cure-real
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 77

Thread: The commericals for the movie, drag me to hell...

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,309
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    Luke you really need to see the ads so you understand what I am talking about. Standards have changed...what used to not be allowed at all on TV..including ads, certainly is now. This is as bad as the The Exorcist and The shinning actually, both of which I have seen the full movies. They show some old scary horrible looking lady that make you think of a witch that looks as bad as the girl in the Exorcist, dragging off this young lady screaming into darkness and a bug type thing crawling up her nose that 'invades' her. And other special effects that are terrifying...it really is. Also shows this girl and others involved in a seance..which is occult stuff. Showing people turning their faces upwards, opening their mouths and black smoke comes pouring out of them. Other things involved..fortune teller, a Gypsy woman that places a curse on this lady, the silhouette of a goat's head (in the old satan type films a goat's head represented satan.) You can read about the story here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_Me_to_Hell
    Either you have to take my word on it or watch the ads yourself.
    And so I have done (at least, the ad marked "Trailer #1" on IMDb. It's a theater trailer, not TV, but as it's not red-band I assume they're not too different). And yes, the ads are scary (in a very particular way). What they are not, however, is inappropriate for television. There is no law or statute guaranteeing anyone, even (especially!) children, the right to not be scared when they watch TV. I mean, they're advertising a horror film. It would not only be odd, but would probably actually be false advertising, to have a trailer which showcased absolutely none of the film's shock or scare moments. I mean, how do you want them to advertise a film entitled Drag Me To Hell? It's not overly graphic or violent, it just has scary faces and a bug &c. I cannot imagine how draconian the FCC's regulations would have to be to strike scary faces and bugs from the airwaves.

    (More thoughts about the trailer: It looks to be advertising a film that is either extremely stupid and unknowingly campy, or entirely self-aware and intentionally campy. Almost all the reviews would have it the second way. There was only one moment that really made me jump: the shot of the protagonist's bed from the side; as she slowly reclines it is revealed that her bedfellow is not her boyfriend but someone with a scary face. It's actually pretty good editing and not really a "shock" moment at all, except for the soundtrack noise-sting, which I'm assuming is not in the film proper. Also: Raimi-cam! And the ad I saw showed a bug crawling into the woman's mouth, not her nose. I don't know if that's relevant.)

    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    I don't know if you have children or not, but its simply not true that almost anything scares them...far from it. Unless the child has suffered from some kind of an emotional trauma, they shouldn't be scared of everything by any means.
    Okay, let's say then that I was scared of everything as a child. This trailer would definitely have terrified me not too long ago, and I would not have wanted to watch it, but I would not have claimed then and will not claim now that this means no-one else should be able to watch it. I have no constitutional right not to see unpleasant things on television (if I did, everything Tyler Perry would be taken off the air and replaced with new seasons of Arrested Development. Or even just reruns of Arrested Development. Or dead air. Ah well, a man can dream).

    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    Now young teenagers watch that movie and it barely rates up their with what is considered a scary horror movie anymore. Considering what they see now..its not that big of a deal..
    Yeah, well, teenagers have bad taste (except me, obviously. That was a joke. I mean, I don't, but a lot of others don't either. Let's say: Young teenagers have bad taste. Except if they're preternatural artistic genuises, or something, in which case I hate them anyway). Yes, a lot of them think slasher films and torture-porn are better horror than Night of the Living Dead (which is itself quite graphic). They're wrong. What else can I say? I'm not going to defend them. Anyway, I think that probably young teenagers will not "get" Drag Me To Hell or appreciate it in the same way knowledgable adult fans will (particularly its apparent references to eighties horror films: That's not something you put in a hacky, shoddy slasher for the teens). I'm not really sure why teenagers are part of the discussion, to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    Standards have changed so much that even on TV for instance...when I was a kid, there was no cussing on TV...and they never showed a couple in bed together unless it was a porn movie which wasn't on TV anyway. If you notice all the shows of I love Lucy, when they shown her and her husband in the bedroom they had seperate single beds apart from each other. It would have been a scandle to show them in the same bed even if they were fully dressed! Now soap operas are what many consider soft porn....
    I'm not sure why it's considered a good thing by anyone, anywhere, that television standards in the fifties were so puritan that shows were required to distort reality in frankly amusing ways to accomodate them. So we can now show spouses sleeping in the same bed? Good. That is how real life works. Also, cursing is still not allowed on cable television (that is, as opposed to HBO &c.), except for the very mildest profanities (it jarred me at first when, while on vacation, I saw unbleeped f-words on Canadian television. And I am not one who particularly cares about the f-word either way).

    So, yes, television in the 1950s was very strictly censored. Now it is a bit less so, although regulations (particularly for sex—I'm not sure how TV got its reputation among many for constantly showing graphic sex acts; surely the ridiculous overreaction to the idiotic Janet Jackson Superbowl "scandal" put the lie to that) are still much stricter than I think they probably should be in a country that supposedly values freedom of expression. But no matter. Some things probably should be banned from or at least regulated on public-access programming: overly graphic violence, full nudity, etc. Scary faces and bugs and smoke coming out of people's nostrils are not those things.

    (Also, I have never, ever heard anyone refer to soap operas as soft-core pornography. I have also never seen anything close to an actual depiction of sex anywhere on television, and certainly not on soap operas. And even if it were (i.e., if sex were depicted) it would certainly not contain any nudity at all, thank you FCC, and so I'm not sure on what planet it can be considered "pornography.")
    "We are symbols and inhabit symbols; workmen, work, and tools, words and things, birth and death, all are emblems; but we sympathize with the symbols, and being infatuated with the economical uses of things, we do not know that they are thoughts." - Emerson, "The Poet" (Essays, Second Series)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,249
    Blog Entries
    11
    Luke I am starting to think you live in a cave...I sent you a couple of 'love scene' video links cause I can't post those on the board...they would not be considered appropriate for a Christian message board. Alot of Christians consider day time soaps nothing but soft porn now. Its fine if you disagree..that is your opinion.

    When I say cussing..I am not talking about just the f word, there are alot of cuss words including taking the Name of God in vain on TV all the time! Do you not watch TV?? Ever watch 'House MD' or 'NCIS'? Those are mild too. Ever watch what they call sic coms? They not only have cussing but the actors are always making sexual comments that are suppose to be funny and many of them have homosexuals in them now, so the 'funny sexual comments are geared towards gay sex.

    I have see movies on during the day filled with cussing...and regular shows too. Its hard to find shows or movies that don't have at least some cussing in them.

    As far as what I was saying about the Lucy show I think you missed my point..I was talking about how much things have changed that are allowed on TV now, in a short period of time...they do NOT show couples 'sleeping' in the same bed...that would be too boring you know. They always show at least making out and usually parts of their having sex without showing too much..but sleeping? ha...hardly...

    Ok look..its one thing for us to be able to change channels when a show comes on we don't feel is something good to be watching...but with a commerical we don't have that choice...that is my beef here.

    With it on so many stations it was really, really hard to avoid. Its not like I can check the TV program schedule and see when its coming on to avoid.

    While there are alot of stations we don't watch because of the type of shows they have on, my son and I do like to watch some TV and would like to watch it without this suddenly coming on unexpectedly. I realize this kind of stuff isn't covered under the FCC rules but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. And I can tell you one thing, most people do not like the idea of a bug clawing up their nose or in their mouth..doesn't really make any difference which it is either..

    Originally Posted by moonglow
    Now young teenagers watch that movie and it barely rates up their with what is considered a scary horror movie anymore. Considering what they see now..its not that big of a deal..
    Yeah, well, teenagers have bad taste (except me, obviously. That was a joke. I mean, I don't, but a lot of others don't either. Let's say: Young teenagers have bad taste. Except if they're preternatural artistic genuises, or something, in which case I hate them anyway). Yes, a lot of them think slasher films and torture-porn are better horror than Night of the Living Dead (which is itself quite graphic). They're wrong. What else can I say? I'm not going to defend them. Anyway, I think that probably young teenagers will not "get" Drag Me To Hell or appreciate it in the same way knowledgable adult fans will (particularly its apparent references to eighties horror films: That's not something you put in a hacky, shoddy slasher for the teens). I'm not really sure why teenagers are part of the discussion, to be honest.
    you totally missed my point here. I am not talking about bad taste..I am saying teenagers have been exposed to much worse then the Exorcist so they are desensitize to it...considering other horror movies since then, this one for them, barely ranks up there for being scary...being desensitize allows for the showing of worse and worse movies and its accepted. When people become desensitized they allow their minds to be filled with worse and worse very gradually...accepting things they wouldn't have dreamed of tolerating five years ago. You know that saying, 'you are what you eat?'..the same thing goes with our minds and thoughts too...'you are what you put into your mind.'

    I think part of our problem here on this topic is our age difference. You are college age, I am 48 and old enough to have witnessed the change in what is allowed not just on TV but in the theaters too. What in the past would have easily been rated R, just due to its violent or graphic nature, is now passing for PG13...things have changed alot which is what I was trying to explain to you when I brought up the Lucy show...most of the changes are not for the better either.

    Anyway I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this..

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  3. #63
    Prufrock Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke34 View Post
    And so I have done (at least, the ad marked "Trailer #1" on IMDb. It's a theater trailer, not TV, but as it's not red-band I assume they're not too different). And yes, the ads are scary (in a very particular way). What they are not, however, is inappropriate for television. There is no law or statute guaranteeing anyone, even (especially!) children, the right to not be scared when they watch TV. I mean, they're advertising a horror film. It would not only be odd, but would probably actually be false advertising, to have a trailer which showcased absolutely none of the film's shock or scare moments. I mean, how do you want them to advertise a film entitled Drag Me To Hell? It's not overly graphic or violent, it just has scary faces and a bug &c. I cannot imagine how draconian the FCC's regulations would have to be to strike scary faces and bugs from the airwaves.
    Actually, I'd be perfectly happy if they didn't advertise horror movies on television at all. I do not consider such movies to be such shining cultural contributions that they need to be widely advertised: they add nothing to the social good; indeed, they add to the general coarsening of the culture, and of society itself, that has been proceeding at breakneck speed ever since the 1960's. (The real cultural contributions aren't advertised at all. If Itzhak Perlman or Yo-Yo Ma comes to the average American city for a performance, how much television advertising does the performance receive, compared to "Sex in the City" or the latest comic book movie?) In any case, the FCC has nothing to do with it: although the various administrative agencies (which are considered by lawyers to be "the fourth branch of government") are horribly powerful in the United States, the FCC does not usually get involved in movie advertisements. This is handled by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the private group that assigns ratings to new movies; theater owners and television stations tend to go along with the MPAA recommendations. There was even a popular documentary about the shortcomings and hypocrisies of the MPAA system, but I will not name it, because then I'd be plugging a movie that contains many unsuitable elements.
    Yeah, well, teenagers have bad taste (except me, obviously. That was a joke. I mean, I don't, but a lot of others don't either. Let's say: Young teenagers have bad taste. Except if they're preternatural artistic genuises, or something, in which case I hate them anyway). Yes, a lot of them think slasher films and torture-porn are better horror than Night of the Living Dead (which is itself quite graphic). They're wrong. What else can I say? I'm not going to defend them. Anyway, I think that probably young teenagers will not "get" Drag Me To Hell or appreciate it in the same way knowledgable adult fans will (particularly its apparent references to eighties horror films: That's not something you put in a hacky, shoddy slasher for the teens). I'm not really sure why teenagers are part of the discussion, to be honest.
    Because they're impressionable, and because (as you say) their tastes are not fully developed. I can remember images from films I saw as a teenager, in the 1960s, which did me no good at all, and only stoked the fires of my youthful lusts and lack of inhibitions. (I'm not blaming the movies for my wickedness; I'm merely saying that they didn't help!) Christian parents, who are the kind of parents you find in this forum, are rightfully concerned about such things. If they weren't concerned about it, they'd be derelict in their God-given responsibilities.

    I'm not sure why it's considered a good thing by anyone, anywhere, that television standards in the fifties were so puritan that shows were required to distort reality in frankly amusing ways to accomodate them. So we can now show spouses sleeping in the same bed? Good. That is how real life works.
    Real life can be a very ugly thing, and does not always deserve cultural depiction. (I'm not talking about separate beds for married couples!) However, somebody has sold you a bill of goods about the 1950's. That's when I was a child (I was born in 1949), and it was one of the richest cultural periods in American history: writers as diverse as T. S. Eliot, Norman Mailer, and Jack Kerouac were in their prime; the movies featured such actors as Laurence Oliver, James Dean, and the young Marlon Brando; Alfred Hitchcock and Elia Kazan were in their heyday as directors; Van Cliburn was winning the International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow; and, of course, rock music was born, if that's a contribution. There was nothing "Puritanical" about it; and, anyway, when did "Puritanical" become a pejorative word among Christians? Yes, the spouses had to sleep in separate beds on television comedies; was that worse than the unmitigated filth in today's comedies, such as "Friends" or "Will and Grace?" Was the unrealistic innocence of "I Love Lucy" or "Leave It to Beaver" somehow more offensive than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?"

    Also, cursing is still not allowed on cable television (that is, as opposed to HBO &c.), except for the very mildest profanities (it jarred me at first when, while on vacation, I saw unbleeped f-words on Canadian television. And I am not one who particularly cares about the f-word either way) So, yes, television in the 1950s was very strictly censored. Now it is a bit less so, although regulations (particularly for sex—I'm not sure how TV got its reputation among many for constantly showing graphic sex acts; surely the ridiculous overreaction to the idiotic Janet Jackson Superbowl "scandal" put the lie to that) are still much stricter than I think they probably should be in a country that supposedly values freedom of expression.
    You're joking, aren't you? "Cursing," both four-letter words and actual profanity, is so widespread on television, particularly cable, as to be absolutely ubiquitous. As for sex, you're simply mistaken. Cable television features exhaustive nudity in such programs as "Nip/Tuck" and others, and the offerings on the premium channels are even worse. No, these programs do not depict "graphic sex acts" in the same way that hard-core pornography does; but they are, most definitely, "soft-core" pornography. I don't think there's a producer or writer in Hollywood who would dispute this.

    (Also, I have never, ever heard anyone refer to soap operas as soft-core pornography. I have also never seen anything close to an actual depiction of sex anywhere on television, and certainly not on soap operas. And even if it were (i.e., if sex were depicted) it would certainly not contain any nudity at all, thank you FCC, and so I'm not sure on what planet it can be considered "pornography.")
    See above. I agree that the daytime soaps don't contain soft-core porn: they merely contain as much "mild" sex and alcoholism (and worse) as they can. And in this case, you are probably correct to thank the FCC, even if you do it sarcastically.

    However, I will emphatically agree with you that it's not primarily a "teen" problem, or, more accurately, a problem affecting only teenagers. I know men in their 40s and 50s who would never watch porn on the Internet, but who watch the most salacious stuff (like "Nip/Tuck") and the most outrageous horror (like "Hostel") with an almost religious dedication. (It isn't primarily teenagers who buy the boxed sets of DVDs for this stuff.) And these are Christian men that I'm talking about.

    America is about as "Puritanical" as ancient Rome or Babylon. C. S. Lewis said it best: Everyone says that we've "hushed up" sex, when in reality we've simply talked it to death. American culture, indeed all Western culture, has become so foul that it's a grief for any serious Christian to deal with.

    If this post sounds preachy or "Puritanical," I can only say that I've been called much worse, on many occasions!



  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,249
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Prufrock View Post
    Actually, I'd be perfectly happy if they didn't advertise horror movies on television at all. I do not consider such movies to be such shining cultural contributions that they need to be widely advertised: they add nothing to the social good; indeed, they add to the general coarsening of the culture, and of society itself, that has been proceeding at breakneck speed ever since the 1960's. (The real cultural contributions aren't advertised at all. If Itzhak Perlman or Yo-Yo Ma comes to the average American city for a performance, how much television advertising does the performance receive, compared to "Sex in the City" or the latest comic book movie?) In any case, the FCC has nothing to do with it: although the various administrative agencies (which are considered by lawyers to be "the fourth branch of government") are horribly powerful in the United States, the FCC does not usually get involved in movie advertisements. This is handled by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the private group that assigns ratings to new movies; theater owners and television stations tend to go along with the MPAA recommendations. There was even a popular documentary about the shortcomings and hypocrisies of the MPAA system, but I will not name it, because then I'd be plugging a movie that contains many unsuitable elements.
    Because they're impressionable, and because (as you say) their tastes are not fully developed. I can remember images from films I saw as a teenager, in the 1960s, which did me no good at all, and only stoked the fires of my youthful lusts and lack of inhibitions. (I'm not blaming the movies for my wickedness; I'm merely saying that they didn't help!) Christian parents, who are the kind of parents you find in this forum, are rightfully concerned about such things. If they weren't concerned about it, they'd be derelict in their God-given responsibilities.

    Real life can be a very ugly thing, and does not always deserve cultural depiction. (I'm not talking about separate beds for married couples!) However, somebody has sold you a bill of goods about the 1950's. That's when I was a child (I was born in 1949), and it was one of the richest cultural periods in American history: writers as diverse as T. S. Eliot, Norman Mailer, and Jack Kerouac were in their prime; the movies featured such actors as Laurence Oliver, James Dean, and the young Marlon Brando; Alfred Hitchcock and Elia Kazan were in their heyday as directors; Van Cliburn was winning the International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow; and, of course, rock music was born, if that's a contribution. There was nothing "Puritanical" about it; and, anyway, when did "Puritanical" become a pejorative word among Christians? Yes, the spouses had to sleep in separate beds on television comedies; was that worse than the unmitigated filth in today's comedies, such as "Friends" or "Will and Grace?" Was the unrealistic innocence of "I Love Lucy" or "Leave It to Beaver" somehow more offensive than "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?"

    You're joking, aren't you? "Cursing," both four-letter words and actual profanity, is so widespread on television, particularly cable, as to be absolutely ubiquitous. As for sex, you're simply mistaken. Cable television features exhaustive nudity in such programs as "Nip/Tuck" and others, and the offerings on the premium channels are even worse. No, these programs do not depict "graphic sex acts" in the same way that hard-core pornography does; but they are, most definitely, "soft-core" pornography. I don't think there's a producer or writer in Hollywood who would dispute this.


    See above. I agree that the daytime soaps don't contain soft-core porn: they merely contain as much "mild" sex and alcoholism (and worse) as they can. And in this case, you are probably correct to thank the FCC, even if you do it sarcastically.

    However, I will emphatically agree with you that it's not primarily a "teen" problem, or, more accurately, a problem affecting only teenagers. I know men in their 40s and 50s who would never watch porn on the Internet, but who watch the most salacious stuff (like "Nip/Tuck") and the most outrageous horror (like "Hostel") with an almost religious dedication. (It isn't primarily teenagers who buy the boxed sets of DVDs for this stuff.) And these are Christian men that I'm talking about.

    America is about as "Puritanical" as ancient Rome or Babylon. C. S. Lewis said it best: Everyone says that we've "hushed up" sex, when in reality we've simply talked it to death. American culture, indeed all Western culture, has become so foul that it's a grief for any serious Christianto deal with.

    If this post sounds preachy or "Puritanical," I can only say that I've been called much worse, on many occasions!


    Ohhh excellent post and filled with information I couldn't give...and I thank you for that. I was born in 1961 and while I realize that I love Lucy and Leave it to Beaver weren't realistic...what they show on TV now certainly isn't either! I am glad to have someone else post showing I am not the only one that has seen a drastic change in the standards on TV and yes there is cussing on TV and they go as far as possible on the sex scenes too...

    You know one time I tried to watch Nip tuck because one of the commercials had me curious...this one doctor said he found a way to live forever...so I wanted to see what he was talking about. I think I lasted five minutes watching that show. All I saw was a lady trying to get into bed with her boyfriend who was in bed already with another lady and she was 'rejected' for 'looking too old' ..they laughed and mocked her in a horrible way too. Anyway I was like this to the whole scene: and changed channels..that was certainly enough for me!

    Anyway thanks for your input on this...

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,139
    Blog Entries
    8
    I am probably really gonna stir up a hornets nest here, BUT...

    Since we have a viable option like Sky Angel that ONLY has programming and shows that will not offend Christian beliefs, we have a choice. If you choose to keep regular satellite/cable TV then you get what you get.

    I just don't see much point in complaining about something you have the power to change.
    For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

    If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

    Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,249
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Missionary View Post
    I am probably really gonna stir up a hornets nest here, BUT...

    Since we have a viable option like Sky Angel that ONLY has programming and shows that will not offend Christian beliefs, we have a choice. If you choose to keep regular satellite/cable TV then you get what you get.

    I just don't see much point in complaining about something you have the power to change.
    Er...actually I only read something on another thread about sky angel where someone said to avoid it... I thought they were talking about a TV station...its a satellite?

    Sorry I am in the dark on this but I really don't know anything about it...

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,139
    Blog Entries
    8
    It used to be satellite, now it is IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) meaning it works through your broadband connection.
    For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

    If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

    Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

  8. #68
    Prufrock Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Missionary View Post
    I am probably really gonna stir up a hornets nest here, BUT...

    Since we have a viable option like Sky Angel that ONLY has programming and shows that will not offend Christian beliefs, we have a choice. If you choose to keep regular satellite/cable TV then you get what you get.

    I just don't see much point in complaining about something you have the power to change.
    Why should that be controversial? I couldn't agree more. I have had cable TV from time to time: I enjoyed having it during the Presidential primaries and campaigns, because I'm a political junkie. But the only things, apart from news, that I watched were movies that I selected myself. My familiarity with garbage like "Nip/Tuck" just comes from reading about it; I've never seen an episode in my life, although I've seen snippets when I was in places (away from home) where it was on.

    I don't have much use for most "Christian" TV; if there's a Christian network that is reliable, I'm unaware of it. (I'm unfamiliar with SkyAngel, although I've heard of it.) But I use the television to watch sermon DVDs and such.

    You're right. If the garbage on the networks or cable is offensive, don't watch it. In fact, I could live quite happily without any television at all. I probably haven't watched over an hour of it in the past month.

    The Internet, obviously, is a different story!



  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,139
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow View Post
    Er...actually I only read something on another thread about sky angel where someone said to avoid it... I thought they were talking about a TV station...its a satellite?
    Do a search on it on this site. It *seems* like it is highly recommended although I also noticed that every thread about it is closed. I hope that this one don't get closed...
    For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

    If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

    Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,139
    Blog Entries
    8
    Why should that be controversial?
    I am beginning to think that is could be simply because I said it... That seems to be the case lately...
    For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? ~ Deuteronomy 5:26

    If you're not prepared to risk your very life for your "enemy" you have no right to speak to him of love. ~ Daughter

    Many say they are called... but I am pretty convinced that with many of them it was the wrong number. ~ Project Peter

  11. #71
    Prufrock Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Missionary View Post
    I am beginning to think that is could be simply because I said it... That seems to be the case lately...
    Believe me, brother, I know just how you feel!



  12. #72
    Julie, I agree and I was scared when I saw them. It's just another part of the trend towards more gruesome fare in movies. My niece saw "My Bloody Valentine" which is part of this whole slasher genre which is just awful. I wish I could block the commercials. Like I hate seeing commercials for condoms and Viagra. Some come on at ten at night and I'm like oh good grief! I do understand your feelings on spiritual assault.
    "We serve God by serving others. The world defines greatness in terms of power, possessions, prestige, and position. If you can demand service from others, you've arrived. In our self-serving culture with its me-first mentality, acting like a servant is not a popular concept.” Rick Warren


    http://bibleforums.org/attachment.ph...1&d=1311549587
    http://bibleforums.org/attachment.ph...2&d=1311549587

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,249
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Missionary View Post
    Do a search on it on this site. It *seems* like it is highly recommended although I also noticed that every thread about it is closed. I hope that this one don't get closed...
    lol...I will do a seperate thread asking people about it so we don't get too side tracked off of this one. Plus unless someone comes on this thread and reads several pages they won't know we are now talking about sky angel... And I would like feedback from those using it..

    Urban Missionary
    Quote:
    Why should that be controversial?
    I am beginning to think that is could be simply because I said it... That seems to be the case lately..
    See how you are? you must be a controversial person lately..

    Prufrock
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Urban Missionary
    I am probably really gonna stir up a hornets nest here, BUT...

    Since we have a viable option like Sky Angel that ONLY has programming and shows that will not offend Christian beliefs, we have a choice. If you choose to keep regular satellite/cable TV then you get what you get.

    I just don't see much point in complaining about something you have the power to change.
    Why should that be controversial? I couldn't agree more. I have had cable TV from time to time: I enjoyed having it during the Presidential primaries and campaigns, because I'm a political junkie. But the only things, apart from news, that I watched were movies that I selected myself. My familiarity with garbage like "Nip/Tuck" just comes from reading about it; I've never seen an episode in my life, although I've seen snippets when I was in places (away from home) where it was on.

    I don't have much use for most "Christian" TV; if there's a Christian network that is reliable, I'm unaware of it. (I'm unfamiliar with SkyAngel, although I've heard of it.) But I use the television to watch sermon DVDs and such.

    You're right. If the garbage on the networks or cable is offensive, don't watch it. In fact, I could live quite happily without any television at all. I probably haven't watched over an hour of it in the past month.

    The Internet, obviously, is a different story
    I don't watch alot either..but as I said to the one that suggested not watching TV at all...I am disabled and too many times in alot of pain.(back and neck problems) ..too much pain to sit and read let alone me on here, so I go watch TV...sometimes all I do is lay their and flip channels.. But I do like watching educational shows...the history channel (yes I know some are really far fetched but there is alot good).. I watched half a day on there about President Lincoln one time (while in and out the room doing other things), and learned things I never knew about him. I have always admired Lincoln... I also like watching their war stories of how different groups in history conducted wars (don't ask me why that would interest me cause I have no idea...) and many other things. There Universe show, etc. Also like the Discovery channel...the other night I was watching the famous 'run of the sardines' off the southern coast of Africa. I watched the public TV channel sometimes..watched their documentary on polio when it first hit the States. Of course I like regular movies too and a couple of evening weekly shows.

    I never watch the Christian channel though..TBN, cause if I said why that would be controversial... and I saw that was one of the main things sky angel offers...I guess everyone has a different idea on what is 'good' to watch... I was watching a show called the 'half ton teenager' the other day and I don't image too many would feel that was good to watch... I just like medical type shows for some reason too. Last year I was really into watching Medical Mysteries...but my son was a little disturbed by those so I quit watching them unless he was out playing.

    And we get the Hallmark channel and I like watching Touched by an Angel but the problem is that and Little House on the Prairie are reruns since they don't make them anymore and a person can only endure so many reruns. They do have some good movies on there once in awhile though. There are good shows to watch on TV...and its not that hard to avoid the bad ones...but like I said, its the commercials we can't avoid..unless you have the remote in hand to mute it or change channels...which I usually don't cause I am up doing something (unless in pain as I mentioned..then I have the remote and quickly change the channel).

    I have to say that probably 70% of the time the TV is on, neither my son or I are actually watching it. We get busy doing other things and forget about it...that is until these horror movie commercials come on... Since all of this started I have been trying to turn the TV off when we aren't even paying attention to it instead of leaving it on in the background like we have. I don't even know how we got started doing that.... Its really a waste of electricity too...I guess I am not 'green' enough either...

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    14,249
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderWoman4Jesus View Post
    Julie, I agree and I was scared when I saw them. It's just another part of the trend towards more gruesome fare in movies. My niece saw "My Bloody Valentine" which is part of this whole slasher genre which is just awful. I wish I could block the commercials. Like I hate seeing commercials for condoms and Viagra. Some come on at ten at night and I'm like oh good grief! I do understand your feelings on spiritual assault.
    Thanks for your comment...see its not just children frightened or distrubed by these, its adults too like my friend here.

    I can't believe your niece was allowed to see My Bloody Valentine..how old is she now? I saw the original many years ago and it was pretty gruesome then..I hate to think what they did with it now... I wouldn't dream of letting my son watch that...but I don't think he would even want too. He has a friend that a couple of years ago had seen Saw and at the time I think his friend was only nine or ten (he is younger by a year or two then my son)...I was utterly shocked anyone would let a child that young see a movie like that. Its like what in the world are parents thinking?

    Many years ago I worked in a preschool and right before Halloween there were three little boys in my class that were very scared of the holiday because their babysitter had let them watch the movie, Halloween...this was when it was new and for its time, pretty frightening and certainly not suitable for young children. Because of their age, they thought this man was real and going to be out stalking people with a big knife on Halloween. I tried to explain it too them the best I could this was all like imagery play and a normal guy was wearing a mask and had a fake knife and no one really got killed...I said they used ketchup for fake blood and stuff...(something they could relate too and understand). Anyway I think I helped a little bit but still they were just way too young for that kind of thing..

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  15. #75
    Prufrock Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by moonglow
    I don't watch alot either..but as I said to the one that suggested not watching TV at all...I am disabled and too many times in alot of pain.(back and neck problems) ..too much pain to sit and read let alone me on here, so I go watch TV...sometimes all I do is lay their and flip channels.. But I do like watching educational shows...the history channel (yes I know some are really far fetched but there is alot good).. I watched half a day on there about President Lincoln one time (while in and out the room doing other things), and learned things I never knew about him. I have always admired Lincoln... I also like watching their war stories of how different groups in history conducted wars (don't ask me why that would interest me cause I have no idea...) and many other things. There Universe show, etc. Also like the Discovery channel...the other night I was watching the famous 'run of the sardines' off the southern coast of Africa. I watched the public TV channel sometimes..watched their documentary on polio when it first hit the States. Of course I like regular movies too and a couple of evening weekly shows.

    I never watch the Christian channel though..TBN, cause if I said why that would be controversial... and I saw that was one of the main things sky angel offers...I guess everyone has a different idea on what is 'good' to watch... I was watching a show called the 'half ton teenager' the other day and I don't image too many would feel that was good to watch... I just like medical type shows for some reason too. Last year I was really into watching Medical Mysteries...but my son was a little disturbed by those so I quit watching them unless he was out playing.

    And we get the Hallmark channel and I like watching Touched by an Angel but the problem is that and Little House on the Prairie are reruns since they don't make them anymore and a person can only endure so many reruns. They do have some good movies on there once in awhile though. There are good shows to watch on TV...and its not that hard to avoid the bad ones...but like I said, its the commercials we can't avoid..unless you have the remote in hand to mute it or change channels...which I usually don't cause I am up doing something (unless in pain as I mentioned..then I have the remote and quickly change the channel).

    I have to say that probably 70% of the time the TV is on, neither my son or I are actually watching it. We get busy doing other things and forget about it...that is until these horror movie commercials come on... Since all of this started I have been trying to turn the TV off when we aren't even paying attention to it instead of leaving it on in the background like we have. I don't even know how we got started doing that.... Its really a waste of electricity too...I guess I am not 'green' enough either...
    I'm very, very sorry about your physical problems, sister, and you are in my prayers. If I were in your position, I'd probably watch a lot of television, too.

    There are worthwhile programs on television, but most of them are on cable, and with cable comes problems. Animal Planet has some delightful programs; they used to have one called "Cell Dogs," about prison inmates who were allowed to train puppies .... that was a good show, and it really tugged at the heartstrings. But once you start watching that channel, you start seeing stuff like the late Steve Irwin, who was very charming and very popular with children, jabbering about the wonders of evolution. The History Channel has some excellent stuff. Arts & Entertainment had the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes series, which I loved dearly; but they have trash like "The Sopranos," too. Discovery has some good stuff, when they're not pushing evolution or misrepresenting Christian history.

    Unfortunately, it's impossible to call the local cable carrier and say, "I only want the following five channels." You have to subscribe to a specific tier; and, in most places, if you want Fox News and the Animal Planet (for example), you're obligated to take MTV and BET and all kinds of foul drivel with it. My brethren, these things ought not to be!

    As for "Christian" television, or most of what passes for Christian television, it's ... well, as you said, certain things would be controversial in this forum. But you and I are probably on the same page here.

    As for movies ... well, what can you say? I have a dear, precious niece who has a dear, precious little daughter. One day I dropped by their house, and saw "Pulp Fiction" playing. My adorable little great-niece was playing on the floor nearby. I said to my niece, "Are you crazy? She shouldn't be hearing all the stuff in that movie!" My niece, who is really quite a sensible young woman in most areas, just laughed and said, "Oh, don't be silly, she's been raised on 'Pulp Fiction!'"

    Sigh .... what are you gonna do?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •