Recipe for a Disney Channel Show

[TMC]

http://www.hollywood.com/news/tv/550...or-disney-show

1. An awkward teen with a mysterious secret.

Whether it's psychic abilities, pop-stardom, or magical powers, Disney leads have to be relatable underdogs in high school with cool double-lives at home.

2. A few inane catchphrases.

So that children can forever irritate their children saying "sweet niblets!," "oh snap!" and "what's the sitch?"

3. Out-of-touch parents.

Because Disney Channel parents basically exist to misuse texting acronyms and embarrass their kids with weird dances.

4. Meddling siblings.

Whether older or younger, brothers and sisters ruin all the fun.

5. An enthusiastic laugh track.

Because sometimes, you really need to be told that it's funny.

5. A dim-witted and often vain friend.

Supplying the over-eager laugh track with tons of material.

6. A racially diverse clique of mean girls.

Showing girls of all backgrounds that they can be b**chy too!

7. A body-swap episode.

Whether or not the show has any magic in it, there has to be a body swap episode.

8. Cross-show appearances.

Of course there is an episode called "Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana."

9. A theme song sung by the star.

And it's always terrible.

http://herlifeinspired.com/2013/05/0...ming-for-kids/

So much of our world has changed in the past ten years alone. Yet Disney continues to promote shows built around formulaic characters that reinforce negative cultural and gender stereotypes. There’s the doofus dad (Good Luck Charlie, A.N.T. Farm); the scheming brother (Good Luck Charlie, Jessie, Wizards of Waverly Place); the not too bright best friend (Wizards of Waverly Place, Austin & Ally). But the worse show on the channel by far is Jessie. A show about self-absorbed absentee parents that have left a flighty, inexperienced nanny and lazy butler to care for their culturally diverse adopted brood that represents as many stereotypes as it does ethnicities.

http://hollyblue64.blogspot.com/2012...ldrens-tv.html

The next show Disney Channel aired was when the channel started to film in a multi-camera setup and was either filmed in front of a life studio audience or used a laugh track. This show was That So Raven, which premiered on January 17, 2003. The show was about a teenager named Raven Baxter who had psychic visions which would lead her into sticky situations. At first, the series was good, because all the characters were likable and a point could get across. Eventually, when more multi-camera shows of Disney Channel were being aired, Raven’s personality and a lot of other characters’ personality started to become annoying, perhaps to coincide with the personalities of other characters from other shows.

Disney’s next show was when the premise of many their later shows became completely non-relatable. This show was The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and it premiered on March 18, 2005. The premise was that eleven-year-old twins Zach and Cody and their mother lived in an exquisite hotel, because any child can relate to that (sarcasm of course). In the show’s fairness the characters were initially likable and the twins did learn a lesson. Later on in the series, as the twins got older, though, it seemed as if the writers wanted to make the characters say clean profanity like “darn you to heck.” Not only is it annoying, but it is hinting at what the actual saying is, “damn you to hell.” Another incident I found was an episode title of theirs called “Heck’s Kitchen.” The problem I have with this is that they are trying to clean up the term, “Hell’s Kitchen,” which is a historical term. A more appropriate term they could have used was “Hades’ Kitchen” which is a more clever and educational choice. The next show that Disney released is when everything went downhill.

Hannah Montana premiered on March 24, 2006. Its premise was a seemingly normal young teen was actually a famous pop star. Like That’s So Raven and Zack & Cody the show started out alright. The main character was nice, but as the series progressed, she started to become mean, selfish, and would use her alter ego to her advantage. To further prove my point, Sam Kramer, a journalist major at Penn State wrote about the show in his article, “Children’s TV Losing Quality,” and this is what he said:

“Then there’s “Hannah Montana,” a story depicting Miley Stewart (Miley Cyrus) as she “struggles” to live a normal life while being a teenage pop star.

First of all, I don’t know how dumb Disney writers think we are, but I can still recognize someone when they put on a wig. That’s not the only problem with this show, though — the characters are mindless, simple and predictable. The humor revolves around fart jokes, clumsiness and babbling.

“But most of all, it’s absolutely nothing we can relate to. How many of you are hiding behind a wig from a million-dollar pop music career? How many of you have a beach house in Malibu with a father who sports highlighted, shoulder-length hair?”-Sam Kramer

After Hannah Montana, all the shows started to have the same problem. The premises of the shows were not relatable, to a point that it was repetitive, the actors overacted their character, and there is less parental authority. If anything, the parents are a much of a kid as their own children do. For example, other shows that came after Hannah Montana include Sonny with a Chance which was about a small-town girl who gets her big break and becomes part of a popular sketch show called So Random!.

Another show, Jessie, is about a teen from Texas who moves to New York City and becomes a nanny for a rich family. If anything, later shows become even more unrealistic. Despite all the issues I have with all the shows I mentioned these shows continue running and have similar plots. One of the reasons could be due the fact that these days, writers are unsure of what to write about (Coles). Children, however, are enjoying these shows. One reason is kids will watch anything. Another reason is this is all they show. Disney Channel no longer shows any of their older shows or if they do, they show it at 2am.

http://pressruns.blogspot.com/2013/0...of-disney.html

The Disney Channel stands out from the children's programming I grew up with for one obvious reason: girls have lead roles. Not relegated to the pesky younger sister or to a walk-on, the names of young women are at the top of the credits.

It's a lot more diverse too, with casting that would be familiar to anyone who watches "Sesame Street" but exceptions with lots of the other programming. Although I watched countless Charlie Brown specials as a child, I don't think Franklin had a single line. The lone black friend did slap Charlie Brown five once, though, so he acted nicer than Lucy.

But falling asleep while the shows are on, though, has made me see how much they blend together. A younger brother who clashes with his sister? "Shake It Up" and "Good Luck Charlie" each has one. A musically-inclined lead actress? "A.N.T. Farm," "Jessie" and "Austin and Allie" have one.

God, I hadn't realized how much I know about them. Only when I listed the programs did it sink in.

Success has begat imitators, and we can blame "Hannah Montana" for that one. The Miley Cyrus program had the singing and an annoying sibling. My nieces loved it.

The formula has become so obvious, though, that I would prefer watching endless episodes of "Elmo's World." At least that Muppet learned different things in episodes.

What has become obvious are teachers. They are either tyrants or fools. "Saturday Night Live" veteran Cheri Oteri could have done a lot more had she not been stuck with being obsessed with "Harry Potter." But Mindy Sterling has a recurring job as the principal of "A.N.T. Farm," so I can't blame Oteri for giving Disney a try.

They have more to work with than the buffoons, the fathers. In a special episode of "A.N.T. Farm," China's police officer father masquerades as a elderly bus driver for her tour bus. The wealthy parents are absent much of the time on "Jessie," so Bertram the butler fills in and is the butt of the jokes for the smart-alecky kids.

Though the roar of the laugh track bothers me as much as the obvious set-ups, it's not the most offensive. The Disney road to blandness is. Mickey Mouse started as a mischievous character who is now just a walking falsetto with more interesting friends.

In fact, that's what most of the shows rely on. They have a singing voice without much personality and replaced the wacky neighbors from older sitcoms with parents and teachers.

Maybe I am being a bit harsh because I am parent stuck watching children's programming. But I have options. "Martha Speaks" offers a female lead and diverse cast that combines lessons on language with humor.

Martha is a talking dog. And people have tried to kidnap her because she is special. What is different is on the PBS show is that Martha recognizes Weaselgraft and Pablum are going to try to take her again and is not too worried about their old tricks. She's a dog who learns and won't get stuck in the same plot.

Once my son and I run out of "Martha Speaks" episodes, we can rely on collections of "Sesame Street Old School."I don't mind that the show had a different actor playing Gordon than the one today. The combination of Muppet antics and lessons add up to children's television adults can enjoy.

[tlc38tlc38]

I really hope Girl Meets World doesn't fall into this trap. I have such high hopes for its success.

The main reason I don't watch/like Disney & Nick shows are because of the little teeny boppers screaming and screeching all the time...it's like nails on a chalkboard.

[MacLeaper]

I really hope Girl Meets World doesn't fall into this trap. I have such high hopes for its success.

Agreed there. I think the fact that Michael Jacobs is involved will help keep it from that- I hope.

And for the record, while I wouldn't call them the greatest in the world by any means, I still like most Disney Channel sitcoms better than any show on network television now... I get what most of this article is saying and there are certainly some valid points- and there are some Disney shows that I've gotten rather annoyed with because of the values and things they portray. I think I've probably seen at least a little of all the shows mentioned here. By far, my favorite Disney Channel sitcom right now is Austin & Ally- and I also still love The Suite Life on Deck. (Which is one case where I really much prefer the spinoff show over the parent show, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody.)
That formula for a Disney show is pretty accurate though. (Though I do think some of the theme songs are actually pretty good.) I've noticed a lot of the shows rely on scatological humor- and some in more abundance than others. And hey- I can enjoy a joke in good taste- yeah, poop is still funny.
But though I'm okay with such jokes- it does get tired after a while.
My more major concern is the way the parents are depicted. I get really tired of seeing parents that are treated like idiots (and that act like idiots), who get almost zero respect from their children- and in the case of Good Luck, Charlie- parents who encourage their children in wrongdoing.
There are some horrible examples on that show and on others....
On all these counts, Austin & Ally and The Suite Life on Deck seem to be the least offensive (though I'm not saying that they're without their faults too.)

[SitcomsOffline]

All of the shows since Hanna Montana on the Disney Channel have been produced by the same person (Steve Gunnell), so that explains why all of the shows follow the same format.

Same thing with Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider (since All That).

Can't blame either channel/producer though. Regardless of how crappy it is, there's no sense in messing with a formula that's financially successful.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by SitcomsOffline

All of the shows since Hanna Montana on the Disney Channel have been produced by the same person (Steve Gunnell), so that explains why all of the shows follow the same format.

Same thing with Nickelodeon and Dan Schneider (since All That).

Can't blame either channel/producer though. Regardless of how crappy it is, there's no sense in messing with a formula that's financially successful.

Just about all of Disney Channel's (and Disney XD for that matter) live-action TV shows since roughly around (I'll go a step further than Hannah Montana) the the of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody have fallen under the It's a Laugh Productions! umbrella. Not that I don't see any value in this shows (in fairness, I'm way beyond DC's main target demographic), but it's just that Disney has really run on auto-pilot so to speak in recent years. DC's recent live-action shows are to me, the modern day equivalents to Saved by the Bell or the Miller-Boyett produced shows that aired on TGIF. Basically a bunch of schlocky, cliched, and/or downright cheesy sitcoms.

Disney up until say, the early 2000s (although it can be argued that Disney Channel "jumped the shark"/"boned the fish" when it stopped being a premium service around 1997) seemed to actually put much more creativity or effort in their live-action shows. Phil of the Future seems to be the last DC produced live-action show (I'm not counting Canadian imports like Life w/ Derek or My Babysitter is a Vampire) to not fall under the It's a Laugh Productions! umbrella.

[tlc38tlc38]

Originally Posted by TMC

DC's recent live-action shows are to me, the modern day equivalents to Saved by the Bell or the Miller-Boyett produced shows that aired on TGIF. Basically a bunch of schlocky, cliched, and/or downright cheesy sitcoms.

I will never understand why people compare the current Disney and Nick shows to Miller-Boyett or anything from the TGIF lineup for that matter. Those shows actually had morals and values, the current shows don't. I wish people would stop comparing them. Michelle may have been annoying on Full House but at least she wasn't beyond tolerable like Cat on Sam & Cat----she sounds like a whiny screech owl.

Basically it all boils down to what you prefer. Opinions are wonderful things!

