An understanding of the media message

[Hemingway Jones]

I'm not sure everyone pounding a bourbon and lighting a cigarette every minute or two in every Golden Age movie was a very good message either. Neither was Cary Grant's portraying a lovable alcoholic wife beater (Philapelpha Story? was it?). Fred Flintstone and Ralph Kramden were pretty violent and threatinging characters as well. "One of these days, Alice/Wilma..." POW! To the moon/right in the kisser!

So have things gotten better or worse, really?

But Sable, those films were balanced out by "Miracle on 34th Street," "Father Knows Best," "The Little Rascals," "The Wizard of Oz," and so many other films with positive images. There are so few of the same these days.

Also, if we're speaking of media for children, "The Flintstones" was meant for adults, though I watched it as a cartoon at 4PM! "The Honeymooners" and our beloved film noir were not meant for children's consumption.

Kids were watching singing cowboys.

 

[Haversack]

Mr. Jones wrote:
"Somewhere in the early 1980s this all changed; the children's cartoons and films became very violent."

I agree. I am about ten years older than you and saw the exact same thing. Aside from any blathering about cultural swings, I saw two particular contributors to this change: One legal. One technological. The legal change was the removal of the restrictions on combining advertising with childrens television put in place in the early 1960s. The technological change was that cable television subscription hit critical mass at the same time the number of channels greatly expanded. This made it both possible and profitable to target specific audience demographics with a particular channel to the exclusion of all other groups. In a word, children could increasingly be pandered to with only slight chance of non-child oversight. A channel's programming did not have to appeal to a broader group. The lifting of the restriction on adver-programs meant that any show that didn't combine the two increasinly hurt their revenue generation.

Haversack.
(who has fond memories of hearing my parents talk about particular cartoons they saw when young and then seeing them myself on afternoon TV. A real sense of connection and continuity.)

 

[Mr. Sable]

But Sable, those films were balanced out by "Miracle on 34th Street," "Father Knows Best," "The Little Rascals," "The Wizard of Oz," and so many other films with positive images. There are so few of the same these days.

Also, if we're speaking of media for children, "The Flintstones" was meant for adults, though I watched it as a cartoon at 4PM! "The Honeymooners" and our beloved film noir were not meant for children's consumption.

Kids were watching singing cowboys.

Now they're watching "Smart Guy", "That's so Raven", "The Proud Family", and a WHACK of Disney produced wholesomeness on several entire channels devoted to family and kids only. In theatres, we have "The Santa Clause" and whatever else Tim Allen's in, and a bzillion family friendly Pixar cartoons. Don't tell me there's no balance out there.

 

[jamespowers]

Now they're watching "Smart Guy", "That's so Raven", "The Proud Family", and a WHACK of Disney produced wholesomeness on several entire channels devoted to family and kids only. In theatres, we have "The Santa Clause" and whatever else Tim Allen's in, and a bzillion family friendly Pixar cartoons. Don't tell me there's no balance out there.

Gee, you can name just a few. How about:
South Park
Family Guy
Simpsons
and the juggernaut of others that overpower those by the dozen? [huh] :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Viola]

But Sable, those films were balanced out by "Miracle on 34th Street," "Father Knows Best," "The Little Rascals," "The Wizard of Oz," and so many other films with positive images. There are so few of the same these days.

Also, if we're speaking of media for children, "The Flintstones" was meant for adults, though I watched it as a cartoon at 4PM! "The Honeymooners" and our beloved film noir were not meant for children's consumption.

Kids were watching singing cowboys.

Did Disney, Nickolodeon, Nick JR. PBS, and ABC Family all die when I wasn't looking? I mean, movies alone gives us chock-a-block wholesome just from Pixar battling Disney. Then there's *shudder* Harry Potter movies.

 

[Paisley]

Would the super hero lose her strength if she covered up a bit or if she got married and had a baby.

Heck, no. She'd become a tough, no-nonsense family court judge, write a scathing book on the family court system, and get her own TV show called Judge Judy. The show taught me a lot about life, and it's still on.

 

[Viola]

Gee, you can name just a few. How about:
South Park
Family Guy
Simpsons
and the juggernaut of others that overpower those by the dozen? [huh] :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

Don't look now, but you only named a few too. Maybe things aren't as different now as then?

