I feel so weird for knowing this but...
...actually those channels show full frontal nudity quite often. I've seen it a number of times.
How long before network TV has Full Frontal Nudity?
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
I feel so weird for knowing this but...
...actually those channels show full frontal nudity quite often. I've seen it a number of times.
I didn't vote for them
We've had tv ads with full frontal nudity during the daytime here in the Netherlands...
They either have someting to do with hygiene or health...
A shampoo-brand called Fa usually featured a topless woman in some tropical paradise...
They either have someting to do with hygiene or health...
A shampoo-brand called Fa usually featured a topless woman in some tropical paradise...
I know this is supposed to be about ''NETWORK'' tv, but I figured I'd bring this up, If anyone here has ever seen ''Ghost in the Shell'' the 1996 sci-fi anime classic there is nudity, on sci-fi channel whenever they showed the movie (only twice I belive) they would ''blur'' those pesky ''parts'' as to not offend certain viewers or scare children for life, but on dish Network channel 157 Ovation they showed those sceenes uncensord to my amazment!
The banning of a single trailer from advertising time due to violence, on a channel that would be allowed to show the movie itself uncut, hardly compares to the outlawing of nudity across almost the whole of American network TV. For a start advertising is subject to an entirely different set of rules and regulations than broadcast television due to the fact that advertising schedules cannot be advertised to viewers who may wish to avoid sex or violence.
Our network channels can show pretty much anything they want in their broadcast schedule after a certain time in the evening, but they cannot show explicit sex scenes or violence in advertising between programmes, which is pretty sensible as it goes.
Nor does the fact that Lonemagpie comes from a country that banned a violent trailer from TV advertising do anything to diminish his point, so i'm uncertain as to the relevance of your post.
I was in no way talking about it being "a turn on." Your the one with the sick mind to think that I would have. I was just pointing out that at least one movie has already been shown on network TV with full nudity.
I'd be surprised if we see it within the next ten years. I do see it happening, but very slowly, very gradually.
It's like that joke on The Simpsons: "You know, the FOX network turned into a hardcore porngraphy channel so gradually that I didn't even notice."
I probably didn't get the quote right, but that's the general gist of my own opinion.
It's like that joke on The Simpsons: "You know, the FOX network turned into a hardcore porngraphy channel so gradually that I didn't even notice."
I probably didn't get the quote right, but that's the general gist of my own opinion.
I just don't see it ever happening on broadcast networks in the U.S. Too many people would start dusting off their bibles and mothers screaming "I do not want my little Timmy to see that!"
But I suspect we'll see R-rated violence on TV within the next ten years myself (with little Timmy cheering).
But I suspect we'll see R-rated violence on TV within the next ten years myself (with little Timmy cheering).
I thought we were seeing that now? am I wrong?
Somebody should tell those mothers how to use the V chip in their satellite receiver, cable converter or TV. Next month's analog shutdown should take care of those older TVs that don't have a V chip.
There is literally ONE organization that is keeping US TV from having any real views on sex. That would be the Parents' Television Council, which according to recent research, is responsible for more than 3/4ths of all complaints received by the FCC. I believe that they are the TV wing of James Dobson's extremely conservative Evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family.
I still say that if ratings fall far enough that the regulations will mysteriously get more lax, if the networks really want it I would be surprised if they wouldn't because they *couldn't*. Once the tide has changed enough that they think they'd get more viewers with nudity and so on than they'd lose I think it might just happen.
The whole Janet Jackson insanity was just because it was during the Super Bowl when everyone is watching and it's expected to be "wholesome" entertainment. I know the UK has "pre-watershed" timeslots when material that is allowed in the evening is not earlier. I doubt if it happened on NYPD Blue it would have gotten near the same level of hysteria.
It's probably apocryphal but it was gossip that that famous advertising billboard with Sophie Dahl got pulled because it was causing traffic accidents.
Did Eastern Promises not have one of the big TV channels sponsoring it? It would be interesting to see that on TV since it has a totally balls-out performance by Viggo.
Did Eastern Promises not have one of the big TV channels sponsoring it? It would be interesting to see that on TV since it has a totally balls-out performance by Viggo.
Take a look at the history of U.S. television and one will see that it has slowly but steadily become increasingly permissive since its introduction. In the 1960's Barbara Eden wasn't allowed to show her belly button on I Dream of Jeanie, and censors tried to block a scene from Leave it to Beaver which took place in a bathroom. In the 60's, the Smothers Brothers got themselves cancelled for making political and sexual jokes that would have been considered mild on 70's TV, and practically G-rated now. I remember when Three's Company seemed edgy and risque. Friends was a heck of a lot more blatantly sexual, but no one considered that edgy. When the word "ass" was used in mainstream TV shows at the end of the 80's is was considered quite shocking. Now it's everywhere. The X-Files and Buffy had levels of gore you would never have imagined showing up on American broadcast TV when I was a kid. What was shocking a generation ago is thought of as common, everyday stuff nowadays.
As Tom Hendricks has pointed out, US TV networks have already shown (nonsexual) full-frontal nudity when broadcasting Schindler's List. Full-frontal nudity will be shown again, and it will be less surprising when it does because it happened before, which means it will happen more after that.
There will be protests, and maybe even FCC crack-downs, but eventually people will stop noticing, and full-frontal nudity will become regular, like so many other taboos before.
I think the OP's 2012 guess sounds possible.
As Tom Hendricks has pointed out, US TV networks have already shown (nonsexual) full-frontal nudity when broadcasting Schindler's List. Full-frontal nudity will be shown again, and it will be less surprising when it does because it happened before, which means it will happen more after that.
There will be protests, and maybe even FCC crack-downs, but eventually people will stop noticing, and full-frontal nudity will become regular, like so many other taboos before.
I think the OP's 2012 guess sounds possible.
After posting this, I remembered something. I'm pretty certain I remember brief full-frontal nudity (and lots of rear nudity) in War and Remembrance, a miniseries broadcast on network TV in 1988. Like Schindler's List, it was a nonsexual holocaust setting.
well there's one way their fangs could be pulled.
Complaints will only be recieved as originals and when the complainant has actually witnessed it on tv personally (and if you really wanted to make them have to swear is as an affadavit).
Groups of the PTC (think their usual mouthpiece is also an anti-tax campaginer - boswell, bosley something like that) use form letters to bombard the FCC. In one instance where a tv network was fined (think it was over a repeat of 10yr old ep of married with children) there 5000 complaints but only 20 were original - the rest were simply form letters that were photocopied and signed.
^
Thanks! And what you mentiond on the above^ post is the reason why I belive we WILL see this on american airwaves at or by 2012-2014.Similar threads
