Canceled and Renewed Shows.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

Realistic answer: The Janet Jackson law...lol. Broadcast channels are ruled by the religious right (you know that's true).

Fox is the same Fox as Fox News, which is as far right as you can get, but they have some of the raunchiest shows on network TV. NBC is affiliated with MSNBC which about as left as you'll get. I think there's a lot of holes in your argument.

America is just uptight and overly PC and it has nothing to do religion. They try to please everyone and they end up not pleasing hardly anyone. Network TV is not okay with nudity and strong cursing because of the old presumption that it's free, so they need to assume small children can freely access it with no parental guidance. Cable allows naughtiness because the fact you pay for it seems to inherently imply that adults (those paying for it) are monitoring the watching. Ha! Yeah, right. It's an outdated model, but it's yet another example of America trying to desperately hold on to some sort of morals in the face of declining parental control.

[stanger89]

That argument (censorship being the cause of poor quality TV) also assumes that shows have to be "adult" to be good and have good viewership. I don't agree with that at all. Some of the best shows out there could air just fine on network TV.

I think the real problem is the networks are just too conservative (not in the right or left meaning), they find a template that works, and then they run it into the ground with clones and stepchildren (CSI anyone?), while other times they do try something and when it doesn't meet their expectations right away they kill it with out letting it live to see how it goes.

I think the biggest difference between pay (cable) and free (broadcast) TV is viewership. Network/broadcast TV expects huge viewership numbers to satisfy their advertisers so they dumb everything down to "appeal" to the widest audience, and they cower close to their prized golden children which are "known quantities".

Cable on the other hand, being pay for and having (needing) much lower viewership can be more "experimental" and try things that the big networks would never consider.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

America is just uptight and overly PC and it has nothing to do religion. They try to please everyone and they end up not pleasing hardly anyone. Network TV is not okay with nudity and strong cursing because of the old presumption that it's free, so they need to assume small children can freely access it with no parental guidance. Cable allows naughtiness because the fact you pay for it seems to inherently imply that adults (those paying for it) are monitoring the watching. Ha! Yeah, right. It's an outdated model, but it's yet another example of America trying to desperately hold on to some sort of morals in the face of declining parental control.

While this surely isn't the only reason, I think this is a pretty accurate point. I'm not touching the parental control aspect since we'll get WAY off topic, but I will again say I agree.

Originally Posted by stanger89

That argument (censorship being the cause of poor quality TV) also assumes that shows have to be "adult" to be good and have good viewership. I don't agree with that at all. Some of the best shows out there could air just fine on network TV.

I think the real problem is the networks are just too conservative (not in the right or left meaning), they find a template that works, and then they run it into the ground with clones and stepchildren (CSI anyone?), while other times they do try something and when it doesn't meet their expectations right away they kill it with out letting it live to see how it goes.

I think the biggest difference between pay (cable) and free (broadcast) TV is viewership. Network/broadcast TV expects huge viewership numbers to satisfy their advertisers so they dumb everything down to "appeal" to the widest audience, and they cower close to their prized golden children which are "known quantities".

Cable on the other hand, being pay for and having (needing) much lower viewership can be more "experimental" and try things that the big networks would never consider.

I definitely agree with this, as well. Regarding the "adult" portion, I'd argue that the cursing, nudity, and violence in most of the shows I mentioned earlier could be lessened and/or eliminated and the shows would still be quite good. (Thankfully, I didn't mention Spartacus in that post or I wouldn't be able to say that now. ) With DVR's, the networks could put these shows on later in the evening to avoid the nonexistent parent issue and then make them a little more edgy. Let's be honest here, though, if people don't think that the reality trash on TV is doing any harm to children, then they're probably part of the aforementioned problem.

[pjpjpjpj]

FWIW, one thing that has really become less "censored" (if you want to call it that) on network TV is what I suppose could be called "gore". Not violent gore (decapitation, dismemberment, disembowelment, etc,), but showing the gory remains of the dead. It seemed to jump to a new level with all the forensics shows, where they almost necessarily need to show corpses and autopsies and such, but it's gotten to the point now where they show that on other shows. Most murder-related cop shows used to just show a dead body on the ground, maybe a pool of blood. Now they show the gaping wound, or the slit throat, or whatever. Recently I've also seen a lot of charred remains (died in a fire) in close-up detail as well.

I still recall the big deal made about the first ever butt cheek shown on network TV (sadly, the unattractive Dennis Franz in NYPD Blue). That was probably over a decade ago. I don't know that there has really been much of that since. Honestly though, other than to satisfy horny teenagers and old men, has there really been a need? Just because you think some actress is hot and she has an implied love scene with someone on a network show doesn't mean the network should be obliged to show you her naked in order to make the show "good". (not that I'd complain if they did *cough*cough*)

And of course, South Park made an effective argument about the censorship of cursing on TV when they had the "S-word" episode where they kept a running ticker in the corner. By the end, you were so used to hearing it that it wasn't even funny, shocking, or a big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Hits_the_Fan
I happened to be at the library yesterday and was a row away from a kid - probably 12? - who was sitting with an older gentleman, presumably his father. They were talking, loudly enough that I could hear them (not whispering! ), about random stuff, but the young kid was dropping the F-word continually, in casual conversation. I was very glad I did not have my 4-year-old daughter with me. Seems like too many adults don't even consider "foul" language to be an issue worth fighting anymore. Personally, while I do curse on occasion, I always remember what I was taught in a debate class in law school: if you have to use a curse word to make your point, you are showing you are too ignorant to say it in a better way.

/threadjack?

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

FWIW, one thing that has really become less "censored" (if you want to call it that) on network TV is what I suppose could be called "gore". Not violent gore (decapitation, dismemberment, disembowelment, etc,), but showing the gory remains of the dead. It seemed to jump to a new level with all the forensics shows, where they almost necessarily need to show corpses and autopsies and such, but it's gotten to the point now where they show that on other shows. Most murder-related cop shows used to just show a dead body on the ground, maybe a pool of blood. Now they show the gaping wound, or the slit throat, or whatever. Recently I've also seen a lot of charred remains (died in a fire) in close-up detail as well.

I still recall the big deal made about the first ever butt cheek shown on network TV (sadly, the unattractive Dennis Franz in NYPD Blue). That was probably over a decade ago. I don't know that there has really been much of that since. Honestly though, other than to satisfy horny teenagers and old men, has there really been a need? Just because you think some actress is hot and she has an implied love scene with someone on a network show doesn't mean the network should be obliged to show you her naked in order to make the show "good". (not that I'd complain if they did *cough*cough*)

And of course, South Park made an effective argument about the censorship of cursing on TV when they had the "S-word" episode where they kept a running ticker in the corner. By the end, you were so used to hearing it that it wasn't even funny, shocking, or a big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Hits_the_Fan
I happened to be at the library yesterday and was a row away from a kid - probably 12? - who was sitting with an older gentleman, presumably his father. They were talking, loudly enough that I could hear them (not whispering! ), about random stuff, but the young kid was dropping the F-word continually, in casual conversation. I was very glad I did not have my 4-year-old daughter with me. Seems like too many adults don't even consider "foul" language to be an issue worth fighting anymore. Personally, while I do curse on occasion, I always remember what I was taught in a debate class in law school: if you have to use a curse word to make your point, you are showing you are too ignorant to say it in a better way.

/threadjack?

I'm a sailor, so I'm afflicted with a low-grade form of tourette's anyway - but I find the concept of 'foul language' to be pointless. Words are words, they all have meanings, and a place. If a plot would be helped by a particular word, it should be able to be used. To have to manipulate your storytelling so as not to cause a blue-hair to miss a heartbeat is, in my opinion, insulting.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

Just watch public television in Canada, England, etc....they allow WAY more adult material on free access channels. Subscription TV in the U.S. isn't governed the same

As a Canadian, I'm not sure our produced TV shows are much different than the US, and I can certainly say that in terms of radio, we are censored. For example, it appears that the word "ass" is ok, but "shit" is not??? (based on the fact that the in the Will-i-am/Spears scream and shout, "shit" is muted on the regular radio, but the lyric is clearly there on satellite radio) (I have sat radio in one vehicle and local radio in the other, so it's interesting to hear the same songs in the same day, and notice the censoring)

My 2 cents on the "censoring" in terms of TV that I find interesting... is that the US really appears to be fixated on language and nudity, but there really doesn't appear to be any ceiling on violence. If a network allows an f-word or breat to show, all hell breaks loose, but you can show a multiated corpse, head rolling, people being raped (provided there's no boob showing), people being tortured, etc, and that's ok. Personally, i'd rather my kids hear the F word and see a breast then to see a person being mutilated... but that's just me.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stuckless

As a Canadian, I'm not sure our produced TV shows are much different than the US, and I can certainly say that in terms of radio, we are censored. For example, it appears that the word "ass" is ok, but "shit" is not??? (based on the fact that the in the Will-i-am/Spears scream and shout, "shit" is muted on the regular radio, but the lyric is clearly there on satellite radio) (I have sat radio in one vehicle and local radio in the other, so it's interesting to hear the same songs in the same day, and notice the censoring)

My 2 cents on the "censoring" in terms of TV that I find interesting... is that the US really appears to be fixated on language and nudity, but there really doesn't appear to be any ceiling on violence. If a network allows an f-word or breat to show, all hell breaks loose, but you can show a multiated corpse, head rolling, people being raped (provided there's no boob showing), people being tortured, etc, and that's ok. Personally, i'd rather my kids hear the F word and see a breast then to see a person being mutilated... but that's just me.

This is mostly because it is easy for them to 'define' nudity and certain words. The only reason ass has been allowed over the last few years, is that the regulations can't define context, they can restrict words, but if there is a 'legitimate' use of the word (bitch & ass, for instance, have 'non-vulgar' uses, so they can't restrict based on HOW a word is used). Trust me, if they could, they would. It's the minor, 'harmless' restrictions like these that emotionally legitimize government control of other more serious things.

[Skirge01]

We're way OT here, but since that seems to be where we're staying, I'll just join in. I still find it laughable that the god part of goddamn is bleeped out from most songs on the radio. Somehow, "god" is the "bad" part of that word?

[BobPhoenix]

Originally Posted by stuckless

Personally, i'd rather my kids hear the F word and see a breast then to see a person being mutilated... but that's just me.

It's not just you I totally agree.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

I still find it laughable that the god part of goddamn is bleeped out from most songs on the radio. Somehow, "god" is the "bad" part of that word?

It's an easy fix (a "cop out", if you will) to keep the religious right off their backs. The FCC and TV networks can probably handle the occasional gripe about someone saying "bitch", but when you use "God", you're gonna get a tidal wave of complaints. There's no debate about content there, as there can be in Fuzzy's example. The Bible says not to take the Lord's name in vain. "Damn" isn't doing that, but once you include the "God" part....

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

It's an easy fix (a "cop out", if you will) to keep the religious right off their backs. The FCC and TV networks can probably handle the occasional gripe about someone saying "bitch", but when you use "God", you're gonna get a tidal wave of complaints. There's no debate about content there, as there can be in Fuzzy's example. The Bible says not to take the Lord's name in vain. "Damn" isn't doing that, but once you include the "God" part....

Correct, there is no regulation or agency blocking "god damn" from any form of media. It's a choice by that individual broadcaster to do so to avoid the complaints from the public. Silly, in my mind, but it's their choice. Personally, my motto is, "if a person is offended easily, they deserve to be offended often."

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by stuckless

If a network allows an f-word or breat to show, all hell breaks loose, but you can show a multiated corpse, head rolling, people being raped (provided there's no boob showing), people being tortured, etc, and that's ok.

Just curious, but have you seen a decapitation on a network show? I haven't (recently), but I don't watch a lot of shows where it would be likely to happen.

To your point about gore vs. the other stuff, when I was 9, the mini-series "Shogun" was on TV. I was passing through the room as my parents were watching it (they loved to watch all those network mini-series in the late 70s and early 80s). They briefly showed a samurai sword decapitation (cutting away just as the sword was entering the guy's neck). I was slightly traumatized at 9 years old. Not like it affected my life, but I'm 41 now and I STILL remember it.
Hey, waddaya know, it's mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dgun_(TV_miniseries)

Shōgun broke several taboos and contained several firsts for American broadcast TV: ...
A man is shown beheaded early in the first chapter, another first for network TV (although the film version of the sequence was more bloody).

[nyplayer]

This thread has turned into a T*Ts and A** discussion. ROFLMAO It was meant to advise people on cancelations in order to cleanup favorites if desired.

[Naylia]

aww...we liked Fairly Legal and Common Law on USA

[Naylia]

Here's April:


April, 2013

Dallas Renewed For Season 3
Two and a Half Men Renewed For Season 11
The CW Renews Beauty And The Beast
Hart of Dixie Renewed For Season 3
NBC Renews Revolution
Parenthood Renewed For Season 5
Law & Order: SVU Renewed For 15th Season
Chicago Fire Renewed By NBC
Grimm Renewed For Season 3
Bomb Girls Cancelled After Two Seasons
Futurama Cancelled After Seven Seasons
Glee Renewed Through 2015
Ready For Love Cancelled
Starz Renews Da Vinci's Demons
Being Human Renewed For Season 4
The CW Cancels Cult
MTV Cancels Buckwild
TLC Renews Breaking Amish
Arrested Development Returning For Season 4
The Game Renewed For Season 7
Game of Thrones Renewed For Season 4
Conan Renewed Through 2015


May is off to a crazy busy start. Lots of mixing it up. Shocking...who would have thought that HBO would renew GoT

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Just curious, but have you seen a decapitation on a network show? I haven't (recently), but I don't watch a lot of shows where it would be likely to happen.

To your point about gore vs. the other stuff, when I was 9, the mini-series "Shogun" was on TV. I was passing through the room as my parents were watching it (they loved to watch all those network mini-series in the late 70s and early 80s). They briefly showed a samurai sword decapitation (cutting away just as the sword was entering the guy's neck). I was slightly traumatized at 9 years old. Not like it affected my life, but I'm 41 now and I STILL remember it.
Hey, waddaya know, it's mentioned here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dgun_(TV_miniseries)

Sorry to keep it going off topic... but I think the Walking Dead may have shown a decapitation a couple times... and last night I was NCIS and there was a "head in a box" (complete with movie reference to Seven ) and you got to see some really good close ups of the head with jagged neck line on the autopsy table. (Again, I'm ok with nudity OR viloence... i just find it odd that if people had to pick one, I'd rather see nudity than gore.

Yeah, I think my Son may have one of those moments... a couple years back he was peeping over the railing while we watching an episode of CSI (the one is isn't cancelled... like I how it pulled it back on topic ) and it was episode where the guy in the black rubber suit was hiding under beds and killing people.... I think it scarred him... I'm thinking he'd be less scarred if he saw a boob

[bialio]

I'm thinking he'd be less scarred if he saw a boob

You might have a whole different set of problems if he did.

Speaking of boobs:


And back on topic, for Arrested Development making a hopefully triumphant return.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by bialio

And back on topic, for Arrested Development making a hopefully triumphant return.

It's going to be (IMO) the first "real" test of the viability of streaming-only broadcasting. Lots of shows out there already are streaming-only, but never one with this hype. It was a coup for netflix to get that deal, but was it a bad idea for AD to not sign with a "TV" network? We'll see.

Might be smart to buy netflix stock now and sell it just before all those contracts (of those who signed up just for AD) expire.