Skrain Bodak (skrain_bodak) wrote,
Skrain Bodak

backdating this b/c I feel like it..LOL

Anyway I was thinking of what I was posting the other day and I realized something....

Isn't it awful that America is full of 10 year old boys? Even I am guilty of that at times...

In the visual media, with few exceptions, if the program isn't funny (and even then usually it's got some crassness to it), then it's got violence, shooting, blood, sex...etc etc.

It's got to be in a rut now since the ratings prove that if there isn't enough explosions, shootings, conflicts, innuendo... then people don't watch so then the people that make the show ideas come up with programs that have all of that but in a different way than in the past but also in a different way that what hasn't worked.

For instance...the Star Trek shows. Yes, even the Original Series had that but of course Roddenberry was almost getting in trouble back then with the censors b/c they were like "Gasp!!! That Orion slavewoman is showing her belly button!!" but yet the first three series (TOS, TNG, DS9) all were great shows and some fans thought even far better than the most recent two to the point that many never watched more than an episode or two.

But yet after a few seasons of Voyager....what did the team that took over from Roddenberry do? They thought that one character was "too brainy" or something or otherwise not bringing in the ratings so they wrote her out and said "the character is in a rut" and brought in the one producer's gf, Jeri a former Borg drone in a skintight jumpsuit.

Then in Enterprise the same team thought they had such a great idea that they did the same in Enterprise from the start and hired model Jolene Blalock as a Vulcan first officer that not only dresses in similar outfits, but they also had her do scenes like the decon scene in the pilot when they had closeups of her rubbing the decon jelly all over her bare midrift!

(side note: even though I'm for the most part "equal opportunity"....what's with all the obsession about caucasian women over here??? Yeah this is America but yet....Jeri Ryan is caucasian, Jolene Blalock is caucasian....they're both now well known as the "Trek Sex Symbols" -- which ST would have done just fine without being "sexy"!!! -- but if they feel the "need" to have a sex symbol character on a Star Trek, then why does it always have to be a caucasian??? Why not have Linda Park's character Hoshi Sato???

It also makes me sick that they threw Hoshi fans like me a bone the way they did and put their version of our "dream scene" in the Mirror Universe episode....I may come across as a hippocrite but at a conventions I met Conner Trinner who plays Trip on "Enterprise" and I asked him why is there "sex symbols" on Star Trek and then after he gave his answer I then asked him if he could pass on the message to have another scene like the decon scene in the pilot but have Hoshi in it and he was like "My friend, I see where you've been going now!" LOL

...anyway sad to say....they're going to have the Mirror Universe Hoshi...the "Captain's Woman" or shall I say the "Captain's Whore" bed with the Mirror Captain Archer. Painted up like a prostitute no less...why couldn't it have been that ho T'pol???)

Anyway that was a loooong parenthetical!!

I just can't stand what I just realized's the reason why the TV people and movie people are afraid to try anything new and are only doing stuff ripped off of each other.. People expect blood and guts and explosions and sex and not character development or anything...

and if a family show gets successful (the people that like the violence and sex could say "Heaven forbit") then their hands are tied too since the show is supposed to be a "family show" and since most are religious shows, they can't really get too edgy but yet eventually the actors, at least, complain that the show and its message gets watered down....look at "Joan of Arcadia" for instance....that's what I was thinking about while writing this paragraph...

And then even if a show APPEARS successful or even has a theme that seems that it could be successful for a long time (ie: "American Dreams") then for any number of reasons, the viewers "leak out" like air from a punctured balloon each season. Right now instead of changing what needs to be changed (even if it's for the worst) the people in charge decided to move "Dreams" to Wednesday night opposite (in the same time slot) as "Lost"! which is tantamount to program suicide...

and what's more is that they also at the end of the season, had this James Dean type rebel type character return from having run away and him and the main character Meg had a difficult time reconciling....they finally did and the dad didn't like it or what the boy was gonna do but Meg agreeed with the boy going into hiding and protesting Vietnam and at the end, daddy told Meg "If you go out that door and leave with the boy, don't bother coming back" and she did....

and IMO, a show like "American Dreams" (or "Wonder Years" or any of them), they're not JUST about the time period! They are also about the character most of the episodes if not all of them are about. Believe it or not, "American Dreams" is NOT just about the 1960's, it's about MEG PRYOR and her getting on American Bandstand and her going through school....just like "Wonder Years" isN'T just about the 1970's, it's also about Kevin Arnold, and his best friend Paul, and his girlfriend Winnie. Without Kevin, "Wonder Years" would have fallen apart.... I predict without Meg, "American Dreams" would lose even more viewers.

End of rant LOL

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded