←back to thread

236 points inesranzo | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
giancarlostoro ◴[] No.46231943[source]
This will not end well for Disney, there were certain historical characters removed from Sora 2 because people kept making racist videos that are hard to censor, and it became increasingly unhinged. This feels like another circular investment where Disney is hoping to make money back I'm sure. On the other hand, assuming they do the freemium stuff, I look forward to making a few videos of my daughters favorite Disney princesses "talking" to her.
replies(21): >>46231963 #>>46232027 #>>46232049 #>>46232134 #>>46232217 #>>46232316 #>>46232450 #>>46232484 #>>46232594 #>>46232634 #>>46232732 #>>46232770 #>>46232998 #>>46233138 #>>46233293 #>>46233477 #>>46234040 #>>46234843 #>>46235615 #>>46235942 #>>46236727 #
podgietaru ◴[] No.46232634[source]
I actually straight up don't think they give a shit anymore.

I think decorum works in an environment where decorum is the norm, but we have entered a political moment where that is no longer the case. And I think that this kind of thing bleeds so heavily into culture that they no longer give a shit about having their characters next to it.

They have enough plausible deniability; they did not create the content. I think that's enough for them, in this moment.

replies(6): >>46232863 #>>46233453 #>>46233511 #>>46234688 #>>46234886 #>>46241806 #
afavour ◴[] No.46233511{3}[source]
When I became a parent I was really surprised at how much crap Disney puts out. My previous exposure had just been their blockbuster movies which showed a close attention to detail. But you scratch under the surface and it's an endless pile of awful quality clothing, crappy lunchboxes, that kind of thing. To the point where you assume it's an unauthorized rip off until you discover they license to anyone.

And to say nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature character. They just don't care. And I think it does have an impact: my kids tired of Clubhouse very quickly and have little connection to Mickey and friends. Compare that to say, Dreamworks’ Gabby’s Dollhouse which they loved.

Disney is propped up by its tentpole features but their bench is incredibly weak. There are only so many Blueys you can buy to make up the difference.

replies(11): >>46233578 #>>46233622 #>>46234432 #>>46234699 #>>46234946 #>>46235081 #>>46235477 #>>46235538 #>>46236137 #>>46237541 #>>46237699 #
1. throw0101d ◴[] No.46234432{4}[source]
> And to say nothing of the shoddy quality of their TV shows. Mickey Mouse Clubhouse's lazy CG animation and unimaginative storytelling is shocking given Mickey is supposed to be their signature character.

≤4-year-olds do not care: there's bright colours and motion, and some semblance of story. The point is not to give some kind of lesson, but to distract/entertain (and probably release dopamine). See also Paw Patrol, Spidey Amazing Friends, PJ Masks, etc. None of these seem to have made any attempt at having a 'layer' that appeals to adults.

In some ways I equate this animation style with the algorithmic social media system: meant for 'quick hits'.

Contrast with (e.g.) Bluey.

replies(3): >>46234985 #>>46238463 #>>46238884 #
2. dylan604 ◴[] No.46234985[source]
Bluey is just one show. Disney has an entire network and platform to fill with content. There's not a lot of producers making Bluey level content, yet the vacuum still needs to be filled. Bluey level content also costs more to create than the one step above AI slop to fill that void. Just like not every song on an album will be a banger, there will always be fluff/fill/padding.
replies(3): >>46235703 #>>46237174 #>>46237727 #
3. tietjens ◴[] No.46235703[source]
It’s in too short supply. That level of humor, thoughtfulness, just human care put me into a show parents and kids can relate to.
4. dragontamer ◴[] No.46237174[source]
On a foreign language scale, Bluey and Peppa Pig are around B1- or A2+.

Or in other words: a typical adult needs about one year of self study (or nearly 6 months of more focused intensive study) before they can fully understand a show like Bluey or Peppa Pig.

And maybe half that for substantial understanding. (3 months intensive, 6 months typical self study to reach A2+ / watch Bluey with substantial understanding but not complete understanding).

If I were to guess at Mickey Mouse clubhouse, it's damn near A1 or A0+, it's so repetive and slow that you can learn some words from it.

Yeah, that's a lot more boring than the 'advanced' shows like Bluey or Peppa Pig.

Also note that children are not aware of tools (ie hammers or screwdrivers) yet. So simple learning exercises to know that hammer hammers nail but not screws is the kind of thing needed at pre-school level.

I'd imagine that the appropriate age for Mickey Mouse clubhouse is under 3. Bluey/Peppa Pig are closer to 6 or 7+ year old material.

Or in foreign language levels: B1-ish / 2+ on the American scale.

------

Seriously. Just switch the shows to a different language and the level gap becomes blatantly clear.

In perhaps more Techie terms: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse level of understanding is achievable with Duolingo. Peppa Pig / Bluey (and similar level shows) are so far beyond Duolingo that I bet most Duolingo users will NEVER be able to achieve Bluey-level understanding in a foreign language (and that deep textbook + 1000ish vocab study memorization needs to be done before Bluey can be understood).

------

Maybe the vocab estimate is easiest to understand. Bluey feels like a show that uses 1000 words with mastery (and maybe 2000 hard words as learning exercises in the show).

Mickey Mouse clubhouse uses maybe 250 words with mastery and maybe uses the top1000 list as learning/teaching words.

How (and why??) does Mickey Mouse clubhouse make an ENTIRE song consisting of a single word? (hotdog?) Because it's written for people where 'Hot dog' is a difficult word and needs repetition.

5. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.46237727[source]
Fluff/filler on a banger album will still be decent. And it may even be someone's favorite. The point is that quality is fairly consistent. Not that everything is "peak".

The only real bastion of hope in an ocean of slop is that demand for curwtion will be better than ever. People who want quality will tire of swimming and pay larger premiums for someone to pick out thr nuggets in the rough. Basicslly, the new HBO.

6. singpolyma3 ◴[] No.46238463[source]
This is because parents don't watch with their kids anymore, just hand over the tablet.
7. badc0ffee ◴[] No.46238884[source]
> See also Paw Patrol, Spidey Amazing Friends, PJ Masks, etc.

These shows are honestly fine. They all depict kids working together as a team, solving problems, and navigating socializing with each other. (And in the case of Paw Patrol, some environmentalism. And a few terrible puns.)

It's not like the Smurfs, Rocket Robin Hood, The Mighty Hercules, He-Man, Care Bears, etc. that I watched growing up were that much better.

Meanwhile Prime Video has shows that are basically cartoon cars going through a carwash for an hour. And YouTube has much, much worse junk like rapid-fire 60 second unboxing videos, and morons fake-reacting to various colours of slime.

replies(1): >>46241586 #
8. rightbyte ◴[] No.46241586[source]
Ye strange to pick on Paw Patrol of all bad shows there are for kids. I think it is fine.

How about like the show with the antropomorphed airplanes delivering packets to kids.