Content posted on this page is to only be about improving the article itself.
For all other types of discussion, please post them in the forums. This includes (but not limited to) theories, discussion about how great someone is, fanon stories, etc. You have been warned. Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes).
It's not due to the actual censors at Disney, it's due to foreign broadcasting laws. Contrary to popular belief, foreign reception can make or break a show. Remember Robotomy? That show that aired on Cartoon Network for a little bit and was paired up next to Adventure Time and Regular Show when they were relatively new? It achieved great ratings, but the show tanked and the entire studio behind it went under and everyone there lost their jobs. Especially considering GF is rumored to be one of (if not the) most expensive animated cartoons currently on, that would be horrible for Disney's animation division as a whole and put a lot of people there unemplyed. Why's that?- A lack of foreign appeal. Plus, foreign branches of networks can deny airing shows for any reason whatsoever. If they included an LGBT character, likely foreign networks (specifically in China or Russia) would deny it, and possibly get the whole network banned. Apparently it's worse for cartoons.
The symbol on the necklace is a symbol often used in the trans* community; the symbol in the upper left is used to denote transgender/gender-variant people, and it was sensored all the episode with the male-female one:
Yeah Disney has probably gone full on liberal now and allowed it. Wouldn't be surprised but maybe they are not. I mean a lot of times they do stuff like this for comedy relief I'm serious. Or the answer that is probably real Disney has gone full all liberal and next we're going to get a stupid spin-off of Good Luck Charlie, about the gay mom's in it.
I actually thought this was very nicely executed in the last episode. Disney doesn't want any gay characters for fear of backlash like with Good Luck Charlie. Blubs basically admits he and Durland are in love, but bye making them not kiss, you can argue that Blubs meant it "as a friend". I'm guessing that's how the writers managed to get away with it.
Antmanwarscowboy wrote: Yeah Disney has probably gone full on liberal now and allowed it. Wouldn't be surprised but maybe they are not. I mean a lot of times they do stuff like this for comedy relief I'm serious. Or the answer that is probably real Disney has gone full all liberal and next we're going to get a stupid spin-off of Good Luck Charlie, about the gay mom's in it.
HIGHLY doubt that. Disney has definitely not gone full liberal. They got a lot of backlash for what they did in Good Luck Charlie. Disney has long been seen as a family thing, so Disney is supposed to be a traditional family channel. Many parents and grandparents got upset when they found out there was a lesbian couple. A lot of them said they would make sure their children never watched Disney again. By not having more gay characters they are attempted to avoid another backlash.
I honestly got a joke impression from it since they are so close and aren't afraid to show their affection it would seem that way. Of course throughout the show all the little jokes and scenes they shared they would say otherwise.
Yes they are and it seriously pisses me off because I used to admire and dream of becoming a cop. Now my friends that watch Gravity Falls can't stop joking about me being like Blubs and Durland. I seriously hate those two...
I'd say that. I do agree that there has been some subtext in some episodes.
I also agree that they do have to be careful with that sort of thing. As stated before someone could make a mountain out of a molehill and boycot something, possiably taking others with them. That can go south for a number of reasions.
I think they are now in a relationship because of their interactions as well as Durlands final quote.
If you still think that this is still too ambiguous then remember when we did a Dipcifica discussion, when compared to that, Blubs and Durland are direct with their relationship rather than the whole ship tease thing with Dipper and Pacifica.
I think that Disney took a low road on the whole thing. I am still not a 100% on the Derland and Blubs thing, though we may get an answer soon since Alex Hirsh's Disney contract has probably already ended, and he can speak openly about the show. I think though that Disney should of just made them gay, and been done with it, and told the haters it is the 21st century not the 1950s.
I don't think that the both cops are otp, it's only non sense fanservice.
I respect the LGBT, although i'm not gay, but it was out of canon or the story, i mean alex said this after the show ended. but it doesn't show the evidence on tv, cuz disney censorship, so i think that they aren't otp couple.
I like the idea of them together, even if it isn't explicitly stated. Happily ever after, even together ever after, is the most courageous, like, the most noble thing two people can shoot for. With all the discrimination from homophobes and transphobes, it's nice to se Blubs and Durland work their way through it together.