WO
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!
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
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!
Seems odd for the scenes to be cut, rather knee-jerk reaction to have!
SO
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.
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.
RD
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
But do you know a lot of kids who smoke roll ups and cigars then?]
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?]
SO
If ever a post epitomised politcal correctness, then that was it.
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.
RD
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.
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.
SO
Exactly.
A point that should have been made out to the do-gooder who complained in the first place!
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!