Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before I post, I want to say while it may sound like I entirely disagree, I don't. I just don't fully agree and have a different view point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Speaking of music..... take Elvis for example. The sexualised songs he sang and the movements he made on stage were often times considered very controversial. Today, no one would even bat an eye because they would be considered tame by todays standards. Compare him to someone like Beyonce, who is often very sexually provocative in her songs and music videos.... In Elvis' time someone like Beyonce would have sent the masses through the roof. Clear cut example of how pop culture changes the way we think about certain issues like sex and violence, and desensitizes us to more extreme depictions of it.
Elvis was doing what black America did too just they weren't televised. Many of the early rock (Elvis, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, et all) were black musicians but were actually white (or like Little Richard not black enough to cause issues with white America.) Elvis was banned from being shown waist down for pelvic thrusts, nowadays that is minor because that wall was broken already and we heard enough people complain about that idocracy of the tame motions compared to today's twerking.
Beyonce's videos are no worse than Madonna and Lady Gaga (both of whom have been raked over the coals for it and somewhat rightfully so.) What I laugh at is when say Nelly's Tip Drill video causing a stink in the pre-YouTube world where it was shown on BET's late night unncensored video show that was on at 1/2 AM yet people complained about like it was shown in regular MTV rotation (something it wasn't.) I guess it was the social panic before rainbow parties.
Quote:
Except there is one big problem with your analysis here; the criteria for what gets rated PG13, TV14, or R changes. It isn't a static set of standards, and it changes and evolves according to what we as a society consider "acceptable" over time. Something that was rated R thirty years ago might be rated PG13 by todays standards of rating. Yet more proof of how more and more exposure to obscene material influences us as a society to be more socially accpeting of it as normal.
The MMPA is screwed up and the ratings change from movie to movie with no set criteria on why one movie is PG nnot PG-13 or PG-13 instead of R. This Film Is Not Yet Rated shows what the problems between the context of why a film gets a PG-13 vs an R.
A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health has found that a decade of ''ratings creep'' has allowed more violent and sexually explicit content into films, suggesting that movie raters have grown more lenient in their standards
The study, which was issued on Tuesday, quantified what children's advocates and critics of the ratings system have said anecdotally for years: that a movie rated PG or PG-13 today has more sexual or violent content than a similarly rated movie in the past
''The M.P.A.A. appears to tolerate increasingly more extreme content in any given age-based rating category over time,''
But he and others pointed out that the standards for judging acceptable depictions of sex and violence in American society were constantly changing, and that it would not be surprising if that changed for movie ratings as well
The study of 1,906 feature films between 1992 and 2003 found more violence and sex in PG movies (''Parental guidance suggested'') and more of those elements and profanity in PG-13 movies (''Parents strongly cautioned''). It also found more sex and profanity in R-rated movies (''Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian'') than a decade ago
''When you look at the average, today's PG-13 movies are approaching what the R movies looked like in 1992,'' said Kimberly Thompson, associate professor of risk analysis and decision science at Harvard's School of Public Health, who was a co-author of the study. ''Today's PG is approaching what PG-13 looked like a decade ago.''
I'd suggest reading the entire article, but these snippets convey the gist of it.....
And yet what is G could be PG from 1984 as well. I mean fart jokes are now in G movies.
I saw clips of This Film Is Not Yet Rated and there is a bit of roll back. Some from the clips I've seen said that the movies we see now are in fact more tame (in some ways) than the R's that we saw in say 1970 like say depictions of sex. That and gay scenes (or even with a transgender in the case with Boys Don't Cry) are rated higher than straight films with the same exact content.
That and also PG-13 was only added due to movies like Gremlins, Poltergeist and Temple Of Doom being considered for an R rating (Temple for it's occult ties with the Thuggies, Poltergeist again for occult ties and Gremlins for violence) by "concerned parents" (I am not sure if they were or weren't like the PMRC.)
Quote:
Exactly..... With each release, the enveloope was pushed further and further, and each one got worse and worse. GTA isn't fit for any decent person to play imo { and yes, I've played it and now my younger broother plays it constantly so I know what I'm talking about }
The fact that we can not seperate ourselves from what we consider entertainment is an undeniable fact.
