![]() |
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
| Family Values vs. Boobs vs. Ratings | |||||||
| I
have always had a fascination with the old James Bond movies. If I'm flicking
around the myriad of viewing options that the television landscape has to
offer and I happen to come across one of the Super Station's broadcasting
a classic Bond flick you can guarantee that I will restrain my clicking
finger for a few moments to bask in the brilliance that these movies have
to offer. One of the reasons I find these films so appealing is how the
life of this secret agent almost mirrors the lifestyle of a world-renowned
web columnist perfectly. Traveling to exotic locales, surreptiously gathering
information for future ground breaking columns and using futuristic high
tech gadgets for that very purpose. But first and foremost, one of the main
reasons for directing my full attention to these cinematic gems is to gaze
lovingly at the Bond girls. Such mysterious vixens filled with unstoppable
carnal desire for web columnists
I mean
ahhh
secret agents.
The funny fact about these films however is that despite the fact they're
filled with such fabulous beauties not a single one of them has shown a
stitch of nudity. Go ahead. Look it up. Freeze-frame various scenes from
your DVD collection and I guarantee you will not find a single exposed nipple
in the lot of them. In fact all of the Bond movies have been rated PG for
eons. Now you would think, based on that fact, that network television would
have no problem broadcasting these films on network television "unedited."
Amazingly enough however, due to my countless hours of web surfing I find
this to be untrue.
In a recent broadcast of the movie "Diamonds Are Forever", the Disney owned network ABC found it suitable to digitally enhance a scene with Sean Connery and actress Lana Wood playing "Plenty O'Toole" (I love those names). Plenty O'Toole's sheer lingerie was transformed from a seductive tan to a basic black as preventative measure as to not confuse the viewer into thinking that she was actually *gasp* naked! Of course this is far from the most heinous crimes of television censorship and does not detract from the plot whatsoever, but obviously ABC has a specific agenda in place in order to protect their viewing audience from the horrors of interpretive female nudity. I applaud this action. The last thing I want is for little Billy in Arkansas is to be squatting in front of the television enjoying the adventures of the world famous super spy only to have it ruined by the vision of woman who "kinda looks like" she be buck naked. It would totally detract from the following scene where nefarious SPECTRE agents essentially throw her out the window. I breathe a large sigh of relief knowing that ABC is out there protecting me from such dangerous imagery that could only poison my very soul and very well begin my travels down the slippery slope of moral decay. Thank you ABC, thank you. As I bask in the safety of this protective shield, I reflect back on the various other programs that have made ABC a cornerstone of wholesomeness in this otherwise tainted television market. The numerous episodes of "Full House." If it were not for ABC, we would have never benefited for the humorous musings of Bob Saget or the zany shenanigans of John Stamos and Dave Coulier. "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?", thank you ABC for finally giving Regis Philbin a platform to showcase his many talents away from the confines of his hated morning show. NYPD Blue, a heartfelt drama where stalwart police officers fight crime on a weekly basis. And wait a minute!? NYPD Blue? That's on ABC? How can that be? Doesn't this show use the words, asshole, son of a bitch, bastard, turd, dickhead and most recently "shit" on a regular basis? Is this not the show that had the audacity to show Dennis Franz's bare, bulbous ass on national television as well as other scenes of so-called partial nudity? This must be just some kind of error. I would assume that in the eight years this show has been on the air these instances must have just inadvertently slipped by the ABC censors. Wait a second. Didn't ABC broadcast the Victoria Secret Lingerie Show not too long ago? And hold your horses, wasn't it ABC who broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" uncensored. Now I know I don't have the highly regarded insight of a television censor, but I can only assume that although it's not appropriate to show possibly misconstrued female nudity it is however perfectly fine to show shockingly realistic and gory military skirmishes. I'm so confused. How can ABC be so lax in their vaunted protection of their viewing audience from the perils of indecency? Didn't the network ABC publicize themselves as the so-called "Family Network?" Lets face facts. Partial nudity means ratings. Gorgeous women traipsing around a runway in revealing lingerie equals ratings. Blockbuster movies shown uncut, despite it's realistic and shocking content, means ratings. Ratings mean money and the almighty dollar is king. If a television show is guaranteed to garner significant ratings and has questionable content, censors are willing to bend the rules. ABC moves like a thief in the night, it hit's you with a naked hairy ass and then covers it up with episodes of Dharma & Greg, before you realize what the hell's going on. Now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to watching my old tapes of "Family Matters." God do I love that Steve Urkel. Cheese anyone? Heh, heh, priceless. Got Something You wanna say to this Guy? Say it Here! or mail to:christian@boldopinion.com |
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||
![]() |
|||||||