I'm the most anti-censorship person you'll ever find, but she does have a point. Sounds like the TV-PG rating was in error.
Of course, SHE should have been intelligent enough to notice that it was during "Adult Swim", but still. Sounds like the person who handed out the rating was by far the more ignorant one.
Rating systems are stupid in and of themselves they are designed so parents simply could avoid responsibility for their children. There are so many people who have kids for the sake of having them and have absolutly no interest in raising them, and that is why there are shows like teletubbies, sesamy street, barney because I mean it would be down right unnatural for parents to entertain and educate their own children.
And I suppose she doesn't let her kids read Harry Potter either, for they might learn to summon *dons church lady voice* SATAN? Fundy's (as I like to call em) only job is to be the most obnoxious ignorant people you can ever meet. I mean there were several people in my High School class who were children of Fundy's who thought Harry Potter was of the devil and that it taught kids how to worship satan. Once again, this is why I'm against organized religion.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
Well, nothing of this changes the fact that it should be correctly rated and you're ganging up on her. Perhaps she didnt let her son stay up, but the son watched it without her knowledge? tricked by the cartoonish appearance but with a sexual content? Cartoon network is primary for the kids and it doesnt need the word kid in its name for you to get the idea. If the channel decides to show some sort of erotic cartoon at midnight then it's them to be blame, they know the have a young audience and should act accordingly. I see nothing wrong with that article really, the show was badly rated and she warned people with kid to watch the show. But I didnt feel like she was removing his resposibility but rather strenghtening it <b>BUT</b> I do think the channel holds a great deal of resposibility
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And as for "go Australia"..... didn't they ban GTA, and now their childcare centres have banned superheroes?
We got GTA the "censored" version, no prositutes or blood or anything. Thankyou piracy <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> And yes, a few childcare centers here have banned their children from dressing up as superheros. Most people consider it a bizzare and unnessassry act however and it was the actions of individual centers, not the country as a whole.
FLCL is one whacked out series, that's for sure. I can't recall any nudity though and as for the fighting well it's all very sureal. Sureal as in robots bursting out of a kids head and a chick on a mad Vespa scooter attacking them with an electric guitar. I don't think there's any blood or even actual wounds. Last I checked PG-13 is covers depictions of unrealistic fighting (I mean it's no worse than say Transformers and everyone loves Transformers <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Compare it to say the fighting in Cowboy Bebop and there's no comparison. FLCL doesn't warrent a higher rating because it doesn't have anything deemed higher than a PG-13 rating.
That all said, the only way you will understand FLCL is if you are on some extreamly hard drugs. I'm talking like woah.... Dude......My hands are so big....... They can touch everything but themselves....wooah....
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 28 2003, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 28 2003, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rating systems are stupid in and of themselves they are designed so parents simply could avoid responsibility for their children. There are so many people who have kids for the sake of having them and have absolutly no interest in raising them, and that is why there are shows like teletubbies, sesamy street, barney because I mean it would be down right unnatural for parents to entertain and educate their own children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many kids do you have, D? Just out of curiosity. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Or even significantly younger siblings?
[edit] I ask because that sort of thing is easy to say if you don't have children. Unless you have some independent source of free wealth, you usually simply can't spend every second with your kid. Again, this doesn't excuse the silliness of letting the kid stay up till midnight watching "Adult Swim", but ratings in general do serve a useful purpose in allowing parents to get some sort of *idea* at least about what the show's target audience might be.
I'd also like to say that it's not like this mom is trying to sue the network, get the show banned, or anything. She just wants the rating to be reviewed, and it does sound to me like the rating is off. For those of you who didn't bother to read the whole thing, she even tried multiple times to contact the network privately and politely, and they wouldn't accept any of her calls. You can argue that ratings are inherently kinda dumb (even though in many cases in this country they've been all that's protected us from outright censorship), but if the show is going to HAVE a rating, the rating should at least be accurate.
Whenever a parent comes along screaming about how little Johnny played GTA3, we all say "SUYF nub, it's rated M." Well, this is an instance in which a rating is a little misleading - I'm surprised there's so much resistance to having it "fixed." Geez.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Aug 28 2003, 04:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Aug 28 2003, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The name is '<b>Cartoon</b> Network'. Not, I repeat, <i>not</i> 'Kids Network'. Cartoons aren't a pure childrens affair, they never were. If they went around assuming that, sorry, but they were wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> exactly. completely ridiculous to assume cartoon means kid. and she is sitting there at midnight watching at show that states adult swim right there infront of her. ok simpsons is tv-pg and has nudity and violence and is on earlier, but she probably enjoys watching it.
