At the end of July and beginning of August, I just had this weird feeling going through me. It was only a few weeks after seeing the final Harry Potter movie for the first time. It was hard to imagine that there would be no more Potter movies. So I started writing down my thoughts. I put it aside for a while. A while ended up being about months (I didn't plan on waiting that long). As the DVD release date approached for the final film, I got the essay back out and went back through and edited the essay.
Yesterday was the release date for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, the final one. And to coincide with that release, I released my essay on OMGWire.com. I talk about how I was first introduced to the series, and transition into my feelings on the series coming to an end and what that means for me. I suggest reading the whole essay so you can understand why I titled it "Why I Refuse to Say Goodbye to Harry Potter."
Below is a short excerpt from the essay:
I didn't want to write this. I really didn't. It's been about four months now since the final Harry Potter movie came out, and I may have been in denial. In denial that the end was here and it's passed by me in a flash. I didn't want to write this, because I didn't want to say goodbye.
I first met Harry Potter in 1999. I was 11, the same age Harry was when he received his letter to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. I never received mine, but I got so much more than just a mere letter. On Christmas Eve of that year, I received the first three books as a Christmas gift from my step-grandma. I had never heard of this series before, but thanked her because she knew I loved to read. Little did she (or I) know how much that one choice would change my life forever, would turn out to be more than just a simple gift.
But it didn't start that way. I began reading Sorcerer's Stone, and can you believe it when I say I didn't get very far before I stopped reading and stored the books away? At that time, it didn't catch my attention for some reason. A few months later, though, I was going through my closet and rediscovered Harry Potter sitting there with my other books. I decided to give it another chance. And boy am I glad I did. I can't even imagine what my life would have been like if I didn't. Before I knew it, I had swallowed up all three pretty much in one gulp and hungered for more. The problem? The fourth book wouldn't be released until summertime. And so Harry Potter went on the backburner again, but only temporarily. On the morning of July 8, 2000, I received a call from my mom (I had stayed at my grandparents' beach house the previous night) that UPS or some other delivery truck had pulled up and delivered a package. She didn't think she had ordered anything, so she was a little confused. But when she opened it, there was Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I had completely forgotten that I had entered a contest through one of the bookstores at the mall to win a free copy of the book. I told her to make sure to bring it with her when she came out to the beach house later that day. To the average person, two weeks might seem like a short time to read a 734 page book. And at the time, it was fast for me. (My speed time would quicken dramatically for the remaining books).
Goblet of Fire changed everything. Not just for me, but for the fandom and the franchise. After Goblet of Fire, I discovered Harry Potter fansites, who were all dissecting and analyzing the books for clues to what would happen next. I read through every single news item and rumor to see what the plot of book 5 would be. It was excruciating to have to wait three (THREE!!!) years for Order of the Phoenix.
Tragedy struck just over a year later...
The entire essay is much longer than this. To read the full essay, click HERE.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
New Bieber Guy Blog Explores the Justin Bieber Phenomenon
Justin Bieber's core demographic is tween and teen girls. I, however, am a 23-year-old MALE college graduate. No matter where you turn, there Bieber is: on every TV show and website imaginable. I can certainly understand why the girls are in love with him, but I am not necessarily a fan (but neither am I a hater and dislike him either); I would consider myself neutral. That's where this new blog comes into play. I will become the Bieber Guy and explore the world of Justin Bieber (listening to all of his songs, watch his music videos, read his book, watch his movie, view his YouTube videos, etc). This isn't necessarily to see if I will have Bieber Fever by the end. I'm not guaranteeing I will; the purpose of this project is to understand him as an artist rather than judge him or write him off as a fad, as many people have done without even taking the time to listen to much of his music.
As of this morning, I have begun my venture as the Bieber Guy, reviewing his very first single, "One Time." Click HERE to read my review, where you can also find links to listen to the song for yourself. As you will read in that blog entry, I started off with a lukewarm reaction, but eventually warmed up to it and his voice. Read for yourself why I changed my opinion.
My plan is to review next his second single, "One Less Lonely Girl," then either the two iTunes promo singles or the debut EP as a whole. To stay updated on everything related to Bieber Guy and to find out when the next blog entry will be online, follow Bieber Guy on Twitter @Bieber_Guy.
As of this morning, I have begun my venture as the Bieber Guy, reviewing his very first single, "One Time." Click HERE to read my review, where you can also find links to listen to the song for yourself. As you will read in that blog entry, I started off with a lukewarm reaction, but eventually warmed up to it and his voice. Read for yourself why I changed my opinion.
My plan is to review next his second single, "One Less Lonely Girl," then either the two iTunes promo singles or the debut EP as a whole. To stay updated on everything related to Bieber Guy and to find out when the next blog entry will be online, follow Bieber Guy on Twitter @Bieber_Guy.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
The X Factor Seattle Audition Taping: On-the-Scene Report
As I mentioned on Twitter, I attended one of last week's audition tapings in Seattle for Simon Cowell's new singing competition show, The X Factor. My On The Scene report recounting my experience is now up at OMGWire.com. Below is an excerpt from my report.
Click HERE to read the full On The Scene Report.
Visit TV Watch Online's American Idol & X Factor News page for all the latest news on The X Factor.
Click HERE to read the full On The Scene Report.
Conversations With The Contestants:
Whenever a singer or group came on stage, the judges would ask various questions, including finding out their name, age, job and musical influences. And what I found surprising was that the judges would ask for a different song after they first performed. I know that that happens on the Idol auditions, but they asked for different songs quite a lot, even asking some for the list of songs they had lined up. Overall, the judges spent a lot of time with each contestant. There was only one time where they whisked a contestant off fast. After her song, they did a quick no vote and that was the end of that.
Whenever a singer or group came on stage, the judges would ask various questions, including finding out their name, age, job and musical influences. And what I found surprising was that the judges would ask for a different song after they first performed. I know that that happens on the Idol auditions, but they asked for different songs quite a lot, even asking some for the list of songs they had lined up. Overall, the judges spent a lot of time with each contestant. There was only one time where they whisked a contestant off fast. After her song, they did a quick no vote and that was the end of that.
Most of the time when the judges were waiting for another singer to come out, they would be chatting amongst themselves the entire time. And even when a singer or group came out, they would continue talking to each other and not acknowledge the singers until they got to their spot on the stage. Even though I would hate to have a seat behind the judges (you wouldn’t be able to see hardly anything), I would have loved to be sitting right behind them and try to hear what they were saying.
The X Factor premieres Wednesday, September 21 and Thursday, September 22 from 8-10pm on FOX.Visit TV Watch Online's American Idol & X Factor News page for all the latest news on The X Factor.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Michael Jackson's Death: 2 Years Later...
On June 25, 2009, I sat down to my laptop to search the Internet for the most recent entertainment news to put up on TV Watch Online. I saw a headline that said Michael Jackson was rushed to a hospital and was in a coma. Upon seeing this, I immediately opened up this L.A. Times article. It was an article that was continuously being updated with the latest on this breaking news item. A few moments later, I refreshed the page, and this was the new headline I read: "Michael Jackson is dead." My jaw opened in shock and my heart beat furiously. I wasn't a diehard MJ fan or anything, but this came out of nowhere, and anybody would be shocked by this. Once I got out of my daze, I immediately ran upstairs to ask if the news was on. We turned on CNN, and were glued to the TV for quite a while.
As I mentioned above, I wasn't necessarily a Michael Jackson fan, per say, and I'll tell you why. I am 22 years old, which means I grew up in the '90's and '00's. I didn't grow up with Michael Jackson's music. If I heard his name on TV or elsewhere, I did not think of "Thriller" or "Billie Jean" or "Bad." I thought of the child molestation allegations, the plastic surgery (seeing bandages over his shrinking nose), the court proceedings, seeing him arrive to court in his pajamas, and being found not guilty on all counts. Those were the thoughts I had of him, because that's all I ever saw surrounding him my entire life.
But even though June 25, 2009 was a day of mourning, something amazing also happened starting on that day. During the 24/7 news coverage that followed his death in the hours, days and weeks to come, his personal life was not the overshadowing analysis by the talking heads or America. His music, rightly, came back to the forefront (his music dominated iTunes and Amazon). And as a result, I became a fan of Michael Jackson - the artist, the performer, the singer, the entertainer. In the days that followed, I spent my time pouring YouTube to listen to all of his singles and other well-known songs, and watched all of his music videos (including the genius that is "Thriller").
