Then they came for the Smurfs, and no one spoke up...

[cuteswan]

The Smurfs are being wiped out... by Unicef!  What's next -- the Teletubbies getting carjacked? 

[Sheana_Molloy]

I heard about this.  Sheesh...

Trying to get a point across to people is one thing, but whether it's war or eating healthy food or HIV, I wish people would leave beloved childhood cartoons and icons out of it.

[c_nordlander]

I agree. (Oh, and let me add drug abuse to that list.) Children can find ways to emotionally scar themselves without resorting to public service messages.

However, there's something about the idea of a nuclear Smurf holocaust that appeals to me. *hands out medals to the pilots*

[jenny]

Excellent! It's like an acid trip gone bad/funny.

[SirMustapha]

I read about that in GAFF this week. Something about that idea sounds interesting/right... It's just intriguing that Smurfs getting bombed causes more shock than real people getting slaughtered and butchered on real bombings. I guess the real thing has become too trivial and easy to cope with, already... the Iraqi people are much more distant than Smurfs, anyway.

I just don't think the campaign is that effective taken as an anti-war campaign, but it's still interesting. It's not like I would like seeing my childhood heroes being killed in bombings, but that's exactly the point.

[Jase_to_the_Izzo]

I think this is another example of why the UN needs to be replaced with a worlld body of cartoon characters.

[tommy]

R.I.P. Smurfette 1981-2005

Well, there was a time I loved the Smurfs - when I was 6 years old or so. Not nearly old enough to enjoy Smurfette's bimbo-qualities, and when that time had finally come, the whole concept of the show didn't appeal to me anymore, for some reason... huh.
Sorry, Smurfette, if only you were in FOP or AGU...
And now she's dead. Wow, didn't see that coming. I mean, the crying baby, that's sad indeed, but not nearly as sad as the image of a dead Smurfette at the left of the screen. I don't care much for all those other blue freaks, but see for yourself, surely this cutie doesn't deserve to die, or does she?
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/15/smurfette1yf.gif

(btw. I lost track of the show's plotlines a long time ago - was she the baby's mother?)

And some memorable quotes from the article:

"Philippe Henon, a spokesman for UNICEF Belgium, said his agency had set out to shock, after concluding that traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers."

True, sadly. And it also has something to do with short attention spans. 20.000 earthquake victimes in Pakistan? Oh look, a birdie! What's for dinner?

"We wanted something that was real war - Smurfs losing arms, or a Smurf losing a head - but they said no."

A Smurfs snuff movie - made for the next instalment of "Faces of Death" - that would be... something.

[fellranger]

I have mixed feelings about this.  While they are undoubtedly making a fair point, I don't think traumatising young kids is a good way of going about it.  There is also more than a slight whiff of playing the media with this one.  Sadly, I think it is true that a lot of people would find the image of the Smurfs getting bombed more shocking than the real thing.  Whether this is because we are becoming more hardened to suffering or because of the juxtaposition between a familier cartoon and graphic violence, I am not sure.  To this extent it's a shrewd move by UNICEF.  However, the cynical part of me says that this is more to do with getting column inches than raising money.  Another cynical part of me wonders whether the Washington Post would have bothered reporting it if it hadn't been a UN agency involved.....
     

[SirMustapha]

The advert wasn't aimed at young children, was it? As far as I read, the biggest target were the adults - more specifically, their childhood memories. As far as freaking children out, I think there are some actual children's shows that do the job much better...

[archonix]

It wasn't specifically aimed at young children, but it seems to have been produced in order to attract them, as most people would see the happy smurfing at the beginning and smurf their children to smurf the rest of the ad, at which point they'd all be smurfed in the head by the smurfing bombs. It really smurfs me off when people do that...

[SirMustapha]

Yeah, it's true. There's definitely a bit of hipocrisy behind all of that, unfortunately.

Besides, showing such gruesome campaings to the "common people" wouldn't help much, would they? They should focus their attention to making adverts to the politicians, depincting missiles falling on their mansions, their vaults of gold and their armies... Wouldn't it work better?

[archonix]

Hmm... such an advert might face calls for it to be turned in to a reality tv show.

I'd watch it.

[arpulver]

And some memorable quotes from the article:

"Philippe Henon, a spokesman for UNICEF Belgium, said his agency had set out to shock, after concluding that traditional images of suffering in Third World war zones had lost their power to move television viewers."

True, sadly. And it also has something to do with short attention spans. 20.000 earthquake victimes in Pakistan? Oh look, a birdie! What's for dinner?

That's what really caught my attention, because they're probably right. And yeah, everybody did pretty much ignore that earthquake. Quoting Jon Stewart's "America: The Book," the RIP Conversion Rate is as follows: 2,000 Massacred Congolese = 500 Drowned Bangladeshis = 45 Fire-bombed Iraqis = 12 Car-bombed Europeans = 1 Snipered American.

The question- where do beloved cartoon characters fit into the equation?

[papa smurf]

As everyone knows Smurfs can never die.  viva la smurfs!

[hadisia]

Oh, they can die. There are...ways.