I have considered this greatly.
In the past, smoking in film has been more or less arbitrary since we were in a 'smoking society.' Recently, smoking has very specific purposes in film. Directors include smoking in film deliberately and for special reasons. Lately, you will find smoking used to illustrate or reinforce character traits, such as wanton disregard (Payback), weakness (Daybreakers) or desperation and defiance (Constantine). Directors also play on the dangers of smoking, and may use it to send a message or deliver the character as a 'risktaker.' MPAA has recently decided to consider smoking as a factor when determining a film's rating.
E-cigs lack the danger element and haven't been around long enough to be declared a symbol for a specific thing. This places them as a blank slate in the film industry's eyes, which can be very dangerous for their (e-cigs) reputation. Whoever decides to feature e-cigs in a movie may paint them in any light they see fit, which concerns me slightly.
It is important to note the anti-smoking lobby has been at the
throats of the film industry for some time now, and adding the element of smoking to any movie poses some risk of negative PR from the lobby. Adding PV's to a film, positively or negatively, will almost guarantee a torch/pitchfork anti-smoking mob. The last thing a movie wants is negative PR, where numerous alphabet soup members are advising people to boycott a movie.
It is also important to note my belief that featuring e-cigs on a TV show such as a drama (acting) or reality show ('acting') will be a bad move for e-cigs. We will inherit new enemies (FCC and non-govt TV morality groups) who fight daily to keep smoking off TV. Film is a much more forgiving medium and at least a potential ally for introducing the public to e-cigs. However, I would not be surprised at all if studios all received threatening letters saying stuff like "you better not or else."
With these elements in mind, I have compiled some scenarios where e-cigs would be featured in film. Some might help us, some might hurt us, some might do both or none.
SCENARIO A
Character using e-cigs to abstain from smoking.
In this scenario, assuming there is plot relevance for the character to quit smoking, the character is in direct violation of the FDA's regulations regarding claims. This would be overall very bad for us. The FDA and others could use this instance as evidence that e-cigs are in violation and should be removed from the market. We do not want this scenario to show up.
On top of this, the character might be depicted as having a negative experience with
vaping. We might see him in more stress, bad-talking e-cigs, and wishing he could smoke. The director would love the extra conflict, but we would not.
SCENARIO B
A movie set in the future features
vaping as part of the scene.
This is my personal favorite scenario. E-cigs belong in the future anyway. This scenario would fall into the jurisdiction of the production designer, not the director. First of all, since it's science fiction, it's easier to chalk it up as 'hey, it's the future, whatever.' The production designer might have some e-cigs glowing their colors in some futuristic nightclub scene, and have that be that. No lines are mentioned, etc. Minority Report, iRobot, etc would benefit from e-cigs in this case.
Also, it is important to note that e-cigs can be used in a space station or vessel. So yeah. Awesome.
On a final note, we need to make sure that film doesn't add random made-up risks to e-smoking. That would be bad.
