Pushing Media on the Wrong Audience: How "Kid-Friendly" Adaptations of Mature Media are Contributing to the Literary Crisis

We live in a literary crisis.

That fact has been widely discussed across social media ever since I first starting posting videos back in 2024. Its factors are argued far and wide, becoming a heavily-debated topic in the bookish space, but I don’t think any singular thing can be pinned for the blame. Literacy is not defined just by the ability to read words—it’s being able to understand those words and apply them to one’s life. It’s about reading comprehension and nuance, themes and symbolism, ideas that run far beyond the mere written word. It is more than just digesting the text, but actually taking, perceiving, and hopefully appreciating it. And it is that ability to comprehend literature that has become so lost in the modern world. While there is certainly a great deal of factors that have contributed to the current crisis, I think there is one in particular that stands out among the rest:

Pushing media to the wrong audiences.

What I mean by this is taking any sort of media—such as a show aimed at teens or a book for adults—and pushing it towards an audience different than what the original piece was targeted towards. In my experience, this usually means taking said media and advertising it to or making a version of it for children. There seems to be a trend that every piece of media needs to have another iteration that is dumbed down and simplified for kids, even shows and movies that are in no way suited for them.

Something you should know is that I’m a huge fan of Supernatural—the annoying kind of fan that tortures her friends with memes from the show—so naturally, Instagram likes to show me SPN content. In my doomscrolling, I happened upon the official Supernatural Little Golden Book. A Little Golden Book? I thought. The book series for preschoolers having an edition on the show that revolves around monsters, blood, death, and crude jokes? But my eyes had not deceived me, and it was indeed a picture book for ages two and up based on the show.

Instagram has also shown me similar things for Netflix’s Wednesday—a show rated TV-14. Not only did it have three separate Little Golden Books, but another set of easy-reading books for ages six to eight. Wednesday also has dark themes and showcases quite a bit of blood and violence. The interesting thing about this is that the Addams Family franchise as a whole is already better-suited for children. The original TV series is more comedic than grotesque and is family-friendly. The films (The Addams Family and its sequel, Addams Family Values) are both PG-13, but the animated movies are specifically for kids. Wednesday is the darkest and most violent of all the installments, and yet it’s that show specifically chosen to make Little Golden Books with? For an audience as young as two years old?

This sent me down a rabbit hole in which I scoured the collection of Little Golden Books, curious as to what other franchises had made their way into the series. I didn’t have to look for long. Included in the Little Golden Book series are books based off the following:

• Supernatural (rated TV-14, though many individual episodes are higher)

• Wednesday (TV-14)

• Harley Quinn (this character appears in a lot of media of various ratings, but The Suicide Squad is rated R, and the Harley Quinn animated show is TV-MA)

• Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV-14)

• Jurassic Park (PG-13)

• The X-Files (TV-14)

• Friends (TV-14)

• Stranger Things (TV-14)

• The Office (TV-14)

• Parks and Recreation (TV-14)

• Bob’s Burgers (TV-14)

• Saturday Night Live (TV-14)

• The Mandalorian (TV-14—another example of a franchise that already has content better suited for children)

• Mean Girls (PG-13)

• The Avengers (again, there is some kid-friendly content within this franchise, but some books were based specifically off the PG-13 films)

• Avatar (PG-13)

• Jaws (PG)

The problem isn’t the books themselves; as far as I can tell, the kid-friendly versions do not have any of the explicit content or mature themes the original media has. But, given that in most of these cases, the original media is not suited for children, why are there new iterations of it being pushed on kids? Why does Mean Girls, a movie centering around high school drama, require a preschool adaptation? How is Friends relevant to the 2-5 age group the Little Golden Books are aimed at? It seems strange to me that these are the pieces of media chosen to have kid-friendly adaptations. It’s especially disappointing to see with this book series in particular, given that Little Golden Books have been so beloved for decades. What has changed? Why have we gone from simple preschool stories about puppies and Disney classics to pop culture?

