How come Gen Urobuchi hasn't work on Super Sentai?

[kuroihikari]

I said, credit is given where credit is due and some kids are smart, that doesn't include all of them. Great, you got a nephew who has brains, kudos. Maybe you're one of the lucky few to have that. Still doesn't denounce that there are kids who act older then they should, nor does it mean there aren't those who are negatively affected by the programming, cause there are.

Mindless fun is the only thing children get nowadays, which isn't healthy. There is nothing to make them question, or think about something, unless you sit them in front of an older show. Flawed people with no consequence is a fact of life, that they must learn. You can hide it, but eventually they will get smacked right in the face by it. There is no perfect world or perfect person, and bad people do get away with crap. It's not right, but it's life. All you can do is teach them to not be that, to be the better person. That's what you are supposed to do as a parent. NOT THE TV.

Right and wrong is not black and white. You should know this, and I question your intelligence when you believe kids should be shielded from that fact. 'Cause that is what you are implying in all your posts from what I can see.

You may believe what you want though, and you can have an optimistic outlook on things; that's your choice. Though there is no way in hell your view is the end all be all, we have just as much validity as you do in this topic.

I don't understand where you're going. My example for my entire point was that Kou (a 90s character) was a hero who got away with too much. So, what's the problem?

You were insisting that today's shows are dumbing down the youth, and I challenged you to prove it, and you failed. Now you're insisting that all shows nowadays shield you from right and wrong, and once again I challenge you to prove it. The shows my nephew watches are not devoid of good values. There's a Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Ben 10 interspersed with the insanity of Iggy and the Cockroaches and SpongeBob here and there.

And with that, I'll make it clear again:
Yes, I believe it's the parent's job to raise the child. Thus it's their choice over what the kids watch. If a show caters to the idea that a parent will want their child to see this, and makes adjustments to make it easier for the parent to make the decision, then that's all for the better. That's my point.

If the kids ends up screwed because of what they watch, it's ultimately on the parents for making that choice. It's not like there is only one choice.

What you're doing is mixing up which part is the parent's responsibility and which part is the show's responsibility. It's clear that your gripes are towards the parent's.

 

[Black Fang]

Let me explain. Every time means, every single time. Thus every single time is an example.

And I say you are wrong. He was always reprimanded and never praised. This is the first I've heard people scolding you is encouragement to do something.

A reasonable critique realizes what the target audience is. I say it's not reasonable. It's not stopping you from doing so. But I'm gonna say that it's wrong every single time.

And I say you're wrong for saying kids have to be treated to some schmaltzy sunshine-and-roses world because anything resembling reality will hurt their oh-so-precious psyches. It's one thing to have standards, which we should, it's quite another to put children in a bubble and peddle trinkets to them 24/7.

Well, I don't judge shows based on that. I judge them based on whether I enjoy them, which most of the time I do.

Do you really think that if people like us enjoyed these shows we would even be having this conversation? That's what it comes down to for everyone. It's precisely the fact these shows have content like this that contributes to me not enjoying them. You haughtily dismiss that as being "too grown up".

What if an adult doesn't like an 80s or 90s toku? Is he too grown up too? Because according to you the content in those shows flat out isn't appropriate for children.

 

[Murphy]

I would actually be for the return of the Hays Code or something like it in the US. But that's a far cry from saying "make shows as dumbed down as possible".

Hang on. Haaaaang on.

You would support the return of a code that banned mocking religion, any kind of blaspheming against Christianity (and Christianity alone), any portrayals of homosexuality, or any portrayals of interracial relationships, and demanded that films treat the US flag with a frankly creepy reverence?

...

Well, then.

 

[Black Fang]

You would support the return of a code that banned mocking religion, any kind of blaspheming against Christianity (and Christianity alone), any portrayals of homosexuality, or any portrayals of interracial relationships, and demanded that films treat the US flag with a frankly creepy reverence?

Tell me if what we have now is so much better. Christianity and (to a certain extent) Judaism is routinely ridiculed in ways you'd never see with Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism (a faux New Age version of the latter two in fact being held to that creepy reverence you talk of); the homosexuality that is portrayed is always men as valley girls and women as the fantasies of straight boys, both whom must wear their sexuality on their sleeves (so much for tolerance), and any form of American patriotism is deemed "extremist" or "intolerant", while on the other hand any patriotic feelings toward other countries (particularly Third World countries) is deemed good. And my ancestry is that of a Third World country, so don't start jumping on me for that.

And all that stuff affects adults just as much as children.

 

[Murphy]

Tell me if what we have now is so much better. Christianity and (to a certain extent) Judaism is routinely ridiculed in ways you'd never see with Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism (a faux New Age version of the latter two in fact being held to that creepy reverence you talk of); the homosexuality that is portrayed is always men as valley girls and women as the fantasies of straight boys, both whom must wear their sexuality on their sleeves (so much for tolerance), and any form of American patriotism is deemed "extremist" or "intolerant", while on the other hand any patriotic feelings toward other countries (particularly Third World countries) is deemed good. And my ancestry is that of a Third World country, so don't start jumping on me for that.

