|
|
#1 |
|
Retired BOSS
|
hopefully all of you have at least heard about the opening from Monday Night Football this past monday. if not, i'll describe it. Nicolette Sheridan from the ABC TV show Desperate Housewives was hitting on Terrell Owens and eventually drops her towel to convince TO to stay with her and not go play in the game.
Obviously, every major party involved with this opening was informed and approved it before it aired (ABC, NFL, and the Philadelphia Eagles). Jeffrey Lurie (the owner of the Eagles) even commented in Monday's paper that he greatly enjoyed the opening. THEN.... step in the conservatives. Monday afternoon and Tuesday started the backpedaling and the foot-in-mouth syndrome. Official apologies were released from the NFL and ABC saying that they were wrong to release the offensive content. Now, the question is.... why. Of course, the obivous answer is that a few thousand people (read: kill-joy conservatives) whined and complained to ABC/NFL/FCC about it, and in a completely hypocritical move, the NFL and ABC apologize. now, a few thousand complaints vs 17 million people who watched MNF 2 nights ago. if i were in the position of a representaive of the NFL or ABC, i most certainly wouldn't give an apology. there was nothing wrong with that segment. there was no nudity. there was no profanity. it was funny, in context with the show Desperate Housewives (which i've seen every episode of), and gives more face time to TO. they approved their actions before it aired, they MUST stand by their actions after it airs. I can not stand the way Michael Powell has turned the FCC into a neo-nazi organization bent on controlling the airwaves with his staunch, conservative, Republican ideals. Everything has spiraled out of control from Janet Jackson's jewel-cladded nipple to where it will eventually become that no live program will be allowed to air without a few second delay. What is next? No anti-christianity on tv either? i'm sick of the rules and covers that are being placed on our 1st ammendment rights. ABC is allowed to show the back of a naked woman just as much as some conservative has the right to turn it off, lest he go blind from the horrid sin of the flesh. I'm sure i have more that i'd like to say, but i'm writing this all at once, and its all kind of venting out of me. so, i will wait for replies and go from there. yes, i'm very opinionated. i tried to contain my cynical desire to use profanity or vulgarity in my rantings. PS - all of this started for me with Howard Stern.
__________________
RIP |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
auauauau
|
Yeah, it started with Howard Stern with me too.
I'm sorta skeptical to just be totally on Howard's side, and I'm heistant to believe that it's all Powell's fault. Plus, you're really exaggerating. It's ridiculous, but not neo-nazi. But, FCC does suck the big one and there does need to be changes. And as for ABC apologizing...It would make my day if a spokesman just came up and said, "Suck it up, you damn pussies." But hell will freeze over before that happens. The only way to fix it is if I dedicate my life to having a career in ABC, which I certainly am not going to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
|
damn you FCC, Jon Stewart summed this argument up better then I coudl ever articulate it.
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Environmentally Friendly
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In transit
Age: 34
Posts: 6,929
|
There are kids of all ages who watch pro football, and as someone who wants to be a parent someday, I think the networks have an obligation to inform people what they're going to be seeing before they see it. For adults, it's no big deal (though it is in very poor taste), but remember that the NFL is supposed to be family entertainment. PG-rated stuff.
If you want to look at naked people, Google Images can help you with that. Keep it off my TV set unless I ask for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Retired BOSS
|
how did i know you were going to defend the conservatives chardish.... knew i could count on that.
just so we are clear.... its ok to show brutal murders, maggots in peoples skull, recreation of sex, snorting cocaine, all kinds of other criminal activites..... but to show a womans naked back is completely taboo and cause for all this uproar? bs! also, there was no nudity. it was a woman in a towel and then her back. edit: this was my conversation with chardish... i'll finish my argument here. TasselFoot: how'd i know you would defend the fcc. Sindacollion: meh. there are innumerable places for you to get R-rated entertainment Sindacollion: even cable can say the F word now after hours TasselFoot: so whats the problem with Nicolette Sheridan's back on MNF. nothing. TasselFoot: shows like CSI, 24, Law & Order... etc. all have extreme violence and drug use.... yet there is no big hoopla about it. Sindacollion: because they're not family-oriented entertainment and they don't claim to be TasselFoot: its because its sports, so therefore "real"... whereas dramas aren't. TasselFoot: so? they are on at the same time. 9pm. TasselFoot: and on network tv Sindacollion: G-rated movies show at the same time as R-rated movies in the same theater. who cares? Sindacollion: do you want monday night football to be PG-13? think how many little kids wouldn't be able to see it TasselFoot: or how many more would watch it. Sindacollion: they tried that already, it was called XFL and people hated it TasselFoot: i just want consistency. if there is no problem showing people getting shot in the head, people being strangled, suffocated, drowned, raped, drugged, etc... at 9pm. why is there a problem showing a back. TasselFoot: no... the xfl was bad for many other reasons. TasselFoot: i know sports isn't your domain... so don't try and argue football with me. Sindacollion: so you're saying that the airtime of a show affects the content that is expected to be on at that time? Sindacollion: this isn't about what's allowed and not allowed. this is about what we expect to see TasselFoot: it damn well should. abc, cbs, nbc are all 100% free shows to get on any tv. they all have relatively similar programming across the board. TasselFoot: who cares. there is nothing wrong with seeing her back. its not like janet jackson's nipple. Sindacollion: i agree that it's far far far tamer, but the context of the thing...i wouldn't want my 5 year old seeing that TasselFoot: you can watch desperate housewives itself and see teri hatcher run around in a towel. Sindacollion: so why can't you do that Sindacollion: why bring it to MNF TasselFoot: actually... towelless. she loses it when she slams a car door. Sindacollion: why is it necessary TasselFoot: then runs around outside herself covering her privates. Sindacollion: why can't football be football? TasselFoot: do you ever watch MNF? Sindacollion: no. most sports events i see are live, i don't like watching televised sports except for the super bowl TasselFoot: ok... so then you have no frame of reference for what the "standard" MNF opening skit is then, right? Sindacollion: no Sindacollion: i don't really have time for this. it's late and i have class in the morning TasselFoot: all of them are somehow promotional for either another show of ABCs or some upcoming movie... or music album. all of them try and market to america's hot spots... like sex and beautiful people. take the Super Bowl in 2003. Sindacollion: we can argue later TasselFoot: i'm almost done. Sindacollion: we're arguing later Sindacollion: good night mike TasselFoot: it was on Fox 2 years ago... TasselFoot: fine. night evan. what i was going to say is that all throughout Fox's super bowl were ads for Alias S2E13, which was airing afterwards. i recommend all of you watch the 1st 5 minutes. its quite good. Jennifer Garner prances around in first a black, then a red bra/panties outfit to sexy music. that is what the commercials were depicting as well, to the 85+ million people watching.... how are these two things different? and, there was no uproar about Alias.
__________________
RIP |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
is against custom titles
|
ABC and the other big networks have moral obligations to not show adult stuff because they are prime time, on non-cable channels. Therefore, kids watch, and they don't need to be showing stuff that's inappropriate for kids.
Why did they apologize? To keep their ratings up. If they don't, parents turn off ABC because they don't mind showing non-kid-friendly stuff. That's why it's more of ABC's decision. The FCC is only trying to uphold the moral contract. I agree that they shouldn't have done it and apologized; I really hate seeing that happen. Either don't do it in the first place, or stick to your decision. But with things like John Rocker and his comments, he shouldn't have to apologize for that. He doesn't have much to lose. Of course, if he did have something to lose, he probably would apologize for the sake of keeping whatever it is. EDIT AFTER TASSEL: Remember, CSI, Desperate Housewives, and the like are all rated. People know ahead of time that there is going to be sex, violence, and drug use in those shows. Monday Night Football is for football, not sexual innuendo --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
FFR Player
|
People should not be concerned about what the TV shows them, they should be concerned about what they want their kids to see and enforce that.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Super Scooter Happy
|
Terrell Owens is awesome. Any and all who oppose his brand of humor should be shot.
The end.
__________________
I watched clouds awobbly from the floor o' that kayak. Souls cross ages like clouds cross skies, an' tho' a cloud's shape nor hue nor size don't stay the same, it's still a cloud an' so is a soul. Who can say where the cloud's blowed from or who the soul'll be 'morrow? Only Sonmi the east an' the west an' the compass an' the atlas, yay, only the atlas o' clouds. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Retired Staff
|
Tass A++ for referancing the '03 super bowl.... where were they at then?
__________________
![]() RAVEnHEXa: Lip ring is because I want to be a professional piercer. 87x: more like.. professional goth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
|
what about this?!!?!? During MNF there have been the coors lite commercials, WITH 2 WOMEN CATFIGHTING IN A FOUNTAIN! its more provactive and sexual then anything in that preview was, and no one said a damn thing about it because it was by a beer company... the whole thing is ludicrous and utter bullshit... and yup that'll be edited which it should since kids see this but its the best way to articulate the ridiculousness and hypocrisy.. and Tass did you see Michael Powell's statement on MSNBC? He should just jump off the highest roof he can find right now, he's so insincere.
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
|
The worst of commonly shown baseball and football commercials are just as suggestive as showing a bareback.
I watch a lot of football and baseball, and showing a bareback is nothing I don't normally see elsewhere in the broadcasting. Parents know the occasional sexual theme can be attached to that kind of airing. They feature cheerleaders, commercials with suggestive concepts, among other things. Any parent that doesn't want their kid seeing that should know that a football airing is one of the places where it would be. Plus, those networks have been pushing the limits of their tacit rules for years now. It's the responsibility of the parent to watch out. The networks do have every right to do that, and it was just in the best interest of the network to apologize. They don't actually mean it, but they do know that it would help their viewer base rise again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 298
|
Several of you have mentioned it but the importance doesn't seem to occur to you: You only see things that are potentially inappropriate for kids in ads and shows that give warnings beforehand. Did it ever occur to you that most parents who watch football with their kids change channels during the commercials SPECIFICALLY because they want to avoid what they know may be inappropriate. The same is true for shows with blood, murder, drugs, etc. Parents SPECIFICALLY skip and ban those things so their kills will not see inappropriate material. However, one simple rule of TV is that you do NOT show inappropriate material during a show that is not supposed to have it. You shouldn't and won't ever see a person getting stabbed and murdered on Dora the Explorer, will you? Parents do not want to see that stuff in the middle of shows that aren't supposed to have it, and if the show is going to have it they want a warning so they can change the channel. Football commercials and inappropriate shows have both been publicly declared a source of inappropriate material for younger children, and this is common knowledge for parents. However, knowing that a sex-innuendo from a show you may consider inappropriate in the first place will be aired in the next few seconds is NOT common knowledge and therefore considered an inappropriate placement for the joke. The FCC isn't being ridiculous or neo-nazi at all; they're doing their job and holding TV shows to the tacit and explicit rules of the trade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Retired BOSS
|
Drac... no rules of the trade were broken. there is nothing in the FCC disallowing ABC to show Nicolette Sheridan's back. there is nothing to prevent Fox from airing Alias' promo 25 times during the super bowl. or the coors lite commercials, or ads for any other show. TV stations show the ads for their own shows either right at the start or right at the end of a commercial break, so even if parents were changing the channel to avoid commercials, there is still a chance they would catch the promos.
its complete bs. America is a land of free rights and girls in skimpy clothing. i am exercising my right to complain about the complainers of the promo. and seriously.... WHAT IS SO HORRIDLY WRONG WITH SEEING A WOMANS BACK! jeez... i would much rather have a small kid see a womans back than watch spongebob squarepants. i'll use spongebob as an example... even sesame street is guilty of this. the writers of these shows add in cynical humor. the 5 year olds may not pick up on all of the inuendos, but it is setting a much worse example than anything MNF has done. why don't parents complain about spongebob or puff the magic dragon (who we all know is an inuendo). all i ever preach people, is consistency. consistency just doesn't exist in this country. for these reasons, men like Howard Stern and George Carlin are my heros. THEY are consistent in their beliefs. and god bless them.
__________________
RIP |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
FFR Player
|
its true, but Carlin > howard stern by quite a bit
__________________
but for now... postCount++
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
I'm not saying censorship is good. I believe there should be no censorship at all or at least very few restrictions. However, I am in favor of devices such as the V-chip and other techniques that allow Parents to monitor their children. Which is why I back the FCC's decision. However, I dont understand why it is alright for children to watch men run around hitting and tackling eachother but to show a women's back side (if even that) is taboo. Football is a VERY violent sport. Americans are such prudes when it comes to even the slightest nudity. It's not like there is some great secret as to what people have underneath their clothes. But I wont spoil the surprise if you dont know. Sex is so taboo in America. Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 | |
|
Environmentally Friendly
Join Date: May 2003
Location: In transit
Age: 34
Posts: 6,929
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
嗚呼
|
Quote:
__________________
Plz visit my blog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Retired BOSS
|
consistency is not the ONLY thing that matters. the beliefs themselves also play an important role. and, c'mon chardish... you know as well as anyone that that is a retarded statement to make, especially to me.
__________________
RIP |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
FFR Player
|
Aside: Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. Communism and holocaust aside, he lead a weak nation to greatness.
On Topic: No, consistancy is the devil. If I stayed consistant in my views, opinions, beliefs, etc. I'd be in a ditch somewhere with an IQ of around 94. Most likely in a red state. The very fact that Kerry changed his mind a lot was one of the initial things that drew me to him (until it became obvious pandering). I do dislike the stance that the networks take, but I'd prefer to stop complaining at it and move to the real source. No, not the conservatives, but the judicial system that is the everpresent threat through all of this. The conservatives will eventually take offense at one of the shows and sue for it's offensive nature. This could cost millions to a company. If the conservative loses, they just lose reputation and beats of their heart. I say that the judicial system should be changed so that the losing presecutor must pay money as a partial reparation for wasted time and money. Yes, I know what this means. Yes, I know that it breaks my beliefs, but it is an immediate solution to a problem that will eventually be fixed. Better yet, if this does fix the problem and break the nasty habit, another one will be formed. One that shows that the law is not the final word in anything (huzzah for capitalism). The whole paying for losing could help encourage this habit. Ok, that's slightly off topic. I guess elections are still running through my veins. Again, sorry for the rambling, folks. Q |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Retired BOSS
|
i've been saying that for years Q. people sue like the same as ordering takeout. its completely ridiculous. i completely agree that there should be a monetary penalty for a false claim in a lawsuit. not just for losing one, because there are many reasons a lawsuit can be lost. i'm talking about the people that try and make money off of lawsuits. some minor thing goes wrong in surgury... they sue. their meat is slightly undercooked... they sue. they slip and fall at a restaurant where there is a wet surface sign... they sue. it makes me sick. i was disgusted at my own mother for sueing a restaurant because she slipped and fell.
__________________
RIP |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|