Lesson of the day: Bombing smurfs is fun

[Whoami88]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/08/wsmurf08.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/08/ixhome.html


Link to vid here
http://media.putfile.com/end_of_smurfs





Discuss

Edit: Really? Owell more serious discussion here I guess

I don't really see how people can take their issue seriously if they use old time favorite cartoons. Especially if people who like me who thinks its funny as hell.

Whats next? Why its about to stay in a house with 7 guys by showing the 7 dwarfs raping snow white?


Sweet...

[Lord Kelvin]

It was already posted in the OTF, but whatever.

Kinda wierd, and cruel, even though I never actually watched them. Might make a statement, but in the wrong way IMO.

[Stig]

"We wanted something that was real war - Smurfs losing arms, or a Smurf losing a head -but they said no."
That would have probably made it too much fun to watch, imo. Lose its message in the smurfing carnage.

[Daywalker]

ah yes, the reality of smurfs. What could be more real than little blue humanoids living in the forest.

[kreket]

...small blue humanoids living in the forest in mushrooms...

[Rob_F]

Really old, but this thread would be incomplete without it. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/papasmurf.php)

[Lord Kelvin]

Uh, this is the Firebox, not the OTF.

[Modest Genius]

somehow i dont think that link contributed much

[Rob_F]

Doesn't that set precedence that this kind of crap is acceptable, because the author of the flash didn't get sued?

[HarryB]

What would he get sued for?

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, by that logic, people who make anything that contains any copyrighted characters (Crab Battle comes to mind) would get sued. IIRC you can only get sued if (A) you try to make money off of it, (B) you take something that belongs to someone else and call it your own, or (C) you violate some other law that you might not know about.

[GrosPoisson]

The only thing that disturbs me is this:

Hendrik Coysman, managing director of IMPS, said: "That crying baby really goes to your bones."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/GrosPoisson/Nanjing1937_BabyOnTracks.jpg

That is the kind of image that should go to your bones. Not some make believe happy-land getting torn a new one. How is it that real-world violence on the television gets less of a reaction than animation? I can understand that it comes as unexpected, but does anyone else find it kind of repulsive that people get pulled out of their happy, warm, little comfort zones by simulated violence? If everyone's shocked and outraged by the Smurfs getting it, God forbid they see the uncensored footage of what happened to the Blackwater contractors in Iraq.

I don't think the words "chilling" should be applied to a 25 second short of the Smurfs getting bombed. Holocaust documentaries where they show the survivors, naked, skeleton-thin, helping one another try to walk counts as chilling. The black and white film and color photographs of the live vivisections and other experiments performed at Unit 731 is chilling. Reading the most matter-of-fact report on war crimes is chilling.

UNICEF's heart is in the right place, they're trying to help child soldiers rebuild their lives, but I still don't agree with this.

[Lord Kelvin]

The problem is that people have seen this stuff for years that it just doesn't get to them anymore. Sure, it's real, and yes, it's several times more horrific, but most people can't relate to the people starving in Africa, whereas just about everybody knows who the Smurfs are.

[Feanaro]

whereas just about everybody knows who the Smurfs are.

We know they are fictional, blue elf-things who live in a state of communism(lolololo (http://www.iamlost.com/features/smurfs/commies.shtml)). Violence commited against the Smurfs is either comedic or has even less impact than a Christian Children's Fund commercial. You can at least guilt-trip some people into sending money when you run images of starving children. It doesn't work so well when you have starving Smurfs.

[Lord Kelvin]

My point is that people have seen this stuff (edit: starving children in Africa) on their TV for pretty much decades; if it really did work then there wouldn't be starving children in Africa. You can't really blame them for trying something different that might or might not work if what they'd been trying before had little to no success.

[GrosPoisson]

Then they should show the child soldiers who are missing limbs, eyes, have horrific burns on them then. If they're going for shock value, they can go further.

[GoatChomper]

Then they should show the child soldiers who are missing limbs, eyes, have horrific burns on them then.
No, consider the target audience.....kids spend so much time with their eyes nailed to cartoons, they'll identify far more readily with seeing ripped-up cartoon characters than they would with the real item. That's why poison-warning labels now use a cartoonish "YUCK!" face instead of the old skull-and-crossbones.....it was shown to be a much more effective warning label.

[Lord Kelvin]

That starts entering the zone where you could only show that to the most hardened adults, which would mean that you'd have to air that past midnight or so, where nobody's going to see it.

[Feanaro]

You can't really blame them for trying something different

I will resist the urge to be a smart-arse and say that I already have.

If showing images on real human beings torn apart or starved doesn't work, will the same work with cartoon characters? Given our strange attachment to cartoons, especially from our childhood, it might. Then again, the effect might trivialize the issue even further. Especially when they die in the way people died in the war movies of the 50's; they simply fall over. "Ugh!" I can only speculate but it seems to me that cartoons imply a disconnection from reality. Especially when the characters only vaguely resemble humans.

If what you are doing isn't working, you obviously need to change that. But if plan B is stupid, it's still stupid.

[Modest Genius]

as far as im concerned, its the fault of the public for not being moved by real images, not the fault of unicef for trying to find a way around it

[Rob_F]

What would he get sued for?

Copyright infringement? I remember Mattel suing Aqua over their song because it made use of the "Barbie" name. I'm not fully sure how precedent in this matter works, but not suing them would've shown Mattel isn't enforcing their copyrights, would it not? Thusly allowing it to become public domain? Again I'm not versed in copyright law; someone who is may have to correct me on this.

