Defending The Cartoons (Fonz and Happy Days Gang, et al.)

[Guy Incognito]

Well, not so much the cartoons themselves (which were abysmal), but rather the thought process behind their creation.

Let's say you're a television executive during the 1980s, and you've been tasked with filling the Saturday morning schedule. Your bosses are looking for a new, profitable entity to build the entire programming day around, and every animation studio and production house in town is gunning for the spot. However, your budget is limited, the sponsors don't want anything too strange, provocative or controversial and Standards & Practices is watching your every move, which means your options are extremely limited. Now, let's say that in that environment, you are presented with two ideas:

1. An adaptation of primetime's top-rated sitcom (already airing on your network) featuring the original actors and by the same production team responsible for your most popular Saturday morning cartoon, proven commodities all.

And...

2. A show based on a Belgian cartoon series about blue trolls living in mushrooms and being chased by a decrepit wizard and his mangy cat.

Now, without the benefit of hindsight or a psychic premonition and with all the obstacles stated above, which ones of these ideas would YOU greenlight for the schedule? Be honest...

[robyrob]

i liked the cartoons; i mean they were stupid but they are just cartoons, so who cares?