Comments on: Barnyard: A “Male” Cow?

By: Erin

Erin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:24:21 +0000

I agree. Personally, I think that the makers of the movie/show thought that kids wouldn’t be able to recognize Otis as a cow without his udders. But think about it: most times you see a cartoon cow, they usually have udders. Are supposed to assume that every cartoon cow we see is female? Or are the artists just making is easy to tell that the cartoon is a cow for kids? If this is the case, I still hate the show/movie, though. It’s not bad or anything, in fact, it has some good jokes written in. It’s just ridiculous that male cows have udders, though. And it’s not just Otis, either. All, or at least most, of the cows have udders.

By: Arnoldo

Arnoldo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:32:55 +0000

QUOTE: Erstwhile “The thing about it is, it was probably by deliberate design to keep people talking about it and the show. To modern executives, any publicity is good publicity. It’s the philosophy of all MTV/Viacom-owned networks, including Nick.”

Almost everytime you turn to Nickolodeon that stupid show is on. But that character design is a sight gag I cannot bear to watch !

It is said that many cartoon writers try to promote some agenda .. but this .. this is just rediculous ! There is artistic license .. and there is bad taste. This is just bad taste. It is NOT funny. A transexual cow as a protagonist on a kids show ? Do we really need that ?

The “male cow” has a girlfriend, and there are also actual “bulls” on the farm. Why confuse children like !

All this cartoon does is make sex-ed more difficult to conduct !

How can we lower Aids transmission, and educate children properly about sex, if Hollywood insists on protraying sexual / biological Fallacies in their movies/cartoon

By: Erstwhile

Erstwhile — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:16:06 +0000

“Why are we still commenting on the gender-bending cow?”

Because Nick has made it a priority to force-feed this swill down Nick fans’ throats by running marathons of it day after day, as though it was the best cartoon they ever had. More than likely they spent a lot of money producing it and got terrible results, but are still trying to get their money’s worth (which means it’ll be on for the next century). I’m a fan of other shows on Nick, but you can’t get away from the over-promotion, especially this waste of a time slot. It’s almost traumatizing seeing the Otis character.

The thing about it is, it was probably by deliberate design to keep people talking about it and the show. To modern executives, any publicity is good publicity. It’s the philosophy of all MTV/Viacom-owned networks, including Nick.

By: Dan Lister

Dan Lister — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:18:54 +0000

Why are we still commenting on the gender-bending cow?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:30:46 +0000

I have been confused by this also. If you think this is weird, you think wrong. What’s even weider is that they do have a bull in the movie. As in, a real Bull (no utters). But yet they give the other “bulls” utters. Why can they not just take off the utters from the “male cows” like they did with the bull?

P.S.-If you don’t know what bull I’m talking about, it’t the part where the animals are partying and Bessie, the new cows friend, takes two chairs from a cow and a bull.

By: Ameerah

Ameerah — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:28:15 +0000

I just finish reading all the 56 comments and I have to tell you I been wondering this udders thing since the movie was made asking myself Am I wrong??? I know cows are females and bulls are males and bulls dont have udders because thats part of the reproductive organs of the cow to feed calves. It is very difficult to explain a 4 years old child why they have udders, it is just stupid, I could not find it funny at all. It is just confusing, to the kids, to us and also makes the film makers look stupid, also could be possible they want to introduce the Subject Homosexualism with this movie because we all know this is not knew, what really bother me is that this movie is directed to kids…. So of what are we talking about here????

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:05:23 +0000

Wow! Really? I’ve never been more depressed about the state of society than after reading the diatribes regarding a cartoon! A cartoon!!!

By: Magny

Magny — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:18:31 +0000

This is not a good movie. I was watching it today and I changed the channel few minutes after. This brings more confusion than entertainment. And I think is promoting homosexuality.

By: Ennjyx

Ennjyx — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:34:36 +0000

I can believe I did not notice this! We had a discussion in science about how this bothered my Bio teacher, as well as things such as a flaw in the Hungry Caterpillar book. x3; Off topic. Ya. This is somewhat funny though… The thought of a transvestite bull. HA! It’s a stupid, unintentional, hilarious mistake and grade school kid could make.

By: Molly

Molly — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:21:23 +0000

“So my best guess, is that he was born a girl, but is attempting gender reassignment. ”

My little brother watches it, and this is my guess as well. It’s the only logical answer, and it would be cool if it was what the director intended. but sadly…. cartoons no matter how crazy, do have to have a sense of logic. Even the early spongebob cartoons had that “out of this world but still logical” logic that made it funny.
From what I’ve seen this show doesn’t and it bothers the heck out of me. If it’s a transgender cow, fine, but don’t make parents try to explain male cows with udders to their kids.. sheesh.

By: Randy Johnson

Randy Johnson — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:58:12 +0000

I watch the television show on Nickelodeon. I haven’t seen the movie. It doesn’t bother me that Otis is a male cow instead of a bull but I do think it’s stupid. The people who made the movie and the television show should’ve known better.

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:57:47 +0000

Happened across everyones comments today – nice to know that I am not the only one who thinks the a male cow with udders is just wrong. It’s not even funny – just dumb. Maybe the thought that he ‘is in transition’ works – then its really not a kids show then, hmmmmmm. People say cartoons have no depth-LOL.

By: Margie

Margie — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:34:44 +0000

I know this is from a month ago- but this detail drove to such distraction, that it was almost impossible to enjoy the movie! Lately, my kids have been watching the series, and in one episode, Otis actually “milks” himself (no euphamism there) and in another episode, they show him talking in his sleep and he murmurs “No Mommy, don’t make me wear a dress!”. So my best guess, is that he was born a girl, but is attempting gender reassignment. That would explain an animal farm run by a vegetarian, it is really a sexual reassignment sanctuary for farm animals!

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 04:29:40 +0000

Just a great American pastime… Let them bleat udders

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:49:54 +0000

@Richard

No one is more surprised than I am that this post continues to generate comments.

Vic

By: the old man

the old man — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:44:10 +0000

neither, it’s the idiots who pay more attention to “Entertainment Tonight” than the state of the American farm.
Stewardship vs exploited asset. Until somebody tells congress, their’s no bread. Of course I suppose someone will suggest, “they eat cake!” instead..

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:29:20 +0000

Uh… so, are the udders the bastards, or the wheat??

By: the old man

the old man — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:20:15 +0000

Great an excuse for one of my favorite quotes:
“History celebrates the battle-fields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the ploughed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of the kings’ bastards, but cannot tell the origin of wheat.
That is the way of human folly!”
—J. H. Fabre

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:59:50 +0000

We just watched this with our kids tonight. My wife and I noticed the same curious udder issue right away and soon ended up on this blog. Little did I expect reading through the comments dating back 2 years that this would still be a thread through tonight. Artistic license of cartoon characterization aside (animals don’t really talk…got it) the movie clearly paid deliberate attention to genaral realistic detail in all other aspects its world of animals, fur, textues, woodgrain, etc, etc. The rooster wasn’t popping out eggs, was it? But the udders are just a feature that is glaringly dumb. The writer/director/producer’s comments that ‘he spent .002 seconds thinking about it’ is evidence of that, and ‘I just thought it was funny’ is just irritating. But more so is that, though clearly a B or C level animated film, it still cost millions to make, and was overseen by (how many?) executives, editors etc at all phases of production. NO ONE pointed this problem out along the way? Everyone got the joke? And just how did the movie play the udders for comedy? Just because they’re there? What is that, Zen comedy? Sorry. Not even a one-note joke there. To sum it up folks, think about this: if the farmer walked around the entire movie with a third eye in his forehead just because the director thought it was a funny sight gag, would it make any sense? No, there’d be some other group out there blogging about why in the world the guy had a third eye.

By: PhotoShopLifter Dan

PhotoShopLifter Dan — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:06:46 +0000

Maybe Otis is a metrosexual mutant?