Hollyweird's Weird Take on Tradition and Religion

[fjccommish]

Anyone hear of the show U.S. of Tara?

Wikipedia describes the main character's gay 14 year old son as old fashioned. He's in love with a "religious" possibly gay young man from film class.

"Old fashioned" and "religious" don't seem to mean what the used to mean.

When the "old fashioned" son finds his sister making out with his possibly gay friend in the bar, he goes to his old fashioned morals to try to burn the barn down with them in it.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Does this show on every channel?

[Haplo]

Acting out in a jealous rage? That's the kind of thing that never really goes out of fashion so technically it can't be old fashioned

[mwevans1234]

Yes - he's old fashioned in that the kid has the mannerisms of a 40 year old, rather than a 14 year old. "Old fashioned" probably isn't the right word, though.

[AmericanSpirit]

Why does the media see fit to continue to make shows about teenagers involved in sexual activity? 90210 for example...sick show.

Now a gay 14 year old? OK whatever. I am glad I got rid of my television service. Enjoy the show!

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Why does the media see fit to continue to make shows about teenagers involved in sexual activity?
For the same reason they make any show.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/debbie5942/flickingdollars.gif

[Rorus Raz]

I still am confused as to what the show is about. But it's a reality show, which I avoid as a basic TV rule.

[dannyg79]

The United States of Tara is not a reality show.

[BillyBobUSA]

Hollyweird cant portray religion in a way that normally religious people would recognise because Hollyweird is not run by people with a normal view of life or anything remotely resembling it.

[AmericanSpirit]

For the same reason they make any show.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/debbie5942/flickingdollars.gif

True. Amazes me how stupid people are to allow shows about teens and sex to mix in. But whatever...THEIR problem. Like I said I got rid of my television service and I am glad. I don't even miss it.

[mwevans1234]

Why does the media see fit to continue to make shows about teenagers involved in sexual activity? 90210 for example...sick show.

Now a gay 14 year old? OK whatever. I am glad I got rid of my television service. Enjoy the show!

Seriously!

I hate:

Catcher in the Rye,
Sound and the Fury
Canterbury Tales
The Color Purple
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

The media needs to stop publishing this garbage. Teen sex is evil. Eeeeeeevvvviiiiiiilllllll!!!!

Disgusting books, them all! (if you can call them that)

[AmericanSpirit]

Seriously!

I hate:

Catcher in the Rye,
Sound and the Fury
Canterbury Tales
The Color Purple
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

The media needs to stop publishing this garbage. Teen sex is evil. Eeeeeeevvvviiiiiiilllllll!!!!

Disgusting books, them all! (if you can call them that)

:)) Got me good there.

[mwevans1234]

:)) Got me good there.

:)

Anyways, my point is that the problem with television is the lack of quality fiction programming, a result of the wishes of the American public. The U.S. of Tara is actually an original show with an interesting plotline. It's really an absurdist story.

My issue is with the nitwit-like programming of the Real World, Big Brother, and other such reality crap that glorify stupid people and their awful behavior (including shallow relationships, a focus on being pretty, and drunken obnoxiousness - I like beer and martinis - these fruit juice/vodka wastrels give libation and classy drunkenness a bad name). The abundance of reality TV has squeezed the market for quality fictional material. For every Sopranos, Six Feet Under, and West Wing, there's 5 According to Jims and that ghastly thing about the Cavemen. It's not good, I don't think - perhaps the result of there being too many channels? It's sort of like 32 major league teams decreasing the quality of pitching.

[BillyBobUSA]

For the same reason they make any show.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/debbie5942/flickingdollars.gif

Except that the data is quite solid that G rated movies and TV shows out draw the more risky variety.

Look at the top 20 movies in history of American cinema; almost every one of them are G or PG rated, not R or PG-17 (unless for violence).

So the producers might do it for their careers, to be trendy among the TV elite or for the jollies of tweeking every American in the nose, but it is NOT for the cash, not at all.

[captusa]

Seriously!

I hate:

Catcher in the Rye,
Sound and the Fury
Canterbury Tales
The Color Purple
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

The media needs to stop publishing this garbage. Teen sex is evil. Eeeeeeevvvviiiiiiilllllll!!!!

Disgusting books, them all! (if you can call them that)

When did the media start publishing that garbage.
Especially those Canterbury Tales ?

Speaking of teen sex Romeo & Juliet is conspicuous by its absense.

[captusa]

Hollyweird cant portray religion in a way that normally religious people would recognise because Hollyweird is not run by people with a normal view of life or anything remotely resembling it.

If people did not pay to go to their movies they would not make them.
There must be an awful lot of abnormal people that want those movies.
This is a capitalistic society that caters to the wants of consumers.
Do you suggest the movie makers make movies that people do not want to watch.
BTW I am a Liberal and a Capitalist.
Actually I believe in Capitalism but unfortunately I have not achieved the wealth to be classified as a Capitalist.

[BillyBobUSA]

If people did not pay to go to their movies they would not make them.
There must be an awful lot of abnormal people that want those movies.

There are an awful lot of people that will go see almost anything just to get out of the house.

My point is that if the producers wanted to make their movies more profitable, then they would reduce the amount of sex in their shows, not add more to them.


This is a capitalistic society that caters to the wants of consumers.
Do you suggest the movie makers make movies that people do not want to watch.

Yes, obviously they do as not everyone is going to want to see any particular movie.

Hence producers make movies that at least some do not want to watch.

BTW I am a Liberal and a Capitalist.
Actually I believe in Capitalism but unfortunately I have not achieved the wealth to be classified as a Capitalist.

How much wealth do you have to acheive to be classified as a capitalist?

[captusa]

Why does the media see fit to continue to make shows about teenagers involved in sexual activity? 90210 for example...sick show.

Now a gay 14 year old? OK whatever. I am glad I got rid of my television service. Enjoy the show!

Maybe because there are teenagers involved in sexual activity.
Do you think there was no teenagers involved in sex when TV was censored to a ridiculous degree.
I do remember when a double bed couldn't be shown on television an Lucille Ball could use the word pregnant while she was pregnant.
There was teen age sexual activity before television.
There are lots of reruns of Leave It to Beaver that you can watch but some people prefer shows that reflect the real world while some prefer the Disney Channel.

[captusa]

[/COLOR]

There are an awful lot of people that will go see almost anything just to get out of the house.

My point is that if the producers wanted to make their movies more profitable, then they would reduce the amount of sex in their shows, not add more to them.




Yes, obviously they do as not everyone is going to want to see any particular movie.

Hence producers make movies that at least some do not want to watch.



How much wealth do you have to acheive to be classified as a capitalist?

More than what I have.

[BillyBobUSA]

More than what I have.


Ah, you're just being modest.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Except that the data is quite solid that G rated movies and TV shows out draw the more risky variety.

Look at the top 20 movies in history of American cinema; almost every one of them are G or PG rated, not R or PG-17 (unless for violence).

So the producers might do it for their careers, to be trendy among the TV elite or for the jollies of tweeking every American in the nose, but it is NOT for the cash, not at all.
Nah. They do it for the money. That whole suffering for your art thing is seriously overrated.

[Quid]

This thread just exemplifies how out of touch some people are: There is more outrage over the teens having sex then the fact that one of them tried to commit murder by burning down a barn.

If I were a parent, I'd rather have my kid screwing someone than shooting them.

[mwevans1234]

Except that the data is quite solid that G rated movies and TV shows out draw the more risky variety.

Look at the top 20 movies in history of American cinema; almost every one of them are G or PG rated, not R or PG-17 (unless for violence).

So the producers might do it for their careers, to be trendy among the TV elite or for the jollies of tweeking every American in the nose, but it is NOT for the cash, not at all.

Interesting point, but there are only so many G-rated shows you can put on.

The two most popular things on TV right now are the Dancing show and the Singing show, both of which would be classified as tame, agreeing with your point above:

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.43afce2fac27e890311ba0a347a062a0/?vgnextoid=9e4df9669fa14010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCR D

But if you look at the most popular fictional programming, it's CSI, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy. These are all about the blood-and-guts and sex.

The market for G-rated stuff is only so large.

If you look at movies adjusted for inflation, the highest R-movie on the list is the Godfather, at #21, supporting your point.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

However, of the top 10 movies since 1990, 6 of the 10 are PG-13, saying that there's absolutely a market for the more violent and sexy movies.

And, you have to keep in mind the 18-49 demographics as well.

So, my points are:

1. Family friendly entertainment has a greater potential than risque entertainment to be the top game in town on both the big and small screen.
2. This does not mean, however, that the more risque stuff is unprofitable, or that if everyone did family-related material, the entertainment industry would be more profitable, as the market size for family entertainment is only so large.
3. While TV and movies are currently filled with a great deal of crap, there's still plenty of stuff available for all tastes. I'm certain that at any point of the day, I can find something educational or cartoony on the tube.
4. Many of the top movies of all time are top movies because there were not as many options available. For example, the 1980-1984 top movies were huge, but there weren't nearly as many total tickets sold in the movie industry then as today: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/

[BillyBobUSA]

Nah. They do it for the money. That whole suffering for your art thing is seriously overrated.


:lol:

They obviously are NOT doing it for the money or else they would make more G and PG movies to make MORE MONEY.

lolololol

[BillyBobUSA]

Interesting point, but there are only so many G-rated shows you can put on.

The two most popular things on TV right now are the Dancing show and the Singing show, both of which would be classified as tame, agreeing with your point above:

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.43afce2fac27e890311ba0a347a062a0/?vgnextoid=9e4df9669fa14010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCR D

But if you look at the most popular fictional programming, it's CSI, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy. These are all about the blood-and-guts and sex.

The market for G-rated stuff is only so large.

If you look at movies adjusted for inflation, the highest R-movie on the list is the Godfather, at #21, supporting your point.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

However, of the top 10 movies since 1990, 6 of the 10 are PG-13, saying that there's absolutely a market for the more violent and sexy movies.

And, you have to keep in mind the 18-49 demographics as well.

So, my points are:

1. Family friendly entertainment has a greater potential than risque entertainment to be the top game in town on both the big and small screen.
2. This does not mean, however, that the more risque stuff is unprofitable, or that if everyone did family-related material, the entertainment industry would be more profitable, as the market size for family entertainment is only so large.
3. While TV and movies are currently filled with a great deal of crap, there's still plenty of stuff available for all tastes. I'm certain that at any point of the day, I can find something educational or cartoony on the tube.
4. Many of the top movies of all time are top movies because there were not as many options available. For example, the 1980-1984 top movies were huge, but there weren't nearly as many total tickets sold in the movie industry then as today: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/


Thank you for your carefully thought and worded response; it is refreshing.

I agree with what you are stating, however, one exception is that I am not including violent movies when I recommend more family rated movies. American families have long had a taste for violence as opposed to sexual content.

For example, 'The Passion of the Christ' is rated R but has no sexual content and had a great turn out by family audiences.

[PercyVere]

Anyone hear of the show U.S. of Tara?

Wikipedia describes the main character's gay 14 year old son as old fashioned. He's in love with a "religious" possibly gay young man from film class.

"Old fashioned" and "religious" don't seem to mean what the used to mean.

When the "old fashioned" son finds his sister making out with his possibly gay friend in the bar, he goes to his old fashioned morals to try to burn the barn down with them in it.'Old fashioned' doesn't mean what it used to mean ??? Genius !!!

[BillyBobUSA]

'Old fashioned' doesn't mean what it used to mean ??? Genius !!!


True; every time the fashion changes it means something else.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

lolololol

hmmm...

[AmericanSpirit]

This thread just exemplifies how out of touch some people are: There is more outrage over the teens having sex then the fact that one of them tried to commit murder by burning down a barn.

If I were a parent, I'd rather have my kid screwing someone than shooting them.

More outrage over teen sex than teen murder? I doubt that.