Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

A friend of mine pointed out to me that Sugar Bear was obviously supposed to be Bing Crosby. My whole life I hadn't realized that.

I always thought Sugar Bear was modeled after Dean Martin.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

Well, one of those velvet crooners, anyway.

You may be right. He just always sounded like Dino to me. In this version, he definitely sounds like Der Bingle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Its simply a business decision. To attract the widest audience possible. To stay in the middle of the road.

In the old days,  a production code mandated what could be shown in a film. That censorship.

Filmmakers like Disney tend to make all their content G or PG rated. No censorship. Simply a business decision that seems to be working out well for them.

 

I was pointing out that responding to pressure from outside groups is "imposed" censorship, not "self-imposed."   Disney's decision was one that made to self-censor.  And it is censorship, no matter the source.

I'm done with this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

...no that's Bing Crosby. :D

 

Well, one thing's for sure: The voice of Granny Goodwitch was Ruth Buzzi!

See the source image

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

If Morley believed Aunt Jemima was a great chefs he has very poor taste.    Of course given his size,  maybe he was into junk food.

 

Morley's character was a food snob and in the film, two of his favorite chefs had been killed by the time of the line. So he sarcastically says at one point: "Don't tell me another cook has been murdered! Who is it this time, Aunt Jemima?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Several things going on here....

I don't recall there ever being any big flap over the fictional AUNT JEMIMA  image.  I always thought the "updating" of the image(from a hattie McDainiels type"mammy" to a younger, slimmer look) were attempts to do away with the stereotypical imagery.  And certainly, I, and I think many other white kids, never formed any impression or opinion about black people based on the product representation.  Really, my first thought upon seeing the Jemima image on a box of pancake mix or bottle of syrup would be that of it being a quality product.  And now, JAMES.....  Quaker Oats plan to do away with Aunt Jemima due to recent attitudes WOULD be that pandering you dislike so much.  

And I don't think CREAM OF WHEAT is going anywhere.  If anything, they'l just change the picture of the COOK on the box. 

And MRS. BUTTERWORTH doesn't seem to be any specific ethnicity, so she'll probably stick around too.  (no pun intent  ;) )  and on the GREEN ACRES thing... (now that the secret word was revealed)

When NAFTA was enacted, my wife quipped that since many new auto factories would be opened in Mexico, we might see droves of WHITE AMERICANS wading SOUTH through the RIO GRANDE to where Mexico will suffer a glut of (ready?)  WHITEBACKS!  :D 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Post-Tens! Completely forgot about those. I don't think they were ever something we had in our house, but my friends would occasionally have them. I was mesmerized by the idea of a seemingly endless variety of cereals right in front of me, even though the boxes were tiny.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah.  Kellogg's too, had their "variety pack"  cereals.  First encountered them at a sort of "family camp" me, my brother and Mom spent time at on year when I was very little.  Eating cereal out of the box was a new kind of "adventure" for me.  HAD to be 'round '56-'57.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

Quaker Oats plan to do away with Aunt Jemima due to recent attitudes WOULD be that pandering you dislike so much.  

Not my POV at all.     I'm against pandering by politicians.      I have no issue with private businesses 'pandering'.      Like I said it is just capitalism at work;  PR,  marketing,  branding,  and supply and demand.    

Link to post
Share on other sites

 And here during my formative years while watching Sugar Bear hawking that cereal on TV, I thought he was supposed to be an anthropomorphic version of Perry Como.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheCid said:

I was pointing out that responding to pressure from outside groups is "imposed" censorship, not "self-imposed."   Disney's decision was one that made to self-censor.  And it is censorship, no matter the source.

I'm done with this topic.

Couldn't disagree more. Because there are lots of companies that don't respond to perceived pressure from outside groups. Some do ,some don't. Some do then realize they overreacted. Some choose not to respond to get the publicity.

As I said before, its all a business decision.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GGGGerald said:

Couldn't disagree more. Because there are lots of companies that don't respond to perceived pressure from outside groups. Some do ,some don't. Some do then realize they overreacted. Some choose not to respond to get the publicity.

As I said before, its all a business decision.

Yea,   health activist influence a food manufacturer of Salad Dressing  to remove corn syrup and replace it with raw sugar.     Yea,  these health activist are imposing on the food manufacture and censoring corn syrup.     NOT!. 

Instead,   just another business decision. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,   health activist influence a food manufacturer of Salad Dressing  to remove corn syrup and replace it with raw sugar.     Yea,  these health activist are imposing on the food manufacture and censoring corn syrup.     NOT!. 

Instead,   just another business decision. 

 

Another example is the TV show "Married With Children". In its first season, the ratings weren't going well at all. Women's groups began to complain about the show's content. Fox at this point was still a fledgling network and could have easily cancelled to show.

But, they instead chose to keep producing the show. The protests actually brought publicity to the show and its ratings began to increase. The program stayed on the air many seasons and lives on in syndication.  Once again, a business decision.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,   health activist influence a food manufacturer of Salad Dressing  to remove corn syrup and replace it with raw sugar.     Yea,  these health activist are imposing on the food manufacture and censoring corn syrup.     NOT!. 

Instead,   just another business decision. 

 

So, clear something up for "Mr. Split hairs" here.....   

Are you referring to just ONE activist?  

And I don't consider the removal of corn syrup solids or high fructose corn syrup from foods as "censorship".    Just good sense.   Replacing it with cane sugar might hike the price a bit,  but not the size of the waistline.   Read this and get back...

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad#1

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

So, clear something up for "Mr. Split hairs" here.....   

Are you referring to just ONE activist?  

And I don't consider the removal of corn syrup solids or high fructose corn syrup from foods as "censorship".    Just good sense.   Replacing it with cane sugar might hike the price a bit,  but not the size of the waistline.   Read this and get back...

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad#1

Sepiatone

The fact you believe the difference between government imposed censorship and market-place driven business decisions by private companies is  just a 'hair split' shows that you don't get it.     The difference isn't a hair split but instead  a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon.   

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated in "the Republic" censorship can be very beneficial to a society. I don't think a cuss word in an old sitcom is all too important however.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sukhov said:

As stated in "the Republic" censorship can be very beneficial to a society. I don't think a cuss word in an old sitcom is all too important however.

The OP wasn't talking about a cuss word but instead a term used for people that come over the border from Mexico that combines these two words:  wet and back.

As for censorship:  I don't view government imposed censorship as being beneficial to a society.   Of course that isn't what is taking place here with this old sitcom,  or with GWTW,  or with replacing Uncle Ben.       

Oh,  I just looked up Sukhov;    are you related to this guy?     (joking of course,  but I'm still trying to figure out who the guy in the avatar is, looks somewhat like Brian Aherne,   but he was British!).

Aleksandr Sukhov 2016.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Yea,  rumor has it even this guy didn't like them. 

 

Yes, the taste of kerosene knows no age discrimination.

I don't think I'd want to buy any food with Uncle Fester's name on it either.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...