All I'm saying is, this isn't the first time people have abused/parodied the smurfs. Personally, I think that kind of advertising is deplorable, because they're trying to use childhood cartoon characters to try and pry money out of people's wallets. It's blatent manipulation.

as far as im concerned, its the fault of the public for not being moved by real images, not the fault of unicef for trying to find a way around it

So you agree with a charitable organization manipulating people, using cartoon characters from their childhood; to try and squeeze money out of them for a cause they may not agree with?

[Milkman Dan]

So you agree with a charitable organization manipulating people, using cartoon characters from their childhood; to try and squeeze money out of them for a cause they may not agree with?
All charities manipulate people whether it be by Biblical tithes or vanilla guilt. They show images of poverty stricken areas to try and draw "compassion" from people, but all they're really doing is making you feel guilty for having it better than those people. Most of the time you don't know where your money is really going, but you still donate. Using something people can relate with and instantly identify with isn't shameless. Regular advertising does far worse things for crap you don't need. Shock or terror may seem like inappropriate reactions, but they're what they want: reactions. Regular UNICEF commercials have become casual things one can brush off. It's a good thing that it's opened eyes, instead of made people switch the channel.

[HarryB]

Copyright infringement? I remember Mattel suing Aqua over their song because it made use of the "Barbie" name. I'm not fully sure how precedent in this matter works, but not suing them would've shown Mattel isn't enforcing their copyrights, would it not? Thusly allowing it to become public domain? Again I'm not versed in copyright law; someone who is may have to correct me on this.

As far as I know, you can use a copywrited character or symbol as long as you don't claim it, sell it, or fail to clarify who owns it. Also, for all we know, UNICEF could have been given premission as well.

As for Barbie girl, if Aqua sells that sound and didn't get Mattel's premission, then yes they can be used.

[GrosPoisson]

No, consider the target audience.....kids spend so much time with their eyes nailed to cartoons, they'll identify far more readily with seeing ripped-up cartoon characters than they would with the real item. That's why poison-warning labels now use a cartoonish "YUCK!" face instead of the old skull-and-crossbones.....it was shown to be a much more effective warning label.

Right, and I agree, but I thought this UNICEF ad was targeted towards adults? Hence the "9 PM watershed" mentioned in the article.

[Prowl]

No, consider the target audience.....kids spend so much time with their eyes nailed to cartoons, they'll identify far more readily with seeing ripped-up cartoon characters than they would with the real item. That's why poison-warning labels now use a cartoonish "YUCK!" face instead of the old skull-and-crossbones.....it was shown to be a much more effective warning label.


er.... Goat, why would their target audience for fund raising be young children? Smurfs was a program shown for my generation (now in their mid-late 20s) and their parents (mid-late 50s). I would imagine they are the target audience.

I don't think it will work simply because it has no shock value, its too tame.

[GoatChomper]

er.... Goat, why would their target audience for fund raising be young children?
To get the children after them. Advertisers know full well that targeting children who don't have a cent in their pocket still works, because they make demands on their parents.

[M123]

The objective of the ad was to get attention and they succeeded in that.

[Modest Genius]

To get the children after them. Advertisers know full well that targeting children who don't have a cent in their pocket still works, because they make demands on their parents.are you suggesting that charity donations can be achieved through pester-power?

[Mr. Fiend]

Also, for all we know, UNICEF could have been given premission as well.They did, according to the article.The animation was approved by the family of the Smurfs' late creator, "Peyo".

[Degree:N]

The reactions ranged from approval to shock and, in the case of small children who saw the episode by accident, wailing terror.Did nobody spot the irony here? The parents of those kids should have an "accident" too. Not to mention the convenience of the (unsubstantiated) observation to coincide with the article.

are you suggesting that charity donations can be achieved through pester-power?
Why not? Do you think it unlikely that kids will lobby their parents to give money to help other kids? The demands on the parents may not be for donations, but uncomfortable questions. I think if the children are affected it will have more impact on the parents. But if these are "bad" parents who let their kids watch late TV then such feelings of guilt etc. decrease.

[marty]

Rob, just because Aqua was sued doesn't necessarily mean that Mattel won. Companies sue all the time if they think their copyright is being infringed -- most of the time it's not the case and they're laughed out of court.

[Lord Kelvin]

It's akin to suing McDonald's just because they made you fat. :rolleyes:


But that's for a different topic. I don't think UNICEF's goal was to get children to pester their parents to donate, but rather to get the parents themselves to donate since they probably watched the Smurfs at one time or another.

[GoatChomper]

are you suggesting that charity donations can be achieved through pester-power?
What, you've never seen a Salvation Army member at work?

[HarryB]

are you suggesting that charity donations can be achieved through pester-power?


Are you suggesting that you've never seen the WSPA commericial telling about the treatment of Chinese bears?

Or any of the many organizations that want you to sponser a kid in Africa?

[Milkman Dan]

Rob, just because Aqua was sued doesn't necessarily mean that Mattel won. Companies sue all the time if they think their copyright is being infringed -- most of the time it's not the case and they're laughed out of court.
The case was actually dismissed, and then denied for reopening before the Supreme Court.

[Feanaro]

are you suggesting that charity donations can be achieved through pester-power?

If I had enough money to shut the old man on the Christian Children's Fund commercials up, I'd do it. Pester-power in action.

[SWATJester_os]

There's no legal grounds to sue. Parody is perfectly acceptable fair use.

[Lord Kelvin]

Well, there's also that case with Booble (pr0n search engine using Google), but I don't know how that turned out.