THOSE DAMN BASTARDS!!!!!!!

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Sat Nov 02, 2002 11:45 pm

It was just that Don went in saying "no editing" on his short films, then they agreed to show it, then they changed their mind.

It's like they agreed to it saying they wouldn't censor it, hoping they could pressure him into letting them edit it before it actually showed. Only he didn't so, they yanked it.

SarahtheBoring · Post by **SarahtheBoring** » Sun Nov 03, 2002 3:08 am

Okay, that does suck. It's shady all around.

Meh. You do have to appreciate the ...irony? aptness? though, as mentioned, of having "Rejected" be rejected... oh well.

Anime Jedi · Post by **Anime Jedi** » Sun Nov 03, 2002 12:01 pm

UncleMilo wrote:The Corporates behind Televised animation still believe and market animation for BOYS ages 6 - 12

IF you are a girl, or a boy over the age of 12, you don't watch animation.

This is why Escaflowne was so MANGLED... it was edited for the approval of BOYS ages 6 - 12.

An EXEC was asked how the show tested with girls ages 6 - 12 and the exec said "Girls don't watch cartoons."

Yah, I heard this before. I think it's just so funny and sad at the same time.

Well, it's not our fault if they lose a lot of business, just because they don't know their audience.

edowardo2 · Post by **edowardo2** » Mon Nov 04, 2002 12:36 am

Oh so what was rejected?

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Mon Nov 04, 2002 10:05 am

The short film "Rejected"

kinda ironic.

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Mon Nov 04, 2002 12:36 pm

UncleMilo wrote:Perhaps no one has been paying attention to the madness that exists within broadcast television here in the US.

i dont wanna go off and dis CN
i think we know must, but not the whole
besides, will all that stupid ppl running around complaining about what we can and cant put on tv, who knows