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!
Indeed. And I am, like another person who posted, also annoyed that it was only one person who complained. If it were in high double figures, I would understand, but I believe this is quite absurb.
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.
How, exactly, is something "obvious" to a, say, four-year-old?
How are they to know that if they smack someone around the head with a frying pan, and their teeth fall out, that they won't grow back? And yet, you suggest that if they see a cartoon cat smoking, it might tempt them to try it. So, by suggesting that a cat smoking a roll-up looks more realistic than a cat engaging in violence, you've blown your whole argument out of the water.
Kids are indeed great at mimicking what they see others do - but you can't isolate them so that they don't see something that they may imitate. It's impossible. It's, instead, up to the parents to educate right and wrong, which is an entirely different argument.
Sorry, but the whole thing is political correctness gone absolutely stark raving mad. Again. And all for the sake of ONE complaint. If this is what the world is coming to, god help us all - we might as well give up now.
You could look at it another way - these cartoons have been around for 50 or 60 years, and up until now there hasn't been a major outcry about it. Why would it make a difference now?
Anyone remember a cartoon called "Aubrey" on CITV? First run in 1980, re-run four years later.
One episode featured Aubrey waking up and swallowing a handful of pills. As he did so, a message flashed on screen in large Central lettering "DON'T COPY AUBREY!". Now surely broadcasters could consider something like this instead of slicing everything to bits?
Smoking is something I deplore and often I feel we don't do enough to discourage young people from starting. At the same time, a 60-year old cartoon should be viewed as a product of its time and if we start sanitising archive media just to fit in with modern thinking, it sets a dangerous precedent.
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.
How, exactly, is something "obvious" to a, say, four-year-old?
How are they to know that if they smack someone around the head with a frying pan, and their teeth fall out, that they won't grow back? And yet, you suggest that if they see a cartoon cat smoking, it might tempt them to try it. So, by suggesting that a cat smoking a roll-up looks more realistic than a cat engaging in violence, you've blown your whole argument out of the water.
Kids are indeed great at mimicking what they see others do - but you can't isolate them so that they don't see something that they may imitate. It's impossible. It's, instead, up to the parents to educate right and wrong, which is an entirely different argument.
Sorry, but the whole thing is political correctness gone absolutely stark raving mad. Again. And all for the sake of ONE complaint. If this is what the world is coming to, god help us all - we might as well give up now.
No what I suggested is it looks more realistic for a human being to smoke, than to bash another human being with a frying-pan. I think some of the humour comes from the fact that the animal sare doing things that are human-like, but indeed only extreme humans would do. Indeed, smoking is something, that unfortunetly a lot of humans do. I think that children have a conept of slap-stick, and I think that they will know not to immitate that. Yes. Parental control is very importatn uin these issues.
Also, I'm talking about older children primarily. They will, generally, know about the teeth not growing back in real life. It is real for a person to smoke. Something a lot of my friends do. To show a cartoon character smoking, in a glamourous way, and most importantly, to impress another character, is bad, imo. It might provide, or impress an already there, idea that smoking is 'cool'. What is the problem with cutting it out‽ Later slots (not in a children's slot.) could still always leave it in. The thing is, children
are
smoking, a fatal habit. We should do everything we can to stop this. Protecting children is not a step closer to censoring adults' lives. I think there is a slide of falling into censorship, but I think that we can't let that fear stop us from protecting children.
:-(
A former member
here an Q:
go and ask ANY kids who smokes: did you started becasue of TOM & Jerry?
But the question still remains: why would it make more of a difference if you did this now, than if you did this in, say, the 1970s? Kids really really don't think about things that way, and parents usually are not too protective when it comes to cartoons (South Park and similar cartoons being an exception). They sat with them in the 60s and 70s and didn't think that way, and it did not provoke any debate about smoking - it was just accepted.
And again, this is just one viewer. What about the thousands of others who think otherwise? Shouldn't they have their say?
Anyone remember a cartoon called "Aubrey" on CITV? First run in 1980, re-run four years later.
One episode featured Aubrey waking up and swallowing a handful of pills. As he did so, a message flashed on screen in large Central lettering "DON'T COPY AUBREY!". Now surely broadcasters could consider something like this instead of slicing everything to bits?
Smoking is something I deplore and often I feel we don't do enough to discourage young people from starting. At the same time, a 60-year old cartoon should be viewed as a product of its time and if we start sanitising archive media just to fit in with modern thinking, it sets a dangerous precedent.
More dangerous than vulnerable people, children, smoking? Being targetted by companies, for their longevity in the future?
However, Boomerang will only edit those cartoons where smoking appears to be "condoned, acceptable or glamorised".
...so prehaps not too many cartoons will be cut.
The BBC news report on it just shown sums things up...
"While Tom, Jerry and their friends can blow each other to pieces they can no longer light up."
"Smoking it seems is worse for your health than being flattened in the face by a frying pan."
Can't help thinking though it's more of a publicity stunt - I'm sure quite a few people (adults!!!) will find themselves tuning in to relive their youth!
