crazy hot Napster ad

[ViolentChick]

Wow, European commercials are way racier than ones in the U.S.: http://www.getthewholething.com/, I heard this was a test commercial for Napster in the U.K. Can you imagine this on TV in the U.S.? Doubtful.

[Jax]

I don't understand what's the fuss about, they don't show anything. There are ads here in europe for shampoo in which they show naked breasts, it's as normal as an ad for cars or something else.

[Jake]

I don't mean to be a prick because I enjoy breasts as much as the next guy (assuming he isn't gay) but don't you actually think this shouldn't be on TV? I mean OK if it's past 10 or something but think about how ****ed up our society is becoming. Just a decade ago many people wouldn't see a nude body until their teens, now you've got 8 year olds that have it flashed in their face.

Daddy, why is that lady showing off her tits and *** (hehe)
Because that's all guys want, sweetie, they just want to jump on you.

[editman]

I don't mean to be a prick because I enjoy breasts as much as the next guy (assuming he isn't gay) but don't you actually think this shouldn't be on TV?

Because sex always sells and is always an attention-catcher.

Dude, you've got to realise that in many countries the political correctness, TV censorship and moral standards of the States do not apply. Just because a raunchy ad is shown in some countries with a less strict TV censorship (which they may have enjoyed for years) doesn't necessarily mean that 'society is ****ed up'.

(And considering you don't know what timeslot they're showing the ad on actual TVs in Europe, how can you be sure your 6-year-old niece in London is getting confused about why the pretty dancing lady on TV looks as if she is trapped in a dirty, overheated greenroom and needs a drink?)

The world is a larger place than the States and Fight Club, you know.

As for the ad, geez, you prudes are really making a fuzz outta nothing - you don't even see her stripping off her bra.

[Gaumont]

I agree with Edit

[WorkShed]

I wasn't making a big deal out of it. I thought it was stupid when Paris Hilton had that Hardee's ad and everyone jumped all over it. I actually thought the Napster ad was kind of clever. This is an example of US government putting too much focus on things that do not even matter.

[Jake]

I mean yeah you're right if it's late, but we don't know what time this runs.

relating to the topic, I'm just pissed off at our culture in general lately and this is just one piece of a much bigger picture that I feel people are not seeing

Basically what I'm saying is that if I have a kid, he/she will watch one channel, and that is PBS, because they actually pick their shows for quality and not ratings. Meanwhile, the millions of idiots can have their kids watching 12 hours of TV a day and then getting all ****ed up in the head. I an a bit paranoid but just look at all the stupid lawsuits like the one where someone claimed that GTA made him drive a car off the road and run from the cops. I hear like 11 year old kids go "oh yeah, I ****ed that bitch from behind, yeah", no kidding, and all these people will grow up without any skills besides using a PS2 console, all they'll know about relationships will be what they learned on Friends, and they'll all blame me, because I'm not an idiot and actually have a job, money for a dark day, and an actual relationship with a living person (not prettylady919@aol.com).

I don't personally see any censorship and I never think "well we need more gays or Native Americans represented in movies and on TV" We have people that basically go on tv and announce that our leader is an idiot and I don't think that's good, all it does is it makes me look stupid. Drifting even more off-topic....Look at Bush, it's true the guy is not Roosevelt but about 90% of the stuff you hear is beyond bs. I can understand when people criticize him when they have some facts (or lack of them), like his military record but so often stuff is just made up by people who don't know **** about anything and you've got all these websites that are claiming "facts" like how the gov't blew up the WTC complete with the math, pictures, photos, calculations and eyewitness accounts.

bottom line:

TV is EVIL
Internet is EVIL
most importantly USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, If you want your kid to start watching semi-nude ladies dancing instead of watching Teletubies (hehe) go ahead, mine won't

There, I feel better, I hope this will raise hell from the usual posters...lol

[editman]

Without turning this discussion into another political debate (since I'm totally not interested in it):

I don't personally see any censorship

Basically what I'm saying is that if I have a kid, he/she will watch one channel

Taking away the choice of access is censorship.

