http://www.hollywood.com/news/tv/55027653/recipe-for-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/2013/05/03/disney-channel-programming-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/2012/07/the-continuing-decline-of-childrens-tv.html

The next show Disney Channel (http://spongey444.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/a-look-at-disney-channel-sitcoms-part-1/) 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/2013/09/the-oppressive-formula-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.

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.

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.:lol:
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.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).)

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.

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

http://thetwin-factor.blogspot.com/2012/10/building-better-mouse-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/2012/05/leftovers-disney-channel-nickelodeon.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.

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!

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).

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.

I started watching Wizards Of Waverly Place and The Suite Life On Deck during late hours out of boredom and found them to be entertaining even to the point of being better than most network sitcoms, but the real junker is Dog With A Blog that show is even stupider by Disney standards.

http://active-voice.net/jessplummer/?p=234

The success of Hilary Duff and her Disney Channel show Lizzie McGuire, which ran from 2001 and 2004 and had a theatrically-released feature film, was completely unprecedented. Disney had been making their own programming for ages, including kidcoms, but the stars usually don’t become household names. Hilary Duff became a household name. When a star on a kid’s show is famous among adults, you know they’re big news.2

The problem where Disney was concerned was that while Lizzie McGuire made a lot of money for them, Hilary had the gall to make a lot of money…for herself. She created her own product line, Stuff by Hilary Duff, and essentially branded her own image, so while Disney could still sell shirts with Lizzie’s cartoon avatar on them, their revenue from Duff devotees was split between them and Hilary herself. Her music career, too, didn’t come off as being fostered by Disney, even though she was on the Disney-owned Hollywood Records. It seemed more like an independent project, and indeed, didn’t begin in earnest until after Lizzie McGuire ended (though she was still making Disney Channel Original Movies (DCOMS) and feature films for Disney). Hilary Duff was a phenomenon for Disney, but she didn’t belong to them.

I’d argue that Hilary was the proto-Disney Channel star. She was the game-changer, the one who made them realize they needed to package their stars in a new way.

But the first real Disney Channel star was Raven-Symoné. Raven didn’t reach the sublime heights of later stars like Miley Cyrus and Selena Gomez, but that’s because the formula was still being shaped. And she’s always given off a vibe of independence; unlike some of her sistren, she doesn’t seem like she was molded to fit what Disney wanted. But she hit the crucial components to Disney (and, as we’ll see, modern-day Nick) stardom:


a hugely popular high-concept kidcom, That’s So Raven, with a protagonist who shares a name with its star, a theme song performed by said star, and recognition outside of the kid fanbase,3
a similarly popular DCOM franchise, The Cheetah Girls, which spawned three movies and a recording act, though Raven was only in the first two films,
a record deal with Hollywood Records,4
and, most importantly, a sense of being part of the Disney Channel community.


That last bit is crucial, and it’s something that really started during the Raven era. It was no longer enough to show up, film your movie or TV show, and go home. You had to be part of the club. You had to interact with other Disney Channel stars; you had to participate in things like the Disney Channel Games, goofy Olympics-style competitions that mix and match the stable of stars into teams; you had to make guest appearances on other people’s shows or take part in huge “event” crossovers. You had to make it look like you were one big happy family that was always having fun. You had to do things like this:

That video accompanied the DVD release of The Lion King back in 2003, the same year That’s So Raven and The Cheetah Girls premiered. It’s credited to the “Disney Channel Circle of Stars,” but breaking that down more specifically, we have:


Hilary Duff,
the cast of That’s So Raven, including, of course, a prominently-featured Raven,
Kyla Pratt, who voiced the main character on the Disney animated series The Proud Family,
Christy Carlson Romano, star of the kidcom Even Stevens5 and titular voice of Disney’s new-at-the-time animated smash hit, Kim Possible,6
A.J. Trauth, who had small roles on both Even Stevens and Kim Possible,
and Tahj Mowry, who voiced Wade on Kim Possible. I should note here that Raven also voiced a regular KP character, Monique.


I found this video fascinating in 2003, and I find it fascinating now. To be fair, the stable of stars they have here doesn’t quite work yet: their biggest star, Hilary, though heavily featured in the video, can’t actually sing very well, and several of the participants were best known for voice acting and not starring in something with their faces on it. Also, what the hell is an A.J. Trauth, seriously.

