Topic RSS | Reply to topic
Author Post

autumnranger


Member

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 6:45am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
Respectfully, Mr Fry, I have one tiny bone to pick with this podcast. You called Peter Firth "Colin". No way to correct and only fans of either fellow would really mind the faux pas.

I do agree that nanny states have no place in our world. It's not up to the government to safeguard our young ones, it is we the parents who have to police what our children see and what they don't see.

Any parent whinging about not being able to monitor everything their kids comes across shouldn't have become parents at all. It's parenting by proxy. People like this shouldn't be allowed to have kids at all...

Back to top

amyl_nitrate


Member

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 10:48am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
I do agree that nanny states have no place in our world. It's not up to the government to safeguard our young ones, it is we the parents who have to police what our children see and what they don't see.

Any parent whinging about not being able to monitor everything their kids comes across shouldn't have become parents at all. It's parenting by proxy. People like this shouldn't be allowed to have kids at all...

I agree. If you want to have children you should be prepared to take on a lot of responsibility. Children are not toys or accessories or mini-mes they're individual human beings who are going to need to be cared for, protected, loved and guided through life. People who think the tv is a babysitter and prefer to pass on their responsibility of bringing up their children properly onto others such as teachers because they don't think they have to put in any effort into their role do not deserve to have children.

Assuming direct control...

Back to top

wooden_elf


Member

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 1:16pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
Hmmm, I can understand the contradiction of having people in one scene using seatbelt and in the next shooting someone in the face.

But I have to confess that it has always annoyed me greatly when someone doesn't put their seatbelt on. I don't know why but it drives me crazy. *sigh* If I really like a character in a movie or a TV-series and they get in the car and don't use a seatbelt I always wonder why. It's a little quirk I have and it doesn't have much to do with being a good example. It's just....me...being stupid, silly me. I get upset when my mum doesn't put her seat belt on before she starts the car.

This is really stupid of me because shooting someone in the head is so much more serious and just evil. Shooting someone in the head is probably (in my opinion) more evil than from behind. You have to look the person in the eyes.

Sorry I'm so long-winded. *sigh*

I want to thank you so much for sharing your views and thoughts with us, mr Fry. It feels really good to know that you care what your fans think and value our opinions (though some of us could be more straight-to-the-point).

Please, don't feel bad for taking so long. We all know how busy you are and you shouldn't feel bad about anything!!!

Cecilia :-//

Back to top

ladyfromhamburg


Member

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 8:00pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
After listening this new podram I - for the first time - was in conflict with mysellf. One part of me - the logical and realistic one - agrees to all arguments stated in this podgram. The other one was very surprised about Mr. Fry's extreme fury (acting?) and this second part is hesitating to call other persons idiots. This one also has a very bad feeling when thinking of people phoning while driving a car etc.. I know, sometimes I hate myself for (always) accepting rules, but in such case, when you endanger sb's life...... (not only your own life!)
It's quite clear that most of those people who want to phone or who generally don't use a seatbelt will do resp. will leave it anyway and will not wait for a bad example on TV. But there are still some (and I don't think of kids) who might be influenced. Nevertheless I wouldn't write to the BBC to complain and I know that many other things are worse.
And now I wonder: Is a filming team allowed to show a scene with a driving and phoning actor, without seatbelt, when it ends in an accident? In this case, isn't it a 'good' example as it says 'If you phone/drink alcohol/don't wear a seatbelt, the next tree is yours?'

Back to top

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 8:09pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
i understand and agree with a lot of these posts, however,

i can't help but be a little confused by people in the thread talking about whether or not the phoning while driving, smoking, non seatbelt wearing, OR shooting another person is a good example or not.

art was never meant to be a good example for living.
period.
that is not its purpose.


feel free to disagree, by all means

Back to top

amyl_nitrate


Member

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 8:55pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
i understand and agree with a lot of these posts, however,

i can't help but be a little confused by people in the thread talking about whether or not the phoning while driving, smoking, non seatbelt wearing, OR shooting another person is a good example or not.

art was never meant to be a good example for living.
period.
that is not its purpose.


feel free to disagree, by all means

I agree with what you're saying. Not all media or art that is created in terms of television, film, books, comics and video games are there to provide morals or set examples or 'protect the children', they're there for other purposes. I don't want to see everything getting dumbed down and white washed to cater to the lowest common denomintaor so as not to influence some dozy git who doesn't know the difference between reality and fantasy. If someone does something stupid because they saw it happen on the telly then it's still their responsibility and their own fault. We're adults and can and should be making our own decisions. Just because you see illegal actions on a tv show does not mean that show is promoting or glamourising those actions or that they're suddenly not illegal anymore. As for children it's the job of the parents to guide and educate them in everyday life not the television's job. Also if parents are letting their children watch shows that are suitable for and targeted at adults then it's their problem and they need to explain things to their children so they don't take it seriously.

Assuming direct control...

Back to top

Anonymous


Unregistered

Posted Fri Sep 5th, 2008 9:12pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
i got in the habit of starting violent wars after looking at Guernica.

lol

Back to top

MIssPea


Member

Posted Sat Sep 6th, 2008 4:00am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
X-D This Podgram had me literally laughing out loud!!! I must have looked insane myself because I was listening to it while running on the beach with loads of people witnessing my spontaneous laughter! Stephen just gets better and better!!!!

