How attached are you to your children’s favourite TV characters? Terribly, it seems, judging by the public’s reaction to a recent makeover of 1998’s beloved Bob the Builder.
Really? This is a cartoon, people. Get a grip. But it just shows the extent of our attachment to these loveable characters, that we should get so worked up over their updated appearance.
Bob is the latest victim of the CGI facelift that blighted Thomas the Tank Engine and Fireman Sam before him. In Bob’s case, the original didn’t even reach his tenth birthday before his makers felt he needed revamping. Mattel claims the new Bob "retains the emotional warmth that has always given Bob the Builder a firm place in the hearts of young viewers.” But fans, especially the older, crustier set, beg to differ.
When Mattel decided to give Bob a modern facelift, he faced the wrath of the adult masses, which found his new computer-generated look highly objectionable. The new and not-so-improved Bob was described as “monstrous” (@Barsby3), and another user (Fallout911) claimed that he “looks like the type that overcharges for his work.” Ouch.
In the case of Thomas, the modern cartoon was a vast improvement over the shifty-eyed originals, yet the “tweenifying” of Nickelodeon’s Dora in 2009 was met with disdain.
The full CGI treatment may be necessary in blockbusters, but it doesn’t always do our cartoons any favours, as evidenced by the film adaptation of The Magic Roundabout.
Sometimes, especially in the case of young Bob, it’s a case of don’t fix what isn’t broken. Seems to me that adults are the ones with the nostalgia issues here. It’s doubtful that the new generation of kids is put off by computerized graphics, which is all they’ve ever known.
You tell me: What do you think of the new Bob?
People were also upset about the new CGI-version of this children's TV show.
A pub in England has come up with a solution (or veiled threat, depending on how you look at it) for patrons who let their kids run amuck—forcible constraint.
The sign reads: "To avoid accident and injury to your child whilst the little darling is running around this establishment why not hand the little poppet to a member of staff who will be happy to nail it to your table for you!"
Subtle enough? Of course not everyone gets the joke. Some critics claim the signs make light of a very real problem: child abuse.
Do cell phones belong in schools, or are they just needless distractions to students? A British father was left fuming after his 13-year-old daughter's phone was confiscated—for three weeks.
Elizabeth Tomlinson's phone went off in class, leading the school to seize it. Now her father, Jim, is demanding its return because his daughter has no way to contact him in case of an emergency outside of school hours.
But Salesian School in Surrey, England, is adamant that Elizabeth contravened school policy and must deal with the consequence.
"They are putting children’s safety at risk. Without a shadow of doubt, they are," said Mr. Tomlinson.
“Basically, the school wash their hands of the kids when they go through the school gates, yet they take a phone off Elizabeth that was given to her for her safety. When it comes to her safety outside of school times, they have no right to hold on to that phone."
Tomlinson may have just cause to be concerned, after recent reports of attempted abductions in the area.
While schools have a right to enforce their own policies on school property, they ought to return items that belongs to a student as soon as the last bell tolls. I have to say, I'm not enamoured with the idea of cell phones in school, yet in this case at least, the punishment hardly fits the crime.
You tell me: Should schools have the right to confiscate phones in such cases?
Was it unfair for this school to cancel an entire sporting season admid bullying allegations?
Printer-friendly version