None if I did I would take care to know what they were doing. Just because it is common for parents to be too busy to fully watch over their kids doesn't make it right. I honestly would reconsider even something as intensive as carreer choices if I noticed I was spending less than 3 hours a day with my child. The fact is a lot of double income homes have parents that work and still have very active social lives which leaves kids with either a sitter or by themselves most of the day.
And the show the woman was referring to is on during Adult Swim which has a big fat warning right at the start of the programming that the shows may contain violence, sexual situations, and course language.
My point about ratings is that it's an excuse for the parent NOT to do research. Oh that show is rated TV-Y7 I'm not even going to bother to put it in a web browser, read reviews, or even watch it once before sitting my kid in front of it. Get my point?
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 28 2003, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 28 2003, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> None if I did I would take care to know what they were doing. Just because it is common for parents to be too busy to fully watch over their kids doesn't make it right. I honestly would reconsider even something as intensive as carreer choices if I noticed I was spending less than 3 hours a day with my child.
And the show the woman was referring to is on during Adult Swim which has a big fat warning right at the start of the programming that the shows may contain violence, sexual situations, and course language. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, easy to say. Not all parents can make enough money to support their families working at anything less than a full-time job. In some cases, MORE than a full-time job. And once in a great while, they might need time to unwind, too. I have two much younger sibs, whom I shouldered some of the burden for supervising when they were around toddler age. It was draining, and I was doing a TINY TINY fraction of the work, and I didn't even have a job. Have some kids, then talk about how unfit other people are as parents.
A large part of the point of ratings is to get a general idea of the content BEFORE actually watching/buying it. This is why games now have ESRB ratings on the boxes. This is why movies have ratings posted at the box office. And now TV shows have ratings posted in the freakin TV Guide so in theory you shouldn't have to actually watch it to know if it's going to have some material you deem unsuitable for a 3 year old or whatever. The entire point of the rating is lost if it's inaccurate. If the network isn't able to post accurate ratings, they should post ratings of "unrated" - it'd at least be honest.
So basically you are saying a rating company that has never met you or your child and knows nothing of your values or beliefs knows what kind of shows your kid should be watching?
What if I am a Protestant and think witchcraft is a damnable thing and a show like "Sabrina" carries a TV-Y rating and I assume it is fine for my child to watch?
No. But the rating organization should be consistent with its own guidelines. If the guidelines say that any show which has heavy violence gets at least a "PG-13" rating or whatever, and I know that I don't want my kid seeing heavy violence, I should be able to scan thru the TV guide, verify that what they're watching doesn't have PG-13 or higher, and have some degree of confidence that it conforms to the appropriate guidelines.
Some parents might feel that anything of "PG" or higher is too much for their 15 year old kid. They can use the rating system the same way. Not that I condone such draconian censorship, but the point is, different people with different values can all use the same rating system. I would not trust the rating system ENTIRELY, but I'd trust it to at least be right for the "obvious" cases. If my 5 year old kid wanted to watch a show, and it was rated PG-13, that'd be my cue to sit down and watch it and see what side of the border it fell on. If the show was rated R or X, I'd feel pretty justified in saying flat-out "no" unless the kid had a good argument. If the kid wants to watch a show rated "G", I should be able to say "sure, go ahead," without having to worry about it containing tentacle pr0n.
I say again: I think this particular case is a LITTLE silly, and the mom in question obviously dropped the ball a bit. It still doesn't absolve the network of a responsibility to make sure that if they post ratings, the ratings are somewhat accurate.
That's exactly my point if your kid was 7 you would watch a PG-13 movie with them to see if it was suitable for them to watch, but if it was rated R you would most likely say flat out no.
So by those standards your child would be able to watch a piece of trash like XXX but wouldn't get to see a perfectly good piece of film like Shakespear in Love.
I just don't believe the rating system holds any water since <i>morals</i> should be something you can decide on your own. And it is a bit indicative of the convinence over all that our (US) culture indulges in.
Err, guys, the fact of the matter remains that FLCL does not warrent a higher rating. It's depictions of violence are no worse than Transformers and there is no nudity. It's a very deep series but that's got nothing to do with ratings.