But what they’re trying to do still works. They look like they’re having a blast. They make you wish they were there, singing with them. And that’s the key: Disney Channel stars need to make you feel like hanging out with Disney Channels stars is the most fun you could possibly have, so that you’ll try to experience that vicariously by watching their shows and movies, listening to their music, and buying lunchboxes with their faces on them.

Two years later Disney “reunited” the Circle of Stars, this time for the DVD release of Cinderella. The Raven kids and Kyla Pratt were still around, but they filled up the ranks with the casts of Phil of the Future (not so much Disney kids) and The Suite Life of Zack and Cody (oh my God such Disney kids). Again, it’s fun and cute and makes you want to dance, but though Raven was still a big show and Suite Life was a steady moneymaker for Disney through all its permutations and its approximately three hundred years on the air,7 Disney hadn’t quite captured the lightning in a bottle they were looking for.

Enter 2006, and the two biggest franchises the Disney Channel has ever – and possibly will ever – had: Hannah Montana and High School Musical.

In my last post, I touched upon how Disney packaged Miley as a product they had somehow created, but let’s take a closer look. Little Miley Cyrus auditioned at age 11 for the role of Lily Truscott, the best friend to protagonist Chloe Stewart/Hannah Montana. She got the lead role instead (after some back-and-forth concerns about how young she was; interestingly, Miley wound up playing older than her actual age, as Hannah is supposed to be 14 in the pilot and Miley is only 12). The character’s name was changed to Miley Stewart – to be fair, in part because Nickelodeon had just started airing Zoey 101 and the names “Zoey” and “Chloe” were considered too similar. (Bonus crazy: Miley’s birth name is actually Destiny Hope Cyrus. She legally changed it to Miley (childhood nickname) Ray (tribute to her grandfather) Cyrus in 2008 at the age of 15. Disney must’ve been thrilled. I’m not being sarcastic!)

But Disney also cast Miley’s famous father, Billy Ray Cyrus, as Miley Stewart’s father, Robby Ray Stewart, and drew repeated, explicit parallels between Billy Ray and Robby Ray (basically, lots of “Achy Breaky Heart” and mullet jokes). Fake Miley and Robby Ray’s relationship was based on Real Miley and Billy Ray’s relationship, according to about a million interviews where Miley talks about how great it is to be on a show with her dad. Miley’s real-life godmother, Dolly Parton, also plays her fictional godmother – but she appears as Dolly Parton, not “Holly Darton” or some other fictionalized version of herself, thus further blurring the lines between Cyrus and Stewart.

Perhaps even more significantly, Disney very shrewdly had Miley and Billy Ray emphasize their down-home Tennessee accents rather than hide them, and incorporated the Tennessee/countrified twang into the show as backstory. Miley Stewart was the little country gal who came to Hollywood and made it big…just like Miley Cyrus had.

The distinction was even blurred musically. In 2007 Miley released a double album called Hannah Montana 2/Meet Miley Cyrus.8 The first disc is pure bubblegum pop as heard on the show, and is framed as being performed by “Hannah.” The second has a small but distinct shift to a more mature, edgier sound and is presented as Miley’s “real” music – she’s shown without the wig on the cover, and eight of the 10 tracks were cowritten by her. I’ve spoken before about how bizarre it is that Hannah Montana, a fictional alias of a fictional character, essentially introduces the world to Miley Cyrus, a real live human being. Fiction should not have ownership over real people. The Stewart/Cyrus split was further confused when an episode of Hannah Montana showed Miley Stewart writing and singing “I Miss You,” a track off Meet Miley Cyrus – the most personal track from an album that was released specifically to create a distinction between the real Miley and the one on the show.

What I’m getting at here is that no one is ever confused about the difference between Miley and Hannah. But Disney has done a lot of legwork to make sure people are confused about the difference between Miley Stewart and Miley Cyrus. If you don’t believe me, try explaining the show to someone who’s never seen it.

The High School Musical franchise, while equally huge, didn’t strip its stars of their identities in quite the same way, but Disney still used it as a cross-promotional tool. Like the photoshoot Ashley Tisdale and Miley Cyrus did, or Zac Efron’s guest spot on Suite Life, or Miley’s split-second cameo in HSM 2, or Corbin Bleu’s recurring role on Hannah Montana and appearance on one of the soundtracks, or the time the characters on Suite Life actually appeared in a fictional production of High School Musical. What I find more interesting about the HSM phenomenon is how some stars embraced their Disney overlords wholeheartedly, like Tizz (she’s not on Hollywood Records, but she recorded plenty of Disney covers; appeared in all three HSMs plus a made-for-TV spinoff, Sharpay’s Fabulous Adventure, structured around her character; starred in three seasons of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody and guest starred on the spinoff; currently voices a lead role in Phineas and Ferb; and still hangs with (considerably younger) Disney types like Selena Gomez) or Corbin (two albums with Hollywood records, the aforementioned Hannah Montana role, his own DCOM Jump In!), while others resisted like crazy. And by “others” I mean Zac Efron, who managed to skip out on the HSM concert tour, attended as few Disney kid gatherings as possible, and was dogged by rumors that he was being difficult on set and that he and his then-girlfriend and costar, Vanessa Hudgens, had deliberately leaked nude pictures of Vanessa in order to get them both out of making endless HSM sequels. Zef is still tarred with the Disney brush at the moment, but not nearly as completely as he could have been, and whether that’s because he was older than Miley when they got their hands on him or because he’s a boy or because he simply resisted harder is up for debate.

With these two huge franchises, Disney could focus on grooming new, pre-branded stars: notably, Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato. Selena in particular is interesting, because Disney picked her up in 2004, three years before she became a major player at the network. She appeared in an episode of Suite Life Original Flavor and had a recurring antagonist role on Hannah Montana; she also filmed two pilots, a Lizzie spinoff and a Suite Life spinoff. Eventually she got the lead role in Wizards of Waverly Place (and, of course, the requisite recording deal with Hollywood Records). The thing about Selena, though, is that I distinctly remember Disney promoting her before the Wizards premiere, with a “Cruella De Vil” music video in heavy rotation and a whole “event” made of her character’s return to Hannah Montana. Wizards, too, got an absolutely huge push, but Wizards of Waverly Place was never the product. Selena was.

Demi, meanwhile, wasn’t as glossily packaged but in a lot of ways she had even more to carry on her shoulders: after starting out on the channel in their “short show” As the Bell Rings (five minute sketches aired during commercial breaks9), she starred in both Camp Rock, which was expected to be the new High School Musical, and Sonny with a Chance, hopefully another Hannah Montana. (Do I even need to mention at this point that she also had a Hollywood Records deal?) The network also capitalized on Demi and Selena’s real life best friend status by putting them in another DCOM together, The Princess Protection Program, and having Selena guest star on Sonny – thus turning a real life friendship into part of the greater Disney narrative.10 The machinery had been perfected.

(Is this video about them being best friends or completely interchangeable? I’m sorry, the part where they switch heads seriously disturbs me. I’m also put off by the switcheroo they pull at the end of the video, where Demi is shown as the princess and Selena as the girl in street clothes, only to have them switch outfits when they turn their backs. It’s supposed to be a cute prank, but it bothers me that two of Disney’s biggest stars are indistinguishable from one another at the right angle.)

The Disney starmaking machinery is still basically the same, but this era was their height: they had Miley, they had HSM, they had Demi and Selena and the Jonas Brothers, and even their also-ran shows at the time were actually quite successful, like The Suite Life. But Demi went to rehab, Miley finished her Disney journeymanship, the Jonii peaked fast and were overthrown in the heartthrob department by Justin Bieber and their show never gained much traction.

Meanwhile, Nickelodeon was on the rise. For years, Nickelodeon had had a much more relaxed attitude towards their stars. They didn’t ask them to engage in forced merriment, and they didn’t hold them to the same kind of morality clause (witness the difference between Vanessa and Miley’s forced public apologies about their various nude/semi-nude picture scandals vs. Nickelodeon’s wishing Jamie Lynn Spears well when she had to leave Zoey 101 due to a teen pregnancy). Nick heartthrob Drake Bell had a reasonably successful music career and performed the theme song to Drake and Josh, on which he played a musician and often sang his own music – but it was his own music, touching on darker themes like domestic abuse and often quite idiosyncratic, and never the forced bubblegum pop of a Disney star.

But the success of Hannah Montana and similar Disney shows caused Nickelodeon to shift their methods a bit. Nick’s biggest producer, Dan Schneider, had always been big into apprenticeship, which is a very Disney thing to do: he spun his All That stars Kenan Thompson, Kel Mitchell, Amanda Bynes, and Jamie Lynn into Kenan and Kel, The Amanda Show, and Zoey 101 respectively; The Amanda Show gave us Drake Bell and Josh Peck, who starred in Drake and Josh, which introduced Miranda Cosgrove, now queen of Nickelodeon as iCarly’s Carly, while Zoey 101 gave us Victoria Justice, now starring in Victorious (and Erin Sanders, who appears on the non-Schneider Big Time Rush.

But then Nick inked a deal with Sony (who own Columbia Records and its imprint, Nick Records) to transform the already-airing iCarly and the in-development Big Time Rush and Victorious into musical acts as well as kidcoms. For three seasons or iCarly, neither Miranda nor her triple threat costar Jennette McCurdy sang beyond Miranda’s vocals on the theme song, despite a soundtrack that included four tracks by Miranda; come fourth season, Carly was singing Miranda’s songs. Big Time Rush is set up to be just as hard to explain as Hannah Montana, with actors playing characters named after them who are members of Big Time Rush but also touring as the members of the real Big Time Rush (so, for example, James Diamond, member of fake Big Time Rush, is played by James Maslow, member of real Big Time Rush, a band created to go hand-in-hand with the TV show Big Time Rush); every episode heavily features a musical number. Victorious boasts an incredibly talented cast that also sings and dances in most episodes (not to mention accomplishing the hat trick of having a protagonist (Tori) and title (VicTORIous) named after the star (Victoria). The relatively new How to Rock, starring Cymphonique Miller – who was featured on Big Time Rush – also ends every episode with a musical performance. Miranda, Victoria, Cymphonique, BTR, and “How to Rock Cast” are all Columbia artists. It’s no coincidence that these four shows are also the most heavily promoted by the network.

Oh, and the crossovers! Victoria, much like Selena on Hannah, was heavily promoted as a guest star on iCarly before she got her own show. Miranda appeared in BTR’s Christmas special to perform a musical number. Victorious’s Liz Gillies’s appearance on Big Time Rush was given a big push, even though the episode was mostly about something else entirely. BTR showed up on How to Rock, and X Factor sensation Rachel Crow, who has just signed to Columbia and whose Nick show is currently in development, is guest starring on BTR this season. And then there’s this:

Sure, that’s part of a crossover called “iParty with Victorious,” but such tomfoolery isn’t limited to the shows themselves; the stars have also been tapped for promotional bits where they pal around and sing together, like this one:

It’s clear that all of these casts didn’t film at the same time, but nevertheless the effect is the same as the old Disney Channel Circle of Stars: look at how much fun these kids are having! Aren’t they talented and cute? (Yes.) Don’t you want to watch everything else they do?

I could go on – I haven’t even discussed how Nick is starting to mimic DCOMs, especially musical ones – but I think the salient points are clear: Disney and Nickelodeon, have, essentially, reinstated the old studio system, where stars were held to a morality clause, promoted the studio above all, and mixed and matched in whatever projects the studio decided to put them in. And again, to be a modern Disney or Nickelodeon Star, you must:


sing and dance, or fake it as best as you can,
perform in not just your show or movie, but the overall pageantry of your network, via crossovers, promotional bits, and even at-home YouTube videos,
and blur the lines between your real self and your character so that you are never, ever off-duty.


So to answer Sigrid’s question 4,000 words and 10 footnotes later, no. Britney Spears is not a Disney star. And with all the other crap she has to deal with in her life, I bet she’s really glad about that.

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.:lol:
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.)

What I mean is that it pretty much as to be confined to the now-standard, cookie-cutter Disney Channel sitcom formula (http://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/2kf5kl/disney_channel_sitcommovie_formula/) (courtesy of It's a Laugh! Productions). Therefore, there's only so much that you can do and go w/ the storytelling (or go past what the target audience is pretty much accustomed too) unlike w/ BMW, which benefited from airing in primetime on a major broadcast network in ABC. I know that you couldn't exactly make GMW during the early 2000s (since BMW had gone off the air recently, and you needed time to build nostalgia for an eventual revival), but DC's live-action shows (during the Zoog Disney era) seemed to be more creative and not so predictable/carbon-copied from one another.