Hollywood is out to destroy the NRA in new film.

[Peikko 1,575]

It is simply a matter of free enterprise. If the guy conforms to all the current legal requirements for making the film, that's all he is required to do. Beyond that, he has to make a commercial decision as to whether the film will be a success or not and he may or may not be right. There is no controversy.

[decocker 7,198]

hollywood = illuminati

the nra is taking on itself! the all seeing eye (howard stern?) shall prevail!

[Danno 1,228]

It is simply a matter of free enterprise. If the guy conforms to all the current legal requirements for making the film, that's all he is required to do. Beyond that, he has to make a commercial decision as to whether the film will be a success or not and he may or may not be right. There is no controversy.

Why does the free enterprise system not allow this same guy to produce a TV show with characters smoking or drinking?

[decocker 7,198]

lol, wut.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Now that is cute.

For some reason smoking on TV is harmful and must be regulated but actual ideas which undermine the Constitution are meaningless.

The Opinions of a hairy Duck hunter concerning why any normal man would exclude vaginas from his life is deemed -dangerous and must be shut down.. but

confiscating peoples property and liberty are not.

Someone at chick-fil-a donated money to a pro family group and Leftwing mayors vowed NO MORE STORES WOULD BE PERMITTED TO OPEN IN THEIR CITY.

Leftwing Students and faculty actually banned CHic-fil-a from selling in their cafeteria without a whisper from anyone.

The power of just a 30 second Super Bowl ad is so effective, Left-wing groups will prevent them from airing if they might contain a contrary message, yet when a full feature film is produced to undermine part of the BILL OF RIGHTS, no one is suppose to notice the power it has.

DO you know how and why the existing movie rating system came into being?

I think it is obvious you are having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. It is as though you are trying to compare apples and oranges and not doing a very good job at it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Why does the free enterprise system not allow this same guy to produce a TV show with characters smoking or drinking?

Write your favorite TV exec and demand they make more shows showing people smoking and drinking, if that is what you're missing on TV. It is really quite simple.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I am a member but Jesus H Christ the amount of Junk Mail and E-mails is overwhelming

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does the free enterprise system not allow this same guy to produce a TV show with characters smoking or drinking?

You mean like:

Mad Men?

The Sopranos?

Breaking Bad?

The Blacklist?

Free enterprise absolutely does allow it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Why does the free enterprise system not allow this same guy to produce a TV show with characters smoking or drinking?

Is it the free enterprise system that does not allow this or is it a law? I am not that up on what the legal requirements are for making films but I would imagine that if you want to produce a film where you can demonstrate that the character would smoke in that situation, then that character will be seen smoking. One of my favorite all time films is called 'Smoke' and is based around a tobacconists so of course some if not all the characters smoke. It is not gratuitios, no one is being paid off by the tobacco industry, and it is an integral part of the film. This is not a conspiracy.

You mean like:

Mad Men?

The Sopranos?

Breaking Bad?

The Blacklist?

Free enterprise absolutely does allow it.

Exactly. There are probably legal requirements to ensure smoking is not simply free advertising for tobacco companies, but if it can and is justified then it can and is seen on tv and in films.

Edited January 16, 2014 by The Truth™

[Danno 1,228]

You mean like:

Mad Men?

The Sopranos?

Breaking Bad?

The Blacklist?

Free enterprise absolutely does allow it.

I think those are all cable programs.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think those are all cable programs.

So what? You keep changing your argument. Film makers conform to necessary legal requirements. Beyond that they can make films about whatever they like and promote any and every wacky theory they want to. In the end, they need to make money from it and need an audience, that's always going to be the primary consideration but there are films about anything and everything that man has thought of and books about the rest. You can consume these products or not, it's your choice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think those are all cable programs.

So what?

[GandD 5,966]

I think those are all cable programs.

Its the fella's at the freakin' FCC:

[Danno 1,228]

So what? You keep changing your argument. Film makers conform to necessary legal requirements. Beyond that they can make films about whatever they like and promote any and every wacky theory they want to. In the end, they need to make money from it and need an audience, that's always going to be the primary consideration but there are films about anything and everything that man has thought of and books about the rest. You can consume these products or not, it's your choice.

While it is true film makers (anyone with a camera) can make any film they want, to get distribution and to be played in a theater is not so unrestricted.

There are self imposed Standards, which prevented politics from getting involved in regulating them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

[Peikko 1,575]

While it is true film makers (anyone with a camera) can make any film they want, to get distribution and to be played in a theater is not so unrestricted.

There are self imposed Standards, which prevented politics from getting involved in regulating them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

So, this film will conform to those standards if he wants it to be distributed commercially and?