I'm going to take a step back and examine the whole "Let's ban this because I don't like it" phase.
Generally these arguments are started by groups of around 1 (okay, it's not a group...it's an individual) to 15. Occasionally you'll break out the PETA people or something who have thousands of supporters (I suggest the maddox/xmission site for them...heh). They don't like video game violence, or hot coffee or anime 'nudity'.
The problem is, for every one person that's against said object (violence, whatever) there's generally more that are perfectly fine with it (I'm not a statistician, and I don't think there have been any actual studies on it, but I can guarantee that this is true here). Lets take GTA3 as an example. There were thousands of people against, "it's to violent", "it has got hookers", "you kill cops in it"(which many other games already had, but...). Even though it had this many people opposed to it, it became a million seller.
Use the old cliche (how do i get that cool little line above my e? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) "The squeaky wheel always gets the grease." In these cases things are 'fixed' (read: Censored) because for all the people that enjoy/support/could care less/are fine with/whatever a product, they don't voice themselves, but when someone does have a complaint it's publicized because (I'm going to go with the media here, because they make money off this kind of thing) 'the media' thinks more people than those complaining hate the product too.
All we need to do is send tons of letters to Cartoon Network, or Rockstar, or CNN (since they're 'the media') telling them how much we enjoy the products...why would we buy them if we didn't? But, alas, we're to lazy, so we just have to get **** at all the people that complain about the things we enjoy.
On the subject of ratings, things should be rated by maturity, not age. Never by age. I know eighteen year olds who act as stupid and immature as an eleven year old. Conversely I know an eleven year old who acts more like an eighteen year old (okay, he's 13, but still, it makes the conversely part fit). This would mean more money spent on useless maturity tests which would cost to much and never be used properly. Kid's should be smart enough to know what they're watching.
When I was 7 I didn't want to watch porn anyway, I didn't want to watch Law and Order (was it even on then?) either. Granted there wasn't 'DBZ' or FLCL (which I can say I've never seen, but was moderately intrigued to see). If your kid isn't smart enough to realize the difference between real life and video game life and TV life, than...unfortunately he/she's retarded and you should have them put to sleep immediately...
So, all the people that like: adult based anime, violent video games, hot coffee ( <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> , yes, even though it was over heated, it's still retarded for you to pour it on yourself and sue- though, actually I like cappachinno (spelling) not coffee), porn, drugs and intelligence...come with me, we're making our own country...one that's free of censorship and complaints.
Holy crap that's a lot of writing, I'll be surprised if anyone reads it all.
Listening to: The General, by Dispatch ...Follow me, to the new country...Gecktopia (name to be revised <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )!
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 28 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 28 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's exactly my point if your kid was 7 you would watch a PG-13 movie with them to see if it was suitable for them to watch, but if it was rated R you would most likely say flat out no.
So by those standards your child would be able to watch a piece of trash like XXX but wouldn't get to see a perfectly good piece of film like Shakespear in Love.
I just don't believe the rating system holds any water since <i>morals</i> should be something you can decide on your own. And it is a bit indicative of the convinence over all that our (US) culture indulges in. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if it was called "Shakespeare in Love" as opposed to "Eviscerator Part 2", I'd be much more likely to see it with them. And I think XXX would actually be fine for most kids - its violence was downright cartoonish. But that's not really the point. The point is that the ratings are supposedly guidelines to what sort of possibly dicey content a show/movie/game might have. TV ratings are actually better than movie ratings, in that they say what sort of content warranted the high rating, so if I decide that I don't care if my kid sees nudity, as long as there's no extreme violence, I can scan through the high ratings and decide that this R-rated thing is probably fine because it got its R for nudity and language, but contains only "mild violence". (And for me at least, "probably fine" would be good enough - I wouldn't tear my hair out worrying about what my kids watched as long as it wasn't WAY over the line.)
The point is not whether the ratings system is or isn't a valid tool for parents to use. The point is that if the network makes the claim that it has a rating system in place that represents the content of its shows, they have a responsibility to apply that ratings system in a competent fashion, and at least listen to their viewers if the viewers feel that the ratings system is being misapplied or needs to be revised. By rating the show as PG, the network is making certain claims about the content of that show - if those claims are false, it's like fraudulent advertising. Like I said, it'd be better to list it as "unrated" and not provide information one way or the other.
