As an offshoot of Capital K's post in the British accent thread, I submit this for discussion... I'm noticing a relaxing of whatever "rules of propriety" have governed US primetime network broadcast, and things are getting past the censors that I wouldn't have guessed possible. Profanity has always been fine by the cable networks, but I'm talking ABC, CBS, & NBC with their vast collections of easily offended sponsors. "Ass" seems to be OK, as long as it's not used in a sexually suggestive context, although I think I recall a couple of puns on "cock", and "hell" and "dammit" are no big deal... I knew I should've been keeping a list... there are more I'm not remembering.
Anyway, if the Southern hemisphere is getting away with "the fuckin' fucker's fucked" on network TV, I'm just curious what that implies about US censorship and how y'all feel about this issue. I sense a storm brewing...
Anyway, if the Southern hemisphere is getting away with "the fuckin' fucker's fucked" on network TV, I'm just curious what that implies about US censorship and how y'all feel about this issue. I sense a storm brewing...
It really depends on how it's used. I've not had a problem when swearing was used correctly. What's correct, though? For me, I would have a hard time believing some crusty old sailor or a gang member wouldn't use swear words. To have them say "darn" or "oops" is just a joke, and can destroy the atmosphere of whatever story is being told. But when it's used just for shock value and ratings, I have a problem with it.
But then I feel parents should be the primary censors for what gets seen in the home and in movie theaters. We should be warned what's coming, but have to it policed because parents aren't taking responsibility for their own children is the sad and frustrating part of all this, not what is being said.
Ali
It is sad that the old Greek ideal of "moderation in all things" is so little observed. We wear clothes among other things to avoid continuous sexual stimulation.I resent a continuous bombardment with sexual epithets. I would not suggest going back to days when one dirty word could get you into serious trouble with the authorities, but I wish that when the authoritarian dam crumbled, the flood of filth had not become so pervasive.
filth on TV
There is much to what you say, although I am not so much concerned with "filth", which, like beauty, is mostly in the eye of the beholder. What I really resent is the hypocracy of the networks and others who determine what can and can not be shown, and the over-righteous critics who would like to change "helicopter" to "heckicopter".
Seems to me that if you can have "Baywatch" on TV in hours when the children can see it (and why not? I love it) you ought to be able to say "bugger" and a few of the milder expletives. And if you can broadcast all the outrageous violence that is on TV nightly, with scores or hundreds of corpses, gore, etc. etc., you ought to be able to use any 4-letter word. A Steven Seagal movie (another one of my favorites) is the equivalent of 50 "fucks" plus any number of equally graphic words.
Re: Expletives on TV
---------------------------------------
filth....... is mostly in the eye of the beholder.
That's what I object to, getting unwanted eyefuls and earfuls of filth
Bill...I do agree with you, but I am not ready to go back to "shucks", "oh shoot" or "doggone it". I have to have a few words to show exasperation and I bet you do too...among your friends. I don't hear the Sutherin (ala Anna) women saying as many 4 letter words as I do when I am visiting "up north". I never use the f...word though and I don't think my daughters do either. I hate that word.
Memory time again ... skip this if you have no interest in stories of the "old days."
I remember in the early 1950s there was an uproar about Lloyd Bridges (I think) saying a swear word in a dramatic scene. The media was flooded with it but without mentioning the word itself.
Apparently the actor had inadvertently used the swear word in the heat of the moment.
The discussion was whether or not to broadcast it with the swear left in the scene. The Big Decision finally came down on the side of releasing the dramatic show WITH the swear word as it was "appropriate to the scene' : a confrontation between good guy Lloyd and the bad guys who were attacking his family ... I forget the details...
We were GLUED to the screen ... the word was "dam."
It was discussed for days!
Then there is the movie - also the 50s - where the word "virgin" was used for the first time. HORRORS!
The more things change the more they remain the same.
wow
There are plenty of words which have been giving trouble to the punctilious for a long time. My grandmother, who was as proper as they came, had a tough time sometimes reading to me from the King James Bible, when she came across the word "whore", which is used a number of times in both Old and New Testaments, and the word "paps." Of course, newer translations always manage to use some acceptable word for these older terms.
The only time I heard my father swear was when a mouse ran up his pantleg, and all he said was "Jesus Christ" as he gave a mighty kick and mouse shot out horizontally.
I tried not to swear in front of my kids, but failed quite ofen, but I never used obscenities.
What I object to is the excessive frequency of obscenities today. Almost as bad as a guy in Army whose every other word was the "f..."word, to the point that we would call his attention to it if he said three decent words in a string. All it accomplished was to make him talk a bit less. Laugh if you will, but I used to go up to PX to talk to one of the Gray Ladies just to get away from it.
Bill-- don't worry about swearing a bit--as the irish say-- sure there is nothing wrong with it-- and swearing has been in this world since God told the devil "go to hell!"
It's curious-- my parents would tolerate most of the standard 4 letter words-- but under no circumstances would your father utterance pass un remarked and un chastised-- it would have been considered taking the lords name in vain in our house-- and a mortal sin! where as s*** or f*** would just be venial sins!
i can and do use those words-- but since they are not professional, i don't use them often-- and since i have this sweet round face (along with a rolly polly body) and high sweet voice.. every one who doesn't know me well is shocked when they hear me use them!
On one occation some one used them at work, in front of me, and then was so embarassed-- I teased him, and told him i was a word maven, and could he please repeat it, I grew up in the bronx (short hand for tough neighborhoods) and had never heard the word before! When he realise i was not offended, and could joke about it, he apologised again, but relaxed. I accepted, since i agree with you, to some degree, Bill. these words are not alwasy appopriate everywhere!
Since any stimulus frequently applied loses its potency, perhaps the next generation will get tired of the current filth words, or at least with the tasteless excessive use of them. They will even have to invent new ones to match the intensity required by sufficient provocation.
Almost as bad as a guy in Army whose every other word was the "f..."word, to the point that we would call his attention to it if he said three decent words in a string.My parents had a friend a good while back who had a swearing problem similar to that, and I thought his wife's cure was rather inventive (not to mention took guts). Every time he swore, she'd repeat it at a shout, especially in public. Embarrassing, and to the point on how she felt about it at any volume. He was eventually cured, and they did not split up, or end up in jail.
I'd never have been able to do that...
Ali
Who are or were these Gray Ladies in PX?
Bingley
I've been amazed ever since I realized that "fuck" is mostly used as an insult, and how incredibly misogynistic that is. (I mean, really, I've always thought it's a lot of fun.) I've tried to quit using it that way myself, and substitute the all-purpose "eat shit" when reduced to primitive verbal self-defense.
I've been amazed ever since I realized that "fuck" is mostly used as an insult, and how incredibly misogynistic that is. (I mean, really, I've always thought it's a lot of fun.)It seems that the puritanical society of the USA finds Anglo-Saxon words to be indecent, and the expression of passions and bodily functions using those words to be coarse. Yet, as you say,BP, there is something delicious in hearing a partner say, "Fuck me!" when already aroused that "Shall we copulate?" doesn't quite convey!
As for the mysogyny of the term, I've taken to saying to other men who say, "Fuck you" to me, "Thanks, but I prefer women!" One of these days, that's gonna get me killed!
I agree with WWH that overuse dimishes the passion of the words we use. We can only scratch an itch so much before the scratching becomes the irritant, not the itch.
>on network TV
I don't think we have the same distinction here. BBC2 was introduced as highbrow television in the sixties and by the seventies was showing fairly steamy sex scenes (after 9pm of course), they were highbrow steamy sex scenes (as you would expect). I think our television plays were much more into gritty realism and didn't really shrink from profanity "as long as it was appropriate to the scene". Programme makers from the seventies say that there was a ration of four letter words that had to be eked out over the whole programme. By the mid eighties, with comedy shows like "the Young Ones" they had just about given up.
I mentioned "Sex in the City", in an earlier thread as an example of a programme shown on cable (HBO) in the US and network TV (Channel 4)here, similarly the Sopranos.
In some ways I think people here have grown out of expletives, they are really part of normal speech between consenting adults and in many environments, barely noticed. I'm far more concerned about the increasing levels of violence on programmes like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" which are shown on early evening television.
didn't really shrink from profanity "as long as it was appropriate to the scene". Programme makers from the seventies say that there was a ration of four letter words that had to be eked out over the whole programme.I suspect it was that sort of thing Douglas Adams had in mind when he mentioned an award called a silver Rory, "for the most gratuituous use of the word "fuck" in a serious screenplay."
I'm far more concerned about the increasing levels of violence on programmes like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" which are shown on early evening television.Don't attack Buffy! Well, not the earlier series anyway. It's the most pointless, mindless and ultimate useless show on television, but it has Sarah Michelle Geller (?sp) in it, and I can watch it without thinking and enjoy it. Here it's typically on after 10 p.m., so the little kiddies have to record it.
Ma femme rather fancies the guy who plays the Watcher. So it has something for everyone!
Don't attack Buffy! Well, not the earlier series anyway. It's the most pointless, mindless and ultimate useless show on television, but it has Sarah Michelle Geller (?sp) in it, and I can watch it without thinking and enjoy it. Here it's typically on after 10 p.m., so the little kiddies have to record it. Ma femme rather fancies the guy who plays the Watcher. So it has something for everyone!
I think it's Gellar. We watch Buffy and Angel, all the time. Mostly I don't mind the violence but last week, Angel was getting pretty beat up, and of course because he's a vampire he doesn't just die when appropriate. I actually turned my head away from the TV during that scene and asked my husband to tell me when it was over. All the while I was thinking - now THIS is a show that's not for kids - they would watch this fight scene and think you could beat someone with a sledgehammer and run him over with a car and he'd still be well enough to fight back. That sort of disturbed me. Here, it's on at 8:30 pm, which isn't really late enough to keep small, unsupervised children away from it...
think you could beat someone with a sledgehammer and run him over with a car and he'd still be well enough to fight back. That sort of disturbed me. Here, it's on at 8:30 pm, which isn't really late enough to keep small, unsupervised children away from it...
Bean, you are exactly right.
Along the same line it distubs me that TV Execs are quick to take credit for exposing wrong doings and for the impact of programs they broadcast which bring social change for the good ... and at the same time refute the impact of violence on impressionable people of all ages.
I haven't worded this too well but you get the idea ??
wow
The TV execs motto is "Take the cash and let the credit go."
Along the same line it distubs me that TV Execs are quick to take credit for exposing wrong doings and for the impact of programs they broadcast which bring social change for the good ... and at the same time refute the impact of violence on impressionable people of all ages.Wow, wow
, that's a great point that I'd never thought of. They only admit TV's influence if someone is attributing something good to it, then they're all "Yes, it can be a powerful force in our lives," but if something bad is attributed to it, it's "TV doesn't influence anyone on a deeper level; everyone knows it's just for fun!"
As for good TV, my husband has, much to my chagrin, gotten me hooked on Star Trek: Voyager. I'd always resisted Star Trek because I felt I was geeky enough without adding this stereotypical geeky habit to my already long list of geeky habits. But there are all sorts of great lessons in their shows, even if they are occasionally a bit contrived. Plus, Captain Janeway reminds me of my mom - wise, assertive, but willing to see another side of the story, and she changes her mind if she finds she was originally wrong about something.
>But there are all sorts of great lessons in their shows, even if they are occasionally a bit contrived.
My favourite episode (years ago) was the "Trouble with Tribbles" (I think), it had some profound thoughts on population growth.
But there are all sorts of great lessons in their shows, even if they are occasionally a bit contrived.The major lesson (for me) to be derived from the spin-offs from Star Trek is that spin-offs are not a great idea ... and that includes STNG.
My favourite episode (years ago) was the "Trouble with Tribbles"
And in that show the great line by Capt. Kirk : "Who put the tribbles in the quadrotriticale" a great take off on the very old song "Who Put the Overalls in Mrs. Murphy's Chowder?" I later read there was such an experimental type grain!
I admit to liking the original, the next generation (oh that Patrick Stewart = Jen Luc be still my beating heart!) and Voyager. Good escapist stuff after a trying day.And if the mix of colors and races working and playing in relative harmony imprints on young minds ...well... I'm for it.
I'll go now, while the goin's good.
wow
Hab SoSlI' Quch!
Sorry for the harsh words, CK, but I think NG is better than ST in one critical area: NG has a captain who speaks English! Patrick Stewart is superb, whether captaining a starship, or playing the ultimate fascist maitre d'hotel in LA Story Shatner, on the other hand is a buffoon, a scene-hogger whose laughable intonations ruin every line he delivers. [hiding-from-geek-fatwah-squads-emoticon]
Oh good. It's Miscellany. I can tell my tangential story.
When I worked for the Portland Opera, we were mounting a new production of Sweeney Todd (just for variety). Patrick Stewart got wind of this, and personally called the Opera's head honcho. To make a long story slightly shorter, he had no idea who Patrick Stewart is (!) and made him go into "Well, I've done some work with the Royal Shakespeare Company, I do this TV show, ..." Still nothing resembling recognition. Somebody random was offered the part, and they tried to leverage the name of Bruce Beresford as director in order to sell tickets. Now, don't get me wrong,
Driving Miss Daisy is a lovely film. But consider the potential revenue from a name like Bruce Beresford (Eh.) as compared to the potential revenue from a name like Patrick Stewart (
Aaa-OOOOO-gah!!!). If you're reading, Mr. Beresford, no offense intended. You did a fine job on the Portland production of Sweeney. But here's the kicker... the play dates happened to coincide with Portland's worst flooding within living memory, so the attendance was mediocre at best. Due to the lower-than-expected revenue generated by the production, the Opera applied for (and was granted) disaster relief loan funds to help make up for the shortfall. From an insider's perspective, I see it as poor decision-making, plain and simple. Flood or no flood, they could have had Trekkies (and Trekkers) crawling into town on their hands and knees from Tualatin if they had simply seen the Patrick Stewart opportunity for what it was worth!
Plus, I might have had the chance to measure his inseam...
From an insider's perspective, I see it as poor decision-making, plain and simple. Flood or no flood, they could have had Trekkies (and Trekkers) crawling into town on their hands and knees from Tualatin if they had simply seen the Patrick Stewart opportunity for what it was worth!
------------------------------------------------------
There ought to be a rule that Theater/Opera managers have at least a rudimentary knowledge of theater and the actors who populate that world.
Oh, and wasn't that a marvelous performance Mr. Stewart gave in "Ann of the Thousand Days?"
wow
From what I hear, he's currently giving a marvelous performance in
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf at the Guthrie here in Minneapolis. Someone from my improv class saw it and said it was unspeakably brilliant... Mercedes Ruehl playing opposite Jean-Luc. She's no slouch either, you know.
Hab SoSlI' Quch!
Sorry for the harsh words, CK, but I think NG is better than ST in one critical area: NG has a captain who speaks English! Patrick Stewart is superb, whether captaining a starship, or playing the ultimate fascist maitre d'hotel in LA Story Shatner, on the other hand is a buffoon, a scene-hogger whose laughable intonations ruin every line he delivers. [hiding-from-geek-fatwah-squads-emoticon]
Don't speak what I assume to be Klingon, but I bet it was about removing various parts of my anatomy with a blunt knife ...
Personally, I thought Patrick Stewart's best part was as a Borg.
I was actually using Star Trek as an exemplar of a principle rather than picking on ST or NG or BMW or Austin or Rover or Sachs of Sixth Avenue ...
Spin-offs rarely do well. Yes, there have been exceptions, but in general they lack originality and unless they are a spin-off at one or two removes, wind up essentially retreading the story lines from the parent series.
[Ho hum, death in less than 24 hours. Well, it could be worse emoticon]
Don't speak what I assume to be Klingon,Nor do I, but an online dictionary assures me that the phrase is a powerful insult, translated as, "Your mother has a smooth forehead."
I agree that spin-offs in general are rarely a patch on the original, but what interests me about NG is its origin. I reads somewhere that NG was Roddenberry's own creation, and was his attempt to recapture the intent of the original series. I stress that I am only regurgitating here, but according to the article Roddenberry felt that his ideals for the show, both in terms of its ensemble nature, and overall philosophy, had been hijacked by Shatner, and that it was this usurpation which led him to try again with NG.
On the subject of successful spin-offs the best example that I can think of is Frasier, or does that pit Wgtn vs. HB again?
On the subject of successful spin-offs the best example that I can think of is Frasier, or does that pit Wgtn vs. HB again?Well, yes and no. I never liked Cheers in the first place, so you can imagine how high my expectations for Frasier were. And I think they were still too high, frankly.
And referring back to Klingon insults, I just KNEW it was going to involve removed anatomy!