PDA

View Full Version : the-wolf and rabbit- adult shows only?



Benedikt
30-08-2012, 05:42
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/smoking-law-could-hit-classic-cartoons/467315.html

it is of course right not to encourage kids to smoke. but sometimes all this political correctness seems to go a little bit to far. because of the new anti smoking law the wolf is supposed to be shown only after 11pm.or cut out all scenes that contain smoking.
Not much will be left than of the clips.
Will then other comics also be sanitized to satisfy a new law or the other? i mean poor Tom gets clobbered most of the time by mouse Jerry?

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 11:33
This war is a hundred years old, and it involves denying truth about human life to children, while paradoxically allowing all kinds of truly bad things through the net. It is ultimately the spirit of Puritanism extended first through time, Puritan morality surviving long after the religion had died, as Prohibition demonstrated, then extended through space to these shores.

mds45
30-08-2012, 12:01
Any cartoon character that smokes should be banned , if we are to eradicate this smoking it has to be fought on every level and banning would be a good start.
However I smile at the fact the anti smoking push goes for the children first and does not use the most obvious ploy used by other governments which is to increase the cost of cigarettes to an unaffoedable level over a period of time. Thereby reducing the number of smokers and raising tax revenue at the same time.
Another great way would be to ban tobacco advertising, and enforece no smoking zones better.

My feeling is they are picking on the kids because they won't complain and protest ! much !

Jas
30-08-2012, 12:22
This war is a hundred years old, and it involves denying truth about human life to children, while paradoxically allowing all kinds of truly bad things through the net. It is ultimately the spirit of Puritanism extended first through time, Puritan morality surviving long after the religion had died, as Prohibition demonstrated, then extended through space to these shores.


Puritanism is really just hyprocritical rubbish and its done just to control people and stuff. Rus is totally right. Also, puritan countries enforce religion by the stick and gangs and militias cos it's not in people's hearts. Once that control system goes, the so called Puritans become the worst offenders cos they know no restraints. Lastly, if its sufis, icons, statues, or sacred dance- Puritans trash that so destroy any joy in religion and chase god from every day life- which is why they always fail in the end. Puritans are on a road to spriritual oblivion. I HATE them 100%. Look what they done just two days back- behead 17 people in a village cos they was dancing. So if it's Taliban or these Protestants from history, they sort of got the same idea and I don't like either in any way. If it's smashing icons or sufi shrines..... it's the same to me.

Ian G
30-08-2012, 13:23
This war is a hundred years old, and it involves denying truth about human life to children

I agree with you here Rus- in fact well over a hundred years ago the Victorians did this a lot- with their bowlderized versions of Shakespeare, the Arabian Nights, Grimm's Fairy Tales for children. (And for adults as well of course- full uncensored translations of Zola couldn't be published for decades.) It's a difficult question- I agree there are things in the Arabian Nights, the Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare say, that aren't really suitable for children. But there are lots of great stories there too, that are especially appealing to children. I can see the point in adapting these books for children, and in doing so cutting out the sexual content, because they were clearly originally written for an adult audience.


But it is stupid to censor books and films that were considered acceptable for children in the past because it is now considered that children should not be exposed to certain types of images. Especially where those images reflect reality. If we removed from "Nu Pogodi" all the scenes of smoking, cruelty to animals, dangerous cycling and driving, theft, irresponsible use of construction equipment and reckless overexposure to sunlight, there wouldn't be much left.

On a related note I feel quite strongly that books or films from the past should not be rewritten to make them more acceptable to modern sensitivities. As Richard Dawkins-who I suspect is not one of your favourite writers :-) - wrote: "It is a mark of historical infantilism to view the writings of one century through the politically tinted glasses of another...It can be argued that reading historical documents that violate the taboos of one's own century gives valuable lessons in the ephemerality of such mores."

Inola
30-08-2012, 13:44
Actually, the authors of "Nu, pogodi!" (the Wolf and Rabbit) say the cartoon was intially intended for adults. Truely, it contains so much humor and parodies that are lost on toddlers... The kids however liked the cartoon and it became "for wide audience".