Back to top

Libramum


Member

Posted Sat Sep 6th, 2008 4:47am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
Don't disagree at all! Lol

I was sort of trying to get to the same point,...I just took the long scenic route!


i understand and agree with a lot of these posts, however,

i can't help but be a little confused by people in the thread talking about whether or not the phoning while driving, smoking, non seatbelt wearing, OR shooting another person is a good example or not.

art was never meant to be a good example for living.
period.
that is not its purpose.


feel free to disagree, by all means

Back to top

TobiasMonk


Moderator

Posted Sat Sep 6th, 2008 5:42pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
i got in the habit of starting violent wars after looking at Guernica.

lol

X-D X-D X-D
X-D X-D X-D
and
X-D

I cannot be awake for nothing looks to me as it did before, Or else I am awake for the first time, and all before has been a mean sleep.
Walt Whitman

Back to top

Sherbet


Member

Posted Sat Sep 6th, 2008 7:47pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
Me and my mum both enjoyed his rant...

I think it makes it more enjoyable when you know this is one of the things he really hates or finds extremely stupid.

It wasn't really wise to let my mum listen to it while she was cooking dinner as she was incapacitated by laughing fits. But thankfully the house wasn't burned down.

I hope he makes a lot more, and feels quite free to "leak his unlovely torment all over us" XD

Back to top

Nim Chimpsky


Member

Posted Sat Sep 6th, 2008 8:13pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
If I could just be entirely irrelevant for a lengthy moment, I think we should watch out that this sort of (perfectly fair) criticism of the very silly New Labour centralizing regime of targets and Health and Safety (“an approach to government [which] reached its zenith under Lenin’s Gosplan” - Simon Jenkins, Thatcher & Sons, p. 279) doesn't slide into a bloated, reactionary “Down with the Welfare State!"/“Flog the scrounging poor!” attitude (not that I’m saying Stevie dearest was sliding in this particular direction, or indeed in any particular direction).

If you’d kindly refrain from tracking me down and punching me hard in the face for starting to talk like Zizek, I think the Health-and-Safety-culture stuff is, in a way, typical of a growing trend in modern life, a good example of which is consumption-without-consumption: decaffeinated coffee, alcohol-free beer, fat-free snacks - having things without really having them, if you follow my meaning, which you probably don’t.

Join a teenage sub-culture, like the Goths, etc., and you can be different while still belonging to your own little tribe: nonconformity-without-nonconformity. Getting slightly more political, we have modern popular culture: merchandise-flogging satirists, painstakingly coiffured rock-musicians and inane pseudo-subversives like Wanksy - a sort of rebellion-without-rebellion. Then there’s explicit political debate, which picks at little, superficial things (Is this minister going to get moved about in a reshuffle? Is that MP shagging his neighbour’s dog?), while rarely questioning fundamental principles or indeed anything particularly important: politics-without-politics. How about Sarah Palin over in America? A powerful woman-without-feminism.

And so (finally) isn’t the Health-and-Safety-culture of New Labour a sort of Health and Safety-without-health and safety? The government piles in on a load of trivial things - seat-belts, cigarettes, mobile phones in cars, as Stevie was saying - and looks like it’s naively obsessed with our safety, and yet in many really rather major ways actively undermines ‘health and safety’. Attacking welfare for the poor, for one thing (at the moment, topically enough, refusing to go near the energy companies’ great big profits to help people with their fuel bills), and instead giving away the hard-earned tax-payers’ cash in enormous subsidies to business (see PFIs passim, for starters). Never mind (not to sound too much like Harold Pinter on a bad day) sending the country’s young men and women off to die in the Middle East for no discernibly good reason (Who can forget all those scandals about faulty/missing equipment? Where was ‘Health and Safety’ then?), and thus clearly worsening the whole terrorism thing we started off with.

Anyway, that's enough of that. Nanny State not the same as Welfare State; turn on, tune in, drop out; smash the system: you get the idea. And if you don't agree with me, it's your fault for not reading Hegel properly.

Back to top

QF


Member

Posted Tue Sep 9th, 2008 7:51pm Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
And I'm not sure how to spell the Netherlandic version of Vay vay vay?

Are you Georgian? Then say it "vahh-vahh-vahh" ))

And thanx a lot for transcript! ))

Back to top

Nina73


Member

Posted Wed Sep 10th, 2008 6:23am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
And I'm not sure how to spell the Netherlandic version of Vay vay vay?

Actually, the Dutch don't say a V when they mean a W
I'd spell it "way way way"... though that's not entirely phonetically correct either... (and though I don't mind a lack of political correctness, I do insist on phonetic correctness )

Thank you for the transcript! I couldn't quite make out every word myself and you filled in some blanks!

Back to top

jessf


Member

Posted Thu Sep 11th, 2008 3:23am Post subject: Podcast 5 - Shooting People in the Face (Compliance)
I thoroughly enjoyed Stephen’s rant and feel like having one of my own if I may.
It is a response of sorts as it has sprouted from the topic.
I have long wondered why it is deemed more acceptable to show someone’s insides rather than their outside. To clarify, why is it that the audience is happier to see someone being disembowelled for example than show a naked body? And more specifically, an everyday naked body rather than a surgically enhanced or perfectly starved and over-gymed body. How are we more horrified by a bit of flab or lumpy or old bits than we are of depictions of violence resulting in the exposure of human innards? Why is the way most of us look au naturale so distasteful? I’m baffled. Is scalping really less scary that a girl with a hairy armpit? A pen in the neck more enjoyable than a penis erect? Sorry I am rhyming a little now I had better stop.

Back to top