Was Transformer's the first major cartoon to actually have major characters die? It seemed like there was another cartoon where some died.

I thought this thread was about recipes.

Probably Jonny Quest.

What's happening in television in terms of explicit material is a two-tiered model (think of intersecting graph lines) where violence and graphic images are becoming more and more acceptable and prolific, while sexual situations, nudity, and coarse language, are being puritanized out. Watching television in the 60s and 70s, one would have thought the trends would have been reversed, but alas, some angry, unintentionally celibate Christians rose to places of power in the Committee of Standards and Practices and the FCC, and now killing is acceptable, just like in the Old Testament of everyone's favorite fictional tome.

But this isn't what this thread is about huh.

I guess you're filling in for Corky while he's gone.

I'm wondering exactly which shows from the 60's-80's that you and Fatboy are referring to. Broadcast TV in those days never did have graphic sexual situations, nudity or coarse language, so it's not like anything's been lost.

The only real and ongoing trend in broadcast network television is following the path of least resistance. Every envelope that can be pushed is pushed better, farther and more easily by cable networks, pay channels, film and the internet. Broadcast TV isn't embracing mediocre and unchallenging crap because of the religious right, but because it's given up.

I said that you would have thought the trend "would have been." Many shows from that era were pushing the envelope in terms of sexuality, seemingly getting away with slightly more each successive year. The sixties was the era of the sexual revolution, and as such, pop culture reflected that social idea. I'm just saying that if the trend had continued on its path, we would now have naked women on t.v.



Broadcast television is a business. It's a federally regulated business. So to say that it has "given up" makes no sense at all. If there's an opportunity to attract a wider audience through nudity and foul language, the executives would jump at it in a second.

It has given up in the sense that writers and producers looking for more creative freedom are looking outside broadcast TV, and networks are responding by scheduling more crap.

David Milch certainly couldn't have done Deadwood as it's being done on HBO. Larry David didn't go back to NBC after Seinfeld. Even a broadcast hit like Desperate Housewives was pitched to cable first.



The 12-year success of NYPD Blue proved that almost-nudity and coarser language than any other network show wasn't a detriment. But it was a success that led to no success for the networks, because within those 12 years other avenues opened to creators looking to do mature work.

Look, if you can point to any show that has either been driven off the air or radically altered its content due to the tactics of Donald Wildmon and his ilk, then I'll concede the point. But till then I just can't take the whole argument that the moral majority is affecting our airwaves very seriously.

Why is it then that writers and producers are looking elsewhere to explore their creative freedoms? Does cable pay these people more money?

Are people hired by network television incapable of writing racy, mature content?

I think you're discounting the role and effectiveness of the FCC in television and media.

Also, using a name like Donald Wildmon only reinforces your opinion by making my side of the coin look ludicrous. I don't think you could pinpoint the general conservatisation of nudity and language in television and credit it to one over zealous minister.

That's why the FCC fines broadcasters.

Radio station giant Clear Channel Communications Inc. said on Wednesday it was dumping nationally syndicated shock jock Howard Stern from its stations under a new ``zero tolerance'' policy toward indecency.



So you see, this isn't really gonna happen anymore.

So do I. You want a fucking medal?



All in the Family got away with "goddammit" because they had Archie go outrageously out of his way to show that it was made up of three words that were all acceptable. MASH had some free rein due to subject matter and, obviously, success. "Bitch" and "bastard" ultimately became commonplace (and still are) because while they may be derogatory, they're not really profanity. But if "goddammit" appeared on another show in the 70's or 80's, I'd sure like to know what it was.

No offense, dude, but don't just spout off with generalities. Name these programs. I don't think you can. I'll even make it easier -- name something that was popular enough to make it to DVD.



Yet Fox brought Family Guy BACK to network TV because it was so popular. You say the ass was blurred out because they're nervous; I say it was blurred out because including the "uncensored" scene in the DVD box set will help it to sell better. Either way it made immediate news and brought more attention to the show, which I'm not convinced was an accident.

Your point about advertising dollars is dead on. But that has more to do with advertisers blindly buying time because they're assured that network shows will comfortably meet certain outlined standards, as well as providing the audience they want to reach. It has much, much more to do with money than morality.

I'm skimming over this because I don't really have the time to write a thesis right now. The larger issue is that the government is far less influenced by the religious right than it would seem. In fact, the GOP has done an excellent job of turning it around the other way.

EDIT: another point worth considering (that I forgot to work in there somewhere) is that if you stop to think about it, you'll realize that there aren't terribly many shows espousing a straight Christian philosophy; in fact, offhand I can't think of ANY, though I'm sure there must be one or two. If the Christian audience were as influential as some think, undoubtedly there would be a quite a few more. Problem is, piety and purity don't really sell detergent either.

I recently bought Chappelle Show Season 2 on DVD. Using your logic as with Family Guy, then please explain why most of the bare breasts are still blurred out on this "Uncensored" DVD? Certainly Comedy Central blurred them out first. Wouldn't it made the same sense to release the DVD with non-blurred breasts to help it sell better?

I happen to be friends with one of the animators of Family Guy (I'll take a second fucking medal thanks) and I know for a fact that Seth and Co. was under constant pressure from the Censors. What you see on the DVDs is even toned way down from their initial animations.

I'm not going to give you a list of all these television shows, because I have not the time to scour the internet and memory lane for every piece of lascivious innuendo which comes to mind, and because you keep dodging the issue that these are trends which should have evolved into something more liberal than what they are today.

Also, if it's all about money, and breasts sell, then why the hell aren't we seeing more breasts on network television? Since the FCC and government regulations are a big fucking conspiratorial myth, where does the real answer lie?

Nah, you're remembering wrong. Didn't happen. Sorry. You would really have to pull up a video clip to prove that to me, and I don't think you're going to find one. Moonlighting just hit DVD, feel free to check it out.

I hate to pussy out, but I really do have to go. I'll try to catch up with this later.

I just want to make it clear that I am talking about sexuality, nudity, and profanity dealing with sexual connotations, rather than more neutral, explicative curses like "Bitch" and "Damn" and "Shit".

MF MANDATE 4-23:

All Stacy threads shall be derailed into nonsequitors or anti-Stacy gangbangs.

How the hell am I supposed to hit 1000 posts tonight?

Come on people!