Phoenix32890
Something, anything that will curb the current trend in that media. Which gets even more raw as time passes.
The current rating system is a farce. If you have watched any of the new shows on TV. I mean those in prime time and supposedly family fare you will find they are loaded with sexual inuendo and situations. As for movies one can only wonder what criteria is used to determine the ratings.
Mencken pointed out that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public . . . i'm sure the observation could be extended across borders . . . many other people in the world decry the trash that media in this country produce, not without justification, but . . . Baywatch is more popular outside the U.S. than it is here, Hollywood produces this trash because it sells, and sells big, worldwide . . .
Phoenix,
In your above postings you have said several times that you consider responsible parenting the key to kids being brought up right, and having brought up two that way, my wife and I would agree with you, my son is UK computer manager for the biggest law firm in Britain, and my daughter is a lab technician.
However, the reality is that half the kids in America are in a single parent family, or have siblings by different fathers, none of whom are in the picture. So when mom goes out to do her two jobs per day to make ends meet, what stops little Jimmy from watching whatever he wants? whether at his house or round at bart simpsons house.
You also touched on the first amendment rights issue, it was never intended that freedom of speech should include the right by the tiny minority to irresponsibly print any trash no matter how harmful it may be to millions of others just so that a few could become billionaires.
Subtletly does not translate well. Setanta brings up an important aspect.
Baywatch is popular elsewhere because it needs no translation and is cross cultural (few cultures consist of men who uniformly dispise bouncing breastacles).
You will see the same trend in comedy. Witty comedy does not translate well. Jim Carrey type slapstick does not need translation.
Setanta wrote:Mencken pointed out that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public . . . i'm sure the observation could be extended across borders . . . many other people in the world decry the trash that media in this country produce, not without justification, but . . . Baywatch is more popular outside the U.S. than it is here, Hollywood produces this trash because it sells, and sells big, worldwide . . .
Your'e right setanta, tripe like baywatch does sell big but progs like that don't encourage youth to take drugs, or carry weapons or rape women so who cares? With a prog like this you simply don't watch it---no harm done.
The original question to this thread though was about the insidious films turned out by hollywood, the ones that glamourise mindless violence, and drug taking, without giving a damn about all the youth out there that copy what they have seen, and ruin their own lives and lives of others.
Phoenix -- so good to see a voice of reason being represented on this thread. The only way to fight what one perceives as dangerously negative influences in the entertainment industry is to boycott the offensive stuff and makes sure one's kids do not see it. Censorship -- any kind of government-mandated censorship -- is the province of dictatorships, not democracies. The Hayes office was a sad aberation in its time. Why should I accept anyone's right to tell me, an adult, what I may or may not watch? Chilcren, of course, are another matter and that is what parents are for.
Au1929 -- your analogy of abolishing laws against murder, theft etc. holds no water whatver. The government does have an obligation to protect its citizens from physical assault on their person or property. It has no right to legislate morality or to monitor their viewing or reading habits.
Merry Andrew
Is yelling fire in a crowded movie an illegal act?
I believe that no matter what we say or do, the lowest forms of entertainment will always attract large audiences. Look how many versions of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre there are, and how many decades they span.
Yes.
I still fail to see the connection to what you advocate.
Cause and effect. These films can in the long run also can cause damage and broken lives.
Selling guns at the box office
By Oriana Zill de Granados
ALAMEDA, CALIF. – There is an inherent hypocrisy in Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent announcement of support for gun control when he has given the opposite message to millions of people throughout his acting career. Isn't it time for this candidate, and Hollywood in general, to come clean about how their movies contribute to gun marketing in the United States? A survey of Arnold's movies shows him carrying a huge array of firepower - Desert Eagle pistols, Winchester shotguns, GE Miniguns, Glock handguns, and dozens of others. These are real guns, many of which movie viewers can buy in their local gun store, at a gun show, or on the Internet.
Research shows that people, especially young people, do indeed buy the guns they see in the movies. Schwarzenegger's message not only is violent, but also provides very real propaganda for the gun industry. "You don't have to look very far to find examples of how movie and television portrayals of guns have boosted sales of those guns," say Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center.
The gun industry received a first taste of Hollywood's selling power in the early 1970s. Smith & Wesson's .44 Magnum was at risk of being discontinued for lack of sales. When it was featured prominently by Clint Eastwood in the film "Dirty Harry," the gun "enjoyed a massive burst of popularity," according to the magazine American Rifleman.
In the 1980s, the television series "Miami Vice" boosted the demand for a large number of guns, including the relatively obscure Bren 10, according to Dr. Park Dietz, a California forensic psychiatrist. Beretta enjoyed a similar expansion of production after its handguns were featured in James Bond films, the Bruce Willis "Die Hard" trilogy, and the Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapons" series, according to a profile of the company in the Baltimore Sun.
Gun manufacturers know how important screen time can be to their business, and many companies try to get their guns featured in movies. One of the most successful is Magnum Research, producer of Desert Eagle pistols, whose website boasts that its guns have been featured in a grand total of 110 movies. Schwarzenegger has often carried Desert Eagle guns in his movies - particularly "Last Action Hero," "Eraser," "Commando," and "Predator." So why does one particular gun appear so frequently?
Some gun companies offer large numbers of guns at no charge to the Hollywood prop houses. The prop houses then have a financial incentive to push those "free" guns to directors, says Ann Hornaday, former film critic for the Baltimore Sun. She also cites many examples of gun industry executives lobbying prop house owners to get their guns placed into the hands of big stars like Schwarzenegger.
"If a gun is placed in a movie, then the whole production, the actors, the directors, and anyone in that chain become implicit in advertising for a specific gun," says Mr. Diaz.
This is not overt product placement - payment from a company like Coca-Cola to have its product featured in a movie - because the gun industry does not want to condone violence in movies. And the movie industry does not want to appear to be selling guns.
But it turns out that the marketing of guns in movies can be beneficial to both parties. When the movie "Last Action Hero" was first released in 1993, the advertisements at first showed Arnold Schwarzenegger saving a young boy. Two weeks later, after dismal box office records, the ad was changed - now it had Arnold holding a big Desert Eagle gun. "Movie companies do a large amount of testing on these posters," says Luis Tolley of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I am sure they changed the poster because they thought it would help sales."
In the past, Schwarzenegger has gone so far as to say that he's not responsible for being a role model. In a 2002 interview, he said "I don't pick myself as a role model.... And the movies with the gun in my hand? I don't run around every day with a gun in my hand."
But young kids don't see Schwarzenegger every day; they see him in the roles he portrays in movies. And with gang violence on the rise in this country, it is important to look at how these violent role models are affecting young people. Several scientific studies indicate that young people at risk are most familiar with and attracted to the kinds of flashy high-powered guns they see in movies.
Let's hope Schwarzenegger's support of gun control has a positive effect on gun violence rates if he does become governor, but he and others in Hollywood should take responsibility for the role they play in the marketing of guns to young people in America.
