Were the Sid and Marty Kroft productions, such as Liddsville and H.R. Puffinstuff, drug induced?

Why does it matter?

Were they well made? Did they tell good stories? Were they popularly accepted? Did they make money for the creators and distributors?

I can’t see why your question has a particle of relevance. Art is art.

Does it matter that Chopin and Berlioz regularly swallowed opium?
That Beethoven was an alcoholic?
That Bernstein was addicted to painkillers?

Do the drugs take away from their art?

Are these questions? Why are you so defensive?

You are assuming that there is some sort of judgement on my part.

For years, the ‘debate’ has gone both ways. But considering how influential Sid and Marty Kroft were on a generation of American kids, it would be interesting to know. The imagery certainly suggests it—although not that dissimilar from Willie Wonka (1971) and educational T.V. shows like The Electric Company. Then again, some people see things where there is only innuendo.

No mine is an answer with examples.

You are making the allegation / observation that Krofft and others may have been on drugs when they were being creative. I am responding “so what?” and noting that other highly creative people were also drug users.

My response is that their creativity stands by itself, regardless of drug or alcohol use.

I guess the only way to know for sure would be for someone to ask them directly, or if they admit it in an interview or to friends or coworkers. Otherwise, it’s just speculation.

LOL! Probably! Just like SNL and Mel Brooks!

It was the 70’s. A lot of mainstream pop culture was influenced by drug culture: art, fashion, cinema, etc. At some point that zeitgeist just fed on itself. Who’s to say if the Krofts were actually influenced by drugs or the culture of the time.

It is entirely possible. I always thought Rocky and Bullwinkle were drug related. Not when I was a kid, but when I was older it seemed to be far more geared towards stoners than kids.

Scooby Doo.

I think it went both ways for many artists. Some were under influence of one or more substances, but also may have been influenced by the basic culture of the time.

I don’t think it’s objectively “objectivity” that leads people to think such shows were drug-induced. I’d say it’s more like some combination of one or more of common popular conversations about drugs, experience with people who are into drugs, cynicism, and/or lack of experience of lots of creative imagination without drugs.

Having known (and been one of) many very creative and imaginative people who did not do drugs, I can tell you for certain that it’s entirely possible to produce lots of “trippy” weird imaginative stuff without the “aid” or influence of (or even never having done any) drugs, or even without even getting into a spacey state of mind (which is also entirely possible without drugs).

However, a spacey state of mind can certainly lead to stuff like that, and drugs can certainly make people spacey.