15 Minutes 114
It's a loss. The Net is a great source of information, but it's fragmented. TV news was once America's common ground, its universal Town Hall, primary source of information and context. In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it. As television has become ever more ratings-obsessed, the boundaries between what used to be called serious journalism and video entertainment packaged as news have blurred. "Burn and bleed" video is the new ethos of TV news: Ratings are king, not truth.
This corruption of Big Media propels 15 Minutes, which stars Robert DeNiro as New York City celebrity detective Eddie Fleming. DeNiro is almost automatically great at playing the New York City tough guy in any guise: psycho, villain, or lawman. Edward Burns plays his naive but moral sidekick Fire Marshal Jordy Warshaw, and Kelsey Grammar is TV news anchor Robert Hawkins, who will pay any price to get blood-and-guts video onto his news show.
The movie is entertaining, violent, intense, and wildly uneven, the plot weaving from brutal thriller to ironic comedy to savage social commentary. It never quite makes up its mind which it wants to be, so the effect is confusing and disorienting.The first third of the movie is riveting, the final third a stupider version of Dirty Harry.
The basic idea is that Emil and Oleg, two Eastern European sickos, come to the United States to track down a fellow thief who betrayed them. In short order, they find him and the bloodbath begins. They also get hold of a videocamera, which they use to record their grisly deeds. They are fascinated to learn from watching various TV talk and news shows that in the United States, no one is ever held responsible for anything he does, even committing the most heinous crimes. That discvoer from the world of daytime television that even callous murderers get off the hook by claiming victimhood themselves, their evasions helped along by slick lawyers and manipulable media. Emil and Oleg are particularly fascinated by one vicious killer who claims child abuse, gets off on an insanity plea, and ends up not only with a fat book and movie deal but on the cover of People.
Not only are media utterly corrupt in this bleak view of American life, so are law enforcement and the idea of justice itself. Emil and Oleg figure they're a cinch to sell a movie of their own gruesome videotaped crimes and get off through one of the many loopholes in the legal system. In a truth-is-stranger twist, mob lawyer Bruce Cutler, who represented John Gotti, plays himself in the film.
15 Minutes is over the top, its caricatures of almost everyone extreme and unreal. But it moves so rapidly, and is so arrestingly shot, that it isn't boring for a second, not even when it veers off into ludicrous plot turns.
The psychos go on a vicious rampage -- one of them introduces himself all over town as Frank Capra (the famous director) -- spurred on by a desire for fame and money, and by the belief (echoes of OJ) that they will beat a system that worships visibility and money as much as ours does. DeNiro and Burns also get swept up in the ravenous media machine, which they think they can use to their advantage.
Ultimately, media are an equal opportunity destroyer, the most vicious element in 15 Minutes, consuming everything. Grammar's anchorman, for instance, is a ratings-mad caricature of the sensational and immoral types who have infected TV news. Unfortunately, he's too much of a clunky stereotype to be interesting. Furthermore, like lots of other Hollywood movies, this one has no idea how to end, so it circles around improbably, and increasingly foolishly.
That's too bad, because it takes some of the sting out of an intense movie that takes on a deserving target everybody loves to hate, one that can't really be thumped often enough. For all the flaws in the script, this makes the movie worthwhile as well as fun to see, and likely to succeed. (The soundtrack is pretty great too.)
Jerry Springer (Score:2)
Well I don't know that I agree with that conclusion, although I would want to. I've seen some totally screwed up repulsive stuff channel surfing late at night on "Jerry Springer". And if I see it a few months later, it's worse.
Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:4)
Violence: Bad
Media: Bad
Justice System: Bad
Simple New York Cops Trying to do the Right Thing: Good
That may be paraphrasing the Salon review, but it seems true. Now that I know that, why should I see the movie?
Seriously, it seems very hypocritical, making a movie condemning violence in the media by... making a violent movie. It makes about as much sense as the apologists for Natural Born Killers. These movies don't teach you about violence's role in society, or foster ideas on how to fix the problems: they just rub you up against the violence for a while, getting you a little dirty.
I'm all for entertainment movies, and I can even stand the occasional "Big Message" movie. But when Hollywood (Hollywood!) tries to preach to me (Pay it Forward, Traffic, etc.), I get a nasty feeling in my stomach. Maybe, it's because they are using high-minded concepts as a box-office draw.
I can see the board room meeting now: "Yeah, the self-rightous demographic, that's big. The violence-loving demographic, that's big too. And our research shows, even though they don't want to admit it, the two groups overlap quite a bit. Let's do it!"
the MPAA (Score:1)
Even if you don't care about whether or not you can legally reverse-engineer software, have some respect for those of who do.
Slashdot should take a stand and stop running movie reviews. Not only would this be ethical, but it would be less of JonKatz's terrible writing.
[posting anonymously because, yeah]
American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:5)
I think there are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, there are just too many channels available. Some promote this on the grounds of choice, but the problem, as I see it, is that there is only a finite amount of talent available to produce television, and so if you have a huge number of channels that talent is diluted. Also, American television stationstypically all produce the same sort of programmes - they all aim for certain market segments, but I do not see the need for many hundreds of channels.
Another problem is that with the lonely and underfunded exception of PBS, all the stations are commercial. They are all owned by one or another conglomerate or multinational, and so they have but one aim - to make money.
Here in the UK much admirable television is produced, mainly because there are few channels, and only 2 of the terrestrial channels can be said to be fully commercial, and even then they are heavily regulated. The BBC is funded by the television license, and is free to produce innovative and original programming, regardless of market constraints. ITV and Channel 5 have to exist in this reality, and compete with this by producing original programmes of their own.
If I were a dictator charged with improving American television, I would cut down the number of channels to 15 or so, start up an organisation similar to the BBC informed by the Reithian ethos and funded by licenses paid by the end consumer, and give it perhaps 6 of these channels. The remaining commercial channels would of course have to compete with this new entity by creating innovative programming.
This would also concentrate talent and money into a much smaller number of channels, and free these talents from the grinding demands of money and ratings. The quality of television would inevitably improve.
I know this is a pipe dream now, but really I think it would work wonders for the quality of American television.
--
Right-on (Score:3)
A bit of irony, is that when you confront your generic Oprah-watching middle-American, they may even try to claim that they are a supporter of "fairness" in the justice system. Oh, but then they hear about how the latest school shooter liked Linkin Park (this happened, sorry but lost the link), and so it's off to congress to fight the good fight!
You know who to blame this on? Liberals. Everything has to be dummed down to the lowest common denominator of society, that the principal of Darwanism may as well be eliminated completely. YOU CAN'T SAVE EVERYBODY! Then there's the propogandists, your Al Sharptons and Jessie Jacksons, who make everything an issue of race. "Well, [whoever] did not murder that man, he was protecting himself from the lynching by some cracker!" or something like that. That's all you really have to do, and you'll be able to get away with murder (literally).
And then the judges and the jury, ah those poor souls, forced to decide another persons' fate. Well, those jury members are just like any other human, so if we get the media to pump compassionate bullshit everywhere for months on end, some of it can spill over and penetrate the people who are supposed to be neutral.
It's funny how "neutral" has become a subjective word.
--End of Rant--
--
personal responsibility (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:1)
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:1)
There's the whole fiction vs. reality thing.
The way I see it, it could affect people two ways:
1. It could open their eyes to the sensationalism that is the media (as if the supposed "storm of the century" didn't already do so for most north-easterers >:)). Or
2. It's just get a reaction of "awesome!" and the next day the viewers will be telling their friends to go see it because of the gory scenes.
Unfortunatly, for most of the populace, it will be the latter.
By the way, a funny bit, Joel Siegel on Good Morning America gave the movie a bad review >:)
--
Re:the MPAA (Score:2)
because... you don't want to lost precious karma?
you don't have a point?
Like it or not, the media are a very powerful force shaping society today. To ignore their effects, while trying very hard to combat them seems to be a little counter-productive. The
If we completely ignore the media, how can we combat the lies they tell?
Re:the MPAA (Score:1)
--
Re: Movie Preaching (Score:3)
I'm so incredibly sick of hearing every review of what I call "movies with a message" being taken as preaching. Do you people have a guilty conscience or something? ESPECIALY for someone who didn't even see the movie, who are you to say that the producers and writers are trying to preach to us? They feel a certain way about an issue, they produce a movie that shows that issue in a bad light to illustrate their point. In the case of "15 minutes", which I just recently saw, this issue was essentially media corruption and sensationalism mixed in with a little "no one takes responsibility for their actions".
So, unless you're a reporter peddling sensationalized news or a pansy who won't take responsibility for themselves, how is this preaching? God forbid someone express their fucking opinion without it being aimed directly at you. Maybe I should make a friggin movie about how everyone who sees a movie thinks that movie is aimed directly at them and changing their views on the world.
Know something, if you think people are trying to preach to you through the movie industry, stay the fuck out of the theatres. Otherwise just sit back and enjoy a good movie. That's what it's there for.
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
No kidding! Most Americans respond "WTF!?!" the first time they hear of the British system. Five channels isn't so bad, I got through most of my childhood that way, but the TV tax seems so ridiculous and counter-intuitive to most Americans. They try to wrap their mind around it, thinking - Oh, like PBS, no commercials. I might pay for that... - but they are wrong. There are commericials, and bad ones at that!
TV is so much of an institution in America, it would be impossible to go to a British system. A dozen channels, for the cost of cable? Poor college students, able to afford a TV, but not the licsensing fee? Survailence vans going down the street, detecting singals from TVs in houses without liscenses, then walking up to that house and searching it? Won't happen here.
It's a bad idea, because the cost/benefit doesn't work out. It's a bad idea, because it means extra equipment for TVs made in smaller batches that don't add to the experience. It's a bad idea, because poorer Americans (and then, often minorities) will be targetted for not owning a liscense, which will not make political sense.
Besides, the low quality of US TV is pushing people into computer entertainment, which is good for everyone but a TV exec.
John Herzfeld (Score:3)
John Herzfeld described the movie as "a satire which he hopes never becomes true."
Incidentally, when he prescreened the movie all he wanted to do was allow the audience to ask him a few questions after the movie. No forms, no lengthy questionaires. He came across as a great guy. Maybe I am just star-struck but I thought the film had just as much substance (both themewise and plotwise) if not more than the Matrix.
One last thing.... WARNING PLOT SPOILER
#
The writer/director was repeatedly told not to kill Robert DeNiro's charachter, because he could possibly have a DeNiro/Burns franchise on his hands if the movie was successful. But he never wanted to ruin the integrity of the film's message. Of course this comes all from his mouth, so take it as you will.
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Two comments (Score:4)
Funny, coming from someone who blamed everyone but the shooters at Columbine.
In the 80s, more than 90 percent of all U.S. families regularly watched one of the three major evening newscasts. Today, the number has fallen below 20 per cent, and TV has become an electronic nightmare, degrading civic life more often than elevating it.
Here I go into my "why I don't watch broadcast TV anymore".
There's a large number of reasons why "the big three" aren't getting the same percentages as before. People are working longer hours and don't watch it on TV. Many turn to all-news channels (MSNBC/CNN/Fox (ecch) News) to get the news in one shot without all the BS that usually gets introducted.
I watch none of it. My news comes from Yahoo, a local newspaper, and NPR. Broadcast TV has, as I've grown older, become increasingly dumbed down. Maybe it's always been dumb and I just got smarter. Broadcast TV has always been for the lowest common denomonator, with programs aimed for people that don't know Alaska is a state and think that Bill Clinton is still president. Go watch your local Fox channel during prime time some night and tell me that is not the case. Fox is probably at the extreme end of this, but the other channels all have the same problems.
As evening news broadcasting drops because of these and other issues, (non-cable) broadcasters have to come up with new ways to get people to watch their channel. Then came OJ.
OJ's little publicity stunt with the white bronco and its associated ratings have made said broadcasters think that since ratings were high for OJ, all high-speed chases are important. Prime-time TV now has highlights of these chases going on.
Where will it end? I don't know. It's increasingly difficult to get true information. Everyone has their spin on events, and that spin is becoming larger and more erratic.
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:3)
- It could open their eyes to the sensationalism that is the media (as if the supposed "storm of the century" didn't already do so for most north-easterers >:)). Or
- It's just get a reaction of "awesome!" and the next day the viewers will be telling their friends to go see it because of the gory scenes.
Unfortunatly, for most of the populace, it will be the latter.I agree that the second is worse than the first, but I don't think the first is that great either. Most of the time, we subject ourselves to violent and disgusting images in the media for entertainment value, but it doesn't change our opinions or push us to action. It just makes us less sensitive to violence, and it takes more extreme images to get a reaction, which the media is happy to give us.
One of the best examples of conscience raising was Upton Lewis's The Jungle [berkeley.edu], a book about the meatpacking industry in the US, was very graphic, and led to government regulation of the industry. People were exposed to the nastiness of the real world, and were spurred to action.
By comparision, Hollywood movies may never do this. I've heard a lot of praise for "Traffic". I don't see any new bills for ending the drug war. It seems that the only ones who found it truly convincing were those opposed to the drug war, and those for it may have had their "eyes openned", but that won't translate to action.
Did the multi-billion dollar "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" convince you that the true meaning of Christmas was not money and material possessions? Jim Carrey and Ron Howard probably didn't get paid in millions of heart-warmings. IMHO. the book was much more effective.
Same thing with this one. What public action do the producers desire? Government regulation of violence in prime time? Probably not. Government regulation of violence in movies? Probably not. Mass Boycotts of trash TV? Probably not. All those things would hurt them financially. Any possible action by the people would hurt them financially, and would be completely unintended.
What they want is for people who criticize Jerry Springer and TV Violence to feel good about themselves, while they enjoy the same trash.
To think otherwise is to say that you should surf over to the Stile Project to gain an appreciation for all varients of sexual practices.
I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too... (Score:4)
To save you the trouble, turns out the writer belongs to a group called the National Alliance...
National Alliance Goals
- White Living Space
- An Aryan Society
- A Responsible Government
- A New Educational System
- An Economic Policy Based on Racial Principles
(taken from web site)----------
Who knew that Nazis read Slashdot? Reading a little more on his web page, turns out the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews own all the media...
Sorry but we kicked your lying, insecure asses 50 years ago. Now let's get back to discussing some real issues here, OK? Not spreading the same old boring lies. Cuz, let's be frank -- if you want to really get people to listen, you've gotta update your image... Maybe talk about how Jews are really failed clones or how non-whites are really aliens from Saturn
Until then, leave the rest of us alone, OK? Oh, and yes, your penis *IS* smaller than everyone elses'... GET OVER IT...
The stuff they won't show is FUNNY! (Score:2)
Its in the same vein as the really funny scene in the movie Room with a View.
But they raised a really valid pont. On TV, you can show somebody getting blown away, but not getting blown. I know which one I'd rather somebody do to me.
Please stop (Score:1)
You once said you'd quit whatever your last job was because the ethics of it got to you. Doesn't it bother you to be your own boss and still just phone it in? Wouldn't you like to write something a little more relevant and meaningful than we could find in Rolling Stone or some other worthless hype machine?
I know you got burned in here with the few technical articles you tried, and frankly I've heard enough about what we all had to suffer through in HS, but I never supported people blocking your stories or getting on you for anything you put up here before. Seriously, though, I cringe everytime I see one of these movie stories by you. They're just weak.
-jpowers
What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:4)
Actually, there is, at least for now, though I tend to think it will happen soon enough, given America's appetite for "reality" TV:
Live Death Penalty
IIRC, in the late 80's this was debated to be done on some person who was up for the death penalty, to be executed in short time. I don't remember the manner of the execution, but I think it was to be lethal injection. At any rate, talks actually went real far into doing a pay-per-view thing, where the subscribers could watch the execution. They got the "condemmed" to sign paperwork and everything. However, all this caused such an uproar that it was cancelled, and the individual was executed in a more "normal" fashion.
I remember that a TV movie came out later, that was fiction, about a death row individual getting the electric chair live on TV (pay-per-view) in a stadium (with live seat tickets being expensive, but greatly in demand), and how a reporter uncovered evidence that he was innocent, but didn't manage to save the individual in time (because of viewers lust for "blood" - thus the execution, in fiction, of an innocent man).
I don't remember this too well. I appologize, hopefully someone can back me up.
I for one would not want to see such a thing, and wouldn't pay money to see it. I honestly wonder though at the sanity of a society that, so bent on satiating the apetite for violence with reality TV and such (movies, etc), are loath to see the final consequence of such actions - the mortal death of another human being.
Perhaps it is the lack of a reminder that we all can die, will die, and may die at the hands of another individual, that drives the lack of respect and responsibilty in American society?
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Re:Two comments (Score:3)
This is the real reason people don't watch the news. The damn reporters are BIASED. Every report they do has their own underlieing bias in it. It's actually quite amusing and sad to watch at the same time. What ever happaned to give me the news and I'll decide?
Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. (Score:2)
Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:2)
One Thing They Haven't Let Us See Yet (Score:1)
Better question... (Score:1)
If somebody was murdered on video, Alien, do you think it would eventually make its way onto tv. I saw a show on Fox last week that showed cops run down bycars while making traffic stops..collected from videocams in police cars..
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
A service that exists purely to supply information is also held in a higher regard with more focus on journalistic integrity than a service that exists purely to sell commercials, it's easy to see how a particular bias may creep into your content if you consider reporting some something that is contrary to your sponsors' interests.
ITV and Channel 5 have to keep their operations to an acceptable quality otherwise the BBC will walk all over them when it comes to ratings, even though the BBC doesn't even operate primarily on ratings, but quality. The BBC has its faults, even if you don't watch, its purpose is still felt because it keeps all the other channels in check.
Also, look at the number of times Slashdot has pointed to News Online [bbc.co.uk] articles, by this very virtue it must have some value, regardless of whatever you purport.
BTW. you can actually get hundreds of channels through digital satellite, cable and terrestrial channels... most of it being junk or niche content obviously.
Re:Right-on (Score:4)
George W. Bush is known to be an intellectual lightweight, yet he is president. Minorities laugh at him because we know many minorities are much more qualified than the "First Idiot", yet they don't stand a chance at getting elected. Heck, we know *LOTS* of more qualified White people who would make a much better president than the "Human Eggplant" currently occupying the Oval Office.
I am trying to get promoted at work, yet I am having a hard time even though I have over 220 college hours and *LOTS* of computer experience. The only thing I can see is that is holding me back is that fact that I am Hispanic while the managment of the IT department where I work is 100% White. I see lots of less-qualified Whites get promoted over me, but nope, there is no racism or discrimination in the U.S. today.
The world would be a much better place if conservatives learned to think; however, that may be too much to ask for. At this point, I would settle for having them learn how to spell and use proper grammar and punctuation.
I think it is funny that I speak and write English much better than many White Americans, even though Spanish was my first language and English is the only language they have "learned" (and I use the term "learned" very loosely).
A suggestion to all you White Rush-Limbaugh wannabes [stormfront.org]: Why don't you pick up a dictionary on occasion? You would be able to learn how to spell "hard" words like "propagandists [m-w.com]" and "Darwinism [m-w.com]". Hell, maybe you will even find out what the the difference between "principal [m-w.com]" and "principle [m-w.com]" is! Judging from your use of the word "liberal" as an insult, it is obvious that you would not know "neutral [m-w.com]" if it bit you on the ass...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
The problem is too much freedom. (Score:1)
Problem is, there are no laws legislating for morality In fact, our constitution expressly forbids us to respect any religion.
While not a bible-bashing fundamentalist, I can still see how America would be a much better place if all the less intelligent people (not slashdot readers, but the trailer trash you see on Springer) were forced to conform to a moral code (the bible is as good as any for want of a better choice).
This would quickly change our society from a 'me-first' dollar-driven one, into something far more civilised where what you are like as a person is more important than whether you have the latest 1.5GHz Pentium 4 or what car you drive.
What do others think ?
Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:1)
Live Death Penalty
You want a really slimy idea? Why not have a daily show of the prisoners in a cell block together. Every week, the home audience could vote on who gets executed. The last one left 'wins' and has his sentance commuted to life in prison. The sick part is you KNOW it would get ratings!
Once again, Slashdot plays salon.com or movies.com (Score:1)
Once again Slashdot tries to emulate salon.com, which probably isn't wise considering salon's stock value
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. How movie reviews of non-geek movies fit into that I dunno. I can see reviews of Planet of the Apes, StarWars, Lord of the Rings. But the last half dozen movie reviews of katz's makes me think he'd be better writing for a movie site.
I'm not saying his reviews are bad, just they don't belong here. He could probably make more money at msnbc or movies.go.com or another such place. If he was good enough he could make it on cnn.
Re:Hmmm (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
However, even though channel 4 is supported by advertising, I feel it couldn't exist in its current form is it went purely commercial rather than state owned. A pure commercial outfit would go for the highest bang-for-the-buck and drop anything apart from high rating programmes, then it would sell the crap out itself with those ratings... whoring out the content for as much cash as possible, whilst pushing for the lowest expenditure as possible on producing the content. Another decent channel down the toilet.
It's nice to see that Channel4 makes cash and is self-supporting, it's also nice to see a channel that doesn't exist purely to make cash.
Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:2)
Re:Two comments (Score:1)
As a yellow-dog liberal (aka socialist), I know what liberal is, and CNN is NOT liberal!
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:Better question... (Score:2)
Well last night the one minute I saw on Jerry Springer had to do with weird love relationships. One guy blew chunks on his lady as part of their love relationship. You could see the stuff covering the front of the dress. The audience flipped, of course.
And there have been shows that have played murder videos on the air, although, I will confess, the camera work was shoddy and you did not see the brains splatter all over. The people holding the camera had been freaked out by the scene, for which I do not blame them.
Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:1)
And how do you purpose this "reminder" to come about? People find thinking about their own death unpleasant.
I personally think it's sad our country isn't more fascist in regards to the way it treats certain individuals. I think rapists should receive the death penalty or atleast more time then they do. I'm not a conservative, though, thus I don't think we should imprison drug users or dealers. Anyhow, back to the main point of this message: I also think live death penalties are actually quite a good idea... so long as a good sized (say, 80%) portion of the money generated by advertising for the show goes to the government. What a win win situation. Right after a brief discussion of the criminals activites, images of the weeping victim's families, etc, people can then feel the satisfaction of watching another worthless human being die, all the while the government getting more money to make up for all of it lost in the keeping of prisoners. I think, too, people crave seeing justice done; why does it have to be called blood lust? What we really do need are more death penalties, lest America wants to find its citizens asking themselves that age-old question why we keep around the lowest form of life at our cost. To which the answer is, of course, the torture element. Yes, we haven't even progressed past medieval ages. Thus, you have the most amazing contradiction in that Ultra-liberals think we're committing some great wrong "lowering ourselves" to the criminals level but torturing a human for up to 50-70 years is acceptable. You can say this whole idea reeks of Christian "eye-for-an-eye" mentality but I disgress; it's PROGRESS.
Yet our government is too feeble-minded and ultra-liberals running too rampant for us to get anywhere in that kind of a deal. Shit!
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Television stations in the U.S. (except PBS) are run by the market. If not enough people watch a show in the U.S., then advertisers won't pay for it.
This is lousy if you're looking for quality programs, but it's excellent if you're looking for what will play to the most households.
Although you and I might really enjoy programs that challenge us, and that expose us to new thoughts... that sells poorly in the market. For good or for bad, most people want to be entertained, not to be challenged.
Re:Right-on (Score:1)
This should be rated up as very funny! First of all, you're saying that Liberals want to dumb things down... but in the same breath you manage to spell "dumbed" as "dummed", and use "principal" where you should be using "principle". Finally, I'm pretty sure that his name was "Darwin", and hence the correct term would be "Darwinism".
Let's face it, if television has to be "dummed" down for anyone, that would be the stereotypical midwest bible-thumping trailer-trash Americans who spend more time in front of the TV than anyone else. These people have a higher representation in the ratings than anyone else, because everyone else has more important things to do all day, rather than watch stupid "dummed" down TV shows.
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
In other words, instead of funding the stations through voluntarily selling a useful product (visual impressions) to lawful consumers (the sponsors), you'd confiscate money from the viewers at the point of a gun and give it to the TV studios.
Thinking like that is why we threw you people out in the first place.
-
Overwrought violence - Series 7 (Score:2)
I saw it Friday w/ my girl friend (Score:2)
We both liked it, more so myself than her.
It was at times slightly distubing, very graphic and sensatonalistic (on purpose).
I liked it because it told a good story covered a lot of ground and does talk about something ignored in media: media themselves. I disagree that the movie was very dumb. Sure it had its problems, the last 1/3 was very unbalanced and keep bouncing all over the place, however the use of comedy throught the film made it accessable to my girl friend who otherwise would have found it too intense.
All in all I'd say it was a decent movie, definitely worth a rental, but if your board or love movies go for the theater.
Also, make sure you stay for an extra minute or so as the credits start to get a little extra closure.
--
From: Aaron "PooF" Matthews
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:1)
That's an interesting point. I ran up against a similar issue when watching Fight Club with a friend. He found the movie seriously lacking because, as he put it, "it's an anti-capitalist, anti-consumer movie that cost fifty million dollars." The question I really wanted to ask him -- I'm sad I didn't at the time -- is, at what dollar value does it become acceptable to make an anti-consumer movie? Ten million? Ten thousand? Ten bucks? Is the message okay if the movie tanks at the box office? Is the message automatically invalidated if the movie is a commercial success? Can, in fact, an anti-consumer movie ever be made at all under these criteria?
The same question can go for this film. Can you make a movie condemning violence without featuring any violence? Is the movie a success if you feel sickened by it? Is it a failure if you're completely desensitized to it? At what level of violence is an "anti-violent" movie going to be acceptable, and where does it go over the line into hypocrisy?
I watched Natural Born Killers and was mostly nauseated, not only because of the constant, repetitive violence, but because it was such a poorly made film. If Stone intended to send a message about desensitizing violence by inflicting it on his audience, he succeeded with flying colors in my book. On the other hand, if he intended to make his "protagonists" into sympathetic, or somehow heroic, characters (which is the feeling I got from the film), I think it was a dismal failure.
If the film had been completely devoid of violence, I'm not sure the same message would have gotten across. I'd like to see a filmmaker try to do so, though I'm not certain how such an endeavor would look.
Unfortunately, I haven't yet seen this film (15 minutes), so I can't speak to that.
Re:The problem is too much freedom. (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Which of course has resulted in such top-flight computer games as Who Wants to Beat Up a Millionaire, Deer Hunter and Barbie Fashion Designer. Soon computer entertainment will be the same ol' cesspool.
Makes me want to paraphrase Agent Smith's monologue in The Matrix. "Media execs are a disease. You move into an entertainment medium and you reproduce... and you keep reproducing until every resource has been consumed... and then you move on..."
Re:the MPAA (Score:1)
So far I am the only one that I know of that has written to these people once they do a report more people might get interested. If we keep this only on slashdot linuxtoday and theregister and other sites that only "geeks" look at I doubt anyone else that doesn't know about what is going on will learn what is going on.
Once more people know what is going on then maybe the lawmakers will be interested. At least Rick Boucher from virginia is interested. The more people that we get the better but if we just continue to talk to people that already know what is going on I doubt it will do anything except waste bandwidth.
Re:Right-on (Score:2)
Re:Two comments (Score:1)
Re:Two comments (Score:1)
For example: by prevailing international standards, Nightline mainstay Henry Kissinger is a war criminal (see Christopher Hitchens' articles in the two most recent issues of Harper's).
Or: based on similar standards, the Sudanese government has as much of a case [emperors-clothes.com] to extradite and prosecute [eagleforum.org] Bill Clinton (for the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant there) as Spain did for attempting to extradite and prosecute Augusto Pinochet.
Or: the full truth of the deaths of dozens Branch Davidians at the hands of the FBI has been laundered, and is likely to stay that way.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Re:Right-on (Score:2)
I find it even more hilarious that some folks can decend so deep into their own athiestic egos, like you, and lump biblical faith as a characteristic of a demographic of people you'd rather ignore, as if they are unavoidably linked. If these people were the trully faithful, then you wouldn't hear about so many "trailer trash ordeals". Additionally, not every human being who lives in a manufactured home on this planet is "trailer-trash".
Not every hardworking, honest person on the planet can afford a real house. As a matter of fact, I am here-by establishing a new stereotype along the lines of your reasoning - "athiestic apartment trash". You know, mixin' it up 90210 style all the time, having drunkin' parties, and swingin'. If anything, more city dwellers fall in line with the image city dwellers would like to relegate to ALL trailer dwellers.
Why did I bother posting? You are obviously ignorant and needed enlightenment.
TurboD
Re:Two comments (Score:1)
A "real" conservative in your "it has to be extreme" assertion doesn't just want to lower taxes. They want to enact Biblical Law and christianize the country. They want Genesis taught in school as fact. They see news involving the UN and/or the middle east in terms of Bible prophecy, making for an impressively twisted interpretation. And so on...
--
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:3)
And even PBS stations are somewhat ruled by the market. If someone who's contributed money at every fund-drive for PBS hears about this great show that the CBC, BBC, etc. are doing, and they ask the station to show it, the station is definitely going to consider it. If a lot of regular contributors decide they want to see that program, the station will in all probability show it.
I think that programming that challenges need not sell poorly. Yes, it most likely won't appeal to the masses. But, then again, Slashdot does not appeal to the average web-surfer. Yahoo! does. Look at which one recently had some trouble [slashdot.org]. Narrowly-focused programming can work if the target is sufficiently attractive to advertisers. The demographic that would enjoy programs that challenge would tend to be a demographic that has higher than average intelligence/education. In the US, in general, higher intelligence/education translates into higher income, which tends to imply higher disposable income. Thus, makers of more expensive products would advertise, and be willing to pay higher rates per person.
This is the reason that the PGA Tour survives. In raw viewership, it cannot compare to the NBA. But PGA Tour viewers are more likely to have a high disposable income and/or be corporate bigwigs. Thus, Lexus (after disposable income) advertises, as does Compaq (after corporate mindshare).
All of which brings the interesting idea: if Red Hat (or any other commercial distro) really wants to make Linux a reality in corporate America, they should sponsor a stop on the PGA Tour.
Movies and their motives... (Score:1)
Re:Two comments (Score:2)
For that, you can watch Pat Robertson's newcast (I think it's CBN) on Fox Family...
Lot of truth in this post, sadly.. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what Americans make of TV..they see it as entertainment, I suspect..I don't know that liberals get all the blame here..they sure get a lot..I'd say the corporatization of media gets few points..When big, profit driven companies get into this, they only hae one motive or goal..profits, and they own most American media now..
No Limits.. (Score:2)
if you look at the reality shows on Fox and cable, I'd say there are no limits where this trend can go, constitutionally or otherwise.. But the question the movie asks also, is will we every reach a point where people will stop watching..Murders are often shown on TV, along with shootings and violent crime, accidents etc. As long as people will watch, they'll make it. I don't think we're close to the limit. Unfortunately, the movie's owners..Time Warner..don't have a great claim to high moral ground here.
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
This is lousy if you're looking for quality programs, but it's excellent if you're looking for what will play to the most households.
I don't buy this argument. It's nowadays a chicken and egg problem. Are people watching so much junk programs, because they have nothing else they can watch, or are there so many lousy channels, because households demand to consume them ? I think the first is the case, but then I am not an American and even after a staying here longer than I stayed in my home country, I still can't get used to the junk. I am so much desensitized that if I am back home, I suffer withdrawal symptoms: the news seem so "serious" and "boring". After a while I am just coming back to normal, always amazed what amount of news I DON'T see in the U.S. versus my home country.
I don't believe, that it's the viewing U.S. household who influences the selection of programs offered in the U.S TV media. The public can't really choose. Yes, they can choose between Latterman and Leno, so what kind of choice is that ?
The cable TV companies sell their channels "bundled". You can't buy each channel on its own. If the consumer could, I bet many niche and junk cable TV channels would die out. It's not a free market economy, by no means.
For ABC, NBC and CBS it's their junk soaps and series, which are supposedly to finance their qualtity programming, continuously loosing out, because junk offers are so plentiful that real demand is oversaturated.
We are so deeply bathing ourselves in sleaze that any aspiration to fight the scum is suffocated by the depression caused through the bad smell of a corrupt media which sold itself out to the perceived overwhelmingly darker sides of their viewing public. Ah, well, this is a scheme. Once being depressed, your demand for comic relief is overwhelming. Who could survive nowadays politicians without the "Spin Room". Wouldn't we all cry our hearts out in grief if we hadn't a chance to laugh it off ?
I don't know what to make out of it. May be, if every day life would be less of a pain in the neck and more a piece of cake here in the U.S., we actually would be able to "bear" the junk media without getting depressed.
But heck, if politics are that awful meaningless, what else can you do than artificially make it partisan and play the partisan card over and over and over and over again. It's so bad that poor Tucker Carlson and Bill Press can't surpress their grins over their own idiotic spins most of the time. Poor boys, luckily they are allowed to poke fun and be silly...sigh...
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
But maybe your concern isn't for yourself, and you're worried about all those other people who are voluntarily choosing to watch all those other bad channels, and could have their minds improved if some central authority restricted their choices to exclude the garbage. Is that it?
Other things equal, I think more choice is good, even if we find ourselves appalled at what gets chosen. (And for my part, I find most UK TV boring and stifled, except for Junkyard Wars and Question Time in Parliament. :) ) On the occasions when you, as a viewer in the UK, tune in and find nothing that you care to watch at the moment, do you offer silent thanks to your government for having stopped any attempts to offer you a tempting alternative?
--timboy
Re:Overwrought violence - Series 7 (Score:1)
Another movie along similar lines is Battle Royale. [battle-royale.com]
Unfortunately, because it's
- Japanese, and
- shows schoolkids killing other schoolkids
it'll never show in this country. Great movie though.Been there, done that... (Score:1)
Re:Better question... (Score:2)
If you take Arthur C. Clarke's story "I Remember Babylon" and substitute for the political aims of the Communist Chinese of the '50s the drive for ratings and the mistaking of notariety (probably mis-spelled) for a hero's fame by so many, many people these days, you can see where all this is going and how the old saying "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the good taste of the American people" is as valid as ever, if not more so.
What they should have done was replace Edward Burns with Ed "Kookie" Burns and have done the movie as a dark comedy, ala Ron Goulart. :-)
Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:3)
A review of the review (Score:2)
But is there anything they wouldn't put on Slashdot, no matter how gruesome or sensational?
John Katz' review of 15 Minutes takes on karma whores and Slashdot's corruption with illiteracy and stupidity, and answers that question with a No.
---
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:2)
Re:Two comments (Score:1)
I set up a similiar scenario on the Right side to make the absurdity apparent. Obviously, what I described is the extereme right wing. Obviously, most conservatives don't feel this way.
But, there is a very vocal minority who do, and they'll tell you that they are following the "wishes of the founding fathers" exactly (even when it is plain that they are not). They'll claim this is a Christian country and that our founding fathers wanted it that way. These people have a conference coming up called 'Reclaiming America for Christ'. Check it out - those guys are scary.
--
Worst movie I've seen in a long time. (Score:2)
The flaw in this movie are far too numerous to completely count, but let's start with a few of the big ones:
1. Why the heck is a fire marshall, who never even saw the big-shot teevee cop (because he doesn't own a teevee, and without a teevee probably doesn't read People magazine) suddenly the guys best friend after they've been together a total of about four hours over the course of two days?
2. Double Jeapordy doesn't mean that court has to stand idly by while obvious mistrials are left standing. Come on Hollywood! This was much worse in the case of the movie of that name, but to put forth (without refutation, in both instances) that this fatal flaw exists in our legal system is irresponsible.
3. I appreciate that the media is an easy and sometimes valid target, which has created a culture of media-obsession, panic-driving media (I like how Kelsey Grammar said 'If it bleeds, it leads' as thought that was a novel idea)... HOWEVER. This topic has been done to death, starting with Network, and then the violence-creation/violence-reporting link was done much better in Natural Born Killers. What does this movie add to the story and the (far too blatant) morality tale? An arson investigator and an escort service.
4. Were the rose petals on the ground around the dying DiNero necessary? No. They were absurd - like all of the symbols in this movie they were far too blatant. It was as though the movie was being as LCD (not the display) as the media that it was harping on - but without the self-awareness to validate it.
There are a lot of other movies. I give it 2/10, because it is still possible for the movie to be worse, but they'd have to work at it.
Didn't anyone else hate this movie?
CM
Re:Right-on (Score:2)
I can see how you would feel the way you do about his use of "liberal", seeing as how some "conservatives" have done their best to turn it into a dirty word, much as they are now continuing to corrupt the language by using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" when referring to the political party. Just last noght I heard the "Democratic National Committee", which no doubt is what it says on the letterhead and any legal documents involved in incorporation and tax status matters, i.e., that's the real name, called the "Democrat National Committee" by someone who undoubtedly knows better and mis-spoke on purpose.
As for your minority problems, get some African-American employees in there. When they have to promote a minority to keep the government happy, they'll grab you to avoid having to promote one of the blacks. After all, thanks to President on a technicality Bush, "Latinos" are now the new favorite minority of the minority-avoiding class.
What timing! [SPOLER WARNING] (Score:2)
There were a few things I felt needed a little polishing -- for example, when Eddie instantly linked the slashes on the wall in the hotel bathroom with the broken-tipped knife. Things like that would probably take time to figure out, and there were several occurances of that sort of thing.
I disagreed with Eddie's fate, but it was a refreshing change from the good-guys-never-die (coughBondcough) theme so prevalent in Hollywood these days.
Also, the fact that the fire marshal (his name escapes me at the moment) didn't wuss out at the end was very satisfying indeed. The guy probably would have rotted in jail anyway as a result of Oleg's tape, but it was nice to see a little an-eye-for-an-eye.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend it heartily. Overall, I enjoyed it -- warts and all.
--
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Re:I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too... (Score:2)
All I could think of was Margaret Dumont's double take in "Dinner at Eight" when Jean Harlow's character mentions having read a book.
Re:The stuff they won't show is FUNNY! (Score:1)
Okay! Would you like it in the heart or in the head?
--
Re:Right-on (Score:1)
Congrats on your spelling. :-)
OT: From Kiro5hin - This applies to Katz. (Score:1)
What is more troublesome than the kinds of errors I list above, however, is the general terrible writing online. Even supposed professionals -- Jon Katz springs immediately to mind -- frequently post long-winded, repetitive, confused pieces which, in the worst cases, contradict themselves. Frequently, the rhetorical flourish is deployed at the expense of clear, well-reasoned paragraphs designed to lead the reader inexorably from premise to conclusion. There is little worse in the world than prose dressed up in empty jargon, useless "well-that's-the-way-I-feel" rants, and irrelevant paragraphs. Words mean things, and it isn't enough just to type some in, if one wants to write something that will convince, or edify, or even describe.
The whole text [kuro5hin.org]Re:Haven't seen the movie, probably won't... (Score:1)
Can art exist alongside commercial success?
Can the media use satire as an effective weapon against itself?
First, I refuse to accept that money and art are mutually exclusive. I want to believe that art can be created regardless of the financial circumstances. Movies cost money. And if your art is intended to attack popular culture you can't make an indie movie because you'll simply be "preaching to the converted." Movies cost a lot of money, so let's move on folks! You can still say something important even if you're backed by a major studio (so long as you're Stone, or someone else with a lot of pull in Holly Wood).
Second, I do believe you can use media as a weapon against itself. What Stone did with Natural Born Killers is a perfect example. He took a brainless, violent script from Tarantino (exactly the type of director he despises), and twisted it. He used this script to create the largest piece of performance art ever attempted. He used graphic violence, and sensationalism to draw huge crowds into theatres. He then proceeded to attack the very thing the audience was there to see. They were the perfect example of what is wrong with our culture today. And they ate it up. But the people Stone wanted to speak to didn't get it. They couldn't see past the violence. Most people were incapable of stepping back from the situation and seeing what Stone had achieved. It was a brilliant satire, but one so deeply buried below the violence and spectacle, most couldn't be bothered to dig deeper.
Ultimately Stone's experiment failed. Not because it wasn't what he had envisioned, but because most critics and 'thinkers' have so little faith in our commercial artists that they refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. In their eyes Stone was guilty of the same sin he was chastising other directors for. The important distinction is that instead of simply creating a violent movie, he had held a mirror up to Holly Wood, and our culture in general. It was a reflection that most didn't care to see.
Re:Two comments (Score:2)
I'm not sure which is worse, a government that tells you what to believe or one that forbids you to.
Re: Movie Preaching (Score:2)
It should be put down as hypocrisy.
Go ahead, enjoy the movie, but don't pretend you are going to leave the movie and more enlightened or less depressed about the sorry state of attention-grabbing weasels on TV who successfully pander to the basest instincts of a gullible public. Just know that you are no different than people who watch Jerry Springer.
'Traffic' is a good example of a failed attempt at a message movie. The message is skewed and dishonest, trading fact for emotional impact. Hollywood has a blurred sense of perception, so they really should not be our eyes, ears, or conscience.
I would much prefer a documentary that tries to be unbiased and journalistically honest than a completely sensationalized rip-off of an already anxiety-provoking situation.
No, I won't plunk down any money on this one. Don't need to see it as I already saw the trailer a few times. My point: as long as ratings are the producer's bottom line and his primary reason for making a movie(this will be forever), you will never get an enlightened viewpoint. Not from "15 Minutes", not from "Traffic", but maybe "13 Days", maybe "Gattaca", maybe "2001". These movies, IMO, have at least a germ of independent artistic vision. The other two are ratings-grabbers in the guise of 'important message movies'.
Re:Right-on (Score:1)
1. The homestead act of 2004: Herebey every trailer-trash dweller is guaranteed to own the land beneath his trailer. Only request is taking homestead in a stone house, constructed with his bare hands and living in there for at least 15 years.Special mortgages at 0 percent are available to anyone who finishes the construction within one and a half years.
2. The healthcare bill of 2004: Everyone, who has successfully constructed his home on his land, has the right for lifelong health insurance federally funded and billed according to the stone-house dweller's income. In case the stone-house dwellers head of household is not finding a job, he will not loose his health insurance as long as he is willing to provide services to the School National Guard, funded by the government to help America's schools to stay free of religions, safe and academically challenging.
3. SNG-bill (School National Guard bill) for stone-house dwellers: Anyone who serves for the School National Guard is guaranteed a reduction of 75% off the tuition to the nearest State University, so that city-dwellers have equal access opportunity to educational advancements.
Viva the reborn stone-house dweller ! The American Hero of the first decade of the second millenium.
Viva the President, who doesn't sell out the American citizen to candies and lolipops, but gives him back what is rightfully his, the American land.
...sigh... I just woke up...I saw Lincoln in my dreams and got all mixed up
Re:No Limits.. (Score:1)
has anything ever violated our sense of ethics to such a strong degree that we were compelled to turn it off?
has anything ever pandered to such a degree that we were forced to turn it off?
...and did we turn it off, or stare slack-jawed and wide-eyed?
Why is the "Faces of Death" series so popular?
A friend was relating a scene in FoD wherein a skyjumper accidentally drifted into an alligator farm (heh). And then when we asked him why he watched the video he said "I learned to be careful skyjumping."
I don't think that we are very honest with ourselves, and I am sure that the TV fosters this level of irresponsibility. Witness how Phil Donahue (IMO the first of the Springer series of shows) portrayed his show as an honest look into issues of importance in America today. "Next, cross-dressing. Stay tuned." It started mildly, and like the frog in the soup pot, became gradually warmer and warmer. Jerry Says his show is a total goof, but he doesn't act like it to the yay-hoos he suckers in. It's a big inside joke that everyone gets.
Personally, I can't watch commercial TV at all anymore. I tape baseball games, but even baseball is showing the erosion of values in the face of greed. Okay, Bill Maher and Charlie Rose... but that's it, man. I have reached my personal limit.
Re:Right-on (Score:1)
Ah, well, you got me there. Perhaps I simply never use that word, since I consider it irrelevant.
Re:Better question... (Score:1)
My street (Score:1)
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Yeah "Junkyard Wars" is good (it used to be called "Scrapheap Challenge", it was changed so the Yanks understand), quite a lot of stuff on channel 4 is decent, I think they're doing a Robot Wars in the US now too.
Oh but they have, they want you to watch "BBC Parliament"
Well.... (Score:1)
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:2)
The rest of the show is either purchased programs from either the BBC or old US Television shows. Personally, I prefer watching either CTV or Global. They're both privately owned stations, who are required by CRTC regulations to show a certain amount of 'Canadian Content'. The result is a mixture of US and Canadian programming, with these stations funding well produced Canadian television shows.
Americans turning to british television (Score:2)
My all time british favorite "the secret life of machines" has been off the air for years here (and isn't avaliable on videotape to my knowledge). It even won a cable ace award.
This isn't to say I'm immune from the lure of futurama, simpsons, UCB, voyager and earth final conflict (althugh some have been sucking latley:).
Re:Right-on (Score:1)
Not everyone who uses the term "bible-thumping" is an atheist. Nor does every atheist have an ego... nor did my prior post suggest that I did. If you are under the impression that every atheist has an ego, it's probably because whenever there are two sides to an opinion, you generally hear from the most narrow sighted, and egoistic people from each side. Those who inhabit the middle ground can usually be found on /.
Not every hardworking, honest person on the planet can afford a real house.True, and not every person who lives in a mobile home is "trailer-trash" either. (oh, I guess you already said that) We're talking in stereotypes and generalities here, not in absolutes. Do you think that television ratings care about individual people? They only care about statistics, and stereotypes.
Anyway, accusations aside, let's get back to the topic, which is something to do with violence and trash on television. It's no secret that television is more and more trying to align itself with the lowest common denominator of viewer. Whether you believe these viewers to be "atheistic apartment trash", or "bible-thumping trailer trash", the fact is that this demographic group controls what we get to see on television, simply because they watch the most TV.
Perhaps the real issue is that most of us consider watching television to be a waste of time. That means the only time we bother watching TV is when we want to waste time - meaning television only gives us more time-wasting choices.
Sorry if you're upset, and I apologize if you feel I've offended you. Hopefully we can put personal issues aside and get back to the original topic.
CBC's take (Score:2)
--
Re:Americans turning to british television (Score:2)
However, I have to agree with the original poster, as well as OmegaDan, that British TV, no matter how "evil" and "unamerican" it appears, pumps out far better quality programs than the likes of Fox. This is not to say that there aren't good shows on n.american TV, but in... quantity over quality ya know?
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:1)
Re:Right-on New Media (Score:2)
Re:the MPAA (Score:2)
Moderators... get a clue.
The "we" in your sentence, Anonymous Coward, would have to be _everybody_. If the "we" means the slashdot community, etc, but not the vast majority of voters, as well as the politicians themselves, then all we do is marginalize ourselves. We can't demonstrate what the media get wrong to population at large if we don't pay at least some attention to what they are saying. I personally see very few movies and don't watch a whole lot of television, but I find it educational and informative to see what's out there. It's interesting and useful to know about the Survivor or Millionaire phenomena, but actually watching them is unnecessary (as well as tedious beyond belief, IMO).
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:2)
But the problem is not that there are too many channels, it's that audiences aren't discriminating enough. Too much emphasis choice-wise is placed on the subconsious fear that someone will be in a social situation where the last episode of "Ally McBeal" is discussed, and not having seen it, they'll be "not cool". So people watch it, no matter how bad it is, commercial revenue happens, and that gives the show a reason to survive. In other words, the Darwinistic "free market principles" are broken here somehow. In my opinion, it's merely an education problem. The American consumer has NOT been educated to be discriminating. I think that's partially a problem of government complicity (because the government educates us, right?) and partially because being a discriminating consumer is no longer a necessary survival trait in the current economic climate. Things are SO good here, that it's okay to get ripped off a few times. Especially in the consumption of entertainment.
The generation that came from the Great Depression had to learn to look out for scams and poor value. This generation has to look out for the latest fad. They're more afraid of being culturally "out" (not cool) than of making a bad purchasing decision and getting financially raped.
Re:Americans turning to british television (Score:2)
I'm almost *done* with the Simpsons. They made the joke a few episodes ago that TV shows that have "run their course" and who have writers that are tired of cranking out the same material over and over should just end, and be put out of their misery (I think it was at the retirement of Crusty the Clown). Now, Futurama is still relatively fresh. Voyager got stale after 3 episodes. X-Files is a walking zombie this season, and I was pleasantly suprised when I watched the Lone Gunmen last night - it sucked. Hooray, I can finally get my Sunday nights back! Maybe I'll read. Or take up posting to
Re:Right-on (Score:2)
Around the time of the Great Depression, the term "liberal" was a dirty word, because lots of people were blaming the liberals, that is, pro-industry people, on causing the depression, and the labor and environmental, and financial abuses of the "robber barons" and super-rich. (whether that was true or not, I don't want to get into that - there were likely many causes to the Depression that acted in concert, and all played a role in lengthening and deepening the Depression).
It kind of makes me barf, how the sound principles of strong regulation of certain aspects of business have been slapped with the label of "liberal". Where the fuck did that come from? Pro-industry republicans trying to avoid that label themselves. What does "conservative" mean anyway? That they are into "conservation"? Bah!
And as far as abandoning Darwinistic principals, Evolution is a property of NATURE. Man may be a result of that process, but is no longer a part of it, because we have changed out environment to suit ourselves, rather than adapting to our environment. Otherwise, all you people out there who have glasses, contact lenses or laser surgery, immediately sterilize yourselves, no sense in polluting the gene pool with defective traits!
Re:Two comments (Score:2)
CNN ceased being that a long time ago. Between sports (WTF? I want to watch news, if you want sports, go fukin watch ESPN for fuck's sake!) - and Jeannie Moos (love that bitch, but really, is it NEWS? stop wasting my time!), and nearly nonstop commercials, you can't just tune into CNN and watch 10 minutes and get any useful information anymore. For that matter, they could omit the weather too, people can go watch the Weather Channel for that. Why doesn't anyone do JUST NEWS anymore?
That is why I get my news from Yahoo, and
Re:What they won't show, perhaps ever... (Score:2)
A laff-a-minute.
And Arnold's considering running for Gov. of California.
Re:I didn't know Nazi's read Slashdot, too... (Score:2)
Re:Right-on (Score:2)
Re:Americans turning to british television (Score:2)
Re:American Television - Killed by commerce (Score:2)
Thinking British people pay stupid taxes for lousy service isn't xenophobic. It's taxophobic, perhaps, but not xenophobic.
To be xenophobic, I'd have to hate and/or fear British people. I don't have any opinions about British people as a whole.
What I do hate and fear is people who think we should institute things in this country just because they've been tried in the UK and not been proven to actually kill anybody.
British TV may be highly regarded in many countries with even worse TV, but in the US, it's regarded as just one more bit of proof that government doesn't do anything well, and should be relied upon to do only those things that can't be done by anything else but a government.
The thought pattern that says "if the government can do something, and pay for it by taking my money away at gunpoint, they should do it" is exactly why we threw them out. That's a fact, regardless of some idiot thinking it was a troll.
I've seen quite a lot of British TV. I even like some shows, such as Monty Python, Benny Hill, Dr. Who, Blake's Seven, AbFab, etc. But I would not consider it a positive change in my life if my 50-some-odd channels of cable disappeared and were replaced by 15 channels of the sort of drek the Queen's subjects are exposed to on a daily basis, and charged for whether they like it or not.
I'd far rather watch a few commercials in return for Star Trek, Stargate SG-1, Andromeda, Saturday Night Live, Letterman, Dexter's Lab, etc.
Hell, if we only had 15 channels like this presumptuous Brit wishes to hand us from on high, would we have a CNN? A CSPAN? A Sci-Fi Channel? Cartoon Network? The fricken' Food Channel?
No thanks, Lizzy; keep your government monopoly, we'll pull the half a dozen good shows out of the morass and run 'em on PBS from time to time.
-