Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by phrelin, May 19, 2010.
All that I could think of when I read the description for this program was, "William Shatner as Archie Bunker."
No, William Shatner as Denny Crane.:lol::lol:
Come on people!! Don't you realize this is right smack in "family hour"? And what do you think burgeoning young readers are going to ask their parents when they see that title while looking through the guide? "Mommy, what does that funny looking word mean?" I can't believe we have become so lax that we have come to the point that practically all the shows on at family hour are full of sexual innuendos, partial nudity, etc.
Take Chuck. I love Chuck, but I cannot watch it with my 4 year old near. The scenes of Sarah in her lingerie are actually pretty risque for 8:00. My daughter is just at the stage where we are teaching her it is not really okay to run around naked everywhere she wants to and that her body is private. Chuck is pretty much the antithesis of that notion.
I have no problem with people watching what they want when they want, but the rules surrounding parenting should be equal then. We assume that parents aren't parenting in the schools, so now schools are surrogate parents. Why does TV get a free pass? Those same parents are not parenting in the home either, so cater to the lowest comment denominator in the entertainment world as well.
If this were the olden days of no tech, when there was no guide on the TV and you had to get your information from a paper source, it would not matter as much. Your child would probably not ever see the title and not ask the question. But the polluting of the 8:00 hour of television has really been a pet peeve of mine for a while.
Really? And so beside the point.
I'm always torn on these things...
OTA is "public" airwave use, and as such is subject to more stringent consideration in terms of what some find offensive or simply don't want to watch.
On the other hand, people need to take responsibility for themselves and their own children.
The "what does that word mean" argument is a good one... except that can happen on the street too... and it isn't illegal to say those words on the street, so likely your children will hear/see things on the street you don't want them exposed to either.
Part of parenting is dealing with those sorts of things... though I do sympathize when something comes at you from left field.
Yeah growing up my mother tried to "protect me" from anything she considered inappropriate too. Luckily my dad would just straight out tell me about the "inappropriate" stuff when I saw it. Probably why they ended up divorced. :lol: But if there was something on that for example had a woman showing "too much skin" he just say something like "They do that just because they know men like to look at women and it's an easy trick to try get you to watch". Message received. As for "bad" language once again i'd get the explanation that it was just a way for people who aren't very smart to try to get attention and that there are better ways to get your message across, especially if you ever wanted anyone to take you seriously. As I got older and i'd be watching movies say like oh "Porky's" lets just say, I'd be told how in that movie the women were portrayed as only being good for one thing and that i'd be smart not to make that mistake in real life. I ended up a pretty well adjusted human being I think because my father did take an active role in giving me good explanations for what I saw in the world in general and the entertainment wolrd on tv as well. Personally I think it gives parents more "teachable moments" when they push the envelope as to what is considered acceptable. Time to step up Mom & Dad and do your job!
Wrong. Exactly on point. Your question was what to tell a child the symbols meant. If you need a more comprehensive explanation just let me know.
And sarcasm advances things so well...
I said the point was that this did not need to be on at family hour. That was the point.
I agree with all the explanations that can be given to kids as Tsmacro explained. But none of that would be needed if they just saved all that for 9:00. That was my WHOLE POINT! Plus, again you are relying on a parent to give appropriate answers or even be there at all. I mentioned that public school does not make that assumption. So why does public television?
And a child would not really be a burgeoning reader if they understood the explanations that you were given. They would be a bit older than my example.
Easy answer, "You'll find out when you get older".
I do not think that TV should be relied upon to raise kids. Parents, and I'm not singling you out by any means Supramom, should find out about what's on TV and decide what their children should and should not watch. It's not up to the networks to decide what children should and shouldn't see, they aren't raising people's kids. I personally am getting tired of the watering down of TV shows just because someone's precious snowflake might see it.
If you want to watch the show and not have your kids ask questions about it then record it and watch it after your children have gone to bed.
But what is "family hour"? I've never seen slots of TV time defined as "family hour". I think "family hour" an urban legend personally. Too many parents are using TV as a babysitter.
When I was a kid, the 7-8pm timeslot EST was typically "family hour"... especially on Sundays.
Now it seems like regular syndicated programming in those timeslots... so I wouldn't assume something is family friendly just because of the time of day when it comes on.
The tabloid shows, for example, like Springer come on right about the time kids get home from school! I'd be much more concerned about a kid seeing one of those shows than I would something on during primetime.
Hmmm. Well, back in the dark ages of TV 8 to 9 was still considered within the family friendly window. Consider this prime time schedule:
The schedule was still pretty family friendly in 1985-86.
But Fox, with its two hour prime time, lack of sense of propriety, and "will do anything for money" attitude, pretty much did that in. For instance, beginning in April 1987, "Married... with Children" premiered at 8 pm.
By 1998-99 while Fox ran "The Simpsons" at 8 pm on Sunday, ABC was running "The Wonderful World of Disney" and CBS was running "Touched by an Angel."
By 1998-99 while Fox ran "Melrose Place" at 8 pm on Monday, CBS was running "Cosby" and NBC was running "Suddenly Susan."
To avoid boring everyone, I'll just point out that on Tuesday Fox was running "King of the Hill", Wednesday "Beverly Hills, 90210", Thursday "World's Wildest Police Videos".
At that point, every network was confronted with a new standard - a lower standard designed to attract TV audiences.
And that's the way it was....
I don't know... "Happy Days" and "Lavern & Shirley" kind of featured unmarried polygamous sex-romp references with the Fonz especially.
Not saying I found it offensive... but you'd certainly need to explain some things to kids watching those shows back in the day.
If the official title really does stay as "$#*! My Dad Says," I have a feeling the on-screen guides are going to have it beginning with an ellipsis, as "...My Dad Says," or perhaps just "My Dad Says." # and especially * strike me as possibly being problematic characters if they were to occur within the electronic listings data feeds (I can see newspapers having issues with them).
Why does it seem "mature language" is so childish?
When children swear are they acting "mature"?
I was taught that people who used such words had a limited vocabulary and were not smart enough to come up with a better word.
Welcome to the real world, child. Sometimes what people say sucks. Sometimes it blows. Sometimes it makes you want to turn off the TV and do something else - like read a book. How about Catcher in the Rye?
No opinon on the cussing deal. Don't care.
CBS is clearly trying the hardest of the OTA networks.
Hawaii Five-0 could be great, if they follow the original formula.
Trying to start a comedy block on Thursday by moving a good established show there is a great idea.
Mike and Molly and the Shatner show both seem to have potential.
Only two hours of faux-reality. This silly genre is dying. Great.
As to the cancelations, I never liked Old Christine. It seemed like someone actually said "lets make a show so we can sell it to TBS in reruns someday". Accedentally on Purpose was gross and stupid, and what exactly do they do with the premise when the baby is born. Being an irresponsible layabout who knocks up some woman is one thing, and can be played funny, but being an irresponsible layabout who won't care for his child is not.
You don't see anything on "Chuck" that you can't see on ANY beach ANY time the temperature is over 72 degrees. Oh - but because she's walking around a hotel room, this is somehow worse? And as far as the title of the other show - I've had the kids ask about stuff like that - heck you see it in the COMICS in the NEWSPAPER. My girls are now 22 & 17 and when they asked, I explained it - it was adults saying things they shouldn't have. Simple as that.
Heck, these days you'd have more trouble explaining why Lucy and Ricky slept in separate bed.
Survivor moves to Wednesday? :nono2: