In a Word, It’s Plain, New ‘toons Are Super

Some critics--including our very own Howard Rosenberg--contend the 1990s represent the real “Golden Age” of prime-time series, citing shows ranging from “Frasier” to “Ally McBeal” to “NYPD Blue.” Others--including members of my very own family--cling more fondly to the past, arguing that nothing today rivals “The Honeymooners,” “The Dick Van Dyke Show” or “The Twilight Zone.”

Hey, reasonable minds can differ. What doesn’t seem open to debate, however, is how much children’s television has improved from where the genre languished a few decades ago.

Why raise this point now? First, because so much discussion of late has focused on the inappropriate media images assailing kids, with little mention of the explosion of more laudable options; second, the cable industry has proclaimed this “Kids and Family” week, trying to remind people there are reasons to subscribe, other than late-night porn; and finally, Nickelodeon marks its 20th anniversary this month, providing a reminder of the change children’s programming has undergone since the 1970s in terms of variety, quality and sheer volume.

The quality gap might be easy to overlook, were it not for one of Nick’s newer cable rivals, the Cartoon Network. Owned by Time Warner, the channel runs original animated series but fleshes out its schedule with the media giant’s vast program library, airing such venerable kids’ shows as “Super Friends,” “Smurfs,” “Josie and the Pussycats,” “Huckleberry Hound,” “Speed Racer,” “Secret Squirrel” and “Godzilla,” complete with his annoying, idiot nephew Godzooky.

Having grown up in the 1960s and ‘70s--and having eagerly looked forward at the time to watching some of these programs--viewing them again it’s hard not to think, “Dear God, just how starved for entertainment was I?”

Children’s programming in those days consisted principally of the Saturday morning lineups on the Big Three networks, PBS, a few syndicated shows and the occasional after-school special. Most “animated” series of that era (with the exception of “Looney Tunes” and other material produced initially for theatrical release) were animated in only the barest sense, with characters seldom moving anything but their lips--a skill since perfected by conservative commentators George Will and William F. Buckley.

Poorly drawn and unimaginatively written, children’s shows clearly represented a low priority. Produced on minimal budgets, the few action scenes were seemingly used over and over. There was a lot of talking and music, usually to disguise just how little actually happened.

Bad as it was then, kids’ TV sank further in the ‘80s, when “He-Man: Master of the Universe”--a Mattel Toys property exceeded in sheer awfulness only by the live-action Dolph Lundgren movie--and “Smurfs” reigned among the more popular programs.

“I have been shocked on occasion,” Mike Lazzo, Cartoon Network’s senior vice president of programming and production, conceded in regard to revisiting some older series he recalled from his youth.

The examples include a version of “Huck Finn,” which ran during “The Banana Splits,” which Lazzo dubbed “probably the worst show ever produced for television. It was literally one animated background with live-action people standing in front of it. There was no movement, nothing. . . . There are shows that will never see the light of day that are in the [studio’s] inventory.”

Several factors helped alter this landscape, beyond the tireless lobbying of activist Peggy Charren to pass the Children’s Television Act, which created Federal Communications Commission guidelines for “educational” shows. Not surprisingly, most of the advancements have had to do with making money, not with altruism or good citizenship.

Fox’s success with “The Simpsons” proved an audience existed for more imaginative animated fare. Nickelodeon then raised its output of original programs, graduating from the slimy days of “Double Dare” to “Ren & Stimpy,” “Rugrats” and “Doug.”

“The world blew up in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, thanks in part to ‘The Simpsons,’ ” said Nickelodeon President Herb Scannell. “Ultimately, the creator became empowered, in the same way at MTM in [the ‘70s and ‘80s] the writer became empowered. . . . You also got more people coming in who weren’t waiting for their break in prime time. They were happy making stuff for kids.”

Animation may also be the only area in which vertical integration--meaning huge companies own networks and studios--has yielded some tangible benefit to viewers, as Disney, Warner Bros., Fox and Viacom (Nickelodeon’s parent) pour resources into animated films and TV shows from which they squeeze revenue on multiple fronts as distributor, licensor and theme park operator.

To see the difference, one need compare the magnificent “Batman” and “Superman” cartoons Warner Bros. has produced in the last few years for the WB network to the ‘70s creation “Super Friends,” which currently airs on Cartoon Network. In similar fashion, Disney has spent a fortune on “Mickey MouseWorks,” the first new TV cartoons in decades featuring that renowned rodent, both to perpetuate retail sales and as fodder to run on ABC’s “One Saturday Morning” lineup as well as on the Disney Channel.

“Animation, right now at this moment, is better than it has ever been,” Lazzo said. “It went through a period of questionable iffiness . . . [but] now people are putting more time, effort and money into the programs. They’re not just half-hour toy commercials.”

Cartoon Network also has discovered some of the older properties wear pretty well, as demonstrated by its steadily climbing ratings. Recently, in fact, some friends of mine cobbled together a birthday party for their 5-year-old daughter based on a show “Scooby Doo, Where Are You?” that premiered 25 years before she was born. At her age the artistic shortcomings of a series--even one produced three decades ago--aren’t always significant.

The good news is that such kids, and conscientious parents, have never before had more choices available, from broadcasting to cable, home video to the Internet. Still, a variety assortment of junk food isn’t exactly nutritious, which puts the onus on the TV industry to avoid simply raiding its vaults--churning out 57 channels of “Atom Ant” and “Dynomutt”--and maintain the quality and care that has given rise to this Golden Age of animation. If there’s any cause for optimism, it’s because as long as there’s a buck in doing so, they will.

“The lasting mark that cable makes on the world is more [programs],” Scannell said. “At minimum, you get more, and in the process of that, you’ve got to hope you get better too.”

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.