Kids TeeVee Better Before

Children's television. We were all at that stage once when this was our ultimate pillar. Those of us fortunate enough to grow up in front of a telly, got to experience some memorable content that met both our amusement and development. But you know that all-too-common argument everyone tends to share? The one of belief that the creations and experiences of old are incomparably superior to those of the modern era. I'm here to discuss just that and it's impact on preschool programming. I'm sure many of the younger parents now with kids go on to see what their child is watching on TV and believe it isn't the same. Well they wouldn't be wrong, as I too see it having taken a turn for the worse. What's even more upsetting, is how it has damaged some of our childhood material. There are a bunch of shows still running since the eighties a nineties because of their success. However, they have forcibly faced multiple changes to meet with today's TV standards. So much so that they've become barely recognisable to us older audiences.

It's totally understandable why modern children's programming is significantly different to that of my time. There is always that need to look new and fresh. For the CGI shows to have clean and discernible animation along with visually striking elements, vibrant voices and familiar formats of clear-sounding quality. Some that are live-action, require a great amount of imagination in the form of magic, stories and bright, bubbly personalities. All of these provided through less time-consuming methods and by a wide range of different channels and streaming services, definitely sees preschool television carrying some advantages. But this is where it pretty much stops. I think most my age (and older) can agree on one massive problem when it comes to the remaking and prolonging of old works for today's young, impressionable minds. And that involves the loss or discarding of depth, emotion and even nostalgia.

I suppose it is worth commending today's producers for attempting to continue the legacies of some of the more iconic works brought to the living rooms from the past few decades. It is somewhat a very small taste of what the slightly older generations grew up with (Fireman Sam, Noddy, Postman Pat, Thomas The Tank Engine, etc.). Emphasis on the 'very small', because the question remains whether children of now are gaining the same experience. It might seem ridiculous for an older person such as I to complain about something I have long grew out of, but I cannot help but feel my beloved childhood being tarnished with cheap, plastic adaptions and other junk spin-offs. Some of the classics I grew up with look to have been not only remade, but engulfed by the occasional political statement. Others have undergone hideous makeovers to appear overly simplistic and dumbed down to the point where they can be perfectly understood by a jellyfish.

The masterminds behind these vintage ideas, probably wouldn't have much of a problem with how their work maintains relevancy in the ever-changing landscape of children's television. But I truly believe that these people are refusing to see their art now potentially being mishandled and even mocked to some extent. A few of them have become so visually and aurally unappealing that they leave me wanting to close my eyes and cover my ears. When I think of kids being exposed to this stuff today, I'm genuinely left asking whether they are growing to understand the fabric and true nature of the world they're living in. Here I thought I'd look at eight shows for children (in alphabetical order) that I see having once reached a peak, only to then either not age well or lose what they stand for. If you happen to think otherwise about some of these, that's okay. This is just my own personal opinion. Feel free to share yours in the comments section. Also do pardon me for a occasional change of tone as I may let my emotions take over here and there. Let's begin shall we:

Almost 22 years and counting. I like most people, am somewhat astounded by the fact Arthur is still airing new episodes to this day. However, I too see the reasons for its longevity. This series is a child's path to understanding reality. A perfect mix of education and imagination to entice kids and have the come out learning valuable life lessons. From basic literacy and numeracy skills to the importance of family and relationships. Arthur even explores some hard-hitting ideas regarding illnesses and mental disabilities along with how sufferers tackle them on a daily basis. It's everything jam-packed into 12-minute stories that surround an 8-year-old aardvark along with his family and friends, in a fictional world inhabited by colourful, anthropomorphic animals. Once could even say it is animation's answer to Sesame Street, minus the audience interaction. To even be based on a book series, makes this show all the more purposeful and deserving of its worldwide success.

I can't really judge Arthur or share a proper personal view of its quality right now, given I have little access to the programme. I also have not made an effort to watch the newer material. But what I do believe is that any show regardless of how much it achieves, should eventually come to a stop. It is quite natural for nearly every television series to lose it's power over time. From what I've seen of Arthur, I feel there is only so much it can tell that's both intriguing and child-appropriate before it becomes just another ordinary children's programme. Along with the possible dilution in value, comes an overflow of chapters. Too many stories could likely leave kids finding themselves lost in the fictional world. The show's best work is too suffocated by the growing sea of mediocrity. This long-lasting series if stretched for too long, could reach a state that's irreversible and beyond repair. One thing I will praise Arthur for is it's animated stability. That being the show's animation not decaying to become something uglier like what happened with Ben 10, Pokémon and the 2003 series of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (The TeeVee I Loved).

It can be said Helena Harris achieved what very few could. She turned an incredibly silly concept (in the form of a song) by British composer Carey Blyton, into something so iconic. The Bananas In Pyjamas have long been a couple of memorable faces not only in children's television, but Australian television as a whole. Their presence on TV screens are a reminder of the country's accomplishments. From the famous theme song to the lovable characters. The live-action series over nine years was both a glow and warmth to nearly every household. All it took was roughly five minutes of small adventures with friendly and vibrant life-sized bananas and teddy bears (along with a rat in a hat), to showcase the extraordinary imagination of humankind to everybody around the world. Although educating kids wasn't the primary objective, Bananas In Pyjamas remains a catchy work of art to ease young minds and bring forth both happiness and joy.

After the live-action series ended in 2002, years were spent re-running the episodes until a full CGI version came around in 2011. This animated interpretation of the Bananas in Pyjamas although lasting for just two years, wasn't a disappointment by any means. It expanded in multiple areas, introducing more characters and sharing greater stories with deeper meanings to them. But one thing I thought really hurt this idea was the fact that it unfortunately came after an original show more convincing and magical. Having first been live-action, Bananas In Pyjamas carried a sense of uniqueness. It gave off the real look and had the ability to install belief in any child. So for a bunch of people to then return these characters to television screens via computer technology, it shot down that magic. It left the successful concept looking like almost every other modern-day work for kids. When you hear the theme song, it will likely leave you reminiscing. But I don't think the animated visuals in any way will play a part in recreating the mental picture.

A little something Britain can be very proud of. Bob The Builder was a roaring success during my years growing up. It was everything a children's programme was about at the time, engineering plenty of its own signatures through colourful characters, unforgettable catchphrases and even commercial hits for the song charts. The original series stood out in stop-motion animation and produced stories easy to follow along with. Most kids could generally find joy in the small adventures, as just about all content was distinguishable through both sight and sound. Bob The Builder even went on succeeded in merchandise and toy sales outside the show. There were a few minor disagreements from the public surrounding the way roles and responsibilities for builders have been shown to children. But this series overall was Keith Chapman mixing head and heart beautifully. It was without any doubt, TV for kids at its absolute finest.

So what could possibly ruin such great work? This question would be answered quite comfortably in 2015, with a dodgy reboot. One that would go on to alter nearly everything that made the earlier stuff so special. Other than the very smooth computer animation, the new Bob The Builder series has failed in just about every category. The attempts to make something new out of the old content did not work, with the voices and character designs being somewhat discomforting to set focus on. The theme song and catchphrase were unnecessarily tampered with and the stories in general looked a little more lifeless. It's all aimed at the newer children, and practically the whole lot of them wouldn't care. But the people around my age are not wrong for serving the tough criticism, especially considering how influential the original series was to their lives. This poor excuse of a reboot looked to be nothing more than a cheap imitation and a means for some people to make dirty money.

Fireman Sam was around for quite sometime prior to my existence. But episodes of the original series lasted long enough to meet my childhood years. It was an idea raised by two ex-firemen as a means to share the sort of stuff they experienced (in a fun and safe manner to children). It's one of a few components I admire very much about the show. Another was the 80's theme tune, which arguably became one of the catchiest and most recognisable of its kind. Though the sound quality of the song was poor, its something that increased in importance over the years. The golden vibe it brought left no new rendition to this day being able to match it. The show itself revolves around a fireman named Sam and his fellow team of firefighters, who aim to ensure the people of their fictional town called Pontypandy are safe from fires or any other hazardous situations. It occasionally teaches kids messages about what one is to do in a crisis as well as how to prevent them from occurring.

Despite many bits and pieces coming off strong, I personally wasn't a big fan of the Fireman Sam series as a whole. It's probably close to one of my least favourite discussed here. I don't necessarily hate it or anything like that, but I just couldn't connect with it. There wasn't any particular character or quality I could tie myself to. The thought put into this world felt too shallow for my liking. Another possible reason why I couldn't get into Fireman Sam, was the fact that Pontypandy didn't seem so inviting. It basically looks to be unprofessional workers, troublesome kids and burning blazes almost every single day. Perhaps it's a hidden or unintended message about how easy danger can rise. But I still feel the importance in every preschool show allowing for that mental pathway between children and the imaginary world to exist, as it makes for stronger more passionate storytelling. If Pontypandy was a real place, I wouldn't be in any hurry to visit it. Even though my interest in the series never shined, I still managed to see old seasons overshadow the newer ones in plenty of areas. The new seasons for me are just thoroughly hard to view.

My biggest issue lies within the way some of the characters sound. Not so much the accents. In fact, I applaud whoever was responsible for opening children up to such ideas. My problem lies with the voices themselves. Oh my goodness, the voices of some of the characters are downright awful. If you want children to sound like children, try avoid going for grown men with their treasures in a vice. If there were a list of things I could compare the voice of James Jones to, an actual young boy would most certainly not be one of them. Oh and don't get me started on Norman Price. The ugliest of voices to go with the ugliest of personalities. Hands down, he would be Pontypandy's most annoying resident. Does he have some sort of sinus infection? He sounds excessively nasally and whiny. It's like they want your ears to bleed. I mean come on, not even a mother should love that voice. I understand the need for distinctive voices so that visually impaired children can too identify characters. But please, this is in no way the answer. Give me complete narration from John Alderton every day of the week.

A show that was probably a little towards my brother's time. But after viewing much of the Dreamworks take on Enid Blyton's famous wooden toy, I decided on going back in time for a little taste of the original series from the early nineties. It only took a couple of episodes for me to understand what I was seeing, and it was something structurally similar to many other children's content of its time. Noddy's Toyland Adventures was a stop-motion piece of art low on energy, but it was a peaceful experience and kept more in touch with the literary works. The central character himself, was rightly shown a young boy with a big imagination and much of the unknown world in front of him. With the love and help of his toy friends, he goes on to make choices and learn something from them regardless of whether they're right or wrong. This version of Noddy comes across as something more relatable and welcoming to the target demographic. Interesting fact. Enid Blyton is indeed the uncle of Carey Blyton, the British composer mentioned earlier in the piece who wrote the 'Bananas In Pyjamas' song.

Then there is the most recent adaption of the character in Noddy, Toyland Detective. Bar a few worthy praises for the smooth animation and logical direction, these versions of the Toyland characters weren't so inspiring. Noddy while a little more mature here, was rather a stiffened 'copy and paste' protagonist for an overused story idea about detective business. This concept for what was meant to be a carved toy, sucked life out of the entire collection of works. It was a spit in Blyton's face and lacked consideration for what made his literature special. We already have that many characters known for such roles in investigation, that can be shaped to entertain children. Sherlock Holmes, Tintin, Inspector Gadget, Encyclopedia Brown, Mystery Incorporated and so on. So what is the point of turning Noddy into something he isn't? People would say it was an experiment worth the shot, but I don't see it as much of an experiment. It's more-so an attempt at tarnishing someone's decorated successes.

Another series which never really won my interest. I am however, well aware of it's  warm reception and numerous achievements. Having too caught glimpses of episodes both new and old, I can safely say it's one of those preschool shows that didn't devolve much. As a matter of fact, Postman Pat had rightly expanded across each series to become more appealing. It continued to construct a more believable world, and managed to meet the modern age without losing touch of it's original aspects. So the praises and profits are fair. What I do feel hurt John Cunliffe's art though, was some of the choices for expansion. Beyond the series were a few spin-offs that failed in a way to recapture the essence of UK's most famous fictional postman. One being Postman Pat: Special Delivery Service, which sort of sucked the postman role out of the main character by making him into a collection of jobs including a pilot, tradesman and even an animal rescuer. Another spin-off was Guess With Jess, an almost unrelated project following Pat's cat which now talks and solves problems with farm animals for a slightly younger audience. After these also came a full-length movie that didn't sit entirely well with the public. When it's about experimenting with the dearly loved Postman Pat, these decisions have been quite average at best.

I don't think there is any Australian person that hasn't come across this programme. We often make jokes about how cheesy it can be. We often wonder whether or not presenters lose pride based on what they do. We have even made parodies of the theme song. Nothing about this bothers me, as I find it to be quite a normal attitude. This was just one of those preschool shows you watched as a toddler, mocked as a much older kid and came to admire as an adult for how much it helped you develop and grow. The reality is that this is a highly-educational programme with an amazingly broad vision. It is basic knowledge for the appropriate ages and taught in the most amusing of ways. It's like another welcoming from a second set of parents for young kids and newcomers everywhere. Play School to Australians is like what Sesame Street is to Americans. Both have lasted for many decades and have their own signatures for us to remember them by.

While I don't remember specific experiences, I do know for a fact that Play School has helped me to understand the simple aspects of the world I live in. Without it, I don't think I would've ended up being who I am today. I am forever grateful for what this preschool show has done for me, and the same should go for everybody that has sat down in front of the TV watching this as a child. The longest running children's program on Australian television continues to become more innovative over time. But while doing so, it has taken a few steps backwards. It chose to give up much of the things that made it special to begin with. This is when I speak of the pinnacle of the show's running, that being the nineties. Play School in the nineties was more simple and much easier to comprehend, all while still showing a great amount of detail. It had the toys and memorable format from the stories to the windows. The music children were singing and dancing to were mostly traditional nursery rhymes and some completely original pieces created with a wider range of instruments. Most importantly, the nineties presenters were given the opportunity to really showcase the strength of their partnerships through the cracking of jokes and the normal difficulties that came from their actions.

Compare it to now, there are certainly huge differences in the layout. Play School has since lost a fair chunk of its naturalness. Unlike in the past when episodes were usually shot in one take, today sees episodes put together in small bits and pieces. Presenters while good in entertaining the children can only ever communicate with the audience. The background music that supports the show went from the beautiful sounds of keyboards, xylophones and even small orchestras to just a regular piano. One which fails to truly connect with many of the show's segments. And the themes for each episode are extremely vague, as every activity sharing indiscernible links with the ones that follow. Long story short, the Play School of today is rather contrived and plastic. It doesn't seem as warm and welcoming as it used to be. Of course this show is still solely targeting preschoolers, so it can be said that my thoughts mean little. But I can't help but believe that the kids of today's generation are missing out on the great things this programme had delivered to those of mine.

While there were many incredible people involved in the nineties era of Play School, only ten of them in my eyes stood out. These presenters were part of a group I like to call 'The Tremendous Ten', and consisted of Colin Buchanan, Simon Burke, Benita Collings, Trisha Goddard, John Hamblin, Noni Hazlehurst, Angela Moore, Philip Quast, George Spartels and Monica Trápaga.

Arguably the biggest and most popular show of this lot. Thomas The Tank Engine & Friends was once nothing but a small series of books by Wilbert Awdry, only to then find itself as one of UK's many great triumphs in preschool television. And it was all thanks to Britt Allcroft and her incredible efforts. From my knowledge, this programme began in a very unique way. It was first made in live-action with model trains and shared stories in true storybook fashion. Other details such as sounds and effects were laid carefully laid over the top to help further push forward the realistic appearance. Everything put together tells me this show was always going to succeed, and I'm so happy it has. I say this because I admittedly was one of those kids captivated by it's broad storytelling. I had periods now and then growing up when I would feast on the classic episodes, desperate to explore the many intriguing components. In the end, there was no regretting the experiences. Thomas The Tank Engine & Friends was truly a creative and well-planned idea brought to life.

Thomas simply knows how to pull in an audience. And to this very day that hasn't changed, even after a drastic makeover to the whole series. Parents still express joy when it comes to their kids viewing the number one fictional steam locomotive. Nobody can really take this away, and nor should anybody do so. But I myself, still maintain the stance that this show had it's apogee and may never reach the same heights again. Much like Bananas In Pyjamas, the transition to CGI animation for its latest look was nothing short of a life-drainer because of the current overuse of the style. It was probably a cheap and unavoidable approach to lengthening the show's run. Regardless, such a move for the once-distinctive series to me leaves it lost within the crowd. Thomas The Tank Engine & Friends is now like practically every other animated project on TV, and that shouldn't really be the case for something so enduring and universally celebrated. If only there was a way to recapture the beauty and magic, but I don't think that can ever be achieved with just a computer.

Travis "TJ" James