I think the simple answer here is blatant cash-grabbing. Another segment of Little Golden Books are biographies, many of them revolving around celebrities. Taylor Swift alone has three separate Little Golden Books about her, plus “Ultimate Fan Editions” for two of those, and the third being a “Baby Edition” aimed at infants. No infant or toddler requires an “Ultimate Fan Edition” of a Taylor Swift book; these titles are being published for adult fans, not for children, and that’s exactly where the problem lies. While a picture book about Sam and Dean Winchester fighting monsters makes a cute token for a Supernatural fan, it simply isn’t targeted for the age group listed on its Amazon page. And it’s a major problem if a book listed for children was not written and published with children in mind.

The biggest issue with this is the value of the material itself. All of the shows and movies I listed earlier have themes and motifs—mature ones, in most cases. The thematic imagery woven into these films is lost when they are simplified for a children’s adaptation. Supernatural’s themes of brotherhood, perseverance, good versus evil, and consequence are replaced with “Sam and Dean fight monsters in a really cool car!” These adaptations completely miss the motifs of the original media, or simplify the mature themes so much that there is nothing to be gained from them anymore. In the process, the educational value for the kids is lost. Aside from a few of these books having a learn-your-ABCs format, there really isn’t much to be gained from these stories by the target demographic. While it’s cool to have LEGO shows and picture books about dinosaurs, adapting Jurassic Park in this way completely overlooks the themes such as hubris, the consequences of commercialization, and man versus nature. It essentially destroys what made the original so profound.

These kinds of adaptations also tend to break the continuity of the original media, especially when cartoon shows are based off of an already-established franchise. The characters in the new show are merely cartoon caricatures of their former selves that miss out on all the depth and complexity they had before. A personal pet peeve of mine is when the cartoons depict the protagonists as kid versions of themselves—such as Spidey and His Amazing Friends, which follows Spiderman as a kiddie version of himself, completely throwing out the canon of Peter Parker becoming Spiderman as a teenager. To me, this signals a lack of care about the media. There doesn't appear to be much thought put into these cartoon adaptations; the companies behind them seem to be banking on the popularity of the characters to sell the show rather than the value of the media itself. It hurts especially when it comes to franchises that have demonstrated an ability to create unique and interesting stories geared for younger audiences, such as Into the Spiderverse (PG), which not only fits with existing canon but is an insanely well-made movie. Fans of all ages appreciate new iterations more when thought and care have been put into them.

Another issue with kid-friendly versions of mature content is that in a way, it serves as an advertisement for the original piece. A book about Wednesday Addams for second graders might not contain inappropriate content, but it does pique interest for the larger show that has violence and mature themes. The same can be said for all these franchises that had Little Golden Books adapted from them; adult sitcoms and high school movies really have no business being present in media for preschoolers. And when you throw clueless parents who don’t realize the original is violent or explicit into the mix, we have situations where young children are presented with mature media before they are ready. In the example of the Harley Quinn book, there is an show called Harley Quinn that has sexual content, cussing, and violence. But because it is animated—and because of the presence of Harley’s character in children’s media—it is a distinct possibility that a parent could turn it on for their child without realizing that it’s explicit. Harley Quinn is not exactly a character that translates well to children’s media; she is a violent villain/anti-hero who is often sexualized. While she is most definitely a fan-favorite among adult viewers and readers, I don’t think she is a character that necessarily needs to be adapted for a preschool book.

An example of this happened with Wicked. While the movie is PG, the original book by Gregory Maguire has adult content throughout, and is not suitable for the same audience. But, when the movie released, the book was re-released with a movie tie-in cover and was put into stores like Walmart. Parents bought Wicked, seeing the movie tie-in cover and mistakenly assuming it was comparable to the movie. I can’t imagine the number of young girls who were exposed to content they should not have seen for a while yet because of this inconsistency.

Mature media being pushed towards younger audiences happens more than you think. Earlier this month, my family received a gift guide for kids from Amazon—basically a little book that has toys listed so kids can put together a Christmas wishlist. My brother, who is seven, has been devouring this book ever since it came in the mail. I was flipping through it to see all the toys he’d picked out and was shocked to see that Fourth Wing and A Court of Thorns and Roses both had themed board games included in this book. These two titles both have official age ratings of 16+, but many readers and content guides agree that those ratings should be higher, especially in the case of Fourth Wing, which is commonly cited as a book for 18-25. ACOTAR has a later book in the series rated as 18+. Both series contain explicit sexual content, violence, mature themes, and foul language. Fourth Wing alone is credited to have nearly 250 f-bombs, and its sequel, Iron Flame, has almost 400. The Fourth Wing game listed in the gift book was rated for ages 14+. The ACOTAR game was thankfully listed as 17+, though I still maintain that it should not be in the same book as Fisher Price toys to begin with.

In light of this, I started researching and discovered there was a slew of board/card games based on these two titles available on Amazon. There are editions of Monopoly for both rated as 17+; an ACOTAR would-you-rather game listed as 13+; and most concerning, a Fourth Wing edition of Monopoly Deal for ages 8+. While the games themselves likely do not have explicit content, they do serve to introduce the books they are based off of to the kids that play them. Especially concerning was that when doing my research, I realized that Fourth Wing does not have a rating listed on its Amazon page. I was trying to find the official age range for the purposes of this article, but was unable to find it anywhere on the Amazon listing despite reading over the entirety of it twice. Imagine if an ten-year-old receives the Fourth Wing edition of Monopoly Deal and wants to read the book because of it, and a clueless parent does not see that the book is flagged as having mature content on the Amazon page and decides to buy it. I fear this opens up a significant problem with what is being pushed towards kids. It leaves a possibility of kids being unintentionally exposed to content that is far beyond their age.

Junior novelizations of mature franchises don’t stop at the Little Golden Books, either. Stranger Things has each of their seasons written in a book format for ages 8+. Supernatural has another picture book for 2+. Friends has an entire slew of picture books and children’s media on a variety of topics. The Office does as well, for ages as young as infants according to Amazon. The Jurassic Park and Jurassic World franchises have much of the same, including the LEGO show I mentioned earlier.

And before anyone starts screaming about purity culture, I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that the original media is bad or should cease to exist because of its material; in most cases, I truly love the originals. Supernatural and Wednesday are among my favorite shows. It’s perfectly fine that they have mature themes and content because they are aimed at older audiences who can handle such things. I'm not saying that violence or explicit content should not exist, but rather it should be regulated to the correct spaces. Elementary-age kids do not need introductions to franchises that were never geared for them to begin with. Audiences should be able to mature and grow into an age where they can interact with and comprehend a given piece of media rather than having a washed-down version spoon-fed to them as a toddler. Making everything appropriate for everyone often destroys the themes and purposes of the original. It’s this trend of simplifying media that has become such a catalyst for the current literary crisis.

A few weeks ago, I was looking to buy Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I accidentally purchased abridged versions that had been simplified for ages eight and up. These versions of Shakespeare’s plays were laughably reduced from the original formats, which are typically introduced in middle and high school curriculums. While kid-friendly retellings of older works are oftentimes amazing— such as Gnomeo & Juliet—a dumbed-down version of the play with no other element of uniqueness or retelling strikes me as odd. These abridged versions gloss over the themes of the plays and really add nothing to the value of it. Shakespeare is considered to be one of—if not the—greatest writers of all times. It feels disgracious to simplify his work to the point of ridiculousness. He isn’t the only one affected; Charles Dickens, the Brontë sisters, Robert Louis Stevenson, Mark Twain, Jack London, Jules Verne, Mary Shelley, Edgar Allen Poe… Nearly every classic taught in schools has “easier-to-understand” versions readily available on Amazon that completely destroy the writing style of their respective authors. These works are already read, broken down, and studied by kids in schools, so why is there a need to simplify them for even younger audiences, at the expense of the original style? Fahrenheit 451 touches on the subject, attributing the fall of literacy as beginning when books were condensed to “cliffsnotes”, which were shortened, summarized versions of the original texts. It was these reduced versions of books that led to the shortened attention spans of the population, which in turn led to a society that depended on superficial and shallow gratification—a society where books were not only deemed unnecessary, but harmful. It was this very specific simplification of literature that led to the dystopian society Fahrenheit 451 presents.

Modern media as a whole has a poor habit of reducing itself to be easily understood. The art of nuance is becoming lost. No longer are audiences left to make assumptions and conclusions about a given work; the message is spoon-fed to the point that no one is making their own interpretations. This is happening across media of all ages, but it’s especially profound in children’s content. Take My Little Pony, for example. While a “girl’s show” for kids, it is widely regarded by the fanbase as having insanely well-written characters, especially its villains, to the point that there are grown adults with entire YouTube channels dedicated to breaking down the lore and characters. But the newest generation throws all of that out the window. Most notably is one of the villain songs from the newest iteration of the show, in which the character quite literally sings the words “I’m a villain” over and over again. No longer are the kids watching the show left to connect the dots and make the assumption that this character is a villain, which is an extremely important part of reading comprehension. Instead the message is being laid out so plainly that it’s absurd. There isn’t anything to be inferred or concluded; there is nothing to read between the lines with this character. And it’s especially disappointing to see from a franchise that has championed such nuanced, well-written villains in previous renditions.

This over-simplification of themes is startlingly present in these kid-friendly versions of shows. As I mentioned earlier, the cartoon caricatures cannot have the same emotional depth or complexity in a children’s iteration as opposed to the original version for teens or adults. In my experience, most of these adaptations hardly even try to achieve the same level of acuity the original had. The essence of these stories are being stripped away to the basic premise. There is nothing to be learned, especially not among the demographic they’re being pushed to. As kids grow up on these washed-down stories, they will have an inherent bias when they finally come into contact with the original media. By spoon-feeding the oversimplified themes—especially in adaptations that break the canon of the primary piece—to readers and viewers when they’re young, it will be easy for them to miss the nuance, depth, and subtlety of the main media when they interact with it at the appropriate age. Every piece of literature or film is created with a very specific target audience in mind; every element is curated to align with this demographic. When you take that literature or film and make it adhere to an audience that is different than the original target, problems will ensue unless it is very specifically and carefully done. I think Wicked is a decent example of adult media that was tastefully adapted for younger audiences, but even then there have been issues because of the differences between the two iterations.

This problem is worse when you consider that very rarely do the adaptations have the same author as the original. Subtle themes imbued into the story by the creator will fail to appear in adaptations if the same person is not behind them both. No two authors will ever have the exact same vision for a story. When you factor this in with the simplification of themes in order to adhere to an unintended audience, and the blatant cash grabbing that goes on in light of these adaptations, you are left with a mess of a story that does not do justice to the initial piece or either of the audiences. There is a wide variety of media that has been adapted to a kid-friendly version in a tasteful way—such as how Disney classics are retellings of the old Grimm brothers’ fairy tales—but they only work when they are done in a way that keeps the new audience in mind. The Disney classics weren’t baseless cash grabs, but movies that were well thought and catered to their new demographic, complete with their own themes and morals that actually taught the viewer something. They weren’t abridged versions that glossed over the originals, but unique stories that drew inspiration from the fairy tales and formed their own message. It’s that exact art that these modern adaptations are lacking.

Simplifying any kind of media is bad enough, but taking already-established franchises with a set adult audience and turning them into content for kids is not appropriate no matter which way you spin it. In most of these cases, there is simply not a solid reason for why these shows and movies are being adapted for children, or why adults books are being turned into content that is advertised to kids. At best, it’s blatant cash-grabbing; at worst, this is intentionally done to target unaware audiences. Either way, I do believe it is largely affecting the literacy of children today. Books are being mass-produced with no thought towards the themes or educational value, and because it’s popular series with well-known characters, they’re finding their way into the hands of children easier than most. This issue is really a combination of several overarching problems within the current publishing industry: Simplifying literature, pushing inappropriate content in books towards kids, abandoning uniqueness in favor of what’s popular, and an overall lack of themes or purpose in modern writing. These issues are reciprocated through the entertainment industry as a whole. This is an era of reboots and spinoffs and remakes for content that does not require it. We don’t need a live-action redo of The Little Mermaid, then a cartoon show based on the remake, then a Little Golden Book based on the cartoon. Originality is fading out, and with it goes the purpose of the original media. The themes, motifs, symbolism, style, and social commentary that these older works championed are being cut down and forgotten in favor of abridged remakes that do nothing to add value to the inaugural piece. We need to accept that not everything needs to be kid-friendly; these films, shows, and books had an intended audience, and it’s perfectly alright for that specific audience to be the one to interact with the work. There is a wide variety of content made just for children. We are not so lacking in children’s media as to have to dip into mature content to provide for younger demographics. As much as I love the original franchises, I believe it is both problematic and detrimental to push them onto an audience they were not intended for.