Truth commercial: Muppets & smoking

I see what you mean, but that kind of humor does speak to some people. Look I think Family Guy is some awful writing with no real thought, but the fact is it's a very popular show cause it does speak to many people and it may not be enjoyable to you, but that doesn't mean other's don't enjoy it.

But they didn't need to contacted the Henson company cause A) The Muppet movie doesn't belong to Henson anymore and B) All they did was mention it and have that odd looking dude in a full body suit of some purple thing, they didn't show any Muppet characters themselves. It's very unlikely the Henson company or right now the MHC would approve such a commerical had the truth people contacted them asking may we say The Muppet Movie wanted kids to smoke

Actually that's where the commerical is tricky cause it's like this is there smoking in the Muppet Movie, yes, does any of the Muppets smoke, no. It was where Kermit went into the El Slezeo cafe and people grown people were smoking, but here is what I have to say about that, it's not like they made these people seem like they were cool cause they were smoking. It's not like they were also trying to get Kermit to smoke or anything, it's just silly

So it's like school in a way, where you have to take classes you yourself may not really need in your profession, but you take them regardless, because they're required by the ciricculum's standards in that, you yourself may not need the class, but others do?

The Mouse House may own The Muppets physically, but dang it, to many fans, Jim and company own The Muppets' heart and soul, because Jim and company brought them to life! As such, The Muppets will probably forever be associated with their creator, legal copyright rights or not.

I see what you mean but from a legal stand point that doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

But Jim Henson and the Muppeteers will always be the ones to bring them to life true and I don't think Disney really has done anything to make it seem different,

And it should remain as such, because Jim wanted a partnership, NOT a total buyout, correct?

Yup correct

Now if only something could be gone on either side of the spectrum to get The Muppets more positive exposure! ^_^

It's going to take more then one commercial ad a that passed by to get the Muppets negative exposure. I'm sue the public knows better.

Yep. ^_^

That's the real truth, heh!

I agree, it's just a parody, and one that was amazingly well done, as far as voices and character set up. I wouldn't show it to children maybe, lol, but for older fans it was fun.

That being said, I wouldn't like to see that stuff in a new Muppet movie.

Speak for yourself. Me personally, I'd rather Bert and Ernie not be depicted as gay, Kermit and Big Bird not be depicted as smokers, Cookie depicted as an addict with cookies as his drug, etc. It ruins their image.

I agree with you. Many of my friends don't think I'd find a lot of the Muppet parody stuff amusing. Most of it I do. There was this terrible parody many years back when Kami (the South African HIV+ Sesame Street character) was created to inform kids about prevention and interaction with HIV+ friends and family. Many people misunderstood the reasoning behind the character, framing (as many people in this country are still ignorant about the disease itself) and that Kami was only to be introduced overseas.

Nonetheless it sprouted a slew of ignorant, incorrect and hateful parodies made in the poorest taste when there was actually something good going on with Kami in South Africa's Sesame. There was one animation in particular that was beyond gross. Now that kind of parody (Sesame characters as urban/ethnic junkies and hookers, HIV portrayed as a gay death sentence) offends me. That's because it doesn't enlighten, inform or entertain. It simply plays to the irrational base fears in people and perpetuates ignorance of a very important issue.

Turning beloved characters into something they aren't--making Kermit and Big Bird stoners, making Bert and Ernie gay, the whole Kami-HIV issue--doesn't enlighten, inform, or entertain, unless it is dark humor, but even dark humor should have a set of standards.

Smoking was part of our history in America, we were built on the money that came from tobacco fields. It became part of who people were, it made characters complete (as in the piano guy in TMM) I really don't think that in the TMM they were trying to get kids to smoke, wasn't even on their minds, I don't even think the tobacco companies had ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT- its a BAR people SMOKE its a fact of life. The Jim Henson company didn't get any money from Marlboro or any other cigarette company for putting people smoking. Its part of the story, it adds to the atmosphere and these stupid people who protest how horrible tobacco companies need to stop exaggerating and making stuff up to prove a point that I think everyone already knows- SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU

When was the last time you saw a commercial for cigarettes? I don't even remember- maybe a billboard or a sign in a bar, but that's it. There is no conspiracy, they are not out to get you. People are going to smoke and really that is there right to do so when they turn 18. (especially in the USA- hence why its not ILLEGAL)

I do not smoke, I never have, no I don't think its good for you- but I think its time for this "Truth" campaign to actually tell some truth for once

If you want to watch something funny but kinda true watch South Park's episode called "Butt Out" season 6- a whole episode on how rediculace these people are.

AND THERE IS NO PROOF THAT 2ND HAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS so how can they publish that 50,000 people die from it? where the heck are they getting their numbers? not saying that its not dangerous- but they dont KNOW if it is- so, where is this comming from?

Well, then the reason people are up in arms about it is due to political correctness. For the PC police and a majority of people, it's not healthy or "right" to smoke, even though people do have the choice to do so. The thing is, people are always looking for someone to look up to (i.e. someone who basically controls them) and in turn, people also are looking for people to influence (i.e. people to control). It is an unfortunate cycle of life that all of us--smokers or not--must face as human beings.

ok- Im not done yet- as I just really started to read that website that Vic gave us- and Im getting more angry by the second- check this out-

In the U.S., about 50,000 people die each year from secondhand smoke-related diseases. Again- not proven at ALL

One tobacco company supplied their product to be used in the G-rated film, The Muppet Movie. We all know how rediculace this is

In 1996, the tobacco industry said that drinking one to two glasses of whole milk a day was riskier than second-hand smoke. This is probably true- but they dont like that finding

In 1997, a tobacco CEO said that if it was proven to his satisfaction that cigarettes cause cancer, he’d probably shut (the company) down immediately to get a better hold on things. Their website now admits that cigarettes cause cancer, but they’re still open for business. AND they list that it does cause canser, so that people who choose to smoke know the risks- again, people have a right to smoke, you cant take that away from them

In 1971, when one tobacco executive was reminded that smoking can lead to underweight babies, he said, " some women would prefer smaller babies. And really whats he supposed to say to stupid people like this- they cant MAKE a mother be a good mother and NOT smoke during her pregnancy (like it says on the side of a box or what her doctor told her to do) they have NO control over this- the woman also has a right to drink alcohol that will also harm her baby, or an abortion and harm her baby (wich I belive is wrong) but she till has a right in this country to do so- I really dont see how this is relevant to their case


MY POINT IS- even though smoking is bad for you, it does and can give you cancer and kill you, kids should not smoke, and secondhand smoke is probably not the best for your family- if your going to publish "facts" and try to make a case about it and fight these people- WHY LIE AND MAKE STUFF UP? or USE STUFF OUT OF CONTEXT?

Well, the thing is...some people are stupid and if they're willing to screw up their lives and the lives of those around them, this country--for some asinine reason--states that we should stop them from ruining the country but also give them the right to ruin the country. In short, this country is hypocritical in that it claims two clearly opposite views and tries to have us--we, the people--adhere to both of them.

Regarding this set statements of statements specifically, people should be good to their word, in my honest opinion. If people weren't manipulative [insert word that may not be fit for impressionable ears] who lie out their "face", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Heck if people weren't making stupidly idiotic choices, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but unfortunately, our own human right to have choices/opinions allow for loopholes that allow for people to make stupid choices and allow for people to be biased, ignorant ignoramouses.

I guess what also makes me angry is that everyone is blaming the tobacco companies for their addiction- when in reality it was there own **** fault- blame eveyone but yourself. Whether you did it as a kid, or as an adult- only YOU smoked it and you had the choice just like every one else

I feel a rant about these PSA spots coming on...(sorry in advance)

The most offensive thing about the Truth anti-smoking ads (not unlike the milk industry ads or the anti-pot campaigns) is that there's little to no evidence that they are working. These sorts of advertisements are a waste of money that could be better spent in other arenas to reap actual benefits.

* Ugh, the Truth ads - the limited smoking areas and higher price of cigarettes helped me to quit years ago and I was a three pack a day smoker for over 8 years! Wherever you stand on "smoker's or individual rights" this practice works in reducing the number of smokers!

* As far as pot - it's a joke here. I'm not a toker and have no interest in being one. I also have no problem with it as long as I don't have to smell it! It truly makes me ill. San Francisco is very hemp-minded. It seems more legal to smoke weed than cigarettes! It has gotten to the point where it's hard to avoid even walking down the street and my downstairs neighbor's fumes seep through the floorboards while I'm sleeping. However, by limiting the number and location of the cannabis clubs in this city, cracking down on on-premises use, actually examine those who receive access cards and tax those who reap no real medical benefit would help in that area too. You can't drink in a liquor store; you shouldn't be smoking-up in businesses. Sometimes I get so annoyed by particular stoners that I feel like voting for initiatives to ban this substance entirely, but there really is no getting rid of it wherever one stands on the issue. The ads are also a waste of money.

* Got Milk? Well even many of the milk mustached celebrities (Kermit even did one) in the ads don't drink milk. Let's face it - we were never meant to consume this level of dairy on a daily basis. It's about moderation. Americans have the same issue with corn and corn syrup products causing diabetes and health issues down the line. Milk contributes to lactose intolerance. It is said we all have some level of it, but we should be able to drink the occasional glass of milk, eat a cheese burger or enjoy a slice. And if we kept all of that in moderation there would be little problem - but the dairy industry doesn't want that. Instead of ads promoting more consumption the funds should be used to help these farmers shift into dairy alternatives (soy and rice based milk products) and/or other growing agricultural industries (like Brazil has done with their sugar crop to fuel cars).

Back the Truth ads. I used to find some of the performance art amusing, but these days the commercials contain witless, half-baked vitriolic shouting that does little more than ad a reference to the participants' resumes.