Commercial rant time...

[CensoredAlso]

Yes and no. There are regulations about slanting commercials towards kids

Well programming aimed at children will always get more regulation. The assumption is that children are more vulnerable and need to be protected. Whereas adults in theory should know better and anyway it's their money to spend. Part of being a grown up is that no one is there to stop you from screwing up; you have to do that yourself, lol.

 

[Drtooth]

Well programming aimed at children will always get more regulation. The assumption is that children are more vulnerable and need to be protected. Whereas adults in theory should know better and anyway it's their money to spend. Part of being a grown up is that no one is there to stop you from screwing up; you have to do that yourself, lol.

Which bugs me.

Kids are NOT consumers. Their parents are. Their parents in the end have the final say. If the parents feel that something is dangerous, they have the right to say no. That will unfortunately lead to loud, nasty protests from the kids, but a strong parent holds their ground.

Adults can buy anything they want without anyone stopping them. That's not a bad thing at all, but it also leads to making TERRIBLE choices. Financial decisions are nothing to sneeze at, though. A SMART adult will do research and be very careful about money. But then again, we have adults that are essentially big kids (only not as smart, pretending the cynicism they gain over time is experience) and will blow their money to get just a little more, and wind up with nothing.

Now, it DOES destroy families when finances are blown on something stupid... but it also can destory the market, banks, and eventually...

All of our lives

We're suffering the stupid choices of the few. Be they lower class Ralph Kramdens trying to get rich quick, or dimwit upper class yuppiescum that want to get richer quicker, or especially absolutely drooling moron CEO's that want all the money in the world.

I understand the ridiculous over-regulation of children's programming in this country. Kids shouldn't know about sex (though, frankly, kids would be very disgusted by the idea they even wind up kissing members of the opposite sex at a certain age anyway... there's NO desire on that end until age 10 or 11), kids have to be blinded from death for some reason ( Sonic X example: Shadow says something to the extent of No, she didn't die gloriously in battle! She just happens to be perfectly fine but we'll never ever ever see her again at all)... and I understand numerous junk food ads aren't all that great for kids either... but it's a rediculous extent. What ever happened to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7szSLE924
along side candy commercials?

But there ARE regulations and restrictions on adult programming too, even though it doesn't look like it.

We can't show an excessive amount of sex, to say the least of nudity. We can't have extreme violence (just under saw level... they can say it happened, but they can't actually see it happening)... The F word is only for cable MA shows, and not animated ones (they can say S, but not F)... I hear more F's on the street casually than I do even in movies. Why not regulate dangerous infomercials the way they regulate with alcohol (late nights)or tobacco (complete ban)?

 

[D'Snowth]

But there ARE regulations and restrictions on adult programming too, even though it doesn't look like it.

We can't show an excessive amount of sex, to say the least of nudity.

I'd like a second opinion on that... I mean I don't watch a lot of modern-day series because of that very thing, and I am NOT exaggerating when I say every single time I look up and see Big Bang Theory on, the one thing I see is the characters all sleeping with each other... and not just Big Bang Theory, but we have shows about teen moms, b@$+@rd children, yadda-yadda-yadda... I mean, where's the regulations and restrictions on that of which you speak? Again, now 60 years ago and such, we had regulations that restricted us from seeing two married people in the same bed (Lucy and Ricky Ricardo - twin beds, Rob and Laura Petrie - twin beds, Fred and Wilma Flintstone - twin beds, etc), but now, all you see on TV 60 years later is two UNmarried people in the same bed, naked, and implied sexual acts... I mean you say there are regulations that restrict us from seeing excessive amounts of that stuff, so why is it that's practically all I see anymore? Not to mention, people today are always complaining that TV today is too politically correct... how in the world is THIS politically correct?!

 

[Drtooth]

Excessive.

What they're doing in those shows is implied.

There is a difference, but I can't quite say exactly what they are here. We cannot show naked bodies, we can't have a certain amount of movement or noise... I've never seen anything in Big Bang Theory that equals an R rated movie. There IS that stuff on cable. Rest assured Sex and the City was butchered in syndication. THAT'S excessive sex right there. Again, I can't exactly explain the differences.

And we can't see Saw-like violence on television either. I saw Pulp Fiction on television once... also quite butchered.

You see, there is questionable stuff allowed on television, but compared to certain other things, it's tame.

I do not now, nor do I ever see cable sex and Saw violence on television no matter how things slide. There's always someone making sure broadcast programing is censored to some degree, albeit a slim looking one.

That said, those American Teenage Mom whatever shows ARE cable... but if they cared that much about decency, Jersey Shore never would have aired. MTV... seriously.. remember when they banned Maddona videos and Beavis and Butthead were a problem?

 

[D'Snowth]

People complaining about "stupid men" commercials, I see that trend is coming back in a slightly different way: a homely wife married to a loser husband who can barely speak in complete sentences... like the wife trying to get her husband to eat more fiber, but he says it makes him "saaaaad", or the wife inquiring about the cheese spread her husband bought while he's so wrapped up in his laptop his replies are barely five words long.

Yay! At last, somebody has made fun of these kind of commercials...

http://idget.comicgenesis.com/d/20111102.html

 

[D'Snowth]

Okay, you know what new commercials I have to take issue with now?

These Android, or iPhone, or whatever the product is, where it's like...

PERSON #1: Did you hear that...
PERSON #2: *Interrupts* SO two seconds ago!

Very smug, and makes you feel bad about yourself for having out-dated technology.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

What else is new?

 

[Gonzo's Hobbit]

So there are a lot of commercials I'm not really fond of (I think Geico needs to fire some of their public relations people )
But seriously! Did they have to kill of Shatner in the Priceline commercials? What did that have to do with anything other than the fact that they're not using him anymore?

 

[D'Snowth]

And now, the cycle continues...

I see they're brining back those annoying commercials where prolific celebrities endorse a product, and throughout the whole time, they're like, "Look at me, I'm a famous celebrity, I get all these special goodies because I'm a famous celebrity, and because I'm a famous celebrity endorsing this product, that's going to make you want to get this stuff for yourself, because I'm also very humble. Oh, and did I mention I'm a famous celebrity?"

NPH and Jane Lynch were doing these kind of commercials for Comcast/xifinity a few years ago, and they annoyed the heck out of me, and now Amy Poehler's been doing these kind of commercials for different products like mobile phones and coffee creamers. Come on Amy, you can do better than this, really.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

Like how I posted in the I saw Something Weird Today thread about Sharon Osbourne endorsing the Atkins diet

That was just strange...isn't Ozzy making enough money?