The mom in question was not calling for a ban on the show, Gecko. She just felt that the rating was inappropriate, and wanted the network to take a better look at it. And honestly, I'd say the network should just run through and slap a "mature" or "PG13" or whatever rating on every show in the "Adult Swim" time slot - it'd make things easier.
I am against censorship in all its forms, don't get me wrong. But I'm also against false advertising. If the mom's complaint is valid, this is an instance of false advertising. (Whether it is or isn't a valid complaint isn't really the issue, IMHO - people seem to be attacking her for the very idea of questioning the rating.)
I was attacking her for beleiving in the rating since I don't give a flying fudgecake about ratings. I was attacking her for being silly enough to think something on Adult Swim would be suitable for a 7 year old.
And to be honest cartoonish violence is actually worse in live action movies/shows because without the obvious fantasy setting of a cartoon it's harder for kids to understand that if they drop kick their friend he's not going to just shoot of sparks and get up unharmed. I'm refering to the Power Rangers because when they first aired the show many kids in elementary schools would reinact the fight scenes from those shows and severly hurt themselevs. If I remember correctly the injuries during the first season ranged higher than all of the injuries associated with wrestling programming combined. (There was an incident I remember seeing a news story about I'll paraphrase "A child was injured today when his playmate jumped off a table near the playground and onto the other child in a "jumpkick" style and then landing ontop of the child breaking several ribs. ouch.)
But I'm a firm disbeliever in media causing any kind of direct violence. And I'm sure there weren't any parents around to put the show into context for the kids.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What we saw was nudity below the waist on a teenage girl, kids <b>blowing people's brains out with machine guns, extreme violence and sexual content</b> - all being acted out by adolescent characters.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds like my kinda show! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Hehe.
If their kids are up at 12:01 AM then the parents must be doing something wrong. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] not seeing the show, i can't tell what its like. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> however, what do you expect from something thats on at 12:01 AM? Barney? (not the half-life character, nub!) Stripperella is on at 10/11 PM and there's more sexual jokes/nudity in that show than i've seen. Course it's rated CFFA... "Cartoons For F***in Adults. Hide the kids." <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> [/edit]
for anyone curious, I looked up the TV ratings: <a href='http://www.familysafemedia.com/tv_guidelines.html' target='_blank'>http://www.familysafemedia.com/tv_guidelines.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Parental Guidance - This program may contain some material that some parents would find unsuitable for younger children. The program may contain infrequent coarse language, limited violence, some suggestive sexual dialogue and/or situations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's just PG
ARG cartoon network airs fargen warnings about the content of adult swim to keep rejects like her at bay, she probobly saw 11 seconds of the "cartoon" slapped her sleeping husband on the head, threw a leash on him and went to file complaints.
If you read the actual article she's not trying to get it banned, just get the rating updated to something more like PG13. But the funny thing about the ratings is it might be PG but with VSL in small letters at the bottom, Violence Sex and Language.
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 28 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 28 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ARG cartoon network airs fargen warnings about the content of adult swim to keep rejects like her at bay, she probobly saw 11 seconds of the "cartoon" slapped her sleeping husband on the head, threw a leash on him and went to file complaints. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe just to be safe they should nudge their ratings up a bit so they match the warnings. <i>Duh.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 28 2003, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 28 2003, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Aug 28 2003, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Aug 28 2003, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ARG cartoon network airs fargen warnings about the content of adult swim to keep rejects like her at bay, she probobly saw 11 seconds of the "cartoon" slapped her sleeping husband on the head, threw a leash on him and went to file complaints. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe just to be safe they should nudge their ratings up a bit so they match the warnings. <i>Duh.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A PG rating dictates adult language, brief nudity, and mild violence. I don't see how FLCL fails to apply.
note: I'm gunna keep digging at you till you admit she's an idiot : P
Ha! I forgot somthing, An FCC ruling states that after 12 midnight local time, censorship restrictions are lifted (hence why an unedited, uncut version of "South Park: The movie" aired always after midnight in Comedy Central) Oficially, they dont have to rate the series at all.
PG, in its official description, is hardly childrens content.
So the ratings are fully legal. Now if she wishes to lobby to have the rating definitions tightened, then she may do so, and then cartoon network will raise their ratings.
The thing is, they've made no violation, except in her opinion, which 3 out of 4 people on this topic have agreed is inane.