Part of the issue with comparing game play is what it was done like in GTA, GTA Brittan and GTA2. Those versions had limited audio and was more subtitles because sound was rather rare on Playstation at that time. By the time GTA3 came out (the one that led to Vice City, San Andreas) graphics improved due to PS2 and Xbox. By watching game play of the original, it was indeed as violent (at the time) as the current ones are. Lots of blood, flaming people, running over and hit and runs even in 1998/9 video games. The main difference was that curse words were not really picked up on the audio.
Last edited by mkpunk; 06-01-2014 at 04:49 PM..
Reason: Disclaimer
Elvis was banned from being shown waist down for pelvic thrusts,.
Exactly..... Something as minor as pelvic thrusts was considered too provocative to be shown in the mainstream back then. Just goes to show how what we consider "acceptable" has changed in just a few short decades. That is due in no small part, to the fact that the entetrtainment industry continuously pushes the boundaries every time new limits on what is accpetable and what is not are set. The more we are exposed to it, the more we as a people are willing to accept.
Quote:
Beyonce's videos are no worse than Madonna and Lady Gaga (both of whom have been raked over the coals for it and somewhat rightfully so.)
I merely used Beyonce as one example. Insert the name of pretty much any of todays artists and it's the same thing. Todays artists have the opportunity { and some might say the obligation } to be postive role models and provide a good influence. That isn't occuring, and the ones who are positive role models are chastised as being "goody two shoes" etc, and that is because we have become acustomed to vulgarity and obscenity from our celebrities as a society.
Quote:
The MMPA is screwed up and the ratings change from movie to movie with no set criteria on why one movie is PG nnot PG-13 or PG-13 instead of R. This Film Is Not Yet Rated shows what the problems between the context of why a film gets a PG-13 vs an R.
It's true that two movies with the same content might be rated differently. That is due in part to the fact that there is no one body that rates everything with set standards written in stone. That only compounds the problem. However it's obvious that ratings in general are far looser than they used to be, and that is because ratings are a reflection of what we as a society find acceptable for certain age groups. As our opinoons on what is acceptable and what is not become more lax, so too will the ratings. For example, a movie that is rated PG13 10 years ago might be rated G today.
Quote:
And yet what is G could be PG from 1984 as well.
Exactly.
Quote:
I saw clips of This Film Is Not Yet Rated and there is a bit of roll back. Some from the clips I've seen said that the movies we see now are in fact more tame (in some ways) than the R's that we saw in say 1970 like say depictions of sex. That and gay scenes (or even with a transgender in the case with Boys Don't Cry) are rated higher than straight films with the same exact content.
That is because homosexual content was pretty controversial years ago. Gay issues in pop culture is another perfect example of how our entertainment influences how we think about things in real life. If a gay couple would have been depicted in a movie or TV show fifty years ago, it would have raised a lot of eyebrows. Today, it's just second nature. We don't even think twice about it and TV and movies are inundated with gay couples and issues. The more it was depicted, the more accepting we have become of it. Also, gay people are far more accepted in todays culture than they were fifty years ago. Coincidence? I don't think so.
{ not that that is a bad thing, don't construe my words to be anti-gay.... I think it's great that gay people are free { er } today than they have ever been throughout history. Media also has the power to have a positive influence, not just a negative }
Quote:
Part of the issue with comparing game play is what it was done like in GTA, GTA Brittan and GTA2. Those versions had limited audio and was more subtitles because sound was rather rare on Playstation at that time. By the time GTA3 came out (the one that led to Vice City, San Andreas) graphics improved due to PS2 and Xbox. By watching game play of the original, it was indeed as violent (at the time) as the current ones are. Lots of blood, flaming people, running over and hit and runs even in 1998/9 video games. The main difference was that curse words were not really picked up on the audio.
You're thinking about it in too short of a time frame. Sure the original GTA was violent, just like the latest release, GTA5 is violent too. But, what are we talking here? A span of ten years or so? Put it this way, games have become a lot more violent and sexual since the days of Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog.
I suppose a fair question would be, does our entertainment really influence us? Or is it our changing attitudes on sex and violence that influence our entertainment?
The answer is.... both. One influence can not exist without the other. It's a cycle. The more wee see it, the more we accept it, and the more we accept it, the more we see it.
Exactly..... Something as minor as pelvic thrusts was considered too provocative to be shown in the mainstream back then. Just goes to show how what we consider "acceptable" has changed in just a few short decades. That is due in no small part, to the fact that the entetrtainment industry continuously pushes the boundaries every time new limits on what is accpetable and what is not are set. The more we are exposed to it, the more we as a people are willing to accept.
As I mentioned with shock rock, when you didn't see KISS or Alice Cooper on television like say The Muppet Show, you only knew that Alice decapitated himself and killed chickens and Gene spat blood. Now you find video online the exact minute that Solonge gets in an elevator fight with brother in law Jay-Z. The world has changed so now the legend of Alice killing the chicken rather than people in wheelchairs at the foot of the stage doing it wouldn't last. The same issue happens with pro wrestlers. I knew one who was a monster but was really a gentle giant who smoked pot to deal with bumps. Another who is now a deranged trucker, I met when he was a well spoken relatively young wrestler. Now we know their personal lives so we may not believe they are truly monsters compared to King Diamond who played up living in coffins and not using electricity because he is a "satanist."
Quote:
I merely used Beyonce as one example. Insert the name of pretty much any of todays artists and it's the same thing. Todays artists have the opportunity { and some might say the obligation } to be postive role models and provide a good influence. That isn't occuring, and the ones who are positive role models are chastised as being "goody two shoes" etc, and that is because we have become acustomed to vulgarity and obscenity from our celebrities as a society.
I can see that besides Demi Lovato who is level headed (albeit after kicking personal issues including (but not limited to) self harm, drug and alcohol addiction and bulimia.) I'll agree that most of today's "role models" are not true role models (though that can be an effect of finding out about Jay-Z's fight with Solonge within seconds and how everyone has a voice as well because of the internet.)
Quote:
It's true that two movies with the same content might be rated differently. That is due in part to the fact that there is no one body that rates everything with set standards written in stone. That only compounds the problem. However it's obvious that ratings in general are far looser than they used to be, and that is because ratings are a reflection of what we as a society find acceptable for certain age groups. As our opinoons on what is acceptable and what is not become more lax, so too will the ratings. For example, a movie that is rated PG13 10 years ago might be rated G today.
I don't think PG13 would goto G, Maybe just PG. 20 years from now, I'll agree with you because I can imagine that even saying hell would be permissible. Take for example G violence wise, it is cartoon violence. You watch say Home Alone, Home Alone 2, the violence is cartoony despite being in real life and the villains (those who have the violence brought to them) was PG but yet say Avengers which is comic booky with heroes who do not get hurt in traditional ways is PG13 (granted depending on the movie it is a bit bloodier and a little more foul languaged.)
I've seen 1970's and 1980's Rs (pre PG-13) and some would be PG-13 by default, some would stay R. I would say movies like Animal House, National Lampoon's Vacation, Kentucky Fried Movie would infact stay R to today while say Caddyshack would likely be PG-13. I look at Girl Next Door as the theatrical cut and I can say that would infact be similar to Animal House in content (though instead of weed, it is ecstasy that is the illegal drug of choice.) Casino is a movie that could be NC-17 in certain ways rather than R if you really think about every thing that happens (VERY gory scenes, nudity, a few sex scenes, LOTS of drug use, LOTS of foul language.)
Quote:
That is because homosexual content was pretty controversial years ago. Gay issues in pop culture is another perfect example of how our entertainment influences how we think about things in real life. If a gay couple would have been depicted in a movie or TV show fifty years ago, it would have raised a lot of eyebrows. Today, it's just second nature. We don't even think twice about it and TV and movies are inundated with gay couples and issues. The more it was depicted, the more accepting we have become of it. Also, gay people are far more accepted in todays culture than they were fifty years ago. Coincidence? I don't think so.
{ not that that is a bad thing, don't construe my words to be anti-gay.... I think it's great that gay people are free { er } today than they have ever been throughout history. Media also has the power to have a positive influence, not just a negative }
I remember that before I Love Lucy, pregnancy was a no-no on TV, sleeping in the same bed, forget about it. In Brady Bunch, you HAD to wear full pajamas, now you can see negligee or even less on prime time and the soaps. I watched some soaps with my aunt during summer or when I was home sick from school an at the time they weren't TOO bad but they have gotten worse as I've gotten older. Movies have been virtually the same besides being more "position-ally free" during sex scenes.
Before Real World, I don't think there was real gay imagery on television and besides woman-on-woman, it really isn't today except say Logo or MTV shows. Movie wise is a bit different. Midnight Cowboy I think was the largest scale homosexual movie up until Brokeback Mountain (though I've seen But I'm A Cheerleader and Boys Don't Cry which came before it though not as widely released.) It is going faster than television but still it is slow.
Quote:
You're thinking about it in too short of a time frame. Sure the original GTA was violent, just like the latest release, GTA5 is violent too. But, what are we talking here? A span of ten years or so? Put it this way, games have become a lot more violent and sexual since the days of Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog.
I had the original NES and there was gambling games on there such as Vegas Dream where you could play keno, slots, blackjack, and roulette. This game had assumed drug use (cigarette and drinking) injuries (falling down the stairs based on some answers to women asking you to marry them or "accompanying them" as well as thefts.) I played that game at 4/5 with my gambling addict uncle. And this was pre ERSB ratings. There was another poker game that was similar that was unrated. There was also the Mortal Kombats and that too that were the start of violent video games in the modern era. My mother got my brother (14 at the time) and I (11 at the time) the South Park game which was M but she watched the show with us so she knew there was language issues. The language was the reason it was M rated, violence it was no different than Golden Eye and if anything because it was cartoony, I would say it was less violent than Golden Eye was.
If people think video games weren't always violent, I guess people didn't play Operation Wolf where while there wasn't blood, you had to shoot enemy army infantry and helicopters and could end up mortally wounded or in a prison camp. Not every game was Donkey Kong, Mario Brothers, Mario Kart or Sonic back in the day, they just weren't as popular as tastes changed to keep up with movies, music and tv.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
I suppose a fair question would be, does our entertainment really influence us? Or is it our changing attitudes on sex and violence that influence our entertainment?
The answer is.... both. One influence can not exist without the other. It's a cycle. The more wee see it, the more we accept it, and the more we accept it, the more we see it.
I would have to agree. It's a what came first, the chicken or the egg situation.
Every country, like the US, has it's mentally ill people. The problem with America is that people who are known to be mentally ill, can exercise their second amendment rights and buy several handguns and several hundred rounds of ammunition quite legally, and then try to massacre as many people as possible.
Will anything change after these killings, probably not, lunatics will still be able to go to their local gun store arm themselves to the teeth, quite legally of course, and then go murder some more innocent people. It's perverse.
If people think video games weren't always violent, I guess people didn't play Operation Wolf where while there wasn't blood, you had to shoot enemy army infantry and helicopters and could end up mortally wounded or in a prison camp. Not every game was Donkey Kong, Mario Brothers, Mario Kart or Sonic back in the day, they just weren't as popular as tastes changed to keep up with movies, music and tv.
.
Also, don't forget that video games are fairly new when compared in the context of say, movies and TV. When did the Atari come out? In the 70's? Movies and TV have been around quite a while longer.
So, video games started out in a time where, already, more violence was accepted in the mainstream. It makes sense that video games would be at least somewhat be violent from the start,
When I can play a video game where I can stage random mass shootings, pick up hookers, go in to strip clubs and get a lap dance, get drunk, etc. I can only conclude there is something seriously amiss with what we consider entertainment.
{ I'd also add that I don't consider some types of depictions to actually be "violent"...... Take for example, a game I've been playing lately. It's a game about WWII where you fly a plane and shoot down enemy fighters. Is that violent? Technically, yes, but the problem is with the more obscene and wonton depictions of violence, not with Donkey Kong thumping Diddy Kong on the head }
Every country, like the US, has it's mentally ill people. The problem with America is that people who are known to be mentally ill, can exercise their second amendment rights and buy several handguns and several hundred rounds of ammunition quite legally, and then try to massacre as many people as possible.
Will anything change after these killings, probably not, lunatics will still be able to go to their local gun store arm themselves to the teeth, quite legally of course, and then go murder some more innocent people. It's perverse.
Perhaps we should blame the knife industry as well seeing as he stabbed three people to death. We need to tighten restrictions on cars as well because he injured a few people with his car.
Those arguments are every bit as valid as the argument to tighten gun restrictions.
I do tend to agree that we need to find better ways of dealing with the mentally ill. The problem is, laws get in the way, etc. The fact that we let mentally ill people make their own decisions as far as taking medication, getting counseling, etc. is absurd. Why not leave a todler babysit himself? The fact that parent's, family, and freinds can play no part in dealing with an adult who is mentally ill needs to change. Blame that on the Left, who insist that the privacy and rights of the mentally ill are more important than the general welfare and safety of the rest of us. You might also be interested to know that the NRA has fought for over twenty years to get the names of those who have been deemed mentally ill in to the background check data base, but again, their privacy is more important than keeping them from getting a gun I guess.
People shout for more restrictions on guns after this happened, but they don't seem to realise this took place in one of the most anti-second amendment states in the Union. Restrictions are already tight, and except for banning guns completely, there are no gun laws that would have stopped this maniac.
The problem is far more complex than easy access to guns. You can take the gun away, but you're only curing the symptom, not the disease. Take the gun away and you've still got a bunch of mental defectives roaming around out there.
Also, don't forget that video games are fairly new when compared in the context of say, movies and TV. When did the Atari come out? In the 70's? Movies and TV have been around quite a while longer.
So, video games started out in a time where, already, more violence was accepted in the mainstream. It makes sense that video games would be at least somewhat be violent from the start,
When I can play a video game where I can stage random mass shootings, pick up hookers, go in to strip clubs and get a lap dance, get drunk, etc. I can only conclude there is something seriously amiss with what we consider entertainment.
{ I'd also add that I don't consider some types of depictions to actually be "violent"...... Take for example, a game I've been playing lately. It's a game about WWII where you fly a plane and shoot down enemy fighters. Is that violent? Technically, yes, but the problem is with the more obscene and wonton depictions of violence, not with Donkey Kong thumping Diddy Kong on the head }
I haven't played video games all too much lately other than sports (including UFC pro wrestling) and the Call of Duties. The pro wrestling games are the most violent of anything and that is only because of the use of weapons including ladders, tables, folding chairs, baseball bats, 2x4 and the ability to light tables and 2x4s on fire. UFC is violent due to the knockouts. Call of Duty is violent with the aspects of war, zombies, aliens, etc. None of these are the cartoony Mario _____ style games that you would never see anytype of shell used to stun an opponent.
The problem with your analysis, is that you are thinking about the situation on too small a scale. You are thinking about the effects of violence-as-entertainment in the individual sense, when you should be thinking about them in the collective sense. Sure, someone who grew up in an environment where viiolence is thought to be a bad thing, an abnormal thing, will not be swayed by watching a couple violent movies. BUT, when we grow up in an environment where things like violence and casual sex are viewed as entertainment as we do today, over time that effects how a generation percieve violence in the real world.
No, I'm thinking correctly. Do you think violence outside of film is viewed as entertainment by the majority of society? I don't think so. Violence in films is entirely different. As for sex, I see no correlation between that and violence. How do you account for Europe? They are very open in their sexuality yet the rate of violence over there appears to be nothing compared to this country. I reiterate my stance that if you're a stable logical person, violence in movies will not cause you to break out your weapon & start murdering people.
Perhaps we should blame the knife industry as well seeing as he stabbed three people to death. We need to tighten restrictions on cars as well because he injured a few people with his car.
Those arguments are every bit as valid as the argument to tighten gun restrictions.
That argument is old. If there were even close to the rate of deaths with knives as with guns, maybe you'd have something to stand on but as it is, no. As for cars, there are already safety standards in the auto industry. I see no one complaining about that but bring up gun safety or stricter gun control & all hell breaks loose. It's really very odd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that parent's, family, and freinds can play no part in dealing with an adult who is mentally ill needs to change. Blame that on the Left, who insist that the privacy and rights of the mentally ill are more important than the general welfare and safety of the rest of us. You might also be interested to know that the NRA has fought for over twenty years to get the names of those who have been deemed mentally ill in to the background check data base, but again, their privacy is more important than keeping them from getting a gun I guess.
