tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post8919250259422590699..comments2024-03-27T22:27:16.556-04:00Comments on It's About TV: Not for kids onlyMitchell Hadleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08695771505209080030noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post-71970093736175871422013-07-09T12:28:27.859-04:002013-07-09T12:28:27.859-04:00I think the decline you refer to had its seeds sow...I think the decline you refer to had its seeds sown quite a while before the quiz scandal.<br />Advertisers - but more importantly, <i>advertising agencies</i> - had the majority of control in radio-TV in the '50s, and the networks didn't care for that at all.<br />More to the point, <i>producers</i> didn't like it either; ad agencies were the enforcers of the blacklists, and producers felt that the networks might be easier to deal with there (they were wrong about that, but that's another story).<br />It may be that the quiz scandal was the catalyst, in that the threat of federal government involvement suddenly arose - and here you might have another essay altogether.<br /><br />Back to kid shows:<br />Over at another blog, <i>She Blogged By Night</i>, the proprietress Stacia recently devoted a series of essays to a chapter-by-chapter summary of <i>The Phantom Creeps</i>, a 1939 Universal serial that starred Bela Lugosi as the villainous Dr. Zorka.<br /> I'd seen this serial as a little kid (6 or 7) on one of those daily kid shows I mentioned above, and accordingly I sent a comment to SBBY recounting the experience, as best as memory would allow.<br />I can't reprise the whole thing here, but if anyone would like to seek it out, just type in <i>She Blogged By Night</i> and look for the label <i>The Phantom Creeps</i>; my comments are scattered throughout the twelve chapters.<br /> This serial and others like it would appear to be the kind of programming that the crusaders of the world would want to protect me from; certainly no modern-day programmer would risk putting such a show on today for 21st-century kids (no matter how entertaining it would be).<br /> <br />I might have more later on, here and on the TV Guide essay; when and if ..Mike Dorannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post-39456247284702746262013-07-05T20:03:34.675-04:002013-07-05T20:03:34.675-04:00Hey Mike,
Don't need to take time replying - ...Hey Mike,<br /><br />Don't need to take time replying - I think you're spot on. You've probably explained it much better than I could. I think you could extend your argument, that the general decline in television in general comes from the reaction to the quiz-show scandal, which was for the networks to take charge of programming away from the sponsors. While there are positive aspects to be derived from this, a definitive negative is that the ratings became far more important than they had been previously, which is what elbows out shows like Voice of Firestone.<br /><br />Dare I bring up Sesame Street, ACT, and the downfall of local kids' programming?<br /><br />Happy 5th to you as well - hope you're doing something fun!<br /><br />MitchellMitchell Hadleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695771505209080030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post-11989240241245306772013-07-05T19:59:11.290-04:002013-07-05T19:59:11.290-04:00Hi Joe,
Thanks for the kind words - appreciate yo...Hi Joe,<br /><br />Thanks for the kind words - appreciate your readership!<br /><br />I think the conflict in the tone of the two articles comes partly from the time they're reflecting: one in the late sixties, the other in the early seventies. As we read the first article, traditional cartoons, e.g. Bugs Bunny, Top Cat, Alvin, etc. have been overrun by the superhero cartoon. My own memory of them as an eight-year-old was that they were awful. (By the way, I agree with you on Hanna-Barbara. I think their best cartoon by far was Top Cat, and the rest are forgettable.)<br /><br />By 1973 the superhero model has kind of faded away, replaced by the hackneyed "sitcom" version, e.g. animated movies about the Harlem Globetrotters, Ann Marie from That Girl, Siegmund the Sea Monster et al. Those could be pretty bad as well. (The Pink Panther, despite its laughtrack, could be clever, I thought.) The contemporary accounts suggest that critics really did look at this as mindless dreck.<br /><br />The constant in both of these TV Guide articles is the lack of creativity in the cartoons. The animation is subpar, the storylines simplistic, the humor either weak or nonexistent. Children's programming has always been a lightning-rod for criticism (see Howdy Doody), so admittedly this is nothing new, but in my own childhood, having been born in 1960, I was dissatisfied by the transition from traditional cartoons, (represented by Disney, Warner Brothers and MGM - Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and Tom & Jerry) to the superhero. By 1973 I'd given up.<br /><br />Personally, I've never bought in to the violence argument, at least as it was construed then. As FCC Commissioner Dean Burch will point out in next week's essay, the jury is out on the effects of violence on children. I also think violence has evolved - and not in a good way - from 1968 to today. The threat today is not from violence per se, but from the way it tends to instill in children a sense of dehumanization, that there isn't anything sacred about the human being.<br /><br />What I like about television, though, is that all this is open to interpretation - and I love your comments and your own insight! I hope you'll continue commenting.<br /><br />MitchellMitchell Hadleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695771505209080030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post-87952603430103243522013-07-05T12:53:58.552-04:002013-07-05T12:53:58.552-04:00Would you really like to know what went wrong with...Would you <i>really</i> like to know what went wrong with TV programming?<br /><br />Not just kid's shows, but <i>all</i> TV programming?<br /><br />Very simple, actually.<br /><br />They tried to get scientific about it all.<br /><br />Instead of just putting on anything and everything that they could think of, the networks and the advertisers started to try and <i>custom-make</i> shows for specific audiences.<br /><br />And when you think that way, you hire consultants to tell you which people will like which programs, and what they will or won't like about programs, and who they will and won't like in those programs, etc., etc, ad infinitum.<br /><br />In the case of kid's shows, you got the anti-conflict pressure groups telling sponsors and networks that what played in an earlier era wouldn't do so today .. mainly because <i>they said so</i>.<br />This was the earliest manifestation of the junk science of "demographics", which has essentially ruined most forms of entertainment in the USA.<br /><br />I have no "science" to quote at you, no surveys, no empirical studies - nothing other that my own experiences as a '50s kid from Chicago, with all the networks available to me.<br /><br />Before the networks took everything circa 1960 or so, most television was <i>local</i>, especially that which was aimed at kids.<br />What did I see?<br />A lot of local hosts who showed ancient cartoons (Popeye was the big favorite in the '50s - the old B/W Fleischer cartoons with their muttered voice tracks and wham-bam-slam fight scenes), or perhaps '30s two-reel comedies (Laurel & Hardy or the Little Rascals - the Three Stooges came later in the decade), or Saturday afternoon serials (Mascot, Republic, Universal - shown daily after school), or edited-down B-westerns (Buck Jones, Johnny Mack Brown, Whip Wilson, you can fill in the rest), or whatever else you could think of.<br />Or maybe they'd just do live comedy and music, usually in front of a live audience of squealing brats who'd laugh at a pie in the face or sing along with an old novelty number from years before - the way I would with Two-Ton Baker the Music Maker, or Uncle Bucky and Aunt Dodie, or Uncle Johnny Coons and his "sidekick" George Dummy (actually a mannequin who only could be heard by Uncle Johnny),or Ray Rayner and his duck Chelveston, or Susan Heinkel (you remember that comment, don't you?), or any number of others (these are Chicago names ... you can no doubt come up with your own from Minnesota).<br /><br />All that went out the window once the networks took everything over, and began analyzing everything to death.<br /><br />Even with comedy, everything had to made safe and sanitized; the Stooges never had a chance, let alone Rocky and Bullwinkle and their satire.<br /><br />The real irony of the whole situation, was that all the while, <i>kids were watching the so-called "adult" shows in prime time anyway</i>.<br />I know that my brother and I did.<br />You know that you did. <br /><i>Anybody</i> who grew up with TV did.<br />And that's why we all turned out so badly (?).<br /><br />I won't see your answer to this (if any) until Monday, so take your time about it.<br />Happy 5th of July.Mike Dorannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6042603612494762084.post-33449404534658993692013-07-04T14:31:16.381-04:002013-07-04T14:31:16.381-04:00I read both of your articles. I am confused. In th...I read both of your articles. I am confused. In the first one you condemned children's Saturday programming as not movie studio cartoons. Now in this article you declare anti-violence movement was bad for Saturday cartoons. Huh?<br /><br />When I read your first article I felt you didn't understand how a kid felt or least how I felt from 7 to 10 years. Instead Hanna Barbera crap of cheap studio era cartoon knock offs, we had half hour scripted programs. If you look at them as an adult they are pretty bad. But to a 10 year old it was like having your own prime time programming just for you on Saturday. Or weekdays with syndicated Japanese cartoons like Astro Boy, Gigantor and Speed Racer.<br /><br />By the way I like your blog and I read it every week. Thanks for time and effort.<br /><br />Joseph C McGuirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18031292261737674489noreply@blogger.com