[MacLeaper]

Saved By The Bell and Miller-Boyett shows (and/or TGIF shows, etc.)- are WAY better to me than most everything on TV now in general- including Disney sitcoms. I've already stated the few that I do like pretty well- but yeah, I agree with tlc38tlc38 about this.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by tlc38tlc38

I will never understand why people compare the current Disney and Nick shows to Miller-Boyett or anything from the TGIF lineup for that matter. Those shows actually had morals and values, the current shows don't. I wish people would stop comparing them. Michelle may have been annoying on Full House but at least she wasn't beyond tolerable like Cat on Sam & Cat----she sounds like a whiny screech owl.

Basically it all boils down to what you prefer. Opinions are wonderful things!

I'm not trying to say that I never found any remote entertainment value (past or present) in all of the shows that have been mentioned. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Miller-Boyett's shows as well as the TNBC/Peter Engel produced shows like Saved by the Bell to me, really felt like virtual carbon carbon copies of each other. California Dreams for instance, was pretty much Saved by the Bell if the Bayside gang formed a garage band. Hang Time was Saved by the Bell if the show focused on the school basketball team. City Guys was a more urbanized version of Saved by the Bell. And Saved by the Bell: The New Class was more or less the same show as its predecessor sans the cheesy, kitschy charm and chemistry as before.

What really didn't help so to speak, was like the It's a Laugh...! sitcoms on Disney Channel or Dan Schneider's shows on Nickelodeon, is that they were for all intent and purposes, the standard bearers (in part because that's what there respective networks have been mostly promoting/pushing) for live-action kids/teen TV of their respective eras.

I posted something from a message board in a previous discussion regarding Miller-Boyett's shows, which to me is pretty well on point. By the time Full House rolled around (when compared to say the first season of The Hogan Family before the show brouhaha Valerie Harper's exit and Perfect Strangers), you can make the argument that MB really sacrificed striving to make a truly quality type product in favor of having to impart their skewed view of wisdom (in not only Full House but subsequently, Family Matters, which was basically MB's version of The Cosby Show and Step by Step which used the Full House formula w/ an updated version of The Brady Bunch).

What I've also noticed is that MB seems to like to use over-the-top stereotypes in their shows. For example, Cody on Step by Step is a goofy surfer/stoner stereotype. Steve Urkel from Family Matters is of course the cartoonish nerd stereotype.

[MacLeaper]

There's room for similar ideas on the market. And particularly in the television market, networks do that all the time. I think there are enough key differences between the TNBC shows to differentiate them- and in any case, I like all of them. (Saved By The Bell, California Dreams, Hang Time, City Guys and Saved By The Bell: The New Class- as well as some others from that time period. SBTB:TNC has its own charm I think- of course, I'm just a SBTB fan in general and I like all of it- and I have seen every episode of every series...)
I don't know if I agree with all the observations on the Miller-Boyett shows, but they are good observations to consider.
In any case, I still like all those shows -Full House, Valerie/Valerie's Family/The Hogan Family, Perfect Strangers, Family Matters, Step By Step and The Cosby Show and The Brady Bunch, for that matter.) (And a number of the Disney Channel sitcoms too- but not all of them. Mainly "Austin & Ally" and "The Suite Life on Deck"- and "Lizzie McGuire" and "Even Stevens" are good too. I might watch some others while I have access to them, but I don't like them enough to actually want to own the series on DVD or anything. For the Nickelodeon shows, I do like some of Dan Schneider's series- maybe because I still remember enjoying his work as Dennis Blunden on "Head of the Class". But I particularly enjoy "iCarly" and "Victorious". I'm not as big into "Sam & Cat"- I mainly specifically watched one episode for the Laverne & Shirley reunion (Penny Marshall & Cindy Williams in original roles, that is- they weren't actually in character as Laverne and Shirley).)

[SitcomsOffline]

Originally Posted by tlc38tlc38

I really hope Girl Meets World doesn't fall into this trap. I have such high hopes for its success.

The main reason I don't watch/like Disney & Nick shows are because of the little teeny boppers screaming and screeching all the time...it's like nails on a chalkboard.

And now that you mentioned it, Girl Meets World will also be co-produced by Steve Gunnell (It's a Laugh Productions).

Not sure what impact that will have on the quality of the series, assuming Michael Jacobs is still involved in its production.

[Tubehead]

if y our missing boy meets world or the wonder years I highly recommend the middle it come on Monday thur Fridays at 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm abc family and every day at 7:00 pm on cw I also recommend the big bang theory is good too. it come on mostly Tuesdays at 7:00pm &8:00 pm on tbs 7:30 pm on fox

[TMC]

http://thetwin-factor.blogspot.com/2...use-house.html

1. Re-re-invent the Disney Channel - And I don't just mean the logo. I have no problem with the DC logo looking like this

But I do have an issue with TDC's current programming. I don't really care about the tween sitcoms. I think that most of them are stupid and a waste of space, not only because they're not funny, but also because they're all pretty much interchangeable, and running them all in the same block makes them look like endless carbon copies of one another, like Dawn of the Stepford Shows. But they aren't made for me nor for my age demographic, so I just ignore them. Plus, as insipid as those shows are, they do bring in ratings and put butts in seats, so I know they aren't going anywhere. Like Hot Topics in the mall, they're here to stay. However, I don't think that TDC should cater to teens and tweens exclusively. I preferred it when DC actually had a variety to it's lineup and provided entertainment for the entire family, not just the teens, which brings me to the next thing that I would do...

http://thetwin-factor.blogspot.com/2...ckelodeon.html

Disney Channel/Disney XD/Disney Junior

I put these channels together because it's easier to discuss them all at once. To say that Disney Channel has become stagnant nowadays is like pointing out that cotton candy has sugar in it. The biggest problem with Disney Channel right now is that they've become too complacent. Animation-wise, they've put all of their eggs in one basket, relying entirely on Phineas and Ferb (I don't count Fish Hooks, no one does). Sure, Disney has some new animated series coming down the pike, most of them on Disney Junior, which I don't get since I'm a DirecTV subscriber and even if I did receive DJ, I probably wouldn't watch it much because it's a preschool channel; not being a preschooler nor having any preschoolers in my house, I don't have much use for Disney Junior, though it's good that some of the older Disney cartoons are airing somewhere. It would be nice if the Mouse House would put their classic characters in some new shows which aren't specifically designed to appeal to wee tots, as well as some new decent, clever and creative animated shows which don't have the names Phineas or Ferb in the title.

I'll bet you thought I was going to say that the worst things about the Disney channels are their live-action teen/tweencoms. No, I don't bemoan the fact they exist, nor that they're popular. Disney has been catering to teens since the studio first hit television (Annette Funicello and Spin & Marty were nothing but the Hanna Montanas or Zack & Codys of their day), so I don't mind that their 2 main channels, Big Disney and XD, are saturated with these shows; though I'd mind even less if there were more animated shows to compliment them and if they're live-action comedies were, you know, funny. I know it's wrong of me to pass judgment on these shows since I'm far from being in the target age group for these shows coupled with the fact that I was never really into tween shows even when I was a tween, but what I've seen of Disney's LA shows, they look really, really stupid and not funny at all. All involved try way too hard to be zany. The kids on these shows all mug so much they all should have little handles on the sides of their heads. Their LA shows are so formulaic that Disney has enacted a requirement that each of them have 6 to 7 regulars. I kid you not. What's sad about it is that some of them actually have potentially interesting premises, but then they whiz that potential right down the drain; Hanna Montana could've been a scathing satire of the pop star industry (think a kid-friendly Larry Sanders Show), but instead they made it into another dull-as-dishwater school-centric tweencom with one of THE stupidest gimmicks imaginable (a secret identity? Really?? Like no one would recognize the same person in a blond wig), Pair of Kings could've been an enchanting little froth island show with a touch of fan service, but they made the 2 stars a couple of goony guys instead of cute girls and made the characters so stupid that they're almost brain-dead (I swear you'd have to have had a partial lobotomy to be entertained by this or Kickin' It), Wizards of Waverly Place actually made wizardry boring, not to mention all of that malarkey about the competition to see who gets to keep their powers (they never bothered with that crap on Bewitched) and Lab Rats could have been a cool sci-fi comedy about super-beings and quirky science, but they ruined it by making it yet another show about surviving high-school (this is why I've always been turned off by tweencoms: too many of them center around school. I hated school as a kid, so why would I want to spend my non-school hours watching people attending school??), plus, while I don't want to be that guy, it bothers me how all of the super teens with the cool powers are white and the 1 normal kid is black; as a non-white myself, that just doesn't sit right with me. Whenever I catch a glimpse of these Disney 'comedies', I have to wonder: just how the heck did Out of Jimmy's Head get canceled?

Finally, though I hate to have to side with the retro-snobs and nostalgia-tards, I have to say that it is a shame that the Disney Afternoon/1 Saturday Morning era shows aren't airing on any of the Disney channels right now. (Disney should also be doing something with the Fox Kids shows that they currently own rather than just letting them collect dust in the vaults, but that rant's for another day.) At this point, it's clear that a Retro Disney channel is out of the question; Disney clearly doesn't have the desire nor the money to launch a 5th channel, but I don't think that a Vault Disney program block running on either of the 2 main Disney channels--most likely Big Disney, since XD is all about boy-centric action shows--would be out of the question.

[MrCleveland]

I sooooo hope the people from The "Disney" Channel wake-up with shows like "Girl Meets World" and the new Mickey Mouse Cartoons (I wish they'd have some Donald Duck stand-alone cartoons...he's MORE funnier)!

There's sooooo much you can do with the teen comedy!

If I ran The "Disney" Channels, here's how it would be...

Disney Channel-Mickey Mouse is the spokesperson, the majority of shows will be aimed toward teenage girls, but have some things that have REAL Disney stuff on it!
Disney XD-Donald Duck is the spokesperson, the majority of the shows will be aimed for males between 13 and 49 (Many shows will be by Marvel and Star Wars, but I thought of having shows featuring Donald Duck called "Duck Avenger" and "Double D", which are popular in Europe)!
Disney Junior-Winnie the Pooh is the spokesperson, the majority of the shows will be aimed for pre-schoolers like Sprout or Nick Jr.
Vault Disney Channel-This would be a new station and Oswald is the spokesperson, it will be Disney's version of Antenna TV and MeTV. There will be shows featuring Walt Disney, Disney Afternoon Shows, and sitcoms that are Disney/Touchstone owned.
ABC Family-Will be revamped as a Family Station with ABC shows, Disney Movie Night, some original shows, and some cartoons that were once on ABC!
ESPN-These stations are doing okay as is, but MNF would be seen on BOTH ESPN AND ABC!

[TMC]

I'm guessing that Disney keeps pushing these types of shows (i.e. having It's a Laugh! Productions pretty much have exclusive rights to their live-action content) because they're cheap and fast to produce. More to the point, Disney seems to think that they have a formula of sorts that works (thus, there's a low-risk value).

[Tubehead]

I always wonted Disney channel they showed classic cartoon I remember when I was in elementary school & toward being of middle school I wish I would have gotten Disney back then you had to add hbo and all the other premier channels we did have an cable sever that showed Disney hbo and show time for free pre views for couple months or few weeks in special preview my aunt galay had Disney channel she would tape Disney channel cartoons and sent them to me and my brother cartoons and Disney movies for us and give it too us now that I got Disney im 33 right now I been watching girl meets worlds still not as good as boy meets world I usual don't watch any other Disney shows I do some time like suite life on deck is pretty good most of them are to kiddish to me but back in the day I wish I would have Disney channel did you know they had winne the pooh with real people dressed up as winey the pooh characters it was fake looking I remember watching it as a kid. that was on Disney channel a the time my aunt taped it for me and my brother.