Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Television => Topic started by: vukxfiles on January 31, 2011, 03:46:18 AM



Title: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on January 31, 2011, 03:46:18 AM
Lets make a list or talk about controversial shows and episodes. Personally, I like shows that have the balls to show what they want without being afraid of the FCC taking them down. I hate censorship and cannot enjoy shows that I see are censored because it limits the overall show and I cannot expect a lot of things from it.

Apart from the premium cable channels, like HBO and Showtime, which are allowed to show obcscene and controvesial content, there are loads of network shows that have the balls to also show what they want. Exaples include South Park, Family Guy, CSI, The X-Files (for its time).

Two X-Files episodes have recieved a TV-MA rating. The first was The Calusari from season 2, which features a baby being killed. The second was Home from season 4, featuring a redneck family that practices incest, and in the beginning of the episode they bury a newly born baby alive becuase it is too mutated to be able to live. Actually, Home is often cut out of re-runs of the show, so the easier way to see it is on DVD.

Also we should talk about whether you think it is good or bad that these shows exist, and if it is right/wrong that the government controls what we see.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Trevor on January 31, 2011, 06:53:12 AM
A British TV series and the forerunner of The X Files, the terrifying paranormal series The Omega Factor was a huge hit in Britain but was never seen again for years until it surfaced on DVD in 2006. It showed things like demon possession, telekinesis, death by thought process and other things that had never been explored on TV before. It still gives me the shudders, even now.  :buggedout: :buggedout: :buggedout: :buggedout:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: AndyC on January 31, 2011, 08:08:22 AM
All in the Family springs to mind. Besides Archie's colourful bigotry, it was the first show I can recall where characters actually used the toilet. There were episodes about sexual assault, menopause, child abuse, sexual matters and a whole bunch of legitimate topics people discussed in real life, but other shows had not previously touched, much less tried to present in a sitcom format. I'd like to check out the British show it was based on, which I've heard surprisingly little about.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Nightowl on January 31, 2011, 10:34:09 AM
I know Married With Children was controversial in it's day. Even today MWC is pretty racy with all the talk about sex and other daring no no's for tv. Some mother thought MWC was a decent show so she put her child in front of the tv set, blamed FOX and tried her hardest to get the show off the air. This is known as Rakolta Boycott (http://www.bundyology.com/rakolta.html). To this day no show has had more cameos of playmates/penthouse pet/adult star than Married With Children  :wink:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Raffine on January 31, 2011, 11:02:27 AM
We were absolutely forbidden to watch Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman - so naturally we caught almost every episode on the tiny B&W tv in my sister's room, with the volume turned almost all the way down.  :thumbup:

Maude got particular attention for it's 'Maude Gets an Abortion' episode.

Quote
The second was Home from season 4, featuring a redneck family that practices incest, and in the beginning of the episode they bury a newly born baby alive becuase it is too mutated to be able to live.


I saw this episode when it first aired. Definitely one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen on the tv!

Slight Spoiler: The mother who lived under the bed SERIOUSLY creeped me out. Geesh!


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ulthar on January 31, 2011, 11:26:37 AM

and if it is right/wrong that the government controls what we see.


The government does NOT control what you/we see...only what is shown on broadcast tv with the most basic equipment.

You can watch hard core xxx porn all you want, or graphic violence or aryan nation programming if that floats your boat, or just about anything else.  There are cable shows and DVD rentals, the Internet and heck, make your own trash if you want to.  The government has actually very little to say about most of what is available.

What is wrong in your mind with a community (or nation) of people agreeing to a baseline standard regarding what t is available to everybody?  It's not "censorship."  It's decency...respect of others.  I think the buzz word in use today is "tolerance."  Why should I be asked to accept offensive programming on TV that I don't want my children to see (or really don't want to see myself) in the name of tolerance, but my viewpoint is for some reason consider intolerant? 

We've had this and similar discussions on this web site many times in the past 8 or so years...and my position remains the same.  If a community decides it does NOT wish certain subjects of media to be publicly and freely available...that is the standard that is used for that community. 

The bottom line is that in this country (and I am only speaking for this county, the US), the community at large has decided, and continues to believe, that the baseline standard for broadcast television is different from other forms of media that can more easily be controlled or blocked or ignored in any given home.  The stuff that is out there for EVERYONE meets something of a test that a great majority would approve.

Censorship is the government telling me that I can have NONE of it in MY home for ANY reason, and that they are willing to come into my home to check me out for the purpose.  This is, in general, not happening.  With the exception of child pornography (and maybe a few other really specific niches), you can own the raunchiest trash you want...and so long as YOU control who watches it (ie, not broadcasting it out of your home), NO ONE CARES.

Is our system perfect as it's put into practice?  No; of course not.  But to claim that having a baseline standard that meets the approval of a huge majority is censorship is incorrect.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: AndyC on January 31, 2011, 11:45:00 AM
Maude got particular attention for it's 'Maude Gets an Abortion' episode.

A little while ago, I caught an episode of Maude for the first time probably since it first aired, and I was surprised. We never watched it much, and a lot of it went over my head at that age, so I don't remember much about Maude. In this episode, Maude and her husband were popping pills, Conrad Bain was drinking like a fish, and Maude at one point buys weed off a teenager for a protest against severe penalties for marijuana possession. An episode in defense of pot smokers, making its point by having virtually every character on drugs of one sort or another. And the humour was pretty racy in general. Nowadays, that's nothing, but I'm amazed that it was broadcast or even made back in the day.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Jim H on January 31, 2011, 12:57:58 PM
Quote
If a community decides it does NOT wish certain subjects of media to be publicly and freely available...that is the standard that is used for that community. 


