Originally Posted By vbdad55 < It finds what sells and what doesn't sell. They feel like with this intact it won't sell. End of story. I think they're probably wrong. < you may be right, but I for one am not buying that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <So you have your perspective on television. That's fine. Mine is that all the hand-wringing couldn't be more misplaced on something so meaningless and unimportant as television while their are real people throughout the world suffering.< however it is not just TV-- how many schools have removed books like Huckleberry Finn , Canterbury Tales and countless others because 'someone' has chosen to censor what is good for our kids.... this issue is much larger than NBC
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Why does Hollywood keep throwing money away on trash that actually loses money for them? I have no idea,< this is why I say NBC and anyone else who censors has another agenda...if the agenda was what sells Hollywood would have stopped making the movies you mention long ago.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut I just dont get this. I do not believe in god, never have, never will. I think all organized religion is a sham and always will. But if someone mentions god on tv or in a movie, I don't get all up in arms. It doesn't effect me in any way. Of course I wont watch church shows because frankly they are boring, but if I am watching a tv show or movie and someone mentions god or even the movie has a strong religious undertone, I do not turn it off. Maybe I am odd. Who knows.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 No peeanuut - I think that is what most people without an agenda would do. If I am going through my channels and the program is in Korean and obviously relgious, I move to the next channel, I want them to have their programs also. If I am watching a good TV show and they mention something about Mormons and it is part of the plot, I don't turn it off or ask they remove that section...it is part of the story - leave it alone. If somehow it bothered me I would move to another station. As I have mentioned I roomed with a guy who was agnostic for one year in college...we have different views on religion obviously but we always have intelligent conversations, and neither tried to convert the other.. or anything like that. If we continue down the path that every time someone finds something not to their liking, we take it out, there will be nothing left. I really find the major network programming in prime time offensive for kids- and not just typical adult shows, but the blatant sexual references in Family Guy and American Dad for instance which are cartoons. I have no problem that these exist, but should they be on when a large part of the audience are kids - No in my opinion. How do I deal with that, my youngest is not allowed to watch those programs. I wish I didn;t have to police but I do. I do not want to explain different sexual acts to a 8 or 10 year old - it's ridiculous. So when I read something like this it makes me nuts, because somewhere there is another agenda. I don't aspire to the huge conspiracy theories, I just find it a breakdown of morals and ethics in this country right now. And no I do not think someone has to be religious to be moral or ethical....I am proud ofmy religion but I am not out there trying to convert the world...I have enough to do to take care of myself and my family.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>If we continue down the path that every time someone finds something not to their liking, we take it out, there will be nothing left.<< Sure, but we still act within reason. I'm sure many people would have liked NYPD Blue to be twice as violent with ten times the sex. But, the ABC has its own standards which effects what we ultimately see. Networks edit and remove small bit from TV shows all the time, we just don't hear about it because most of us don't whine about it like these guys. It's not like Veggie tales has been censored, there are any number of other stations that would have showed it unedited.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 < But, the ABC has its own standards which effects what we ultimately see.< oh yeah, like the standards they apply to Desparate Housewives. NYPD Blue was just ahead of it's time. <It's not like Veggie tales has been censored, there are any number of other stations that would have showed it unedited.< no matter how one says it, it has been censored on NBC...and for some without cable that may be the only way to see it.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>The religious right is NOT seeking to ban, by law, all naughty language, sex, violence, etc. They know it's protected. They're only trying to keep such content restricted to a time and place that doesn't leave young people easily exposed.<< Well, why should young children be exposed to the theory that God is real and created them? They're not old enough to make that decision. Some kid might hear this and be convinced that the contents of the Bible are real, because they believe what their TV tells them. I assume this show airs on a Saturday morning or such, when parents tend to leave their kids alone to watch TV? I wonder they'd feel about a show that told kids that Allah loves them and created them?
Originally Posted By Shooba >>no matter how one says it, it has been censored on NBC...and for some without cable that may be the only way to see it.<< But isn't everything censored? Theatrical movies are edited for network broadcast, to remove swearing and nudity. Should those be left alone? What about the people without cable who want to see that stuff? Are they entitled as well? Oh well, I couldn't care less whether NBC airs this show or not, or edits it or not. If I don't like it, I'll change the channel. It just strikes me as a non-issue in general, on par with the so-called war on Christmas.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>Well, why should young children be exposed to the theory that God is real and created them? They're not old enough to make that decision. Some kid might hear this and be convinced that the contents of the Bible are real, because they believe what their TV tells them. I assume this show airs on a Saturday morning or such, when parents tend to leave their kids alone to watch TV?<< In other words, everyone has different standards of what is acceptable. Some people will disagree and be fine with sex/nutity/violence airing at 8:00. Some people will object to religious references at that time. I don't like the attitude that NBC is somehow immoral because they have different standards than this group. They are a private company and can do what they want, within the bounds of the law. If the religious right doesn't like it, they can start their own network to air Veggie Tales on.
Originally Posted By Shooba If a network would only air an edited version of a show I liked, I wouldn't blame the network. I'd blame the show owners for not finding an outlet to air the show in its intended form. The religious right doesn't blame the Veggie Tales creator, now do they?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Whether it's killing, maiming, dead bodies, sexual innuendo, people having sex, or bare behinds, the thing that people are missing here is that people watch it. Nip/Tuck is one of the grossest shows on TV in my opinion -- it's incredibly popular on the FX network. The Sopranos -- super popular on cable, and I thought it was unwatchable. Too much violence, too much objectivication of women, too much. I won all sorts of Emmys and got all kinds of viewership. CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, Cold Case, Law & Order [and all their spin-offs] -- super popular -- with all hte various crime shows, a viewer can see 10-15 dead bodies, murders, assaults and other various acts of violence. The crime shows are consistently in the Top Ten. On the other side of the spectrum, you have 7th Heaven, which is so squeaky clean and moralistic, I don't really care for their agenda either. But 7th Heaven is popular -- people watch it. Television is driven by viewership. If people watch a show, it sells advertising and the network is happy. If someone is outraged that the VeggieTales don't get to tell their three sentence sermon at the end of the show, write a letter. Or better yet, don't watch. Rent the VeggieTales on DVD and get all of the content.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I used to feel the same way. No longer. "Family films" like Disney's (The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast) traditionally make far more money than your typical R-rated blood or sex fest, or a vulgar PG-13 teen comedy. Raunchy films also get beaten-out by other general-audience films like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc. Yet far MORE money gets spent (and lost) on R and PG-13 films that advance messages of casual sex and glorified violence." << Ah yes, the old faulty argument that Michael Medved originally advanced in his poorly-researched book over a decade ago. The big flaw in Medved's argument was that he simply looked at the number of assigned MPAA ratings versus total box-office gross without taking into account the cost or profitability of films. From that perspective, it certainly does look like the film industry makes a disproportional number of R-rated films even though G and PG rated films tend to make more money. The problem with the argument, though, is that a pretty large percentage of R-rated films are extremely low-budget movies (mostly action, horror, or soft-core erotic) made primarily for foreign release, home video, or cable distribution. If they get theatrical distribution at all, the box-office totals on these types of films are extremely low, but most make a healthy profit relative to cost thanks to the non-domestic and non-theatrical distribution rights. For the most part, the studios do actually spend a lot more money on G, PG, and lower-end PG-13 films as the non-restrictive ratings do tend to reach a wider audience. Even films in the horror and action genres (traditionally a large percentage of R-rated releases) have regularly been targeting PG-13 ratings over the last few years. What it really boils down to is that this whole conspiracy theory that decisions like this are all part of some Hollywood bias against conservative values is mostly unsupportable. The actual behaviors of the major studios, television networks, and other big entertainment companies do show a focus primarily on the bottom line. As much as ultra-conservative groups like PRC or AFA would like to pretend otherwise, the content that they object to keeps getting made primarily because there is a large audience that wants it. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DlandJB If someone is outraged that the VeggieTales don't get to tell their three sentence sermon at the end of the show, write a letter. Or better yet, don't watch. Rent the VeggieTales on DVD and get all of the content.>>>>> My kids have outgrown it now, it certainly didn't hurt them one way or another to hear the "sermon" It was/is what they observe in real life and how the people who are in their lives behave that ultimately makes the greatest impact in their lives. What I find curious is someone who is so threatened by a gentle and kind faith message of peace that they would want to cut it.
Originally Posted By ecdc "But look what we're talking about here ... it's broadcast television. Any kid over the age of two can go turn it on, even with conscientious parents who are just taking a shower or on the phone." I saw this one coming a mile away. The far religious right always wants to make this about "protecting the children". There are any number of ways parents can protect their children from what is broadcast on television. But there's a larger issue here. Your post has only gone on to prove my point beautifully that this is about competing worldviews. You continue to post as if it's some kind of universal truth that we all are opposed to certain things on television and that there's this evil media "they" entity that's trying to somehow undermine "our" values. It's a business. I'd much rather my children see pretend violence or sex on tv, something I can explain and place in context, than try and explain why we're sending young men to die in Iraq due to sheer incompetency. The fact that we're worried about what's on television boggles the mind. In short, I don't share your values about what should and shouldn't be on television. Americans differ on how they feel on this issue. Ergo, why should the far right's viewpoint always win out, as they seem to think? "People who peddle vulgarity need to at least be responsible in the medium of presentation they choose. You may make an argument for the 9/11 film, but is broadcast TV really the best venue? Why not keep it on video, so parents can control the viewing, and/or more sensitive audiences can avoid it?" Again, we're talking about a corporate business here. CBS didn't broadcast this to destroy your children's tender ears; they broadcast it on 9/11 to garner viewers. But they did broadcast it after 7:00PM and with numerous warnings about the content. And no, video isn't the best place for a documentary on 9/11. It should be available for free to the widest possible audience. If you don't want to see it, change the channel. It's not the network's job to protect your children from what you may or may not think is offensive. They shouldn't have to cater to the far right's paranoia. It's up to us as individuals to make the decision about what offends us and watch accordingly. By way of example, I have a friend who is deeply offended by a particular scene in "Gone with the Wind." If this was broadcast on tv, most people wouldn't object; he would. He can turn the tv off or change the channel. But what's more important, he can teach his children his values rather than expecting everyone else to fall in line. "The religious right is NOT seeking to ban, by law, all naughty language, sex, violence, etc. They know it's protected. They're only trying to keep such content restricted to a time and place that doesn't leave young people easily exposed." That may be your position, and it's one that I find fairly reasonable, but the evidence shows that you're wrong about the religious right. The AMA, Focus on the Family, etc, are not just trying to have certain shows broadcast at a certain time; they typically work to have them pulled altogether. They lobby congress hard and usually get some listeners in that body to have shows fined to get them cancelled. They lobby for laws and they lobby for them to be applied to premium cable channels like HBO. If I pay for HBO because I want to see shows like the Sopranos or Band of Brothers, the religious right and congress have no right to step in and tell me what I can and can't see; they shouldn't subscribe to HBO. But this has been and continues to be debated in congress. "That can't be said of the left, who involve the ACLU to actually ban, by law, religious expression in public society, in the schools, etc. They protect every other kind of anti-religious message in such settings, but religious ideas are facing hostile legal action with no constitution basis. We're not talking about government endorsement of religion ... merely simple messages of faith (which is the basis FOR our laws protecting speech, by the way)." Unless I want to pay considerably more to send my children to a private school, I don't have a choice of where they get to be sent. As Shooba's excellent post pointed out, why should my young children be exposed to ideas of creationism, God, prayer to a deity I may or may not believe in, etc? They aren't old enough to decide these things on their own, so why indoctrinate them now? I'm sure the religious right wants to continue to believe in their persecution complex, but this isn't about them. It isn't about picking on them or their specific beliefs. It's about the separation of church and state so essential in our government. It's about keeping religion private, where it should be kept. Unless you're supporting prayers to Allah and the teaching, as if it were fact, of Buddhist beliefs in school? Of course, it's easy to say you want religion in school when it's *your* religion. It's not mine, and it has no place in public schools. The ACLU doesn't wander the earth crusading against Christians for fun. They represent clients who approach them because their rights have been impinged by some group. Often, the ACLU's clients are other religious people who have been forced in schools to worship a certain way. By way of example, a Mormon student (a Christian, by the way) was repeatedly mocked by students and teachers at a Texas school for the style of prayer they offered in the school. Christians can't even respect each other half the time, how can we expect them to respect Agnostics, Muslims, Jews, etc? It's why the far right can teach their children whatever they'd like in their own homes, no matter how inspiring or how despicable. "Please don't demonize the right. There are those on both sides who use 'censorship' to advance their agenda. I get that, most do. But the "VeggieTales" debate isn't about censorship. It's about a network's judgement, which isn't entirely honest or consistent." Can't disagree that some on both sides use censorship. Neither should do it. And of course the networks aren't consistent - they're always trying to gauge the waters and find what viewers will watch and won't watch. Again, it's a business. Ironically, for all the right's screeching about the "media" most media is owned by conservatives. "Why does Hollywood keep throwing money away on trash that actually loses money for them? I have no idea, other than they like what they like, and they're going to keep making and pushing it, whether it's financially successful for them or not. They've got their losses covered by the occasional blockbuster they put out, the far majority of which are NOT rated R." Because they do make money on a lot of those shows. Through DVD release and overseas releases. There's plenty of family shows that don't make any money either (the VeggiTales movie by way of example). It has nothing to do with content and everything to do with quality, or at least getting enough people to see it in the theatre and then buy it on DVD to make money back.
Originally Posted By ecdc Jeff's post said more succinctly and accurately than I ever good. Great post, Jeff.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Well, maybe we were just rotten kids, but we used to watch 'Davey & Goliath' when we were kids and we made fun of it. Davey was such a nerd 'Hey Officer Dan!' as he's walking down the street. And the sermony stories would get so far out, that it seems like he would forget to bring his lunch money to school, and he'd stand in a corner and pray for the strength to get him through the situation. As an adult, I understand the message better I suppose, but I've watched a few episodes recently, and it's pretty cornball stuff.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If the people got to vote on what is more offensive: Veggie Tales or Desperate Housewives Desperate Housewives would get 80% of the vote. These cultural issues always favor the conservaitves in a landslide so it's nice to see the left argue to ban God again. When the left lose another elction due to moral values as they did last time, it will be funny to watch them act all surprised.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<Veggie Tales or Desperate Housewives>>> I think i'll flip back and forth between news, news analysis, and reruns on kdoc.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I love kdoc. Reruns of twilight zone, hitchcock, mission imposible, rat patrol yesterday, i saw almost all of it, i recognized an actor from a persuaders episode i just recently saw on dvd. And then of course the altman directed, and produced combat series, is remarkable story telling. Sometimes it gives me the creeps, like a good davy crocket episode, during walt's time.
