Cartoon Censorship: Good or Bad?

B

Britsy15

New member
Well, you know the drill. Recently, censorship among cartoons has reached a point where it is almost ridiculous (thought not as bad as it has been, thank god); the word death is banned (as if children are not supposed to know about) violence is contatnly being minimized, blood is extremely rare, and sex/religion is practically non-existant. Censorship is a good thing...to a point. I'm opposed to sex in a childrens show (I'm looking at you, Krifcaulsi); but many networks today take it too far. Several action and comedy shows are unable to reach their full potential due to the infringement of censors. What are my fellow toon-zoners thoughts about this?
 
I don't think censorship is a good thing at all. People in general have common sense about what they'd wish to show kids or not; if something is considered too much for children sell it to teens or adults.
 
Pardon? I don?t believe things are as bad as you say they are. Many of the things that you claim are censored are actually somewhat common in children?s animation.
 
Instead of covering up certain aspects of life that kids will eventually go through or if they aren't going through already, it's the parent's responsibility to explain these things to their child. But as long as the west still has that 'cartoons are foor kids, or if not, full of toilet humor' mentality, it's not going to change anytime soon. But I'm sure this has been said plenty times before.

Look at Japan. To me, I think they've got the right idea when it comes to children's tv censorship. Things aren't sugarcoated, but they know when to draw the line. But then we all know they are more liberal when it comes to things like violence, death, and the occasional perverted joke.
 
Well like I said, they are not as bad as they used to be. The Flash is allowed to punch people now, and the cops in SSM can actually wield real guns (instead of laser blasters); this is more about small touches that detract from a cartoons value. Like Deathstroke being reffered to by his real name, "Slade". Or Aang not being allowed to kill the Fire Lord at the end of Avatar. Or just about every villaing being forced to use the word "destroy" instead of "kill". Or that "suggestive" squierll (Squierl? Squierrel?) character being removed from Animaniacs.
 
Well Really it depends on the show. Most U.S. cartoons THat are aimed for kids don't really have anything bad in them, I'd say that for the most part censorship would apply to anime's wich in case it can be Good & bad, Too much Cencorship & Editing just ruins a Good anime...But then seeing some of the animes in the japanses versions. I find some censorship OK, I mean A lil less blood here or their, or a lil more covering for a scantly clad character is fine with me. But I can see how it would be considered bad..& if a cartoon/anime has to be censored to much...THay should just Sticl to DVD releases or put it on a Channel that most KIds don't watch. But i digrese!:D :p :evil:
 
I’ve seen numerous animated programs in recent years that have mentioned death in one form or another; some of them are action based and some of them are comedy based, but both seem to work against your point. Besides, even animated programs from decades ago suffered from A Team Firing, where bullets never hit anybody and people were seldom injured, so I’m not sure why you’re criticizing today’s children’s animation for a lack of blood and violence. Honestly, the key words are children’s animation; people shouldn’t watch them expecting to see somebody get their innards ripped out.
 
Though I hate to be that prick that responds personally to every post that cantradicts something I said.... thats exactly what I'm going to do:) . I see where you're coming from; But if Aang had been willing to kill his nemesis, then he still would not have been able to, would he? Nickelodeon would probably not have allowed it. The fact that not killing was in his character helped quite a bit, but the writers were still forced to come up with a split-second deus ex machina to make the story work, which I doubt would have been there first choice if they had not known that Nick would prohibit it.
 
A hero not being able to kill the main villain is nothing new. besides the punishment the Firelord got was worse then death. He was a power hungry man forced to live the rest of his like with out any kind of power at all.

Yet still it's nothing new. Even the Real Adventures of Jonny Quest which had no problem killing of 90% of the villains of the week did not kill off the main villain Dr. Surd, but gave him a similar "Fate worse they death" ending.
 
Avatar got away with a ton considering it was on Nickelodeon.

To me a show that can work around censorship issues and limits by standards and practices and still be a good show tend to turn out to be the best.

See Ren and Stimpy before it went to TNN/SpikeTV.
​
 
For the sake of the discussion, I would like for people to read an entry of this Blog that was written by some of the people who worked on American Dragon: Jake Long. They provide some insight as to what BS&P censored, or tried to censor, during the production of the series. There’s also a little story about something that they wanted to do in an episode of “Kim Possible”, but were told that they couldn’t. That is a prime example of censorship, as opposed to some of the other examples that were listed in this thread.
 
Thank you Huntsman:anime: . I wasn't able to think up any terrific examples, but you see what I mean through the blog post, right? The Network interfering with the creator, often for ridiculous reasons.
 
Kricfalusi didn't add any sex to Ren and Stimpy. The homosexual relationship wasn't even as bad as the straight relationships in High School Musical. The sex gag in Sven Hoek was, believe it or not, added by Nickelodeon. An alternate scene can be seen on the DVD release. Stimpy accidently eats a turd, but it's not shown on-screen.
 
Regarding children's programming, I think avoiding ideas and imagery that can be shocking to them is generally a good idea. But those decisions should be based on what is genuinely frightening or confusing to kids, and not on some social engineer's ideas about "protecting" children from anything that doesn't meet their political agenda.

Let's be honest, here. We ALL approve of censorship. Don't agree with me? What's your opinion of child pornography?

I thought so.

Yes, we all think some censorship is OK. We just disagree about how much of it is acceptable. Personally, I think it should be discouraged in most places, but replaced with educating the public about what kind of substance their pop culture contains. Much of the public will not listen (I used to work for a movie theater chain, and was continually shocked by the number of people who had no clue about what the MPAA ratings meant), but that is not the fault of the people who market entertainment. These people won't buy a car without making sure there is nothing in it that is harmful; should we be treating our entertainment with less caution just because it costs less? Education is always an alternative to censorship.
 
A show like Samurai Champloo did something creatively appropriate with the curse words and covering them up with the sound of a record being scratched.

South Park also did creative things and references to curse bleeps on their show.

I think things like that are hilarious and don't hurt the show at all.
​
 
Back
Top