Young-uns needs guidance, not restrictions/punshiments. If you want to stop them watching certain TV shows, seeing certain movies, reading certain books, accessing certain websites, be sure to spend a quality amount of time and efforts to explain to them why they're not allowed, why glorified sex and violence are mis-represented in the media, why the viewer/audience have the responsibility of judging the moral within the text instead of blindly imitating what they see is 'cool' or the 'in-thing', in a sense they'll understand (without losing their interests and respects to you - it's a tough job. That's why good parents and teachers are rare.)

Taking away the previlege of access to materials you deem 'bad' is pure totalitarianism and does not make it less '****ed up'.

Because the more prohibited a text is, the greater the desire of accessing it there will be, for obtaining and accessing a prohibited text gives one the guilty pleasure of 'defying the authority'. (You should know that well, FC boy.)

Internet is EVIL

Well, then why you're here?

[Jake]

you're right that good parents do that and I sincerely hope more people are like that (even though I realistically know that they won't be) but my personal view is that guidance is something you give to a slightly older population. Little kids aren't very morally competent and their strenght of character isn't very good at these things. All I ask for is for kids that are too little to deny themselves things because they're "wrong", not to be exposed to things like that.

I guess you're partly right about the forbidden fruit effect but pot is illegal and widely available to people and yet not all do it. But I see what you're saying.

I guess I am a bit of a dictator, after all I think many dictatorships are effective. The concept of "family" is a dictatorship and parents exhibit total power over kids, often to the kid's benefit.

and the Internet is very evil, I mean sure there are good places such as ML when people can have a discussion and enjoy a common hobby but many many people if not MOST, use it for porn and piracy, I know I do. Now I think it's fine in moderation and when you're older but I don't want pre-teens getting "Kara's XXX Playground" pop-ups while they're on Barney the Dinosaur .com Also I don't think it's a good idea to be DLing illegal MP3s when you're 10, because I'm older and I kinda know I will be really ****ed if I'm not careful, 10 year olds don't.

Bottom line: This ad shouldn't appear before 10 PM, afterwards I have no problem

[editman]

You said it yourself:

pot is illegal and widely available to people and yet not all do it. But I see what you're saying.

and the Internet is very evil, I mean sure there are good places such as ML when people can have a discussion and enjoy a common hobby but many many people if not MOST, use it for porn and piracy, I know I do.

So by that rationale pot is evil too, even though there may be some medical merits and not everyone does it, because to you the internet is evil despite the fact that there are 'good places' and that not everyone use it for porn and piracy.

(Besides, not in every country that pot is illegal. Once again, please don't force the US political correctness, censorship and moral standards onto the global scenario.)

The concept of "family" is a dictatorship and parents exhibit total power over kids, often to the kid's benefit.

If what you say is true then the notion and practice of family --> society --> religion is wrong (and evil... Quit mis-using that word in every thread, please? It's beginning to sound boring. ) because it encourages totalitarianism/dictatorship. So anachy is the way to go (once again, FC)? But there's no censorship in anarchy.

After all, to whose standards a text should be censored by? The idea of what you think are inappropriate for children/teenagers/the general public may not be shared by other parents, the States or everyone else, and vice versa. So how can you ban such and such things because you or a few of you think such and such things '****ed up the society'? Hollywood had endured ~50 years of self-censorship thanks to the Hayes Codes (and probably the most significant thing the Codes brought out was a bunch of exploitation movies working around them with the 'educational-value' excuse). Are you saying it's better to go back that way?

The concept of judging a child's ability of learning about morals and responsibilities solely based on his/her age is already problematic. How do you know if a 2-year-old won't understand that seeing pictures of (almost) naked people is not appropriate to him/her, if the idea is explained and carried across appropriately?

And saying it as a joke: If the media (internet) is deemed as evil, what do you call the act of posting the sort of left-wing extremist notion of censorship (which is most likely 'uncommon' among peers here) in a Forum devoted to discussions on trailers and movies - 'a common hobby'?

Would you feel more safe and comfortable for the kids when I delete your posts IF I deem your opinions are inappropriate to, say, my 2-year-old cousin?

I'm not saying there should not be any censorship. (After all, I did post pics of me with some topless women with their breasts blurred out. ) What I'm saying is that protecting children from inappropriate material is one thing. Taking away the choice of accessing a text totalitarily because one thinks such text is bad or 'evil' to children is another. It may come from the best intentions, but it's also so very last-century and out of fashion, like physical punishment or riding a horse carriage on the 61 Highway.

[Jake]

late, and still writing a paper...

in short

yes, pot is usually bad if it causes our population to become a bunch of idiots that are high half the time, if you want to smoke pot at home for whatever reason, fine I don't care, but if you smoke pot and then go work drive a car, well I have a problem with that since you could kill ME

the internet is something that has to be weighted on the basis of positive vs negative, fine so now it's not so bad but if on 10 years everytime you log on you will get viruses or your card number stolen, will u use it? with all the pop-ups and backdoor trojans the web is becoming less usefull and more problematic, im not saying ban it, but fix it

who should censor it? the government, now yes it is in many ways giving them too much power but they are people that we vote for, that's what a democracy is, it's not bush and cheny who get together and run the us, we have other branches of the government who are equally powerful, the fact that Republicans control much if not most of the government says to me that they are for certain things, seeing as they voted for people who support certain issues

i don't know if 2 year olds and kids general should be exposed to it, IMO they should not be, i like the idea of childhood of innocense and not one tainted by how bad everything is, the world is EVIL, you can't deny it, we have genocide and murder and cruelty, rape and poverty. Should a kid watch a naked woman on TV? NO, because as long asl man covers his body for some primitive reason I believe that we shouldn't show that.

I know you said it as a joke but this is NON-MOVIE related, hehe

i agree with you that I was wrong to simply label something EVIL or not, nothing is ever that simple and I usually write stuff partly as humor, but there absolutely should be limits, simply put I think (once again) that the ad is pointless, it has nothing to do with napster, and while it's effective in the way that it will grab the attention of the people you want as customers it will certainly do more harm than good.

I'm not preaching American propaganda to anybody but our societies are nearly identical. The difference in politics or anything else between the US, Canada, Australia, most of Europe are nearly non-esistant when compared to say the differences between US and china.

[editman]

pot is usually bad if it causes our population to become a bunch of idiots that are high half the time, ..., but if you smoke pot and then go work drive a car, well I have a problem with that since you could kill ME

It's very clear in your own statement: it's not pot that is bad, but the people who uses it irresponsibly and endangers others lives who is bad. So blaming certain things for corrputing the society is sheer scapegoating.

fine so now it's not so bad but if on 10 years everytime you log on you will get viruses or your card number stolen, will u use it? with all the pop-ups and backdoor trojans the web is becoming less usefull and more problematic, im not saying ban it, but fix it

That's just paranoia against technology. Yes there are viruses, worms, trojans, hackers floating around the net. Doesn't mean that all e-commerce should cease tomorrow, or school kids should stop surfing the net, or the Internet should be abandoned. One has to understand that ANYTHING that is artificial has its own weakness/shortcomings: You can get electrified with your hair blower. You can get food posioning with your Quarter Pounder. Your leather jacket can get caught by the bus door and drags you 15 feet through the traffic. That doesn't mean that everyone should stop using all electrical applicances, stop eating, stop dressing themselves.

who should censor it? the government... we have other branches of the government who are equally powerful, the fact that Republicans control much if not most of the government says to me that they are for certain things, seeing as they voted for people who support certain issues

It won't make a difference who the authorative figure is (Bush or some other political parties), as long as you're giving the rights to an authorative figure/body to execute censorship upon a certain text, it's automatically NOT representing everyone's opinions. At best, it represents the MAJORITY (the favourite) of people's opinions towards the text, but not (and never) everyone's, because there will always be someone who holds the opposite opinion, be it as few as 1.

So if the majority is baised against the text and think it should be censored, then the minority misses out because the authority will favour the majority and ban the text. BUT... what if the majority's opinion is wrong? (Like the blacklist Hollywood 10 in the 60s) Or consider this: what if the authority, REGARDLESS WHO, does NOT represent the majority at all? (Like Batman Returns is as of today still censored in UK. You think the BBFC's decision represents all the film's fans' opinions?)

Censorship changes with time and places. What is deemed raunchy today may be fuss about nothing in anicient Rome or 50 years later from now in China. And surely those books got burnt in Berlin 1945 are very alright in 2005. The important thing is to not destory the text because it is not in the majority's favor today.

I know you said it as a joke but this is NON-MOVIE related, hehe

Doesn't matter. Hypothetically, if your posts are deemed not appropriate for my 2-year-old cousin (by me, the authoritative figure, who, if I'm a good one, may represent the MAJORITY of members' opinions, but not necessarily yours; or, if I'm a bad MOD, represent ONLY my own opinions), your posts would have still been censored even if you oblige to the Forum posting rules, for the one who holds the responsibilty and power to censor makes the executive decision.

(But I'm not gonna censor your posts because that would totally go against the points I've been trying to get across. What I'm trying to say is that when the power (to censor or to anything) is assigned/given to an individual/a group, the risk of abusing the power by the individual/group is also taken by the collective.)

simply put I think (once again) that the ad is pointless, it has nothing to do with napster, and while it's effective in the way that it will grab the attention of the people you want as customers it will certainly do more harm than good.

Fair enough. But what does high-artsy montages have anything to do with perfumes/furnitures/Coca-Cola? What does sports stars have anything to do with credit cards/movies/pizzas? It's only gimmickry. If Napster used the 30-seconds preview idea on, say, a DVD movie instead of a peep show, you'd probably not gonna say anything about it.

Still sex and violence in the media don't corrupt people. It's people themselves who are already corrupted get the fix with sex and violence in the media and use it as an excuse to trigger themselves to wreak havoc. It's all in their heads, but the media gets the blame.

the world is EVIL, you can't deny it, we have genocide and murder and cruelty, rape and poverty. Should a kid watch a naked woman on TV? NO, because as long asl man covers his body for some primitive reason I believe that we shouldn't show that.

If protecting the innocences is your intention then I really think you should stop making bold statements with strong words like 'EVIL', because you sound like a religious zealot. (And in today's global climate, that's probably not gonna be very persuasive.)

(And in case this discussion turns personal, my username's editman NOT because I like to censor people )

[ViolentChick]

I don't mean to be a prick because I enjoy breasts as much as the next guy (assuming he isn't gay) but don't you actually think this shouldn't be on TV? I mean OK if it's past 10 or something but think about how ****ed up our society is becoming. Just a decade ago many people wouldn't see a nude body until their teens, now you've got 8 year olds that have it flashed in their face.

Daddy, why is that lady showing off her tits and *** (hehe)
Because that's all guys want, sweetie, they just want to jump on you.

I agree with you to an extent. I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe that the media trains our visual sense. Note that not ONE person in this thread refered to the Napster commercial for what it really is. Everyone said "naked body" "stripping" etc. No one mentioned that it goes beyond what is shown in the video. Look at the position that it puts you in as a viewer. Its a PEEPSHOW. It makes the assumption that whomever views the commercial is willing to shell out their hard earned money to go see someone strip. Not just see them strip, but see them strip along with the rental of a plywood and cement box with a tiny scratched plexiglass window where the viewer can then leave their contribution on the walls with the contributions of prior visitors.

Note how that trains one's visual sense. The message: "It's ok to look at her" "It's not okay to do it if somoene else sees you." Don't you think that men have had their sexual nature butchered by our puritan society enough without getting this crazy double standard crap shoved down their throats on TV? The lady had a choice whether to take off her clothes for money, men don't have the choice over whether they are biologically linked to their visual sense.

All I'm saying is I think it is a bigger deal than we make it out to be. I also have to admit I signed up for Napster. Pretty good deal, despite their questionable advertising.

[Lestat]

Note how that trains one's visual sense. The message: "It's ok to look at her" "It's not okay to do it if somoene else sees you." Don't you think that men have had their sexual nature butchered by our puritan society enough without getting this crazy double standard crap shoved down their throats on TV? The lady had a choice whether to take off her clothes for money, men don't have the choice over whether they are biologically linked to their visual sense.

All I'm saying is I think it is a bigger deal than we make it out to be. I also have to admit I signed up for Napster. Pretty good deal, despite their questionable advertising.

I see Your point ViolentChick, But I have to admit, to Me it seems like your reading into this a bit too much. I don't think this commercial is telling me "It's okay to look at her." "It's not okay to do it if someone else sees you."
I think it's a clever ploy to get me to see the final message at the end of the commercial. They want men to be unable to look away, (and i am completely comfortable in saying, I didn't look away.), so they can see the Napster Logo.
One must have enough sense to buy the product because they agree with it, Not because of the so called "cool" commercial.

[Gaumont]

The important thing is to not destory the text because it is not in the majority's favor today.

Very important point. Something for the americans to think about these days.