Family Controversy Over Rango

Just read this article on AOL...my thoughts are at the end of the article.

The "unusual, hilarious and endearingly weird" 'Rango' hit theaters last weekend (check out our own Eric D. Snider's review of the movie), and the animated PG western is causing a stir among anti-smoking advocates who say that the number of characters who light up are unacceptable. "A lot of kids are going to start smoking because of this movie," said Stanton Glantz director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California–San Francisco.

Breathe California's project "Thumbs Up! Thumbs Down!" has been keeping a tally of instances where characters in 'Rango' smoke, and Kori Titus, CEO of the nonprofit, says the numbers are up to 60. According to Titus, the only other animated film to match 'Rango' was '101 Dalmatians,' whose cruel character, Cruella De Vil, was a total chain-smoker (also 60 times over).



Glantz's group and other smoke-free organizations are renewing efforts with the MPAA to slap an R-rating on any film that shows smoking. In late February, Smoke Free Movies (another one of Glantz's projects) ran ads in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter that panned studio execs for approving a PG-rating. "If we had known it's as bad as it is, this ad would have been even tougher," Glantz said.

Critics and audiences are praising 'Rango' for being a grown-up cartoon, making references to spaghetti westerns (lots of smoking in those films ... ) and other adult-friendly movies -- which really isn't anything that animated flicks like 'Shrek' haven't done. Disguising mature humor and situations in kids' films isn't the same as taking a puff, but as Virginia Lam -- a spokeswoman for Paramount -- says, "The images of smoking in the film ... are portrayed by supporting characters and are not intended to be celebrated or emulated."

Should the MPAA have upped the rating on this one, because most audiences are viewing 'Rango' as a kid's movie?
SOURCE LINK

Alright, after my review that got positive feedback from those that saw it after I did, this article comes out. Too much smoking? I barely noticed it. If an 18 year old kid who's seen a lot of movies barely noticed it, do you think a kid is going to notice it? I'm talking generally here. I'm not doubting a child's perception on things and how quick they notice things, because my little sister has copied me a few times when I get cut off on the highway...if you know what I mean.

But honestly, I think people blow things out of the water a bit too much. It's a film. What are films? Films are entertainment. Even as documentaries, they're meant to entertain you. Which means the film may not be for everyone. If you don't like animation, or animation that is generated for the 10 years and up crowd, then don't go see it.

Another thing, if your kid copies things from movies and is easily influenced, don't go see it. But if you talk to your kid after the movie and say 'You know Jake the snake? You know how he said 'I'll see you in hell? That's not a good thing to say. Only bad people say those words.' If you say something like that, and explain the differences between what is good and bad, then you'll not only help your child understand positive and negative differences, but you'll train them to decipher a movie, and put things into it's right context. That's one of the things I can thank my dad for, is telling me before I watched a movie with him, 'Now Jake, this has __________ and __________ and _______ in it. This is a part of how the story is told, and the reasons behind why they showed this stuff.

He never let me watch a movie with pointless violence or language (Crank, Once Upon a Time In Mexico, etc.) I'm going in knowing that those movies have all that, and it's over done for entertainment value. But when I see a movie like Saving Private Ryan, I understand that soldiers drank and smoked and cursed until the cows came home. That was a part of the battle front, and so is the amount of violence that happened.

Back to the point I'm trying to make, I think people read too much into movies, and it should be based on your own judgment, and not the ones of others. Everyone's opinion varies from film to film, so why should that affect your decision to see a film that you could someday love and watch over and over? If you get a bad review from someone, and not see a film, you could very well miss out. Take the film at face value, and go from there.