MTV Skins?

[Metro West]

I stopped watching MTV when they stopped showing videos.

 

[bicker]

If the US version has all of these warnings and you know ahead of time it may offend you, then why on earth are you watching it? I swear, as Americans we make the easiest things so hard some times.

I agree. AaMoF, I just made a similar point (coincidentally, to Geoff) in another thread.

 

[2Kds2K9]

Check your with your cable service and see if you can block it. We have Verizon and can block all "M17" and Adult rated shows. They can still be watched by adults, but require a code to unlock them.

I just heard about this show and know that DD14 watches MTV once in a while. Glad to hear it's got the rating so I know she won't be able to watch it here. (Can't vouch for when she's at a friends house!)

 

[mrodgers]

The UK version on BBC America only lasted a couple of episodes, why do they think the MTV US version will?

I did happen to see one episode of the UK version. It was drama, then sex, then some drama, then sex through an hour. Why would they make the US version any different?

The kids in the UK LOVE Skins. I'm on a UK/EU based gaming forum, so lots of UK/EU teen to 20somethings and they are now talking about the US version of Skins. The talk is the typical we are so great and America sucks talk of course. Same goes for the new US version of Top Gear, which obviously with the characters they picked for that show does indeed suck.

 

[bicker]

Blocking shows by rating is more a matter of features of the hardware, rather than the service provider. Verizon can help you negotiate the setting of v-chip-related protections in the boxes that they rent to you, but if you're with a service provider that allows you to use your own equipment, and you are using your own equipment, then it'll generally be up to you to figure out how to engage those protections.

What you can do, though, through your service provider, exclusively, is drop down to a level of service that does not include MTV. However, that generally means losing many other channels as well. By the same token, if you feel very strongly about this, you can make a point of this with your service provider. Doing so will almost surely have no immediate impact, but if enough people do so, and do it consistently enough over time (not just when something like this first hits the news wires) then that could drive the service provider to make some hard decisions regarding that specific channel. It is a long-shot, but if you feel strongly about the situation, that might not matter to you.

 

[dvcnewgirl]

I have not watched it. The promos were enough for me. I can't believe they think that is okay for a teenage audience.

 

[bicker]

I have not watched it. The promos were enough for me. I can't believe they think that is okay for a teenage audience.

They don't:

Skins
TV-MA

TV-MA
(Mature audience — unsuitable for audiences under 17);

 

[npmommie]

I love the UK version of Skins but really its not a show for teens, Its a show about teens but the nudity, drug use, language, sex, and so much more is not for MTV (and MTV is not known for its wholesome entertainment )! The show is centered around its shock value for sure, its rated MA for a reason.

This is what I think is creepy about it, why do ADULTS want to watch teens engaging in sex, drugs etc??
a teen centered show should be suitable for Teens to watch.
not made for adults.

adults watching other adults doing those things is one thing, but watching children do them just seems weird to me.

 

[bicker]

a teen centered show should be suitable for Teens to watch. not made for adults.

That sounds reasonable, but there are some problems with a categorical assertion like that. Your second parargraph made the reality clear:

adults watching other adults doing those things is one thing, but watching children do them just seems weird to me.

And I don't think you mean to say that children watching children "doing these things" is okay - right? The reality is that there is a problem with "children doing these things" on television. Period.

Beyond that, if you take out the "sex and drugs" aspect of it, then what you've said here is going to fly in the face of American television, today. Some of the most successful television shows are "centered" in precisely the same was as Skins (though without the lurid content) around young adults, and even on teens, but yet are generally created for adults older than the main characters (almost all television series are targeted at adults 18-49). Some of these shows even feature their younger characters engaged in romantic circumstances (but generally not going as far as sex).

Shows like this include Glee, Veronica Mars, Smallville, Freaks and Geeks, Roswell, 90210, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Felicity, Dawson's Creek, Gossip Girl, Joan of Arcadia, My So-Called Life, Party of Five, etc.

We can chat about why so many shows, created for adults up to age 49, have teens and young adults as the focus, perhaps in another thread, but to condemn the practice categorically is to condemn what millions of Americans regularly enjoy.

The Skins situation is unique because of the sex and drugs. It doesn't serve as a touchstone for anything more general than that, because of the unique place sex and drugs, with regard to teens, (rightfully) has in the consensus of our society.

 

[merryweather20]

This is what I think is creepy about it, why do ADULTS want to watch teens engaging in sex, drugs etc??
a teen centered show should be suitable for Teens to watch.
not made for adults.

adults watching other adults doing those things is one thing, but watching children do them just seems weird to me.

This is what bothers me too. Its the chain of grown-ups that discussed the concept the script and all agreed that what MTV really needs is more 15 year olds haveing sex.

And bicker, I doubt this will get through but npmommie simply didn't say this "that children watching children "doing these things" is okay" she didn't imply it or bring it up at all.

 

[WeLoveLilo05]

That sounds reasonable, but there are some problems with a categorical assertion like that. Your second parargraph made the reality clear:

And I don't think you mean to say that children watching children "doing these things" is okay - right? The reality is that there is a problem with "children doing these things" on television. Period.

Beyond that, if you take out the "sex and drugs" aspect of it, then what you've said here is going to fly in the face of American television, today. Some of the most successful television shows are "centered" in precisely the same was as Skins (though without the lurid content) around young adults, and even on teens, but yet are generally created for adults older than the main characters (almost all television series are targeted at adults 18-49). Some of these shows even feature their younger characters engaged in romantic circumstances (but generally not going as far as sex).

Shows like this include Glee, Veronica Mars, Smallville, Freaks and Geeks, Roswell, 90210, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Felicity, Dawson's Creek, Gossip Girl, Joan of Arcadia, My So-Called Life, Party of Five, etc.

We can chat about why so many shows, created for adults up to age 49, have teens and young adults as the focus, perhaps in another thread, but to condemn the practice categorically is to condemn what millions of Americans regularly enjoy.

The Skins situation is unique because of the sex and drugs. It doesn't serve as a touchstone for anything more general than that, because of the unique place sex and drugs, with regard to teens, (rightfully) has in the consensus of our society.

and just to hit on what you said, the people who stared in those shows are all of age. I mean c'mon Andrea Zukerman from 90210 just turned 50, so she was in her late 20s when she began 90210. People on those shows are twenty-thirtysomethings playing younger adults.
I think the only people who were close to their ages when staring on a show was the cast of Saved By The Bell, but they weren't raunchy, loved that show, we need more shows like that today lol.

 

[bicker]

And bicker, I doubt this will get through

No no, I don't have you on ignore.

but npmommie simply didn't say this "that children watching children "doing these things" is okay"

I have no doubt about that... none. My comment was rhetorical. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

By the way, I was talking with my wife about the examples I gave earlier, and she knocked me on the head: How could I forget Friday Night Lights: Sex, drugs and murder.

and just to hit on what you said, the people who stared in those shows are all of age. I mean c'mon Andrea Zukerman from 90210 just turned 50, so she was in her late 20s when she began 90210. People on those shows are twenty-thirtysomethings playing younger adults.

Most of them. I do believe, if we dig into some of those shows, that one or two of the cast members might have been 16 or 17 when the series just started. If I'm bored I'll check into some of it. (I'm curious.)

 

[bicker]

I haven't check them all, but I think the only major character in any of the shows mentioned who was significantly under 18 at the time they started filming the series was Aimee Teegarden who started with Friday Night Lights at age 16 (and several who started with Party of Five under age 18, but I don't think that show necessarily counts).

 

[lttlmc3]

I watched, and liked, the UK version and watched all them back when you could stream them on Netflix. The one on MTV was an exact replica of the first episode of the UK version. I mean, it was pretty much the same dialogue, scenes, and everything. I think it's lame that MTV couldn't find anything better to do than rip off a popular UK tv show just so they can be "edgy." How edgy is it when you are ripping off a show from three years ago? Whatever. MTV should have come up with something better.