I just saw Men in Black 3 and enjoyed it immensely. There was practically no smoking in the film. In MIB 1 and 2, there was a lot of smoking and tobacco product placement. Did the makers of the films get any payoff from the tobacco industry?
We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer: please explain why you're recommending it as a solution. Answers that don't explain anything will be deleted. See Good Subjective, Bad Subjective for more information.
Officially, Men in Black II received no funding, but some anti-smoking groups claim secret payments are regularly made by tobacco companies to film-makers.
Both Men in Black (1997) and Men in Black II (2002) show Marlboro cigarettes.
Men in Black II was made after the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (including Marlboro manufacturer Philip Morris USA) and the attorneys general of 46 states, which included restrictions on youth targeting:
According to Smoke Free Movies, the makers of Men in Black II didn't receive any payment for showing Marlboro, but they suggest there are secret agreements and payments made by tobacco companies to film-makers.
From "Superman II took $ 43,000 to push Marlboros at kids. Why would Men in Black II do the same thing for free?" (pdf):
They're also asking for films to certify no pay-offs at the end of films, with a statement:
I recently watched Gran Torino (2008), which showed unbranded smoking, and it carried such a certificate at the end of the credits.