wankgate | 208: i need my daily dose of cringe and disgust

208: i need my daily dose of cringe and disgust

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

oh no, they'll sell a few t-shirts at hot topic, truly it's a capitalist hellscape.

hey anon, you know there's a grey space between glorified commercial and having zero merchandise associated with a project whatsoever?

keep moving these goalposts to pretend your tumblrina series is immune to criticism, tittybaby

https://wankgate.dreamwidth.org/55418.html?thread=213784442#cmt213784442 hey i'm gonna relink my original comment since you didn't seem to read it. especially the parts where i said "i'm not super fond of the new show" and "i may not like everything this show is doing". the goalposts weren't moved. i said it had something to it besides empty capitalism, not that it had zero capitalist motivation. the original show *only* had empty capitalism in it and that's why it looked like utter shit

but hey, apparently pointing out that the original show was a garbage toy commercial is the same as stanning for the new she-ra, who knew?

you really...think they're making this just for fun and not to make money

hey anon, you know there's a grey space between glorified commercial and having zero merchandise associated with a project whatsoever?

i mean, what's the difference if they're trying to sell toys or if they're trying to sell shirts or if they're trying to sell some other form of merchandise

trying to peddle a product is still trying to peddle a product

because one exists for the sole purpose of selling a product. it's a commercial.

one just happens to have merchandise associated with it. the point of the show isn't, exclusively, to sell that merchandise.

the point of virtually every cartoon is to sell merchandise. they're all commercials.

holy shit how are you this obtuse?

i don't know a single person who ever had a rugrats toy. or even a t-shirt. but that was one of the most successful cartoon of the 90s.

or to use a more comparable example as a show on a streaming service that everyone here hates for one reason or another, for all of vld's infamous success, i don't really ever hear merchandise as part of the conversation. i know toys for it exist, but they're not the hot toys all the kids are buying. and yet it lasted for eight seasons worth of episodes.

like idk, anon, maybe you're the wrong one here. merchandise is not the sole source of revenue for a cartoon, and hasn't even been the most important source in the case of a lot of commercially successful shows.

it's more like merchandise for modern shows has evolved into something more than just toys in the 80s. iirc, VLD is a exclusive netflix show, so they're probably getting money for having people buying subscription for streaming or something. and there's the bluray/dvds/whatever.

back in the 80s you couldn't really do more than watch the show and buy the toys. i feel that the market of how to sell things has changed a lot in this day and it's not as obvious as it was before.

that's not really netflix's business model. they don't use individual exclusives as a means of selling subscriptions (though it certainly helps) and streaming services have by and large reduced the importance of home physical media.

the kids vld is primarily marketed to aren't begging mom and dad to by them a bluray set, because it's an on-demand show. the whole appeal of "being able to watch this at home any time i want" is lost in that format.

exclusives like vld and whatever popularity and prestige they earn have more value as brand enhancement for them. house of cards' runaway popularity and success showed them that. and yes, in the end, that brand value is about gaining and keeping subscriptions, but individual shows aren't really about that.

and even then, that's not merchandising. vld is not a commercial for netlix.

yeah, i should have clarified - the market has moved on from just merchandise now, is what i was trying to say, but i'm honestly not quite sure where they're making their money tbh - apps? advertising? who knows? but shows have become something that are really clearly aiming for name brand recognition and pop culture/meme status.

if you mean dreamworks, they already made their money. netflix pays them for the show.

if you mean netflix, it's like i said, brand prestige. it's a publicly traded company, after all.

i dearly hope this segues into a crazy rant about the jewish stranglehold on hollywood or something, because it sure feels like it's headed that way

I know you're being disingenuous and are not actually too dense to tell the difference, but there's degrees between No Ethical Consumption Under Capitalism (to add another example Avatar the Last Airbender had almost no toys made for it but still ran for years) and a show that literally only exist to fill tv airtime with toys, like what happened in the 80s.

the difference is that many 80s shows, from jem to thundercats, had the TOYS made first and the series as a tie in to promote them. this is what anons mean by glorified commercials

they didn't care much about story telling and that's why most of them were monster of the week kind of episodes, toy designers just created the toy line and then writers were told to write something based on the back of the boxes. if you things/power ups/characters were introduced it's because new toy designs were being planned and writers had to add them in when told.

the series were written as they went, instead of being an actual planned project

you can find modern examples of this, like lego ninjago, but even those are still better than the toy commercial cartoons we were fed in our childhood, so i'll take it.

but yeah, there is a world of difference, whether you like the show's design aesthetic or not, between this new she-ra and the old one.

bawwwwwwwww!!!!!!1111

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

208: i need my daily dose of cringe and disgust

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

(frozen comment) Re: dda

da

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1

Re: da, +1