Posted on 07/06/2006 7:13:58 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Believes 'Cars' Gives Kids The Wrong Message About Racing Trains
(CBS) -- Is Disney's hit movie "Cars" spinning its wheels when it comes to safety?
CBS 2 West Suburban Bureau Chief Mike Puccinelli reports on the fight to put the brakes on a scene in the blockbuster animated picture about a fast talking rookie racer named Lightning McQueen.
"As I'm sitting there, I couldn't believe it because this is a red car. My daughter was killed in a red car," said Lanny Wilson with the DuPage Railroad Safety Council.
His 14-year-old daughter, Lauren, was killed in a collision 12 years ago when her brother chose to race a train and lost. It was a split-second decision that forever changed his family.
"I don't want this kind of nightmare, this kind of tragedy to happen to other families, especially if we can do something to prevent it," Wilson said.
He believes editing out the train race scene from the DVD version of the film will prevent from other young people from making fatal, split-second decisions.
The president of the Illinois State Medical Society agrees and wants the scene cut from future versions of the film.
"You give children that kind of a message: It cool, it is good to try to go and beat a train. It is the wrong message," Dr. Peter Eupierre said.
In a statement, Disney officials say: "Lightning McQueen's poor judgment in outrunning the train reveals his reckless and thoughtless behavior and is certainly not glorified."
Officials won't say if they're considering editing out the controversial scene.
Until they do, Wilson vows to continue to fight in Lauren's name.
"You never get over it. You just cope and try to go on," he said.
She's looking for a sponsorship deal from a company that makes the whatever they are.
Yet another example of the "Infallibility of Grief", as opined by Anne Coulter.
I think this guy is on to something here.
In light of all the school shootings I think we should remove any scene where someone points a gun at someone and pulls the trigger.
Lets start with "Saving Private Ryan"
Its for the children you know!
No need to remove the scene, We have computers now. We can just digitally replace the guns with walkie-talkies.
Though I feel for this man's loss I will just say what I tell my kids with any movie we watch.
These are not real pictures. This is not a documentary. Bambi's mother is actually in her trailer drinking a latte after that scene.
How about this change: Car races train but has second thoughts; says "I can't do this" and lets train pass; train says "thank you", as do a dozen cars carried by the train. The lesson is taught.
I'm not familiar with that particular loon. Sounds like another attention hog trying to wring some meaning from a personal tragedy ... at public expense of course.
She even had the gall to persuade a local health care company to donate 38 of the things to high schools and had the temerity to appear on TV to talk about it!!!
Strongarmed some gullible health care company, eh? Well, there's always some sucker who will fall for the boo hoo chorus, I guess.
I mean, what business does she have trying to get folks to do that?
Exactly.
She should just get over that public grief and keep it to herself.
Hear, hear!
Bump
"She's looking for a sponsorship deal from a company that makes the whatever they are."
I can't tell from your post but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're kidding.
"Is this one of those deals where someone says something arguable and we aren't allowed to respond to him because he is a victim?"
Absolutely not, but "get over it" doesn't make it as an appropriate response.
"Strongarmed some gullible health care company, eh? Well, there's always some sucker who will fall for the boo hoo chorus, I guess."
Actually when I say "persuaded," they saw her on TV and came to her. She stongarmed no one. Sorry you consider an attempt to save lives the boo-hoo chorus, or a private corporation -- particularly one involved in healthcare -- voluntarily deciding to be involved in saving lives being a sucker. I thought Freepers were in favor of the private sector, not the government, doing these things. Guess you're not in favor of anybody doing it.
I appreciate your talking about Route 66...the first time our family used Route 66, was in 1958 or so, while doing our first car trip from Chicago to California...route 66 was what we used coming back from California...I still can remember some of the roads, and some of the motels we stayed at and the restaurants we dined in...my dad did all the driving, and he quite enjoyed driving along on Route 66...
Thanks for the memories...
I hope you get to see Cars. The stops and characters were based off of real people.
Very enjoyable movie!
How many lives you gonna save? In the entire history of high school sports, how often has this happened? But let's run panicking over the exception and ignore the rule. All so we can act like we've really made some "contribution" to the betterment of society. Yeah, sure.
or a private corporation -- particularly one involved in healthcare -- voluntarily deciding to be involved in saving lives being a sucker.
If I were a stockholder in that corporation, I'd want some answers as to why the management thought it advisable to give away our product just to assuage some hysterical attention hog. If the PR proved valuable, then it might not be a bad form of advertising. But if it was just to garner good will from Soccer Mom and Safety Sandy, I'd raise hell.
I thought Freepers were in favor of the private sector, not the government, doing these things.
I'm not in favor of ANYBODY doing things that don't need to be done. This doesn't need to be done.
Guess you're not in favor of anybody doing it.
Wow! You ARE perceptive!
What I meant was EMULATE = they don't actually do it, they pretend to. Like, one kid is the train and the other is the car. They're not actually on the railroad tracks.
And nothing they see and hear now will affect them later?
I have a hard time imagining that someone's going to race a train when they're 16 because they saw it in a movie when they were 6.
That was never a point in the article.
Does it have to be? Is that a new rule on FR?
It was a great irony for him.
So we should change a movie just to keep from hurting one man's feelings? Why doesn't he just not see the movie?
And he says that statistics bear that out.
I drive a red car. Does that magically transform me into a dangerous driver, who is going to race a train?
Do you mean that we all don't see idiots talking on cell phones while driving?
And they do this because they see it in animated movies when they're kids?
People do stupid things not because they see it in movies and try it for themselves, but because...guess what? They're stupid.
It is kind of an inherent left-wing idea that people's stupid mistakes, violent behavior, etc. is not caused by the individual, but by "society." In other words, blaming everything else for a person's mistake...except for the person themselves. In college they call it "sociology."
Bunk. And you know it is.
I have a hard time imagining that someone's going to race a train when they're 16 because they saw it in a movie when they were 6.
When something is presented as "cool" the idea takes root. Witness the thug/rap culture. Kids ARE what they see and hear whether you like it or not.
Does it have to be? Is that a new rule on FR?
You said: I'm also trying to comprehend the idea of parents letting their children play around railroad tracks unattended.
You were attributing something to the article that wasn't there.
So we should change a movie just to keep from hurting one man's feelings?
That wasn't the point. The color of the car was added irony. The point is that an unsafe act is presented as "cool" by a cute little red car.
I drive a red car. Does that magically transform me into a dangerous driver, who is going to race a train?
I didn't say anything about a train in connection with red cars. I said the Police Chief said statistics show that people who drive red cars are more likely to be risk takers. Argue with the statistics if you like.
Nothing like taking a point out of context, eh?
You seem to believe that common sense is inate and it's not. Hence my point about drivers and cellphones. People believe accidents happen to idiots, not them, "I can drive and talk".This spans the behaviour spectrum. "Drugs won't hurt ME, cigarettes won't hurt ME, speeding won't hurt ME". Then they find that they aren't "bullet proof".
It is kind of an inherent left-wing idea that people's stupid mistakes, violent behavior, etc. is not caused by the individual, but by "society." In other words, blaming everything else for a person's mistake...except for the person themselves. In college they call it "sociology."
I believe in personal responsibility but would you allow pedophiles to receive Namblas newsletter while in jail. Or a rapist to receive "Playboy"? If not, why? Again, kids emulate what they see. Petra did a song years ago called "Computer Brains". Bet you can't guess what the premise is. A line in the song says, "Garbage in, garbage out".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.