Lain

It's no secret that censorship in cartoons dates back as far back in to the 1930s with the Hays Code/Motion Picture Production Code [Wikipedia Link]. One notable example during that time was the toning down of Betty Boop's sexuality and lengthening of her dress. To be historical for a moment, one interesting fact is that cartoons were never always aimed for the children demographic but for adults who went to the theatres in the early days and pay money to watch said animation (although even back then, there are cartoons playing there that catered to kids). When the television became a common household item sometime in the 1950s, children had access to the shows. But comparing the cartoons/animated movies of today to what it was in the 90s and earlier, does anyone think things are dumbed down to pander to the kids and/or the PTC (Parent Television Council) and FCC? Not to mention the “interesting” disclaimer on the Looney Tunes: Golden Collection DVD that started from volume 3:

I’m not referring to the cartoons that are aiming for an adult demographic (like Family Guy or South Park) but shows and movies that were meant for kids. Prior to 2000, there were shows and movies that are primarily for the young audience containing elements that probably aren't often seen in today's day and age. Here are some examples:

All Dogs go to Heaven: (1989) Elements of death, gambling, corruption, casinos, greed, betrayal.

The Secret of Nimh: (1982) Dark moments, death, blood, violence

Darkwing Duck: (1991) “Controversial” episode Hot Spells where Gosalyn accidentally sells Darkwing’s soul to the devil.

Johnny Bravo: (1997) Johnny and his never ending quest to hit on and score with a chick. Even if the pretty chick is not who she looks like.

Cow and Chicken: (1997) Mama had a chicken, mama had a cow, dad was proud, he didn’t care how. Special mention to The Red Guy and I. R. Baboon for their unusually large red butts. One of the episodes, before being banned from Cartoon Network did involve stereotyping of lesbianism and showed the munching of certain floor rugs (I’ll leave you all to wrack your brains on this one).

The last two were really aimed for a general audience before the catering to the younger audience occurred during syndication.

Looney Tunes: Numerous occasions of black face, bodily harm, falling from cliffs, racial stereotypes, possible animal cruelty (excluding Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam, in the CBS airing of the episode Long-Haired Hare, they cut out the entire first half of it when Giovanni beats Bugs Bunny up several times with a banjo, harp, tuba, and tying his ears to his tree and snaps him so his head would bang repeatedly on it because Bugs keeps interrupting Giovanni’s rehearsal).

Tom and Jerry: Suicidal tendencies (ugly duckling episode), Mammy Two Shoes portrayed as the stereotype black woman, complete with the dialect (who was later redubbed, then reanimated to a skinny white woman), smoking.

Some quotes worth mentioning:

Source: Even Cartoons Aren’t Safe From Censors

And for further fun, who knew hatching an egg could be so…sexy?


So what do you guys think? Have cartoons these days gone down the politically correct path in order to “satisfy everyone” and not hurt feelings? Has it really dumbed down that much? Or is this just an overreaction?

Articles:
Are Cartoons Tarnished by Censorship
Cartoon Censorship Blamed on 'Politically Correct White Mentality'
Even Cartoons Aren’t Safe From Censors
Banned Cartoons – rotten.com
The Censored Looney Toons/Merrie Melodies Guide
The 6 Creepiest Things Ever Slipped Into Children’s Cartoons


Note: If you want to talk about censorship that takes place while dubbing anime in to English, it would be better suited at the anti-dubbing thread [Link], which touches upon that. The subject of cartoons that are controversial overall and not for one or two single episodes has its own thread [Link] as well.

Grilka

I'm torn on this issue. I mentioned this on another thread, so bare with me. When I grew up, I knew that hitting someone with an anvil would hurt. Explosives will be destructive. Shooting someone can kill that person.

I don't know if kids have dumbed down. Do we as adults assume that kids don't know any better? Or are these censors preventing frivolous lawsuits aimed at the tv and movie studios? I can see people suing these big studios because no one told their kids that violence hurts.

But it should be the parents' responsibility to teach their kids right from wrong. The cartoons can't be the babysitters. But then who is to blame if parents don't take on that responsibility?

Lain

It's a bit hard sometimes because in the western side of the world, cartoons are normally associated with children. Or at least save for the adult cartoons of Family Guy, Drawn Together, etc. I think back then, there have been cartoons that are aimed for kids but at the same time, have a slight appeal to an adults in some way.

I say the western world and its association of anything animated meant for kids because if you look at the scope of Japanese anime, they are not for kids alone but young adults, teenagers, and even the "fun loving" ones that are for the 18+. To borrow Sailor Moon for a moment, apparently one of the guidelines is to include something educational, henceforth the whole "Sailor Says" thing that DiC "lovingly" decided to do when making transitions to English.

I do think parents should teach their kids about the differences of reality and fantasy. Like, Wile E. Coyote can fall off cliffs, get struck by anvils multiple of times, and lived to be in a new episode. Whereas if a human does it, one second flat they're dead. Clearly now, these days you can't show blackface, though that's another topic altogether on whether or not that's offensive.

I'm not saying subtle sexual innuendo and violence make up a great cartoon but it's more of how the story goes. At the same time, I just feel like there are a lot of things being reduced or cut back just to appeal to the younger audience.

Which brings me to my next point: Commercialism and Advertisement. Now I know the PTC and FCC are already a factor but these days, sponsors provide the cash (or getting cash from the show. It could be one way or the other) as a necessary funds for the show. I'm not entirely sure how the process works. But I do remember there were companies and sponsors pulling out from The Jersey Shore (just an example) because of the content and what they represent. I think Skins was among them too. So it seems that if there is a slip up or something offensive in the show or episode, companies will pull out so fast just to not have any association with said show.

And yet, there they are to promote their products and services to their television audience in between commercials.

Good question that could sprout up a whole bunch of answers. Of course, that whole "kids are kids" ideal is bound to spring up somewhere. Sometimes kids can tell the difference and know better, then there are those who could be easily corrupted and confused. Parents could be blamed if they choose not to take up that responsibility (although my parents never really cared if I watched a slew of Looney Tunes and the violence and masochism contained and I turned out all right).

Do we blame the creators and/or stations that made and aired said offensive series? It depends on the audience that the show is aiming for. And with the TV-G/PG/14/etc. rating, it probably wouldn't be hard to determine unless if it was really ambiguous.