[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference ljsrv1::tv_chatter

Title:The TV Chatter Notes Conference
Notice:Welcome to TV Chatter :-)
Moderator:PASTA::PIERCE
Created:Wed Dec 16 1992
Last Modified:Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:498
Total number of notes:5416

64.0. "Censorship" by DECWET::METZGER (Doughnuts. Is there anything they can't do?) Sat Jan 30 1993 11:18

KIRO TV here in Seatle has decided to pull the show Picket Fences from the 
lineup because it depicts characters with "questionable values". They were
following the lead of their sister station somewhere in Utah.

Even though calls to the station were 122-24 for the show they have decided
that they should decide the moral values for the entire area instead of the
individual households. There is no other CBS affiliated within my viewing area.

Can an independent station pick up Picket fences and show it or am I SOL? 


I hate people deciding what I should see/hear/read.


Metz
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
64.1Moral MinorityAIMT::PETERSBe nice or be dog foodSat Aug 07 1993 01:0826
    I think you are missing the point. lots of people like violence on TV.
    cop shows, detective shows, A Team wantabies, science fiction new
    world exploration, period piece dramas, and so on. All of the top 10
    show of all time have a liberal portion of violence. The least violent 
    show is MASH a show set in the middle of a war.
       It is not politically correct but people love to watch violence.
    There are several vocal minorities that for "people's good" want to limit
    violence on TV but no one says it is not interesting. Like anything
    violence can be taken to an extreme and repulse people but most people
    find a show without any violence or sex extremely slow or dry. With the
    exception of sex I can't think of any theme that so permeates
    entertainment not only now but since the start of recorded of history.
       Most of the classic works in history are a chock full of violence.
    American Culture has set certain standard on what people should and
    shouldn't find entertaining and it has no basis in the real world.
    People want a good story with interesting characters involved in sex or
    violence or both. They always have and they always will. Words like
    moderation and restraint always seem to be used to tell how others 
    should live their life. I make intelligent choices on what I can 
    do and enjoy my life short term and long term. What I do may look to
    some as restraint and other as excess. People should watch what they
    enjoy and let people form there own opinion. If you want to limit the
    amount of violence your children watch that's your duty as a parent to 
    do what you think is best for your child but don't try to change the world
    to suit your opinion of right and wrong.  
                           Jeff Peters
64.2A bit of everything and a finger on the OFF buttonIJSAPL::KLERKQuality by DesignSat Aug 07 1993 02:4615
  I suppose it's about time that shows are going to show as much loving
  care and affection, including the physical motions of it, as we're seeing
  violence and corpses flying around (which don't bother me, I'll switch to
  another non-Schwarzenegger channel).

  Oddly enough people opposing against violence become even more violent
  if s*x is shown on TV.

  The only thing we seem to be able to watch safely are Billy Graham, the
  Little House on the Prairey and Postman Pat. I know I'll be safely asleep
  by then.

  Theo
  
64.3Warning: The following show is mindlessFSOA::HAMILTONTue Aug 10 1993 04:2619
    One problem I see with a good number of today's hit shows is they have
    absolutely no story.  How many years ago was it when you had to watch a
    movie and pay attention because there was a plot?  Today you can sit in
    a theater with folks all around you talking out loud to each other and
    you hardly miss a thing.  Sad.  Even shows based on a crime,
    like The Fugitive, had very little if any violence, but lots of
    suspense.  Gunsmoke might have had one shoot-out a week, but there was
    a story with a moral to it.
    
    I enjoy Hunter even though he shoots at least one person an episode. 
    In real life, few police draw their weapons and even fewer fire them. 
    When they do, there is a dept. investigation.  Remember when <name?> on
    Hill St. Blues shot the youngster that was left home alone?  He was
    eventually exonerated but ended in a mental hospital.  Really
    well-written, well-acted shows cost $$$ to produce.  Shows with video
    cameras, and 1/2 hour skits are cheap.  Shows that take up most of the
    hour with lots of sex and violence don't need to work at character
    development.
     
64.4HELIX::MAIEWSKITue Aug 10 1993 06:4553
                      <<< Note 64.39 by FSOA::HAMILTON >>>

>    One problem I see with a good number of today's hit shows is they have
>    absolutely no story.  How many years ago was it when you had to watch a
>    movie and pay attention because there was a plot?  

  The answer is zero. Star Trek the New Generation has a good story just about
every week. Masterpiece Theater and Mystery on PBS almost always have good
stories. Law and Order is consistently quality stuff. 

  When comparing shows of the present to shows of the past, the most common
mistake made is that people remember the best shows of the old days and forget
all the mindless stuff that went along with it. Yes, there were shows like
the Fugitive, Have Gun with Travel, etc. but there were others as well.

  I don't remember Gun Smoke quite the way you do, it seems that there was one
basic plot that was on every other week, 

  - Mat Dillon meets a best friend from the past. They are glad to see each
    other again.
  - Mat Dillon tells Miss Kitty about his old friend.
  - Doc and Chester/Festis talk about life.
  - Mat Dillon finds out his friend has committed a murder.
  - Mat Dillon struggles with his desire to look the other way and his duty
    to bring him to justice.
  - Chester/Festis tells Miss Kitty about Mat's dilemma. Miss Kitty has a
    worried look but women in the west must be strong.
  - Duty wins, Mat XXX his old friend where XXX is:
      - Shoots him in a gun fight
      - Gets there just as he dies
      - Brings him in to be tried and hung.
  - Mat goes to the Long Branch for a drink. Kitty/Chester/Doc/Festis try
    to make him feel better. He does because justice was done.

  And that was one of the better westerns. Shows like Cheyenne basically
consisted of

  - Cheyenne played by Chet Walker takes off his shirt to plow a field.
  - Cheyenne played by Chet Walker takes off his shirt to mend a fence.
  - Cheyenne played by Chet Walker takes off his shirt because it is hot.
  - Cheyenne played by Chet Walker takes off his shirt to take a bath.
  - Cheyenne played by Chet Walker takes off his shirt out of habit.

  Chet Walker, you see, was the 50's Arnnie S.

  As for the sitcoms, they were even more mindlessness. Donna Reed was totally
devoid of any content. Father knows best didn't. Wally and the Beav should have
been given noogies. That stuff was deplorable. 

  Yes there is a lot of junk on today as there always has been but that
certainly doesn't justify censorship. 

  George
64.5The past is always better - that's why I listen to oldies!TNPUBS::NAZZAROTake me for a little whileWed Aug 11 1993 02:129
    George, excellent descriptions of Gunsmoke and Cheyenne!  Although
    your plot description for Gunsmoke may have had too much detail!!!
    
    My favorite westerns were Have Gun Will Travel (mostly because of the
    cool song and the business card), Maverick, and Sugarfoot.  Maverick
    was funny and often made you think.  Sugarfoot was funny and tried not
    to make you think.  Both were successful at what they did.
    
    NAZZ