Comments
WHY THE HELL ARE YOU LETTING YOUR KID WATCH TV @ MIDNIGHT!?!?!?!?!?! The kid is probably around 10 and he shouldn't even be up that late.
it's ADULT SWIM, for cripes sakes, not KIDS SWIM!!!!1!
and FLCL is weird, cool but weird, and Cartoon Network even says during the credits that there is one graphic scene and it lists the episode.
Stupid soccer-moms. I'm glad my mother was born a hippie.
Of course, SHE should have been intelligent enough to notice that it was during "Adult Swim", but still. Sounds like the person who handed out the rating was by far the more ignorant one.
Perhaps she didnt let her son stay up, but the son watched it without her knowledge? tricked by the cartoonish appearance but with a sexual content?
Cartoon network is primary for the kids and it doesnt need the word kid in its name for you to get the idea. If the channel decides to show some sort of erotic cartoon at midnight then it's them to be blame, they know the have a young audience and should act accordingly.
I see nothing wrong with that article really, the show was badly rated and she warned people with kid to watch the show. But I didnt feel like she was removing his resposibility but rather strenghtening it <b>BUT</b> I do think the channel holds a great deal of resposibility
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We got GTA the "censored" version, no prositutes or blood or anything. Thankyou piracy <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> And yes, a few childcare centers here have banned their children from dressing up as superheros. Most people consider it a bizzare and unnessassry act however and it was the actions of individual centers, not the country as a whole.
FLCL is one whacked out series, that's for sure. I can't recall any nudity though and as for the fighting well it's all very sureal. Sureal as in robots bursting out of a kids head and a chick on a mad Vespa scooter attacking them with an electric guitar. I don't think there's any blood or even actual wounds. Last I checked PG-13 is covers depictions of unrealistic fighting (I mean it's no worse than say Transformers and everyone loves Transformers <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Compare it to say the fighting in Cowboy Bebop and there's no comparison. FLCL doesn't warrent a higher rating because it doesn't have anything deemed higher than a PG-13 rating.
That all said, the only way you will understand FLCL is if you are on some extreamly hard drugs. I'm talking like woah.... Dude......My hands are so big....... They can touch everything but themselves....wooah....
How many kids do you have, D? Just out of curiosity. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Or even significantly younger siblings?
[edit]
I ask because that sort of thing is easy to say if you don't have children. Unless you have some independent source of free wealth, you usually simply can't spend every second with your kid. Again, this doesn't excuse the silliness of letting the kid stay up till midnight watching "Adult Swim", but ratings in general do serve a useful purpose in allowing parents to get some sort of *idea* at least about what the show's target audience might be.
I'd also like to say that it's not like this mom is trying to sue the network, get the show banned, or anything. She just wants the rating to be reviewed, and it does sound to me like the rating is off. For those of you who didn't bother to read the whole thing, she even tried multiple times to contact the network privately and politely, and they wouldn't accept any of her calls. You can argue that ratings are inherently kinda dumb (even though in many cases in this country they've been all that's protected us from outright censorship), but if the show is going to HAVE a rating, the rating should at least be accurate.
Whenever a parent comes along screaming about how little Johnny played GTA3, we all say "SUYF nub, it's rated M." Well, this is an instance in which a rating is a little misleading - I'm surprised there's so much resistance to having it "fixed." Geez.
exactly. completely ridiculous to assume cartoon means kid. and she is sitting there at midnight watching at show that states adult swim right there infront of her. ok simpsons is tv-pg and has nudity and violence and is on earlier, but she probably enjoys watching it.
And the show the woman was referring to is on during Adult Swim which has a big fat warning right at the start of the programming that the shows may contain violence, sexual situations, and course language.
My point about ratings is that it's an excuse for the parent NOT to do research. Oh that show is rated TV-Y7 I'm not even going to bother to put it in a web browser, read reviews, or even watch it once before sitting my kid in front of it. Get my point?
And the show the woman was referring to is on during Adult Swim which has a big fat warning right at the start of the programming that the shows may contain violence, sexual situations, and course language. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, easy to say. Not all parents can make enough money to support their families working at anything less than a full-time job. In some cases, MORE than a full-time job. And once in a great while, they might need time to unwind, too. I have two much younger sibs, whom I shouldered some of the burden for supervising when they were around toddler age. It was draining, and I was doing a TINY TINY fraction of the work, and I didn't even have a job. Have some kids, then talk about how unfit other people are as parents.
A large part of the point of ratings is to get a general idea of the content BEFORE actually watching/buying it. This is why games now have ESRB ratings on the boxes. This is why movies have ratings posted at the box office. And now TV shows have ratings posted in the freakin TV Guide so in theory you shouldn't have to actually watch it to know if it's going to have some material you deem unsuitable for a 3 year old or whatever. The entire point of the rating is lost if it's inaccurate. If the network isn't able to post accurate ratings, they should post ratings of "unrated" - it'd at least be honest.
What if I am a Protestant and think witchcraft is a damnable thing and a show like "Sabrina" carries a TV-Y rating and I assume it is fine for my child to watch?
Some parents might feel that anything of "PG" or higher is too much for their 15 year old kid. They can use the rating system the same way. Not that I condone such draconian censorship, but the point is, different people with different values can all use the same rating system. I would not trust the rating system ENTIRELY, but I'd trust it to at least be right for the "obvious" cases. If my 5 year old kid wanted to watch a show, and it was rated PG-13, that'd be my cue to sit down and watch it and see what side of the border it fell on. If the show was rated R or X, I'd feel pretty justified in saying flat-out "no" unless the kid had a good argument. If the kid wants to watch a show rated "G", I should be able to say "sure, go ahead," without having to worry about it containing tentacle pr0n.
I say again: I think this particular case is a LITTLE silly, and the mom in question obviously dropped the ball a bit. It still doesn't absolve the network of a responsibility to make sure that if they post ratings, the ratings are somewhat accurate.
So by those standards your child would be able to watch a piece of trash like XXX but wouldn't get to see a perfectly good piece of film like Shakespear in Love.
I just don't believe the rating system holds any water since <i>morals</i> should be something you can decide on your own. And it is a bit indicative of the convinence over all that our (US) culture indulges in.
Heck, everyone knows Japanime is a little off-weird.
Generally these arguments are started by groups of around 1 (okay, it's not a group...it's an individual) to 15. Occasionally you'll break out the PETA people or something who have thousands of supporters (I suggest the maddox/xmission site for them...heh). They don't like video game violence, or hot coffee or anime 'nudity'.
The problem is, for every one person that's against said object (violence, whatever) there's generally more that are perfectly fine with it (I'm not a statistician, and I don't think there have been any actual studies on it, but I can guarantee that this is true here). Lets take GTA3 as an example. There were thousands of people against, "it's to violent", "it has got hookers", "you kill cops in it"(which many other games already had, but...). Even though it had this many people opposed to it, it became a million seller.
Use the old cliche (how do i get that cool little line above my e? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ) "The squeaky wheel always gets the grease." In these cases things are 'fixed' (read: Censored) because for all the people that enjoy/support/could care less/are fine with/whatever a product, they don't voice themselves, but when someone does have a complaint it's publicized because (I'm going to go with the media here, because they make money off this kind of thing) 'the media' thinks more people than those complaining hate the product too.
All we need to do is send tons of letters to Cartoon Network, or Rockstar, or CNN (since they're 'the media') telling them how much we enjoy the products...why would we buy them if we didn't? But, alas, we're to lazy, so we just have to get **** at all the people that complain about the things we enjoy.
On the subject of ratings, things should be rated by maturity, not age. Never by age. I know eighteen year olds who act as stupid and immature as an eleven year old. Conversely I know an eleven year old who acts more like an eighteen year old (okay, he's 13, but still, it makes the conversely part fit). This would mean more money spent on useless maturity tests which would cost to much and never be used properly. Kid's should be smart enough to know what they're watching.
When I was 7 I didn't want to watch porn anyway, I didn't want to watch Law and Order (was it even on then?) either. Granted there wasn't 'DBZ' or FLCL (which I can say I've never seen, but was moderately intrigued to see). If your kid isn't smart enough to realize the difference between real life and video game life and TV life, than...unfortunately he/she's retarded and you should have them put to sleep immediately...
So, all the people that like: adult based anime, violent video games, hot coffee ( <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> , yes, even though it was over heated, it's still retarded for you to pour it on yourself and sue- though, actually I like cappachinno (spelling) not coffee), porn, drugs and intelligence...come with me, we're making our own country...one that's free of censorship and complaints.
Holy crap that's a lot of writing, I'll be surprised if anyone reads it all.
Listening to: The General, by Dispatch
...Follow me, to the new country...Gecktopia (name to be revised <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )!
