A tragedy in Super Marionation
Moderator: Spectrum Strike Force
Marion wrote:Poetry Angel said:If "mature" theme is the future of any of these wonderful family oriented shows, then I will simply turn off the TV for good and go back to reading and watching my good shows on video from time to time.
I think the nature of all television has changed since the 'good old days' of 'wholesome family shows'.
Regrettably even children's shows - with the exception of those made for pre-schoolers and a few others - have become more fast-paced and 'exciting' and that invariably leads to such things as car chases, explosions, comic-book violence and so forth. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I suggest that the majority of kids watching TV would not stick with more pedestrian shows.
I think this applies more to SciFi than any other genre - the comic book element in TV Sci-Fi has always been present and in them (even the original Star Trek) the modus operendi has always seemed to be, in the - possibly apocryphal- words of James T Kirk : We come in peace - shoot to kill, men! And, as the audience for these shows has grown-up and matured, so have the storylines and this has leached down into shows aimed at younger audiences too.
I personally happen to find many of the special effects driven storylines of NCS repetative (seen one psychotic, articulated robot-drone and you have seen them all) - but I can understand why people like it - if they like that sort of thing to start with. Either way, I am sure that NCS is far too good to merit the treatment its received from CITV - even if it isn't my personal cup of tea - and I deplore the way the series has been presented.
I don't think turning the clock back to a rose-tinted universe is the answer.
Couldn't agree more. I haven't seen the new Battlestar Galactica but from the articles and interviews I've read, it seems to be much more of a grown-up sci-fi creation than the original, which was a substandard Star Wars rip-off, despite what Larson claims. He then made matters worse by going on to produce Battlestar Galactica 1980, which was truly, truly ghastly.
Poetry Angel wrote:The Spongebob movie did well
I liked SpongeBob. Favourite quote: Bob: "Patrick, have you still got the bag of wind?" Patrick: "Sure do!" You have to see the movie to appreciate what happens next.
-
steviep
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:56 pm
- Location: where noodles go bad....
Poetry Angel wrote:I think societal preferences are a pendulum. It swings from liberal to conservative, and we are seeing very liberal limits on TV just now, but it will change as the next generation come to age and decides that what they see mom and dad doing or liking, isnt what they think is cool. The times, they are a changin...
Poetry Angel
It seems to me that it's a bit more complicated than that. Over the years I've seen swings for and against each of graphic sex, graphic violence, foul language and racist humour - and they don't necessarily swing in harmony. Something that entertains one generation can offend the next just as easily as something offensive to one generation can entertain the next, almost as if each generation needs something different to amuse it and something different to frighten it. As an example of that I'd compare the way the Victorians regarded sex (of which they were terrified) and death (with which they were fascinated). In contrast, sex amuses us, whereas death frightens us. I imagine somebody will contest one or both of those statements, but surely the evidence is all around: sex is portrayed everywhere, whereas death is quietly swept away and spoken of in hushed tones - and then only when essential. In the 17th century illicit sex was just one more sin on a par with avarice or gluttony, whereas the most extreme graphic violence by our standards was not only just a part of life but highly entertaining, judging from the size of the crowds that used to attend public executions.
I rather doubt whether society will ever be truly "conservative" in the sense that the word is used nowadays - because by that time there will be some other rampant taboo being deplored by the members of that society who look fondly back to a time when that sort of problem didn't exist, or at least wasn't as big an issue at the time. But they'll forget all the problems that did exist at that time, and which have since either dropped out of the public eye or been eliminated.
Incidentally, it seems to me that the violence taboo is and always has been a problem for children's entertainment - at least for as long as mass entertainment has been available for kids via television and the cinema. The only way you can portray death in an acceptable way for youngsters is to have the character pull an agonised face and then fall over or vanish, which is essentially how it's done in NCS, as it was in OCS. All the Supermarionation shows prior to the Original Captain Scarlet sidestepped the problem by not portraying death at all: all one ever saw was the cause, which was usually a big explosion. Whether that approach protects kids from the gruesome aspects of being fatally injured or desensitizes them to violence generally is debatable, but it's difficult to imagine it being done any other way. Of course, there's also the detail that the realistic portrayal of violence when the victim is a puppet is probably a little difficult to tackle anyway, but with the advent of CGI that technical problem is about to disappear - and moral and ethical dilemmas tend to follow in the wake of the technical advances that make them possible. I'll be interested to see how things progress over the next few years, but I've a nasty feeling that I'm not going to like the result.
-
Clya Brown
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Whereas you might see a swing in the public acceptance of some subjects within one generation and the next - looking back over the centuries does put things clearly into perspective.
Edward, the Black Prince, was considered the most chivalrous man of his age - the Chevalier par excellence. This was despite the fact that having told a French city to surrender - and they refused to do so, when the city did finally fall - he ordered the massacre of the entire population. No one in the 14th Century thought that was at all extreme... nowadays he'd be wanted as a War Criminal. But as the man says at the end of the film, 'The man who shot Liberty Valance' - where the truth and the accepted facts do not agree, it's always best to 'print the legend'...
Setting shows in the future - or on an alien planet - allows the makers to speculate about what (if anything) is taboo in that civilisation and maybe to highlight what they don't like about our own in some subtle way. Sometimes, they choose to glorify aspects that not every one approves of - which - whilst it may not make as comfortable viewing as 'Disney' movies - is part of the price you pay for freedom of speech.
Referring back to 'Team America'; maybe the use of 'supermarionation'-style animation was one method of shocking people into seeing the violence endemic in that genre of movie - by using the more 'innocent' metier of puppetry, fondly remembered by so many people from their own childhood when - as Doc pointed out - there were very few fatalities and even the baddies were never shown as actually being dead.... ?
-
Marion
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:21 pm
Poetry Angel
-
Poetry Angel
Incidentally, on the subject of fantasy, I can't help wondering whether we'll ever see a change of public attitude to such cartoons as Tom & Jerry, in the same way that we've seen changes in public attitude over the years to such subjects as racism and same-sex relationships. To me, people frowning on such scenes as Jerry whacking Tom over the head with a garden rake would be simply ridiculous - but then it would have been inconceivable to a 17th century visitor to Tyburn that one day the very thought of even attending a public hanging, let alone regarding it as entertainment, would be repugnant beyond words. Marion commented that the past is a foreign country; that surely applies to the future too.
-
Clya Brown
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Poetry Angel
-
Poetry Angel
I don't accept the 'you become what you watch' scenario. Why? Because it's fiction. I know it's fiction - I watch, it's escapist nonsense and then I get back to real life - I work, do the washing, get the shopping etc, all without being violent, horrific, comic etc...
I write some pretty violent fan fics. Is the suggestion that I must be violent? I hope not, I should be most insulted! No, I have imagination and I know how to use it. That's all, nothing scary, nothing worrying.
It's easy to blame television for what's happening in the world these days, but I wonder if it isn't more a case of more information reaching more people than an actual increase in unacceptable behaviour. Just because we hear and become aware of more atrocities, doesn't necessarily mean more is happening or that we can know the cause. After all, extreme violence has had its place in history for centuries before television came along.
-
Cerise
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:29 pm
- Location: Slightly to the side
We do hear and see more of what goes on around us - globally - now. I'm sure life was nasty, brutish and hard for past generations - the difference is now we have machines that kill indiscriminately and we show it on TV as 'news'.
Even the news shows are becoming increasingly packaged like 'entertainment' - I happened to catch the ITV 'news' the other day and I couldn't believe how 'dumbed down it was'. (I usually listen to the BBC Radio 4 news broadcasts... I don't watch much TV at all, really.)
I just wish everyone could tell the difference between real and imaginary scenarios...
-
Marion
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:21 pm
I respect that is how you feel. And for you that may be true. You are (I assume) an adult, and educated. To make that same assumption for a child though, that what they see wont effect them, we need only to look at the difference in the way children relate socially in war torn countries, as opposed to children in countries like Sweden, or Canada. There are definate differences, because they dont necessarily understand the difference between what is "real" on a TV show and what is real in their lives. Mind you Im not saying this is fact, Im speculating, after all thats what this forum is isnt it? A place to talk it over and search for truths?
Poetry Angel
-
Poetry Angel
Re Team America - technically VERY clever, rather funny to downright hilarious, occasionally cringe-worthy, so I'd say... a lot of the time it was fun to watch. Knowing South Park (and not being a fan) I was prepared for the swear words. I liked the movie more than I expected to, given the background of its producers.
Re violence etc in the media, general TV etc - hmmm. That's a topic that can go round in circles forever. One thing I have doubts about is Poetry Angel's statement: What we consume daily, be it violence, drugs, crime, whatever, on TV and media, we digest mentally, and that is how we tend to become.
Unless the younger generation is incapable of making informed decisions and/or are exceptionally gullible or easily influenced I would trust they would NOT become adults with a disposition to that kind of behaviour. Surely they can still think for themselves as my generation did? I don't know for sure - I haven't been a teen for decades and I don't have children. Despite the violence etc in the media, these days it is far more regulated that when I was a child (eg more ratings, warnings about content before every show over a 'General Exhibition'), not to mention Political Correctness gone mad.
Perhaps there is a level of desensitising about what they watch on TV but I would suggest how they react has more to do with their family environment than any media influence. I've seen some pretty terrible stuff on TV (both real and occasionally in fictional programmes - now and when I was much younger) but I was never likely to turn into an axemurderer or whatever due to a solid grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong ... by my parents. My parents led by example and I was never in any doubt about what was the right thing to do. They also encouraged me to think for myself and not to blindly follow the thinking of the herd. If you have that to fall back on then the media, including assorted grosser reality TV shows etc, can go its merry way and the young people of today can still make the right decisions.
I don't think the world today is sick and sad - well, elements of it might be, but this is also the era where more people than ever have donated time, money etc to help people in need. Here in Australia donations to charities increase every year, not to mention the help given to countries recent disasters has increased as well. Personally I would say children's TV here is actually more regulated than in 'my day' too. If NCS comes to Oz I admit I am curious to know what timeslot and rating it will be given.
OK that's me off my soapbox... Now I think I'd like to get back to what Spectrum HQ's forum is really about...Captain Scarlet.
- J.M. Straczynski (during commentary on ‘The Fall of Centauri Prime’)
-
Elentari
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 352
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:05 am
- Location: Australia
Poetry Angel wrote:we need only to look at the difference in the way children relate socially in war torn countries
Poetry Angel
I'm puzzled by this remark as I would imagine that children in a lot of war torn countries don't have access to TV and certainly not to programmes that might glorify violence through entertainment.
Entertainment involving violence (either real of imaginary) has been going on since, well forever - be it Greek theatre, throwing Christians to the lions or Shakespearean plays.
Films or television programmes that portray realistic violence are aimed at adults, rather than children and if children get to see it, then it's down to the parents, not the producers.
-
steviep
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:56 pm
- Location: where noodles go bad....
I just feel, and again its my feeling, so its just as valid as anyone elses
Absolutely right. This is an interesting debate - if as Elentari says 'a little off-topic'... but no one is out to condemn anyone or their opinions.
Doc Brown said:
I can't help wondering whether we'll ever see a change of public attitude to such cartoons as Tom & Jerry, in the same way that we've seen changes in public attitude over the years to such subjects as racism and same-sex relationships. To me, people frowning on such scenes as Jerry whacking Tom over the head with a garden rake would be simply ridiculous
I do actually remember a slight fracas about 'Tom & Jerry' cartoons in the 70s - I expect it was - then they were being shown a lot on the BBC. I believe Mrs Whitehouse was saying that were too violent to be shown on Sundays and at any time when little children might be watching, as they might promote violence and cruelty to animals.
Strange but true.
I would like to think in any tolerant society there is room for both schools of thought - no one is forced to watch programmes or read books they don't want to - but equally, no one is forbidden to make or watch these programmes. Always within the accepted and legal bounds of public decency - of course. Some things are not really for public viewing, so I guess some censorship is always going to take place.
Professionally speaking, no librarian is allowed to censor material by excluding it from a public library - within the limits imposed by the law. We had complaints recently about the language and content of one American entertainer's autobiography - but as it has been published and is within the legal limits - the book stays on the shelves. No one HAS to read it - but no one is prevented from doing so.
We are bound to hold a diverse collection of material that caters for all aspects of society - without being judgemental. Members of the public can - and do- complain, but the policy of social inclusion means the material is available, if someone wants to read it... I can live with that. If I don't like the look of something, I don't watch or read it... its what the off-button is for, after all!
-
Marion
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:21 pm
On the lighter side, I hear that the cost of CGI work on movies is dropping quickly as the technology becomes cheaper to produce and the amount of film each movie that is CGI rendered becomes larger and larger. Perhaps there will be a market soon for a weekly series all fully CGI rendered that will pick up the story of CS. Although I would prefer the marionettes, but we cant have all we want.
Poetry Angel
-
Poetry Angel
Well, I will admit when I am wrong, and am glad to know that growing up in a violent world filled with death and destruction beamed into our homes at all hours while parents are working more and more hours leaving children (latch key kids) to decide what is and is not appropriate, will not influence them. I have just over reacted to fears, thinking that the glorifying of gang violence in movies and music videos, as well as lyrics in some music, might influence young people searching for something to model themselves after. I do rest easier knowing that we are certainly no more a violent society than we were in the fiftys, and certainly there are no symptoms of a sickness in the fabric of our cities that would make people wish to lock their doors when away or sleeping, or for that matter while home, watch their children when they play in the front lawns, and have to take off their shoes in airports. I had hoped, and am glad to know that it was just my over reaction to the way people associate in my general area. Perhaps I should move.
This may be the case - but you cannot blame it solely on films and television. Yes, we do see more of what goes on around the world because of television and it may affect more people directly - through weapons of mass destruction - and more people live in closer proximity to each other.
But - face it - this is a reflection of the way this world is - and the way the people are, who live on this planet. Human beings have never been very nice to one another - there was never a golden age of brotherly love and universal politeness - someone of some race, creed, colour or gender was always the underdog.
I grew up in a country town in rural England - during the late fifities and sixties - and I can never remember my family going out and leaving the doors unlocked - nor anyone else in the neighbourhood - and it wasn't exactly 'the mean streets' where I lived. But both my parents worked too - so maybe that's warped me somehow?
You cannot protect children from life in general - sooner or later they're going to have to walk the streets alone and deal with it.
I don't approve of 'violence as entertainment' - nor trivialising such things - but this is not the only age when that's happened and is unlikely to be the last. We should hope exposure will sensitise and alert people to the problem, and not allow it to be swept under the carpet as it was in so many other centuries, so that the 'genteel' folk didn't have to worry about it.
BTW - both my husband and I worked whilst our daughter was growing up - we had no choice if we wanted a roof over our heads - but she still seems to have grown into a well-adjusted young woman to me. Parental imput in a child's developement is not directly linked to the number of hours you sit beside them - but what you make of the time you are with them.
Don't get me started on this one....
-
Marion
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 2964
- Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:21 pm
Up until maybe 150 years ago we'd have been completely unaware of what was going on in other parts of the world, because there were no journalists there to report it. Nowadays anything that happens anywhere is beamed around the world in seconds - and that makes it seem as if it's all happening on our doorstep, even if it's thousands of miles away and doesn't concern us personally in the slightest. On a related point, has anyone noticed how news during the summer months tends to be less serious? It's known as the silly season, I believe. Why? Because most of the journalists are on holiday, and the publishers have to fill their newspapers with something. Does that mean that violence generally tends to abate during the summer? I rather doubt it, unless of course all the burglars, muggers and rapists are on holiday too.
I'm not trying to imply by the above that violence is being made up by the media - just that it's not necessarily on the increase. As Marion says above, humans have never been very nice to one another, and it seems unreasonable to assume that human nature has changed much over the last few millennia. There's an inscription on the wall near the entrance of the Imperial War Museum in London that I saw when I was last there that seemed very poignant: an observation about all the young men marching gloriously off to war, which they'd be considerably less happy doing if it hadn't been their first. That was written by an Ancient Greek over two thousand years ago. Some things don't change much, it seems.
I'd like to throw in a personal comment about how much I've enjoyed this debate to date, which has been thoughtful, intelligent and articulate on all sides. My thanks to everyone who's contributed to it so far - it's been a pleasure to follow. The thread's weaved and meandered a little on the way, but as Jon Pertwee's Doctor Who once said to Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, "A straight line may be the shortest distance between two points - but it is by no means the most interesting!"
-
Clya Brown
- Cloudbase Captain
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: United Kingdom
Return to Supermarionation - General board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests