Ok so all this talk about kid's shows and what is suitable reminded me of another thing that bugs me. Now, when I was growing up, I had Sesame St and Suzie Kato (she's a NZ thing, dunno if she got international, but it was lots of singing and learning and all that jazz), and then as I got older there was Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, and ok some of it was pretty stupid and of no value besides weird entertainment (Rocko's Modern Life ftw!). Then there was Teletubbies..."eh oh" and such...and I thought that was pretty stupid, the whole this-isn't-a-real-language thing, having been brought up with Sesame St, which was super-educational by comparison....and now there are at least 3 other shows of playing right now (its 3pm here, school's just finished) that are almost identical....no correct language, no numbers, no other lesson....just Tumblyboo and the Plinky Plonk? I swear that's what he just said.....this is In The Night Garden..... So I guess my question for anyone who can answer it, is why are these shows being made, what is the point of them, and are they achieving anything more than the stuff I watched in my childhood?
This should be pretty obvious, but the point it's that it's profitable. No, they aren't achieving anything else.
For the record, I think most of those shows (the ones with fake languages) are mainly for the pot-head parents entertainment. It could also be the fact that they are easier to make. You have a lot of leeway when it comes to content when there is no actual dialogue. You mentioned Rocko's Modern Life which was, at times, a very witty and well written show. Quality like that takes time and teams of writers working hard to put out material that is actually funny. Shows like Teletubbies does not. When you think of Sesame Street it is the same thing. They used a team of writers to get an educational script that was actually entertaining for children. That requires hours of fact checking, even if it is rudimentary knowledge, and then talented people to craft and interesting plot and story around the theme. When you have a show like Teletubbies you can eschew all the writing and research in favor of being able to mass-produce episodes. As long as there are bright colors and goofy characters children will be amused. From a purely business standing this makes a lot of sense. Quality over quantity = ratings in children's programming. Though I, for one, think entertainment of this quality, or lack there-of, is moving us towards a politically correct version of Idiocracy. Granted your kid won't care if his/her friend is purple or red or green but he/she will also have lesser knowledge of grammar, sentence structure, numbers, and basics of humor. Then again, you could debate whether or not television should have such a large part in a developing child's life. I won't get into that because I was raised on Rocko's Modern Life, Angry Beavers, Sesame Street, and Darkwing Duck.
Most kids programming is mush. Nonsensical, incorrect, and pointless. This is, of course, my own opinion on the matter. Like Acglaphotis said, it's being made because it makes money, which is sadly the only fuel the world seems to runs on. It's made to keep the kids distracted with funny sounds and sights and bright colours.
According to Sturgeon's Law it doesn't matter if most kid's shows suck because it's just conforming to the norm, in that 90% of everything is mush.
Yep, it's pretty much a zombie box in the morning and afternoon. Sit the kids down, give them something to eat, and watch their minds turn to jelly. But who am I to judge? One day soon I might be sitting my kids down in front of the same rubbish just so I can have a minute's break. A lot of kid's TV is terrible for the fragile minds, but hell, it must be fantastic for their parents. LOL. And all the mum's and dad's said a resounding ----
My brother and his wife won't let their kiddo watch tv. The result? Every time I babysit him and the tv is on, he won't look at anythinb but the screen. That has nothing to do with kid's tv shows, though. Sorry. I have always been relieved that my younger siblings think most kids shows are ridiculous. It makes me happy to know that not all kids can be turned into zombies by dancing, fluffy alien creatures.
Most children's shows these days are incredibly tame. When I was a kid, I watched the old Disney TV show Zorro, which was considered a family show, perfectly all right for children. It was pretty much a Wild West/Swashbuckling show. Lots of fights, people being shot. Now it's hard to find a children's show that has real villains even when it should.
Ok, I'm sure I'll probably sound like some ornery old geezer here (despite only being twenty-two) but most childrens cartoons these days are beyond mush. I grew up on cartoons like Ren & Stimpy, Rocko's Modern Life and Angry Beavers. With these shows, it seemed like the writers and artists actual put time and effort into creating these shows. Nowadays, the creative process for a children's show is basically: "So this week lets just flash bright colors." "You mean like we did for the last twenty weeks?" "Yep." Sigh... If/when I have kids, I'm gonna show them dvds of the shows I grew up on rather than current kid's shows.
Firstly, what age group are we talking about here? Sesame Street age or Hannah Montana age? It seems like some of us are talking about very young kids' shows like S.S. and some of us are talking about more mature (debatable) kids' shows like Hannah Montana. Or do you guys just hate them all? I personally dont see anything wrong with kids' shows today unless it's morally, not intellectually or creatively. Like the reference to the thread "Can they really say that?" from the OP, the only problem I have with kids' shows today is that it seems like they're designed just a little too mature for the intended audience a great deal of the time. Intellectually or creatively, I dont think it matters if they emphasize bright colours and cheesy storylines --yes, perhaps it bothers you and I, but then again, our minds have outgrown bright colours and cheesy storylines while the younger minds have not. But if it comes down to bright funny colours or hearing absurd words and teachings like in the other thread, I'd prefer the funny colours. When I was watching Sesame Street at age three or four, I wasnt thinking about what an amazing plot it had --I liked the fun colours. When I was age five or six, and watched a PBS show "Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders," I was more interested in how pretty the characters and costumes were, how cool the unicorns were. I didnt care that it didnt stimulate my brain intellectually, probably because my brain wasnt ready for complex thinking like that. I can give a fairly long list --I was quite prolific in my television watching as a child, and you had better not say that I'm simple because I enjoyed the shows. I could argue for any and all of them. You guys are right; you do sound old. "In my day, television shows were good!" Drop it. Except for the ones that push the boundaries to the limit (IE saying a word that shouldnt be said or incorporating a plot line that shouldnt be incorporated --which is generally your generation's fault anyway), the shows are fine --just different. "Dear Angry Older People, over 21-ish, anyone who considers themselves an adult, still bitter: Next time you're wondering what's wrong with kids today, you might wanna check the examples you've been giving us to work with." (Buddy Wakefield)
I think it's the really little kids, under the age of 8ish, or that's what I was talking about. And, um... I actually admit to watching Hannah Montana. And the Wizards of Waverly Place. Some of those Family channel shows for the olderish kids are extremely funny. Or maybe I'm just easily entertained. My beef with children's programing is that they have a huge opportunity to educate but for whatever reason they don't/can't/won't. A lot of kids today live in cities and don't have the chance to roam the streets like strays the way I did. TV should, I think, be trying to fill that lack. Don't get me wrong a few of them do. I don't think the shows I watched as a kid where super-fantabulous-best-TV-shows-EVER, but I think there were less of them so they put in a little more effort. Actually some were downright awful but they were funny. This is my opinion, and for that matter it may not be accurate because our perceptions and ideals change as we grow, and our memories go through filters to be what we want to remember. So I remember TV "back in my day" to be a little "better," but that's probably only because I want to remember it that way. And everything childish gets a little lame as you grow up. Except Hannah Montana
Aw. I love some of the programmes my two year old daughter watches. I love In The Night Garden, I love Johnny and the Sprites, I love Big Cook Little Cook. Yes some of its not educational, but not everything I watched when I was little was educational. Sesame Street and Playdays was, but The Poddington Peas and Williams Wish Wellingtons werent. I think its okay for her to watch things like that, because she spends all day at nursery learning, then she'll spend another couple of hours at home painting and drawing and reading, so I think its fine for kids to have half an hour or so to relax & let their brains switch off. Plus in a weird kinda way I have a thing for Sportacus from LazyTown. Look him up girls haha xxx
Maybe kids don't care, but they do benefit from educational-but-fun things where they do not realize they were learning. I watched a show called Beakmans's World as a child, and did not care one bit about how much science I was learning, but now can see what I've gained from it, with my love of learning and understanding of how every-day things work.
Yeah but now Ren & Stimpy is an incredibly awful show, due to it becoming an entertainment source for adults looking for a cheap thrill. I have three younger siblings, one of them does not live with me. The middle child watches those types of shows almost all day long and he learns some really bad habits off of them, like hitting people when they do something he doesn't like. But then again, he gets his temper from his father. So its probably not the show completely, but there are certain things that should be eliminated.