Even though the music overpowered all, there was still the soap opera drama that followed, trying to figure out why he died, what drugs he might have taken, and if Doctor Conrad Murray was at fault. Then the cash cow began. Everyone tried to get their hands on making some money from his death. Rehearsal footage from what would have been his comeback tour was released as the concert/documentary This Is It. And then Sony released MJ's first posthumous album, Michael.
But when it came to Michael Jackson himself (putting aside all other persons involved), the music reined supreme, and that is a good thing, indeed.
Today, on the two-year anniversary of Michael Jackson's death, let us not focus on his death. Rather, let us look back on his contributions to the world of music...
"If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with."
-- Michael Jackson
-- Michael Jackson
"And my goal in life is to give to the world what I was lucky to receive: the ecstasy of divine union through my music and my dance."
-- Michael Jackson
-- Michael Jackson
"In a world filled with hate, we must still dare to hope. In a world filled with anger, we must still dare to comfort. In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream. And in a world filled with distrust, we must still dare to believe."
-- Michael Jackson
-- Michael Jackson
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Jennifer Lawrence: From Winter's Bone to The Hunger Games
Recently, I sat down to watch the Oscar Best Picture-nominated film Winter's Bone on DVD. Winter's Bone has never been on my radar of movies to watch, even during the high of Oscar season. So why, you might ask, did I decide to finally watch it? The answer is because of Jennifer Lawrence, who has been cast in the role of Katniss Everdeen in next year's highly-anticipated The Hunger Games, based on the first book in the bestselling Young Adult trilogy by Suzanne Collins.
When Ms. Lawrence was first cast as Katniss, there was an uproar among fans of the book series that she was too old, too blonde, not thin enough, etc. etc. Even during Oscar season, I didn't pay any attention to her, because everyone said she had no chance at winning Best Actress. When her name popped up as the frontrunner for this role, I'm not lying when I say I had no opinion either way on if she was the right person to play Katniss. I was willing to give her a chance at this, and not make harsh judgments when we hadn't even seen any images or video clips of her in the film yet. I didn't really understand why fans were so upset by this casting decision. Somehow, they overlooked the fact that you can change a person's hair color, you can use makeup and other effects to darken skin. You can do all sorts of things to make her look like Katniss. I mean, look at the Harry Potter films or The Lord of the Rings trilogy; hair and makeup, prosthetics, and special effects can go a long way (Tom Felton? Yeah, not a natural blonde).
Then Entertainment Weekly released the first promotional photo shoot of Jennifer in full makeup and costume with brunette hair. Suddenly, the fandom breathed a big sigh of relief, and thus there was a sense of calm and order in the world again. And, by the way, I love the promo shot and immediately got excited for her to play this role.
But back to Winter's Bone now. As far as I'm aware, I have never seen her act in anything before. And since a huge part of why Jennifer was cast in The Hunger Games was because of her moving and powerful role in Winter's Bone, I felt compelled to actually watch it. Jennifer plays Ree, whose father is out on bond and has put the house and property up as his bond. If he doesn't show up for court, Ree and her family will lose the house. So Ree sets out to find him.
There is a scene where Ree's uncle grabs her by the neck/face. Here is where we see Jennifer displaying a great sense of fear and vulnerability, whereas in the scenes before that, we see her defiant and trying to act tough and strong (putting on a front, perhaps?). The character of Katniss in The Hunger Games is not this hugely tough, Lara Croft-type heroine. She does have vulnerability. She does have fear. She is human and has flaws. And Jennifer perfectly captured all of that when playing Ree. And in a scene near the end which takes place in a boat (for those who don't want to be spoiled, I won't say what actually happens in that scene), Ree is very overwrought with emotion. Jennifer's acting in these types of scenes are breathtaking to watch. She is a brilliant actress. And after watching her Oscar-nominated performance in Winter's Bone, I don't have any worries about her taking on the role of Katniss.
When a million names were flying all over the Internet on who should play Katniss Everdeen, one of the front-runners at one point was Kaya Scodelario, who played Effy Stonem in the hit British drama, Skins. I am a fan of that show and thought she should play Katniss after seeing her on that TV show. One of the reasons why other fans thought she would be perfect as well was because she is pretty thin, since Katniss is supposed to have a starved appearance over the course of the games. And many are not happy with the fact that Jennifer is not thin. I'm not sure how they will deal with this aspect, but I'm sure they'll come up with something. This is the only area where I can understand why fans would be upset.
I have faith in Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and all the filmmakers to create an excellent film that lives up to our expectations. People are saying this new movie franchise could be the next Twilight, not in terms of the story, but in terms of the anticipation, buzz, hype, and box office draw. I believe it does have a chance at that; it's already started. Harry Potter is ending next month. Twilight ends next year. We need a new Young Adult/fantasy franchise to take over, and I am confident that The Hunger Games can fill that role. And with Jennifer Lawrence as the face of these movies, we the fans should have nothing to worry about. I'm not making any judgments about any of the casting choices until I see them in their roles. And I hope others can do that as well. I'm not saying I won't make criticisms about certain elements of the movie; I'm sure I will, but for now, I'm staying out of that department. There is a reason we love the books. So let's support the filmmakers in this journey of translating the story to the big screen.
For all the latest news, rumors and filming updates, visit TV Watch Online's The Hunger Games page.
When Ms. Lawrence was first cast as Katniss, there was an uproar among fans of the book series that she was too old, too blonde, not thin enough, etc. etc. Even during Oscar season, I didn't pay any attention to her, because everyone said she had no chance at winning Best Actress. When her name popped up as the frontrunner for this role, I'm not lying when I say I had no opinion either way on if she was the right person to play Katniss. I was willing to give her a chance at this, and not make harsh judgments when we hadn't even seen any images or video clips of her in the film yet. I didn't really understand why fans were so upset by this casting decision. Somehow, they overlooked the fact that you can change a person's hair color, you can use makeup and other effects to darken skin. You can do all sorts of things to make her look like Katniss. I mean, look at the Harry Potter films or The Lord of the Rings trilogy; hair and makeup, prosthetics, and special effects can go a long way (Tom Felton? Yeah, not a natural blonde).
Then Entertainment Weekly released the first promotional photo shoot of Jennifer in full makeup and costume with brunette hair. Suddenly, the fandom breathed a big sigh of relief, and thus there was a sense of calm and order in the world again. And, by the way, I love the promo shot and immediately got excited for her to play this role.
But back to Winter's Bone now. As far as I'm aware, I have never seen her act in anything before. And since a huge part of why Jennifer was cast in The Hunger Games was because of her moving and powerful role in Winter's Bone, I felt compelled to actually watch it. Jennifer plays Ree, whose father is out on bond and has put the house and property up as his bond. If he doesn't show up for court, Ree and her family will lose the house. So Ree sets out to find him.
There is a scene where Ree's uncle grabs her by the neck/face. Here is where we see Jennifer displaying a great sense of fear and vulnerability, whereas in the scenes before that, we see her defiant and trying to act tough and strong (putting on a front, perhaps?). The character of Katniss in The Hunger Games is not this hugely tough, Lara Croft-type heroine. She does have vulnerability. She does have fear. She is human and has flaws. And Jennifer perfectly captured all of that when playing Ree. And in a scene near the end which takes place in a boat (for those who don't want to be spoiled, I won't say what actually happens in that scene), Ree is very overwrought with emotion. Jennifer's acting in these types of scenes are breathtaking to watch. She is a brilliant actress. And after watching her Oscar-nominated performance in Winter's Bone, I don't have any worries about her taking on the role of Katniss.
When a million names were flying all over the Internet on who should play Katniss Everdeen, one of the front-runners at one point was Kaya Scodelario, who played Effy Stonem in the hit British drama, Skins. I am a fan of that show and thought she should play Katniss after seeing her on that TV show. One of the reasons why other fans thought she would be perfect as well was because she is pretty thin, since Katniss is supposed to have a starved appearance over the course of the games. And many are not happy with the fact that Jennifer is not thin. I'm not sure how they will deal with this aspect, but I'm sure they'll come up with something. This is the only area where I can understand why fans would be upset.
I have faith in Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and all the filmmakers to create an excellent film that lives up to our expectations. People are saying this new movie franchise could be the next Twilight, not in terms of the story, but in terms of the anticipation, buzz, hype, and box office draw. I believe it does have a chance at that; it's already started. Harry Potter is ending next month. Twilight ends next year. We need a new Young Adult/fantasy franchise to take over, and I am confident that The Hunger Games can fill that role. And with Jennifer Lawrence as the face of these movies, we the fans should have nothing to worry about. I'm not making any judgments about any of the casting choices until I see them in their roles. And I hope others can do that as well. I'm not saying I won't make criticisms about certain elements of the movie; I'm sure I will, but for now, I'm staying out of that department. There is a reason we love the books. So let's support the filmmakers in this journey of translating the story to the big screen.
For all the latest news, rumors and filming updates, visit TV Watch Online's The Hunger Games page.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Opinion: Dina Lohan - Don't Take It Personally
 |
| Image Credit: zimbio.com |
After the episode aired, Lindsay's mother, Dina Lohan, attacked Glee for going after her daughter, threatening to take legal action. She told Gossip Cop, "'Our lawyers are sending a letter' to 'Glee' on the grounds that the show allegedly defamed the actress who, by all accounts, is working hard on her recovery." If you've paid attention to Lindsay's actions since November, you know that she obviously hasn't been working all that hard on any sort of a recovery. I never heard any more news on that legal action, which means she had no ground to stand on.
Last month, some of the cast members ran into Lindsay and apologized. Okay - everything then seemed to be in the past and all was good in the world again...whoops, I spoke too soon...
In the recent post-Super Bowl episode of Glee, guest star Katie Couric, when interviewing Sue Sylvester, ran off a list of the Losers of the Year. Among the names on said list were Dina Lohan, and sparky Lohan, their dog. Pop Eater's Rob Shuter has a source who says, "They are all a bunch of bullies. Dina is hurt and shocked and hasn't done anything to deserve this constant teasing from this show."
Okay Dina, have you looked at yourself or your family? The only reason people know your name is because you are Lindsay's mom and manager. You rode her coattails in order to claim a piece of that fame, even going so far as exploiting the rest of your family on a short-lived reality show for your own gain. You claim you want privacy for your family, but yet you do something that this to put the spotlight on all of them.
I realize that Lindsay is 22, legally an adult (I was born on the same day and year as her, incidentally), but not only as her manager, but as her mother as well, you need to get your priorities in order here. Even rehab experts have said you should stop being her manager and "start acting like her mom."
Who cares if Glee is taking jabs at you or your daughter? Every celebrity in the world has had some sort of criticism thrown at them. You're not the celebrity in this ordeal. So you need to not take it personally, and focus on helping your daughter instead of answering to every critic.
I would suggest staying out of the limelight for a while. That way, you can be the mother that Lindsay needs right now. She has obviously gone through some things, and especially right now continues to spiral downward. If she isn't accepting help, that's one thing (I don't know if she is or isn't). But you can't expect us to take you seriously if you always go to the media to respond to the latest attack or find a way to keep yourself in the spotlight once more.
I can understand why you would be hurt by these jokes and jabs. It's your daughter, for crying out loud (and even you). The first reaction would be to respond to it all. But it's not healthy for you or Lindsay right now to continue doing things to grab attention. Lindsay needs help, and I hope you will do what you can to help her.
I have only seen Lindsay in a couple of movies (Parent Trap being my favorite). She is a talented actress. Unfortunately, though, she has let her personal life get in the way of her becoming the giant star that she could have been. We've seen young stars go down the wrong path before (Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, Britney Spears); even Miley Cyrus is going through one right now. If Lindsay is able to surround herself by people who can take a firm stand and not let her get away with whatever she wants, then maybe she can dust herself off and make a rise back to the top again. But until that happens, we will just continue to see the trouble in her life (the most recent one being the accusation that she stole a necklace from a store).
So Dina, do you understand why you and your daughter are always the butt of jokes? We haven't seen a positive change from either of you, that's why. I'm not here to tell you how to be a mother or how to run your life, but what I'm advising is to listen to what we're all saying so you can first try to understand why you are perceived the way you do. Then tune us all out and look at what you can do to change that perception. What you heard on Glee was just one of a million criticisms out there; don't take it personally.
America loves a comeback story, and I know we would love to see Lindsay have that. Help her have that comeback. Not as a manager, but as her mom. As a human being who cares about and wants to help someone in need.
Friday, January 28, 2011
In Defense of Skins: An Open Letter to the Parents Television Council (& Other Critics)
To Tim Winter, President of the Parents Television Council (PTC), and other critics:
On January 25, 2007, a brand-new show called Skins from the minds of father/son duo Brian Elsley and Jamie Brittain, debuted on E4 in the U.K., receiving positive reviews and high ratings. Right from that first episode, and continuing to today, this series has depicted the lives of a group of teenagers and all the outlandish, crazy situations that arise from their lives. The term 'Sex, Drugs & Rock N' Roll' times ten at first may seem like the perfect term to attach to this show. But attaching that phrase here shows that one has not actually watched the series (or rather, more than a few clips, trailers or promos). We need to dig deeper here, because the sex, drugs and rock n' roll is only the surface layer. Just take a moment and peel back the layers to look at the heart of the show. Skins is a much deeper show than the PTC and other critics have tried to make it out to be. The heart of this show is the characters themselves, because having strong and fully-developed characters are key to the success of a fictional story. We see their ups and downs, the emotions, the inner-truths, lies, deceit, hurt. Fans of the show, including myself, have become attached to Skins because of this. It truly is raw and revealing.
Five years later, Skins is still going strong in the U.K. And the creators now have developed and adapted the show for American audiences on MTV, which debuted on January 17, 2011. Immediately after that first episode aired, the Parents Television Council blasted the show as the most dangerous television show ever. "The episode included all manner of foul language, illegal drug use, illegal activity as well as thoroughly pervasive sexual content. Moreover, future episodes promise much more of the same," PTC President Tim Winter wrote. "It is clear that [MTV's parent company] Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of [several child pornography laws]" (TV Guide). MTV is basic cable, which viewers have more access to than such pay cable networks as HBO or Showtime; if Skins had aired on any of the latter stations, would the PTC still have filed their complaints, for channels like HBO can get away with lot more than on a spot like MTV? Regardless, I can't honestly say if MTV is violating child pornography laws (though even that claim is a little ridiculous), but I can address the general criticisms of the show.
I would now like to briefly address the advertisers who pulled their sponsorship from the show, Taco Bell, GM, Subway and H&R Block, among others. I find it laughable that you would choose to pull your ads only after the PTC went after it. The original U.K. Skins was already known as a raunchy show. You decide to attach yourself as advertisers of the program, when that fact was completely and obviously well-known, and somehow feel taken aback once the show actually airs. That is just plain ridiculous. Wrigley says that "it was never our intent to endorse content that could offend consumers" (HR). Really? You're saying that after partnering with a network that is known to air controversial, crude, and inappropriate material (see: Jersey Shore), as well as other ridiculous and disturbing shows (like Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant). You have to look at the network; you should not be taken aback that MTV is airing a show like Skins. Plus, Skins is a FICTIONAL show, unlike Jersey Shore (a REALITY show) where brainless airheads get together to drink, fight, have sex, and go on TV just for money and fame; now that's inappropriate! And don't get me started on The Hills. There's a difference between reality (or "reality," for those who believe not everything is impromptu) and fiction. Speaking of Jersey Shore, I don't even see that show listed on the PTC website; what's up with that?
The Parents Television Council, right at the top of their website claims that they are "A non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment." TV Watch Online is not a political website at all, so I won't dwell on the politics too long here, but the PTC is anything but non-partisan. It is a very conservative group who just don't get it. And Skins obviously isn't the only program this organization has gone after.
One such show they have criticized is one that T.W.O. covers on the main site: Glee. Glee has been criticized not only by the PTC but by other voices as well for sexually explicit scenes, showing two teenage girls making out, among other examples. You even compared Glee's GQ photo shoot to pedophilia. How outrageous of a claim. Since we're on the topic of singing: Adam Lambert. After his performance at the 2009 American Music Awards in which he kissed another male on stage, simulated oral sex, and walked dancers across the stage with chains. You called it "vulgar." If he had kissed a woman, I doubt you would have had a problem with it. Female performers, for the most part, have gotten away with being more sexually explicit on stage, but it's not okay when a male singer does it? Lambert's performance aired at almost 11pm; children should not even be up at that time anyways.
But back to Skins. I want to make something very clear. I would never condone the things happening on this show--the underage sex, drug use, etc-- if this was real life. I'm in my early 20's and in college, and I would never think to imitate what these fictional characters are doing. If we saw all of this happening on a reality show, I would be strictly against it, no matter if they were teens or adults.
And by the way, our American version of the show is a whole lot tamer and toned down than the original, British version. When Skins UK started airing on BBC America, where were you, PTC? Even in an edited form, the UK show has a lot more nudity, sex and explicit language than ours. Even if you did respond to BBC America airing the show, it most definitely was not to the outrageous level that you are dishing out with the tamer U.S. show.
Before I finish, I would like to briefly talk to MTV and the people behind Skins. Two episodes have aired so far. And in each, I have noticed some swear words were bleeped. If you knew words like those wouldn't be allowed on TV, why did you even put then in the script in the first place? Unless you're going to release an uncensored version of the DVD (if one should come out), I want to either see no censorship at all or leaving it out in the first place.
After the premiere aired and the PTC came after you, you (MTV) were backed up against a wall and didn't defend your own network or show. If you truly believe in this show, you need to step up and put yourself back on the offense instead of playing defense. You knew this show would create controversy, so back up your decisions with reasoning. I think the PTC should read show creator Brian Elsley's statement he made after the premiere aired.
In this war between the PTC and MTV, the Parents Television Council is winning right now. And you wanna know why? Because they are being louder, whereas MTV is whimpering. Look at politics, especially the political climate of the past year or so. The winning party was victorious because they were louder. Being louder means you will be heard in the media. And if you have the attention of the media, those who agree with you will come out in full force to support you. And when you are louder, have everyone's attention, and gain some support resulting from that, it puts you on the offense. Being on offense equals power. And the PTC has the power right now.
It's very unfortunate that it ended up the way it did, because the PTC, in theory, is a very irrelevant organization. Tim Winter (PTC President) - let parents and their families make their own decisions and don't butt into people's lives, telling us what we should think or do.
Sincerely,
Jeff D.
Webmaster, TV Watch Online
---
Related Links:
Creator Bryan Elsley's Statement
Actor Sofia Black D'Elia Responds to Controversy
Webmaster Note: TV Watch Online will continue its coverage of Skins and the controversy, posting article links in the TV/Movie/Entertainment News section on the home page.
On January 25, 2007, a brand-new show called Skins from the minds of father/son duo Brian Elsley and Jamie Brittain, debuted on E4 in the U.K., receiving positive reviews and high ratings. Right from that first episode, and continuing to today, this series has depicted the lives of a group of teenagers and all the outlandish, crazy situations that arise from their lives. The term 'Sex, Drugs & Rock N' Roll' times ten at first may seem like the perfect term to attach to this show. But attaching that phrase here shows that one has not actually watched the series (or rather, more than a few clips, trailers or promos). We need to dig deeper here, because the sex, drugs and rock n' roll is only the surface layer. Just take a moment and peel back the layers to look at the heart of the show. Skins is a much deeper show than the PTC and other critics have tried to make it out to be. The heart of this show is the characters themselves, because having strong and fully-developed characters are key to the success of a fictional story. We see their ups and downs, the emotions, the inner-truths, lies, deceit, hurt. Fans of the show, including myself, have become attached to Skins because of this. It truly is raw and revealing.
Five years later, Skins is still going strong in the U.K. And the creators now have developed and adapted the show for American audiences on MTV, which debuted on January 17, 2011. Immediately after that first episode aired, the Parents Television Council blasted the show as the most dangerous television show ever. "The episode included all manner of foul language, illegal drug use, illegal activity as well as thoroughly pervasive sexual content. Moreover, future episodes promise much more of the same," PTC President Tim Winter wrote. "It is clear that [MTV's parent company] Viacom has knowingly produced material that may well be in violation of [several child pornography laws]" (TV Guide). MTV is basic cable, which viewers have more access to than such pay cable networks as HBO or Showtime; if Skins had aired on any of the latter stations, would the PTC still have filed their complaints, for channels like HBO can get away with lot more than on a spot like MTV? Regardless, I can't honestly say if MTV is violating child pornography laws (though even that claim is a little ridiculous), but I can address the general criticisms of the show.
I would now like to briefly address the advertisers who pulled their sponsorship from the show, Taco Bell, GM, Subway and H&R Block, among others. I find it laughable that you would choose to pull your ads only after the PTC went after it. The original U.K. Skins was already known as a raunchy show. You decide to attach yourself as advertisers of the program, when that fact was completely and obviously well-known, and somehow feel taken aback once the show actually airs. That is just plain ridiculous. Wrigley says that "it was never our intent to endorse content that could offend consumers" (HR). Really? You're saying that after partnering with a network that is known to air controversial, crude, and inappropriate material (see: Jersey Shore), as well as other ridiculous and disturbing shows (like Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant). You have to look at the network; you should not be taken aback that MTV is airing a show like Skins. Plus, Skins is a FICTIONAL show, unlike Jersey Shore (a REALITY show) where brainless airheads get together to drink, fight, have sex, and go on TV just for money and fame; now that's inappropriate! And don't get me started on The Hills. There's a difference between reality (or "reality," for those who believe not everything is impromptu) and fiction. Speaking of Jersey Shore, I don't even see that show listed on the PTC website; what's up with that?
The Parents Television Council, right at the top of their website claims that they are "A non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment." TV Watch Online is not a political website at all, so I won't dwell on the politics too long here, but the PTC is anything but non-partisan. It is a very conservative group who just don't get it. And Skins obviously isn't the only program this organization has gone after.
One such show they have criticized is one that T.W.O. covers on the main site: Glee. Glee has been criticized not only by the PTC but by other voices as well for sexually explicit scenes, showing two teenage girls making out, among other examples. You even compared Glee's GQ photo shoot to pedophilia. How outrageous of a claim. Since we're on the topic of singing: Adam Lambert. After his performance at the 2009 American Music Awards in which he kissed another male on stage, simulated oral sex, and walked dancers across the stage with chains. You called it "vulgar." If he had kissed a woman, I doubt you would have had a problem with it. Female performers, for the most part, have gotten away with being more sexually explicit on stage, but it's not okay when a male singer does it? Lambert's performance aired at almost 11pm; children should not even be up at that time anyways.
But back to Skins. I want to make something very clear. I would never condone the things happening on this show--the underage sex, drug use, etc-- if this was real life. I'm in my early 20's and in college, and I would never think to imitate what these fictional characters are doing. If we saw all of this happening on a reality show, I would be strictly against it, no matter if they were teens or adults.
And by the way, our American version of the show is a whole lot tamer and toned down than the original, British version. When Skins UK started airing on BBC America, where were you, PTC? Even in an edited form, the UK show has a lot more nudity, sex and explicit language than ours. Even if you did respond to BBC America airing the show, it most definitely was not to the outrageous level that you are dishing out with the tamer U.S. show.
Before I finish, I would like to briefly talk to MTV and the people behind Skins. Two episodes have aired so far. And in each, I have noticed some swear words were bleeped. If you knew words like those wouldn't be allowed on TV, why did you even put then in the script in the first place? Unless you're going to release an uncensored version of the DVD (if one should come out), I want to either see no censorship at all or leaving it out in the first place.
After the premiere aired and the PTC came after you, you (MTV) were backed up against a wall and didn't defend your own network or show. If you truly believe in this show, you need to step up and put yourself back on the offense instead of playing defense. You knew this show would create controversy, so back up your decisions with reasoning. I think the PTC should read show creator Brian Elsley's statement he made after the premiere aired.
In this war between the PTC and MTV, the Parents Television Council is winning right now. And you wanna know why? Because they are being louder, whereas MTV is whimpering. Look at politics, especially the political climate of the past year or so. The winning party was victorious because they were louder. Being louder means you will be heard in the media. And if you have the attention of the media, those who agree with you will come out in full force to support you. And when you are louder, have everyone's attention, and gain some support resulting from that, it puts you on the offense. Being on offense equals power. And the PTC has the power right now.
It's very unfortunate that it ended up the way it did, because the PTC, in theory, is a very irrelevant organization. Tim Winter (PTC President) - let parents and their families make their own decisions and don't butt into people's lives, telling us what we should think or do.
Sincerely,
Jeff D.
Webmaster, TV Watch Online
---
Related Links:
Creator Bryan Elsley's Statement
Actor Sofia Black D'Elia Responds to Controversy
Webmaster Note: TV Watch Online will continue its coverage of Skins and the controversy, posting article links in the TV/Movie/Entertainment News section on the home page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)