That's possibly the biggest issue, is that there is no real single community for television.  It's massive broadcast over many, many communities, all with differing standards.  So it's tough to decide what "community standards" are when there's not a single community.  In general, I believe the FCC system actually works out OK on the whole, though I find the recently increased fines to be ridiculously disproportionate to any harm caused, particularly when it's an accident.  That has had a stymying effect on live broadcasts, actually, to the point where far less is really live anymore.

It also annoys me that so few stations do anything extra with the time outside of the "safe" hours.  They really don't show anything extra, even though they could.  And the acceptance of these standards has made the basic cable channels afraid to go much further (with swearing and sexuality, cable hardly cuts violence out of anything anymore, as god forbid kids hear a swear), for fear of alienating ignorant consumers.

As far as controversial TV, anyone remember when Ellen came out on Ellen?  That was a pretty big deal at the time, and I remember them losing advertisers because of it.  I watched the episode and remember thinking "Why is this such a big deal?".  But, I've never truly understood the huge thing with homosexuality in America, much less so as a 13 year old in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Puppy_Episode)


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on January 31, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
As you are right about TV needing to be toned down because it is public, ther have been incidents when the government tried to control what people watch. Does anyone remember the video nasties thing that happened in the UK in the 80s? Basically the govt made a list of movies deemed too obscene and anyone who had a copy of any of those movies would recieve a fine or go to jail, and it was all to protect children (even though it was about video casettes and not tv programming). Now someone try to tell me that it was a good thing :hatred:

Also, for example, I like the Twilight Zone, but I would like it more if it tackled some controversial themes, but this couldn't be because it was "public television". They tried to do something like that with the 2002 remake, but everyone would agree this version didn't go so well.

Anyway, just so you know the real reason I made this thread, I want some suggestions on what to watch, because there isn't anyone in the world that likes controversial stuff more than me. :tongueout:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Burgomaster on January 31, 2011, 04:54:45 PM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.

*  Also in the late 70s there was a show called ALL THAT GLITTERS.  It was something about women who were high-powered corporate executives.  I think it had some sexuality to it, sort of a 70s version of SEX IN THE CITY oe something.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Doggett on January 31, 2011, 05:33:02 PM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.


 :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Its an Aussie calssic !

Very popular in the UK for bad sets and acting !!  :teddyr:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ulthar on January 31, 2011, 05:49:40 PM

That's possibly the biggest issue, is that there is no real single community for television.  It's massive broadcast over many, many communities, all with differing standards.  So it's tough to decide what "community standards" are when there's not a single community.  


I agree that that's the problem.  This is why I use the term 'baseline standard,' because I happen to believe that the programming should fit within the bounds of a baseline 'sensibility' or be as unoffensive as possible.

I guess I'm a bit sensitive to this on this particular site because every time this comes up, it seems like one of the points being made is "well, it {language/violence/sex} doesn't bother ME, so why don't they show it?"  This is what it seemed to me like the Original Poster was saying...something like "controversial or offensive TV programming should be readily available because *I* like it."

The list he asks for of 'controversial' tv programs will be a short one...in general, they don't last long because that's not what large enough audiences want.  My point is that is how it should be...we 'vote' with our dollars, and if someone wants more 'edgy' stuff or whatever, it's out there...just not on BROADCAST television.

Quote

though I find the recently increased fines to be ridiculously disproportionate to any harm caused, particularly when it's an accident.  


No argument there.

Quote

It also annoys me that so few stations do anything extra with the time outside of the "safe" hours.  They really don't show anything extra, even though they could.  And the acceptance of these standards has made the basic cable channels afraid to go much further (with swearing and sexuality, cable hardly cuts violence out of anything anymore, as god forbid kids hear a swear), for fear of alienating ignorant consumers.


Well, again, that's their prerogative, and it must fit within whatever market research they have done.  What they "CAN" do outside the safe hours is very different from what they DECIDE to do.

I know some of the stuff SHOWTIME 2 shows these days is pretty out there...truly R rated, maybe NC-17 in some cases, so I'm thinking the cable companies are not totally afraid to push the envelope.

I'm just wondering if the reason there is not more 'controversial' stuff on TV (broadcast or cable) and that most of the cable stations are fairly mild by most metrics is because they just don't have the audience for "that stuff."  Advertisers are not going to buy time for shows that appeal to very small market niches.  G or mild PG shows like "Extreme Makeovers: Home Edition" (9.5 million viewers in a recent ep) get audiences; "Californication" less so (615,000 viewers for the Season 2 finale).  That's 1500% more viewers for the G rated show than the heavy R one.

Which one(s) do you think make money, tame or edgy?

Quote

As far as controversial TV, anyone remember when Ellen came out on Ellen?  That was a pretty big deal at the time, and I remember them losing advertisers because of it.  I watched the episode and remember thinking "Why is this such a big deal?".  But, I've never truly understood the huge thing with homosexuality in America, much less so as a 13 year old in 1997.


HA!

I remember that flap.  I too, in my 30's, thought "what's the big deal?"  Actually, I think it was more of a publicity stunt to generate interest in the show.  She was not the first homosexual character (or actor) on TV, for crying out loud.

Before that hubbub, "Ellen" was a mildly amusing, quirky sitcom that stood out in no major way.  From a marketing perspective, they were successful for a short period of time.  What's really stupid, or was to me at the time, is that they totally rewrote the series to revolve around her homosexuality and it became pointless and contrived.  And it tanked pretty quick in the ratings, as I recall.

Quote from: vukxfiles

As you are right about TV needing to be toned down because it is public, ther have been incidents when the government tried to control what people watch. Does anyone remember the video nasties thing that happened in the UK in the 80s? Basically the govt made a list of movies deemed too obscene and anyone who had a copy of any of those movies would recieve a fine or go to jail, and it was all to protect children (even though it was about video casettes and not tv programming). Now someone try to tell me that it was a good thing


First, that's not television...so, I don't see how it applies to this thread/discussion.

Second:  Is it still going on?  If not, it was self correcting, so it's over and there is not much point in complaining about the past.  As a very wise pig once stated, "you gotta put your past in your beind."  (Pumba, in THE LION KING).

Quote

Also, for example, I like the Twilight Zone, but I would like it more if it tackled some controversial themes, but this couldn't be because it was "public television".


I think the original DID tackle some tough themes, perhaps not every single episode.  I'm not sure what you are saying you'd like to have seen there.  But, what was "controversial" or difficult to discuss publicly was very different in the 1960's than it is now.  I think we have to look at a series through the lens of the time it was made.

Quote

Anyway, just so you know the real reason I made this thread, I want some suggestions on what to watch, because there isn't anyone in the world that likes controversial stuff more than me.


Which you did already, and got a bunch of suggestions there, some of which you dismissed.

I'm just really curious about something, and I don't mean to sound argumentative or "aggressive" by asking this.  With everything that is available on the Internet and via DVD, why do you have such a focus on 'beyond mainstream' television (by which I assume you mean broadcast television and not cable).

You can watch some truly appalling stuff these days...it's just about yours for the asking.  I'm sorry, but it just seems like with this thread (and the other one) that you keep saying "TV is not violent/controversial enough" with the implication that it should be.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on January 31, 2011, 07:14:24 PM
I am looking for television shows because they last longer than a single movie. for example, I find it mor einteresting to watch the whole South Park show which has 14 seasons and running, which I know I like and can expect the same type of thing for those 14 seasons, than tracking various different movies with different settings, producers, etc.

Well, I never said that mainstream TV should have such obscene stuff as torture porn and such, I would just like it to be more liberal. Showing torture and mutilation for an hour and a half is too much, showing blood in the first seasons of Buffy isn't too much. So what's the problem? Why make a vampire show if you're gonna censor it by not portraying blood?


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Gravekeeper on January 31, 2011, 08:08:46 PM
We're in the middle of a bit of controversy in my university right now about whether or not nudity (especially male nudity) should be shown in the art department*, so I've been thinking about this issue a fair bit lately. My current stance is that the government should never be given control of what you can and can't view, but there has to be consideration of what context it's presented in. NC-17/R-rated gorn flicks, for example, probably shouldn't be shown during the middle of the day; the people who really want to see that kind of movie for the most part are okay with either renting it or waiting for it to come on late at night/in the wee hours of the morning.

This is why we still need human beings making decisions; there are lots of grey areas when it comes to making rules about entertainment, art, and culture, so somebody somewhere needs to make a judgment call. While broadcasters do carry the responsibility of deciding what they show and when a good time to show it is, ultimately it's up to the viewer/parents to decide what is and isn't appropriate to watch for themselves.

*The official ruling was that sexual acts and erect penises can't be shown in public areas; the rest is deemed okay because hiding an entire art genre, especially one that is so deeply entrenched in tradition and is highly educational, is considered censorship and a violation of a couple of the university's policies.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ulthar on January 31, 2011, 08:20:56 PM

 I would just like it to be more liberal.


Okay, I get that...but the programming decisions are based on market research, and most people (here in the US) that watch television disagree.  They are selling a product, and if they make it too "liberal" as you are using the term, they will lose audience, and thus money.

There are not that many people being vocal about more sex | violence | gore | controversy on tv, and a whole heap that get darn vocal when it exceeds some invisible line.  The advertisers listen to the viewers (the vocal ones), and the program managers listen to the advertisers.

You'd have a hard sell of making it more liberal in your sense because those that oppose it can easily say that you have media ready made for that.  Showtime, Cinemax and HBO (among others) have plenty of uncensored (to R rating anyway) programming, and other pay channels go even further.  

Quote

So what's the problem? Why make a vampire show if you're gonna censor it by not portraying blood?


Buffy was not really about vampires in that sense. 

And why does it HAVE to have blood/gore...why NOT make a vampire show without portraying blood?  Assuming Buffy was intended to be "horror" (it was not), a lot of very effective horror has been made without much gore (we recently had a thread on it here, and had compiled quite an interesting list).  Indeed, horror tends to be more about fear than the gross-out, and graphically violent shows/movies are not really "horrific" in the classic sense.

Whedon choosing not to include a lot of blood in Buffy is not censorship, so I wish we'd leave that term out of the discussion.  "What's the problem" is that Whedon could not sell that particular program with a lot of blood in it, or simply chose to not include it for whatever reason...maybe he thought it would detract from the story telling he wanted to do.  After all, it was a character driven show, not a visual fx one.

You seem to be assuming that there is some sinister force keeping all the gore | sex | violence off the tv despite everyone wanting it, when the number of people wanting it is, apparently, very small.  If it were wanted by enough people, the tv and advertising industries, and the viewers themselves, would be actively and vocally lobbying for whatever FCC regulations ARE in place to be changed.  Sad as it might be, money is a pretty strong motivator for a lot of the people involved in such things.

So, this is not the government "protecting" us from something we really want to consume...it is simple free market forces.

Here's an experiment: write a show pilot containing whatever YOU seem to think is missing from TV and see if you can sell it to American tv studios.  I'll bet you'll find the biggest objections, especially if you target cable like Showtime 2, are not that it butts against the FCC regs but that it may be a hard sell to ratings wise.

That's just my guess, though.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Raffine on January 31, 2011, 10:20:32 PM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.


Oh, I remember that one!

Somehow, this was included on one of the local station's weekday afternoon lineup, right in there with Bewitched and Leave It To Beaver. Needless to say, it was 'Must See TV' for the kiddies.

The series has a huge write up on the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_(TV_series)). Somebody out there is a fan.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Jim H on February 01, 2011, 12:23:51 AM
Quote
Second:  Is it still going on?  If not, it was self correcting, so it's over and there is not much point in complaining about the past.  As a very wise pig once stated, "you gotta put your past in your beind."  (Pumba, in THE LION KING).

In both Australia and the UK, it's rare but movies/video games can still be banned.  And that is something I find to be appalling, personally.  It's one way I think the US system is much better - government stays out of that game almost entirely.  Which is a good thing. 


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Trevor on February 01, 2011, 01:23:06 AM
Quote
Second:  Is it still going on?  If not, it was self correcting, so it's over and there is not much point in complaining about the past.  As a very wise pig once stated, "you gotta put your past in your beind."  (Pumba, in THE LION KING).


In both Australia and the UK, it's rare but movies/video games can still be banned.  And that is something I find to be appalling, personally.  It's one way I think the US system is much better - government stays out of that game almost entirely.  Which is a good thing. 


www.fpb.gov.za (http://www.fpb.gov.za)  :bluesad: :bluesad: :bluesad:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 01, 2011, 04:11:29 AM
OK, so if you think that violence and sex doesn't sell well, then explian to me how a show like CSI: Las Vegas, which is broadcast on network tv and contains plenty of violence, gore and sex, can now be in its 11th season? Don't you tell me that CSI isn't selling well, because it is one of the most popular crime shows.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ulthar on February 01, 2011, 10:06:11 AM

OK, so if you think that violence and sex doesn't sell well, then explian to me how a show like CSI: Las Vegas, which is broadcast on network tv and contains plenty of violence, gore and sex, can now be in its 11th season? Don't you tell me that CSI isn't selling well, because it is one of the most popular crime shows.


No, I know sex and violence sell extremely well...but you are saying it is not 'extreme' enough for YOU.  I'm saying that CSI is at that right point that people care to watch, are JUST titillated enough and not offended.

The people that run these businesses are very experienced and do a TON of work (most of the time...*cough* "Firefly" *cough*) to make sure they are making money.  It's a business, and they are generally not in the business of offending people.  They find that happy point that pushes the envelope a little, but not too far.  Sometimes, the gov't steps in, but for the most part, people don't want TV to be too extreme.  They satisfy that 'desire' in other ways.

You have said several times in these two threads that you are looking for things "offensive as possible."  You are not going to find that, in general, on American broadcast television. 

All I am saying is that if you want offensive visual media, look elsewhere.  I'll say again that just because YOU want "extreme" stuff on TV, that does not mean others (read...enough people to create a market) want it, too.  And since you can find what you want elsewhere, why say "Okay, TV should be what I want, also."

In short, the people that DON'T want "extreme" stuff get to have a choice, too.  They can watch "7th Heaven" (which consistently beat "Buffy" in the ratings, by the way) or "Everybody Loves Raymond" or even "CSI." Anything stronger, you have cable, DVD, the Internet and the theater itself...or underground markets for really oddball stuff.  It's out there.

You don't need to take away only medium that is fairly "vanilla" from those that want that to get what you want.  If "Southpark" were to start to be shown on broadcast television, those that don't watch "Southpark" now will quit watching; you take away a huge market segment THAT SPENDS MONEY on the products advertisers are selling.

Again, if the market as a whole WANTED what you suggest is "missing," it would be there.  The regulations would change and the programming would change.  "Southpark" would be primetime on ABC.

I guess I'm done with this, now.  We are going in circles.  You are saying "offensive" or "controversial" stuff should be more prevalent, and I'm saying that not enough people want that stuff...en masse...to put it there.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on February 01, 2011, 12:20:21 PM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.

*  Also in the late 70s there was a show called ALL THAT GLITTERS.  It was something about women who were high-powered corporate executives.  I think it had some sexuality to it, sort of a 70s version of SEX IN THE CITY oe something.

I'm your man for Prisoner Cell Block H I watched it all the time when it was on Channel 11 (WPIX New York) in the late 1970's.   I remember a lot of it and while it wasn't steamy, it was fairly violent-a few beatings, some stabbings, and some drug use.  It was fairly nasty.

Then, in terms of jail shows,  Oz came along in the mid 90's, blew every other prison show out of the water,  and re-defined the words "controversial" and "violent" to new heights like we'd never seen . I'd never seen anything like it before or since.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Burgomaster on February 01, 2011, 12:21:59 PM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.


Oh, I remember that one!

Somehow, this was included on one of the local station's weekday afternoon lineup, right in there with Bewitched and Leave It To Beaver. Needless to say, it was 'Must See TV' for the kiddies.

The series has a huge write up on the Wikipedia ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_(TV_series)).[/url] Somebody out there is a fan.



In my area it was on at like 10:00 or 11:00 Friday or Saturday night.  I don't think the TV station carried it for more than 6 months or so.  I seem to remember it came and went pretty quickly.  



Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Jack on February 01, 2011, 01:21:42 PM
I remember Prisoner Cell Block H.  It seemed like it was just women standing around talking;  or at least 99% of it was.  No incidental music whatsoever, which just screamed low budget.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Couchtr26 on February 01, 2011, 06:35:12 PM

and if it is right/wrong that the government controls what we see.


The government does NOT control what you/we see...only what is shown on broadcast tv with the most basic equipment.

You can watch hard core xxx porn all you want, or graphic violence or aryan nation programming if that floats your boat, or just about anything else.  There are cable shows and DVD rentals, the Internet and heck, make your own trash if you want to.  The government has actually very little to say about most of what is available.

What is wrong in your mind with a community (or nation) of people agreeing to a baseline standard regarding what t is available to everybody?  It's not "censorship."  It's decency...respect of others.  I think the buzz word in use today is "tolerance."  Why should I be asked to accept offensive programming on TV that I don't want my children to see (or really don't want to see myself) in the name of tolerance, but my viewpoint is for some reason consider intolerant? 

We've had this and similar discussions on this web site many times in the past 8 or so years...and my position remains the same.  If a community decides it does NOT wish certain subjects of media to be publicly and freely available...that is the standard that is used for that community. 

The bottom line is that in this country (and I am only speaking for this county, the US), the community at large has decided, and continues to believe, that the baseline standard for broadcast television is different from other forms of media that can more easily be controlled or blocked or ignored in any given home.  The stuff that is out there for EVERYONE meets something of a test that a great majority would approve.

Censorship is the government telling me that I can have NONE of it in MY home for ANY reason, and that they are willing to come into my home to check me out for the purpose.  This is, in general, not happening.  With the exception of child pornography (and maybe a few other really specific niches), you can own the raunchiest trash you want...and so long as YOU control who watches it (ie, not broadcasting it out of your home), NO ONE CARES.

Is our system perfect as it's put into practice?  No; of course not.  But to claim that having a baseline standard that meets the approval of a huge majority is censorship is incorrect.

Very well said.  We are free to entertain ourselves however we so desire.  It is only in certain areas that it is controlled due to mass availability.  Even that is questionable as things become somewhat laxer at certain times of the day in the US. 

However, in case of point on controversy on TV, I don't recall episodes so much but remember living in Lawton, OK when Spielberg wanted to show Schindler's List uncut and there was a big complaint about it amongst the city council.  I believe they asked the local stations to show an alternate program.  I find this odd as much of the complaint is taken out of context.  There comes a time when context is very important to what you are trying to say. 


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on February 08, 2011, 09:51:00 PM

and if it is right/wrong that the government controls what we see.


The government does NOT control what you/we see...only what is shown on broadcast tv with the most basic equipment.

You can watch hard core xxx porn all you want, or graphic violence or aryan nation programming if that floats your boat, or just about anything else.  There are cable shows and DVD rentals, the Internet and heck, make your own trash if you want to.  The government has actually very little to say about most of what is available.

What is wrong in your mind with a community (or nation) of people agreeing to a baseline standard regarding what t is available to everybody?  It's not "censorship."  It's decency...respect of others.  I think the buzz word in use today is "tolerance."  Why should I be asked to accept offensive programming on TV that I don't want my children to see (or really don't want to see myself) in the name of tolerance, but my viewpoint is for some reason consider intolerant? 

We've had this and similar discussions on this web site many times in the past 8 or so years...and my position remains the same.  If a community decides it does NOT wish certain subjects of media to be publicly and freely available...that is the standard that is used for that community. 

The bottom line is that in this country (and I am only speaking for this county, the US), the community at large has decided, and continues to believe, that the baseline standard for broadcast television is different from other forms of media that can more easily be controlled or blocked or ignored in any given home.  The stuff that is out there for EVERYONE meets something of a test that a great majority would approve.

Censorship is the government telling me that I can have NONE of it in MY home for ANY reason, and that they are willing to come into my home to check me out for the purpose.  This is, in general, not happening.  With the exception of child pornography (and maybe a few other really specific niches), you can own the raunchiest trash you want...and so long as YOU control who watches it (ie, not broadcasting it out of your home), NO ONE CARES.

Is our system perfect as it's put into practice?  No; of course not.  But to claim that having a baseline standard that meets the approval of a huge majority is censorship is incorrect.

Very well said.  We are free to entertain ourselves however we so desire.  It is only in certain areas that it is controlled due to mass availability.  Even that is questionable as things become somewhat laxer at certain times of the day in the US. 

However, in case of point on controversy on TV, I don't recall episodes so much but remember living in Lawton, OK when Spielberg wanted to show Schindler's List uncut and there was a big complaint about it amongst the city council.  I believe they asked the local stations to show an alternate program.  I find this odd as much of the complaint is taken out of context.  There comes a time when context is very important to what you are trying to say. 

With regard to Schindler's List I think there was alot going on behind the decision to request alternate programming.

The Holocaust is still a hot button issue and offensive to some groups who deny it's occurrence, for whatever their reason may be (anti-Semitism, Muslims, historical skepticism, ect.)

And then you have the possibility of kids seeing it, and the possible backlash from some parent who wants to blame the station for their kid's traumatization even though THEY were the ones that let the kid see it in the first place.

America has always had to please the easily offended in one way or another.

Either way, a film of that magnitude dosen't simply get replaced with alternate programming for no reason, it's a very weighty and graphic film.

Although,  I myself wish that things of this nature would be presented uncut to drive home the point that some of these things DID happen, and that the onscreen horrors pale in comparison to the TRUE horrors that occurred.  We have to stop being so "stick up the ass" about history.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 09, 2011, 12:36:42 AM
You are right abouy parents' responsibility. If a child id traumatised then the parents are to blame. They can also be traumatised by DVDs or the internet, and still those things have what I'm talking about.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Killer Bees on February 09, 2011, 04:33:57 AM
Lets make a list or talk about controversial shows and episodes. Personally, I like shows that have the balls to show what they want without being afraid of the FCC taking them down. I hate censorship and cannot enjoy shows that I see are censored because it limits the overall show and I cannot expect a lot of things from it.

Apart from the premium cable channels, like HBO and Showtime, which are allowed to show obcscene and controvesial content, there are loads of network shows that have the balls to also show what they want. Exaples include South Park, Family Guy, CSI, The X-Files (for its time).

Two X-Files episodes have recieved a TV-MA rating. The first was The Calusari from season 2, which features a baby being killed. The second was Home from season 4, featuring a redneck family that practices incest, and in the beginning of the episode they bury a newly born baby alive becuase it is too mutated to be able to live. Actually, Home is often cut out of re-runs of the show, so the easier way to see it is on DVD.

Also we should talk about whether you think it is good or bad that these shows exist, and if it is right/wrong that the government controls what we see.

I believe it's right that these shows are allowed to air.  Movies, books and music have always been the ways society has faced and dealt with subjects considered "taboo" by polite society.  Without these outlets, the world would be way worse than it is.  And I for one am glad they exist.  Controverisal topics should always be discussed regardless of your personal viewpoint. 


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: 66Crush on February 09, 2011, 10:54:07 PM
It seems like in the 70's TV was less politically correct. Shows like "All in the Family," The Jefferson's," and "Sanford and Son" discussed race issues in a funny way and the main characters were even bigots. JJ even caught VD on "Good Times. On "WKRP" Dr. Johnny Fever was always putting eye drops in to cover up the fact that he was a pot head. In the Reagan years TV got real uptight. "Married with Children" was so controversial because of the graphic sexual language. It was such a breath of fresh air and the show never got the praise it really deserved when it was on. "Night Court" was pretty racy but always got away with it because they would ram a morality message down your throat in the last 10 minutes of the show. Once "South Park" came along and broke almost every taboo, it seems like you can say or do anything on TV now. Sex and race are always hot topics, but nobody talks much about violence. As an adult horror fan I enjoy it in movies and TV but I'm not sure if I had kids, I'd let them watch some of this stuff. When I was a kid the worst you could imagine was Jason putting an axe through your head, now we have films where you see people almost decapitated and skinned alive. I have never been for censorship, but we do live in a violent society and I think parent's should care about what they're kids watch. That being said, I don't think they should over react and form protest groups. Parent your own children in your own house, as long as you do parent.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Killer Bees on February 13, 2011, 03:49:19 AM
*  Back in the late 1970s or early 80s, a TV series called PRISONER: CELL BLOCK H aired briefly on a local independent Boston TV station.  It was about a women's prison and was supposed to be "steamy."  I don't remember much about it other than it was not an American show and I didn't think it was as shocking as it was supposed to be.

*  Also in the late 70s there was a show called ALL THAT GLITTERS.  It was something about women who were high-powered corporate executives.  I think it had some sexuality to it, sort of a 70s version of SEX IN THE CITY oe something.

Prisoner Cell Block H was an Aussie show just called Prisoner here.  It had nearly every family glued to the telly whenever it was on.  It was very controversial for it's time because it supposedly showed what really happens in women's prisons.  The language was shocking for its time (the prisoners called one of the guards "Vinegar Tits" lol).

There was obvious lesbianism and every man who showed up was considered the enemy and portrayhed as either weak and ineffectual or a rapist.

Telly in this country has always been progressive with language and nudity and content.  For instance, it's permissable to say the word "fsck" after 8.30 pm and has been for a really long time.  We are always surprised by how skittish American tv networks are about such things.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 18, 2011, 05:59:49 AM
I found this site: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp (http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp)

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Nightowl on February 18, 2011, 02:22:00 PM
^Thanks for the link. Do parents actually go this far as to look online to see what is suitable for their kids to watch? I grew up when Fox was just getting started & I'm fine.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Rev. Powell on February 18, 2011, 02:35:04 PM
I found this site: [url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url])

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


They're trying to warn parents with children; they don't care what you watch.  :lookingup:


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 18, 2011, 02:42:49 PM
I found this site: [url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url])

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


They're trying to warn parents with children; they don't care what you watch.  :lookingup:


THe fact is that these kinds of groups try to bring down awesome shows by saying "children can get exposed to them". So why the heck should we adults lose some awesome shows because of children? Especially us adults who aren't parents. Shouldn't parents be the ones responsible for what their children watch?


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: JaseSF on February 18, 2011, 07:32:07 PM
While I am in complete agreement wth your anti-censorship stance vuk, sometimes I think these types of shows rely a little too much on shock value at the expense of story, plot and/or characterization.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: 66Crush on February 18, 2011, 10:29:07 PM
I think you have to plow through the crap to find really good stuff. But since this is a bad movie site, I think it's safe to say a lot of us like crap. I am a bit cocerned that evrything has been done. It's hard to shock people , when you can now use the S word on basic cable. I used it before in this forum and they censored it with those cool little stars. It's kind of fun to be controversal, but where is there left to go?


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 19, 2011, 03:26:43 AM
Actually I recently started to watch Special Victims Unit and it shocks me that they use such plots as rape, child molestation, necrophilia...
I am shocked because, unlike CSI, they don't show it, only mention it verbally, and thus they can get away with it more than CSI can.

Yes, a lot of it is crap, but we are supposed to like crap shows, this is a bad movies site. I am not looking for intellectual shows that have artistic quality, I'm looking for shows that can entertain me. If I want artistic controversy, i'll watch A Clockwork Orange.

EDIT: The shock-factor in these shows is actually a good thing, because they slam a controversial topic in your face and say "there, we are exposing you to this, and you can do nothing to stop us". That is the stance I have against censorship, because they want to deny the existence of these things, they want people not to think of them, but nobody can limit your thoughts.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Gravekeeper on February 19, 2011, 11:46:31 AM
There's dealing with controversial topics and there's going for shock value. Dealing with controversial topics usually involves actually looking at the subject and discussing it in a mature manner; going for shock value usually involves going "LOOK AT THIS! AREN'T YOU SHOCKED YET?!" and usually not going into what the subject means in the real world.

Slam a controversial topic in my face and I'll ask "so what are you saying about it?" shows that go all the way with exploring the issue, I can respect at least a little. Shows that bring it up and then walk away, well, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 19, 2011, 02:48:40 PM
There's dealing with controversial topics and there's going for shock value. Dealing with controversial topics usually involves actually looking at the subject and discussing it in a mature manner; going for shock value usually involves going "LOOK AT THIS! AREN'T YOU SHOCKED YET?!" and usually not going into what the subject means in the real world.

Slam a controversial topic in my face and I'll ask "so what are you saying about it?" shows that go all the way with exploring the issue, I can respect at least a little. Shows that bring it up and then walk away, well, what was the point of bringing it up in the first place?

The point is to remind people that it exists and can't be ignored.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Gravekeeper on February 19, 2011, 03:04:27 PM
Most people with access to a TV or the internet are already aware that such things are going on in the world. Without giving them a good reason not to ignore it by discussing its impact on real people in the real world, it is very easy to ignore. When it's not something that affects you, it's very easy to just sort of tune it out or completely fail to grasp just how serious a problem it actually is. If you draw people in and show them just how serious something is, maybe, just maybe, you'll get a few more people to not only pay more attention to it but to try to do something about it.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Rev. Powell on February 19, 2011, 09:26:00 PM
I found this site: [url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url])

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


They're trying to warn parents with children; they don't care what you watch.  :lookingup:


THe fact is that these kinds of groups try to bring down awesome shows by saying "children can get exposed to them". So why the heck should we adults lose some awesome shows because of children? Especially us adults who aren't parents. Shouldn't parents be the ones responsible for what their children watch?


That site is doing precisely what you say they should be doing: helping parents be responsible for what their children watch. 

When I was your age we didn't have all this coarse material available on TV, or access to all the hardcore rape/scat porn anyone 10-year old could ever ask for on the Internet.  Something like "Family Guy" or "South Park" would be available only in underground comics or movies; then, it seemed daring and controversial, not trendy and mainstream.  You shouldn't complain; you don't realize how "good" you've got it.   


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 20, 2011, 05:52:50 AM
I found this site: [url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url])

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


They're trying to warn parents with children; they don't care what you watch.  :lookingup:


THe fact is that these kinds of groups try to bring down awesome shows by saying "children can get exposed to them". So why the heck should we adults lose some awesome shows because of children? Especially us adults who aren't parents. Shouldn't parents be the ones responsible for what their children watch?


That site is doing precisely what you say they should be doing: helping parents be responsible for what their children watch. 

When I was your age we didn't have all this coarse material available on TV, or access to all the hardcore rape/scat porn anyone 10-year old could ever ask for on the Internet.  Something like "Family Guy" or "South Park" would be available only in underground comics or movies; then, it seemed daring and controversial, not trendy and mainstream.  You shouldn't complain; you don't realize how "good" you've got it.   


I'm probably gonna be saying the same thing in 30 or more years to a younger person. I believe in the future all medias will be just the way I like them.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: The Gravekeeper on February 20, 2011, 01:32:52 PM
I found this site: [url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/top10bestandworst/2006/main.asp[/url])

It lists, for a decade of seasons, the best and worst shows for family viewing. Now I finally know what shows these stupid groups hate so I know what to watch. They are trying to warn people of explicit shows, but instead unintentionally give me ideas of what to watch.


They're trying to warn parents with children; they don't care what you watch.  :lookingup:


THe fact is that these kinds of groups try to bring down awesome shows by saying "children can get exposed to them". So why the heck should we adults lose some awesome shows because of children? Especially us adults who aren't parents. Shouldn't parents be the ones responsible for what their children watch?


That site is doing precisely what you say they should be doing: helping parents be responsible for what their children watch. 

When I was your age we didn't have all this coarse material available on TV, or access to all the hardcore rape/scat porn anyone 10-year old could ever ask for on the Internet.  Something like "Family Guy" or "South Park" would be available only in underground comics or movies; then, it seemed daring and controversial, not trendy and mainstream.  You shouldn't complain; you don't realize how "good" you've got it.   


I'm probably gonna be saying the same thing in 30 or more years to a younger person. I believe in the future all medias will be just the way I like them.


Hopefully parents won't rely on the media to raise their children. Right now, doing so inadvertently teaches kids that violence is an acceptable answer to many problems in life and that in order to be popular (if you're a girl) you pretty much need to dress like a slut or (if you're a guy) be an a***ole. Thankfully, most parents actually parent and don't let TV and the internet raise their kids.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Newt on February 20, 2011, 06:02:30 PM
Hopefully parents won't rely on the media to raise their children. Right now, doing so inadvertently teaches kids that violence is an acceptable answer to many problems in life and that in order to be popular (if you're a girl) you pretty much need to dress like a slut or (if you're a guy) be an a***ole. Thankfully, most parents actually parent and don't let TV and the internet raise their kids.

Agreed.  However: parenting is only made all that much harder by having the media present and promote the images and models described above.  TV as it is now (I.E. censored at least during earlier hours to provide 'family' content)  presents a very persuasive picture of violence and sluttishness, among other things, as being the norm.  Now TRY to swim against that current as a parent: almost every thing you say is countered by the TV saying it is the way EVERYONE behaves or is expected to behave.  No matter how obviously untrue it is, the images portrayed are attractive and difficult to refute IF you are already having an uphill battle persuading a youngster that behaving in a respectable manner is to their own best interest.  And since lower standards are being called for here the solution to this is supposed to be the parent policing the TV more?  That'll work.  :lookingup:

IMO in principle, this discussion is just a continuation of the atheism thread.  Perhaps it is providing vukxfiles with some much-needed therapy; but I rather doubt it.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: vukxfiles on February 21, 2011, 07:05:41 AM
LOL, the TV has every right to portray anything it wants, and I love this. I love it's right to not care about children or anything. I congradulate TV for doing what it wants,a nd not being like some bible class:  :cheers:

if you don't want to watch a certain show, turn the channel. If you don't want children so see a certain show, put a parental block (but I must tell you the child will see the show whether you like it or not, and this is a good thing because it is rebellion against censorship either from the TV'S or parent's side). And if you constantly tell your child they shouldn't see a show, the more they will want to see it and it will become an obsession.

When i was 10 years old, at school some of us talked about The Simpsons and a guy says his parents don't allow him to watch the show. i remember feeling the same anger as I do today towards such people. How is it normal for parents not to allow their child to see a show that isn't in any way inappropriate? At the time I watched the simpsons all the time with my father, I grew up watching the show.

The only thing I can wish for children with these parents is that they either go to someone else's house and watch a certain show, or watch it on the internet when their parents aren't looking. Parents who forbid children to watch something just because THEY don't like it are nazis. Thank Darwin (not God LOL) that my parents were never like this. My dad only had a problem with gay people being portrayed on TV, that's the only thing he found disgusting that I shouldn't watch. Now tell me is he right or wrong, and I know you can only say "wrong" otherwise I will be calling you homophobes.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Doggett on February 21, 2011, 08:42:49 AM
Quote
IMO in principle, this discussion is just a continuation of the atheism thread.  Perhaps it is providing vukxfiles with some much-needed therapy; but I rather doubt it.

If you don't like it then get out of the thread and never come back. This thread is about controversial shows, and if you don't like the subject then don't discuss it.

Seems a little harsh there, vuk.

I don't believe that she said that didn't like the subject. A little touchy, are we ?


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Newt on February 21, 2011, 09:38:41 AM
Quote
IMO in principle, this discussion is just a continuation of the atheism thread.  Perhaps it is providing vukxfiles with some much-needed therapy; but I rather doubt it.

If you don't like it then get out of the thread and never come back. This thread is about controversial shows, and if you don't like the subject then don't discuss it.

 :bouncegiggle:  Hypocrite!


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: AndyC on February 21, 2011, 12:02:31 PM
If you don't like it then get out of the thread and never come back. This thread is about controversial shows, and if you don't like the subject then don't discuss it.

That just earned 30 days to cool off.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Umaril The Unfeathered on February 21, 2011, 08:59:11 PM
Hopefully parents won't rely on the media to raise their children. Right now, doing so inadvertently teaches kids that violence is an acceptable answer to many problems in life and that in order to be popular (if you're a girl) you pretty much need to dress like a slut or (if you're a guy) be an a***ole. Thankfully, most parents actually parent and don't let TV and the internet raise their kids.

Agreed.  However: parenting is only made all that much harder by having the media present and promote the images and models described above.  TV as it is now (I.E. censored at least during earlier hours to provide 'family' content)  presents a very persuasive picture of violence and sluttishness, among other things, as being the norm.  Now TRY to swim against that current as a parent: almost every thing you say is countered by the TV saying it is the way EVERYONE behaves or is expected to behave.  No matter how obviously untrue it is, the images portrayed are attractive and difficult to refute IF you are already having an uphill battle persuading a youngster that behaving in a respectable manner is to their own best interest.  And since lower standards are being called for here the solution to this is supposed to be the parent policing the TV more?  That'll work.  :lookingup:

That was a very well thought-out response, Newt.  :thumbup:

I'm gonna add a few more bars to the song, if I may:

The media vs. the parents.   The eternal battle for the hearts and minds of our kids.

Now TRY to swim against that current as a parent: almost every thing you say is countered by the TV saying it is the way EVERYONE behaves or is expected to behave.

The warnings on cable shows and movies: "adult content, adult humor, adult situations, ect" proves what you said above. Adults are expected to act that way in order to be "cool" or "funny." At least, for the sake of the movie, and not real life.

And the real-life part is what the media tends to "forget" to remind us of.

The media promotes toilet humored, self self-serving slobs who'll do anything for a good time, or they're busy pitying Hollywood actors and sports figures that get away with a slap on the wrist whenever they screw up.  OR the old "teen idol" thing.

What is this teaching our kids, that this is the real world? It may be for some, but not for all.  And that's where we as adults and parents have the duty to set the record straight, that this is NOT the real world.

But when you have the media and the fringe groups and the secular elements constantly running calculated interference and promoting the things they are, it's a virtual battle for the hearts and minds of our kids. 

You are the parent, not the Media, not Congress, not Hollywood,  you. And for my money, if the groups I mentioned above don't like it, they can go, well, you know.  :bouncegiggle:   Parents rule!



Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: Nightowl on February 22, 2011, 04:37:21 AM
I like it when regular tv shows go off the wall and do an controversial episode. Roseanne:Crime and Punishment(5-13) & Family Matters:The Gun (6-16) are prime examples. I'd rather see a show be controversial every once in a while then doing it all the time.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ghouck on April 12, 2011, 09:59:13 PM
We can't talk about controversial shows without including "Arrested Development". On top of all the dysfunctional stuff that goes on in that family, the whole relationship between George-Michael and his cousin Maybe was pretty out there. There is always something going on, like Dad telling Maybe to sit on George Michael's lap in the car, while on a bumpy road, or his dad saying something like "I want you to rub off on her" and such. The part where Tobias is climbing into the top bunk and George Michael sees his balls is pretty out there. The Aunt accidentally coming on to the Nephew and all the retarded things Tobias says are just F-ing out there.

Great show though.


Title: Re: Controversial TV series
Post by: ghouck on April 12, 2011, 10:00:53 PM
I like it when regular tv shows go off the wall and do an controversial episode. Roseanne:Crime and Punishment(5-13) & Family Matters:The Gun (6-16) are prime examples. I'd rather see a show be controversial every once in a while then doing it all the time.

I loved the episode of Rosanne where the boy had just discovered masturbation. The girl says "He's been in the bathroom for almost two hours, which means he's either really really GOOD at it, or really really BAD at it"