just because CN has adult swim doesn't mean they aren't still both the biggest names in children's entertainment
that doesn't mean some of that entertainment doesn't have some serious adult overtones!
But I've never gotten them impression that the mainstream society as a whole holds Cartoon Network to the same childish standards as Nick.
Never said it doesn't have some kid's shows on it, either.
But it's kind of about what people as a whole are and are not ignorant about and what kind of impressions they themselves hold.
pictured above: wholesome children's entertainment on a saturday morning
parents rest easily knowing their kids are in safe hands
And I don't know what this has to do with my point seeing as how we all already know it's a stupid double standard that violence is okay while being gay is not?
is this a rhetorical question??????? ofc it does
probably not as many stoners as AT though
Well that's something.
This show is for the kids to watch, not the parents. And if kids want to watch their show, they will find a way to watch their show. That's just how kids work. Really at the end of the day, the ratings only contribute to a fraction of the money brought it by a kids show. Toy/merchandise sales are equally important I think.
It's a bit lofty to assume all children will be able to find easy access to it.
Also, I don't know how Toys and merchandise can be held to be that different. If a kid is not allowed to watch a show I'm assuming the parents wouldn't let them own merchandise from it as well.
Unless you are implying that if they all had good allowances and/or are old enough for part time jobs after school they can buy everything and just hide it under their bed and that alone would be enough to sustain the show?
Kids don't discriminate. Parents do. Look at Sailor Moon. It was FILLED with lesbianism, implicit or otherwise, and it was still wildly popular even in the west. If it's a good show it will appeal to kids regardless.
But this was never about the kids.
Yeah, but typically parents complain less about violence than sexual themes or "naughty words". As a South Park character once said "horrific deplorable violence is okay as long a people don't say naughty words".
Not a comment on the argument whether Bryke had an imperative to make a homosexual character on The Legend of Korra or not; just making the observation of what usually USA parents are more squeamish about.
^This, yes.
I don't think that people are saying story-wise it would be hard to imagine, rather people are questioning how okay Nickelodeon executives and/or the TV censors would be okay with it.
^Also, this. Korra being a lesbian could work. Like any story it could be done right and work well or the writers could just mess up and make it suck. But whether or not it would work in the story had never been the issue.
The whole mindset just makes me think, well maybe Bloomsbury should've made JK Rowling rewrite the whole "wizard" aspect out of her story.
I mean clearly something can't be marketable if it offends the sensibilities of poor conservative moms.
harry potter wasn't even that profitable
if only jkr waited for a time when wizards were socially acceptable
Because wizards are held to the same social stigmas as gay couples by an equally sizable group of people?
Just because there were people who don't like Harry Potter doesn't mean there are as many in comparison. Not to mention the fact that publishing books is cheaper than creating an animated TV show, so it wouldn't be held to the same standards.
The literary community has always been more bold, I think because a lot of people view books as some sort of symbol of freedom of speech and want to fight for that. A children's cartoon show wouldn't get the same amount of respect. The idea that a Saturday morning cartoon can be more than just mindless fun for children is still a fairly new concept.