I don't think Fritz The Cat would have it's own page if it were pornographic. And it's not porn. Quoting Wikipedia,
"It focuses on Fritz (voiced by Skip Hinnant), an anthropomorphic feline in mid-1960s New York City who explores the ideals of hedonism and sociopolitical consciousness. The film is a satire focusing on American college life of the era, race relations, the free love movement, and left- and right-wing politics. Fritz the Cat is the most successful independent animated feature of all time, grossing over $100 million worldwide.[5]"
If you go on the page, you can see it was made by Ralph Bakshi in 1972 and was the fist X-rated animation ever, well before the furry movement. You can tell how vintage it is just by looking at it. I'd say Keep Until Better Image Suggested. Even if it were porn, that's further proof that not all animation is for children.
edited 11th Jul '13 3:40:26 AM by Rethkir
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
I think the image is illustrating a defiance to the trope, as Ralph Bakshi wanted. It says "Rated X" clearly and something that would never appear in a kids show depicted, yet parents still let their kids watch. Without knowing about Ralph Bakshi's intentions to break this perception, it may be somewhat confusing.
Without going to the work's page or to wikipedia, how is a reader expected to know what the image is about? It shows a boy-cat groping a girl-cat and boasts being x-rated. That looks like furry porn to me. A page image should be understandable without having to go to any other page.
Anyway, it is a bad example because it doesn't show that people assume animated works to be for children, it shows that sometimes that assumption is wrong.
edited 11th Jul '13 5:18:51 AM by dargor17
Hi
Keep Until Better Image Suggested
Yeah, I agree on keeping unless someone has something better.
The complaint in post 4 doesn't make any sense. It's very clear from the image what it's about. It's about an animated film obviously not aimed at minors.
Now, what I will agree on is that it's not terribly illustrative. It's an aversion to a collective belief that animation is kiddy, so it doesn't really illustrate perfectly. Granted, I think the image is fine because it's clear that the over the topness of the image is in response to this belief.
I'd say keep until a better image suggested.
The only thing I can think of is a Netflix suggestion or something, suggesting kiddy shows because you watched a mature animated work. But that would be a pain to get.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
If had and regularly used a Netflix account my viewing habits could probably net that within five minutes of dicking around...
Boom, a bunch of anime with MLP smack dab in the middle.
edited 11th Jul '13 2:41:28 PM by shoboni
Ok, but I would at least change the caption to something like "Are you sure it's not G rated?", as was suggested in a previous thread, as it shows better the attitude the page is about.
Hi
Clock is set.
Somebody get this freaking duck away from me!
What happened to the image of the pre-teen kid happily holding up a DVD of a hentai anime (La Blue Girl, I believe) that he'd apparently received as a gift?
Moved to What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids?.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI'm fine with the current. There's no need for further discussion.
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
Hi
Clock's up; locking for inactivity. No action is to be taken based on this thread.
Quoting laconic, the page is about "The misguided belief that all animation is only for children". Current image looks like the poster of a furry porn movie. It might illustrate that the belief is misguided, but it's not really the point. It does nothing to illustrate the belief in the first place. I think it should be pulled, because it's misleading.