And all that stuff affects adults just as much as children.

Wow, I genuinely expected you to say 'no, of course not, I had no idea that the Hays Code explicitly bans depicting interracial relationships, or that it banned mocking Christianity or blaspheming, it would be insane to support the return of something like that' and this would turn out to just be an honest mistake.

Leaving aside entirely the difference between mocking Christianity, a powerful religion that influences public policy in the US, and mocking religions which are frequently treated poorly in the US or how actually American patriotism really is creepy - seriously, the rest of the world looks at what the US calls patriotism and is weirded out by how insanely overboard and jingoistic it is; and leaving aside how I actually agree that Hollywood's portrayal of gay people is incredibly bigoted ...

When you suggest the return of the Hays Code, you are literally suggesting that interracial relationships should be banned from movies; that gay people should never be portrayed in movies; that blaspheming against the deities of a single powerful religion should be outright banned.

Do I think what we have now is better? Yes! Yes, I do! I'm very much in favour of not having miscegenation laws.

 

[Black Fang]

Leaving aside entirely the difference between mocking Christianity, a powerful religion that influences public policy in the US

In post-1968 America? Really? Where? Anyone would might want to influence policy because of their Christian values is crucified by the media and academia.

American patriotism really is creepy - seriously, the rest of the world looks at what the US calls patriotism and is weirded out by how insanely overboard and jingoistic it is

And from what ivory tower academic did you get that from? First, define what you think the US considers patriotism and I'll see whether its actually true or a Hollywood stereotype. I can say the same thing about any form of patriotism from any country, but I don't think that would be very PC.

and leaving aside how I actually agree that Hollywood's portrayal of gay people is incredibly bigoted ...

Yet these are the exact same people who claim to worship homosexuality, have made being gay so chic that coming out the closet is now seen as a mere publicity statement, and routinely condemns those who disagree as the bigots. It's all projection.

When you suggest the return of the Hays Code, you are literally suggesting that interracial relationships should be banned from movies; that gay people should never be portrayed in movies; that blaspheming against the deities of a single powerful religion should be outright banned.

That's what you say. I am for a return of standards that uplift the founding institutions of the country and have positive effects on the culture, and the discouragement or censoring of things that have the opposite. Do you think any sane country advocates the propagation of things that put down its own history and culture? Apparently though the postwar West feels it has to.

Do I think what we have now is better? Yes! Yes, I do! I'm very much in favour of not having miscegenation laws.

What does the Hays Code have to do with miscegenation laws? The Hays Code was about the media could portray, not what laws a local or state government could put down. The Hays Code does not revolve around miscegenation anyway.

What we have now is a trashing of the nuclear family for promiscuity and unwed parenting, "Western" religion for "exotic" Eastern paganism (which is the way the media really portrays it, and in fact should be offensive to real Hindus and Buddhists), anything remotely patriotic for "multiculturalism" that is not inductive for a polyglot nation (hello Austria-Hungary), and the promotion of cultural ideas that would offend any religious person, much less Christians. Yeah, that's quite an improvement.

 

[Murphy]

In post-1968 America? Really? Where? Anyone would might want to influence policy because of their Christian values is crucified by the media and academia.

Idaho bill outlined by Republican Lynn Luker, backed by Christian group Cornerstone Family Council, last Tuesday outlined a bill allowing doctors and police officers to refuse service to LGBT people if their 'traditional religion' forbade it.

A similar bill was recently struck down in Kansas.

Lunatics suggesting that Barack Obama is a Muslim is actually considered a subject for political discourse.

And from what ivory tower academic did you get that from? First, define what you think the US considers patriotism and I'll see whether its actually true or a Hollywood stereotype. I can say the same thing about any form of patriotism from any country, but I don't think that would be very PC.

From the ivory tower academic of being from outside the US and seeing how people respond to the US' weird brand of patriotism. Which is, almost without exception, 'what creepy nationalists with a jingoism problem'.

Not to mention 'American exceptionalism', which just says everything, doesn't it.

Yet these are the exact same people who claim to worship homosexuality, have made being gay so chic that coming out the closet is now seen as a mere publicity statement, and routinely condemns those who disagree as the bigots. It's all projection.

... Well, now this is just getting kind of weird. 'Have made being gay so chic'? Even in Hollywood, there are barely any gay characters, I think you're overestimating how well-loved it is.

That's what you say. I am for a return of standards that uplift the founding institutions of the country and have positive effects on the culture, and the discouragement or censoring of things that have the opposite. Do you think any sane country advocates the propagation of things that put down its own history and culture? Apparently though the postwar West feels it has to.

For someone who's all 'yay US' you - really don't like the First Amendment, do you? I mean, you're actually advocating censorship of anything that doesn't praise you.

What about portrayals of historical events that don't show the US in a positive light? Like, for example, dropping nuclear bombs on a country, or the violence against Native Americans. Are you against those being shown?

Also, yes, I do think a sane country permits things that put down its history and culture. Because we're not talking about advocating things, are we: You're talking about censorship, and the opposite of that is just allowing it.

What does the Hays Code have to do with miscegenation laws? The Hays Code was about the media could portray, not what laws a local or state government could put down. The Hays Code does not revolve around miscegenation anyway.

Article II, section 6: Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.

Right there in black and white. That is what you support. You can't claim to simultaneously support the Hay Code and be fine with interracial relationships, it has an entire point banning it.

What we have now is a trashing of the nuclear family for promiscuity and unwed parenting, "Western" religion for "exotic" Eastern paganism (which is the way the media really portrays it, and in fact should be offensive to real Hindus and Buddhists), anything remotely patriotic for "multiculturalism" that is not inductive for a polyglot nation (hello Austria-Hungary), and the promotion of cultural ideas that would offend any religious person, much less Christians. Yeah, that's quite an improvement.

Oh good god the Tea Party is here, run away, run away.

The nuclear family is a very recent concept, and whether you believe that it's the ideal or not, I personally don't hold an opinion on that, it is not the be all and end all of either family or someone's sex life. I wouldn't say it's 'trashing' it to portray people not adhering to it.

I realise 'western' is in scare quotes, so I assume you already realise this, but try to keep in mind that Christianity originates from the Middle East. The legendary figure it revolves around comes from Palestine.

But really, whether or not any of these things are offensive is wholly beside the point: You cannot advocate the wholesale censorship from film of anything which you personally do not like, irregardless of whether you believe doing so will cause an improvement in society.

That - and the fact that you are apparently chill with a ban on showing interracial relationships - is the only point that is really worth responding to: That you can claim the right to free speech, or you can advocate censorshi - argh, Jesus Christ, nearly lost my entire post there - p, but not both.

 

[kuroihikari]

And I say you are wrong. He was always reprimanded and never praised. This is the first I've heard people scolding you is encouragement to do something.

So he was told off. Whooop-de-doo. Rin still happily fought beside him, still took special care of him. Like I said, no consequences.

Compare it to shows like Ben 10 where every time Ben screwed up because he decided to miss out on his responsibilities someone he cared for, or him, got hurt.

And I say you're wrong for saying kids have to be treated to some schmaltzy sunshine-and-roses world because anything resembling reality will hurt their oh-so-precious psyches. It's one thing to have standards, which we should, it's quite another to put children in a bubble and peddle trinkets to them 24/7.

But I'm not saying they must be treated to a sunshine-and-roses world. None of the recent Sentai are a sunshine-and-roses world. Is there nothing but extremes you guys see?

Do you really think that if people like us enjoyed these shows we would even be having this conversation? That's what it comes down to for everyone. It's precisely the fact these shows have content like this that contributes to me not enjoying them. You haughtily dismiss that as being "too grown up".

But you're making it look like it's an assault on your intelligence: They're not. They're reasonably written kids shows for the kids of today.

And for the record, nowhere did I say anything about there being a problem with being too grown up. Stop making strawman arguments. If a kids' show is too kiddie for me, than that's all fine, because it's a kids' show and I'm not a kid.

What if an adult doesn't like an 80s or 90s toku? Is he too grown up too? Because according to you the content in those shows flat out isn't appropriate for children.

No, according to me broadcast standards in the 90s isn't the same as broadcast standards of today.

 

[Black Fang]

Idaho bill outlined by Republican Lynn Luker, backed by Christian group Cornerstone Family Council, last Tuesday outlined a bill allowing doctors and police officers to refuse service to LGBT people if their 'traditional religion' forbade it.

First, is this guy a prominent figure in US politics? How many people have even heard of him?
Second, are you saying people must compromise their beliefs because of coercion from a law?

Lunatics suggesting that Barack Obama is a Muslim is actually considered a subject for political discourse.

Why is that lunacy? You can't just throw out something as lunacy just because you may not agree with it. For all the crowing the media does about him being a Christian, his viewpoints and policies aren't friendly to Christians or religious people, period. His sympathies always seem to lie with the more radical of Islamist organizations. Both his fathers were Muslim and he was raised in Indonesia by the second father for a period in his life. He was quoted about his "Muslim faith" in the 2008 election before George Stephanopoulos so kindly corrected him (something that drew some folks' suspicions). He once said the call to prayer was the most beautiful sound to him. There are Muslims who claim that if your father was a Muslim you are one by default no matter what.

What do I think? I have no idea. I think his religion is more or less simply "anti-West" and pseudo-Marxism than Islam or Christianity.

From the ivory tower academic of being from outside the US and seeing how people respond to the US' weird brand of patriotism. Which is, almost without exception, 'what creepy nationalists with a jingoism problem'.

Not to mention 'American exceptionalism', which just says everything, doesn't it.

Um, no it doesn't. Why isn't America exceptional? It's the manifestation of Enlightenment liberalism and created the best form of government the world has yet seen. That it's had its bumps in the road is because humans are flawed beings, not from some inherent flaw in the system.

You still haven't defined what "jingoistic patriotism" is. What if I go and call China's displays of patriotism jingoistic?

... Well, now this is just getting kind of weird. 'Have made being gay so chic'? Even in Hollywood, there are barely any gay characters, I think you're overestimating how well-loved it is.

Why are all these celebrities wanting to steal spotlight time by saying they're gay then? It's not exactly been detrimental to them, in fact quite the opposite. Barely any gay characters? How? Seems to me a lot of TV today wants to put in some token gay character for no real reason other than "diversity".

For someone who's all 'yay US' you - really don't like the First Amendment, do you? I mean, you're actually advocating censorship of anything that doesn't praise you.

There's free speech and then there's yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. There's free speech and then there's seditious speech. Free speech doesn't give you license to say and do anything. Common sense tells you there must be some standards. And no nation that's sane allows its own culture and values to be routinely denigrated and others put up in its place like golden calves.

What about portrayals of historical events that don't show the US in a positive light? Like, for example, dropping nuclear bombs on a country, or the violence against Native Americans. Are you against those being shown?

What does that have to do with the Hays Code? Let's put aside the nuclear bombs thing - throwing that out there shows you clearly have no understanding of the context of that event. There were plenty of movies made during the Hays Code that wasn't always kind to past Americans. There's a difference between criticism of the past and outright trashing of the nation. American media has been doing the latter ever since these standards were eliminated.

Article II, section 6: Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.

Right there in black and white. That is what you support. You can't claim to simultaneously support the Hay Code and be fine with interracial relationships, it has an entire point banning it.

I guess we should throw out the Constitution then because the slavery issue wasn't immediately resolved then and there. The whole document is rotten, right? Really, this is like saying someone who's against marijuana is implying that people should go get stone drunk.

Why don't you stop focusing on one point and look at the big picture.

Oh good god the Tea Party is here, run away, run away.

Just by this derision I can see you've bought into the anti-Western media hype and are not worth the time to argue with. But I'll break down your drivel anyway:

The nuclear family is a very recent concept, and whether you believe that it's the ideal or not, I personally don't hold an opinion on that, it is not the be all and end all of either family or someone's sex life. I wouldn't say it's 'trashing' it to portray people not adhering to it.

It's not something to discourage either and the opposite a thing to promote. The nuclear family is a building block of society in general, not just the West. And it's not just those horrible Christians who would object to the lack of its advocacy in today's media.

I realise 'western' is in scare quotes, so I assume you already realise this, but try to keep in mind that Christianity originates from the Middle East. The legendary figure it revolves around comes from Palestine.

Why thank you, Captain Obvious. That's such an obscure fact you've dug up for us.

I'm well aware of Christianity's origins. But just as it was countries other than India that became the real propagates of Buddhism rather than India itself, Europe made Christianity its own and Christianity made modern Europe.

That - and the fact that you are apparently chill with a ban on showing interracial relationships - is the only point that is really worth responding to

So you take one aspect of the Code and make it all about that. Is China defined by Mao Zedong? Does female circumcision define Islam? You sound personally offended by something I wasn't even talking about that happens to be part of something else.

So he was told off. Whooop-de-doo. Rin still happily fought beside him, still took special care of him. Like I said, no consequences.

Would you rather she kill him or what? Maybe throw him in hell with Akomaru to keep him company.

Should Luckyuro and Candelira be allowed to wander free? Sure they joined the good guys but they participated in much worse things than Kou ever did.

But you're making it look like it's an assault on your intelligence: They're not. They're reasonably written kids shows for the kids of today.

Then let me ask you this. If we removed all the over-the-top wacky cartoony aspects of modern Sentai and Rider, toned down the gimmicky toy factor just a bit, and kept everything else the same, kids would not want to watch it?

 

[Painted_Outlaw]

I haven't seen Jetman, but from what I've read, Gai is a good example. A flawed hero by all means of the word, and his flaws did end up with a consequence, one that reverberated up to his Gokaiger episode.

I really, really doubt that that happened to Gai because Inoue thought: "You know, I spent this time showing Gai get on good terms with Ryu; but, he still needs a lesson.. I know, I'll have him frak up his friend's wedding; dohoho, I'm a genius!"