TV Home Forum

"Tom And Jerry" Smoking Scenes Banned

(August 2006)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SP
Spencer
So it's not acceptable for kids to see a cartoon cat smoking, but it is acceptable for them to see a cartoon cat being smacked repeatedly in the face with a frying-pan so his teeth and eyes fall out.

Ludicrous.

(And I'm someone who thinks smoking's vile.)
WO
Woody_streatham
But the scenes in question featured a roll up and a cigar. What kids are going to start smoking cigars thinking they look cool?

And what really pees me off is that only ONE person complained.

Extreme violence towards animals fine, but smoking a cigar? Get those shears out!
AP
Aphrodite007
The odd thing is that if you read the OFCOM bulletin, OFCOM doesn't appear to agree with the decision, hinting that the smoking is 'editorially justified'. The scenes were cut before the OFCOM investigation.

Seems odd for the scenes to be cut, rather knee-jerk reaction to have!
SO
Steven O
Pathetic decision.

What next?

Road Runner cartoons to be banned in case they encourage kids to run on the road?
The scenes where the coyote plunges down a cliif to be cut, in case they encourage suicides?
Any scenes where the coyote ends up blowing himself up get cut in case it encourages terrorism?

Get a life. Rolling Eyes
RD
Rob Del Monte
I'm sorry, i think childrens' health should be paramount (or should I say MGM‽), above keeping the nostalgia of a film. It is obvious, that the wacking is exagerated, inmo, because the canonicity of the teeth falling out, for example, is not there, because come the next scene, the character's teeth are returned in the gums that they wern't. Smoking is also more definate. It is obvious that wacking someone is not acceptable in the real world. Whereas smoking to impress another character, to me, sounds more acceptable in their demonstration. That is because the companies didn' want to disclose that it was harmful in those days. It, if you like, portrays it in a glamourous way, which isn't there for the other violent 'gags'. The humour of the little animals doing things which humans would never really do, let alone other animals, is diminished, because the character is doing something that a lot of 'reasonable' human beings would do, and the ludicrousy of the other gags isn't there. That is why I think there is strong grounds to get rid of it, or at least on children's slots' showings.
WO
Woody_streatham
Rob Del Monte posted:
I'm sorry, i think childrens' health should be paramount (or should I say MGM‽), above keeping the nostalgia of a film. It is obvious, that the wacking is exagerated, inmo, because the canonicity of the teeth falling out, for example, is not there, because come the next scene, the character's teeth are returned in the gums that they wern't. Smoking is also more definate. It is obvious that wacking someone is not acceptable in the real world. Whereas smoking to impress another character, to me, sounds more acceptable in their demonstration. That is because the companies didn' want to disclose that it was harmful in those days. It, if you like, portrays it in a glamourous way, which isn't there for the other violent 'gags'. The humour of the little animals doing things which humans would never really do, let alone other animals, is diminished, because the character is doing something that a lot of 'reasonable' human beings would do, and the ludicrousy of the other gags isn't there. That is why I think there is strong grounds to get rid of it.


But do you know a lot of kids who smoke roll ups and cigars then?]
JA
james2001 Founding member
When I was at school, there was plenty of kids smoking roll ups.
SO
Steven O
Rob Del Monte posted:
I'm sorry, i think childrens' health should be paramount (or should I say MGM‽), above keeping the nostalgia of a film. It is obvious, that the wacking is exagerated, inmo, because the canonicity of the teeth falling out, for example, is not there, because come the next scene, the character's teeth are returned in the gums that they wern't. Smoking is also more definate. It is obvious that wacking someone is not acceptable in the real world. Whereas smoking to impress another character, to me, sounds more acceptable in their demonstration. That is because the companies didn' want to disclose that it was harmful in those days. It, if you like, portrays it in a glamourous way, which isn't there for the other violent 'gags'. The humour of the little animals doing things which humans would never really do, let alone other animals, is diminished, because the character is doing something that a lot of 'reasonable' human beings would do, and the ludicrousy of the other gags isn't there. That is why I think there is strong grounds to get rid of it.


If ever a post epitomised politcal correctness, then that was it.
GL
Gluben
Please, it's just a cartoon, and you simply mustn't look too deeply into cartoons. Kids don't and shouldn't care about smoking or violence or whatever, it's just a form of entertainment. Nothing else.
RD
Rob Del Monte
I know plenty of minors who smoke roll-up cigarettes. Plenty.

I don't think political correctness potains to my previes post at all. I regard myself as very un-politically correct. I just think that this wasn't such a bad decision.
JA
james2001 Founding member
They work out chepaer than normal fags. they still give you cancer int he end, so it's not worth it.
SO
Steven O
bee bee see posted:
Please, it's just a cartoon, and you simply mustn't look too deeply into cartoons. Kids don't and shouldn't care about smoking or violence or whatever, it's just a form of entertainment. Nothing else.


Exactly.

A point that should have been made out to the do-gooder who complained in the first place!

Newer posts