The problem with character’s in kids’ TV

There have been very few children’s shows in recent years that I enjoy. I mean, I am a 21-year-old adult, so, kind of besides the point, right? But I couldn’t shake the memory of co-viewing with my mom as a kid, and her laughing along with me at SpongeBob, Courage the Cowardly Dog, and PowerPuff Girls. That surely couldn’t be all nostalgia talking.

What I’ve noticed about certain mainstream kids’ shows (which I won’t name because the networks might employ me someday) are that they alienate their older audiences (not just adults, but kids even just older than third grade) with very safe good-guy characters and moral-at-the-end storylines. I noticed how shows I enjoyed as both a child and an adult (The Muppets, SpongeBob, Bob’s Burgers, etc.) have characters that are allowed to be flawed, and storylines don’t revolve around a good guy making everything better. Louise is allowed to be an evil mastermind and still be loveable, Kermit is allowed to be a neurotic little control freak, SpongeBob is allowed to be annoyingly enthusiastic. These quirks make characters interesting to any viewer, and also better represent the reality of life — people who aren’t 100% “good” are still valuable, and you can still gain something from knowing them.

I recently read an article from Fast Company titled, “The art of writing smart and funny TV for kids that won’t drive parents bonkers,” that explained the age-spanning success of certain shows (both child-targeted and not) perfectly. Shows like Bob’s Burgers and SpongeBob SquarePants continue to engage parents and children alike because they hire true comedic writing talent — people who are capable of toeing the line between silly humor and humor that doesn’t totally undermine the intelligence of children and further alienate their parents.