This is topic The Subtle Power of Hollywood in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/10867.html

Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I have been thinking allot lately about the cultural changes that I have seen in society.

Like our children we don't see the changes that occur day by day the changes in media have been gradual but significant over time. Watch a remake of a movie and look at how a story that contained mild romance and violence now has to have graphic violence and sex.

I am not a prude but when I turn on the TV I see disrespect, rude behavior, casual sex (OK maybe I am a little prudish), and profanity shown as normal and funny. Quality literature and film used to stop at the bedroom door recognizing that the details were not necessary to portray the story. Violence was shown only as needed rather than today’s in-your-face method.

I remember reading about all the churches that condemned Harry Potter as a tool of the devil. I think they would do a much better job looking the junk blasting kids daily rather than fussing about a book that children know is pure fiction.

I am not saying I want to turn back the clock to the 1950s (they had a whole different set of problems) but I do wish that Hollywood would stop telling kids that they need "things" to make them happy, that it is OK to be rude, that they have to be in constant contact with their friends, that divorce is OK if you "Fall out of Love." Marriage is commitment sex should not be casual; life is about more than self.
 
Posted by Ilmari (Member # 1672) on :
 
People have always complained about how everything's more sexualized and violent in entertainment today than it was in some mythical past.

I think if you look at the history of performance entertainment, from early Greek plays to Shakespeare to turn of the century vaudeville, you'll find that they had lots of sex and violence in them too - often quite graphically depicted.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
Yes, you are correct but it was not that way when I grew up. Literature did not need extraneous sex or violence to sell books. Watch shows or movies from the 50-80s and although there were exceptions the majority provided clean humor. Sex was insinuated sometimes but not graphically portrayed.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
The MPAA decided to make smoking in a movie have a negative effect on the rating (driving it higher). Why? Because it would encourage kids to smoke. Their reasoning, not mine. Yet, the same MPAA happily gives grissly movies graphically depicting gruesome acts of violence in loving detail lower and lower ratings.

Pretty much everyone who studies the issue seriously knows that watching hollywoodized violence makes people more prone to commit violent acts, or to be less concerned when violent acts are perpetrated. The issue is only doubted by people who think common sense is a replacement for evidence.

The fact that violence and sexuality have existed in every society's entertainment is no reason to endorse it the way hollywood and the MPAA do. We seriously need a better rating system, and one that is not governed by the people who make the movies.
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
Your point is best illustrated by the fact that you think you may be prudish for disapproving of such things. Your grandparents would likely be amused.

The trap I find myself in when I consider throwing the boob tube out the window is that I think I might actually do my kids a disservice by sheltering them from the world when what they really need is to practice making good choices.

The obvious stuff is really no problem because my kids know that it is off limits and they have no desire to consume it. What I think is most destructive are the subtle sophistications that creep into children's programming. I've noticed a trend of creating worlds where parents either don't exist or are marginalized and kids make all their important decisions based on some wacky Hollywood wisdom.

Fortunately, there are counter influences like family time, church attendance, scouting, community sports, homework and school reading assignments that sometimes combine to keep them too busy for TV -- if only I can keep up.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
quote:
"Pretty much everyone who studies the issue seriously knows that watching hollywoodized violence makes people more prone to commit violent acts, or to be less concerned when violent acts are perpetrated. The issue is only doubted by people who think common sense is a replacement for evidence.
Well, my common sense is telling me that the people who let their kids watch whatever they want are probably more likely to be crappy parents in general. Is that what you're talking about? Are there studies that have controlled for the obvious factors like violence in the home, parental presence, external influences from church and community activities? I'll accept a "yes" - not asking you to source it.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
yeah, there have been.

pre-and post exposure to violence studies have been done where how people's responses differ immediately following viewing of violence from prior to viewing.

[ October 10, 2007, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Thanks. Well, I can attest that after watching movies like Gladiator and Braveheart I felt differently about violence than before, on a gut level. Kind of an adrenaline thing I guess. So that much makes sense to me too.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Hollywood came along just in time to provide the collective unconscious memory Jung hypothesized.

As for rating systems... yawn. False sense of security, says I. Not that I discount a whit the influence of virtual realities on human minds. But more important, methinks, is being able to openly talk about such things with one's children.

Most of all, is the daily reality of the children experiencing the virtual reality.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
quote:
Pretty much everyone who studies the issue seriously knows that watching hollywoodized violence makes people more prone to commit violent acts, or to be less concerned when violent acts are perpetrated. The issue is only doubted by people who think common sense is a replacement for evidence.
I think that depends on how the violence is presented, rather than the mere fact of violence.

To use two extremes -

Braveheart, Mel hacking people up, makes violence look cool.

Watching Indian protestors get their heads cracked open one after the other in front of the salt mines in Ghandi? Probably not so much [Wink]

Maybe it's not really here nor there, since violence is so generally presented as something heroes do as well as villians, but I think it's worth mentioning that the context matters.


Recommended viewing for those who can handle brief shots of genitalia and an awful lot of humor.

This Film is Not Yet Rated
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
Yes, you are correct but it was not that way when I grew up. Literature did not need extraneous sex or violence to sell books.
When did you grow up?
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I made my appearence on this earth the year Kennedy was shot. There was at that time a degree of sex and violence in literature but not the full scale invasion we have now.

Watch even shows on Disney and you will see Middle School kids with boy friends and girl friends. They worry about how they look and dress. How many kids without money are shown. Young teens are pushed to become sex symbols. If you have any doubts think about all the child stars that end up messed up on drugs and alcohol.
 
Posted by Ilmari (Member # 1672) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
I made my appearence on this earth the year Kennedy was shot. There was at that time a degree of sex and violence in literature but not the full scale invasion we have now.

Watch even shows on Disney and you will see Middle School kids with boy friends and girl friends. They worry about how they look and dress. How many kids without money are shown. Young teens are pushed to become sex symbols. If you have any doubts think about all the child stars that end up messed up on drugs and alcohol.

Again, I think you have a way more idealized view of the past than what existed in reality.

You do realize that it used to be common in the late 60's and 70's to show pornographic films like Deep Throat and Behind the Green Door in mainstream theaters, something that would never happen today. Heck, it's estimated that Deep Throat get about $100 million during its theatrical run, making it one of the most successful films of the decade.

The late 60's and seventies was also a golden period for exploitation flicks and grindhouse fare with plenty of sex and gorey violence. Most people just remember the oscar winners and 'classics' from that era, but make no mistake, sex and violence at high levels were definately in the mainstream by that point.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Excellent topic, Mynnion. I can't wait to get caught up and join the discussion. Tomorrow. [Smile]

KE
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
I am not arguing that these existed. I am stating that they were not mainstream. I grew up rading every new Scifi and fantasy novel that came out. Yes it was there but it did not have the prevelance that it has today. The movie industry commonly adds vulgar language and sexual themes to give a movie the "PG13" stamp even if it is totally out of context with the story.

Name me one childrens show from that time period where children were sexualized. The violence on TV was not as graphic. I remember when MASH was considered too sexual and adult for children.
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
We aren't watching the evening news very much right now because there is a commercial for some halloween event that scares my son. As soon as it comes on he runs and hides behind the couch. We never know when it is going to be on, so we just don't watch the news. A couple of months ago they played a clip that included the f-bomb without bleeping it.

I gave up on entertainment television long ago, but it saddens me to have to stop watching the news with my family. That was an important part of my childhood, and an important learning tool. When I was kid we would watch the news and talk about what was happening, and where it was happening, and what it had to do with us, or our city, or our state, or the nation. I want to do that with my kids, but I don't think that we will be able to.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Why not just TIVO everything?
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
I don't have a TIVO? (or cable for that matter)
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Hrm. That would probably be a forgivable reason. For me, a DVR means never having to see a commercial again.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I remember when my mom wouldn't let us watch SOAP, because of all the sex and "gayness". (Billy Crystal) [Smile] Looking back on them now; Hawkeye was a dog, and Trapper an adulterer. Even Saint BJ slipped up once. (Stacy never forgave him. [Frown] True story.) (We used to watch three episodes of MASH before bed every night. I didn't realize how pinko preachy they were at the time. But they are still hilarious.)

KE
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Since sex has been released from its artificial Victorian corset, there have been noticeable rebounds. BUt they are at least natural, and can therefore be rationally apprehended. Not so the old Victorian mores, which were based on a form of cultural insanity.
 
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 4024) on :
 
I grew up watching R-rated movies full of sex and violence, because my dad said (whenever my mom objected to me watching Pulp Fiction or Deliverance or whatever), "It's a violent world, she might as well get used to it now."

But then, we all know how I turned out. [Wink]
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
Hopefully getting ready for your honeymoon. But since I personally like PG we'll stop at the bedroom door. Have a great time.
 
Posted by NSCutler (Member # 1403) on :
 
One of the best parts of This Film is Not Yet Rated came from a documentarian whose war documentary got an NC-17. He pointed out that the MPAA distinguishes between violence where there is blood and gore and violence where there is no visible blood and decides the former is not suitable for children but that the latter is. The director points out that it should be the opposite. Children have a blurred sense of fantasy and reality. Bloodless, non-messy violence is a fantasy, one that only adults should be exposed to.

A kid who watches 'The Lone Ranger' is given no reason not to pick up a gun and shoot weapons out of the bad guys hands. A kid who watches 'The Wild Bunch' is going to be seriously traumatized, but he isn't going to think a gun is something that it's not.
 
Posted by ngthagg (Member # 2737) on :
 
I can't help much with TV, but for movies check out kidsinmind.com

I'm not sure how they come up with their overall scores, but the detailed reviews simply list everything that might be objectionable. I've seen listings for dancing and holding hands under sexual content. The reader, of course, is free to pick and choose what's important.

The descriptions are written to be as spoiler free as possible. I find that a typical trailer ruins as more of the movie then these reviews do.

They also provide a message for each movie, which can be good for a laugh. (The best ones are for slasher flicks, in my opinion.)

ngthagg
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Mynnion, I'm really really really hoping for that poor boys sake that Guine didn't see Pulp Fiction and Deliverance as "getting ready for her honeymoon".


Unless he's into that sort of thing. I'm not here to judge.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
What a scary thought. I wonder if he knows what he has gotten himself into.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"One of the best parts of This Film is Not Yet Rated came from a documentarian whose war documentary got an NC-17. He pointed out that the MPAA distinguishes between violence where there is blood and gore and violence where there is no visible blood and decides the former is not suitable for children but that the latter is. The director points out that it should be the opposite. Children have a blurred sense of fantasy and reality. Bloodless, non-messy violence is a fantasy, one that only adults should be exposed to."

I saw the other day how it was revolutionary, a daring edgeover, when Leave It To Beaver actually showed the top of a toilet bowl. The water closet portion.

To have actually shown the bowl... SHOCKING!!!
 
Posted by Colin JM0397 (Member # 916) on :
 
Honeymoon?

Bring out the gimp.
You sure have a perty mouth.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Yes, you are correct but it was not that way when I grew up. Literature did not need extraneous sex or violence to sell books. Watch shows or movies from the 50-80s and although there were exceptions the majority provided clean humor. Sex was insinuated sometimes but not graphically portrayed.

No. It' smore than back then, literature that had extraneous sex or violence tended to either run afoul of government censorship or get dropped very quickly by "decent" bookstores and libraries everywhere. Likewise TV, cinema, and music weren't more decent 50 years ago because they were purer times or anything, they were more decent 50 years ago to avoid legal repercussions and angry, profit-reducing protests. You're mistaking the repression and censorship of days gone by for some sort of golden age of decency.

Plus I think the notion that less sex, less violence, and less graphic depictions are automatically a good thing is fundamentally flawed (seriously, you've done nothing to explain how wholesome entertainment is intrinsically better), and what you're basically doing here is arguing that an artist's freedom to create what he wants and an audience's freedom to see what it wants should be trumped by the opinion of disapproving do-gooders who aren't even watching the splatter horror or the gay porn that they're complaining about in the first place.

If you don't like tits and gore, watch something else and stop whining about how awful it is that some people like things you don't. It's not like Hollywood is so busy filming explicit sex and violence that it doesn't have time to make cleaner, more wholesome fare or anything.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Mynnion, I'm really really really hoping for that poor boys sake that Guine didn't see Pulp Fiction and Deliverance as "getting ready for her honeymoon".


Unless he's into that sort of thing. I'm not here to judge.

Yes, and let's hope that her hubby didn't see Seven Brides for Seven Brothers as "getting ready for his honeymoon". [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
I have been thinking allot lately about the cultural changes that I have seen in society.

Like our children we don't see the changes that occur day by day the changes in media have been gradual but significant over time. Watch a remake of a movie and look at how a story that contained mild romance and violence now has to have graphic violence and sex.

I am not a prude but when I turn on the TV I see disrespect, rude behavior, casual sex (OK maybe I am a little prudish), and profanity shown as normal and funny. Quality literature and film used to stop at the bedroom door recognizing that the details were not necessary to portray the story. Violence was shown only as needed rather than today’s in-your-face method.

I remember reading about all the churches that condemned Harry Potter as a tool of the devil. I think they would do a much better job looking the junk blasting kids daily rather than fussing about a book that children know is pure fiction.

I am not saying I want to turn back the clock to the 1950s (they had a whole different set of problems) but I do wish that Hollywood would stop telling kids that they need "things" to make them happy, that it is OK to be rude, that they have to be in constant contact with their friends, that divorce is OK if you "Fall out of Love." Marriage is commitment sex should not be casual; life is about more than self.

Not to argue about whether you are right and wrong, but why isn't the answer to not watch television?
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:


If you don't like tits and gore, watch something else and stop whining about how awful it is that some people like things you don't. It's not like Hollywood is so busy filming explicit sex and violence that it doesn't have time to make cleaner, more wholesome fare or anything.

I mostly agree with you. I haven't gone to the movie theater since LotR, and before those I think it was American Beauty. We watch the evening news and college sports (UF basketball and football). You would think that we wouldn't be offended by the things that we find in those two shows, and for the most part we aren't, but it is the commercials that ruin it (for the most part, from time to time we get the news anchor that wants to make a name for themselves being gritty and edgey, or the aforementioned audio clip where they didn't blank out the f-bomb, but those are relatively rare, less than once a month). We have a three year old boy, we don't show him movies where people are graphically murdered, we don't show him strippers, we don't show him people drinking or doing drugs, but all of those things are showing up in commercials.

The worst part is that they completely sidestep the question of whether or not those things are OK. They aren't the main focus of the commercial, they are being taken for granted as acceptable viewing material for all ages. I actually find this a little amusing because I constantly do this when I am trying to get peole to do their work. Instead of convincing them to do the work I ask them questions about the logistics of getting it done and by the time we hammer out the details of how to do it they have forgotten that they didn't want to do it. The commercials for Halloween Horror Nights are skipping right past "do I want to have my kids see this" and going straight to "do you want to go on a Friday or Saturday night". By the time I realize what the commercial is and have found the remote and changed the channel, my son is already cowering in fear behind the couch. Then there are the commercials for Desparate Housewives, and the commercials that just use sex to get attention.

When I am old and rich I'll get a Tivo, but that doesn't help me very much now.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
Not to argue about whether you are right and wrong, but why isn't the answer to not watch television?
Good point. When my children were young we did tightly control both TV time and viewing choices as most good parents should. There are good control options like TIVO or just turning it off.

My main issue is that I feel that our culture is being modified by a small group of individuals that use the system to in essence advertise to us their value system.

quote:
Plus I think the notion that less sex, less violence, and less graphic depictions are automatically a good thing is fundamentally flawed (seriously, you've done nothing to explain how wholesome entertainment is intrinsically better), and what you're basically doing here is arguing that an artist's freedom to create what he wants and an audience's freedom to see what it wants should be trumped by the opinion of disapproving do-gooders who aren't even watching the splatter horror or the gay porn that they're complaining about in the first place.

When an idea is shown over and over again as normal it subtly alters our thinking. When the vast majority of actors and actresses are portrayed as "beautiful people" how does that impact children? When violence is shown graphically as cool what message is that sending? When music and video games degrade woman or honor cop killers how do we as a society deal with the repercussions?

It is not the artist's ability to create that I am arguing against. If by art you mean music that glorifies murder, rape, drug abuse, etc, than yes, I don't think that has a place in our culture. If you mean by art paintings and exhibits that are specifically designed to offend or degrade any portion of our population than again I don't consider it worthy. Do we need to see graphic scenes of violence when we turn on the news to be informed, no the violence is strictly there for ratings.

The fact that your value system and mine are different does not mean that I am a whining do-gooder (although we should all try to do good, well, whatever), it means that in "my" opinion our society is being manipulated into becoming something that I don't always see as good.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
quote:

My main issue is that I feel that our culture is being modified by a small group of individuals that use the system to in essence advertise to us their value system.

Actually, through ratings, couldn't we say that television is pretty democratic and seeks to reach the highest number of people possible?

You might be suprised, for instance, how different groups view television, and why they dislike it for how it portrays what is 'normal'.

These days, there are any number of alternative media channels available. Don't like something? Watch something else. You can only let the 'group of individuals' have your time if you want them to.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
These days, there are any number of alternative media channels available. Don't like something? Watch something else. You can only let the 'group of individuals' have your time if you want them to.
This is a valid point but my question is not so specific as societal. Watch the fashions on the Disney channel and you will soon see millions of kids wearing the same fashions, getting their hair done in the same way, and wanting the same things. I recognize that this existed when I was a kid also. I just have become more aware of ti.
 
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 1070) on :
 
Well, I don't think anyone would argue that Mass Media sucks. It's the, whatchacallit, Sturgeon's law.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
quote:
Not to argue about whether you are right and wrong, but why isn't the answer to not watch television?
Good point. When my children were young we did tightly control both TV time and viewing choices as most good parents should. There are good control options like TIVO or just turning it off.
[/quote]

I never really liked that option myself, But then, maybe I'm just still annoyed that my parents wouldn't let me watch The A-Team when I was little [Smile]
 
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 1217) on :
 
"It is not the artist's ability to create that I am arguing against. If by art you mean music that glorifies murder, rape, drug abuse, etc, than yes, I don't think that has a place in our culture."

Well... our culture happens to disagree with you. And it's not going to bow down to your desires without serious force, sorry.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
[QUOTE]
It is not the artist's ability to create that I am arguing against. If by art you mean music that glorifies murder, rape, drug abuse, etc, than yes, I don't think that has a place in our culture.

So you don't want to limit artistic freedom or impose censorship. You just want to stop artists from making things you don't personally approve of. I'm glad we got that cleared up Mynnion [Smile]
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
So you don't want to limit artistic freedom or impose censorship. You just want to stop artists from making things you don't personally approve of. I'm glad we got that cleared up Mynnion
What I am opposed to is the portrayal of these ideas as acceptable and mainstream by Hollywood. Mass media has a tremendous impact on promoting "art" particularly in film and music. The choice of what is produced and how it is promoted is made by a small group of individuals who are only interested in creating shock for profit. The effect of this is that the shock goes out violence, etc. and becomes seen by society as acceptable. Who is driving whom? Are changes in society driving the changes in "art" or is the in-your-face presentation of "art" changing society. The music industry today makes stars based on image and appearance more than on talent (yes there are exceptions). I am not sure how this benefits either art or society.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Um, if so many people want to watch this kinda stuff, maybe it's more mainstream thaqn you'd like to believe. After all, Hollywood often sinks millions upon millions in films that the public decides to reject.

It's like the saying "Television is the most egalitarian art form ever. It's made by the people, for the people according to what the people want. The horror, of course, is in what people actually want."

It's not Hollywood's fault, it's human nature's .

Art is not supposed to "benefit" art OR society. Just like free expression isn't. It's not your place to say "this art is beneficial so I'll allow it."
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
quote:
So you don't want to limit artistic freedom or impose censorship. You just want to stop artists from making things you don't personally approve of. I'm glad we got that cleared up Mynnion
What I am opposed to is the portrayal of these ideas as acceptable and mainstream by Hollywood. Mass media has a tremendous impact on promoting "art" particularly in film and music. The choice of what is produced and how it is promoted is made by a small group of individuals who are only interested in creating shock for profit. The effect of this is that the shock goes out violence, etc. and becomes seen by society as acceptable. Who is driving whom? Are changes in society driving the changes in "art" or is the in-your-face presentation of "art" changing society. The music industry today makes stars based on image and appearance more than on talent (yes there are exceptions). I am not sure how this benefits either art or society.
So to reiterate, you want to stop artists from making stuff that you disapprove of. Oh I mean sure, technically they could still make all the smut they wanted, they just couldn't get their songs on the radio, their shows on TV, or their movies into cinemas or video stores. You want to live in a nation where music, film, television, and journalism (and possibly video games and perhaps literature as well, although they haven't come up in this thread so I wouldn't want to make assumptions) are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression.

Why do you want to turn America into communist China?
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
So to reiterate, you want to stop artists from making stuff that you disapprove of. Oh I mean sure, technically they could still make all the smut they wanted, they just couldn't get their songs on the radio, their shows on TV, or their movies into cinemas or video stores. You want to live in a nation where music, film, television, and journalism (and possibly video games and perhaps literature as well, although they haven't come up in this thread so I wouldn't want to make assumptions) are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression.

The point I am trying to make (and not doing a very good job of it) is that mass media is modifying our interests and societal beliefs (sometimes for the better). TV and the music industry (sometimes the same i.e. Disney) are shaping culture by what they choose to play. I have no issue with any artist creating his/her "art." I do have an issue when the product they create is used through selection to manipulate culture. The internet may act to counteract some of this by providing a greater opportunity for true artists to present there work but we will have to wait on that.

I have no significant issues in the effect of movies and none at all in literature because the market for these is generally selective and voluntary.

quote:
Why do you want to turn America into communist China?
My point exactly. Our society is being controlled by a small group of individuals who choose what we should and should not believe. But I guess if we call it art than it is OK. [Smile]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I really hate it when, every week, the brown shirts walk into my house, sit me down at gunpoint and force me to watch "Deal or No Deal" and "Big Brother LXXIV"
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
Yeah I know the feeling DonaldD. I wanted to grow up to be an ordinary, well-adjusted person. But they kept strapping me down in front of a movie screen, wiring my eyelids open, and playing Beethoven's 9th while showing nonstop images of ultraviolence. Oh if only I lived in a land where I hadn't been forced to watch that morality-destroying stuff! [Smile]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Mynnion, again: The "small group of individuals" who are "controlling our society" do not have a nefarious agenda. They are simply producing what they think the most people will want to see. The masses are tasteless and dumb. Deal.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Mynnion: use your remote. It's kind of like a mouse, only it clicks the tv not the internet.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
The "small group of individuals" who are "controlling our society" do not have a nefarious agenda.
Of course they don't have a nefarious (nice word use). They are either strictly looking to make more money by one upping the competition or they feel that their manipulation is in the publics best interest (in some cases it may be). The question is do we really want our society controlled.

KL, Donald, and Rallan if you actually bothered to read what I said you would see that this post is not about my personal choices (I do not what that thingy is that acts like a mouse). I even know how to turn off the TV (I'm sure this shocks you). It is sad that cheap shots become a necessary tool for dialoging with someone you disagree with.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
What is this control of which you speak?
The only thing they control is what they offer you to watch. Do they have influence? heaps. But it is not "control". If it was "control" then it would indeed be about your choices.

As for the cheap shots - we're sarcastic bastards. Your scolding is really not gonna change that.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
Sorry Ricky, I guess I was hoping for intelligent responses. Maybe I should have used the word influence instead of control. It does not change the reality of the manipulation.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
True, Mynnion. It only changes the reality of your discourse, which is all we have to go by around here. No body language, no vocal inflection, no pheromones, no ESP (that we can verify).

Want intelligent responses? YOu got 'em. Make a stupid (by being not what you intended to say) statement, you'll get a response not to what you meant but what you said.

Language works like that. Welcome to teh intertoobz.
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
Mynnion, I get the sense that your arguments are wasted on folks of whom I would wager are not parents.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
how much did I just win off you, bombasto? [Razz]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Rickyb and kenmeer are both parents.

Oops. you fail.
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
... and not the ones I was referring to either :0) Didn't realize how active this thread was at the moment when I wrote that.
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Mynnion - as has been mentioned, if you didn't mean control, you shouldn't have used the word.

You also used a whole bunch of other terms that are just as inexact. For instance "the product they create is used through selection to manipulate culture"

Are you aware that this wording ascribes a particular motivation to "them" which you seem to assume, but have in no way shown to exist?

Specifically, this wording implies that "they" use "the product" to "manipulate culture". You later seemed to agree that the manipulation is a secondary result of "their" real motivation, which is to make money. Unfortunately, that is not what your actual, initial words said.

If you don't want the friendly sarcasm, you'll need to be clearer - we can't parse your words and magically come up with what you really wanted to say [Smile]

[ October 14, 2007, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
quote:
... are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression
I for one am all in favor of restriction on free expression. You are begging the question as they say. Please justify "free expression" as the universal right that you appear to assume that it is.

Yes, I am all for limiting "free expression". And so, BTW, are the founders of this forum. There are many things you can't say here, for instance. Is it OK for this forum but not the air waves? Are the TV and radio station owners somehow bound to some lesser ideals and standards than we of the free and open sourced Internet (bless you, Al)?
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
There's a distinction that you seem to be overlooking, bombasto: that is that members of this forum are using a private resource (Ornery servers) which are privately owned and privately policed.

When talking about "free expression", Rallan was almost certainly referring to government enforcement of what is "allowed", since the government in the US has been allocated the exclusive use of force (enforcement). To talk about what is "allowed" or restricted in general is to discuss the limits of government interference. And government interference in "expression" is strictly defined by the first amendment and the associated case law.
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
Ah, yes, associated case law. ...

Be that as it may, I like this test for media attributed to Susanna Wesley:

Whatever weakens your reason, whatever impairs the tenderness of your conscience, whatever obscures your sense of God, whatever increases the authority of your body over your mind, whatever takes away from your relish for spiritual things, that to you is sin, no matter how innocent it is in itself.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
Specifically, this wording implies that "they" use "the product" to "manipulate culture". You later seemed to agree that the manipulation is a secondary result of "their" real motivation, which is to make money. Unfortunately, that is not what your actual, initial words said.

No, I stated that money is a shared motivation with "influencing culture."

quote:
are either strictly looking to make more money by one upping the competition or they feel that their manipulation is in the publics best interest
Maybe control was too strong a term because as stated an individual always has the opportunity to turn of the tube but I do believe that Hollywood does use its "influence" to "manipulate" culture. I also stated that this has sometimes been positive. The question is do we want our society manipulated by a small segment of our society.
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
Joshua Harris, a minister in Gaithersburg had this to say about media which I liked:

The media never try to reason with us. Instead, they seek a hard-wire connection straight into the emotions. Why offer some lame, tortured argument in favor of immorality when you can simply show slow-motion close-ups of beautiful people bathed in soft lighting and romantic music? Painful consequences of sin? Where?!
 
Posted by Busillis (Member # 5048) on :
 
The thread has since moved on from Everard's point concerning violence, but I think it bears returning to.

I can recall studies demonstrating desensitization to violence from exposure, and I believe that desensitization is a sufficiently commonly accepted phenomenon that I don't need to immediately dig up the citations. However, I do not think there were any which conclusively demonstrated a causal link between violent entertainment and violent crime. A few have shown correlation, I vaguely remember reading of a survey of prison inmates showing that violent offenders had a preference for violent entertainment; but correlation does not imply causation.

I have sometimes heard it argued that demonstration of desensitization to violence is equivalent to showing a causal link between violent entertainment and violent actions, because desensitization to violence 'obviously' makes future violence more likely, and in a trivial sense this may be true. However, the relevant question is not 'does it make violence more likely?', but rather 'does it make violent crime more likely?'.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with desensitization to violence. Desensitization is merely the removal of instinctual revulsion towards violence. In an individual with a degraded moral sense, this may make it easier for them to commit crime. On the other hand, in an moral individual, it may may it easier for them to, for instance, come to the defense of an individual being victimized. In the balance, I have no problem with a generation increasingly desensitized to violence.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I not parent! I victim of spawn! Is BIG difference!
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
@Busillis- Google "bobo doll studies"


My wife and I were talking about a similar but unrelated subject, and she mentioned that there should be a corollary to the quote about standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us. Sometimes people are digging in the pits dug by those who came before them. That is very true in entertainment. One person shows the top of a toilet, the next person has to show the top of the bowl, the next person has to show the inside of the bowl the next person has to show something inside the bowl, the next person has to show something nasty inside the bowl. Eventually everything is poop.

I don't mind having shows on TV that contain disturbing and degenerate things (I won't watch them, but you can), but I would like for the content of the commercials during family friendly shows to also be family friendly. Kind of the way they only show G-rated previews at the beginning of G-rated movies.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
"I not parent! I victim of spawn! Is BIG difference!"

This is totally off topic, and not important, but it's bugging me so oh well. KL, why the baby talk/fake pidgin all the time?
 
Posted by philnotfil (Member # 1881) on :
 
Because it is absolutely hilarious?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
"but I would like for the content of the commercials during family friendly shows to also be family friendly."

That is extremely reasonable, imnsho. So move. Second? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by bombasto (Member # 5217) on :
 
I second. OMG! RickyB, we do agree on something!
 
Posted by kino pravda (Member # 5595) on :
 
quote:
They are simply producing what they think the most people will want to see. The masses are tasteless and dumb. Deal.
I whole heartedly agree. Hollywood movies that are made with the intention of pleasing viewers should not be considered "art," but rather as "entertainment." People want to be entertained, and there are people who will see a movie solely because the actors are "hot" and just plain eye candy. Movie makers know what people want to see so they will cast those kinds of actors. Hollywood is less manipulative than it is a reflection of our modern society and its values.

What I think is sad is how prominently Hollywood contributes to the American image seen by other countries. I was confronted by a college student in Taiwan and she asked if Americans all believe it's ok to sleep around all the time like they do in Friends. I met international students expecting to be confronted about something like the Iraq War or George Bush, but no, I get asked about TV shows and movies (I was also asked if Americans eat burgers and fries all the time, but that's irrelevant [Wink] ). A friend of mine had a similar experience when she hosted exchange students who had more questions about Desperate Housewives than anything else. Really... of all the issues that can make the US stand out in the minds of foreigners, it has to be Hollywood drama?
 
Posted by jasonr (Member # 969) on :
 
I see what Mynnion is saying here. Hollywood and pop culture are more or less in the position of a drug dealer. It's not that we, as individuals, don't have a choice whether or not we want to buy what they're selling. But the effect of this product, like the effect of a community being flooded with drugs, hurts us whether we choose to consume it or not. It's not an individual problem, but a societal one.

And while there may be something in us that makes us "want" it (or perhaps more accurately, makes us "susceptible" to it), it's probably wrong to say that we really asked for it. In effect, pop culture creates its own market where none existed previously. No one asks for or demands a certain type of art; all art, in my opinion, is an acquired taste.

I also think it may be a bit of an equivocation to say that the "violence" in a Shakespeare play is equivalent to the "violence" in a Hollywood movie. The former is necessarily an abstraction, since even the most elaborate production cannot truly simulate the bloodshed of, say, a husband murderering his wife, for example. On the other hand, movies have the ability to mimic reality to such a degree that a movie murder gives us a voyeuristic experience unlike anything known before. It's the truest counterfeit of witnessing an actual murder that you can possibly get, and when that murder is glorified, as is the case in most movies and TV shows, that has to have a powerful psychological impact. So yes, there has always been explicit violence in theatre, paintings, and even the bible, but one type of "explicitness" should not be confused with the other.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
Isn't it funny that one can be an avid consumer of American media and yet use it to judge American culture? In order to know what you're talking about you have to participate in the very culture that you're criticizing.

About the societal problem: The steady success of disgusting horror movie franchises like "Saw" and "Hostel" etc. makes me a bit embarrassed and worried for my culture. And yet I find the TV show "Dexter", in which the protagonist is a serial killer, to be compelling. I can kind of justify it to myself in that Dexter tries to get into the mind of a serial killer (and an unusual one at that) rather than just portray and wallow in violence for shock value. I guess that's a little like Victorian men who looked at dirty pictures with purely scientific curiosity. [Smile] But really, if I'm not kidding myself, it's just a matter of degree and technique. I'm part of this violence-addicted culture, not above it. I can sneer at shows like CSI and the gorefest movies, but make it a war movie? About serial killers? About superflu? I'm there. I'm into it. I cheered inside when Russell Crowe was lopping off heads in "Gladiator." I'm sick too.

But I'm not about to encourage or perpetrate real life violent acts like the ones I enjoy in certain forms of entertainment. There's a partition in my head, and the entertainment stays firmly on the opposite side from reality.

I suppose I would put violent entertainment in the same category as marijuana. I don't think it should be illegal for adults, and I don't think it's particularly harmful except in edge cases for adults, but I don't want kids growing up on it because i think it sets them up for bad stuff in the future. And it changes them before they can make their own mental partitions.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
quote:
Whatever weakens your reason, whatever obscures your sense of God,
How contradictory.

Tried to watch Dexter, and while it was well written, I just don't like serial killers, or serial killer stories. Which sucks because there are a lot of good ones.

In Mynnions opinion/argument who gets to decide what is shown when and where, etc? (Sorry, trying to get caught up on this discussion.)

KE

[ November 21, 2007, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by WeAreAllJust LooseChange (Member # 3411) on :
 
Our family threw out the TV (not the TV-set) since we found out what American TV is all about (read - advertising).
Prolonging a 2 hour movie to a 3 hour "feature presentation" was not something I expected when we came to US about 7 years ago from behind "the iron curtain".

Since that time we have been taking movies, documentaries and books from the library, once we read reviews and opinions on the contents.
We watch THOSE movies only after FastFWD through it to find out what additional "nice touches" (read - nudity, indecent exposures, unneeded violence and profanity) the directors, etc. have added to spice it up.
In 90% of the cases (from the movies we watch) - these "touches" do not add ABSOLUTELY anything to the plot, the idea, etc. of the movie - they are just slapped in there to make the male A-type chimp want more and more of it.
There had been many situations where we unintentionally see such scenes (even after combing all the “lice” out) and we have always argued why we continue to watch movies, animation, documentaries, etc. at all.
Most likely it is our decades long addiction to the blue screen which makes it so tough.

That and the genetically modified corn tortilla chips [Smile]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
WAAJLC, there are places that rent edited movies. Presumably they agree that the 'adult' content adds nothing of value. Might save some time for you if you can find one that rents online or locally.
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
First off, mainstream media seem much more prudish now than in the seventies.
For example, the seventies, was probably a high point in American filmmaking. It was realistic, serious, political and had some good depth and ... good acting. Also then, american movies had some nudity in them. Now, not so much.

Pretty Baby could not be made today. The 1997 Lolita-remake had a 24-7 inspector ON SET, to see if anything happened between Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons. Of course NOT whether sex or anything remotely like that occured, since that would not happen anyway. But I remember reading that the inspector was there to see if any physical positioning of the two actors would be inappropiate. I have no way of knowing, but I'm guessing that the studio, in an act of self-censorship, made the 16 year-old look even older on purpose, for the portrayal of the 14 year old Lolita.

On TV these days, even the whole pre-training-bra demographic wears at least double layers on the upper torso. They almost always have a jacket or a sweater on, never just a t-shirt. The exception was Natalie Portman in LEON (the Professional), who promptly got dissed by some (older male) critics because she wore a wife-beater at age 12 or 13. I too, never noticed that, but ever since I saw those reviews about that film, I started observing and noticing this demure clothing trend.
quote:
"Pretty much everyone who studies the issue seriously knows that watching hollywoodized violence makes people more prone to commit violent acts, or to be less concerned when violent acts are perpetrated."
I think you might be on to something there! I noticed too, that all those comedy shows caused much more laughter in the streets and at school, in the workplace ... [Wink]

quote:
pre-and post exposure to violence studies have been done where how people's responses differ immediately following viewing of violence from prior to viewing.
Yes, well, maybe. Have you also seen some studies where viewing of violence will cause kids or people to act more violent? People's response would also differ if they watched "The littlest Elf" for hours and hours. There hasn't been a study which showed prolonged violent behaviour due to TV watching.
In fact, youth-violence is down, from the levels in the 50s and 60s. We talk about it more, yeah sure, but the actual events are very different.
Every study shows that people think there's more violence than before, except in their own neighbourhoods ...

This topic comes very natural to people of a certain age, like 25, 30, 35 or 40. But realize that EVERY generation does this.

Also realize that Victorian times were preceded by times were sexuality was much more free. It's not like we all ran around in burka's since the year 500 AD and gradually have gotten more nude. These things might go in stages, waves, phases.

For me, mainstream media feels much more prudish now than when I grew up and we're about the same age, mynion. Sure, the internet has a lot of sex. not allowing your teens to have pc in their room helps a lot with that.

Think about "The Wonder Years". Maybe it's the milder climate, and I very well might be imagining things, but did Winnie Cooper really go to school at age 13 in such a short skirt? [Wink]

Oh yeah, and don't you think our now ten year old daughters will one day wax lyrical about Bratz and the Pussycat Dolls?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
WAAJLC, plus there is Tivo. Caution, Tivo is addictive. I don't watch anything I haven't Tivo'd first so I can fast forward through the commercials.

KE
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
how much shows/hours can you store on a tivo? What can a tivo do that a VCR can't?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Hey, you got a point; There is more violence except in my neighborhood. Weird.

And I can't tell you how many times Dick Van Dyke almost killed me by making me trip over the ottoman. (ottoman, is that spelled right? A whole empire and a little footstool is all they get? Who was the Sofa empire? That should be an Ottoman. We make no sense.)

My brave dog is trying to crawl under me because a thunderstorm is bearing down on us. He's so cute. Not very reassuring, but cute.

KE
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
Thunderstorm? Aaah, over to the climate change thread then, and speak from experience ... [Wink]

Anyway, some people here mentioned Saw and Hostel as proof of general increasing sleaziness. Still, how do they account for the 11 seasons of 7th Heaven? And 7 seasons of Gilmore Girls? Arguably more people/kids saw the latter 2 rather than the former 2?

My point is: accentuate the positive not the easily avoidable negative.

Now, coming from behind the Iron Curtain, I understand that that could be hard.
Because (former) Eastern Europeans tend to be morose and gloomy? From experience, I can state that Polish women do indeed believe that negative stereotype about themselves, dunno about others.
So ... try not to be like that! [Wink] [Razz]
 
Posted by TheSteelenGeneral (Member # 5530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
And while there may be something in us that makes us "want" it (or perhaps more accurately, makes us "susceptible" to it), it's probably wrong to say that we really asked for it.

Dude, the thousands of shows that gets canceled every week (yes, a hyperbole) might severely disagree with you.

Then again, it's an interesting question: Should we give "the people" the crap/violent/superficial/bradybunchy shows they so desparately seem to want?
AFAIK, the answer by american society has been a deafening YES!!!!


quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Isn't it funny that one can be an avid consumer of American media and yet use it to judge American culture?

If your point is, "how can all these furreinners watch usa tv and still not like us?", then, well, there's no contradiction.

Maybe it's not so much the culture that gets judged as the foreign policies.
American TV gives you a feeling of "and justice for all". This is in astounding opposite of U.S. foreign policy, which is about oil, greed, me-me-me and the creation of a corporate ruling class (which goes against that very american culture of equality).

As for mynion:
The point RickyB and DonaldD etc were making in reference to control and influence is that you don't really seem to distinguish between the two.

You seem to say: Hollywood has control over what we do and think as a society. If that were really true, then the last 9 presidents would've been all Democrats.
Do you agree that there's a crucial difference between control and influence?
Extremely, you can read books or get a satellite dish.

[ November 22, 2007, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: TheSteelenGeneral ]
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
quote:
If your point is, "how can all these furreinners watch usa tv and still not like us?", then, well, there's no contradiction.

I actually thought it was more like shopping at Kmart and, while shopping, sneering at the other shoppers for shopping at Kmart.

I don't actually see much contradiction, either. No reason why a person purveying American media wouldn't form opinions, even damning ones, on that basis. Everyone looks at trainwrecks, too, but few will admit to thinking they're good or something that should be emulated. Irony, now, that's present in spades.

