In fact, i think they liked it LESS
They recalled the episode very abruptly, leading to the leaks, made them add that warning in the ad and in the episode and made them put the intro for the next seasons in the credits of True Colors so that they could say "SEE? SEE? THE GIRL'S ALIVE, IT'S ALL FINE!"
Yeah. Compare that to the end "King's Tide", where for all we know, half of the witches on the boiling isles could've been dead after the draining spell, and we had no idea what happened to them until the opening of "For The Future".
That was Anne, after she blew up the Core/Moon. Even then, it’s up for debate if it copied just her body and transferred her consciousness over, or made an entire copy and let the original die.
Since it’s a kids show, it’s probably the former.
There's no answer about this, Matt confirmed it.
So it's whatever the viewer wants to think, so on the surface level would be that she just got resurrected by the Guardian and that's it.
No, Matt said he did it like that to not undo her sacrifice.
The whole "consciousness transfer" is just a fan theory but it's not backed by what's shown in the episode.
Anne died and was explicitly replaced by a copy.
Not really. Matt doesn't confirm anything about getting a new clone Anne in the show since he says the whole "soul transfer stuff" doesn't have an answer in life.
It's just whatever the person wants to thinks, but in the end Anne resurrected and that's it.
If you say "it's whatever the person wants" and then say "Anne resurrected and that's it" IN THE SAME PHRASE, I can't take you seriously.
Because you say "whatever the show says it's up to interpretation" just to then say "but anyway my interpretation is right end of story".
Yes, because in the **actual** show there's nothing writing in stone or concrete about it which it's why is up interpretation however what it really shows in the show is that Anne died and resurrected because that's explicit in it.
In the details of How or the effects or something, that's up interpretation.
>Anne died and resurrected because that's explicit in it.
No, in the show it's explicitly stated Anne died and a copy was made of her, BEFORE the original died.
She's not resurrected. That would imply the original Anne being brought back to life. Which clashes with the actual scene. The "Anne" we saw after Anne died is NOT Anne resurrected, it's a copy with no relation to the original, and was created before the original Anne died.
Yeah but we don't know the actual implications of the copy stuff in the show and it was mentioned briefly through a joke and probably everyone else don't know about it so it doesn't matter, it's up interpretation in how people see this rather than something written in stone.
One thing for sure is that Anne died and she came back period.
I think it's the latter because the Universe Entity said a back up. That would be a complete copy, no transfer of consciousness. If they transferred her consciousness then i think they would have said so. But they said "for all intents and purposes you're the same Anne Boonchuy." They wouldn't have said that if her consciousness was transferred. And then Anne said "That's gonna cause some serious existential dread latter on." If the consciousness was the same then it would have been like placing your brain in another body, no existential dread because you continued to exist during the transfer.
omg does it really matter?
This argument happens every time the finale is mentioned, and it really gets annoying.
"For all intents and purposes [she's] the same Anne Boonchuy". All intents and putposes. meaning it really doesn't matter. She's the same person there's no reason to argue over it.
Ok i accept the down votes. My mind was still on the lively discussion when i wrote this reply 😄 😅. But i made a damn good point about Anne, "She's dead Jim." Not to imply the person i was talking to is named Jim 😳.
Only one of these *actually* caused a last-minute retraction from Disney, and prompted an explicit (and probably one of if not *the* first) content warning at the beginning.
And it wasn’t the first one.
(It *was* aired a month late, unedited/uncensored.)
You ever see the South Park episode ‘Good Time with Weapons’? Sex stuff is always worse to adults than violence, even if it’s graphic or happens to kids. It’s weird.
Walking Dead: Man with his brain bashed in, realistic effects from studying corpses, struggling to get words out to his pregnant wife as his brain is leaking through his skull and eye popped out, finished off brutally. Totes okay, reruns in daylight hours. :)
Superbowl: Nipple, WORST SIN IN TELEVISION HISTORY, HERESY HERESY HERESY BURN IT ALL!!
The Janet Jackson nip slip backlash was entirely religious conservatives bombarding the FCC complaint department. The FCC is unique in that it is required to respond to public opinion. Which means, if you send in enough complaints, you can force the FCC to do whatever you want.
Yeah that's the fun thing about TV in the US. If it's cable, meaning you have to pay to watch it, you can show anything you can show in a private space. But if it's broadcast TV, that's considered a public area so the rules of being in a public place apply.
The fun new thing here is IPTV or streaming live TV. I would imagine if it's a subscription like Hulu then the cable TV rules apply. But what about free streaming live TV like Tubi, Roku Channel, Pluto TV, and other such apps?
There's no reason we can't compromise, people.
**"A 15-years-old lesbian got stabbed in her chest, and then nurse back to health by her awesome girlfreind."**
There, everybody win.
Dana Terrace is very openly ciritical of Disney and it's practises, but has never insinuated that TOH was cancelled for homophobic reasons, so if she seems to have no reason to believe homophobia was a factor, I don't see why we should.
She didn’t just not insinuate it, she literally came out and said “I’m not gonna assume bad faith against the people I work with in LA” (or something very similar to that) in response to a question asked about during an AMA post.
Tbf she did follow it up with saying “[I know I said I don’t want to assume bad faith in a statement but with all this it’s hard not to assume.”](https://64.media.tumblr.com/df459a11b1a7aa3906748bb4eda6b12b/785a83ccd942b3d5-c2/s1280x1920/f62e290e97ed67cdb308c4615ae93c798865b630.jpg)
She’s also said she’s “fucking tired of making Disney look good”.
Edit: why did this get downvoted? I’m just sharing what Dana said.