Personally, I would rather see more programs of the caliber of Deadwood, The Shield, and Oz than kids tv. There's no dearth of kids tv and they like reruns anyhow.lol

Viola

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Now they're watching "Smart Guy", "That's so Raven", "The Proud Family", and a WHACK of Disney produced wholesomeness on several entire channels devoted to family and kids only. In theatres, we have "The Santa Clause" and whatever else Tim Allen's in, and a bzillion family friendly Pixar cartoons. Don't tell me there's no balance out there.

Well, my friend, I don't know "Smart Guy", "That's so Raven", "The Proud Family" and frankly, I am happy I don't! But most "kids" films still have some pretty disgusting scatological references as did "The Santa Clause." I am surprised at some of the things they have in cartoons.

Remind me when I see you to tell you my criticism of "The Little Mermaid."

Compare some of the primtime shows in our lifetime compared to now, there are no "Happy Days" or "Laverne and Shirley" type shows on anymore. Remember "The Waltons?" How long would that stay on the air? I suppose you could make the argument that they are still on some cable station somewhere.

Don't worry, Sable, I'll let my imaginary child watch your film.

 

[Feraud]

I'm not sure everyone pounding a bourbon and lighting a cigarette every minute or two in every Golden Age movie was a very good message either. Neither was Cary Grant's portraying a lovable alcoholic wife beater (Philapelpha Story? was it?). Fred Flintstone and Ralph Kramden were pretty violent and threatinging characters as well. "One of these days, Alice/Wilma..." POW! To the moon/right in the kisser!

So have things gotten better or worse, really?

Perfect points. Things are probably not as different as media and rose colored glasses would have us believe. If watching Elmer Fudd run around with a shotgun does not make killers out of children then neither does Heavy Metal or Hip Hop!
Lack of attentive parents have always existed yet our newsmedia outlets would have you believe otherwise. Our vices have always been around but were not considered "problems" or as well broadcast as today.
Alcoholism, underage sex, date rape, murder, etc. have been with us for a very long time. People just did not talk about it in the old days.
You know what they say about not talking about problems..

 

[Mr. Sable]

Gee, you can name just a few. How about:
South Park
Family Guy
Simpsons
and the juggernaut of others that overpower those by the dozen? [huh] :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

How wholesome was Bogey in "Casablanca"? What about gangster movies of the 40's? What about racy dialogue and dress before 'the Code'? None of this is a new thing - it's a nostalgic feel-good distortion of how people perceive 'The Golden Age'.

For the record, disfunctional as "the Simpsons" all are, they all love each other and remain an intact family. I can take or leave 'South Park" and never did let my kid watch it, but their offensiveness was usually made in order to make people think about the status quo and (perhaps rightly) questioning authori-tah, and not just offensive for offensiveness' sake... like that damnable "Family Guy". ANd none of those were meant for kids either, really.

 

[Harp]

TV

I do not own a television set, and consider most program content
moronic. When exposed to TV in public places or private homes,
this belief is affirmed.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

The difference between questionable content,...

...in movies, then and now, is the fact that today all the objectionable scenes are very graphic. Whereas in the past the violence was usually only hinted at. Maybe this has had the effect of desensitizing people to the violence and adult content of movies today?

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I do not own a television set, and consider most program content
moronic. When exposed to TV in public places or private homes,
this belief is affirmed.

I agree. I do own one, but it was given to me, I did not go out and buy it. I only use mine to watch a good movie on VHS once in a while.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

I don't see a problem with that, necessarily.



Why should she have to, honestly? I wouldn't mind it as one option but I don't think I'd like it as the norm. What would be there better message there? "Good girls don't wear leather pants"?

Viola

Just my opinion, but I don't think it sends the right message to a younger, more impressionable demographic. A guy who sees a girl teasing him with a glimpse or her undergarments has one thing on his mind. She his sending him a sexy little message, and whether she wants to or not, guys read this message in one and only one way. Would it be so horrible if she kicked butt while her belly was covered?
You also said that you didn't see anything wrong with their, I'll call them boy activities, since thier characters are older. Well, the target audience for this show is not people the age of the characters. It is a much younger group. This group is not saying, Oh Pheobe is 28, so when I'm old enough I'll go on lots of dates, and have a bunch of different partners. This demographic is young and impressionable. They don't want to grow up and be like the characters. They want to be like them now. Yes, I think it's great that Alyssa Milano is this strong, sexy, confident and well employed character. What would be so wrong if her character was in a long term relationship and maybe put on some proper office attire. A lot of us complained in other threads about the way people dress now-a-days. It's shows like this that propogate those fashions that we often dis-agree with. And yes, Alyssa did have a long term relationship. He turned out to be a demon who treated her like crud and turned her into evil. What does this say to the young girls watching. That love conquers all?? even if the guy is evil re-incarnate. In the first year of the show one of the characters has un-protected relations and thinks she is pregnant. If you had a child of 10 years, is that the message you'd want being sent to him/her. Alyssa Milano's character in the first year is portrayed as an un-intelligent, promiscuous, un-employed, party animal. She may have made something better of herself, but the message of that kind of lifestyle was already out there. Now that I think about it, Shannen Doherty's character was a good role model for young girls. She had a good job, was usually dressed appropriately, was in a long term relationship. I guess she had to be, for she was the eldest sister, and had to take care of the family. But, they killed her character off, and replaced her with Rose McGowan, who in the first year of her debut, sleeps with her friend who comes to visit her every so often from out of town. Is it impossible to have a show with more fully dressed girls. Yes, whether you agree with me or not, and we can both wish it weren't so, the way a girl dresses does have an affect on the way she is seen by society, especially by me. But, as for these shows, I'm not just talking about the outfits sending the wrong message.
I was just using "Charmed" as one example. There are plenty of other shows that are sending the wrong message. Would it be so awful to slip some positive messages into them. I've never watched it, but there was a show called "Seventh Heaven" that was supposed to always have some moral ending. It lasted quite a long time, I'm not sure if it is still on the air. So, this does show that shows with a positive message can make it on tv.

I also think you are missing my point. I am not saying that their shouldn't be shows like "Charmed" or "The OC". I am saying that I wish there was more coming from another side.There are not enough shows letting girls know that you don't have to wear bra tops and show your thong to be strong, confident and sexy. The media is using these ideals and calling it power, which in turn makes puts sometimes immoral actions into a positive light. It is almost saying that the older, more conservative ideal of a woman is not powerful. This is false. Children, pre-teen, and even teens who have been taught right from wrong are taking their cues from shoes that are aimed at them. I just think it would be great to show a powerful character who doesn't show her tummy or have six different boyfriends in six episodes. Again, I'm not talking about censoring anything. I'm just saying I would like to see more positive attributes being expressed in the media.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

...in movies, then and now, is the fact that today all the objectionable scenes are very graphic. Whereas in the past the violence was usually only hinted at. Maybe this has had the effect of desensitizing people to the violence and adult content of movies today?

Very good point. To add to it, there wasn't nearly as much of it as there is today and it wasn't as easily accessible. Today most everyone has tv's in their homes, most have dvd players. A lot of kids get home from school and plop down in front of the television. There is just a lot more media today than there was back then, and access to it is so much easier.

 

[Viola]

...in movies, then and now, is the fact that today all the objectionable scenes are very graphic. Whereas in the past the violence was usually only hinted at. Maybe this has had the effect of desensitizing people to the violence and adult content of movies today?

You know what movie freaks my mom out the most? Whatever Happened To Baby Jane.

As for myself, I can't get over the values showcased by Scarlett O'Hara. Now there's a message for young girls. It made me queasy. I couldn't watch.

Daisy, I respect your opinion and I can't very well argue against a diversity of programming without looking REALLY silly. I don't think I would choose to watch very many programs of that nature, though. I would miss my violence. Maybe I'm lowbrow? [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

How wholesome was Bogey in "Casablanca"? What about gangster movies of the 40's? What about racy dialogue and dress before 'the Code'? None of this is a new thing - it's a nostalgic feel-good distortion of how people perceive 'The Golden Age'.

For the record, disfunctional as "the Simpsons" all are, they all love each other and remain an intact family. I can take or leave 'South Park" and never did let my kid watch it, but their offensiveness was usually made in order to make people think about the status quo and (perhaps rightly) questioning authori-tah, and not just offensive for offensiveness' sake... like that damnable "Family Guy". ANd none of those were meant for kids either, really.

I'll take Bogie in Casablanca over Al in Married with children. What was objectionable about Bogie? He acted like a man? He sent off the woman he loved because she was married and he didn't belong with her? He harbored "criminals" from the Nazis? He ended the movie with new hope for the future? I just don't get it. [huh]
Say what you will about the movies from then but I will never see scenes from the Kiss of the Spiderwoman in Golden Age films. NEVER! :eusa_doh:
If the Simpsons all love each other and are a model family then I can see where our problems stem from. All the Simpsons is is a cartoon Married with Children. Same old hackneyed stuff that denigrates the family. We went from Ward Cleaver to Homer Simpson and Al Bundy. What a thrill. If you can't see a decline then I don't know what to tell you.
South Park is just a representative of the many cartoons that play to the baser instincts of people. It is just stupid. Beavis and Butthead are in the same vein. Stuff characterized as "stupid" in the Golden Era encompassed the Three Stooges for goodness sake. You can't see the difference?! If a four letter word ever came out of Moe's mouth, I never heard it and I have seen all their films.
Family Guy is another offensive TV show that falls into the Simpsons, Married and South Park vein. Cartoons in the old days taught things via the situations the characters got themselves in. Every Leave it to Beaver had a lesson. Every Simpsons has Homer being an idiot and his family being embarassed he is in it. Woo Hoo! What an accomplishment.
So let's review. Swearing, nudity, adult situations and debauchery was not part of the Golden Era lexicon in movies or cartoons. It is now. Denying it is simply denying the truth.

Regards,

J

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

You know what movie freaks my mom out the most? Whatever Happened To Baby Jane.

As for myself, I can't get over the values showcased by Scarlett O'Hara. Now there's a message for young girls. It made me queasy. I couldn't watch.

Daisy, I respect your opinion and I can't very well argue against a diversity of programming without looking REALLY silly. I don't think I would choose to watch very many programs of that nature, though. I would miss my violence. Maybe I'm lowbrow? [huh]

Not at all, violence definitely has it's place. I'm really looking forward to the next season of "The Soprano's"
I totally agree with your feelings about Scarlett O'Hara! That scene where she's complaining about no longer having an 18 inch waist after having a baby!! and saying that she'd never have another baby because her waist got too big! Yeah, that's a great message to send!
It would just be great if there was more diversity in programmes. I like to see a show with a positive message for young teens that is as enjoyable for them to watch as a show like "Charmed" seemed to be.

 

[RedShoesGirl]

......
I believe the euphemism used nowadays for this kind of wishful thinking is "empowerment". It's a declaration of emotional bankruptcy to allow fear of intimacy to become a protective armour coating, one that never permits love to pierce it's calloused exterior. Just two hardened surfaces bumping against one another for a night, nothing more. This is hardly what I would call "empowering", it is spiritually, emotionally and intellectually dibilitating.

Moreover, it is the way of the coward. It is also patently selfish, narcissistic and irresponsible in private life, let alone touting it as a viable or desirable lifestyle choice through the nation's airwaves.

amen.

 

[jamespowers]

Not at all, violence definitely has it's place. I'm really looking forward to the next season of "The Soprano's"
I totally agree with your feelings about Scarlett O'Hara! That scene where she's complaining about no longer having an 18 inch waist after having a baby!! and saying that she'd never have another baby because her waist got too big! Yeah, that's a great message to send!
It would just be great if there was more diversity in programmes. I like to see a show with a positive message for young teens that is as enjoyable for them to watch as a show like "Charmed" seemed to be.

I think it is obvious that you are going to find violence in a mob picture. That is a venue in which it works. It is the violence that is just way out there and for no reason that makes no sense--thus senseless violence. Many are likely going to see The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That is senseless violence. Killing a person is one thing but killing them in strange and macabre ways tends to be overkill. Hell Bound Hellraiser anyone?
In Gone With the Wind, Scarlett is meant to be a character that is lamentable. It is not lauded the way she carries on. In fact, Mammy tells her she is just crazy more than once. Rhett does as well. Remember the scene in the parlor? Scarlett is an example of how not to be. The consequences speak for themselves.

Regards,

J