Ian G
30-08-2012, 13:49
Anyway, we can now relax. The smoking scenes from Nu, Pogodi etc. are not going to be removed, it seems:

В ходе показа мультфильмов Ну, погоди! и Крокодил Гена никаких сцен или фрагментов вырезано не будет, заявил в четверг президент Трансконтинентальной медиакомпании Александр Митрошенков на презентации нового сезона передачи Спокойной ночи, малыши!, которой исполняется 50 лет.

http://vz.ru/news/2012/8/30/595817.html

Inola
30-08-2012, 13:54
Anyway, we can now relax. The smoking scenes from Nu, Pogodi etc. are not going to be removed, it seems:

В ходе показа мультфильмов Ну, погоди! и Крокодил Гена никаких сцен или фрагментов вырезано не будет, заявил в четверг президент Трансконтинентальной медиакомпании Александр Митрошенков на презентации нового сезона передачи Спокойной ночи, малыши!, которой исполняется 50 лет.

http://vz.ru/news/2012/8/30/595817.html

Somebody smokes in "Krocodil Gena" ?! Don't remember.. which only proves that no harm was caused by the smoking cartoon caracter to my innocent brain :D

Ian G
30-08-2012, 13:57
Somebody smokes in "Krocodil Gena" ?! Don't remember.. which only proves that no harm was caused by the smoking cartoon caracter to my innocent brain :D


I'm not sure who smkoes- I don't know those cartoons so well. But I do know that getting too friendly with crocodiles is dangerous. Far more dangerous than smoking. I think it would be better to remove the crocodile scenes, not the smoking scenes.

Inola
30-08-2012, 14:00
I'm not sure who smkoes- I don't know those cartoons so well. But I do know that getting too friendly with crocodiles is dangerous.

... and with genetically modified Cheburashkas!
:D

Benedikt
30-08-2012, 14:44
their fairy takes are the worst of the worst if you want to see it that way.

evil mother in law or step mother.
wolf eats little girl
witch fattening up little kids before eating them

mustn't that be a traumatic experience for kids? wonder how millions of children survived the story telling time intact?

Inola
30-08-2012, 14:54
their fairy takes are the worst of the worst if you want to see it that way.

evil mother in law or step mother.
wolf eats little girl
witch fattening up little kids before eating them

mustn't that be a traumatic experience for kids? wonder how millions of children survived the story telling time intact?

I don't think these are bad or traumatic things as fairy tales give children a clear notion of "bad" and "evil" in comparison to the "good" as well as the notion of justice (bad caracters are always punished in the end).

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 18:05
their fairy takes are the worst of the worst if you want to see it that way.

evil mother in law or step mother.
wolf eats little girl
witch fattening up little kids before eating them

mustn't that be a traumatic experience for kids? wonder how millions of children survived the story telling time intact?

It's not "traumatic" for kids. I think it is people who've never had kids who push that kind of thinking into children's materials. They think kids are stupid and can only handle Teletubbies (which is far more traumatic, to my mind).

Jonny Quest is the boys' boys show. Starblazers is another good one. Both of which suffered censorship in the US, JQ in its later follow-up series.

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 18:10
Any cartoon character that smokes should be banned , if we are to eradicate this smoking it has to be fought on every level and banning would be a good start.
However I smile at the fact the anti smoking push goes for the children first and does not use the most obvious ploy used by other governments which is to increase the cost of cigarettes to an unaffoedable level over a period of time. Thereby reducing the number of smokers and raising tax revenue at the same time.
Another great way would be to ban tobacco advertising, and enforece no smoking zones better.

My feeling is they are picking on the kids because they won't complain and protest ! much !

A point missed by those who support such forms of censorship is that the undesirable behaviors are done by the undesirable characters, the ones we are supposed to feel antipathy toward. The question is largely over whether the behavior is glorified or subtly condemned. In NP, it is the loser wolf who smokes, not the rabbit.

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 18:16
Puritanism is really just hyprocritical rubbish and its done just to control people and stuff. Rus is totally right. Also, puritan countries enforce religion by the stick and gangs and militias cos it's not in people's hearts. Once that control system goes, the so called Puritans become the worst offenders cos they know no restraints. Lastly, if its sufis, icons, statues, or sacred dance- Puritans trash that so destroy any joy in religion and chase god from every day life- which is why they always fail in the end. Puritans are on a road to spriritual oblivion. I HATE them 100%. Look what they done just two days back- behead 17 people in a village cos they was dancing. So if it's Taliban or these Protestants from history, they sort of got the same idea and I don't like either in any way. If it's smashing icons or sufi shrines..... it's the same to me.

It doesn't look like you mean exactly the same thing that I do by the word "Puritan", Jas. I am speaking about the 17th-century Protestants and their cultural heritage in the West. Some of the early ones did not even oppose drink. It developed later as the religion as such decayed before falling apart - but their Manichaean conception of morality (the body and physical enjoyment are bad, only spiritual enjoyment is good) lingered on long after they were gone.
At any rate, I had never heard of Muslims being referred to as "Puritans", and didn't include them in what I meant, although the attitude toward alcohol and some other things such as iconoclasm is clearly the same.

