Hasbro has acquired either.. a majority.. or.. hrmn.. 50%.. is that a Majority, or just a Plurality?....stake in a network, the one that used to be Discovery Kids..
Point being.. They're under fire now for this network, The Hub, because they produce children's toys primarily.. and people fear the network may only be substantial advertising.. which.. sofar is half true.. the programming is heavily built on properties Hasbro owns or liscences..
but.. This has ALWAYS been the way of children's tv, no? either liscencing the property to continue pushing the program, ala Children's Television Network, or vice versa, ala 80's cartoons.
I am a little surprised by this. Cartoons in the 80s and even the early 90s made no attempt to hide their intent to sell merchandise to the children who watched them.
That was the only reason most cartoons were created in the first place back then. Transformers, GI Joe, MASK, and a whole slew of short lived TV shows were created purely for the purpose of selling the already existing toys.
That's pretty much where I eventually fall as well..
I mean, even NOW, the vast majority of kids cartoons exist to sell toys. Certainly all but.. maybe two.. of the 4 Kids line up does.. Cartoon Network, and to a lesser extent, Nickelodeon skews that some, w/ more cartoon for animation's sake output, but even then, the more popular lines become toy franchises...
10 comments:
That is fantastic!
We are an immigrant nation!
The first generation works their fingers to the bone making things.
The next generation goes to college, and innovates new ideas.
The third generation...snowboards and takes improv classes...
Discussionamente!
Hasbro has acquired either.. a majority.. or.. hrmn.. 50%.. is that a Majority, or just a Plurality?....stake in a network, the one that used to be Discovery Kids..
Point being.. They're under fire now for this network, The Hub, because they produce children's toys primarily.. and people fear the network may only be substantial advertising.. which.. sofar is half true.. the programming is heavily built on properties Hasbro owns or liscences..
but.. This has ALWAYS been the way of children's tv, no? either liscencing the property to continue pushing the program, ala Children's Television Network, or vice versa, ala 80's cartoons.
Thoughts?
I am a little surprised by this. Cartoons in the 80s and even the early 90s made no attempt to hide their intent to sell merchandise to the children who watched them.
That was the only reason most cartoons were created in the first place back then. Transformers, GI Joe, MASK, and a whole slew of short lived TV shows were created purely for the purpose of selling the already existing toys.
That's pretty much where I eventually fall as well..
I mean, even NOW, the vast majority of kids cartoons exist to sell toys. Certainly all but.. maybe two.. of the 4 Kids line up does.. Cartoon Network, and to a lesser extent, Nickelodeon skews that some, w/ more cartoon for animation's sake output, but even then, the more popular lines become toy franchises...
I don't know how owning a network is any different for Hasbro than buying one super long commercial.
"and people fear the network may only be substantial advertising"
Which makes it different from every other television network, how?
So.. we're all on the same page, and the other side of this argument is just Stupid?
Basically, yes.
Other side: THEY ARE USING A TELEVISION NETWORK TO ADVERTISE!
Us: ...what else would a television network do?
HEY CAVEMAN!
...
REEEEEEJOICE!
Post a Comment