I suspect that the appeal of American media even in locales that are hostile or less than friendly to American culture is ubiquity, availabilty (few if any countries produce as much recorded entertainment as the US), high production values, variety and fascination with a culture which, however you might feel about it, must seem passing dominant worldwide.
 
Posted by OceanRunner (Member # 5605) on :
 
quote:
I suspect that the appeal of American media even in locales that are hostile or less than friendly to American culture is ubiquity, availabilty (few if any countries produce as much recorded entertainment as the US), high production values, variety and fascination with a culture which, however you might feel about it, must seem passing dominant worldwide.
Anecdotally, some folks I work with claim that as Iraqis gain more access to satellite TV, they're more accepting of our culture and values; it makes us seem more real and human, and makes it harder to villianize the west. I mean, sure, we're a perverse, decadent culture, but... we do have some fun. And who, watching MTV's "Laguna Beach" or "The Real Housewives of Orange County" or "WWF Smackdown", could believe that the US is really capable (or interested) in world conquest and colonization?
 
Posted by OceanRunner (Member # 5605) on :
 
I'm reading a book right now, "Where the Girls Are", about how women have been depicted in television and how that has interconnected with the women's rights movement - and of course also indicts some of the attitudes represented today. Given the subject under discussion I flipped to the back of the book where it talks about invoking media change - in this case for sexist media imagery, but it applies across the board: not only can you turn off the TV, not buy crappy magazines, etc, but you can also write in to media outlets to let them know what you don't appreciate (especially since even if you turn off the TV, it seems to be impossible to avoid). I don't know, honestly, how much anyone cares if you do those things though... I guess some folks have made progress in terms of protesting anorexic models and such, and now there are some more reasonably proportioned models displayed amongst the rest... and we rarely see smoking in TV or movies now, especially not portrayed in a positive fashion. Those are a few negative things which have improved to some extent. I wonder how many folks it took to provoke those changes to those varying degrees.

I think we all have a love/hate relationship with mass media. A lot of what the media shows does not necessarily agree with our personal values, but... who wants to be disconnected from pop culture? I like knowing what's going on, even if I roll my eyes at it.
 
Posted by Mynnion (Member # 5287) on :
 
quote:
As for mynion:
The point RickyB and DonaldD etc were making in reference to control and influence is that you don't really seem to distinguish between the two.

There is a very fine line between the two. I you listen to the "Left" you will hear that the conservative commentators are manipulating the news to promote their views and values. If you listen to the "Right" you will see the entire media accused of having a liberal agenda (I guess they don't watch Fox News).

If you don't believe that the media has the ability to control why is the first thing a dictator does after a coup is to take over the control of TV, radio, newspapers, and now the internet? Can't the people just turn it off?

The idea that I am trying to get across is the idea of "control through influence." When something is shown as normal/OK often enough society starts to believe it. Look at the total commercialization of culture. When was the last time you saw a normal middle class or poor kid on TV unless the story line revolved around poverty? Every kid has basically unlimited funding for their own computer, cell phone, big screen TV, etc. They come to expect these things because that is what they and their friends see as normal. Heaven forbid that they be out of contact for a minute. How did we middle-agers survive childhood?

If you are influencing what is seen and read then you are to some degree controlling society. When only a few mega corps control the majority of what we see and hear they have the ability to control society.
 
Posted by Rallan (Member # 1936) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheSteelenGeneral:

You seem to say: Hollywood has control over what we do and think as a society. If that were really true, then the last 9 presidents would've been all Democrats.
Do you agree that there's a crucial difference between control and influence?
Extremely, you can read books or get a satellite dish.

Actually they'd all have been Republicans. Screw actors and their namby-pamby liberal cause of the month ribbon campaigns. The folks who actually run Hollywood are businessmen, and if they ever stumbled upon a way of using film and television to steer American politics, they'd have us voting for whoever's promising to lower taxes and dilute the legal protections of employees.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
quote:
I actually thought it was more like shopping at Kmart and, while shopping, sneering at the other shoppers for shopping at Kmart.
Fun, you gotta admit those shoppers that flock to the "blue light special" deserve derision. [Wink]

KE
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I suspect that the appeal of American media even in locales that are hostile or less than friendly to American culture is ubiquity, availabilty (few if any countries produce as much recorded entertainment as the US), high production values, variety and fascination with a culture which, however you might feel about it, must seem passing dominant worldwide."

Tonight, on Roman Empire: Inside the Belly of the Beast...
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I think we all have a love/hate relationship with mass media. A lot of what the media shows does not necessarily agree with our personal values, but... who wants to be disconnected from pop culture? I like knowing what's going on, even if I roll my eyes at it."

Pop culture is a word too big and small at the same time for an individual's tastes. But mass media? Gotta love it. Lets weirdos like me share their favorite examples of pop culture:

Transcendental Schmaltz

This guy was the biggest selling record star of the 20s, along with Enrico Caruso and John McCormack.

[ November 26, 2007, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by drewmie (Member # 1179) on :
 
Lately, I am far more disturbed by the insidious inclusion of inappropriate commercials and trailers before G-rated films in movie theaters. I took my kids to see Bee Movie, and it was a lot of fun, EXCEPT for a lot that preceded it, including:
I think all of these things should be available, but I am REALLY ticked off that they completely ignored the rating of the movie, thereby ignoring the reasonable expectations that parents had of the content of the film. Heck, show porn trailers for all I care. But not with G-rated movies!
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 945) on :
 
drewmie, i'm completely with you. "This preview has been approved for all audiences" or whatever it says is about the most meaningless attempt at rating content i've ever witnessed - they have violence, sex, nudity excluding nipples and genitalia, and pretty much everything that gets a movie a non-g rating in those trailers that are supposedly OK for "all audiences."
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
What the heck gets a G rating anymore?

Shrek 3? PG. I do NOT understand.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
If parents care that much about the movies their kids see, they'll screen 'em themselves. Like anyone has any good reason to trust a Hollywood/government rating body.
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1