MTV Executives Worried Skins May Violate Child Pornography Laws
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
That was also because all of the actors were over 18, which is the age you have to be at (in the UK at least) to participate in simulated or real sex on screen.Tipsy Giant said:
I disagree with the idea about it being realistic...I mean, the first series was reasonable in general quality and "realism" but it's all gone downhill from there.
Considering the fact that a great number of grown-ups these days, including many 'concerned mothers', has likely seen the movie "Kids" like...15 years ago when they themselves were teenagers and probably applauding it with great gusto back then...my heart pumps purple piss for the hypocritical Parent's Television Council.
The issue is also with "appearing to be under the age limit" if you are portraying a person under the limit this is also against the law in america (please correct me if i'm wrong, this was my understanding of US law)Wrists said:
So?
All of that stuff's in the original Skins.
I didn't realise they were making an exact remake - the trailer shows them saying all of the lines from the original script, yet it's British humour and writing strapped on to a loads of Americans. Doesn't really work.
Kaya Scodelario (Effy) has a sex scene in the first episode of the third series and I'm pretty sure she was 17 then, and she'd already had scenes in the prior 2 series.
All of that stuff's in the original Skins.
I didn't realise they were making an exact remake - the trailer shows them saying all of the lines from the original script, yet it's British humour and writing strapped on to a loads of Americans. Doesn't really work.
I'm pretty sure they weren't.Wrists said:
Kaya Scodelario (Effy) has a sex scene in the first episode of the third series and I'm pretty sure she was 17 then, and she'd already had scenes in the prior 2 series.
Skins is not realistic (for anybody), and you sound conservative before your time.Lord Kloo said:
So, a show about the lives of teenagers who drink, take drugs, and have sex.... why bother? I can just go to a party or school and see the same thing.
I don't know if it's illegal in the US, I can only view things from my perspective in the UK, am I right in thinking we share that? Maybe not....Tipsy Giant said:
Anyway, I believe in the UK it doesn't matter provided the actor is over 18, which of course reduces the capability for the actor to portray very young characters. But to reiterate, I have no idea of the legality of that in America, though I remember hearing something about it I can't recall it in enough detail to provide a useful argument about it.
Presumably this is why they sat down to discuss who was liable; if "posession" were only to cover the actual, phsyical evidence (photographs, video tapes etc) then those executives who has never directly handled the material or had anything to do with it's production have nothing to worry about.Matt_LRR said:
Makes an interesting question, though - if the material is never distributed and remains in the hands of, say, some poor editor somewhere, is he the one posessing the child pornography and the one liable to be arrested for it?
OT: The whole thing is pretty stupid. The first two series of Skins were great, and while overblown, they were a pretty good reflection of how kids were when I was at that age. Parties, drugs, sex etc. A large part of this is probably, as someone already said, parents not wanting to face up to the things their kids are already doing...
Yeah we do, I actually live in Bristol so had to put up with all the cast and crew closing off streets I needed to walk down, bastardsWrists said:
Why does it seem to me that most of the comedy in America is some sort of rip of British comedy: "Whose Line Is It Anyway?," "The Office," "Top Gear," apparently "Being Human [http://www.daemonstv.com/2011/01/17/being-human-there-goes-the-neighborhood-review]." (It is in a comment on the bottom so I dont know how accurate it is.)
And I am sure there are many many more examples.
Edit: Oh right I am an American, just fyi.
And I am sure there are many many more examples.
Edit: Oh right I am an American, just fyi.
Creation, possession, attempt to *, or even vaguely skirting the possible fringes of what may or may not, depending on one's religious and/or philosophical upbringing, offend the sensibilities of some dirtbag who can't stand the thought of something they disagree with appearing on TV.Matt_LRR said:
In the US, that also goes for every other thing which might possibly offend someone, not merely porn, let alone kiddie porn.
And since when were 16+yos "children"? If they're old enough to be drafted to fight in third-world militia...
It is indeed illegal to even *appear* to be Sub-18s engaged in sexual activities, in the US.Tipsy Giant said:
Because apparently, as so many management books love to point out, "feeling are facts," for some asshole who can't use a dictionary's definition of "facts."
Unlucky, I suppose you're looking forward to the next two years where the process shall be repeated ad (further) nauseam.Tipsy Giant said:
That would constitute photography/filmography involving a minor involved in sexually suggestive poses/movement. I'm fairly sure that that is illegal so she was probably over 18, at least in series 3 and 4.Woodsey said:
Didn't MTV use to play music? Isn't MTV an acronym for Music Television?
[small]No honestly...I really don't watch TV all that much[/small]
[small]No honestly...I really don't watch TV all that much[/small]
Originally yes, but the M was changed to Moronic back in I think 1989 or so after the success of Remote control. Its all been down hill from there.CezarIgnat said:
If I had a time machine, I would not go back and kill hitler, I would go back to 89 and go onto remote control just to put 2 between the eyes of Sandler before he had a chance to help perpetuate the downward spiral.
