Do six-year-olds really need a sexy Smurfette?

And another Facebook ad. This time, I just have to scratch my head and to wonder what the fuck they are thinking.

The movie is obviously targeted at children. There may be a few jokes in there for the benefit of the adults who'd be taking the kids to see it, but that does not change the fact that it's primarily targeted at young children.

Now why would we need a sexually evocative picture of the Smurfette looking over her bare shoulder with this "come hither" look in her eyes? The six-year-olds are hopefully not even on Facebook, so I know that this ad is not meant for them (never mind the post title). The adults should be mostly interested in going to see this film because of their children, and hopefully not for some smurf soft-porn. It's utterly confusing to me.

Now, to be fair, this is not quite reaching the creepiness level of push-up bikinis for young girls, or child beauty pageants, but still, can we maybe keep the objectification of women at least out of the children's movies? No? Thought so.


  1. In fairness, Smurfette has always done that "come hither" look, and it's always seemed a little strange. It looks a whole order of magnitude more creepy in CGI, though.

    Aside: Smurfette was originally created by Gargamel to sow chaos among the smurfs using her feminine wiles. How's that for promoting traditional negative stereotypes?

  2. Like I posted on Facebook, just 'cause something's old, ain't makin' it right. If the 3-D movie creators actually spent a moment questioning whether the 1950s values are still fit for a 2011 movie they would have changed something. Instead, they just perpetuate what should not have been there in the first place: gender dichotomy and bad stereotypes.

  3. well, actually, me, an intellectual, knows that sexy smurfette is the real good thing about the smurf franchise