Dr. Toon: When Reagan Met Optimus Prime
Twelve years before Fowler took office, the ABC network featured a Saturday morning cartoon show called Hot Wheels. The show was ostensibly about a car racing club, but it was noted that Mattel toys sold a line of miniature racing cars known as "Hot Wheels." The FCC, past lessons in mind, considered the show to be an extended commercial for the toy cars and threatened to pull the series from the air. ABC argued that the toys were never actually advertised, but the show, under continual scrutiny for two years, was cancelled. Hot Wheels was to be the last controversy the FCC would face; under Fowler's new hands-off policy, the issue never would have been contested.
The changes wrought by deregulation did not happen immediately. The televisions cartoons of 1981-82 were seemingly bound by the old regulations, but it was not long before the barriers came crashing down. The first barbarian at the gate was a cheerful yellow sphere named Pac-Man who made his debut on Sept. 25th 1983 - a landmark date in the history of children's television. Pac-Man was not created by a studio or a writer, nor was he entirely original. He was, in fact, a video game character licensed by Nintendo. Hanna-Barbera studios, creators of so many original animated programs since 1959, partnered with the Japanese company to produce a cartoon originally known as The Pac-Man Show. Toy and game-based products were now primed to flood the airwaves, unhindered by any form of regulation.
The impact of deregulation on children's programming was astounding. Cultural historian Tom Englehardt noted that between 1984 and 1985 cartoons featuring licensed characters increased by some 300%. By the end of 1985 there were more than 40 animated series running concurrently with licensed products and active marketing campaigns. Some shows, such as the Filmation/Mattel collaboration He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (1983) were among the most-watched animated shows in television history. Other properties, such as the Transformers (Marvel/Hasbro, 1984), are still selling products at a steady pace 27 years later. Millions of action figures found their way into the hands of young boys, but the lucrative market for little girls was not ignored.
Printer-friendly version
Legislation was introducted in 1990 called the Children's Television Act. It established guidelines for children's television programming.
I'm curious to know what happened in 1989? Was regulation reintroduced?
Nice article.
Pac-man isn't owned by Nintendo, though. Pac-man is owned by Namco. Nintendo did license video games for cartoons at the time, though. I remember watching Donkey Kong and Donkey Kong Jr. on TV as a kid.
Good read, I really enjoyed it. As a cartoon lover in my early thirties, I grew up on a steady diet of television and still cherish many memories of those shows and their respective products. It's rather sad to grow up and realize that some of the things I once cherished were the product of a calculated sales pitch and although I've come across this topic before, your article explained it far better to me than others.
I often visit sites like Youtube and find a collective of like-minded nostalgia types who love to revisit this era of cartooning. I find a lot of the comments that people post tend to lean toward the "cartoons today suck" and "these poor kids should have been around in the 80's". Although I do miss those times and the sheer volume of programming that was available, in particular the unfortunate demise of Saturday morning cartoons, I find that there has been a sort of re-balancing of quality. For every GI Joe and Transformers that I miss, there is a plethora of fresh ideas like The Misadventures of Flapjack, Chowder, Adventure Time, Mighty B, etc. I suppose since these shows don't hover around the idea of pushing a product, they are less likely to be hindered creatively.
Interesting post. I have to agree that a lot of these shows were advertisements for toys and not much more, and it saddens me to learn about all the toy company regulations imposed on the creators during such a "free and unregulated" time in American history. However, as a viewer of many of them (and another one of those college-aged viewers mentioned in the article), I feel like they all did a decent job of hiding the advertising. I remember being a big fan of the Super Mario shows, as well as The Real Ghostbusters, and although the stories certainly weren't in depth, I don't remember them coming off as product placement in the least.
If anything, I feel the real product placement problem in kids tv has become far worse today. The ultimate example would have to be the Yu-gi-oh series (I believe it was GX?) In the few episodes I've seen, it seems the characters challenge each other to a card duel each time and spend the majority of the last 10 minutes playing the card game, literally speaking out each action, how many cards they have left, how their play gives them points, ect. It could be my lack of interest in today's programs, or my love of the old ones, but it seems to have gotten worse with time.
I'm curious to know what the regulations are today and if they are being circumvented more now or are there less regulations now that there were back then?
One day back in the 80s I was visiting the GI Joe production office & noticed a chart on the wall: down its side was a list of episodes... & across its top the line-up of vehicles made by Hasbro to accompany the action figures. Short and simple, the chart was there to make sure all the GI Joe vehicles got equal exposure in the series. On the other hand, I read a fanzine interview with Steve Gerber (Howard the Duck's creator and GI Joe story editor) years ago who said Hasbro never interfered with the show's scripting.
My personal problem with those series was the simplistic 'good' vs. 'evil' template they all followed. Life is a little more complicated than that and even (or especially) in a cartoon aimed at young kids it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge it.
As one of the "college-aged" people you mention in the bit about these cartoons' legacies, I've got to say that it's important to note that there just wasn't much else on at the time. As far as I can remember, most of the cartoons on TV at that time were an extended advertisement for one thing or another, even Dungeons and Dragons (which young me was rather disappointed to discover was actually a math-heavy board game.)
I have reviewed this article several times (an onerous task since I read it many times during writing and editing it) and can nowhere find any statements implying "Reagan sucks" or "Capitalism is evil." Nor do I consider my readers "knuckle draggers" or "idiots". As for politics being involved in the article, I regularly comment on the intersection between culture and animation, and if politics does not involve our culture, then I must have missed something between Eisenhower and Obama, the presidents and party leaders during my lifetime.
It's interesting that you state "When I saw the title I knew..." you give yourself away as a reactionary and made false assumptions about what you believed it was I wanted to say. Sadly, you mistook cultural commentary for polemic, which is not my forte.
Here's something interesting for both of us, however: I wonder how many of these corporate cartoons would have been successful if pitched to networks or cable channels as original, independent projects?
I'm glad you enjoyed these shows. I think I said something about that in my comments on their legacy, lest you think I'd like to pull a George Orwell and destroy them all retroactively.
3 pages and you could've just said what you really wanted. Reagan sucks, capitalism is evil, blah,blah,blah.
I have fond memories of those shows. God forbid there's clear cut good vs. evil!
The free market should decide. Kids loved those cartoons. PIXAR's characters are toys as well and a plethora of merchandise. Yet no complaints about that.
Kids love cartoons and toys. It's a win/win for kids. Oh the horror!
"deregulation...negated creativity" Are you serious?! LOL
How can one be creative with a bunch of regulations? Unless you want to regulate certain ideals out of cartoons and promote your worldview?
I find it laughable when I see people drone on about "deregulation" are usually the most oppressive of people.
A toy company who creates a toy line and in turn makes into a cartoon has every right to control the content.
Bottom line is perhaps what you consider a great artistic cartoon is for a small niche of Americans. Most kids will be like "Meh".
When I saw the title I knew it was just another progressive expose on the horrors of capitalism and that evil Reagan.
This meme of anything remotely "right wing" is for idiots and knuckle draggers is getting old.
It'd be nice to go a day without politics being injected into every damn issue.
Has anything changed since then? Product promotion/integration is such a large part of all media, not just cartoons, that I'm having a hard time thinking of any examples that live outside of that sphere.
Is marketing a toy, video game, or cereal just a way to expand the bottom line of any creative venture, or are we still watching commercials in between our comercials?
I suppose it's a chicken/egg type of arguement. I'll just go back to listening exclusively to NPR. I already have the tote bag to remind me.
Post new comment