|One Bread, One Body - Catholic A forum open to Christians to discuss various Catholic beliefs and issues. |
| || |
6th February 2011, 02:25 PM
| | Originally Posted by Blackwater Babe
I pretty plainly stated back in the early thread that I think it is one of the best written shows I've seen on TV. Ever.
I don't know that I would say its important to me, per se, but it does bother me to see people waxing all holier than thou over something I know doesn't deserve it, and when they havn't even watched it.
I mean, if someone who has WATCHED the show decides to condemn it for whatever reason, at least they have a reasonably informed position to do so from. But condemning something unseen based on nothing more than the network that carries it? How... subjective.
lol, you think skins is the best show ever? Its sucks bad!
6th February 2011, 04:54 PM
| || |
Manipulation Resistance Team
| || |
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Reps: 2,582,173,197,540,961,792 (power: 2,582,173,197,541,054)
Skins: Encouraging Banality? – UPDATED
There is a headline out there
indicating that MTV’s controversial new series, “Skins” may be “in danger” of being canceled
MTV’s controversial drama “Skins” is losing advertisers faster than some of its characters lose their clothes.
As FOX411 reported, Taco Bell was the first sponsor to withdraw advertising from “Skins,” quickly followed by Wrigley, Subway, Foot Locker, L’Oreal and Shick. General Motors and H&R Block both issued statements explaining that their ads were aired during the premiere by mistake and would have no further association with the show.
Lacking a stable of advertisers to sponsor the show, “Skins” could reportedly lose MTV up to $2 million per episode.
Oh, my. What will
the world do without another insipid television program glorifying the culture of youth gone rudderless? Santiago Ramos has a good take on the show
and the pathetic mindset it betrays:
There is an undercurrent of boredom and docility in our culture that makes a show like Skins possible. . . . The dreary pilot episode of Skins places a lowlife, ugly kid named Tony on a quest for marijuana and an end to his sexual virginity. It also features a McMansion house where rich kids make fun of slightly richer kids and someone tracks mud onto an expensive European rug. A girl overdoses, but then she’s fine . . .Well, I suspect for one thing
What if I were to say to MTV: Why can’t your characters discuss Dostoyevsky, or Balzac, or Jonathan Franzen? Why couldn’t a 16-year-old student decry the excesses of his affluent suburban life and begin a Das Kapital afterschool reading group . . . only to have his father lose his job at the law firm, and be forced to work at Walmart, wherein he meets a blue-collar Republican and has a political rebirth? Why couldn’t twin brothers debate the existence of God, one become a Benedictine monk and the other a Buddhist, and start a family feud during the next Thanksgiving . . . only to join forces against the drab materialism of their parents? “But it’s not what teens are doing, it wouldn’t be realistic.”
What if I started demanding—or at least desiring, desiring loudly—more interesting stories?
, that might be a challenge for the girls on “The View”
who seem to have difficulty processing anything that resides outside their worldviews, or even of making not-subtle distinctions:
Joy Behar wanted to know what the distinction was between “grown-ups,” HBO viewers, and “young people,” MTV viewers, when it comes to certain sexual activities.
“I think it’s because it’s MTV, because on HBO as you pointed out, I believe ‘Oz’ was on there and they’re all doing some crazy stuff … and ‘Sex in the City’ was on HBO,” Behar said. “What’s the difference if you’re watching all these grown-ups talking about all of these — anal sex, etc., or young people? What’s the difference?”
No wonder the SOTU was dumbed down
A reminder that the medium is the message Skins: Encouraging Banality? – UPDATED
- Fr. Gregory Jensen
The more I follow the online discussions ... the more I follow the debates and disagreements in the Church about administrative unity, or the concerns expressed about the moral or personal or administrative or leadership failings of the bishops or the clergy, the more I become convinced that whatever might be the truth of these concerns, ALL of this is simply a distraction. No, it’s more than that. It’s a justification, an excuse, for not helping each other and those outside the Church fall in love with Jesus Christ. How easy it is to talk about everything, but about Jesus hardly at all.
| || |
| || |