I would find movies boring as well without all the 'goodies'.

The (bad) habits of a character are a way of showing certain aspects of that character.
Replacing James Bond's martini glass with a packet of condoms might not be everyone's cup of tea.

Why don't we just lengthen the 'warning' section on the dvd or movie rating.
The list will get longer and longer, but at least we can leave the bad stuff and decide if we want to watch the smoking etc if we're being warned beforehand.

From the top of my head:
Very frequent violence
High/medium level violence
Coarse language
Sexual references
Nudity
High/medium level sex
Drug use
High/medium level gambling

To this list, we can always add:
Drunkeness
Smoking
Bad eating habits
Obesity

Celivia
Pericles made a point about my post.. where I suggested the negative consequences of bad habits/behaviors should be shown in the movie.
He said "Thats propoganda"... to which I respond, 'To NOT show the real world negative consequences of bad behavior is ALSO propoganda, and more dangerous because it promotes bad behavior by not showing the pitfalls'.....

I think there should be limits on what is shown. Simulated real sex.... I don't agree with it. Even nudity.... bare brests... why are they 'really' there ? :) we all know if we are honest.. TO SELL MOVIES. The drivel that some come out with that it 'adds to the artistic reality' is a load of codswallap in my view. Strangely enough, I have yet to casually come across a private detective or businessman in bed with some female and having sex with her in my daily routine. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life :)

I've never been naked having sex in front of a million people and don't intend to. Its private.. intimate..not a SHOW....

The simple fact that todays MA15+ Movies contain as much nudity and 'action' as many 'blue movies' of the early 60s, tells us volumes about where 'artistic freedom' will 'be' in another 30 yrs.

Personally, I'd prefer a different travelling companion on the journey of life. This is one reason I rejoice in my own Christian stream of history. We are not locked into all this following of trends and going with the flow. We know the 'end' from the beginning and will not subject ourselves to a train headed for a deep ravine where the bridge is washed out.

Art which degrades and dehumanizes is unworthy of its name. Its also unworthy of any social merit. If we think that a more pure set of values is 'boring' then I can only say this is evidence of how far we have fallen and of our need for a Saviour.

BOAZ
"Pericles made a point about my post.. where I suggested the negative consequences of bad habits/behaviors should be shown in the movie."

I agree with what you say up to a certain point.
It would be getting a bit tedious for the audience to have to watch moralising consequences *every* time a bad habit is shown.

Sometimes people already know that a certain habit can have terrible consequences, such as smoking. Not every actor who lits a ciggie needs to end up in hospital with lung cancer.

I agree that there should be limits on what is shown. I also find sex in movies unnecessary most of the time. It seems to have no other purpose than to sell more movie tickets or DVDs. For me, a movie does not have to include nudity, only when this would occur naturally (and adds to the storyline). And even then, not so explicit.

I actually think that unnecessary sex and nudity can be distractive and even embarrassing (but then again, I may be a prude).
If people want to hire a porn movie I have no problem with that.
But to include too much sex unnecessarily in a standard movie- I would like to see limits.

I also wonder…
If a government thinks that smoking is so bad that it even has to be totally banned in movies, then why not ban the product itself?
Is money the only reason for not banning the product? There, I believe, have been products that were used legally and later banned by the government- why is that not happening with tobacco?
This is not necessarily my opinion, but something to think about.

Cilia..'is money the only reason for not banning the product?'....

That would be..yes,yes and of course yes!. You say that as if there were another reason?..
If so could you expand on that for me ?

No I can't expand on that, Wayfarer. Wish I could. It might be very interesting to know of alternative reasons.
It was a simple question, to see if other people know something I don't know.

Normally I don't ask others questions of which I already know the answer;)

I've never smoked. My father and elder sister both died of lung cancer caused by smoking. Smoking contributed to my father-in-law's death. I hate the smell. I hate the way it's pushed at children, in the knowledge that they will become addicted. And I see those who knowingly sell cigarettes to under age people as like paedophiles, taking advantage of young people for their own benefit. But I am not in favour of banning tobacco.

It's been legally available for hundreds of years. Millions of Australians are addicted, many hopelessly so. I think it's neither fair, nor feasible to ban it for adult users.

I see the ban on advertising as a very good thing. Smoking has recently been banned in pubs and clubs in WA and not before time. But the ban on advertising is being deliberately circumvented by tobacco logos on racing cars and drivers' clothing. And I believe that smoking is more prevalent in films than in real life for exactly the same reason, to circumvent the advertising ban and recruit more kids and teenagers and replace those tobacco addicts who are dying off.

So yes, I would be in favour of banning smoking in films except for where it's both relevant and necessary to the story line. This allowable exception would be ruthlessly taken advantage of anyway, but at least it wouldn't be open slather as it is now.