Rainbow Brite, We’ll Always Remember You Before You Got Slutty
Posted by: Erin Flaherty
Filed in:
entertainment
3:40PM, Wednesday October 14th 2009
Rainbow Brite was the original fag hag, what with her sassy attitude, outrageous clothes and her BF, Twink. Those of us who were little kids in the ‘80s spent Saturday mornings entranced by her intergalactic adventures, and she was a good role model for young girls because she could do anything the boys could (and usually told all them what to do). One thing our beloved heroine was not: sexy. And that’s OK, because she is a children’s character. Fast-forward to spring 2010, when Hallmark will unveil the modern Rainbow Brite and Co. The original childish bodies have been replaced by elongated, leggy versions of their former selves. Twink’s new name is Twinkle (gee, wonder why?). Wait a sec, didn’t this happen to Strawberry Shortcake and Dora, too? When will the madness end? [Jezebel]
The outrageous before and after, plus a bonus vintage video, after the jump!
Look at these sweet, innocent ‘lil cherubs. The kind of company you could safely leave your kids with.
Look at these whores on the prowl. It’s like they grew up and went shopping for slutty Halloween costumes!
Now, here’s how we remember Rainbow Brite. As a take-charge kind of role model. May her memory live on in the hearts of Gen Y forever more.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Raugiel
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 02:43 pm: [report]
Ick. The new RB looks like the knock-off Barbies you’d see in the grocery store when I was a kid. Not really “sexy”, not cute, just sort of lame.
wawmama
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 02:48 pm: [report]
Yeah, not sexy. At least they are not bratz.(Srly-ethinic does not mean bimbo-esque toy companies!)
GreenAura
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 02:55 pm: [report]
What sacred 80’s cartoon will they sexualize next, the Carebears? Should we all anticipate the antics of Chlamydia Bear and Gay-For-Pay Bear?
FrzKey
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 03:00 pm: [report]
New artist, new drawing style. The outfit and hair actually aren’t that different. I do object to Twink becoming Twinkle but I think it’s pretty hard to see a white fuzzball as a sexual symbol of twinkdom in any case.
Goldfinch86
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 03:06 pm: [report]
Dear 21st century,
Please stop destroying my childhood. I don’t care if your new mission is to turn my 9 year old step sister into a rainbowed slut, but your ruining my childhood icon by rainbowed icon. Now I know you pretty much left Lisa Frank alone and the Care Bares, but you messed with Popples and My Little Pony a bit which made me sad. Your murdering the best part about the 80’s and you need to stop. Why don’t you try an not so popular show to ruin, because then it wouldn’t feel like your reinventing because you obviously ran out of ideas.
Thnx
amandabear
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 03:09 pm: [report]
@GreenAura: I would love to see Gay-For-Pay Bear. Hilarious.
They don’t look that sexy to me, but it’s definitely a blasphemous redesign of one of my childhood favorites. Why must ever 80’s cartoon be glossed up and redesigned? The original is far cuter. The new versions are kind of creepy looking actually.
Queen Frostine
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 03:12 pm: [report]
If they so much as touch Jem and the Holograms, Ima have to hurt somebody.
Antiquity
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 04:17 pm: [report]
-sniffles- I want my childhood icons back to their former memories… Jeeze. Gotta ruin everything for me.
AgentBeryllium
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 04:54 pm: [report]
Noo! yeesh! And folks wonder why 7 year old girls have eating disorders?!
vaiaster
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 04:54 pm: [report]
@goldfinch86, That was great and so true. Thank you.
NaomiK
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]
I wish someone had asked Disney not to crap all over my childhood movie favorites with Lindsey Lohan. Are we really so creatively bankrupt that we have to recycle 20+ year old cartoons?
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 05:58 pm: [report]
@NaomiK: Yes. Exactly. We are so creatively bankrupt that we will and have sacrificed everything that was ever good. Including (I will undoubtedly leave things out) GI Joe, Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Speed Racer….just checked…they are making a Thundercats movie.
We are doomed.
CaleeKay
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 06:42 pm: [report]
Hm, i wonder what gumby, pokey, prickle, and goo would look like.. haha
emerica789
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 07:43 pm: [report]
so wrong.
Kathls
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 09:14 pm: [report]
WTF! stop #&@$% with my childhood!! I want to know why they can’t bring back all our awesome childhood cartoons and toys without changing them? Do they really need updating to be captivating to children? No, as long as they are colorful, fanciful, and full of adventure, kids will like them. Or have we reached the point were kids actually won’t play with toys or watch cartoons that aren’t sexualized and jazzed up to the hilt? God, let’s hope not.
And please spare the Care Bears. What’s next The Wuzzles and Magic Nursery Babies—or have they already gotten to them too?
Lesigh
p.s.—I haven’t thought about Lisa Frank in years! If you’re ever having a bad day, all you have to do is take a look at a LF puppy Exploding with color. It’s impossible not to feel a little fuzzy inside.
Mod Potter
wrote on October 14 2009 @ 09:45 pm: [report]
Where’s “Shy Violet/IQ” in this mix?
So they get rid of the intelligent chick for some slutty friends with hooker names such as Moonglow and Tickled Pink.
What’s next? Medieval wench Gummi Bears?
DancerNinja
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 12:12 am: [report]
I am NOT okay with this. And what’s with the new cat eyes on top of it all?
MissChaotic
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 12:14 am: [report]
For you Lisa Frank fans…Ed Hardy has tainted her brand.
*sobs for our future generations of prostitots*
raqueleza
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 12:39 am: [report]
They look like Bratz dolls rejects. Sad.
ChocoBoo
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 03:28 am: [report]
Damn dude! What’s next? “Top” and “Bottom” Smurf? Strawberry “Slut"Cake?
@Queen Frostine:I remember JEM& The Holograms!
If they get put through the ‘lolita machine’, I’m gonna get the Misfits (JEM’s arch enemy band, not Glenn Danzig’s group) to come kick Hasbro Co.‘s a@@!
stephoney22
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 08:35 am: [report]
What the eff??? Those RB imposters need to get to steppin…to the street corner where they belong. My cousin had RB drapes and sheets and it was so fun to have sleepovers at her house!
resullins
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 12:04 pm: [report]
@Miss Chaotic: Prostitots, HA! Very cute.
@QF: You protect the Holgrams, which I used to LOVE, btw… and I’ll stand guard over Fraggle Rock. When I have kids, I’m buying them Fraggle Rock, Care Bears, etc on DVD… they aren’t getting CLOSE to the TV with that crap on!
Bond Girl
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 12:55 pm: [report]
@MissChaotic: Prostitots! Lol, I love it!
Raugiel
wrote on October 15 2009 @ 06:30 pm: [report]
@ Queen Frostine - actually, if someone made a Jem doll that didn’t look like Ken in a dress, I might buy it. I still have my old Jem doll, and she looks as manly now as she did then…
Twig
wrote on October 16 2009 @ 01:23 pm: [report]
I don’t see these outfits as over-sexed or “slutty” (hate that word). Actually, quite a few comments have said they don’t think the outfit looks sexy at all. Which is a perfect example of damed if you do, damned if you don’t.
I get that it is sad to see our favorite child-hood characters get older, but they are for a new generation and are growing up too! I think the new look is age appropriate, spunky and playful without too much skin showing. We need to teach little girls that growing up is natural, and that they don’t have to rush to be “sexy” or cling to their baby clothes either.
NaomiK
wrote on October 16 2009 @ 01:31 pm: [report]
OK, so they don’t look like barbies, but I think there’s something special in showing children characters that look like them (or at least their size/age) doing amazing things that just isn’t there when the characters look like adults and teens.
abbylyn
wrote on October 16 2009 @ 01:43 pm: [report]
I don’t think the new outfits look “slutty” - the dresses may be a little short, but not any shorter than the dresses on the originals. It looks like the characters are now teenagers instead of cherubic toddlers/little kids. I’m more upset that they felt the need to give them a makeover than I am with the makeover itself.