Benedikt
30-08-2012, 18:20
Somebody smokes in "Krocodil Gena" ?! Don't remember.. which only proves that no harm was caused by the smoking cartoon caracter to my innocent brain :D



1. Чебурашка и Крокодил Гена - YouTube

and the orange seller is cheating, holding the platform down to show a bigger weight of the orange,:yikes: how the little kiddies in the cccp grew up corrupted...:rolleyes:

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 18:40
I agree with you here Rus- in fact well over a hundred years ago the Victorians did this a lot- with their bowlderized versions of Shakespeare, the Arabian Nights, Grimm's Fairy Tales for children. (And for adults as well of course- full uncensored translations of Zola couldn't be published for decades.) It's a difficult question- I agree there are things in the Arabian Nights, the Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare say, that aren't really suitable for children. But there are lots of great stories there too, that are especially appealing to children. I can see the point in adapting these books for children, and in doing so cutting out the sexual content, because they were clearly originally written for an adult audience.


But it is stupid to censor books and films that were considered acceptable for children in the past because it is now considered that children should not be exposed to certain types of images. Especially where those images reflect reality. If we removed from "Nu Pogodi" all the scenes of smoking, cruelty to animals, dangerous cycling and driving, theft, irresponsible use of construction equipment and reckless overexposure to sunlight, there wouldn't be much left.

On a related note I feel quite strongly that books or films from the past should not be rewritten to make them more acceptable to modern sensitivities. As Richard Dawkins-who I suspect is not one of your favourite writers :-) - wrote: "It is a mark of historical infantilism to view the writings of one century through the politically tinted glasses of another...It can be argued that reading historical documents that violate the taboos of one's own century gives valuable lessons in the ephemerality of such mores."

Thanks, Ian.
True, Dawkins is not a writer I care to read - and the reason is entirely that he knows NOTHING about what I believe, and yet throws a blanket condemnation that condemns (sometimes rightly) Catholic and Protestant abuses, mainly fundamentalism, but he is clueless as to what intelligent ancient Christianity looks like. It's like being an evolutionary scientist and being asked to read a Creationist raving about how you say his grandfather was a monkey.

I agree on not censoring things that way, by and large. The question of what is taboo and why is not raised at all. One of the troubles of the word is that it seems to carry a conditioned emotional reaction to the thing forbidden as an unreasonable tribal forbidding. But some things are forbidden for good reason and SHOULD be censored. Some ideas ARE truly dangerous, and destructive ones should not be propagated. I think a "taboo" on pedophilia to be entirely reasonable. Once that is granted, we must now ask in each case whether a given taboo is reasonable and why or why not. Only if we short-circuit the question, the taboo never gets a fair trial, let alone name.

For that reason, time or a given century is not the criteria. I don't care whether bestiality is described and praised in the 17th century or the 21st. I'll keep it off the bookshelves in my town.

So where I ultimately DO agree with you is that fashion - which "modern" is practically a synonym of - must not be used as the criterium. And I think that the general tradition of mankind - certainly that of European civilization, its fairy tales, legends and myths and what was generally acceptable to share with children by the mass of Christendom IS a reliable guide - it is the consensus of our ancestors for many centuries.

I think a main reason for denying death and excluding the concept from children's literature and art is that the materialist philosophy really HAS no answer to death, and no comfort to offer children, or anyone, in the face of it. Anderson and so on had Christian faith and hope to offer. The modern secularist does not.

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 18:49
From the big fat jolly man:


Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
GKC

And that's the thing. Kids already know there are minsters. They cry in the night without having seen a single one. They need to see that heroes fight them, and even win.

Inola
30-08-2012, 20:19
A point missed by those who support such forms of censorship is that the undesirable behaviors are done by the undesirable characters, the ones we are supposed to feel antipathy toward. The question is largely over whether the behavior is glorified or subtly condemned. In NP, it is the loser wolf who smokes, not the rabbit.

It's the good crocodile Gena who smokes in the cartoon (had to distract the whole department at work to find out it was him :D), not the bad old lady Chapokliak...

And a lot of Soviet kids sympathized with the Wolf as he's not bad actually - capable to cry over a broken guitar and the Rabbit liked him too (cried when thought the Wolf was dead)...

In my opinion, our Soviet cartoons are much more innocent and non violent if compared to the US cartoons (Tom & Jerry and alike).

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 20:33
It's the good crocodile Gena who smokes in the cartoon (had to distract the whole department at work to find out it was him :D), not the bad old lady Chapokliak...

And a lot of Soviet kids sympathized with the Wolf as he's not bad actually - capable to cry over a broken guitar and the Rabbit liked him too (cried when thought the Wolf was dad)...

In my opinion, our Soviet cartoons are much more innocent and non violent if compared to the US cartoons (Tom & Jerry and alike).
Fair enough. (though I think kids rightly take the wolf as the bad guy)

I would insist, though, that even in Gena's case, the extremely rare cigarette is not glorified, or even paid attention to. It was, what, once or twice in the entire series? I think the attitude toward action is everything; I do think cigarettes are not good, but not that smoking is bad - I smoke a pipe once a week or so in good weather - or about 15-20 times a year.

Inola
30-08-2012, 20:42
Fair enough. (though I think kids rightly take the wolf as the bad guy)

I would insist, though, that even in Gena's case, the extremely rare cigarette is not glorified, or even paid attention to.

No need to insist, I agree with you :) his smoking passed completely unnoticed as well as that fruit shop assistant's cheating...

Inola
30-08-2012, 20:45
OMG, it has already started... was switching through channels and saw the 16+ sign on some show advert on Fox Crime. The bloody thing occupies a quarter of the screen!!!

Jas
30-08-2012, 20:59
It doesn't look like you mean exactly the same thing that I do by the word "Puritan", Jas. I am speaking about the 17th-century Protestants and their cultural heritage in the West. Some of the early ones did not even oppose drink. It developed later as the religion as such decayed before falling apart - but their Manichaean conception of morality (the body and physical enjoyment are bad, only spiritual enjoyment is good) lingered on long after they were gone.
At any rate, I had never heard of Muslims being referred to as "Puritans", and didn't include them in what I meant, although the attitude toward alcohol and some other things such as iconoclasm is clearly the same.

These Puritans are terrible wherever they are and the ones ure telling about u know who they was before? The Cathars.

What happened with them? They got wiped out by Simon de Montfort.
Next?
This miserable strain of thought appeared in 1517 in Wittenberg, got worse thru Calvin and Zwingli, and appeared again with Protestants of the Mayflower. Just like the mullahs, they defy all state authority and always quote holy books. They're cut from the same cloth- whether it's John Knox or mullah omar.

How do I know this?

Er, cos I got a grade A in A' Level History and was going to do Medieval History at uni even. Now that's how I came to the conclusion that the counterpart of the Mullahs is all these people from the Cathars to the Amish. So I hate them.

But Catholics and Orthodox is much better and I like Orthodox more even cos of the icons. Do u know there are Catholics in Pakistan and they are allied to us as minorities? So Protestants will be allied with the mullahs. I think this is why the CIA helped them in Afghanistan maybe.

rusmeister
30-08-2012, 22:20
These Puritans are terrible wherever they are and the ones ure telling about u know who they was before? The Cathars.

What happened with them? They got wiped out by Simon de Montfort.
Next?
This miserable strain of thought appeared in 1517 in Wittenberg, got worse thru Calvin and Zwingli, and appeared again with Protestants of the Mayflower. Just like the mullahs, they defy all state authority and always quote holy books. They're cut from the same cloth- whether it's John Knox or mullah omar.

How do I know this?

Er, cos I got a grade A in A' Level History and was going to do Medieval History at uni even. Now that's how I came to the conclusion that the counterpart of the Mullahs is all these people from the Cathars to the Amish. So I hate them.

But Catholics and Orthodox is much better and I like Orthodox more even cos of the icons. Do u know there are Catholics in Pakistan and they are allied to us as minorities? So Protestants will be allied with the mullahs. I think this is why the CIA helped them in Afghanistan maybe.

I think most history programs place far too much emphasis on events as isolated things and not nearly enough on the motivation of people. You kind of make my point when you say that they all defy state authority andcquote holy ooks. It tells me neither what exactly they DID believe nor why that motivated them to act as they did. The practical effect is to paint them as crazy dogmatics. I do agree with our sentiment; I just think motivation is the number one thing excluded from and not treated in history books.

The one positive advantage Catholic and Orthodox views have over the Protestant ones is not sincerity, but a historical view of the development of their own faith. it's inevitable, I think, as prior to the "Reformation" all historical record refers to the RCC and EOC. There's pretty much no history that Protestants can call theirs, when everyone declared membership in one Orthodox Catholic Church, and even after the Great Schism.

The great thing is being in the Church. The sense of coming home always strikes me, even when I didn't feel like getting up and going...

Inola
30-08-2012, 22:28
I think I've just broken my brain over this "dialogue" trying to find a logical link between the last two posts :D

:bedtime: