Turner cuts Smoking Scenes

August 22, 2006 6:14 AM

Turner Broadcasting to cut smoking scenes out of 'Tom & Jerry.'
posted by MarshallPoe (71 comments total)

Is nothing sacred?

Oh, right. Nothing is. Sorry.
posted by illovich at 6:18 AM on August 22, 2006

Well, if this is just for the cartoons aired on TV, I don't see a problem with it. Just as long as the uncut originals are available somewhere, like the Looney Tunes DVDs are.
posted by Dr-Baa at 6:18 AM on August 22, 2006

Also, in deference to the anti-cholesterol lobby, Jerry no longer eats cheese.
posted by jonmc at 6:20 AM on August 22, 2006

I find it interesting that people seem to find editing and censoring cartoons so much more significant than TV shows or movies. These are cartoons made 60 years ago originally shown to adults before a movie screening at a theater. The current culture markets these to children.

You can argue whether or not censorship is good, but given that it exists, I don't really see how this is much different than any other channel editing movies. "Turner Broadcasting to cut cunnilingus scenes out of TBS 'Sex and the City' reruns" doesn't inspire surprise or outrage; why should this?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:21 AM on August 22, 2006

Do they still air the ones with the aunt Jemima-patterned black housekeeper?

"Lawdy, lawdy ahs so sick of dat mouse!"
posted by illovich at 6:22 AM on August 22, 2006

I'm with Dr-Baa. Turner can go ahead and make any cuts they want. Then they can release the sanitized, "kid-friendly" versions on one DVD set, and the original classic versions on another. Everyone is happy, and Turner makes even more money.
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:23 AM on August 22, 2006

I demand smoking scenes! Please bring them out of the Turner vault!
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:26 AM on August 22, 2006

illovich: I see your point, but that got me thinking. There's a contingent of people who would like to remove from all entertainment anything remotely sexual or vulgar. Others would like to remove anything remotely violent. Still, others anything that could remotely be construed as racist or sexist. And others want to remove anything unhealthy like smoking. All in the name of saving the children.

Well, part of growing up is learning that the world is full of all the above things and arts and entertainment should reflect that. The censorship detailed above is simply more evidence of the perils of utopianism.
posted by jonmc at 6:27 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Will Jerry be wearing The Patch in the new scenes?
posted by billysumday at 6:27 AM on August 22, 2006

I'm still waiting for them to release Song of the South on DVD.


Let's face it. By changing the past we can pretend the whole world was wholesome and sweet. The way it would still be if these bowdlerizers had their way.
posted by ?! at 6:27 AM on August 22, 2006

illovich: Actually, many Tom and Jerry cartoons were re-dubbed in the 80's, replacing some of the voice work of the housekeeper, and in certain instances, digitially recoloring the legs so the woman is white.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:28 AM on August 22, 2006

talk about whitewashing the past.
posted by jonmc at 6:29 AM on August 22, 2006

FYI, the official name of the original housekeeper was- I shit you not- Mammy Two-Shoes. A little more detail on the redubbing:

The "White Mammy Two-Shoes" versions were created back in the 1960s for CBS when they were airing these cartoons. The work was done by Chuck Jones's crew when Jones was making new Tom and Jerry theatricals. I recall reading Chuck's remarks that at the time MGM still had most of its old animation artwork on file, so it was pretty much just a matter of retracing and repainting the original pencil animation and photographing it against recreated backgrounds. This new "White Mammy" material was then cut into dupe negatives of the cartoons in question to replace the original "Black Mammy" footage. Voice actress June Foray was brought in to redub the soundtracks. (Incidentally, that voice is supposed to be Irish.) Instances where the "White Mammy" has a "Black Mammy" voice (or vice versa) is a result of carelessness. Picture and sound elements on film masters are stored separately. What happens is simply that someone isn't paying attention and matches a newer "White Mammy" picture element to the original "Black Mammy" sound element (or vice versa).

posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:38 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Turner Broadcasting to cut cunnilingus scenes out of TBS 'Sex and the City' reruns" doesn't inspire surprise or outrage; why should this?

First of all, you're comparing actors engaging in graphic sex to a cartoon character smoking. You're also comparing cartoons which were made for children being edited because "times have changed," with movies and television shows that were aimed at mature audiences (in many cases, rated R) being edited for general broadcast.

Setting aside apples and oranges, this is stupid because it's the bicycle helmet law. The logic is, "Because we have a responsibility to protect our children, we must therefore protect them from everything!!" These people envision a world with no more skinned knees, no more splinters. They obviously never read The War of the Worlds.
posted by cribcage at 6:44 AM on August 22, 2006

I still think all this is ridiculous. Elmer Fudd will have to be removed to placate the ant-NRA/PETA types or at the very least to avoid offending the vocally-challenged he'll be made to speak like Rex Harrison. Give me a five cent break.
posted by jonmc at 6:45 AM on August 22, 2006

A few years ago, I purchased a 6 DVD set of like, 96 tom & jerry episodes in Hong Kong. They have no english track (not even subs)...and the only thing i miss from them is Mammy Two-Shoes yelling "Thomas? THOMAS!!"...it just isn't the same when it is dubbed chinese.

Everything else is great though...meaning that really, T&J is not really a dialogue based entertainment vehicle. Most of the laughs, come from explosions.
posted by das_2099 at 6:49 AM on August 22, 2006

Well, T&J was downright tame compared to the (far superior, IMHO) Looney Tunes and Walter Lantz stuff.
posted by jonmc at 6:51 AM on August 22, 2006

It's Just Wrong.
posted by rmmcclay at 6:53 AM on August 22, 2006

Is it really apples and oranges. Stick with smoking*: Casablanca would become what, a 7 minute long movie?

* since if anything 'Sex and the City' needed more cunnilingus scenes
posted by JaredSeth at 6:57 AM on August 22, 2006

This is no surprise. They started cutting the violence out of Bugs Bunny Cartoons in some markets 20 years ago -- they didn't even do a good job of it, you see the start of the violence then and a jump to the blown-up person or critter. Gah.

However, I just can't see the analogy with bike helmet laws, which really do protect people from the horrible consequences of their poor decisions. No one likes to see kids in wheelchairs or coffins...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:09 AM on August 22, 2006

Sooooo....My children maybe shouldn't watch
I love Lucy
The Dick Van Dyke Show
Andy Griffith

GMA did a small story on this subject this morning. The only smoking that will be allowed is the villans. Only bad guys can smoke.

If this is the message we want to send our children, it is a dangerous one. Adolf Hitler was not a smoker, however Oscar Schindler (sp?) was a chain smoker.
posted by Tablecrumbs at 7:11 AM on August 22, 2006

I'd rather they just remake them than sanitize them. There is a lot more than in those old cartoons that today's kids won't understand.
posted by JJ86 at 7:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Broadcasters don't want to show characters smoking in kids' cartoons. Turner wants to keep making money by having these cartoons broadcast. So what's the problem?
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:13 AM on August 22, 2006

jonmc, my favorite Bill Mauldin cartoon (it's reproduced in his poswar memoir Back Home show two elderly German men gazing wistfully at one's home library's shelves, nearly barren of books, as he explains to his friend: "Nothing left but nursery rhymes, Herr Schlinker. My library was purified by Hitler and then decontaminated by the Allies."
posted by pax digita at 7:14 AM on August 22, 2006

What is the problem with future viewers of these cartoons (that will be viewed for many generations to come) to not be exposed to smoking? Is the smoking an integral part of the story in any of the episodes?
posted by tellurian at 7:19 AM on August 22, 2006

"Elmer Fudd will have to be removed to placate the ant-NRA/PETA types or at the very least to avoid offending the vocally-challenged he'll be made to speak like Rex Harrison. Give me a five cent break."

Well, Piglet (of Winnie The Pooh fame) lost his speech impediment in the name of sensitivity so why not Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig as well?
posted by MikeMc at 7:20 AM on August 22, 2006

cribcage: They were not really made for children.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:21 AM on August 22, 2006

This is why we don't see Speedy Gonzalez anymore.

But the Pepe le Pew "No Means Yes" Hour is still available.
posted by sciurus at 7:27 AM on August 22, 2006

First of all, you're comparing actors engaging in graphic sex to a cartoon character smoking. You're also comparing cartoons which were made for children being edited because "times have changed," with movies and television shows that were aimed at mature audiences (in many cases, rated R) being edited for general broadcast.

First off, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this. As I already stated, these are NOT cartoons that were "made for children." These are cartoons that were specifically made for adults, as were most theatrical cartoons that predated Hanna-Barbera's television animation renaissance of the late 60's and early 70's.

This isn't "times have changed," it's specifically the audience changing. Editing previously-aired work for a different audience is not only not rare, but actually the most common aspect of broadcast television. My point about Sex & the City was that the show was going from the HBO audience to TBS- a network classified as a family entertainment channel. In the case of cartoons, S&P issues are very relevant to childrens' networks, because of their classification. Like any other movie or TV program, it gets edited for the new audience, for both moral and legal reasons. This isn't a generic "thinking of the children;" it's a rational "thinking of the audience." So JaredSeth, unless there's a special children's version of Casablanca I've never known about, then you're a bit stuck in Apples and Oranges Land yourself.

If you want to stick with discussing smoking, fine by me. Let's stick with smoking: one of the things that has actually been historically proven to influence children via cartoons. The entire Joe Camel controversy stemmed from the accusations that cartoon characters smoking were incredibly suggestive to young people. So this isn't exactly the Great "WTF, replacing guns with Walkie Talkies" debacle of 2004; there's actually a very significant precedent here.

I agree with you that the "think of the children" stuff is bad, and trust me, I'm not a fan of censorship. What I really hate, though, is people making a kneejerk and overbroad gripe about "censorship" anytime an editor has to (gasp!) make an editorial decision. My answer to everyone who thinks they're going to make the most clever "well I guess then we shouldn't show ____ because people smoke in it" is no, for fuck's sake, what I said was I think a cartoon cat shouldn't be smoking in a positive light in a cartoon being marketed to small children.

I'm a former animation student and I'm strongly for the preservation of classic cartoons. And if I had the choice, I'd rather they just stop showing Looney Tunes to children and then complain that they're too grown-up for them after the fact. But if you're going to show a cartoon cat to a 6-year old- yeah, I'd prefer- not require, not demand, but prefer- the cat not have a fucking cigarette in his mouth.

Turner declared a few years back they were going to stop showing Speedy Gonzales cartoons because they were negative to the Latino community. You know what happened? The Latino community complained, saying they thought Speedy was a positive Latino character (shit, he always wins and is the smartest guy in the cartoon!) Result? Hola, Speedy! If Turner is again making this decision that parents won't like smoking in the cartoons, then we just need to wait for the groups to complain that they miss the positive imagery of smoking being shown to their children. I'll be over there, not holding my breath.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:29 AM on August 22, 2006 [2 favorites]

"What is the problem with future viewers of these cartoons (that will be viewed for many generations to come) to not be exposed to smoking?"

Future generations should not be exposed to Tom & Jerry at all. Tom & Jerry cartoons contain toxic levels of t3h suck. Prolonged exposure to t3h suck can permanently damage a child's humor gland causing them to laugh at unfunny shit for the rest of their lives.

Turner should just burn their entire cartoon archive and get it over with. By the time they finish excising everything someone,somewhere might find objectionable there will be nothing left anyway.
posted by MikeMc at 7:31 AM on August 22, 2006

Man, what is next? I wish they could just leave things the way they were. lol :)
posted by megagolfer at 7:35 AM on August 22, 2006

Do they still air the ones with the aunt Jemima-patterned black housekeeper?

Oh, yeah, definitely. Boomerang is the best channel for watching them - my four-year-old loves it.

I'm totally against recutting them, but now that I'm a parent I can see why certain things might be objectionable. Like when Tom and Jerry blast each other in the face with shotguns - inside, I'm kinda hoping my kid never finds a real gun in a drawer at a friend's house and thinks thats how guns really work.

But hey, I survived these cartoons. Hell, my parents survived these same cartoons. Let'em be.
posted by fungible at 7:38 AM on August 22, 2006

The only smoking that will be allowed is the villans. Only bad guys can smoke.

That's stupid. Kids often identify with the villains; they're the cool ones!

the Pepe le Pew "No Means Yes" Hour

ahhhh-hahahahahahah!
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:39 AM on August 22, 2006

These are cartoons that were specifically made for adults

"Won't somebody please think of the children??"