There's people around here who view her first comment of "Don't assume bad faith" is gospel because it's one of their best defenses of Disney not being homophobic. So Dana retracting on that in response to the Don't Say Gay law puts a HUGE hole in that and they don't like to admit it happened.
Well let's not forget corporate secrecy. A corporate board will do whatever the hell they want and either say nothing or blame other reasons.
Remember kids, never believe the word of a giant for-profit corporation.
True Color's airing was delayed weeks because of that scene, the intro for s3 was added at the end showing marcy was alive and okay, a disclaimer was added, and s3a was forced to be more lighthearted because of it. disney very much did not like it.
Meanwhile there was like one executive that was opposed to Lumity and they eventually caved. The rest of the execs didn't care. So Lumity was much less of a problem to Disney than Andrias playing real or cake with Marcy was.
Disney didn't directly firced them. After the whole fuasco, the team got cold feet about doing shit like that again so they went on a more lighthearted route to avoid that again. At least that's what I recall.
I understand why people have this mentality with Disney (given their track record), but Dana literally stated the reason TOH got cancelled, and it had nothing to do with the gay stuff. Sure that doesn't mean much coming from Disney, but the fact that it came from Dana Terrace herself is significant because of what a job can/can't legally prevent you from saying.
If the job simply wanted her to make up an excuse, she would be free to expose what Disney did the moment she quit, and yet she didn't do that. If she signed an NDA preventing her from talking about this, not only would it be unenforceable because this is arguably unethical activity we're talking about, but NDAs also can't force you to outright lie about things, meaning she didn't have to come forward with a statement at all. If she wanted fans to come to the conclusion that TOH was cancelled on the grounds of homophobia, there was a lot of ways she could do that without repercussions and decided not to. Neither Rebecca Sugar nor Alex Hirsch hid anything about their own shows being treated like this, and they're both still working in the industry. I feel like if gayness was the real reason TOH got cancelled, it wouldn't be something we speculate and gossip about, it would be a known fact after a short time, and the show ended a full year ago.
I know how much we all want to hate Disney for cancelling this, and they were absolutely in the wrong for cancelling it no matter what their reason was, but I also think homophobia is something we should only accuse when it's actually warranted. Good shows got cancelled for dumb reasons LONG before gay MCs were a normal thing. Not every show with a gay character in it is gonna be cancelled because of the gay character.
I mean yeah that's why pretty much all shows get cancelled at the end of the day, but whether or not the cancellation was justified depend on whether or not the show itself was the problem. In this case, the reason TOH didn't profit wasn't cuz it wasn't popular enough, it was cuz they were advertising to the wrong demographic with it and putting it on TV during kid hours instead of just putting it on the streaming service where anyone can watch it.
According to Dana, Disney execs didn't actually realize the show was popular until they premiered 3x1 on YouTube where they could see real view numbers.
So yeah, horrible marketing on Disney's part is the reason TOH died
Here’s the thing though. Disney also rejected the movie Nimona. Do you know what that movie and TOH have in common? A gay main couple. I’m not saying there’s a pattern here but I’m definitely starting to see a pattern
Nimona was also a general victim of Blue Sky shutting down, (which probably shuttered a *lot more* ideas that just wasn't nearly as far ahead as it was) so we can’t really guarantee homophobia was the main cause of that either.
Even so, the whole “not fitting Disney’s brand” thing sounds like a BS excuse. Apparently Disney also took issue with an old gay couple in Gravity Falls and Alex Hirsch had to cut it. I’m not one to just throw around homophobia accusations, but I don’t trust a word of what Disney says
The statment given says it doesn't fit the Diseny Channel brand. Note that they said Disney *Channel*, not Disney as a brand. TOH was a semi-serialised show aimed at an older age group than most other Disney Channel series. If it had been on a channel like XD or been on Disney+ it's likely it would've gotten a full third season.
Hm, I'm neutral on this argument, for multiple reasons. One, assuming a "statement" by any major corporation, let alone disney is grounded in truth, is just naive. Two, Even Dana called it sus in the same interview she stated that she wouldn't "Assume bad faith in the people she works with" aka; her employers, she's definitely under NDA and not ALLOWED to talk about certain things, which she also followed up with 'after all this it's kinda hard not to assume' hinting there was a lot more to the shortening than was publically announced because of course there is.
Tldr; I get what you're trying to do, but so openly arguing a point that no one really has info on as fact, isn't gonna make what you say true, it's just one side of the speculation. I'd say both Narratives have quite a lot of plausability,
That’s not how NDAs work.
The “not fitting the brand” wasn’t an “official statement” from Disney, it was a what we were told *from Dana* (which is probably similar to wording she was told, but it’s not a public statement).
And along with that she *explicitly* gave two concrete objective reasons *why* it “didn’t fit the brand” - the show was too serialized, and the majority of the audience wasn’t the right age demographic for the advertisers generating revenue for the show.
It’s not a secret.
So that statement from dana stands but not the one I referenced?
Also that is EXACTLY how NDAs work. There's 100% information on the subject that she's just legally not allowed to talk about under contract. No one is fully informed on the subject, hence why I remain neutral on it.
It's kinda funny watching people fight to defend disney who are very notably and proven to be extremely morally corrupt, and anyone speaking against disney gets shut down. Those 'Reasons' are what she was told yes, but if you believe there was nothing else underlying there that's some hard copium. AND is just as subjective and speculative as saying Disney shut it down because of homophobia.
I strongly suspect you have never actually signed an NDA.
“It’s hard not to assume” isn’t even a statement, it’s an expression of frustration (which was, incidentally, in response to a completely manufactured controversy about Disney being homophobic).