So by those standards your child would be able to watch a piece of trash like XXX but wouldn't get to see a perfectly good piece of film like Shakespear in Love.
I just don't believe the rating system holds any water since <i>morals</i> should be something you can decide on your own. And it is a bit indicative of the convinence over all that our (US) culture indulges in. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if it was called "Shakespeare in Love" as opposed to "Eviscerator Part 2", I'd be much more likely to see it with them. And I think XXX would actually be fine for most kids - its violence was downright cartoonish. But that's not really the point. The point is that the ratings are supposedly guidelines to what sort of possibly dicey content a show/movie/game might have. TV ratings are actually better than movie ratings, in that they say what sort of content warranted the high rating, so if I decide that I don't care if my kid sees nudity, as long as there's no extreme violence, I can scan through the high ratings and decide that this R-rated thing is probably fine because it got its R for nudity and language, but contains only "mild violence". (And for me at least, "probably fine" would be good enough - I wouldn't tear my hair out worrying about what my kids watched as long as it wasn't WAY over the line.)
The point is not whether the ratings system is or isn't a valid tool for parents to use. The point is that if the network makes the claim that it has a rating system in place that represents the content of its shows, they have a responsibility to apply that ratings system in a competent fashion, and at least listen to their viewers if the viewers feel that the ratings system is being misapplied or needs to be revised. By rating the show as PG, the network is making certain claims about the content of that show - if those claims are false, it's like fraudulent advertising. Like I said, it'd be better to list it as "unrated" and not provide information one way or the other.
The mom in question was not calling for a ban on the show, Gecko. She just felt that the rating was inappropriate, and wanted the network to take a better look at it. And honestly, I'd say the network should just run through and slap a "mature" or "PG13" or whatever rating on every show in the "Adult Swim" time slot - it'd make things easier.
I am against censorship in all its forms, don't get me wrong. But I'm also against false advertising. If the mom's complaint is valid, this is an instance of false advertising. (Whether it is or isn't a valid complaint isn't really the issue, IMHO - people seem to be attacking her for the very idea of questioning the rating.)
And to be honest cartoonish violence is actually worse in live action movies/shows because without the obvious fantasy setting of a cartoon it's harder for kids to understand that if they drop kick their friend he's not going to just shoot of sparks and get up unharmed. I'm refering to the Power Rangers because when they first aired the show many kids in elementary schools would reinact the fight scenes from those shows and severly hurt themselevs. If I remember correctly the injuries during the first season ranged higher than all of the injuries associated with wrestling programming combined. (There was an incident I remember seeing a news story about I'll paraphrase "A child was injured today when his playmate jumped off a table near the playground and onto the other child in a "jumpkick" style and then landing ontop of the child breaking several ribs. ouch.)
But I'm a firm disbeliever in media causing any kind of direct violence. And I'm sure there weren't any parents around to put the show into context for the kids.
Sounds like my kinda show! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hehe.
If their kids are up at 12:01 AM then the parents must be doing something wrong. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] not seeing the show, i can't tell what its like. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> however, what do you expect from something thats on at 12:01 AM? Barney? (not the half-life character, nub!) Stripperella is on at 10/11 PM and there's more sexual jokes/nudity in that show than i've seen. Course it's rated CFFA... "Cartoons For F***in Adults. Hide the kids." <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> [/edit]
<a href='http://www.familysafemedia.com/tv_guidelines.html' target='_blank'>http://www.familysafemedia.com/tv_guidelines.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Parental Guidance - This program may contain some material that some parents would find unsuitable for younger children. The program may contain infrequent coarse language, limited violence, some suggestive sexual dialogue and/or situations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's just PG
Maybe just to be safe they should nudge their ratings up a bit so they match the warnings. <i>Duh.</i>
Maybe just to be safe they should nudge their ratings up a bit so they match the warnings. <i>Duh.</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A PG rating dictates adult language, brief nudity, and mild violence. I don't see how FLCL fails to apply.
note: I'm gunna keep digging at you till you admit she's an idiot : P
So the ratings are fully legal. Now if she wishes to lobby to have the rating definitions tightened, then she may do so, and then cartoon network will raise their ratings.
The thing is, they've made no violation, except in her opinion, which 3 out of 4 people on this topic have agreed is inane.
Isn't any use of a lollipop in essence a simulation of oral sex acts if looked at from the right perspective? Just thought I'd be nitpicky.