually, it's not so much "101 Dalmatians" I'm worried about as one of my all-time favorites, "Pinocchio", which of course has a whole scene of smoking on Pleasure Island. I hope you're right, Matt, that they leave the classics well enough alone. But still, while I'd like to agree with you in the quote above, I still can't get the feeling out of my mind. I even sent Bob Iger an email asking that question on what will happen to the classics. So I hope you're right and they leave the classics well enough alone.

[phd516]

Well.. in Pinocchio the boys who smoked ended up turning into donkeys.
So I'm guessing it would be ok to leave the scene in.. it could possibly scare kids away from the idea of smoking.

[Big Disney Fan]

Well.. in Pinocchio the boys who smoked ended up turning into donkeys.
So I'm guessing it would be ok to leave the scene in.. it could possibly scare kids away from the idea of smoking.

Well, like I said, you never can tell with Disney.

[*Belle*]

As someone who hopes to make a living in the animation industry... I find this a little irritating. But first, I know that smoking is bad for you. My grandmother is slowly dieing from the affects of smoking on her body: cancer, strokes, heart failure.

BUT do I blame films as her reason for taking up smoking? No. Her friends all took up smoking at a young age. She followed their lead because it was something social for them to all do together and because her employers provided free smokes when employees took their breaks.

I do not smoke... and as a child (and now) I still watch Disney films with smoking characters in them. Never once did I watch 101 Dalmations, Pinocchio, The Incredibles, Aladdin, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or Alice and Wonderland and feel a sudden urge to light up. Having a character smoke in a film is just a method of further characterization and adds life to the character through making them more believable... Did Cruella really make me want to smoke??? NOT at ALL!

By banning smoking Disney is opening themselves up to attacts that alcohol, or anything else labeled "dangerous" should be removed from their films. Such thinking destroys the art of filmmaking... and is propelled by people who believe that our children need to be sheltered and living in plastic bubbles. (And, no, I am not a Republican).

[Big Disney Fan]

Well, I hope that they leave the movies themselves alone and just go with only the PSAs on their DVDs and nothing else. But still I have a feeling that that's NOT what they're gonna do.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

By banning smoking Disney is opening themselves up to attacts that alcohol, or anything else labeled "dangerous" should be removed from their films. Such thinking destroys the art of filmmaking... and is propelled by people who believe that our children need to be sheltered and living in plastic bubbles. (And, no, I am not a Republican).

Anyone who'd think that is completely missing the point. The point isn't to live in a plastic bubble. The point is to do something in the positive direction.

FYI - Television stopped airing cigarette commercials in 1971. Disney's making this announcement for movies 36 years later.

-- PMM :cool:

[HMF]

I really don't care either way if Disney takes smoking out or not its far to late to start doing something to help an old problem. They should have taken smoking out 20-30 years ago if they really wanted to help cut down on underage smoking.

YAY for Disney for jumping on the bandwagon finally after how many years?

*sarcasm is implied in the last comment*
I agree Disney should have done this a long time ago.

[tomserwin]

Anyone who'd think that is completely missing the point. The point isn't to live in a plastic bubble. The point is to do something in the positive direction.

-- PMM :cool:

I agree with *Belle* on that point. In effect, yes we are slowly creating for ourselves a little bubble. Saying, "We don't like smoking. Let's never address it in our movies and pretend it doesn't exist in hope that it will just go away." isn't practical.

It is basically a mild example of something you would find in a distopian novel.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I agree with *Belle* on that point. In effect, yes we are slowly creating for ourselves a little bubble. Saying, "We don't like smoking. Let's never address it in our movies and pretend it doesn't exist in hope that it will just go away." isn't practical.

It is basically a mild example of something you would find in a distopian novel.

*eye roll* Smoking is addictive and that addiction leads to a slow, painful death. Society doesn't allow its most dangerous criminals to have a slow painful death. Why on earth are we preserving that for ourselves? Because it isn't practical? Come on. No one's going to pretend it doesn't exist, Disney's just not going to it the glamour of being in a movie. It's that simple.

-- PMM :cool:

[Disney_Guy]

There are other things in society that don't support, or show reference of smoking..
I don't see why Disney can't join. Even though their record isn't clean from those references, I don't see why they can't stop now. Nor do I see why people have to make a deal about it.
It's the companies choice, not ours. And I think Disney's choice is right.

[Big Disney Fan]

There are other things in society that don't support, or show reference of smoking..
I don't see why Disney can't join. Even though their record isn't clean from those references, I don't see why they can't stop now. Nor do I see why people have to make a deal about it.
It's the companies choice, not ours. And I think Disney's choice is right.

I'm just worried that such a choice would come at the expense of some beloved films from them that we love so much.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

I'm just worried that such a choice would come at the expense of some beloved films from them that we love so much.

I think you're overexaggerating the effect here. Even if those films had scenes with smoking edited out...it's still the same movie. 101 Dalmatians isn't any different whether Cruella is seen smoking or not. She's still Cruella. Same with any other Disney movie.

-- PMM :cool:

[DisneyFanatic13]

On Fiday, I was at my local library. And I found a book called "The Disne That Never Was." And I found a picture(drawing) of Goofy attempting to make a cigar. But he ends up smoking his glove. And I found drawing of Donald having his glove making a cigar for him. An I found an other drawing involving Go ofy dressed up in Arabic clothes smoking.

[Ezra]

I assume there are several factors to consider in the editing of older films. I think Pinocchio is safe because of how it's depicted. The smoking in that film is portrayed as part of a moral lesson about indolence, wilfullness and decadence. The boys who partake in it make donkeys of themselves, literally.

The Pecos Bill edit occurred becasue he's the hero of the story. It's a more positive portrayal of smoking. Consider that segments from films like Melody Time and Make Mine Music are also used by Walt Disney Educational Media Company (the branch of the company that distributes to schools). Disney has an alterior motive for editing those particular films specifically because of the school connection.

I doubt that Cruella is in any jeopardy on either count. Dalmations isn't distributed for educational purposes, and Cruella is a representation of wickedness. If I remember correctly, the other characters found the billows of smoke wafting from the end of her cigarette particularly annoying.

[debijeanm]

I don't think that Disney is known for it's smoking characters.

How about the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland? Yes, I know the film came out before the Surgeon General's report. OK, how about Newsies? I show this film to my eighth grade class every year, kind of an end-of-the-year reward coupled with our discussion of the labor movement in the Progressive Era. There was absolutely no reason to have the characters smoke in this movie that was clearly made for the teen audience. Yes, it is historically accurate, but smoking did not forward the story in any way.

The tobacco industry desperately wants young people to feel favorable about smoking. I applaud Disney (in fact, I'm doing emotional back flips right now) for taking this "free" advertising away from the tobacco industry.

[Big Disney Fan]

Well, I guess one thing is for sure, that Goofy cartoon on smoking will never again see the light of day. In hindsight, it's a good thing they released the DVD on ALL of Goofy's cartoons while they did. I have that DVD, you know. Do any of you guys have that? And also, answer me this: how will this affect the Walt Disney Treasures? Because one of the treasures this time around is volume three of the Donald series, covering 1947 through 1950. One of the cartoons released during this timeframe was Donald's Happy Birthday, from 1949. Near the end, Donald forces his nephews to smoke all the cigars they bought for him as a birthday present, of which he has nary a clue about at the time. Again, how will the smoking ban affect the cartoon side of the Disney Treasures? Will they be banned or just relocated to the semi-obligatory "From the Vault" section seen on most Treasures DVDs these days?

[Disney50]

I doubt Disney would go to the extreme of deleating smoking in all the old movie's.What would they do about all the VHS and DVD's that people have in their private collection's and are out in the retail store's ect ?? Would they order a mass recal to all store's to return all disney movie's that have char's smoking ?? Very Doubtfull , Its safe to say that the the anouncement refer's to all the new movie's that they will produce now and in the future.

[Big Disney Fan]

I doubt Disney would go to the extreme of deleating smoking in all the old movie's.What would they do about all the VHS and DVD's that people have in their private collection's and are out in the retail store's ect ?? Would they order a mass recal to all store's to return all disney movie's that have char's smoking ?? Very Doubtfull , Its safe to say that the the anouncement refer's to all the new movie's that they will produce now and in the future.

The only way the movies could get physically removed from people's homes is if the police storm in. And only with a search warrant can they do that without which (to borrow a line from "Matilda") they could lose their job or even get sent to the slammer.

But still, while I'd like to hope that they don't tamper with their old fare, I have a feeling that that's what they'll do. I guess we'll just have to wait until spring 2008, when the next movie to get the Platinum treatment will be "101 Dalmatians".

[DisneyFanatic13]

Well, I guess one thing is for sure, that Goofy cartoon on smoking will never again see the light of day.

Pictures from it has. And it's in a book called, "The Disney That Never Was."

[tomserwin]

*eye roll* Smoking is addictive and that addiction leads to a slow, painful death. Society doesn't allow its most dangerous criminals to have a slow painful death. Why on earth are we preserving that for ourselves? Because it isn't practical? Come on. No one's going to pretend it doesn't exist, Disney's just not going to it the glamour of being in a movie. It's that simple.

-- PMM :cool:

Actually,

Smoking will very likely lead to addiction and could possibly induce a death, that may or may not be slow or painful.

I have said it many times, so for emphasis (because it seems to be somehow overlooked...) I'll say it again...

People have a choice!!

And again, no one is arguing about whether smoking is addictive. Matt, we have already established that. It is time to move on. However, (as previously stated) everyone knows the risk associated with smoking. If someone decides to smoke, regardless of the facts, it is their inherent right to do so. We don't let criminals dies slow, painful deaths because our society is full of bleeding hearts and the criminals have no choice over how they will die. A free smoker has a choice to allow himself to die a "slow, painful death." A criminal has no choice. See a pattern here?

We are "preserving that for ourselves" because a significant enough portion of the population wants to smoke. By removing it, we remove their right to smoke. At that point you would have effectively removed a portion of the population's personal rights for the appeasment of an emotional passion. Ultimately, deciding to take away the people's rights to protect them from themselves is wrong. Anyone ever see the movie I, Robot or read Asimov's book?
Besides, just becasue something is in a movie doesn't necessarily add glamour to it. I wouldn't say there is any glamour in beating a black slave after watching Roots. But then again that's just me...

[Big Disney Fan]

Pictures from it has. And it's in a book called, "The Disney That Never Was."

And five years ago, believe it or not, it was released with ALL of the Goofy cartoons on DVD as part of the Walt Disney Treasures.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

Actually,
Smoking will very likely lead to addiction and could possibly induce a death, that may or may not be slow or painful.

Sorry tom, you simply have your facts wrong. Smoking leads to addiction which leads to death by lung cancer or other form of unpleasantness. That's the grim reality. You can think that it won't happen to you, but, there's no reason to think anything will happen to you, until it does.

In the meantime...why even tempt it in a vain Russian Roulette kind of hope?

And again, no one is arguing about whether smoking is addictive. Matt, we have already established that. It is time to move on. However, (as previously stated) everyone knows the risk associated with smoking. If someone decides to smoke, regardless of the facts, it is their inherent right to do so.

Really...and what about the people who die because others are smoking around them? When did they ever have a choice? Smoking kills, whether you're the one doing it or not. People die by other means as well, that's why cars are continuously made safer, speed limit laws are enforced, doctors are kept under scrutiny etc. But, there is no such thing as a 'safer' cigarette, and no cigarette company is ever willing to make one. Why not? Because the cigarette want those things as addictive as possible, and they need to keep them that way, lest they lose business.

More about 'everyone knows the risks' later...

We don't let criminals dies slow, painful deaths because our society is full of bleeding hearts and the criminals have no choice over how they will die. A free smoker has a choice to allow himself to die a "slow, painful death." A criminal has no choice. See a pattern here?

Actually criminals sometimes do want to die a slow painful death. Some criminals actually want the chair, others a firing squad, others some other weird form of death for one twisted reason or another. You can look back at the records, every time one of these requests is made, it's denied. Why? Because the legal system, born out of what society chooses to govern itself by, will not allow it.

We are "preserving that for ourselves" because a significant enough portion of the population wants to smoke. By removing it, we remove their right to smoke. At that point you would have effectively removed a portion of the population's personal rights for the appeasment of an emotional passion. Ultimately, deciding to take away the people's rights to protect them from themselves is wrong.

I'd like to see an unbiased statistical survey made on the motives of smokers, because I know not all smokers smoke simply because 'they want to'. A couple decades ago, there was real rage against the tobacco companies because people were addicted and were never told about the harmful effects of smoking. No smoker was told that it would kill them, no smoker was told that it would addict them. The only thing they knew was the advertising. Those people are still alive today, and are still addicted today. The ones who make a conscious effort to quit, will seek any means in order to do so. But the addiction overpowers many, and because of that, they're still addicted. The only way those people can be saved is if the 'choice' (which isn't a choice because they're addicted) is removed.

As for the prospective new smokers, you can't assume everyone is operating under perfect information here. There are a lot of kids out there who might hear the warnings from school drug programs, but go home to parents who smoke or friends/relatives who smoke and are told a totally different story, and those kids will not fight against what their parents or friends/relatives say. Such is this case with a lot of other people. Sure they hear the warnings, but they succumb to the peer pressure. So, tell me, did they just make a choice? Or were was that choice biased to the point of coercion?

All it takes is one person sucked into it, and it stops becoming a simple choice.

Roots[/I]. But then again that's just me...

Well going back to Disney's decision...there is value in product placement, whether it be in TV or movies. Anything the general public can see, the means by which they see it has a certain value, a certain 'glamour' if you will. That's what is meant by glamour. Anything put in a movie is placed a certain pedestal because its in a movie. Disney decided it won't place cigarettes on that pedestal anymore, which as has been stated before, is a step in the right direction.

-- PMM :cool:

[mousecrazy]

I guess the governement can ban smoking everywhere like they did with Alchohol in the 20's. I can guarantee you someone somewhere will light one up just like they snuck drinking. It is one person's choice to smoke and that right was given to them by the government. As soon as the goverment takes it away, that will be that. People know the risks and they continue to do it because that choice is given to them.

I personally dont care if it is movies or not. If they choose not depict smoking, it is their right and I dont blink an eye. Just like it is the right of the smoker to light up if they so choose.

[DisneyFanatic13]

And five years ago, believe it or not, it was released with ALL of the Goofy cartoons on DVD as part of the Walt Disney Treasures.

So the movies involving Goofy somking is in the DVDs?

[Big Disney Fan]

So the movies involving Goofy somking is in the DVDs?

Yeah, pretty much. The only Goofy cartoons not on the Goofy DVDs are the two mid-60s ones on how NOT to be safe on the freeway.

[DisneyFanatic13]

^Okay. Anything else?

[tomserwin]

Sorry tom, you simply have your facts wrong. Smoking leads to addiction which leads to death by lung cancer or other form of unpleasantness. That's the grim reality. You can think that it won't happen to you, but, there's no reason to think anything will happen to you, until it does.

No, my facts are not wrong.
No, that isn't the grim reality, that is a possible reality. Lighting up a cigarette once is not a guarantee that you will become addicted. Nor is it a guarantee that you will die "by lung cancer or other form of unpleasantness." That is a lie. You are very likely to suffer because of your smoking; however, it is not guaranteed to kill you.[/quote]

In the meantime...why even tempt it in a vain Russian Roulette kind of hope?

Since I don't smoke I am sure that I am not the person to ask. Why don't you try someone who smokes or someone who plays Russian Roulette?



Really...and what about the people who die because others are smoking around them? When did they ever have a choice? Smoking kills, whether you're the one doing it or not. People die by other means as well, that's why cars are continuously made safer, speed limit laws are enforced, doctors are kept under scrutiny etc. But, there is no such thing as a 'safer' cigarette, and no cigarette company is ever willing to make one. Why not? Because the cigarette want those things as addictive as possible, and they need to keep them that way, lest they lose business.

If someone breaks into my house, I can't force them to leave my house becasue that would be assult. I don't have a choice but to sit and wait for the police to arrive. So, not having a choice over secondhand smoke isn't as high on my lists of problems. If someone's concern is so great over secondhand smoke, they can choose to live elsewhere. How about the woods? Maybe the South Pole. Honestly, I don't care. I am just as much at risk of dying of secondhand smoke as anyone else but you know what? I have bigger concerns.
Besides, if the automotive industry could not make cars safer, do you think our society would ban cars? Would they return to horse and buggy to get around town? I think not.

Actually criminals sometimes do want to die a slow painful death. Some criminals actually want the chair, others a firing squad, others some other weird form of death for one twisted reason or another. You can look back at the records, every time one of these requests is made, it's denied. Why? Because the legal system, born out of what society chooses to govern itself by, will not allow it.

Regardless of whether they want to die slowly or not, they have no choice. The law has very specific, preordained methods of execution. An inmate's opinion means absolutely nothing to the law system. That is why requests are denied. Execution is never up for suggestions, ever. Smokers can choose a "slow, painful death" because they have the right to do so. Criminals don't have rights.


I'd like to see an unbiased statistical survey made on the motives of smokers, because I know not all smokers smoke simply because 'they want to'. A couple decades ago, there was real rage against the tobacco companies because people were addicted and were never told about the harmful effects of smoking. No smoker was told that it would kill them, no smoker was told that it would addict them. The only thing they knew was the advertising. The only way those people can be saved is if the 'choice' (which isn't a choice because they're addicted) is removed.

I'd like to see any unbias survey of any sort. Anyway, we can't save those people unless we have a time machine. So taking away the people's rights to save people who can't be saved may not be the best idea... In fact, I am pretty sure removing any of our rights is not a good idea. I would strongly suggest Socialism or Communism if you would prefer a government that takes away people's right. Might I suggest China?

As for the prospective new smokers, you can't assume everyone is operating under perfect information here. There are a lot of kids out there who might hear the warnings from school drug programs, but go home to parents who smoke or friends/relatives who smoke and are told a totally different story, and those kids will not fight against what their parents or friends/relatives say. Such is this case with a lot of other people. Sure they hear the warnings, but they succumb to the peer pressure. So, tell me, did they just make a choice? Or were was that choice biased to the point of coercion?

"Sure they hear the warnings, but they will succumb to peer pressure," are you serious? No, really. Are you serious?

That has got to be poorest excuse for someone's behavior. It's like saying "Sure dynamite can blow you up, but it so fun to light the fuse and let it burn almost down to the stick." If you recieve so much information about smoking and then decide to risk possible health complications, even death, for the sake of appeasing your friends then you deserve to die. It is as simple as that. If you have so little self control and such an obsession over what everyone else will think, you should be removed from the gene pool. Can anyone honestly say that they were forced to smoke, that they had no choice, because thier friend told them to do so?

All it takes is one person sucked into it, and it stops becoming a simple choice.

It was their choice to start. As far as I know, no one put a gun to their head and forced them to smoke.

Well going back to Disney's decision...there is value in product placement, whether it be in TV or movies. Anything the general public can see, the means by which they see it has a certain value, a certain 'glamour' if you will. That's what is meant by glamour. Anything put in a movie is placed a certain pedestal because its in a movie. Disney decided it won't place cigarettes on that pedestal anymore, which as has been stated before, is a step in the right direction.

It is a bad precident and a portent of ominous things.

[Chris]

At this juncture, I'd like to remind everyone to keep the conversation civil and not let your emotions get the best of you in this passionate topic. Please use the "Report this Post" feature if you feel somebody has broken VF guidelines. Thank You.

[Big Disney Fan]

At this juncture, I'd like to remind everyone to keep the conversation civil and not let your emotions get the best of you in this passionate topic. Please use the "Report this Post" feature if you feel somebody has broken VF guidelines. Thank You.

Okay, we will. Or at least I will. Ever since people have been informing me that Disney will probably not alter its old content, I have been trying to accept that bit of information. But it's not easy, because something in my mind keeps saying that they will alter it. But I've been trying to keep calm by asking questions (and hoping for answers, which rarely come).

Anyway, I will try and stay calm. And I hope for your sake, and mine, too, that everyone else is the same as well.

[Kileli]

Why are we even fighting over what smoking does? What does it have to do with Disney removing it from their future movies?

[Big Disney Fan]

Why are we even fighting over what smoking does? What does it have to do with Disney removing it from their future movies?

Exactly. We should be more worried about how this will impact Disney films (significant or insignificant though it is)... NOT how bad smoking is for you. I already know how bad it is. I've never lit up once and I never will. Smoking kills you in the end, quickly or slowly or any other way in between. End of story.

Now, can we move on, please?

[tomserwin]

Ok, I'm officially done arguing. PeoplemoverMatt and I have gone off-topic. To get back to the actual topic, I really hope Disney doesn't edit out all the old Disney classics. I couldn't imagine them all edited. Alice in Wonderland would be very sad without an smoking.

[Kileli]

I dont want to get in a big argument over this, but I doubt they will. It is part of the movie, too late.

[tomserwin]

^I hope so. It seems way too late to change it all now.

[DisneyFanatic13]

Ok, I'm officially done arguing. PeoplemoverMatt and I have gone off-topic. To get back to the actual topic, I really hope Disney doesn't edit out all the old Disney classics. I couldn't imagine them all edited. Alice in Wonderland would be very sad without an smoking.

*Thinking of what will happen*...........................*Still thinking*............................... ......2 hours later...................... I have no thought of what will happen.

[Big Disney Fan]

I dont want to get in a big argument over this, but I doubt they will. It is part of the movie, too late.

Yeah, that's my hope. But have you seen how they digitally removed the cigarette from Pecos Bill? That's what's got me tied up in knots.

[Kileli]

It would be easier, and cheaper to just leave it the way it is.

[Cavemandon]

The topic here, I believe, is Disney stating that it will no long depict anybody smoking in their family-oriented, Disney-branded films and it would "discourage" it in films distributed by its Touchstone and Miramax labels. Does that mean they'll be trying to climb into the archives, and trying to digitally alter previous films to try to rid them of smoking? I really don't think so. That will probably cost them lots of cash to do so.

Now, will they stop adding smoking elements in future films? Yes, I think they will...