> Most kids shows seem like a low effort afterthought full of contrived vapid nonsense.
Kids brain is not adult brain. You need a different kind of training material.
Kids brain is not adult brain. You need a different kind of training material.
Taking Bluey as a specific example, it's really nice to model positive family relationships. Sesame Street's original goal was to "master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them."
Tom coming back 1 second after being blown up with dynamite makes sense?
Maybe these kinds of cartoons are bad according to you.
There it research that kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising (fixation period, ...) because that builds a model of how the world works, not the easily predicted stuff.
dclowd9901 already said the issue is when it's "just lazy storytelling". Pixar shows you can tell great stories with cartoon physics.
You don't eat only sugar. You don't eat only carbs. You don't eat only protein. Your body needs a mix.
Many people want their kids to have a healthy diet. Saying Nutella is a "sometimes food" is not the same as saying Nutella is "bad", or that it's a "never food."
Tom & Jerry is a sometimes food. Other shows exercise a different range of critical skills.
I was gobsmaked when I saw a clip from Mr. Rogers where Daniel Striped Tiger asks Lady Aberlin "What does assassination mean?", in a special episode created after the assassination of RFK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQv0ZtpRdNk And Mr. Rogers could tackle racism head-on, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4recJ6qXyk in an era when blacks were prohibited or physically attacked for trying to go to "white" pools.
Bluey could take on these sorts of topics for kids, in an age appropriate way. Tom&Jerry could not.
Nor could Blippi, so it's not just cartoon physics that's the issue.
But Mr. Rogers couldn't pull off the classic "coyote paints a picture in a wall, Road Runner enters the picture and speeds off into the distance, coyote tries and crashes into the wall" gag, nor should it. I don't think it's a good idea for kids to only watch Mr. Rogers-type shows either.
> kids are more interested in stuff which is surprising
Strange then that kids' cartoons are often so formulaic.
"The Animal Mechanicals are sent to a new floating island to resolve a problem. The team comes up with a plan, and each team member gets to use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end."
"Something goes wrong. The Paw Patrol are called to help. Ryder comes up with a plan, the pups use their special abilities to help out. There are problems along the way, but they are resolved and everyone is happy at the end. Except for Mayor Humdinger."
But it’s all in service of telling a fun, unique story, so it gets a pass.
Video edutainment is a futile proposition. Get your face out of the screen while you still can, and be present to your fellow man.
One thing I think that illustrates this is that my daughter will often have questions for me after watching Bluey. Like actual meaningful questions about life or how the world works. If she’s watching TOTS, she’s just sitting there mouth agape and maybe getting bored enough to just walk out of the room.
Parenting is a marathon, not a race. If it takes a village, parents need to be able to rely on the village from the time to time.
Some kids don't live in a place where they can interact with the natural world, for starters, because our society is awful.
Additionally, not everything even in kids entertainment is dreck either. You have your Bluey's, and you have pregnant Elsa spiderman keyword slurry. A spectrum you'll find in basically every media, kids and otherwise, between actual art that's made by people wanting to share something, and content-mill designed-by-committee (or AI) bullshit that's designed to keep your attention.
The unfortunately true part is now more than ever so much more of the latter of this spectrum is present than the former, because everything in our society is done for profit and not to make the world better, and it's far more profitable to make by-the-numbers repetitive minimum-viable-product garbage that people will tolerate rather than truly great things that take time and care to create that people adore. But that's a curation problem, not a problem with the media itself.