Baby Entertainment Television

By Amelie Gillette  |  May 11, 2006 | 11:34pm
Aux Features Hater

Today, Direct TV launched its very controversial BabyFirstTV, a commercial-free channel aimed at the coveted 6 months to three-year-old demographic.

I don't really have a problem with there being a TV channel for babies. As long as they're not injecting television directly into infants, TV's probably not that harmful. But what I do have a problem with is the fact that

BabyFirstTV costs $9.99 a month. For less than that, you can get HBO On Demand, and there is no way that the production values of the shows on the two channels are the same.

A Few Examples:

To make The Sopranos, HBO has to pay for film, a full crew, writers, directors, big salaries for its stars, wardrobe, craft service for James Gandolfini, etc., etc.

To make The Sandman (please go watch a clip here) BabyFirstTV has to pay for sand. Oh, and maybe $10/hour for the "sculptor" who draws pictures in it.

To make Big Love, HBO has to pay for film, writers, directors, a full crew, salaries for all the cast, massive insurance on Chloe Sevigny, upkeep on Margene's blog, etc., etc.

To make Rainbow Horse

(a show that is

exactly what it sounds like), BabyFirstTV has to pay an animation student who knows how to use both black & white AND color palettes.

Basically, rotting your baby's brain should be way cheaper, or much more entertaining.

 
Join the discussion...