Do we only have problems with popular culture having political views..

[swbsam]

Inspired by the Family guy thread, re: the McCain/Palin pin on the nazi's uniform..

I see this often - "musicians and tv writers should shut the f up and entertain us, and leave out their own political views!" .. A recent example was that Family Guy episode, many people calling it the worst episode in years.

I recently saw the episode and loved it, thinking that it was over the top but funny and entertaining.. Then I saw a south park episode with a very firm neo-conservative message behind it, and I was now the hypocrite - myself thinking "they need to shut up with their politics, and just make funny episodes again!"

So, is it just me or is it a consistent thing - when we agree with the politics behind a piece of entertainment we view it as satire and give it a pass, but when we disagree it's not-entertaining and preachy?

 

[LS8]

Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

I disagree. Of course writers include political and social commentary in their work but I see it as purely entertainment - if it were indeed intended to be taken seriously it would be presented in a different way, IE: not a TV show or movie.

What writers are looking for is something to keep the viewer glued to their production and often times social and political commentary are used because of the familiar subject matter and strong emotional ties the view has to those topics. The viewer doesn't seek out these mediums looking for valuable or practical political insight or social commentary - they are looking to be entertained.

Having said that it brings me back to my original points which you quoted above.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

I disagree. Of course writers include political and social commentary in their work but I see it as purely entertainment - if it were indeed intended to be taken seriously it would be presented in a different way, IE: not a TV show or movie.

What writers are looking for is something to keep the viewer glued to their production and often times social and political commentary are used because of the familiar subject matter and strong emotional ties the view has to those topics. The viewer doesn't seek out these mediums looking for valuable or practical political insight or social commentary - they are looking to be entertained.

Having said that it brings me back to my original points which you quoted above.

The question is, why can't tv / film/ etc. be considered serious enough mediums? Family guy is an awful example, but many elections have been won or lost due to television. Look at our nations view of Sarah Palin - love her or hate her, many important strategists agrees that Tina Fey's parody of her has tainted the public's perception.

Film also exposed many issues to people for the first time, whether it's mainstream fare like Blood Diamond informing people of the diamond trade (however fair/unfair it may have been) to movies during the civil rights movement (and music) really pushing the message of unity along.

I just don't think any medium, journalism, film, music, tv - should be dismissed.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

I disagree. Of course writers include political and social commentary in their work but I see it as purely entertainment - if it were indeed intended to be taken seriously it would be presented in a different way, IE: not a TV show or movie.

What writers are looking for is something to keep the viewer glued to their production and often times social and political commentary are used because of the familiar subject matter and strong emotional ties the view has to those topics. The viewer doesn't seek out these mediums looking for valuable or practical political insight or social commentary - they are looking to be entertained.

Having said that it brings me back to my original points which you quoted above.

The question is, why can't tv / film/ etc. be considered serious enough mediums? Family guy is an awful example, but many elections have been won or lost due to television. Look at our nations view of Sarah Palin - love her or hate her, many important strategists agrees that Tina Fey's parody of her has tainted the public's perception.

Film also exposed many issues to people for the first time, whether it's mainstream fare like Blood Diamond informing people of the diamond trade (however fair/unfair it may have been) to movies during the civil rights movement (and music) really pushing the message of unity along.

I just don't think any medium, journalism, film, music, tv - should be dismissed.

I think her stupidity has done far more to taint the publics perception of her than SNL has.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

I disagree. Of course writers include political and social commentary in their work but I see it as purely entertainment - if it were indeed intended to be taken seriously it would be presented in a different way, IE: not a TV show or movie.

What writers are looking for is something to keep the viewer glued to their production and often times social and political commentary are used because of the familiar subject matter and strong emotional ties the view has to those topics. The viewer doesn't seek out these mediums looking for valuable or practical political insight or social commentary - they are looking to be entertained.

Having said that it brings me back to my original points which you quoted above.

The question is, why can't tv / film/ etc. be considered serious enough mediums? Family guy is an awful example, but many elections have been won or lost due to television. Look at our nations view of Sarah Palin - love her or hate her, many important strategists agrees that Tina Fey's parody of her has tainted the public's perception.

Film also exposed many issues to people for the first time, whether it's mainstream fare like Blood Diamond informing people of the diamond trade (however fair/unfair it may have been) to movies during the civil rights movement (and music) really pushing the message of unity along.

I just don't think any medium, journalism, film, music, tv - should be dismissed.

I think her stupidity has done far more to taint the publics perception of her than SNL has.

Oh, I completely agree. But her stupidity was amplified significantly due to SNL, I think. The time the Republicans put a lock down on her after her disastrous interviews, Fey's appearances on SNL drove home the point that she was incompetent, even while the real Palin was hidden away.

 

[Chryso]

I don't mind it unless it diminishes the quality of the show. A good example of this happening would be the old Ellen Degenerous series. The show stopped being funny and started being more like a documentary on what it is like to be a lesbian.

As for actors, who cares what they think. We only watch them to see them NOT being themselves.

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I think her stupidity has done far more to taint the publics perception of her than SNL has.

But she's hot.

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: Chryso
I don't mind it unless it diminishes the quality of the show. A good example of this happening would be the old Ellen Degenerous series. The show stopped being funny and started being more like a documentary on what it is like to be a lesbian.

As for actors, who cares what they think. We only watch them to see them NOT being themselves.

But Regan was an actor! Schwarzenegger actually is proving me wrong, and he doesn't seem to be the worst politician ever (and kudos for him defying the GOP for CAs stem cell research policy)..

My point is, 99% of actors are idiots, but some would like to use the fact that they're in the public eye for something they view as positive. I don't think that's a necessarily bad thing. I wish more people would try to use their influence positively.

 

[0roo0roo]

there are plenty of ways art can make social/political commentary. it has to be insightful and not cheap propaganda. it has to be something more than a mccain palin pin on a nazi. which frankly paints the opposite message that was intended.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Getting your political information form a brain dead entertainer is highly encouraged.

Why people listen to the political views of the MOST SOCIALLY DISCONNECTED AND OUT OF TOUCH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET is beyond me. Let them eat cake comes to mind.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Getting your political information form a brain dead entertainer is highly encouraged.

Why people listen to the political views of the MOST SOCIALLY DISCONNECTED AND OUT OF TOUCH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET is beyond me. Let them eat cake comes to mind.

That's not what this thread is about though. It is about political and social commentary in movies/TV shows. A lot of which comes from novels written by some of the most intelligent people in our society.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: LS8
Honestly, I don't care what entertainers think when it comes to politics.

They are in the spot light because they are performers, not because they offer some incredible political insight or social commentary.

Some times in their performances there are politically or socially driven jokes which can be funny, but outside of those performances I don't really care what they have to say.

Writers of movies and tv shows have been doing social commentary since the dawn of the medium. This is nothing new and whether or not you agree with their point of view is irrelevant. It is designed to provoke thought and I enjoy those types of movies/shows.

I disagree. Of course writers include political and social commentary in their work but I see it as purely entertainment - if it were indeed intended to be taken seriously it would be presented in a different way, IE: not a TV show or movie.

What writers are looking for is something to keep the viewer glued to their production and often times social and political commentary are used because of the familiar subject matter and strong emotional ties the view has to those topics. The viewer doesn't seek out these mediums looking for valuable or practical political insight or social commentary - they are looking to be entertained.

Having said that it brings me back to my original points which you quoted above.

The question is, why can't tv / film/ etc. be considered serious enough mediums? Family guy is an awful example, but many elections have been won or lost due to television. Look at our nations view of Sarah Palin - love her or hate her, many important strategists agrees that Tina Fey's parody of her has tainted the public's perception.

Film also exposed many issues to people for the first time, whether it's mainstream fare like Blood Diamond informing people of the diamond trade (however fair/unfair it may have been) to movies during the civil rights movement (and music) really pushing the message of unity along.

I just don't think any medium, journalism, film, music, tv - should be dismissed.

I think her stupidity has done far more to taint the publics perception of her than SNL has.

Oh, I completely agree. But her stupidity was amplified significantly due to SNL, I think. The time the Republicans put a lock down on her after her disastrous interviews, Fey's appearances on SNL drove home the point that she was incompetent, even while the real Palin was hidden away.

All Fey does is parse the meat of her message into simple words and phrases that even the truly braindead can understand. She hasn't really said anything that isn't true to how Palin projects herself.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Getting your political information form a brain dead entertainer is highly encouraged.

Why people listen to the political views of the MOST SOCIALLY DISCONNECTED AND OUT OF TOUCH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET is beyond me. Let them eat cake comes to mind.

way to generalize. Many celebs are legitimately educated people and come from similar, if not worse neighborhoods than the typical sheltered suburb of the average internet armchair opinion wonk.

Damon graduated from Harvard, you know and like Mark Wahlburg, grew up on South Side Boston--not the nicest place in the world, as examples.

I'm not here defending celebs, just that many people don't accept that the most successful ones spent a lot of hard work and effort to get where they are

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

All Fey does is parse the meat of her message into simple words and phrases that even the truly braindead can understand. She hasn't really said anything that isn't true to how Palin projects herself.

Which is scary as hell to me. The fact that people are dumb enough to vote for Palin because she is "just like the average American." I find that to be extremely naive. Really, it just means they'll make a good puppet for someone you didn't vote to control.

Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

 

[her209]

I think we can do without the religious aspects of it as well. No need to hear about God/Allah and shit.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

All Fey does is parse the meat of her message into simple words and phrases that even the truly braindead can understand. She hasn't really said anything that isn't true to how Palin projects herself.

Which is scary as hell to me. The fact that people are dumb enough to vote for Palin because she is "just like the average American." I find that to be extremely naive. Really, it just means they'll make a good puppet for someone you didn't vote to control.

Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

not being eloquent or good at public speaking is not the same as being dumb.
i think much of atot would know this in fact some of the best and most persuasive public speakers have been the worst leaders in the world. going from 0-60 in a few weeks she made a few mistakes trying to minimize potential for damage yes, but thats to be expected. obama said stupid things early on as well. but going by this shallow performance standard for intelligence you'd basically have to say that actors are the most qualified to lead the actual difference is that obama left chicago politics as corrupt as ever while palin actually did something to clean up alaska.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

All Fey does is parse the meat of her message into simple words and phrases that even the truly braindead can understand. She hasn't really said anything that isn't true to how Palin projects herself.

Which is scary as hell to me. The fact that people are dumb enough to vote for Palin because she is "just like the average American." I find that to be extremely naive. Really, it just means they'll make a good puppet for someone you didn't vote to control.

Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

not being eloquent or good at public speaking is not the same as being dumb.
i think much of atot would know this in fact some of the best and most persuasive public speakers have been the worst leaders in the world.

If Palin was only judged purely by her VP debate, she would be alot more respected. What SNL did was focus and emphasized what she did wrong over and over and over again until it made it seem like she was a completely inept public speaker. They did the same thing with their parodies of Obama/McCaine, and this unfortunately speaks louder to the braindead American public than the actual debates.

SNL is the single worst propaganda on television effecting this election, and has been the main cause of Obama's recent upswing. It would be a sad time in American history if people changed their opinions based on some politically charged commentary framed as 'satire.'

 

[nublikescake]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

All Fey does is parse the meat of her message into simple words and phrases that even the truly braindead can understand. She hasn't really said anything that isn't true to how Palin projects herself.

Which is scary as hell to me. The fact that people are dumb enough to vote for Palin because she is "just like the average American." I find that to be extremely naive. Really, it just means they'll make a good puppet for someone you didn't vote to control.

Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

not being eloquent or good at public speaking is not the same as being dumb.
i think much of atot would know this in fact some of the best and most persuasive public speakers have been the worst leaders in the world.

If Palin was only judged purely by her VP debate, she would be alot more respected. What SNL did was focus and emphasized what she did wrong over and over and over again until it made it seem like she was a completely inept public speaker. They did the same thing with their parodies of Obama/McCaine, and this unfortunately speaks louder to the braindead American public than the actual debates.

SNL is the single worst propaganda on television effecting this election, and has been the main cause of Obama's recent upswing. It would be a sad time in American history if people changed their opinions based on some politically charged commentary framed as 'satire.'

SNL is entertainment. Guess who has provided the most material to them during this election? Yep, that's right: Sarah Palin. You don't really have to go one step further and see what their inclinations are, i.e. left wing/right wing etc. because it's clear to any observer of this election that Palin isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the pack.

 

[nublikescake]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

Don't expect surprises from the same people who re-elected the current genius.

 

[dmcowen674]

Those that elected Bush twice will vote for McSame.

 

[skace]

That Family Guy episode was awesome.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Getting your political information form a brain dead entertainer is highly encouraged.

Why people listen to the political views of the MOST SOCIALLY DISCONNECTED AND OUT OF TOUCH PEOPLE ON THE PLANET is beyond me. Let them eat cake comes to mind.

way to generalize. Many celebs are legitimately educated people and come from similar, if not worse neighborhoods than the typical sheltered suburb of the average internet armchair opinion wonk.

Damon graduated from Harvard, you know and like Mark Wahlburg, grew up on South Side Boston--not the nicest place in the world, as examples.

I'm not here defending celebs, just that many people don't accept that the most successful ones spent a lot of hard work and effort to get where they are

I admit it. I glossed. I generalized. I thought of Paris Hilton instead of Leonardo DiCaprio. However, by and large, I am correct.

Jules also makes a good point about the writer. Well the writers themselves will tell you they are shit on on a daily basis; make all the magic happen, and get the least credit! However, as a writer myself, and someone that double-majored in Art and English, I can tell you that the political ramblings of "some of the most intelligent people in our society", are nothing but uninformed sympathy of the left leaning (falling), and very out of touch bleeding heart types. Actors may be MORE socially connected than some of these writers. When Neil Stephenson says something political, I'll listen, but when it's Jeph Loeb, fuggitaboutit.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Why would anyone vote for someone dumber than they are?

Because there has never been any other choice?