I think it’s fitting that I came across this right after we were talking about the dramatic increase in children’s toys/ entertainment having an online component. It’s like I’m psychic, or something! Except not really.

Anyway, it turns out that Hasbro has recently launched a couple of interactive websites for kids, Monkeybar TV and Monkeybar TV Jr. Both sites allow kids to play games online; the main site also links off to videos (most often commercials, it seems) which you can view.

The “junior” site is geared towards preschoolers “and their parents,” which, thank goodness, because heaven knows that four-year-olds need to spend more time online, and why go visit PBSKids.org or Discovery Kids when you could take your small child online somewhere that they’ll surely end up begging you to buy something?

Ahem.

Look, there’s no denying that this is a brilliant marketing move on Hasbro’s part. The market for this sort of thing is hot right now, and giving today’s ‘net-savvy kids yet another avenue to worship various brands is only going to increase Hasbro’s sales.

On the other hand, with so many places for kids to get online and play, already, can Hasbro step in and claim the attention of these kids?

Viv from Cool Moms Rule says yes:

I thoroughly enjoyed all the activities I tried out over at MonkeyBarTV.com, and there were lots more I could have selected.

In addition to the free games and videos, there are contests and tournaments (some of which require registration) and—of course—plenty of links to the Hasbro store where you can find any and all of the associated products you simply must have, Moooooom, please please please.

The few games I looked at seemed like they would be fun, but the site as a whole seemed oddly familiar until I pulled it up side by side with the Cartoon Network home page. (Oh well; you know, they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!)

If you see some brand lines on the Hasbro site that your child really loves, and you feel like he or she can enjoy the games without succumbing to the not-so-subliminal message of “buy more stuff,” then you might want to check Monkeybar TV out. Otherwise, you may just want to stick to the kid-friendly sites you already know and love.

I try really hard not to knock other people’s parenting—either here or anywhere, really—but in certain cases I just feel the need to let out my inner critic just to get a reality check. Maybe I’m completely out there. Maybe not. Perhaps you can tell me.

I, like most of the rest of the free world, went to see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix this weekend. I would characterize myself as someone who does enjoy the Harry Potter books and movies, but I’m certainly not a fanatic. I do not dress in character garb and run out to the bookstore or the theater to be there at midnight when the latest installment is released or anything like that. In fact, I haven’t even read the sixth book yet, so I certainly won’t be one of the people intent on picking up the seventh when it’s released later this week.

(And I guess I should point out that—as with just about every other book/movie pairing that comes to mind—I think the books are far better than the movies. It goes without saying.)

So anyway, there I am at the movie. I have my overpriced popcorn and I’m waiting for the previews to start, and really, I’m just very excited to be out of the house without the kids for a few hours.

What’s that? Oh, yeah. I didn’t take my children to the movie. They’re reading the books and really loved the first couple of movies, but they won’t be seeing this current one or the previous one for quite a while. You see, I am a Very Mean Mommy.

I am the sort of Very Mean Mommy who will not allow my single-digit-aged children to see a PG-13 film.

Here’s where I get all judgy. As I sat in that theater for a 7:30 showing of a PG-13 film, I watched family after family walk in with children who appeared to be as young as three or four. And I was appalled.

Look, I know I’m old and curmudgeonly. I know (believe me, my daughter has been informing me for weeks) that plenty of people will let their elementary-aged children see PG-13 movies, Mom, geez.

But I had, er, have, I guess, two issues. First, the movie wasn’t over until close to 10:00. I know it’s summer, but that’s pretty late even for an older kid. Second, it’s a scary movie. If I’m unwilling to let my nine-year-old see it, I have to confess I was horrified to see preschoolers waltzing in to watch it.

Am I being an old fuddy-duddy? Do I get to call inappropriate parenting or is it time for me to lighten up? Does Harry Potter get a magical dispensation that preempts all traditional parenting rules? I feel like I must be missing something here.

I cannot for the life of me decide whether this is brilliant or appalling. A little bit of each, I’m guessing.

I’ve long been a fan of the radio show Car Talk. No, I’m not particularly a car person, but Click and Clack (a.k.a. Tom and Ray Magliozzi) are good entertainment. I’m not alone in my opinion; they’ve been on the air for—what?—20 years or so, now.

So I’m not sure that an animated children’s show was necessarily the next logical step, but somebody at PBS thought so:

Start your engines! PBS is bringing Tom and Ray Magliozzi, of Car Talk, to TV. Based on the hit NPR radio show, the as-yet-untitled animated sitcom will launch with ten 30-minute episodes targeted for summer 2008. Fans will be invited to submit title suggestions for the television show.

The fast-paced series will take off where the radio series ends, focusing on the adventures of Click and Clack and their crew of mechanics and co-workers. Based largely in Tom and Ray’s fictional garage, the show will focus on the “off-air” escapades of Tom and Ray Magliozzi (”known to their listeners as Click and Clack,” the Tappet brothers) as they try to fix cars, fend off disgruntled customers and seek out ways to do less and less work.

“We want to apologize in advance to Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers, the folks at FRONTLINE, NOVA and AMERICAN EXPERIENCE for the damage we are about to do to your network’s reputation,” said Tom and Ray Magliozzi, who will provide the voices for their own animated characters. “Oh, and Big Bird, too. Sorry, pal.”

“Tom and Ray are larger than life characters, and the only way to keep them larger than life, and not diminish them on TV, is through animation,” said creator and executive producer Howard K. Grossman. “We’ve brought on a world-class animation team, and I’m confident the series will rank among the best anywhere.”

Okay, to be fair, it’s not necessarily just a kids’ show:

“We’re looking forward to bringing Tom and Ray to television, with new characters and stories that capture the humor of the radio series and take it even further,” said John Boland, PBS chief content officer. “Through animation and fresh content, we anticipate the show will be a hit among current fans of the radio show and new audiences. PBS has long been a leader in creating animated, educational programming for children, but, with Car Talk, we will present our first primetime animated series for a general audience.”

General audience, shmeneral audience. It’s animation, it’s on PBS. They’re counting on this show appealing to kids. Can they pull it off? I really don’t know. I hope they can.

And I love that they’re having a contest to name the show rather than just calling it Car Talk. How fun is that? You’ll have to stay tuned to find out more:

The titling contest will be announced on the Car Talk radio program and will allow listeners to submit their own suggestions for the television program title. More details regarding the titling contest will be available soon.

So change your oil every 3,000 miles and put on your thinking caps; you could end up naming this landmark television enterprise. And then you and the family can sit down for a night of family entertainment with the (animated) Tappet brothers. Wild.

[Hat tip: Animated News]

Playful Perspectives is a new feature wherein your intrepid Toy Box Mommy (that’s me) and The Toy Guy jointly tackle a topic to give you twice the insight and perhaps slightly different takes on an issue.

Once upon a time, there were toys. They required children to put their hands on them and use their imaginations, and they were very good. There were also board games and games like marbles, which required children to interact and think, and they were also very good.

Eventually the internet came along, and then after it had invaded pretty much everyone’s homes, it provided online kid-appropriate games, and they were good, too. (My children are particularly fond of Chuzzle.)

Now we have toys that used to require hands-on and imaginative play which now require logging on to the computer and doing things online in order to “play” with them. Webkinz, Bella Sara and Test Tube Aliens come immediately to mind, for example. It’s a trend that’s expanding and isn’t going away anytime soon.

Me, I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I love it when my kids resort to more “old-fashioned” play, preferably the kind that has them running around, getting exercise, and tiring themselves out. On the other hand, I think there’s a lot of truly educational and fun, clever online options which are absolutely wonderful for today’s net-savvy kids.

But I do think it’s time for kids to get a taste of their own medicine, too. So I’d like to suggest a few new toys to the big toy manufacturers.

Webkinz Barbie. When you take this Barbie out of the box, she whines that she hasn’t been allowed to play Webkinz in days and her monkey needs more kibble. Set her at the included desk and she logs on and ignores everything you say. Periodically she shrieks with glee and tells you she just won a bundle playing Cash Cow. Your child must log in to Webkinz and add her as a friend to get her to respond to them at all, and then she will play online with them but respond “that’s boring” to any game suggestion that takes place outside of Webkinz. Suggested retail price: $19.99.

Test Tube Pokemon. Each tube of glop must be fed a steady diet of tiny plastic creatures before morphing into a new breed of Pokemon right before your eyes. Holding the hatched creature up to your computer screen when logged on to the command center site allows your pet to learn how to say its name over and over again in a series of increasingly annoying high-pitched whines. Depending on the message sent to it, your creature will either disappear under the bed or become wedged in-between the seats in the car within one week. Suggested retail price: $4.99 (so that you’ll buy a bunch of them).

Heely Island. These magnificent wheeled shoes allow your child to skate along most any surface, as well as logging on to a mystical world where they can skate into other children at full speed without fear of grounding. Instead, some children will form gangs, while others will be voted off the island and sent away on an iceberg. Great for building social networking skills! Suggested retail price: $1500. Tell them to start saving their allowance now.

Yes, once again I wonder why I haven’t been snapped up by the toy development industry. I clearly understand the business and have a unique visionary perspective.

What do you think about the recent spate of internet-tie-in type toys? Love ‘em? Hate ‘em? And don’t forget to go check out The Toy Guy’s take!

Those of you not interested in the business of television and online marketing may not find this one very interesting, but this is a pet topic of mine and I’m the mommy and I say we’re going to talk about it.

If you don’t like it, you can go to your room, mister.

Once upon a time—about 57 years ago—the Nielsen company started tracking television viewing in American homes. Since then, Nielsen Media has expanded and taken over the world. Erm, I mean, they’ve branched out into other areas beyond just their notoriety as the television rating people.

Here’s where it gets interesting: Nielsen has also branched out into tracking web surfing (naturally) and now the news is that they’re changing the way they rank website popularity:

Nielsen/NetRatings, the media research firm, will overhaul the way it measures the popularity of Web sites, moving to add two new yardsticks to its service, it said on Tuesday.

The move follows growing criticism of how Internet user behavior is measured and how the value of Web sites is determined, both of them key factors in convincing advertisers to shift more of their spending to the Web.

Currently, advertisers and online sites often use so-called page views, or the number of times a page was viewed by users, to judge the audience a site attracts.

Nielsen/NetRatings, however, is introducing measurements that will show the total number of minutes per user and the total session per user on Web sites.

The move is intended to give a better picture of audience activity online, given that users are increasingly spending more time with one site watching videos or messaging, for instance.

This is notable news for a couple of reasons. First, those of us in the business of marketing on the ‘net have been displeased with the “pageviews model” for some time, because in today’s world of web applications (Flash, instant messaging, RSS feeds) it has long been through to be an inaccurate assessment of usage. Similarly, judging blogs by the number of comments isn’t an accurate view of popularity, either. (People tend not to leave comments here, for example, but I see you out there. You’re just not a very chatty bunch.)

Second, in terms of television programming, this makes me wonder if similar reform is coming to the rankings of our favorite shows. The days of a family plunking themselves down to watch a show on a given night are drawing to a close. Families TiVo shows to watch later; people watch shows on the internet at their leisure.

The way we interact with media is changing, and it’s about time that Nielsen started catching up.

As a general rule, I keep a tight rein on what my kids watch on television. This is very different than how I grew up; I was a latchkey kid for many years (as were most of my friends) and we watched whatever we wanted. (We also walked uphill in the snow four miles barefoot to get to school, but that’s a different story altogether.)

When my kids were tiny, they didn’t watch television at all. I was one of those mothers. And then one day I discovered that the magical shiny box would occasionally give me a few moments to myself, and thus began our love affair with children’s programming. Still, I don’t let them watch programs I consider objectionable, or even stuff that I just plain don’t like… usually.

The exceptions list is growing, as my kids get older. They’re developing their own preferences, and if I find a show objectionable simply on the basis that “it’s dumb” I’m less inclined to forbid it.

Still, I had to chuckle when I saw this MSN article on the worst cartoons ever. One of the targeted offenders is my son’s favorite thing in the entire world: Pokémon.

“Pokémon” had no story, only a Darwinist premise: Ash Ketchum, a young man and aspiring “Pokémon master,” travels around with his pet Pikachu, advancing levels as he goes. Ash has a bunch of young friends, and they wander aimlessly, looking for adventure. As a genre, anime cartoons are held in high regard — for character development, mature themes, complex plots and either smooth animation or really scenic backgrounds. “Pokémon” had none of these qualities.

Thank you. I’ve had a lot of people trying to explain to me over the years why Pokémon is so brilliant, really, but I just do not feel the love. Not that I’ve mentioned that before, or anything. Ahem.

Other offenders include Transformers and Scooby Doo, and the entire commentary is worth a read. Yes, Virginia, sometimes really annoying and dumb cartoons become popular, and no one knows why.

As someone who grew up watching the animated Dr. Seuss The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, I absolutely cringed when I heard it was being made into a live-action film. I vowed never to see it on general principle. Eventually I did, of course—it was on television one night, I suppose—and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. And surprised at how good Jim Carrey was as The Grinch.

Now I am old and jaded and have long ago admitted that whether I like him or not, Jim Carrey has “surprised” me with a great performance in enough roles, now, that it’s really not something I can call a surprise anymore. He’s good. He’s a comic mastermind and makes an eerily good bad guy as well.

So when I read that he’s been confirmed for the upcoming Christmas Carol remake, I was actually rather pleased. I mean, of course. Carrey as Scrooge. It makes perfect sense. Though this time, instead of going from animation to live-action, it’s the other way around. Sort of.

Jim Carrey will play Ebenezer Scrooge plus the three ghosts that haunt him in “A Christmas Carol,” an adaptation of the Charles Dickens tale that Robert Zemeckis wrote and will direct for Walt Disney Pictures.

Zemeckis, Jack Rapke and Steve Starkey will produce through ImageMovers Digital. The trio recently made an overall Disney deal for their ImageMovers banner.

Zemeckis will shoot the film using “performance capture/Disney digital 3-D” animation, a continuing evolution of techniques he introduced in “Polar Express” and continues with “Beo-wulf,” the upcoming film that stars Angelina Jolie.

“A Christmas Carol” will feature a touch of live action and computer graphics, the latter of which ImageMovers employed in the Gil Kenan-directed “Monster House.”

The technology provides a playground for the chameleon-like Carrey, who will act the character of Scrooge through the periods of his life, as well as the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future. Zemeckis wrote the script specifically with Carrey in mind, and the actor said yes straight away.

So many blended techniques… as soon as I read the part about there being a “touch of live action and computer graphics” my mind started running through A Christmas Carol as a bizarre offshoot of The Mask. I’m sure it won’t be anything like that, but remember back when The Mask came out and we were all so impressed by the visual effects? What? No? That’s just me? Okay, nevermind.

Anyway. I’m looking forward to December.

This weekend marks an important occasion for most men of my generation. A friend of ours who is a font of TV and film trivia told me this weekend that the decision to make the new Transformers movie was spurred on, in part, by a survey wherein some huge percentage of men in in their thirties and forties listed the death of Optimus Prime as one of the most traumatic events of their childhood. (Note: I don’t know if he made that up, because I can’t find a source. But he tends to Know These Things so I suspect it’s true. Still, I’m not claiming it to be hard fact.)

Whatever the reason, we’ve talked before about how this movie is much more for the demographic that enjoyed the Transformers the first time ’round than for the current (young) fans of the toys. Regardless, the time has come and the movie is opening. So…?

How’s it going to do?

When I last looked, the Tomatometer for Transformers was hovering right around 59%, which isn’t great. The critics seem to be saying similar things, it’s more a matter of how forgiving they are of what they have to report: Great effects, loud and booming and very much a production, campy as all get-out, and… here they split. They either find it fun or a waste of time.

(Though I don’t suppose the lack of award-winning dialog is a huge surprise to anyone.)

Toon Zone’s Chad Lee gives the film a big thumbs up along with a prediction for this to be the start of a giant robot revolution. I suspect he’s right, even if the film is little more than giant robots blowing stuff up.

Because, dude, it’s giant robots blowing stuff up! Isn’t that sort of the very definition of a summer blockbuster?

Happy 5th of July! Did you miss me? I am back, and just in the nick of time. Yesterday I ate my weight in hotdogs (like a good American) and so of course that got me thinking about Homer Simpson. What? Stop looking at me like that.

Thanks to Animated News, I’m in the know. The official Simpsons movie site is live now (does anyone else have a sudden, inexplicable craving for donuts?), complete with upcoming movie news and various activities. My favorite is the “Create Your Simpsons Avatar” section. I am quite fetching as a Simpsons character, let me tell you.

Over on the 7-Eleven site, you can enter for a chance to win fabulous prizes which include being animated in an upcoming episode of The Simpsons. (You can also look up Slurpee ingredients for every flavor under the sun, there, but I’m thinking you need to be really brave to check that out. Just sayin’.)

And finally, my very favorite: You have through July 9th to go vote in the USA Today Springfield Movie Challenge to see which Springfield in the U.S. will be chosen to host the first Simpsons Movie premiere. Some of the associated videos are hilarious. I didn’t even know there were 14 states that have a Springfield, but now I’ve “met” each of them. Mostly I am just jealous that I do not live in a Springfield state. Because some people dream of greatness, and I dream of living where we embody the “Simpsons Spirit” because, um, I like donuts.

(Aim high, friends. I clearly have.)

The Simpsons Movie opens later this month (July 27th). I’m hungry just thinking about it.