Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese, aka 'Casino'.

One of the few remaining greats.

I agree Andor has better writing.

I could be crazy, but I feel that there is a 'sanitzation' happening, and it could be a multi-faceted thing.

Of course there is 'violence' but it's generally very clean and surreal, even when they are trying really hard to make it dirty, it just feels fake.

It might even just be bland writing by people with limited life experience?

But I feel that we are all 'careful about what we say' in a way we were not before.

On Smartless and Conan all the actors just tell each other how much they 'love one aother', it's purid, a bit revolting. ('aka' I hope you consider me for you next project and don't think I'm one of the 'bad people').

Where are the deviants? Wierdos? Trolls? Odd looking people?

Just Google 'Character Actor' - and you get a long list of old guys!

Scorsese packs his films with tons of very regular looking people, and the production design embellishes but it feels very real, just part of why I think his villains are more 'scary'.

The Joe Pesci "You Think I'm Funny?" from Goodfellas is one of the most unsettling bits in cinema - and consider how simple the scene is and even the relative power dynaic of the characters. He's not the head of the mob, or even a mass murderer like 'Dahmer'.

And probaably 'globalism' aka 'global audiences' is a primary factor among others.

Anyhow - Kermit himself is a classic case.

Have a look at this classic Kermit and Cookie Monster, the later throws a wrench into Kermits thing and he gets pissed. For some reason that level of emotional reality just does not exist on Barney or Paw Patrol.

Watching Paw Patrol feels dystopian, I watch my newphews watching that and it feels more like a 'visual opioid' than anything else.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=kermit+being+violent&client=...



Well said.

Paw Patrol and Daniel Tiger are safe and inoffensive and inclusive and diverse and socially correct. Its suits some parents, I guess?

That’s why my 4 year old watches Bugs Bunny from the 40s-70s. People and shit blowing up. Guns and bombs and violence and LAUGHTER. Bugs saying, “what the heck!” And it’s ok.

yes, some kids are taught not to say “what the heck”, probably the same ones taught not to say “hate”? It’s NOT ok you hate beets, damn it. Well, you can hate them but don’t use THAT word.

I saw a couple of “Bluey” episodes yesterday (the ones Disney temporarily banned for discussing farts). I was impressed. Maybe because it’s Australian it does not have the same modern American values being taught to kids.


Oh classic bugs, yes.

Bugs and Kermit are essentially 'adults' whereas newer kids characters are themselves kind of infantalized, obviously not children, but removed from all hints of potential conflict or ascerbic nature.

I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.

I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..


> Bugs and Kermit are essentially 'adults' whereas newer kids characters are themselves kind of infantalized, obviously not children, but removed from all hints of potential conflict or ascerbic nature.

Quite frequently, they are explicitly children (e.g., PJ Masks, where, AFAIK, the existence of adults is implied but never shown, Ada Twist, Scientist, where the focal characters are children, with adults in supporting roles, etc.)

But, no, generally there is plenty of conflict, and often more realistic conflict than in older kids programming. Murderous intent and lethal violence (both serious and played for laughs) are less common than in children’s programs when I waa growing up, but... I don't see thr problem with that. .

> I have some dealings with Spin Master (aka Paw Patrol) and it's 100% 'just business'. It's just a product like anything else: eyeballs, distribution, attention, view count etc..

As if that has ever not been the case with most kids programming (with the biggest counterexamples being some of the early leaders in inoffensive, conflict-minimizsd TV, like pre-HBO Sesame Street.)

> I really do feel there's something very creepy and ultimately very obvious happening right in front of us, that we just won't see until retrospect becuase it wasn't a purposeful characterization.

That seems, historically, to be a very common reaction people have to situations that don’t fit the subconscious expectations of their formative years.


Phineas and Ferb is a very well written children's show on Disney, that is somehow able to construct amusing characters with some substance, an A & a B plot in every episode, clever writing and on the whole completely inoffensive, “family friendly” and just generally nice.

My children (25, 22 and 17) have long outgrown it, but when they are all home together for the holidays, will sometimes put it on.


> Paw Patrol and Daniel Tiger are safe and inoffensive and inclusive and diverse and socially correct

Someone has missed the Paw Patrol discourse.


Possibly. Can you explain?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: