5/10: Not Lighting Up The Silver Screen
8:30 p.m.
• Oh for Christ’s sake. I heard about this a year or so ago during a local RIGHT-WING RADIO show, and now they’re actually going through with this.
The MPAA says that for the first time film depictions of cigarette smoking will number among criteria used by its ratings board to determine how a movie is rated.
Anti-tobacco lobbyists have been pressing for an automatic "R" rating for films with smoking scenes, but MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman on Thursday rejected that proposal and said a more nuanced policy will be implemented.
"The MPAA film rating system has existed for nearly 40 years as an educational tool for parents to assist them in making decisions about what movies are appropriate for their children," Glickman said. "It is a system that is designed to evolve alongside modern parental concerns. I am pleased that this system continues to receive overwhelming approval from parents, and is consistently described as a valuable tool they rely upon in making movie-going decisions for their families.
"With that in mind, the rating board chaired by Joan Graves will now consider smoking as a factor -- among many other factors, including violence, sexual situations and language -- in the rating of films," he continued. "Clearly, smoking is increasingly an unacceptable behavior in our society. There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."
Glickman described the move as an extension of the MPAA's current practice of factoring under-age smoking into the rating of films. He said the ratings board will ask three questions:
Is the smoking pervasive?
Does the film glamorize smoking?
Is there an historic or other mitigating context?
Also, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, the rating will include phrases such as "glamorized smoking" or "pervasive smoking."
6:30 p.m.
• Swift Terror talked about George Lucas calling “Spiderman 3” silly. I consider myself a Star Wars mark. I don’t care about all the books that took place after “Return of the Jedi.” I don’t care that Luke Skywalker ran a Jedi school while Leia popped out a few Solo babies. (I also have both volumes of that “Clone Wars” animated cartoon, and I like it.) Give me Episodes VI, V and VI. OK, you know what? I’ll even take Episodes I, II and III. Sure the prequels aren’t nearly as good as the pre-sequels, or whatever you call them, but it’s like voting for your political party even if you don’t care too much for the candidate or rooting for your hometown team no matter who is on the roster. It’s a blind loyalty for better or for worse, but before Lucas calls any of the Spiderman movies “silly,” he needs to look at himself in the mirror and ask...
E’ zOmE pEePlE gOiN’ DiE~!?
Actually, the two lines that make me cringe are “Jar-Jar, you in some big doo-doo this time,” and “I don’t care what plant you’re from, that’s gotta hurt.” (I probably don’t have them as exact quotes, but they’re close enough.)
And regarding the Spiderman movies. I’m not a comic book guy, but from my limited experiences with this industry, my four favorite characters are the Punisher, Batman, Sgt. Rock and Spiderman. And the Spidey movies have been solid. My only complaint has been that in the second film it seemed every other minute had some chick screaming at the top of their lungs, which got annoying quick. Hey, it’s a guy with metal arms. AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE! Look, some train is going to crash into a dead end. AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE! Uh oh, there’s a big ball of energy coming from that abandoned building down by the river. AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE! But this inconvenience was more than made up for with J. Jonah Jameson (being a journalism student I really appreciate this character), Bruce Campbell (again) and that brief homage to Director Sam Rami’s “Evildead” days in the operating room.
11 a.m.
• Pirates 0, Cubs 1
Pttsburgh AB R H RBI BB SO LOB AVGDuffy, CF 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 .230
Sanchez, 2B 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 .240
Bay, LF 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 .266
Doumit, C 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 .425
Nady, RF 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 .265
LaRoche, 1B 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 .164
Bautista, 3B 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 .265
Kelly, SS 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 .167
Gorzelanny, P 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 .000
a-Eldred, PH 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .135
Chacon, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
Grabow, P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000
Totals 29 0 3 0 0 5 4
Gorzelanny (L, 4-2) 6 1 1 2 5 1 2.72
Chacon 0.2 2 0 0 1 1 0 3.16
Grabow 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.76
:lol: :lol:
What, you're expecting some sort of commentary like other people here do? I'm surprised they are only four games below .500; it's a shame that my one friend from Ohio may be visiting this summer, thus forcing me to possibly head over to PNC Park. 
The things I do for some people.
9 Comments
Recommended Comments