|
This really is bizarre...
Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that
depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... A tight-wing organization, the Family Research Council, said its members were prepared to send in thousands of complaints. Those damn tight-wingers! |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... A tight-wing organization, the Family Research Council, said its members were prepared to send in thousands of complaints. Those damn tight-wingers! You knew that is where this was headed from the first post. |
|
Harry Krause wrote:
"Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia. Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division. Eisboch |
Harry Krause wrote:
CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Ah, come on Harry, get a hold of yourself. You are starting to sound like the mentality of the 50's when everything unexplainable must be a commie plot. Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Eisboch (back to watching the "Girls gone Wild" infomercial) |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:16:19 -0500, Eisboch
wrote: Harry Krause wrote: CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Ah, come on Harry, get a hold of yourself. You are starting to sound like the mentality of the 50's when everything unexplainable must be a commie plot. Both of the sides, left and right, are acting like the old Rockfeller, Tri-lateralist, Illumaniti, Lyndon LaRouche, Black Jesuit, MasonKnight, conspiracists. The "secret" societies of the Roman Catholic Church. Remember those? :) You and I must think alike. By the way, I've never seen the movie. Haven't seen "Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket" either. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen a movie since "Pirates of the Caribbean". Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Michael Powell was a Clinton appointee you know. He was put in place to clean up the FCC's act - Al Gore's favorite go-to Commission of how reformed government should look. Look where it got them - single source news, the new morality in broadcast standards and now this - broadcasters afraid to broadcast movies. You just can't make this up. Eisboch (back to watching the "Girls gone Wild" infomercial) Has nothing on the "Women In Chains, Part II" infomercial. Hubba hubba..... :) Later, Tom |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:06:31 -0500, Eisboch
wrote: Harry Krause wrote: "Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia. Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division. Does it interest anybody that the one state on that list which could be called the ultimate liberal haven isn't broadcasting the movie? Later, Tom |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:33:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Cuss words...integral? Give us a break! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:29:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:06:31 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Harry Krause wrote: "Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia. Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division. Does it interest anybody that the one state on that list which could be called the ultimate liberal haven isn't broadcasting the movie? Later, Tom Yeah, but which counties are involved? That would be the telling aspect of the situation. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:26:40 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:16:19 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Harry Krause wrote: CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Ah, come on Harry, get a hold of yourself. You are starting to sound like the mentality of the 50's when everything unexplainable must be a commie plot. Both of the sides, left and right, are acting like the old Rockfeller, Tri-lateralist, Illumaniti, Lyndon LaRouche, Black Jesuit, MasonKnight, conspiracists. The "secret" societies of the Roman Catholic Church. Remember those? :) You and I must think alike. By the way, I've never seen the movie. Haven't seen "Deer Hunter", "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon", "Full Metal Jacket" either. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen a movie since "Pirates of the Caribbean". Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Michael Powell was a Clinton appointee you know. He was put in place to clean up the FCC's act - Al Gore's favorite go-to Commission of how reformed government should look. Look where it got them - single source news, the new morality in broadcast standards and now this - broadcasters afraid to broadcast movies. You just can't make this up. Eisboch (back to watching the "Girls gone Wild" infomercial) Has nothing on the "Women In Chains, Part II" infomercial. Hubba hubba..... :) Later, Tom Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best portrayal of what Vietnam was like. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote: ~~ mucho snippage ~~ Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best portrayal of what Vietnam was like. I was there. It could never be accurately reflected in a movie. Later, Tom |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:29:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:06:31 -0500, Eisboch wrote: Harry Krause wrote: "Saving Private Ryan," staring Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks, will not be shown on the ABC affiliates in Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and West Virginia. Well, so much for red state/blue state moral division. Does it interest anybody that the one state on that list which could be called the ultimate liberal haven isn't broadcasting the movie? Yeah, but which counties are involved? That would be the telling aspect of the situation. It was the Boston Affiliate. :) Guess that Puritan ethic is still alive huh? Live long and prosper, Tom |
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line. I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some degree. We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it. If the people who provide our entertainment cannot come up with shows that do not have to rely on either graphic and gratuitous sex or violence in order to gain popularity, then I would suggest they all retire and find some more talented writers. They were around in great numbers 40 years ago.... Dave |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:30:15 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:14:18 -0500, JohnH wrote: ~~ mucho snippage ~~ Of the Vietnam movies I've seen (not many), "Platoon" was the best portrayal of what Vietnam was like. I was there. It could never be accurately reflected in a movie. Later, Tom Ditto. But "Platoon" was a hell of a lot closer to the mark than either John Kerry or "Apocalypse Now." John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:47:10 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line. I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some degree. We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it. If the people who provide our entertainment cannot come up with shows that do not have to rely on either graphic and gratuitous sex or violence in order to gain popularity, then I would suggest they all retire and find some more talented writers. They were around in great numbers 40 years ago.... Dave I don't believe it's paranoia at all. The movie has been shown before. I believe it's a few stations trying to make a statement to the FCC. Spielberg won't allow editing of the language in the movie. I think the movie would be just as good without the foul language. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. *Grandma: The living, walking definition of the Yiddish word "schnorrer". "Ma...someone sent me a box of Omaha steaks. We brought you a couple". Her: "Oh please...those are way too fancy for me. I like the cube steaks....". That's a schnorrer. |
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it. In all honesty, I think infants should be blindfolded while being breast fed. |
Ditto. But "Platoon" was a hell of a lot closer to the mark than
either John Kerry It's been 10 days since the election. Get over it. :-) |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be going off the deep end somewhat. Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
|
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. *Grandma: The living, walking definition of the Yiddish word "schnorrer". "Ma...someone sent me a box of Omaha steaks. We brought you a couple". Her: "Oh please...those are way too fancy for me. I like the cube steaks....". That's a schnorrer. And your son was in his late 20's? If he was an adolescent, and he wasn't interested in the boobs, then he was either too embarrassed to let you know, or he's just not very interested in females (IMHO). John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:2vinifF2lpnh4U1@uni- Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? LOS ANGELES, Nov. 11 (Xinhuanet) -- More than 20 ABC television affiliates banned broadcasting the Hollywood war movie "Saving Private Ryan" to mark the Veterans Day Thursday for fear that it could lead to indecency fines. Red Herring. Affiliate execs have acknowledged that they were not concerned with violation fines, as Private Ryan had been shown before and was not at issue. They were merely trying to make a political point to the FCC, contending that the FCC responded to heavily to Janet Jackson's boob, et al. -- in short, protesting that the country is trying to return to some kind of standard, as opposed to none at all. So they did what broadcast media almost always does when they want to make a point on their agenda. They lied. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Kids should run the world. Good lord no!!!! *Grandma: The living, walking definition of the Yiddish word "schnorrer". "Ma...someone sent me a box of Omaha steaks. We brought you a couple". Her: "Oh please...those are way too fancy for me. I like the cube steaks....". That's a schnorrer. LOL!! Knew quite a few of those growing up. Later, Tom |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . Television is still over-reacting to the boob show at the Superbowl. Wanna hear something interesting? I can't assume my son's behavior (or wisdom) is indicative of other kids, but I'll bet he's not that unusual. A couple of years back, I had the flu. My excellent friend Mike stopped by and handed me boxed sets of the first 3 years' of the Sopranos series. Then, he ran away so he wouldn't get sick. A week later, I thanked him and said I'd return them, but he said to pass them on to someone else who's nailed to the couch with a fever. So, they're still here. Recently, I decided my son was old enough to follow the series, so every so often, we pop in a tape. If you've watched the show, you know there's an occasional scene in the strip club, and actual, real genuine boobs are shown. So, the first time, my son was somewhat riveted. The second time, we were talking about fishing and he didn't skip a beat. At that point, I'm sure he knew that any time we saw the front of the club, it was likely we'd see tits. The third time, just as the girls were shown dancing, he got up and says "I'm gettin' an apple. Ya want one?", and spent a minute washing them. Didn't rush back in to make sure he wouldn't miss the tits. After that episode, I said "If your mom finds out I let you watch this, I'm in deep ****". He said "Watch what?" I said "This show". He said "What show?" Then, he paused a moment and said "Besides, I don't know what the big deal is. The nudity's not the point of the show. It's just where those guys hang out." Later: "Tony's mother's really the center of the show so far. Reminds me of grandma!*" Kids should run the world. *Grandma: The living, walking definition of the Yiddish word "schnorrer". "Ma...someone sent me a box of Omaha steaks. We brought you a couple". Her: "Oh please...those are way too fancy for me. I like the cube steaks....". That's a schnorrer. And your son was in his late 20's? If he was an adolescent, and he wasn't interested in the boobs, then he was either too embarrassed to let you know, or he's just not very interested in females (IMHO). He wasn't raised by a television like so many other kids. He prefers reality. I won't take THAT thought any further at the moment, but you know what I mean. |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be going off the deep end somewhat. Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? There's NOTHING wrong with "family values". In this case, it doesn't mean you criticize a network for showing a movie that depicts the way soldiers actually behave. That's bull****. What it means is that you don't let your kids watch the movie. If you want them to see an accurate movie about war, without certain kinds of language, there are plenty to choose from. Let them watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai", for example. Or, "Das Boot". |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. You are partly right of course. But..... It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately, nobody but me seems to see it that way. The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political connections and it shows. Later, Tom |
"We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence
would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it." Now are the restraint devices in front of your tv leather or chains? I was just wondering the comfort level of the children and people in your household while they are "Forced" to watch these shows. Come to think of it I don't like spinich. So be a dear and go throw yours out. Bottom line if ya don't like it don't watch it. The tv execs would not put anything on the does not make a profit. They only put shows on that the majority wants to see. If a show offends you CHANGE THE CHANNEL that is your right but don't try to come into my house and steal my remote. Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:04:45 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? This is nothing more than a case of paranoia. Many TV execs are nervous following the backlash from the FCC in the wake of that stupid Janet Jackson stunt. The FCC made no comments about what it would do for the "Ryan" movie specifically. It's just that the companies are now more conscious of the consequences of going over the line. I find it comforting that the gradual erosion of the limits of what we consider to be material "not meant for TV" has been halted to some degree. We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it. If the people who provide our entertainment cannot come up with shows that do not have to rely on either graphic and gratuitous sex or violence in order to gain popularity, then I would suggest they all retire and find some more talented writers. They were around in great numbers 40 years ago.... Dave |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:46:27 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? Family values? Cursing and nudity are minor annoyances in this world. Better to teach family values by getting the entire family involved in activities working to directly help the homeless, the sick, the needy, the victims, and help with your money and your time. Directly. When you build compassion and empathy into your children, you have instilled family values worth having. Well, you're the self-proclaimed expert, Harry, so I suppose you should know all about family values. Is integrity something we should try to teach our kids. I notice you didn't mention that. What about personal responsibility? Is that something we should teach our kids? I notice you left that out too. John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Jim wrote:
"We were not far from a point where naked people and graphic violence would have been flashed on prime time TV, where children and other people would be subject to it." Now are the restraint devices in front of your tv leather or chains? I was just wondering the comfort level of the children and people in your household while they are "Forced" to watch these shows. Come to think of it I don't like spinich. So be a dear and go throw yours out. Bottom line if ya don't like it don't watch it. The tv execs would not put anything on the does not make a profit. They only put shows on that the majority wants to see. If a show offends you CHANGE THE CHANNEL that is your right but don't try to come into my house and steal my remote. I am curious. It's been a long, long time since Mrs. E and I spent a couple of years living in Europe (Italy, but we traveled around a bit). Have the generally accepted rules of morality, acceptance of what is decent what is not and viewpoints on issues like gay marriages changed much in Europe in the past 30 years or so? Are countries in Europe arresting an increasing number of pedophile priests? Or is the US atypical in having debates and problems with these issues? I know what it was like there 30 years ago. I just wonder if the rest of the world is going through all this BS. Eisboch |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:48:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be going off the deep end somewhat. Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? There's NOTHING wrong with "family values". In this case, it doesn't mean you criticize a network for showing a movie that depicts the way soldiers actually behave. That's bull****. What it means is that you don't let your kids watch the movie. If you want them to see an accurate movie about war, without certain kinds of language, there are plenty to choose from. Let them watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai", for example. Or, "Das Boot". Who has criticized the networks? Besides jps, that is. You mean to say that a decent movie about war can be made *without* foul language? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. You are partly right of course. But..... It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately, nobody but me seems to see it that way. The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political connections and it shows. I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. You are partly right of course. But..... It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately, nobody but me seems to see it that way. The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political connections and it shows. I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts. I wouldn't know not being an artsy fartsy type, but Powell is a complete and total buffoon. In the next ten years, when one or two companies own all media outlets, thank him for his foresight. And complete lack of integrity. Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :) Later, Tom |
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:48:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be going off the deep end somewhat. Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? There's NOTHING wrong with "family values". In this case, it doesn't mean you criticize a network for showing a movie that depicts the way soldiers actually behave. That's bull****. What it means is that you don't let your kids watch the movie. If you want them to see an accurate movie about war, without certain kinds of language, there are plenty to choose from. Let them watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai", for example. Or, "Das Boot". Who has criticized the networks? Besides jps, that is. You mean to say that a decent movie about war can be made *without* foul language? Save those facetious questions for someone else, John. Movies without that language were made at a point in history when the country was still living a fairy tale existence. But, they can still be historically accurate in their own way. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. You are partly right of course. But..... It really has to do with a chicken **** gutless FCC who reacts to complaints from advocate groups about strong language and nekkid bodies. If Michael Powell and his merry band of Republican and Democrat sycophants had any guts, this would never reach the light of day. That's where the TV culture war is being waged. Unfortunately, nobody but me seems to see it that way. The FCC is led by a gutless mensch who got his job through political connections and it shows. I think Powell plays golf with the same gutless sacks of **** who emasculated the National Endowment for the Arts. I wouldn't know not being an artsy fartsy type, but Powell is a complete and total buffoon. In the next ten years, when one or two companies own all media outlets, thank him for his foresight. And complete lack of integrity. Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :) Later, Tom Ssshhh! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :) To the commission, Bush appointed him as Chairman. |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:13:34 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:38:11 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Did I mention he was a Clinton appointee? :) To the commission, Bush appointed him as Chairman. It's still Clinton's fault. :) Later, Tom |
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:02:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:48:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... CCred68046 wrote: Is this where we are heading? Fear of showing a classy movie that depicts the doggedness and bravery of our soldiers during World War II? Its obvious. They could show that movie, its been on TV before. And it could have been edited for television easily. I remember the movie well. I saw it in the theaters and I recall seeing it on HBO, I believe. There's no reason to "edit" it for television, and I believe ABC's deal with the studio forbids deletions. What would you edit? The "cuss words"? They are integral to the movie. The movie is violent, but no more so than other movies on television. There's something else going on here. Of course there's something else going on. You've got a bunch of "decency advocates" bitching about language and family values. Meanwhile, they're too busy writing letters and advocatin' and jerkin' off in a closet with their bibles to simply find a way to keep their youngsters away from ABC for one evening. If you don't want your kids to watch something, you arrange for things to be that way. Period. I have an idea for some of these people. They should be attached to the ground at the ankle with a 25' chain, at the business end of a target shooting range. Give 'em just enough chain to run around and avoid being hit. We'll see what kind of language they use when the bullets are flying. "Oh saints almighty! That was awful close!" Right. Doug, you're not even close. But the above rant seems to be going off the deep end somewhat. Is there something wrong with being against foul language in front of kids? If I had kids in the 10-14 year range, I'd like them to be able to see the movie. I think they would get something out of it. I *don't* think the use of "****in" as a constant adjective is necessary to any movie. Hell, I get uncomfortable with nudity and "****" every other word when watching a movie with my daughter in the room, and she's 28 years old! (I guess that makes me *really* bad!) What is wrong with having family values? What is wrong with being an advocate for decency in family entertainment? There's NOTHING wrong with "family values". In this case, it doesn't mean you criticize a network for showing a movie that depicts the way soldiers actually behave. That's bull****. What it means is that you don't let your kids watch the movie. If you want them to see an accurate movie about war, without certain kinds of language, there are plenty to choose from. Let them watch "Bridge Over the River Kwai", for example. Or, "Das Boot". Who has criticized the networks? Besides jps, that is. You mean to say that a decent movie about war can be made *without* foul language? Save those facetious questions for someone else, John. Movies without that language were made at a point in history when the country was still living a fairy tale existence. But, they can still be historically accurate in their own way. Can they not be 'historically accurate' without foul language? John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com