(Seriously, some of you people sound like a bunch of church ladies here. Interesting.)
posted by jonmc at 7:39 AM on August 22, 2006

Hear, hear, XQUZYPHYR.
posted by melixxa600 at 7:42 AM on August 22, 2006

Great move.

I don't know how I survived watching these cartoons. Or riding my bike without a helmet and full body pads. I'm sure that everyone who smokes today can trace the roots of that perfidious activity directly to that horrible animated cat and mouse.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 7:46 AM on August 22, 2006

Tom & Jerry were not t3h suck.

The original toons of the 40s and 50s were 73# /\\/\/350/\/\3!!!!1!!!!ONE!!!!````11!!!!!

What sucks are the ones that were made in later years. Where they made Tom & Jerry best buds and they looked like muppet babies. Pretty much anything from 1975 onward is teh suck. Some of Chuck Jones attempts are lackluster. The stuff by Gene Deitch is okay but obviously drug influenced, and are almost something else entirely.

The best T&J toon ever was Cat Concerto from 1946. Had they stopped with that one, T&J would still be considered cultural icons of the early 20th century.

Ted Turner will be punished by God on Judgment Day for what he's done to cinema. The Maltese Falcon colorized? Blasphemer!
posted by ZachsMind at 7:46 AM on August 22, 2006

That's because they essentially are a bunch of secular church ladies who watched too much Star Trek: The Next Generation in their formative years.
posted by keswick at 7:51 AM on August 22, 2006

That's because they essentially are a bunch of secular church ladies

I knew there was a reason I liked you, keswick.

There is a certain species of person who has the scolding church lady mentality (and is also convinced that the rabble cannot handle what they can view in order to censor), but can't buy into religion, so they channel that fundamentalist attitude into ideology or whatever.
posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on August 22, 2006

We'll always have Fred and Barney lighting up.
posted by SteveInMaine at 8:10 AM on August 22, 2006

Ted Turner will be punished by God on Judgment Day for what he's done to cinema. The Maltese Falcon colorized? Blasphemer!

But he created Captain Planet!
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:22 AM on August 22, 2006

We'll always have Daffy Duck snorting coke off a hooker's ass.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:24 AM on August 22, 2006

posted by prostyle at 8:30 AM on August 22, 2006

"I'm still waiting for them to release Song of the South on DVD."

They already did. They censored SotS for the PC crowd. The running time was negative three minutes long, which they couldn't fit onto a DVD. Something about negatives being absolutes? It's a math thing.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:35 AM on August 22, 2006

Future generations should not be exposed to Tom & Jerry at all. Tom & Jerry cartoons contain toxic levels of t3h suck. I'll just say I disagree.
This thread has attained a revolting level of vitriol, including references to the wonderful works that the Scolding Church performs that do not equate with my valued level of discourse - in my book, you are all guilty.
posted by tellurian at 9:12 AM on August 22, 2006

in my book, you are all guilty.

In every book, everybody is guilty. of something. that's why all the indignation is a smidge much.
posted by jonmc at 9:18 AM on August 22, 2006

The only current TV show I can think of that depicts non-villainous, non-guest-star characters smoking cigarettes is Battlestar Galactica.
posted by Zozo at 9:37 AM on August 22, 2006

The media - like everything - must be taken in historical context. It serves as a reflection of the times in which it was created, and censoring sends a message to the general public (and, yes, the children) as to what society believes is acceptable. Smoking has NOW become socially unacceptable, and the media NOW (largely) reflects that, and that's sufficient for me. Unfortunately, society on the whole is still not completely comfortable with female sexuality - hence the censorship of consensual oral sex scenes in Sex and the City. So when society finally comes around and values a healthy sexual attitude, should the media go back and add empowering female sex scenes to old children's TV shows? Of course not.
posted by kookaburra at 9:39 AM on August 22, 2006

so, kookaburra, the real question is will televison ever show couples relaxing after consesual oral sex with a cigarette?
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on August 22, 2006

While the cartoons were originally made for general theater audiences ("adult" may not be extremely historical – it's the era before movie ratings) 60 years ago, they've been kids' television fare for at least 40 or 50, I don't remember exactly when they started airing – the wikipedia article claims mid-to-late 50's – but, that people regard them as a kids' institution is understandable in this light.
posted by furiousthought at 9:56 AM on August 22, 2006

