I've never watched the show. Looks a bit... um, not my style. My 12yo kiddo has been asking about it though, and I'm not sure how age-appropriate it is. Would you (anyone reading) recommend it for...
I've never watched the show. Looks a bit... um, not my style. My 12yo kiddo has been asking about it though, and I'm not sure how age-appropriate it is. Would you (anyone reading) recommend it for tweens? It it as horror-oriented, or existential dread inducing, as I imagine it to be based on the art style?
Sorry for the off-topic! Feel free to label as you see fit.
As stated in the other comment, probably depends on the kid. It's not Hazbin Hotel levels of swearing or sexually explicit themes, but there's a couple jokes that are a bit more mature and the...
As stated in the other comment, probably depends on the kid. It's not Hazbin Hotel levels of swearing or sexually explicit themes, but there's a couple jokes that are a bit more mature and the suggestion of swearing and middle fingers is very apparent.
That being said, I read things like The Giver, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Long Walk around my teenage years, so it's hard to say. It definitely leans on the lighthearted side of any dark themes it covers in general.
Mmm I don't know if I'd call it horror exactly. Existential dread, certainly, and it broadly centers around personal trauma and psychological themes. My kids (13yo, 18yo) love it, and I have...
Mmm I don't know if I'd call it horror exactly. Existential dread, certainly, and it broadly centers around personal trauma and psychological themes. My kids (13yo, 18yo) love it, and I have watched it all with them -- it has sparked a lot of good conversations.
Also, it inspired this music video which is now stuck in my head again.
Obviously the show isn't over yet and it depends on the tween in question. But I'd say you have it pegged with the horror and dread elements, and it's not intended exclusively for young audiences....
Obviously the show isn't over yet and it depends on the tween in question. But I'd say you have it pegged with the horror and dread elements, and it's not intended exclusively for young audiences. That being said, it's labeled as PG on Netflix, and Common Sense Media gives it a 12+ (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/the-amazing-digital-circus), so best judgement I suppose.
I'd say it's PG. One of the things about the circus is that Caine, the ringmaster, has a swear filter in place so any cursing is bleeped. Penultimate episode spoilers and additional context: Caine...
I'd say it's PG. One of the things about the circus is that Caine, the ringmaster, has a swear filter in place so any cursing is bleeped.
Penultimate episode spoilers and additional context:
Caine was seemingly deleted at the end of the previous episode, and it's very possible that the final one could go into Vivziepop levels of profanity, since the world pretty much ends up falling apart upon his deletion.
Glitch Productions is headed by the same guy who made SMG4, a gaming (mainly Mario themed) machinima channel that used to have some pretty edgy videos. They obviously santized it over the years due to YouTube's guidelines, and pivoted away from gaming parodies and into original animation due to potential legal issues - at that time, Nintendo started being more trigger-happy with lawsuits.
I would recommend avoiding the fandom surrounding TADC though. They can not only get quite toxic, but fan-art has a tendency to sexualise some of the characters, especially Pomni.
I'd say it's PG/PG-13. There will be swearing but otherwise the content matter is more psychological (and cartoon violence) than direct horror. courage the cowardly dog is probably in the ballpark...
I'd say it's PG/PG-13. There will be swearing but otherwise the content matter is more psychological (and cartoon violence) than direct horror.
It it as horror-oriented, or existential dread inducing, as I imagine it to be based on the art style?
courage the cowardly dog is probably in the ballpark of the kind of horror and violence to expect. Definitely some unsettling moments, but still "kid-oriented".
Depending on how deep you read the subtext, it can touch into other sensitive topics as well, though (e.g. abuse, body dysphoria, PTSD). I don't think those topics will ever come up directly, especially not on a first viewing for a tween. But those aspects are there in case your kiddo asks questions.
Episode 3 and 8 is about as "horror"/graphic as it gets. The rest of it is much more toned down. It's mostly about people struggling with the state of their existence. So life, death, body...
Episode 3 and 8 is about as "horror"/graphic as it gets. The rest of it is much more toned down. It's mostly about people struggling with the state of their existence. So life, death, body dysmorphia, loss, coping, empathy... That kind of thing.
