| |
In lugnet.general, Alex Farlie writes:
> The whole purpose of the a 'speculative post is to encourage friendly
> disscusion. Unlike one repsonse to this post :-(
Uh, if you mean Mark Sandlin's post... I think he was just having some fun with
the name "Optrix" being very close to a children's sweetened cereal called
"Trix". Maybe over in Merrie Olde England you either a) don't have Trix or b)
don't have the same ad campaign, but for folks of a certain age group here in
the States it's *impossible* not to have the phrase "Silly rabbit, Trix are for
kids!" deeply, deeply ingrained in your psyche, like a horrible horrible
scar[1]. I don't think he meant anything negative or hostile by it, although
he can speak for himself.
eric
[1]See, a cartoon rabbit- the Trix mascot- was always trying to get Trix in the
ads. He'd always almost have it, but then have it snatched away from him by
bratty children before he could actually eat any, and they would taunt him with
that tagline.
Of course, this brings up a couple of interesting things... first of all, with
the amount of money and time the Trix Rabbit invested in his capers, he could
just as easily have gone out and bought a box of Trix... unless Trix is
basically saying that unlike every other company in the Rabbit's fictional
world, they would not allow their product to be sold to anthropomorphic
rabbits. His money isn't good enough, clearly.
Secondly, it's interesting that this makes the Trix Rabbit the exact opposite
of characters like Lucky the Leprechaun (Lucky Charms), and Count Chocula and
his cohorts Booberry and Frankenberry. Lucky et al. were trying to protect
their precious stores of their own cereal from being invaded by ravenous
children, which is bizarre in its own way, too- the message essentially
meaning that kids should take what wasn't theirs.
Hmm. I just noticed that Lucky, Count Chocula, Booberry and Frankenberry were
all supernatural creatures, whereas the Trix Rabbit represents the natural
world, making them opposite in that way as well. Of course, this falls apart
if you bring in other natural world creatures, like Toucan Sam and the Honey
Nut Cheerios Bee... they both essentially acted as providers of their products-
there was a complete absence of "power struggles" over the ownership of the
cereal in their ads.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: !!Warning- Pure Speculation!!
|
| (...) <snip> Yes, I was responding exactly as Eric said. I suppose it makes no sense if you aren't from the US of A, but my FUT to off-topic.fun shows that I was kidding anyway. In any case, I apologize if there were any hurt feelings. It was (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: !!Warning- Pure Speculation!!
|
| "Lorbaat" <eric@nospam.thirteen.net> wrote in message news:G77wA6.4n5@lugnet.com... (...) with (...) or b) (...) Ah, 'Optrex' is an eye-wash/lotion over on this side of the paddling pool. Nicholas Allan (23 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