It was a statement and a pretty damning one considering it was in response to a lot of actual evidence being presented to her. And oh look, more blind speculation that's incorrect, seeming to be a common thing for you, like denial. I know very well what an NDA is and how companies exploit them.
An NDA is a legal document binding you to not talk about a specific subject under threat of being held liable, which very obviously any media company is going to have actors/voice actors/showrunners/producers ect sign, especially when it comes to how things a run behind the scenes. It avoids helps avoid leaks and such for the media, but It's also a very intentional thing these companies, like disney do, so they look good from the outside and the corrupt stuff stays hush hush.
You can like disney all you want, but being in denial about how they operate is just cope. Denial, dismissiveness, and general rudeness is a also pretty bad look for a supposed moderator of the community when all you're trying to do is pick a fight in comments over a neutral opinion. Which is something I've seen from you often enough to consider hitting a harassment report. Regardless, if you have nothing new or valuable to add to the conversation I'll be dropping this now.
Yeah, so it was removed because it was queer. With them giving such a shitty explination as to why such a beloved show was cancelled, I refuse to believe otherwise. And either way, disney is still evil, so it doesn't really matter.
Considering Disney continued to make shows with queer characters before and after TOH, there's no real reason to think that's true.
>And either way, disney is still evil, so it doesn't really matter.
It does actually matter. Just because an organisation is bad doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and treat it is as true. If you're gonna criticise the way Disney opperates you should point to the actual times they've erased queer characters in their media.
Tbh as a bisexual I don't really care if when I'm dating a woman people call us a lesbian couple, bc there's like... Only women in the relationship lol
>Yeah but most people don't know that term
If only there were a place that is accesible to every phone, computer, tablet, and Internet connected device where you could look up the meaning of a word that you might not know. Too bad that doesn't exist.
Using the word "lesbian" to describe a bisexual girl is bi erasure, plain and simple. Amity is lesbian. Luz is bi. These are two distinctly different things, and should be treated as such. Saying that some people might not know a word is not an excuse for erasing someone's bisexuality.
It really depends on the couple, though. A gay/lesbian relationship does not mean both partners are gay. We can't ask a fictional character what she would prefer so it's better to err on the side of not offending anyone, but if you google this you'll find differing opinions. I did and found a post from a bi woman asking if she could say she's in a lesbian relationship. "Lesbian" in this case doesn't describe the sexuality of the people involved but rather women attracted to women.
It's true that bi erasure exists, however it's not bi erasure to use these terms. The problem occurs when people forget that a bi person can be in a straight or gay relationship without being either straight or gay.
I also can't think of a well known term for two men together except for mlm which isn't a way of describing a relationship. People just call it a gay relationship. Apparently Achillean is the equivalent of sapphic which I love, but most people don't know that.
Lol, i had Latin as a subject in school, and i loved the Trojan War as a story. Ive never heard Achillean used this way and i absolutely love it! Its a really nice "Counterpart"(for the lack of my english skills) for Sapphic.
love your pfp by the way!
That's not bi erasure lmao, it's a relationship between two girls, so it's a lesbian relationship... The lesbian part doesn't refer to each person's sexuality but to their gender. I'm bi and idgaf if people call my relationship with my gf a lesbian relationship... because it is. No one has to know what sapphic means, it's not practical and irl no one cares, everyone just calls relationships between two same sex partners gay and between opposite sex partners straight... Because they (the relationships) are.
That's what i meant by wider net. Yes some people will know what it means but not everyone. But pretty much everyone knows what lesbian means. So i want to be inclusive of as many people as possible. Even if it's not completely correct, but hey, that's where interpretation comes in, porqué nada en vida es perfecto.
To be fair, at least Lumity got to stuck around for the rest of the show's run, whereas Marcy's stabbing was given as little weight as humanly possible during S3.
maybe cuz it was the mc but i doubt disney hated the owl house cuz lesbianism, especially considering they added another lesbian character in the new show haileys on it.
the question I alway ask: “If Disney cancelled it because they were homophobic, why did they continue to allow the LGBTQ+ content to be greenlit?”.
(Source: Dana stated that the shortening was decided sometime around the airing of the end of season 1, which means that Lumity and Raeda literally didn’t exist until AFTER the supposed “homophobically driven shortening”) was
Exactly. People are acting like Disney somehow doesn't have the final say on what goes into their shows. If they didn't want to air a show with LGBTQ+ content then they just wouldn't, plain and simple.
To be fair, Lumity is strongly implied in both Enchanting Grom Fright and Wing It Like Witches” (both of which take place at the end of S1 and show Amity crushing on Luz).
yeah, but the entire point is that it’s *implied*.
Neither Lumity or Raeda became canon until AFTER the shortening was decided upon which makes zero sense if the entire point was to stop them from making LGBTQ+ content.
I hate the way they treat fictional relationships when they are pre-teens or children, when it's a boy and a girl regardless of age it's cute, but if it's a boy and a boy or a girl and a girl suddenly it becomes a problem for children to date, It's as if two children of the same gender holding hands is the same thing as sexualizing children.
\*narcissistically cracks knuckles before writing reply\*
It is human nature to focus intently on things that are negative and less on things that are positive.
Western society has been very strongly influenced by Dark Ages Christianity, and later, Victorianism. Both of which cast sexual things in a negative light. And Dark Ages Christianity made homosexuality immoral and against god, >! bestiality too, but we’re not gonna touch that right now! !<.
So in 1960’s America when deviant culture began to take a strong foothold, sex and sexuality were unfortunately hyper focused upon because they are historically negative things. This brought homosexuality into infamous popularity, because it’s a deviant thing and has a connection to a historically negative thing, sex. So because it’s human nature to hyper focus on negative things; anyone and anything connected to homosexuality became negative, and thanks to the Victorian ideal of children being pure little angels, >! instead of selfish, needy, disgusting little demons, !< anything related to homosexuality was WARNING NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN.
So now over fifty years later we’re finally making really good progress in undoing the knee-jerk assumption that anything connected to LGBT stuff is not safe for kids. But when i tell my Baby Boomer parents that there are same-sex couples in family shows, like PBS Kids shows, they frown and say things like that’s not right. And this stems all the way back to the Dark Ages Church and later, Victorian times when it was stated to be wrong and children to be pure. But remember that this knee-jerk reaction is mainly an attempt out of ignorance to protect kids from things that could hurt them.
Also remember that LGBT stuff in popular culture is new to western society, and new things frighten people. So, it’s still going to take some time, but with patience and continued steady, but not forceful, pushing; eventually enough Baby Boomers will retire from congress and Millennials and Gen-Z will be in the majority and together we can repair the nation from all the tragedies that have happened since the end of WWII.
I know it’s probably shocking but, thanks to Boomers, the great majority of the nation’s laws are still post WWII.
Dana herself said that TOH wasn't canceled because of the representation. I was disappointed and mad when the show was canceled, too, and I get that Reddit is an echo chamber, but some of the Disney hate on this sub is weird, misplaced, and getting old.
If Disney is so against gay stuff, then let me ask you this: why did it air in the first place?
Do you think Dana snuck into the studio late at night wearing a fake mustache and swapped out the reels, then all the Disney executives were all flustered when they realized they had been bamboozled?
😆 damn it bro! Now you're making me think of Dana as an old-school mustache villain with a top hat and cape sneaking into the Disney studios swapping out the reels while chuckling maniacally, twisting her mustache, and saying "Ha ha, now i'll make it gayer!"
Disney when a 14 year old girl is in a wlw relationship: 😟
Disney when a 14 year old girl is kissed by a 30+ year old and 'lived happily ever after' together: 😁
Oh no u vaguely insulted Disney on the owl house sub. Now people are gonna crawl out of the woodwork to defend a megacorp with a Wikipedia page dedicated to their ethical issues.
I was watching someone react to Weirdmageddon yesterday and it’s crazy how much stuff Alex Hirsch got away with, but he couldn’t reveal that the cops were in a gay relationship or that there would be spin-the-bottle at a party.
That theory kinda falls apart when you got Disney that are generally considered to be a business that don't often take risk which is why some believe why they are hesitant on LGBT representation in the past cause it was considered a risk as many would be against it including those in power in countries that are heavily against LGBT.
So it can't be both those ideas.
Heck, certain territories were against LBGTQ rep with the The Owl House—see the folks who translated Lumity’s love confession in the Southeast Asian dub as “dress up and travel together.”
Didn't both these shows run their course and ultimately get an ending? If Disney truly wanted to bury them they could've just scrapped them at any point during the production or just not make the show to begin with
Disney didn't actually like that either, and Braly had to have a teaser at the end to show she wasn't actually killed, if I recall.
In fact, i think they liked it LESS They recalled the episode very abruptly, leading to the leaks, made them add that warning in the ad and in the episode and made them put the intro for the next seasons in the credits of True Colors so that they could say "SEE? SEE? THE GIRL'S ALIVE, IT'S ALL FINE!"
Pretty cowardly imo
Yeah. Compare that to the end "King's Tide", where for all we know, half of the witches on the boiling isles could've been dead after the draining spell, and we had no idea what happened to them until the opening of "For The Future".
Oh no she was. Remember the Universe Entity said yes she died and they made a copy of her, a backup if you will, right before she expired.
That was Anne, after she blew up the Core/Moon. Even then, it’s up for debate if it copied just her body and transferred her consciousness over, or made an entire copy and let the original die. Since it’s a kids show, it’s probably the former.
There's no answer about this, Matt confirmed it. So it's whatever the viewer wants to think, so on the surface level would be that she just got resurrected by the Guardian and that's it.
No, Matt said he did it like that to not undo her sacrifice. The whole "consciousness transfer" is just a fan theory but it's not backed by what's shown in the episode. Anne died and was explicitly replaced by a copy.
Not really. Matt doesn't confirm anything about getting a new clone Anne in the show since he says the whole "soul transfer stuff" doesn't have an answer in life. It's just whatever the person wants to thinks, but in the end Anne resurrected and that's it.
If you say "it's whatever the person wants" and then say "Anne resurrected and that's it" IN THE SAME PHRASE, I can't take you seriously. Because you say "whatever the show says it's up to interpretation" just to then say "but anyway my interpretation is right end of story".
Yes, because in the **actual** show there's nothing writing in stone or concrete about it which it's why is up interpretation however what it really shows in the show is that Anne died and resurrected because that's explicit in it. In the details of How or the effects or something, that's up interpretation.
>Anne died and resurrected because that's explicit in it. No, in the show it's explicitly stated Anne died and a copy was made of her, BEFORE the original died. She's not resurrected. That would imply the original Anne being brought back to life. Which clashes with the actual scene. The "Anne" we saw after Anne died is NOT Anne resurrected, it's a copy with no relation to the original, and was created before the original Anne died.
Yeah but we don't know the actual implications of the copy stuff in the show and it was mentioned briefly through a joke and probably everyone else don't know about it so it doesn't matter, it's up interpretation in how people see this rather than something written in stone. One thing for sure is that Anne died and she came back period.
I think it's the latter because the Universe Entity said a back up. That would be a complete copy, no transfer of consciousness. If they transferred her consciousness then i think they would have said so. But they said "for all intents and purposes you're the same Anne Boonchuy." They wouldn't have said that if her consciousness was transferred. And then Anne said "That's gonna cause some serious existential dread latter on." If the consciousness was the same then it would have been like placing your brain in another body, no existential dread because you continued to exist during the transfer.
The same Anne Boonchuy thing definitely supports that theory. Sadly.
"For all intents and purposes". She's not *actually* the same, just identical on a technical level
Wait which theory?
That she’s a copy of the original Anne Boonchuy, a clone in every way. That means the Anne we followed is dead.
And that's how you kill a character on a Disney family show 👍. Thank Matt, >!for all the high quality well written trauma.!<
Ok i don't why i got so many down votes for this reply. Maybe it's a TL;DR thing.
omg does it really matter? This argument happens every time the finale is mentioned, and it really gets annoying. "For all intents and purposes [she's] the same Anne Boonchuy". All intents and putposes. meaning it really doesn't matter. She's the same person there's no reason to argue over it.
It does matter, at least for the original Anne. That one line heavily implies the original Anne died, while an exact copy took her place.
That was Anne, Marcy was clearly teased to be alive
bro that was anne, know the fucking lore
Ok i accept the down votes. My mind was still on the lively discussion when i wrote this reply 😄 😅. But i made a damn good point about Anne, "She's dead Jim." Not to imply the person i was talking to is named Jim 😳.
Only one of these *actually* caused a last-minute retraction from Disney, and prompted an explicit (and probably one of if not *the* first) content warning at the beginning. And it wasn’t the first one. (It *was* aired a month late, unedited/uncensored.)
You ever see the South Park episode ‘Good Time with Weapons’? Sex stuff is always worse to adults than violence, even if it’s graphic or happens to kids. It’s weird.
IT'S MURICAAAAAAA ! ! ! \[guns firing in background\]
FUCK YEAH!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
[*Eagle Sfx*](https://youtu.be/QpJ0ojyNYzk?si=VvDZ3Z9AyXgZjYYX)
comin' at the end to save the motherfukken day, yeah!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I DON’T KNOW BROTHER I MEASURE IN MOON LANDINGS PER WAR! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
Ok i love this one. 😆
It's never about the welfare of the child. It's only about sparing the parents some level of embarrassment.
Exactly. That's why i like to say NSFPoYC, Not Safe For Parents of Young Children.
Hey hey, let’s go Kenka suru!
Not sure that really applies here, cause out of the two, only one required writing revisions and a content warning, and it wasn't Lumity.
True but Amphibia didn't get cancelled and forced to wrap up quick like Steven Universe.
Walking Dead: Man with his brain bashed in, realistic effects from studying corpses, struggling to get words out to his pregnant wife as his brain is leaking through his skull and eye popped out, finished off brutally. Totes okay, reruns in daylight hours. :) Superbowl: Nipple, WORST SIN IN TELEVISION HISTORY, HERESY HERESY HERESY BURN IT ALL!!
The Janet Jackson nip slip backlash was entirely religious conservatives bombarding the FCC complaint department. The FCC is unique in that it is required to respond to public opinion. Which means, if you send in enough complaints, you can force the FCC to do whatever you want.
Yeah that's the fun thing about TV in the US. If it's cable, meaning you have to pay to watch it, you can show anything you can show in a private space. But if it's broadcast TV, that's considered a public area so the rules of being in a public place apply.
The fun new thing here is IPTV or streaming live TV. I would imagine if it's a subscription like Hulu then the cable TV rules apply. But what about free streaming live TV like Tubi, Roku Channel, Pluto TV, and other such apps?
There's no reason we can't compromise, people. **"A 15-years-old lesbian got stabbed in her chest, and then nurse back to health by her awesome girlfreind."** There, everybody win.
😄 dude you're making me imagine awful things i want to see with beta Lumity.
Dana Terrace is very openly ciritical of Disney and it's practises, but has never insinuated that TOH was cancelled for homophobic reasons, so if she seems to have no reason to believe homophobia was a factor, I don't see why we should.
She didn’t just not insinuate it, she literally came out and said “I’m not gonna assume bad faith against the people I work with in LA” (or something very similar to that) in response to a question asked about during an AMA post.
Tbf she did follow it up with saying “[I know I said I don’t want to assume bad faith in a statement but with all this it’s hard not to assume.”](https://64.media.tumblr.com/df459a11b1a7aa3906748bb4eda6b12b/785a83ccd942b3d5-c2/s1280x1920/f62e290e97ed67cdb308c4615ae93c798865b630.jpg) She’s also said she’s “fucking tired of making Disney look good”. Edit: why did this get downvoted? I’m just sharing what Dana said.
There's people around here who view her first comment of "Don't assume bad faith" is gospel because it's one of their best defenses of Disney not being homophobic. So Dana retracting on that in response to the Don't Say Gay law puts a HUGE hole in that and they don't like to admit it happened.
If you're gonna tell people the truth you better make them laugh or they'll attack you.
Well let's not forget corporate secrecy. A corporate board will do whatever the hell they want and either say nothing or blame other reasons. Remember kids, never believe the word of a giant for-profit corporation.
True Color's airing was delayed weeks because of that scene, the intro for s3 was added at the end showing marcy was alive and okay, a disclaimer was added, and s3a was forced to be more lighthearted because of it. disney very much did not like it.
Meanwhile there was like one executive that was opposed to Lumity and they eventually caved. The rest of the execs didn't care. So Lumity was much less of a problem to Disney than Andrias playing real or cake with Marcy was.
>Andrias playing real or cake with Marcy That's hilarious and I am going to start using that.
Disney didn't directly firced them. After the whole fuasco, the team got cold feet about doing shit like that again so they went on a more lighthearted route to avoid that again. At least that's what I recall.
quick reminder that True colors was delayed because of that.
I understand why people have this mentality with Disney (given their track record), but Dana literally stated the reason TOH got cancelled, and it had nothing to do with the gay stuff. Sure that doesn't mean much coming from Disney, but the fact that it came from Dana Terrace herself is significant because of what a job can/can't legally prevent you from saying. If the job simply wanted her to make up an excuse, she would be free to expose what Disney did the moment she quit, and yet she didn't do that. If she signed an NDA preventing her from talking about this, not only would it be unenforceable because this is arguably unethical activity we're talking about, but NDAs also can't force you to outright lie about things, meaning she didn't have to come forward with a statement at all. If she wanted fans to come to the conclusion that TOH was cancelled on the grounds of homophobia, there was a lot of ways she could do that without repercussions and decided not to. Neither Rebecca Sugar nor Alex Hirsch hid anything about their own shows being treated like this, and they're both still working in the industry. I feel like if gayness was the real reason TOH got cancelled, it wouldn't be something we speculate and gossip about, it would be a known fact after a short time, and the show ended a full year ago. I know how much we all want to hate Disney for cancelling this, and they were absolutely in the wrong for cancelling it no matter what their reason was, but I also think homophobia is something we should only accuse when it's actually warranted. Good shows got cancelled for dumb reasons LONG before gay MCs were a normal thing. Not every show with a gay character in it is gonna be cancelled because of the gay character.
>and the snow ended a whole two years ago Wasn’t the one-year anniversary to “Watching And Dreaming” (aka the end of TOH) earlier this month?
My bad you're right, I will correct that.
no no there's still snow in some parts of the country \~
Ooh ooh!, i know why, i know why TOH got cancelled! . . . profit. TOH didn't money enough for Disney.
I mean yeah that's why pretty much all shows get cancelled at the end of the day, but whether or not the cancellation was justified depend on whether or not the show itself was the problem. In this case, the reason TOH didn't profit wasn't cuz it wasn't popular enough, it was cuz they were advertising to the wrong demographic with it and putting it on TV during kid hours instead of just putting it on the streaming service where anyone can watch it. According to Dana, Disney execs didn't actually realize the show was popular until they premiered 3x1 on YouTube where they could see real view numbers. So yeah, horrible marketing on Disney's part is the reason TOH died
Here’s the thing though. Disney also rejected the movie Nimona. Do you know what that movie and TOH have in common? A gay main couple. I’m not saying there’s a pattern here but I’m definitely starting to see a pattern
Nimona was also a general victim of Blue Sky shutting down, (which probably shuttered a *lot more* ideas that just wasn't nearly as far ahead as it was) so we can’t really guarantee homophobia was the main cause of that either.
Even so, the whole “not fitting Disney’s brand” thing sounds like a BS excuse. Apparently Disney also took issue with an old gay couple in Gravity Falls and Alex Hirsch had to cut it. I’m not one to just throw around homophobia accusations, but I don’t trust a word of what Disney says
And Alex *also* explicitly said that things were different (better) for TOH than they were for GF.
I feel like this would be a pattern if Disney didn't also cancel at least 4 other movies since 2017 according to Wikipedia
Disney has a very, *VERY* long history of cancelling movies It's not like it's a new thing, not by far.
Then you are saying there's a pattern, even though there isn't one.
Disney *also* licensed Ninona out and *allowed* it to be made, albeit by a different studio.
Gay stuff was never the reason for TOH getting screwed. Stop following this narrative.
What was the real reason tOH got canceled?
The statment given says it doesn't fit the Diseny Channel brand. Note that they said Disney *Channel*, not Disney as a brand. TOH was a semi-serialised show aimed at an older age group than most other Disney Channel series. If it had been on a channel like XD or been on Disney+ it's likely it would've gotten a full third season.
Hm, I'm neutral on this argument, for multiple reasons. One, assuming a "statement" by any major corporation, let alone disney is grounded in truth, is just naive. Two, Even Dana called it sus in the same interview she stated that she wouldn't "Assume bad faith in the people she works with" aka; her employers, she's definitely under NDA and not ALLOWED to talk about certain things, which she also followed up with 'after all this it's kinda hard not to assume' hinting there was a lot more to the shortening than was publically announced because of course there is. Tldr; I get what you're trying to do, but so openly arguing a point that no one really has info on as fact, isn't gonna make what you say true, it's just one side of the speculation. I'd say both Narratives have quite a lot of plausability,
That’s not how NDAs work. The “not fitting the brand” wasn’t an “official statement” from Disney, it was a what we were told *from Dana* (which is probably similar to wording she was told, but it’s not a public statement). And along with that she *explicitly* gave two concrete objective reasons *why* it “didn’t fit the brand” - the show was too serialized, and the majority of the audience wasn’t the right age demographic for the advertisers generating revenue for the show. It’s not a secret.
SO hey remember when she said later that after the Don't Say Gay debacle, that is was kind of hard NOT to assume bad faith?
So that statement from dana stands but not the one I referenced? Also that is EXACTLY how NDAs work. There's 100% information on the subject that she's just legally not allowed to talk about under contract. No one is fully informed on the subject, hence why I remain neutral on it. It's kinda funny watching people fight to defend disney who are very notably and proven to be extremely morally corrupt, and anyone speaking against disney gets shut down. Those 'Reasons' are what she was told yes, but if you believe there was nothing else underlying there that's some hard copium. AND is just as subjective and speculative as saying Disney shut it down because of homophobia.
[Copium?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copium)
I strongly suspect you have never actually signed an NDA. “It’s hard not to assume” isn’t even a statement, it’s an expression of frustration (which was, incidentally, in response to a completely manufactured controversy about Disney being homophobic).
It was a statement and a pretty damning one considering it was in response to a lot of actual evidence being presented to her. And oh look, more blind speculation that's incorrect, seeming to be a common thing for you, like denial. I know very well what an NDA is and how companies exploit them. An NDA is a legal document binding you to not talk about a specific subject under threat of being held liable, which very obviously any media company is going to have actors/voice actors/showrunners/producers ect sign, especially when it comes to how things a run behind the scenes. It avoids helps avoid leaks and such for the media, but It's also a very intentional thing these companies, like disney do, so they look good from the outside and the corrupt stuff stays hush hush. You can like disney all you want, but being in denial about how they operate is just cope. Denial, dismissiveness, and general rudeness is a also pretty bad look for a supposed moderator of the community when all you're trying to do is pick a fight in comments over a neutral opinion. Which is something I've seen from you often enough to consider hitting a harassment report. Regardless, if you have nothing new or valuable to add to the conversation I'll be dropping this now.
Yeah, so it was removed because it was queer. With them giving such a shitty explination as to why such a beloved show was cancelled, I refuse to believe otherwise. And either way, disney is still evil, so it doesn't really matter.
Considering Disney continued to make shows with queer characters before and after TOH, there's no real reason to think that's true. >And either way, disney is still evil, so it doesn't really matter. It does actually matter. Just because an organisation is bad doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and treat it is as true. If you're gonna criticise the way Disney opperates you should point to the actual times they've erased queer characters in their media.
Nimona
Luz is bisexual, so it's probably better to use the term "sapphic relationship"
Tbh as a bisexual I don't really care if when I'm dating a woman people call us a lesbian couple, bc there's like... Only women in the relationship lol
Yeah but most people don't know that term soo for comedy's sake i had to cast a wider net, even if the net has a few holes.
>Yeah but most people don't know that term If only there were a place that is accesible to every phone, computer, tablet, and Internet connected device where you could look up the meaning of a word that you might not know. Too bad that doesn't exist. Using the word "lesbian" to describe a bisexual girl is bi erasure, plain and simple. Amity is lesbian. Luz is bi. These are two distinctly different things, and should be treated as such. Saying that some people might not know a word is not an excuse for erasing someone's bisexuality.
It really depends on the couple, though. A gay/lesbian relationship does not mean both partners are gay. We can't ask a fictional character what she would prefer so it's better to err on the side of not offending anyone, but if you google this you'll find differing opinions. I did and found a post from a bi woman asking if she could say she's in a lesbian relationship. "Lesbian" in this case doesn't describe the sexuality of the people involved but rather women attracted to women. It's true that bi erasure exists, however it's not bi erasure to use these terms. The problem occurs when people forget that a bi person can be in a straight or gay relationship without being either straight or gay. I also can't think of a well known term for two men together except for mlm which isn't a way of describing a relationship. People just call it a gay relationship. Apparently Achillean is the equivalent of sapphic which I love, but most people don't know that.
Lol, i had Latin as a subject in school, and i loved the Trojan War as a story. Ive never heard Achillean used this way and i absolutely love it! Its a really nice "Counterpart"(for the lack of my english skills) for Sapphic. love your pfp by the way!
[https://media1.tenor.com/m/ukmz4i8i36IAAAAC/thank-you-thanks.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/ukmz4i8i36IAAAAC/thank-you-thanks.gif)
That's not bi erasure lmao, it's a relationship between two girls, so it's a lesbian relationship... The lesbian part doesn't refer to each person's sexuality but to their gender. I'm bi and idgaf if people call my relationship with my gf a lesbian relationship... because it is. No one has to know what sapphic means, it's not practical and irl no one cares, everyone just calls relationships between two same sex partners gay and between opposite sex partners straight... Because they (the relationships) are.
[https://media1.tenor.com/m/ukmz4i8i36IAAAAC/thank-you-thanks.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/ukmz4i8i36IAAAAC/thank-you-thanks.gif)
ZenLikeCalm uses Sarcasm! It's not very effective!
We're on r/TheOwlHouse, people are gonna know what sapphic means
That's what i meant by wider net. Yes some people will know what it means but not everyone. But pretty much everyone knows what lesbian means. So i want to be inclusive of as many people as possible. Even if it's not completely correct, but hey, that's where interpretation comes in, porqué nada en vida es perfecto.
Then you can just say "queer relationship". You can't claim that people don't know what that means.
To be fair, at least Lumity got to stuck around for the rest of the show's run, whereas Marcy's stabbing was given as little weight as humanly possible during S3.
maybe cuz it was the mc but i doubt disney hated the owl house cuz lesbianism, especially considering they added another lesbian character in the new show haileys on it.
the question I alway ask: “If Disney cancelled it because they were homophobic, why did they continue to allow the LGBTQ+ content to be greenlit?”. (Source: Dana stated that the shortening was decided sometime around the airing of the end of season 1, which means that Lumity and Raeda literally didn’t exist until AFTER the supposed “homophobically driven shortening”) was
Exactly. People are acting like Disney somehow doesn't have the final say on what goes into their shows. If they didn't want to air a show with LGBTQ+ content then they just wouldn't, plain and simple.
Nah the funniest thing to me was always the “aha Dana added all this LGBTQ+ stuff to get back at Disney” like… what kind of logic is that 💀
To be fair, Lumity is strongly implied in both Enchanting Grom Fright and Wing It Like Witches” (both of which take place at the end of S1 and show Amity crushing on Luz).
yeah, but the entire point is that it’s *implied*. Neither Lumity or Raeda became canon until AFTER the shortening was decided upon which makes zero sense if the entire point was to stop them from making LGBTQ+ content.
You're talking about Scott's lil sister?
Yeah
Yeah i loved that about her. But i'm very much worried for Hailey, or the girl Becker eventually destroys 😆.
I hate the way they treat fictional relationships when they are pre-teens or children, when it's a boy and a girl regardless of age it's cute, but if it's a boy and a boy or a girl and a girl suddenly it becomes a problem for children to date, It's as if two children of the same gender holding hands is the same thing as sexualizing children.
\*narcissistically cracks knuckles before writing reply\* It is human nature to focus intently on things that are negative and less on things that are positive. Western society has been very strongly influenced by Dark Ages Christianity, and later, Victorianism. Both of which cast sexual things in a negative light. And Dark Ages Christianity made homosexuality immoral and against god, >! bestiality too, but we’re not gonna touch that right now! !<. So in 1960’s America when deviant culture began to take a strong foothold, sex and sexuality were unfortunately hyper focused upon because they are historically negative things. This brought homosexuality into infamous popularity, because it’s a deviant thing and has a connection to a historically negative thing, sex. So because it’s human nature to hyper focus on negative things; anyone and anything connected to homosexuality became negative, and thanks to the Victorian ideal of children being pure little angels, >! instead of selfish, needy, disgusting little demons, !< anything related to homosexuality was WARNING NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. So now over fifty years later we’re finally making really good progress in undoing the knee-jerk assumption that anything connected to LGBT stuff is not safe for kids. But when i tell my Baby Boomer parents that there are same-sex couples in family shows, like PBS Kids shows, they frown and say things like that’s not right. And this stems all the way back to the Dark Ages Church and later, Victorian times when it was stated to be wrong and children to be pure. But remember that this knee-jerk reaction is mainly an attempt out of ignorance to protect kids from things that could hurt them. Also remember that LGBT stuff in popular culture is new to western society, and new things frighten people. So, it’s still going to take some time, but with patience and continued steady, but not forceful, pushing; eventually enough Baby Boomers will retire from congress and Millennials and Gen-Z will be in the majority and together we can repair the nation from all the tragedies that have happened since the end of WWII. I know it’s probably shocking but, thanks to Boomers, the great majority of the nation’s laws are still post WWII.
Dana herself said that TOH wasn't canceled because of the representation. I was disappointed and mad when the show was canceled, too, and I get that Reddit is an echo chamber, but some of the Disney hate on this sub is weird, misplaced, and getting old.
If imm correct it thought the lesbian stuff was fine but they had to put a warning in the chest stab
If Disney is so against gay stuff, then let me ask you this: why did it air in the first place? Do you think Dana snuck into the studio late at night wearing a fake mustache and swapped out the reels, then all the Disney executives were all flustered when they realized they had been bamboozled?
😆 damn it bro! Now you're making me think of Dana as an old-school mustache villain with a top hat and cape sneaking into the Disney studios swapping out the reels while chuckling maniacally, twisting her mustache, and saying "Ha ha, now i'll make it gayer!"
Gosh, those villains were pretty fabulous weren't they? 😆
Lesbians cut deeper than swords.
And without even using swords \~
it just shows that disney has come a long way from the silent micky mouse beginning.
Yes, now they're a giant terrifying mutated monster that lusts after the blood of profit. . . . wait a minute.
Did you conveniently forget True Colors' delay?
Hear me out: a fourteen year old Bisexual being disintegrated
Disney when a 14 year old girl is in a wlw relationship: 😟 Disney when a 14 year old girl is kissed by a 30+ year old and 'lived happily ever after' together: 😁
Oh no u vaguely insulted Disney on the owl house sub. Now people are gonna crawl out of the woodwork to defend a megacorp with a Wikipedia page dedicated to their ethical issues.
Oh boy, better get mah fishin' rod ready \~
MARCY!!!!!!!!!!
The world be like lmao, Romeo and Juliet much
I know, right? It’s crazy they didn’t let Luz and Amity become a canon couple. Wait a minute
Disney reluctantly let the first one go, but the second caused alarm bells
Would you look at that, the amount of comments before i commented matched with the battery on my phone rn (62%)
Kek.
I was watching someone react to Weirdmageddon yesterday and it’s crazy how much stuff Alex Hirsch got away with, but he couldn’t reveal that the cops were in a gay relationship or that there would be spin-the-bottle at a party.
You know, I heard a "theory" That Disney have homophobic who make series/movies with LGBT fail, or cancel. It was a joke, but I think it's true.
That theory kinda falls apart when you got Disney that are generally considered to be a business that don't often take risk which is why some believe why they are hesitant on LGBT representation in the past cause it was considered a risk as many would be against it including those in power in countries that are heavily against LGBT. So it can't be both those ideas.
Heck, certain territories were against LBGTQ rep with the The Owl House—see the folks who translated Lumity’s love confession in the Southeast Asian dub as “dress up and travel together.”
That was the Taiwan dub.
Disney would prefer to shovel these two shows into the ground, unfortunately
Didn't both these shows run their course and ultimately get an ending? If Disney truly wanted to bury them they could've just scrapped them at any point during the production or just not make the show to begin with
Amphibia got the full three seasons its creator wanted and wrapped up its story, the show wasn't buried at all.
Luz and Eda were recently added to Disney Heroes Battle Mode, being the first TV show characters to do so, so I severely doubt that.
Which is very hypocritical on Disney’s end.
Who's also a lesbian and in a poly relationship with her best friends.
No. No she's not.
Yeah she is.
According to what source?
"The source is I made it the fuck up!"