Could we just cut to the chase and get to the part where Turner Classic Movies censors all of the cigarette scenes out of "Now, Voyager" and pretty much every other movie made in the 1940s? After all, wouldn't want impressionable youths viewing those scenes and getting the wrong ideas.
posted by blucevalo at 10:03 AM on August 22, 2006

C'mon, everyone. They have to make room for more beer and fast food commercials somehow.
posted by rusty at 10:08 AM on August 22, 2006

They've been doing this sort of thing for a long time. There's a scene where Sylvester disguises himself as a floor lamp by putting a lampshade on his head. Tweety predictably says "oh, look, somebody forgot to plug in this silly lamp", and plugs his tail into the wall socket. That scene was hacked up in the television version (everything between Sylvester standing with the lampshade on his head to, inexplicably, running out the door shedding sparks) a very long time ago.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:38 AM on August 22, 2006

Sure, Zozo: The only current TV show I can think of that depicts non-villainous, non-guest-star characters smoking cigarettes Battlestar Galactica: But why do they wear glasses? (Hang on they wear them in Stargate too!!!)
posted by tellurian at 10:52 AM on August 22, 2006

I have often said that I will support censorship the moment they figure out how to censor banality. In my opinion that would censor the entire "Sex in the City" series.
Smoking cartoons aren't destroying us. Banal cartoons are. Sex shouldn't be censored, but the sniggering vomitus of sexual innuendo that fills the airways is caustic.
If they allowed Rosanne and Tom Arnold to have sex on television we would never have had another teenaged pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. Teens would have been traumatized from having sex until their mid-forties and adults would have been scared into monogamy.
I'm not sure how that follows my previous argument - what I'm trying to say is: what the fuck, go ahead, cut out the smoking scenes.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:52 AM on August 22, 2006

Zachsmind, that SoftS dvd is actually 40 minutes long-- all previews for upcoming Disney product!

A few yews ago I saw a Tom and Jerry with the Mammy character's legs still brown, but the voice track dubbed over in a hearty Irish brogue. I did an actual spit take. Black Irish, indeed!
posted by maryh at 10:58 AM on August 22, 2006

If they allowed Rosanne and Tom Arnold to have sex on television

I dunno. Sometimes Roseanne was kinda hot. Tom, not so much.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on August 22, 2006

I'm trying to see how this any different than the fundie video store that sanatized movies they rented and were recently shut down by the courts.
posted by RavinDave at 11:12 AM on August 22, 2006

Obviously, one had the right to produce derivative works and one didn't. Or do you mean morally?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:13 AM on August 22, 2006

fungible writes "Hell, my parents survived these same cartoons. Let'em be."

Of course those kids whose parents didn't survive aren't available for rebuttal.
posted by Mitheral at 11:16 AM on August 22, 2006

The fundie video store wasn't shut down due to moral outrage. It was shut down for the same thing that would shut down a rapper who used another song as a part of his song w/o permission from the original artist (or current owner of said copyright).

Current owner of Tom & Jerry can do whatever he wants to it. Whether or not what he does is economically viable will be determined in the marketplace. I won't be supporting Turner, but I didn't support the Batman movie franchise in the movie theaters either, and they made like five of those anyway.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:25 AM on August 22, 2006

These are cartoons that were specifically made for adults, as were most theatrical cartoons that predated Hanna-Barbera's television animation renaissance of the late 60's and early 70's.

Not according to what I've read — or, for that matter, according to the common sense of anyone who has seen them. But I'm not an animation student, and I'm certainly not going to hold myself out as an expert on cartoon history; so if you can back up that claim, please do. I'm willing to learn.

This isn't "times have changed," it's specifically the audience changing.

How? Even assuming you're right that the original animators never intended their work to fall into the hands of children, these programs nevertheless have been children's fare for decades. Whatever psychological differences you might assert exist between children today and children of the '80s, it is apples and oranges to compare that difference to the task of transposing a graphically sexual cable show onto a prime-time family comedy channel.

What I really hate, though, is people making a kneejerk and overbroad gripe about "censorship" anytime an editor has to (gasp!) make an editorial decision.

I didn't see the word "censor" in the original article, and I certainly didn't use it. (If we're going to talk about knee-jerks and pet peeves, I hate when people raise censorship and the First Amendment in discussions where both are irrelevant.) And if you read the original article, then you know that this isn't a case of an editor exercising discretion so that he can market his product to a new audience; this is redesigning our legal tender because it offends Michael Newdow. So while I agree with some of what you're saying about editorial policies, you're arguing outside the facts of this instance.
posted by cribcage at 11:44 AM on August 22, 2006

Lots of talk about these things as products, but they're also parts of our history in a way that contemporary entertainment products aren't (at least not yet). As others have said, so long as the old versions are still available, I guess it's not that terrible -- but if they're not, he's not merely butchering a product you happen to have liked, he's erasing a collective memory.
posted by treepour at 11:57 AM on August 22, 2006 [1 favorite]

Cribcage, the T&J shorts in question were part of the short features shown before general admission films in the 1940's to late '50's. They would have been part of a package that included newsreels and live action shorts. They were never intended to be exclusively for children. It wasn't until the advent of television that these theatrical shorts began showing up in kids' programming, and a lot of that programming (Little Rascals, 3 Stooges) is considered too *ahem* adult for kids today.
posted by maryh at 12:14 PM on August 22, 2006

That's exactly what I've read, too, MaryH: that these cartoons "were part of the short features shown before general admission films in the 1940's to late '50's" — which is entirely different from saying, "These are cartoons that were specifically made for adults." Children comprised a substantial portion of those general admission audiences, and as such the cartoons were made for them.

Maybe XQUZYPHYR was interpreting my comment to mean, "Tom and Jerry were made for children exclusively, just like Teletubbies and Bob the Builder." That isn't what I meant at all, and it sidesteps the point. He was arguing that showing these cartoons to children constitutes a significant deviation from their original purpose; and according to what I (and you, apparently) have read, that's wrong.

As for The Little Rascals and The Three Stooges: In Boston, those programs have always aired during early weekend mornings — kiddie hours, often just before the cartoons begin. I've never heard anyone object. If they did, I might direct them to an earlier thread.
posted by cribcage at 12:40 PM on August 22, 2006

Well, but the animated shorts weren't expressly not for children, either; it was definitely expected that kids would be watching them. Er, what cribcage said there, longer and somehow freakishly quicker too.
posted by furiousthought at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2006

I grew up watching Tom and Jerry and like most people really loved the cartoons. However in today's world where the dangers of smoking are made very clear, although it sounds like an odd thing to do, I think it is the right thing.

I am not a doctor or quack so cannot comment if watching such scenes in a cartoon will in anyway convince young children to engage in smoking, but the deletion of those scenes cannot really be a bad thing.

John
posted by johnsaunders at 12:58 PM on August 22, 2006

the entire issue is nothing but more nannorrhea from the nanny state. more censorship. let's burn books.

However in today's world where the dangers of smoking are made very clear

we've known the dangers of smoking for at least 40 years. why the cencorship now? could it be political correctness?

Smoking has NOW become socially unacceptable

is that why some 50 million americans continue to smoke?
posted by brandz at 4:17 PM on August 22, 2006

As pointed out earlier, Pepe Le Pew's whole schtick has to go, since he's a potential rapist. Speedy's out. Early Daffy Duck should be expunged, since he was clearly insane in the early versions and it is impolite to make fun of the disturbed. Guns? Out, so I guess Yosemite Sam will have to bail. Too much dynamite in these cartoons, too. Bugs Bunny's constant cross-dressing is probably insensitive to people with gender dysphoria.

Once this whole thing gets Fahrenheit 451'd down to a level of inoffensiveness, we'll probably be stuck with a cartoon cat just staring at a cartoon mouse in complete silence.
posted by adipocere at 4:50 PM on August 22, 2006

umm, doesn't the article say the smoking scenes will only be cut from the European broadcasts? not that that changes anything, necessarily...
posted by owhydididoit at 5:41 PM on August 22, 2006

It’s a proven fact cats mimic what they see on t.v. Tom's a big role model.

posted by Smedleyman at 6:30 PM on August 22, 2006