Quoted By:
Because it's aimed at children. And even the vague association of a kids' character with porn, even if it's nothing to do with a company themselves, cannot be tolerated. Because some parents go batshit screaming crazy over things like that. AKA it's a "sensitive" issue. Partly because in the USA at least, there's a huge enormous amount of hypocrisy around anything even vaguely related to kids, re Helen Lovejoy. So if, for any reason, anyone in the world wanted to destroy your cartoon series, be that a rival or competition or whatever, all they'd have to do would be find a whiff of "scandal" and that's the end of that. When I say "children", say it in a Helen Lovejoy voice. Now you understand.
Then of course there's the whole clopper thing. I wouldn't let a kid have a pony either if those sweaty fucking deviants were within smelling range of a Toys R Us. Or whatever they have nowadays. Amazon. I dunno.
It's because you can't have "porn" and "children" even within 1,000 miles of each other. Even in the same sentence is risking it.
"Unappealing" is due to shitty cheap modern computer animation and fads in such. Stuff that would have been weird Czech "art" animation 30 years ago is now on Nick as soon as the kids get in from school.
Nick, with Rugrats and their other early series, pioneered a non-realist, and really quite "ugly" style of animation. Later followers copied it without understanding why, then others copied then. That's why modern cartoons are fuck-ugly. In the old Warner Bros days, cartoons had to earn their keep being shown in cinemas, for adults and kids alike, between or before films. So you couldn't get away with garbage. Nowadays it's cheaper to get the Koreans to animate something you'd expect to see through a microscope focussed on vulture faeces, than it is to pay some 20-yr-old drama graduate to fart through a drinking straw. So standards have fallen.
