Tumgik
#ok but why do we treat PBS Kids shows as less than cable shows?
quinintheclouds · 2 years
Text
Dorothea Gillim really went "I want to make a show that's so funny I'd unironically watch it, but for kids. I know! I'll hire writers from Family Guy, The Onion, and SNL!"
Add some A List voice actors and let them riff a bit, and that's how you get the chaotic satirical shitposty masterpiece that is WordGirl
#wordgirl#quinpost#seriously her goal was for the comedy to be the main thing and it's so funny my guy#I mean the show is self-described as satirical and a parody... and the 4th wall is practically non existent lmao#they're just like let's make a crazy plot with amazing characters and comedy as a priority and then add some vocab#like I'm sorry but this is 10x better than family guy; y'all are getting praised for the wrong show XD#no wonder it was my favorite show as a kid.... rewatching it was such a good decision#like I knew the show was hilarious as a kid but as an adult I'm able to see SO MUCH MORE bc I get the satire now#it's so meta and self-aware#ahead of its time truly#if it came out today it'd be so big on tumblr lmao#ok but why do we treat PBS Kids shows as less than cable shows?#like they're targeted to the same age but one happens to be educational#(and free.... hmmmmmmmm)#you know how many words I learned from wordgirl that weren't even featured words? they just use them and you pick em up from context clues#one of the earliest featured words was 'cumbersome' and man I used that word so much as a kid bc of it XD#they never should've taught me flabbergasted though; i still use that one all the time hgjkl;'#i'd actually forgotten what 'stimy' meant so my rewatch actually taught me a word at age 24 sdfghj#and I read the dictionary more than once as a kid#see? it IS possible to make kids shows that DON'T talk down to kids!! It's written like it's adults watching; just that the jokes are clean#cannot recommend enough; it deserves the attention it's getting and more
97 notes · View notes
duluoz2 · 7 years
Text
TV or Not TV?
By Andrew Robles
Inevitably, the moment arrives. I’ll be at a party or some other social function when somebody will start extolling the virtues of some TV show, usually one of those hipper than thou, “edgy” cable series. “Did you see the latest episode of (insert name of hip show here),” someone will ask me. I reply in the negative. The individual will then attempt to ascertain why I selfishly missed this watershed of creativity. I inform the person that I do not watch said show. “Oh man,” he or she will exclaim, with palpable pain at my inability or, worse, refusal to participate in such a momentous cultural event. Next the person will go on at some length about the virtues of the show and how it is the greatest creative statement since Picasso’s “Guernica.” At this point, I sheepishly inform the person that I do not have a TV. “Wha’?” Is the usual response, followed by “Wow, how do you do that?” Oft times the TV extoller then makes some sympathetic noises along the lines of “I should do that too” or “well, I don’t really watch much TV anymore.” But the question always arises, why? (Though how is a good one too). 
“How” was more by accident than design. When my wife and I got married and moved into our new apartment, we decided we didn’t want to bring my old TV to our small place. So I parted with mine, and we thought if we wanted a new TV, we’d get one. In fact, more than one of our friends (OK, two) offered to give us one of their unused sets. But we held off, mainly for practical reasons; there was no statement being made, no standing athwart popular culture and yelling “Yuck!” No, we simply didn’t see the need for a TV, and most of our friends didn’t really find it strange since we were newlyweds and all, and we’d find other ways to pass the time, wink wink. So we went about our TV-less life feeling none the worse for missing the latest developments of “Dancing With the Stars” or “Big Brother,” not that we cared before (I know, I know, how did we cope? Well, my wife lived through the dissolution of her country and war, and I did sit through “Titanic”).
Fast forward seven years; we still have no TV. And we are in no hurry to get one (obviously). In fact, the saying “absence makes the heart grow fonder” does not apply to TV. Our apathy towards TV has turned into antipathy. We really don’t care if we never own a TV.  
Now let me qualify our disdain for television with some, uh, qualifiers; first, while it is true that we don’t have a TV, that doesn’t stop us from taking advantage of the internet to watch quality TV shows. While the bulk of what we watch on the web consists of classic TV shows, new shows are also available, and we’ve seen a few. If anything, comparing the classic shows to the new merely reaffirms our jaundiced view of current entertainment.  So it is not necessarily the medium that we have eschewed. However, our access to internet TV has not led us to more and more viewing. And our exposure to regular TV on those occasions when we’re at someone’s house only reinforces our growing disdain. OK, you may say, so it’s made you even more of a negative person who has added a compendium of slices of our popular culture for which to harbor ill will; congrats you unpleasant jerk! Well, that wasn’t been the only result. While it is true that our contempt for the drivel emanating from the tube is at an all-time high, there have been some positive outcomes.  
The most positive result of our low TV diet is that it has allowed us to focus on other, gainful activities (non snicker-worthy). The fact that I’m writing this instead of flipping channels is one example (though, admittedly, this is to my benefit and much less so to the reader’s). I have reaffirmed my love of reading, and with no TV to provide a convenient distraction, the volume I now read has increased markedly. There is also the positive effect no TV has had on the fine art of conversation. No, my wife and I don’t sit around sipping brandy and smoking fine cigars discussing Wittgenstein (I don’t smoke cigars), but we are forced to engage in verbal communication, and this is a good thing, of course. A lack of TV also encourages a more active lifestyle as well, since there is no better way to pass the time (and no better visual treat) than to go for a hike or bike ride. A TV-less existence can lead to some odd moments of course, such as the time I got a call from my brother and he asked what my wife and I were up to. “Well,” I explained, “I’m reading a biography of Mark Twain, and Nina is knitting.” Pause. “Jeez!” my brother finally exclaimed, “Are you using candlelight?”  
Do I miss TV at all? Well, aside from its absence seemingly consigning us to a nineteenth-century lifestyle, not really. And what does the future hold for me and TV? What about when we have kids? Can we do without the great babysitter that is TV? We’ll see, though we’re inclined to apply our no TV policy to our progeny. Overall, I can honestly say that there is no need for TV in one’s life; we can all certainly do without it, and technology today makes it possible to watch what we want, when we want it, without the need to even have a TV. Do we feel behind the times, bereft of a proper grounding in popular culture? Sure, but who cares? We stay on top of popular culture just enough to keep us basically current, and that’s all we really need.  
The purpose of all this is not to condemn TV or the practitioners thereof; there are some fine people in the TV industry trying to do quality things (most of which seem to wind up on PBS). It’s that TV is just so unnecessary. There are many alternative activities to watching TV, and just about every one of them is vastly more worthwhile. And there is the siren song aspect of TV to deal with. My TV watching is negligible, but I waste a lot of time on things like YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu. I guess old habits are hard to break (the next step will be to cut out the internet). There is a vast world beyond the TV or computer screen. All you need to do is turn it off.
2 notes · View notes