How Australia’s ‘Bluey’ conquered children’s entertainment

I know it's a little thing, Daniel Tiger's very-heavy autotune on all the singing (and there's a lot of singing) drives me nuts. I'd be shocked if Fred Rogers would have been OK with it. Young kids should hear natural singing voices in media aimed directly at them.

Last I heard he said he wasn't planning to make a 4th season of Bluey. But it was worded in a way that made it sound like it wasn't ruling it out completely.

One thing I admire about the show is that all the children actors' identities are a secret. No one outside of the show's team knows who voices Bluey and Bingo (other than the fact that they're the daughters of someone who works on the show), which probably affords those girls as much of a 'normal' life as possible, something that celebrity children wouldn't ever get to experience.

That also makes me wonder if the reason we're not getting more than 3 seasons is that their voices will change. But man, I really hope he puts out more stuff, whether in the Bluey universe or elsewhere.

>I would love to be as good as a father as Bandit.

Man, make sure you don't kill yourself trying! I always think the other parents in the neighborhood want him to dial it back so they don't look bad.

Yeah I'll go further.

- It doesn't display the dad as a bumbling idiot for a start, an unmistakably uncommon move in home set shows.

- It doesn't synthetically force women to the center stage for the sake of scoring points with left leaning audiences.

- It doesn't shoehorn in political messages that don't belong and largely harkens back to a time where childrens television didn't require scrutiny of the publisher just to see if it fit the parent's flavor of morality.

- It largely fits the actual day-to-day life experiences of individuals who are most likely to have kids young enough to watch Bluey, namely millennials.

- Parent's are main characters in a lot of the episodes: The parents in Bluey aren't some side-object only included for the sake of completeness. The parents are main characters and are developed as thoughtfully as the children. By doing this the producers were able to garner attention from both the children and the parents. It's honestly a bit of a shame that we've sidelined parents for so long for fear of offending people.

- The show unashamedly depicts an intact household with two loving, heterosexual parents. It's "stunning and brave" in the current culture.

- The show depicts two children who are absolutely uninvolved or unconcerned with their sexual identity, despite the current narrative being that they are the age at which they should be.

- The show is diverse, but not for the sake of checking a box. There is no prioritized group in the show and tension between the breeds of dogs are displayed as equitable and able to relate to one another with minimal conflict (much like in real life, despite what you may have heard).

- There is no mention of a god. There is no big G god, nor any pagan gods. There are no "spirits", no "forces", no "inner being" that is wrestled with. It's a kids show and stays a kids show.

I could go on, but at this point I feel I've overstayed the common HN user's tolerance.

Yeah, I eventually figured that one out - I was actually familiar with the Holst but couldn't place it, so for a while I was just thinking "oh, I know this from somewhere"