Description from the pilot:
The Amazing Digital Circus is a psychological dark comedy about cute cartoon characters who hate their lives and want to leave 🎪😀
Depends on the kid, you'll probably have to watch it (or at least parts of it) to get an idea if it's something your kid will be okay with.
I just watched all the trailers, I find the ep 1 trailer to give the best taste of the show. The other trailers are surface level (except for 8/9) and portray the setting but less so the content of the show.
I'm mildly upset at this; I already made an effort to watch the new eps the day they came out to avoid spoilers, but now I have to either get off social media for over two weeks, or pay actual...
I'm mildly upset at this; I already made an effort to watch the new eps the day they came out to avoid spoilers, but now I have to either get off social media for over two weeks, or pay actual money to go watch it in a less comfortable environment than my own home. I don't mind it having a theatrical run at all, but I do think giving it such a long period of exclusivity wasn't a cool move. Maybe with luck they'll just move the YT release date to match, but we'll see
The logic here is that theaters are hungry for content that is exclusive to theaters for a bit of time, and they were able to get a release for an independent project, AND talk them down from a...
The logic here is that theaters are hungry for content that is exclusive to theaters for a bit of time, and they were able to get a release for an independent project, AND talk them down from a month of exclusively. If this goes well, other animated projects could go straight to theaters for Glitch and other products and theaters have some new income between Marvel blockbusters. It's a trade for sure, but I think it's a good one.
...You know, between this and Iron Lung, maybe the real method theaters need to stay afloat isn't Hollywood blockbusters, but more highly-anticipated indie projects. Geeks will turn out in droves...
...You know, between this and Iron Lung, maybe the real method theaters need to stay afloat isn't Hollywood blockbusters, but more highly-anticipated indie projects. Geeks will turn out in droves for things we like. Even a mini-marathon of some popular IP, not a premiere, could draw some decent crowds.
Time will tell. The theater chains are upset with Hollywood because of their streaming services and the reduction in exclusivity windows. Theaters make most of their money on concessions and...
Time will tell. The theater chains are upset with Hollywood because of their streaming services and the reduction in exclusivity windows. Theaters make most of their money on concessions and movies that do well for an extended period of time. Typically a studio takes the lion's share of the box office on opening weekend and each subsequent week the split becomes more favorable to a theater.
Bypassing the studios and exhibiting directly means the theater can take a more favorable cut of ticket sales, but their apprehension will be on longevity so they are sort of dipping their toes in the water, here. If they decide to continue with this direct model I doubt you will see windows as short as two-weeks going forward.
I'm aware, and I did read their response, but I still think it was not a decision I approve or appreciate. I wrote a little more in detail elsewhere in this thread, but they made a decision that...
I'm aware, and I did read their response, but I still think it was not a decision I approve or appreciate. I wrote a little more in detail elsewhere in this thread, but they made a decision that really impacted the enjoyment of at least part of their fanbase, and they should feel some heat for that. Like I said originally I do think it's a minor issue, but it was a sacrifice Glitch made.
It's weird to me, and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, how many people didn't immediately understand the theatrical windowing. This is the movie theater business model, the same as...
It's weird to me, and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, how many people didn't immediately understand the theatrical windowing. This is the movie theater business model, the same as The Avengers not coming to Disney+ for 90-120 days. I am also a little annoyed at it because I know some of my online spaces are at risk of having spoilers, but it feels very tumblr circa 2010 for there to have been so much drama about it. Double-edge sword of fandom as a business model I suppose, but I am surprised so many people were surprised.
I'm of the opinion that Glitch should've prioritized the community and platform that made them what they are in the first place, rather than kowtow to how "the industry" does it. If they wanted to...
I'm of the opinion that Glitch should've prioritized the community and platform that made them what they are in the first place, rather than kowtow to how "the industry" does it. If they wanted to get their big money, or exposure, or whatever, that's their decision, but it's entirely valid to criticize that they chose to get that at a real cost to their own professed values and enjoyment of their fanbase.
There's this seemingly false truth that getting a theatrical release is a big deal, or some goal to hit, kind of like being indie was just a stepping stone to get a chance to sit at the Adults Table of Real Cinema, so anyone criticizing their decision is being petulant or selfish. Sacrificing the enjoyment of their own fanbase to please the industry is exactly how the industry keeps its stranglehold; if they really wanted to fight for indie animation, they should have kept it to same day or not at all.
Again, this is a mild inconvenience/upset for me, and honestly might be a good excuse to take a break/split from Instagram (where spoilers would hit me). But I really don't like this patronizing stance that anyone upset by the impact of Glitchs decision is just being a whiny baby who doesn't know how the Real World works. Glitch chose to sacrifice part of their community to achieve their own goals of exposure/money, and people should not be expected to just grin and bear it just because they are "indie".
^ certainly not detracting from your point, but I didn't get the impression that they were calling people petulant or selfish. Having been following their socials over the weekend, their staff are...
^ certainly not detracting from your point, but I didn't get the impression that they were calling people petulant or selfish. Having been following their socials over the weekend, their staff are clearly working overtime on their time off to get more theatres involved worldwide (Mexico was just added), so I really think they care ... if they thought nothing of the people who were affected by this, I'd assume that they wouldn't be pushing this hard to make it more accessible.
It's probably different for me, since I only really started watching with episode eight, to catch up with a friend who's been into TADC for years (so we could enjoy the finale together). But it genuinely seems like Glitch wants to use this as an opportunity to get more money to plow into more indies, and they're couching their language a little bit to avoid seeming like capitalist ghouls by engaging in the system as they are. I really want to see more shows like Knights of Guinevere not need to fight to get greenlit, and getting a seat at the adult table might give Glitch more access to the capital they need to funnel into more indie productions, avoiding the acrobatics they currently do to get anything funded ...
I dunno. It seems extremely understandable to be pissed at this (IMO I'd probably just acquire a cam copy off a truck, but I understand not everyone can deal with low audio fidelity, or lack the expertise to find trucks safely). I at least think that can be simultaneous to understanding that they're doing this to be better to creators, and to give more back to their community.
Not sure what I'm trying to say. It feels awful to see a group have tomatoes thrown at them for doing something that I'd've likely've done in their shoes as well, so I feel some desire to stay a hand or two. Simultaneously I can understand why people throw tomatoes in these cases, even if I'm not one of them, this time. I'm sorry that you're risking getting spoiled on a surprise that's three years in the making.
I certainly believe Glitch cares, and its not them calling anyone selfish, but the discussions on line certainly do, which is the part that frustrates me. I do still feel too that there's this...
I certainly believe Glitch cares, and its not them calling anyone selfish, but the discussions on line certainly do, which is the part that frustrates me.
I do still feel too that there's this unspoken assumption that a theatrical release needed to happen, when that's just not true; I'm not against it as I stated originally, but sacrificing so much to make it happen is where I'm upset. And they can couch their statement as much as they'd like, but it is still "capitalist ghoul" behavior as you'd called it: despite being successful, they are reaching for more, always more, and if the customer has to get the short end of the stick so be it.
To be clear, I don't think any of the decision makers at Glitch are ghouls, or are making this decision with nothing but big dollar signs in their eyes; I fully believe that they believe this is a good thing. But corps don't turn soulless and evil overnight because some villain barges in and takes over, it happens because reasonable well-meaning people make little compromises, over and over, until the original vision is gone and you're left with a machine whose sole purpose is to perpetuate itself.
This feels like a turning point, and honestly their inability to properly admit the harm they caused gives me a lot less faith. If they just said "we made this deal to make more $$$" I'd have more respect than trying to spin this as charitable for "the scene". Sure maybe it'll bring in capital, but will it also bring in more leashes, and restraints, and when the next series has a finale maybe it'll be exclusive to theaters, or whichever streaming service comes to them with a big check?
Ultimately, this is a haha funny animated show production company, and will not have a huge impact on my life whatever direction it goes. And there will always be artists making art to consume elsewhere. But it sucks to see the start of corporate rot in what seemed like a cool crew. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful.
I'm glad you posted this, because my 8-year old keeps asking to watch this show. It seemed inappropriate at my first glance, so I told her I needed more time, and probably to watch it myself...
I'm glad you posted this, because my 8-year old keeps asking to watch this show. It seemed inappropriate at my first glance, so I told her I needed more time, and probably to watch it myself before giving a final okay. Her friends and family her age have unfortunately watched it already, so it 0+keeps creeping into my day to day life, and other people have let her watch an episode or 2 without my okay. The conversation here, and especially the link to commonsensemedia have given me some of the tools and language I need to make these decisions more quick, and communicate them more clearly in the future.
After browsing commonsensemedia for a little, I want to pivot to a bit of a rant. I checked out reviews for another show named The Hollow and the swing between what constitutes an inappropriate rating on that show vs. Digital Circus is just pissing me off. There are people posting 10+, 12+ or even 16+ for it containing "LGBT themes". The theme in question is that one of the characters says the works "I'm gay" in the 2nd season. In comparison, a show like Digital Circus has a female character literally say the words "I want to have sex" and it is seen as appropriate for 12+? So hetero-normative sexual themes are seen as more appropriate to these people that a gay person existing? It just makes me want to go onto review the majority of shows as 12+ for containing "hetero-normative themes".
(amusingly, that character is non-binary (they/them in the script thus far, but the wiki says "any pronouns") and has body image issues, which are topics that spur more debate these days than bangin')
In comparison, a show like Digital Circus has a female character literally say the words "I want to have sex" and it is seen as appropriate for 12+?
(amusingly, that character is non-binary (they/them in the script thus far, but the wiki says "any pronouns") and has body image issues, which are topics that spur more debate these days than bangin')
I've never watched the show. Looks a bit... um, not my style. My 12yo kiddo has been asking about it though, and I'm not sure how age-appropriate it is. Would you (anyone reading) recommend it for tweens? It it as horror-oriented, or existential dread inducing, as I imagine it to be based on the art style?
Sorry for the off-topic! Feel free to label as you see fit.
As stated in the other comment, probably depends on the kid. It's not Hazbin Hotel levels of swearing or sexually explicit themes, but there's a couple jokes that are a bit more mature and the suggestion of swearing and middle fingers is very apparent.
That being said, I read things like The Giver, To Kill a Mockingbird, and The Long Walk around my teenage years, so it's hard to say. It definitely leans on the lighthearted side of any dark themes it covers in general.
Mmm I don't know if I'd call it horror exactly. Existential dread, certainly, and it broadly centers around personal trauma and psychological themes. My kids (13yo, 18yo) love it, and I have watched it all with them -- it has sparked a lot of good conversations.
Also, it inspired this music video which is now stuck in my head again.
I also highly recommend The Merry Go Round, which features some of the official cast singing, as well as an incredibly good Caine impression.
Obviously the show isn't over yet and it depends on the tween in question. But I'd say you have it pegged with the horror and dread elements, and it's not intended exclusively for young audiences. That being said, it's labeled as PG on Netflix, and Common Sense Media gives it a 12+ (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/the-amazing-digital-circus), so best judgement I suppose.
I'd say it's PG. One of the things about the circus is that Caine, the ringmaster, has a swear filter in place so any cursing is bleeped.
Penultimate episode spoilers and additional context:
Caine was seemingly deleted at the end of the previous episode, and it's very possible that the final one could go into Vivziepop levels of profanity, since the world pretty much ends up falling apart upon his deletion.Glitch Productions is headed by the same guy who made SMG4, a gaming (mainly Mario themed) machinima channel that used to have some pretty edgy videos. They obviously santized it over the years due to YouTube's guidelines, and pivoted away from gaming parodies and into original animation due to potential legal issues - at that time, Nintendo started being more trigger-happy with lawsuits.
I would recommend avoiding the fandom surrounding TADC though. They can not only get quite toxic, but fan-art has a tendency to sexualise some of the characters, especially Pomni.
I'd say it's PG/PG-13. There will be swearing but otherwise the content matter is more psychological (and cartoon violence) than direct horror.
courage the cowardly dog is probably in the ballpark of the kind of horror and violence to expect. Definitely some unsettling moments, but still "kid-oriented".
Depending on how deep you read the subtext, it can touch into other sensitive topics as well, though (e.g. abuse, body dysphoria, PTSD). I don't think those topics will ever come up directly, especially not on a first viewing for a tween. But those aspects are there in case your kiddo asks questions.
Episode 3 and 8 is about as "horror"/graphic as it gets. The rest of it is much more toned down. It's mostly about people struggling with the state of their existence. So life, death, body dysmorphia, loss, coping, empathy... That kind of thing.
Description from the pilot:
Depends on the kid, you'll probably have to watch it (or at least parts of it) to get an idea if it's something your kid will be okay with.
I just watched all the trailers, I find the ep 1 trailer to give the best taste of the show. The other trailers are surface level (except for 8/9) and portray the setting but less so the content of the show.
I'm mildly upset at this; I already made an effort to watch the new eps the day they came out to avoid spoilers, but now I have to either get off social media for over two weeks, or pay actual money to go watch it in a less comfortable environment than my own home. I don't mind it having a theatrical run at all, but I do think giving it such a long period of exclusivity wasn't a cool move. Maybe with luck they'll just move the YT release date to match, but we'll see
The logic here is that theaters are hungry for content that is exclusive to theaters for a bit of time, and they were able to get a release for an independent project, AND talk them down from a month of exclusively. If this goes well, other animated projects could go straight to theaters for Glitch and other products and theaters have some new income between Marvel blockbusters. It's a trade for sure, but I think it's a good one.
https://bsky.app/profile/glitchprod.com/post/3mjbe4owloc2u
...You know, between this and Iron Lung, maybe the real method theaters need to stay afloat isn't Hollywood blockbusters, but more highly-anticipated indie projects. Geeks will turn out in droves for things we like. Even a mini-marathon of some popular IP, not a premiere, could draw some decent crowds.
Time will tell. The theater chains are upset with Hollywood because of their streaming services and the reduction in exclusivity windows. Theaters make most of their money on concessions and movies that do well for an extended period of time. Typically a studio takes the lion's share of the box office on opening weekend and each subsequent week the split becomes more favorable to a theater.
Bypassing the studios and exhibiting directly means the theater can take a more favorable cut of ticket sales, but their apprehension will be on longevity so they are sort of dipping their toes in the water, here. If they decide to continue with this direct model I doubt you will see windows as short as two-weeks going forward.
I'm aware, and I did read their response, but I still think it was not a decision I approve or appreciate. I wrote a little more in detail elsewhere in this thread, but they made a decision that really impacted the enjoyment of at least part of their fanbase, and they should feel some heat for that. Like I said originally I do think it's a minor issue, but it was a sacrifice Glitch made.
It's weird to me, and I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, how many people didn't immediately understand the theatrical windowing. This is the movie theater business model, the same as The Avengers not coming to Disney+ for 90-120 days. I am also a little annoyed at it because I know some of my online spaces are at risk of having spoilers, but it feels very tumblr circa 2010 for there to have been so much drama about it. Double-edge sword of fandom as a business model I suppose, but I am surprised so many people were surprised.
I'm of the opinion that Glitch should've prioritized the community and platform that made them what they are in the first place, rather than kowtow to how "the industry" does it. If they wanted to get their big money, or exposure, or whatever, that's their decision, but it's entirely valid to criticize that they chose to get that at a real cost to their own professed values and enjoyment of their fanbase.
There's this seemingly false truth that getting a theatrical release is a big deal, or some goal to hit, kind of like being indie was just a stepping stone to get a chance to sit at the Adults Table of Real Cinema, so anyone criticizing their decision is being petulant or selfish. Sacrificing the enjoyment of their own fanbase to please the industry is exactly how the industry keeps its stranglehold; if they really wanted to fight for indie animation, they should have kept it to same day or not at all.
Again, this is a mild inconvenience/upset for me, and honestly might be a good excuse to take a break/split from Instagram (where spoilers would hit me). But I really don't like this patronizing stance that anyone upset by the impact of Glitchs decision is just being a whiny baby who doesn't know how the Real World works. Glitch chose to sacrifice part of their community to achieve their own goals of exposure/money, and people should not be expected to just grin and bear it just because they are "indie".
^ certainly not detracting from your point, but I didn't get the impression that they were calling people petulant or selfish. Having been following their socials over the weekend, their staff are clearly working overtime on their time off to get more theatres involved worldwide (Mexico was just added), so I really think they care ... if they thought nothing of the people who were affected by this, I'd assume that they wouldn't be pushing this hard to make it more accessible.
It's probably different for me, since I only really started watching with episode eight, to catch up with a friend who's been into TADC for years (so we could enjoy the finale together). But it genuinely seems like Glitch wants to use this as an opportunity to get more money to plow into more indies, and they're couching their language a little bit to avoid seeming like capitalist ghouls by engaging in the system as they are. I really want to see more shows like Knights of Guinevere not need to fight to get greenlit, and getting a seat at the adult table might give Glitch more access to the capital they need to funnel into more indie productions, avoiding the acrobatics they currently do to get anything funded ...
I dunno. It seems extremely understandable to be pissed at this (IMO I'd probably just acquire a cam copy off a truck, but I understand not everyone can deal with low audio fidelity, or lack the expertise to find trucks safely). I at least think that can be simultaneous to understanding that they're doing this to be better to creators, and to give more back to their community.
Not sure what I'm trying to say. It feels awful to see a group have tomatoes thrown at them for doing something that I'd've likely've done in their shoes as well, so I feel some desire to stay a hand or two. Simultaneously I can understand why people throw tomatoes in these cases, even if I'm not one of them, this time. I'm sorry that you're risking getting spoiled on a surprise that's three years in the making.
I certainly believe Glitch cares, and its not them calling anyone selfish, but the discussions on line certainly do, which is the part that frustrates me.
I do still feel too that there's this unspoken assumption that a theatrical release needed to happen, when that's just not true; I'm not against it as I stated originally, but sacrificing so much to make it happen is where I'm upset. And they can couch their statement as much as they'd like, but it is still "capitalist ghoul" behavior as you'd called it: despite being successful, they are reaching for more, always more, and if the customer has to get the short end of the stick so be it.
To be clear, I don't think any of the decision makers at Glitch are ghouls, or are making this decision with nothing but big dollar signs in their eyes; I fully believe that they believe this is a good thing. But corps don't turn soulless and evil overnight because some villain barges in and takes over, it happens because reasonable well-meaning people make little compromises, over and over, until the original vision is gone and you're left with a machine whose sole purpose is to perpetuate itself.
This feels like a turning point, and honestly their inability to properly admit the harm they caused gives me a lot less faith. If they just said "we made this deal to make more $$$" I'd have more respect than trying to spin this as charitable for "the scene". Sure maybe it'll bring in capital, but will it also bring in more leashes, and restraints, and when the next series has a finale maybe it'll be exclusive to theaters, or whichever streaming service comes to them with a big check?
Ultimately, this is a haha funny animated show production company, and will not have a huge impact on my life whatever direction it goes. And there will always be artists making art to consume elsewhere. But it sucks to see the start of corporate rot in what seemed like a cool crew. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful.
I'm glad you posted this, because my 8-year old keeps asking to watch this show. It seemed inappropriate at my first glance, so I told her I needed more time, and probably to watch it myself before giving a final okay. Her friends and family her age have unfortunately watched it already, so it 0+keeps creeping into my day to day life, and other people have let her watch an episode or 2 without my okay. The conversation here, and especially the link to commonsensemedia have given me some of the tools and language I need to make these decisions more quick, and communicate them more clearly in the future.
After browsing commonsensemedia for a little, I want to pivot to a bit of a rant. I checked out reviews for another show named The Hollow and the swing between what constitutes an inappropriate rating on that show vs. Digital Circus is just pissing me off. There are people posting 10+, 12+ or even 16+ for it containing "LGBT themes". The theme in question is that one of the characters says the works "I'm gay" in the 2nd season. In comparison, a show like Digital Circus has a female character literally say the words "I want to have sex" and it is seen as appropriate for 12+? So hetero-normative sexual themes are seen as more appropriate to these people that a gay person existing? It just makes me want to go onto review the majority of shows as 12+ for containing "hetero-normative themes".
(amusingly, that character is non-binary (they/them in the script thus far, but the wiki says "any pronouns") and has body image issues, which are topics that spur more debate these days than bangin')