|
|
|
AschfahlDahlia generated a random number between
1 and 999 ...
517!
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:23 pm
 *The above image carries no reference towards the thread... it's just a weird picture... and the giver felt like sharing*Has anyone heard about them revamping Strawberry Shortcake and Rainbow Brite to fit into the new generation of young children???
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:18 pm
Bah! Are they really? Everything they have touched they have ripped apart because, 'it isn't appropriate for children!' Appearntly, bugs bunny teaches children to cross dress and be violent while the cookie monster teaches us that it's okay to be 'addicted' to something. Oh, and that junk foods are all we need or something like that. >< They need to leave old shows alone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:30 am
isn't it the same thing with Disney movies ...when we are young we don't see or understand the dirty jokes but as we get older we seem we realize there is always a joke or perverted part that we missed a long time ago.... 3nodding 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:18 am
Well, with Disney, they try to make things family friendly so that everyone can enjoy them. A young child is not going to understand subtle undertones. I'm sure they are trying to make them more hip for the upcoming generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:55 pm
Newer than what they have been playing on Sat. mornings? The new Carebears and Strawberry Short-Cake that's been on here for a year or so aren't too bad, so far. I worried at first because most of what they remake (including the remade Disney movies) have lost their charm. Or should I rephrase it to they have rewritten the story lines, characters but didn't feel like changing the name?
I hope they aren't changing the Strawberry Short-Cake that's been out there. But what do I know, maybe its like the purple telitubbie that was "turning kids gay".... or was that Bert and Ernie (heavy sarcasm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:30 pm
Interestingly, I have found the Smurfs in the toy section... haven't seen the show that caused a resurgence in selling the toys, but perhaps I don't want to. Too bad I didn't hang on to my little 3" plastic smurf collection...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:07 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:16 pm
Oh dear, will Strawberry now proudly bare a pierced (or pregnant!) belly with friggin fishnet tights and shorts so short half her a** is poking out? (can you tell I absolutely hate Bratz dolls?). Gah, checked link. I very much prefer the old, non-cell phone addicted version. And what the hell are the doing to care-bears?! 'SLIMMING' them down?! They're stuffed bears for Cripe's sake! Leave 'em pudgy and cute before I back-hand you! Less attitude a more muscle for TMNT?! Their attitude was what made that show! The anger...it's boiling...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:03 am
Oh man, I just looked at the link, that teenie boppin thing isn't what they have been showing on Sat. morning cartoons here. This thing is aweful.
Cries for the time before. What are these shows telling kids? (Charamath, I too hated the BRatz. I think Metel or someone was trying to shut them down, I cheer for the shut down)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:09 am
gonk I mean, the new one is cute and all...but it just lacks the charm the original Strawberry Shortcake had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:45 am
I suppose I never liked Strawberry Shortcake to begin with. I like this remake, it looks nice.
I think Bratz have been sued by Matel and they can't make them anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:49 am
They ruined My Little Pony too! It's not as bad but now I see comertials for all of these curvy little ponies. it makes me sad becuase I was a huge fan in the day and I can't even find those movies anywhere now and when i do they are suually cut or edited...
this is sad - they can't come up with anything new and original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:39 pm
Gaaah! What's with the victorian naughty picture that started this thread?!?
I've got to check with my fellow admins to see if it's okay to post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:21 pm
But it's not baring skin, just giant, scary bloomers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:59 pm
*Shudder* Can't these people come up with an original thought? Why must they defile the old stuff? As to the picture in the original post, that's not naughty. It depicts Victorian times when ladies wore girdles and other types of torture devices that would supposedly make them "attractive." Cruel, yes, but not naughty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
