Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How far can you judge a culture by its art (including TV)?
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
Mata
This point was raised over in a different thread and I thought I'd start a new topic for it rather than messing up the old one.

How far is it safe to draw general conclusions about a nation from their artistic/media output?

This was raised in relation to American television's odd treatment of alcohol, where characters who have one drink, especially if they are by themselves, seem to automatically be considered on the edge and stand a good chance of developing a drinking habit in the series. Comparing this to the treatment of weed/pot (which is generally shown in a positive light, for fun and profit) it seems to reveal America's ongoing issues with alcohol that traces back through the prohibition era and possibly to the original pilgrims.

I look at British programming and wonder what we say about ourselves to the world: Little Britain is full of ugly freaks, The Office is remarkably unfunny and awkward watching, Dr Who's plots seem to always revolve around fragmented families. Do these illustrate the way we see ourselves as a nation?
EvilSpork
I just have to say, if you look at Bollywood... Well, honestly if India randomly breaks out into song and dance in the streets when something happens to an individual, count me in, I would be amused forever.

In a sense I think there are things in television that are linked back to society. I would say that minor issues are exaggerated to produce comedic responses, but they are based on flaws that do exist to some extent in the society.

Art (literature, painting, etc.) likely grant a deeper look into the culture of a society. Granted, it depends on the individual that creates the work and what their influence was.
Mata
Wait, you mean that doesn't happen in India all the time? *cancels flights*

I'm not convinced that high art (paintings and suchlike) do grant much insight these days. The introspective nature of the market seems like it has isolated itself from everyday culture, although it might be easier to get some insight from popular artists who have caught the wider public's attention, such as Antony Gormley.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=gormle...m=1&sa=N&tab=wi

The lonely figures of people, who usually look like they are either watching or waiting, seem to have caught the attention of wider culture and they may have something to say about it too. Their sense of isolation, sometimes contemplative, other times sad, is probably a strong reflection of the loneliness that the speed and discommunication of modern life brings to people.

Then again, if those sculptures are popular because people see something of their own state in them, then why isn't that theme so prevalent in other media? ... Or maybe it is. A TV series like Ally McBeal was really about a lonely woman trying to find love, comfort, and acceptance for her quirks, which is a narrative version of trying to overcome loneliness.

What are the themes that our media always seem to come back to? The trend I've noticed in both US and UK television, that seems stronger now than five years ago, is the heavy emphasis on the importance of family.

Oh, and terrorists.
Faerieryn
I always found the plot of Sex and the City to be quite interesting. Episode to episode, there wasn't one really, but the over arching plot seemed to contravene the episodic ones (when they existed). Episode to episode, the plot seemed to focus on empowering women and their sexuality- it was all about shagging who you wnated and when you wanted, regardless of what other people though or said. But the final episode, where Carrie finally realises that her ideal man was there all a long (or a bit before that really) we discover that it was actually about finding the one and settling down and not doing as you please the whole time.
The character of Charlotte was always portrayed as the silly one, the girl who would do anything for love but in the end, Miranda gives up her whole career almost (which was her raison detre) for her man and Samantha, who was all about freedom of sexuality and bonking her way around the city realises that none of that is going to make her happy- the man who stuck by her during her cancer will however. Says a lot about the attitude in the states to women who aren't married with children at the age of 25
Phyllis
QUOTE (Faerieryn @ Jan 18 2008, 05:51 PM) *
Says a lot about the attitude in the states to women who aren't married with children at the age of 25

Hmm, I don't see a huge social stigma with not marrying and having kids in your 20's in the US. I don't think most people start to make obnoxious comments about ticking clocks until your 30's. tongue.gif There is definitely a widespread belief that if an American woman chooses to never marry and/or have kids then she must be abnormal in some way, though.

It's funny, but I think Sex and the City says a lot more about US culture if you compare the edited versions on TBS with the originals on Showtime. The stuff they took out was, well, the sex (and the naughty words, probably). It's on a basic cable channel, but if memory serves it never comes on before about 10 or 11 PM. There's plenty of unedited violence on TV before and around those times, but network censors seem to be a lot more strict about sex scenes. Glorifying violence while treating sex like it's something to be ashamed of and feared -- yep, definitely American.

One thing that has always bugged me is that aside from Roseanne, only fat men seem to be allowed to be the main character of a show for an extended period of time. Back when Margaret Cho had a sitcom, she was continually told by the network that she had to lose weight. She was too fat to play what was essentially a version of herself, she had to go on extreme diets, blah blah. When her show was cancelled, its time-slot was filled by Drew Carey. Because he's so slender. rolleyes.gif (not that I don't love Drew Carey, it's just that the network didn't seem to have a problem with his size, even though he was bigger than Margaret Cho). There are a bunch of shows that have a funny fat man as the main character, and his wife/girlfriend is always beautiful and model-thin. Men on TV are allowed to be flawed, but women (with few exceptions) must look perfect. That speaks volumes about how sexist American society still is, really.

Anyway, how far can you judge a culture by its TV? I think it really depends on how much knowledge you have of the culture to begin with. If you don't know much about a place it can be a bit foolish to draw any meaningful conclusions about it based on TV shows. Although, that method does have its benefits, I suppose. It's been my experience that when I'm on either side of the Atlantic, the people who only get their information about the US or the UK from TV shows tend to ask me the silliest questions, which is always entertaining. biggrin.gif
sirdudly
Television is no longer worth watching in the United States. The few gems out there are surrounded by unintelligible trash which seem to multiply and take over the time slots of those gems. This is especially true of the Fox network, which canceled the glorious Arrested Development series and any other show that passes above the I.Q requirements of its target demographics. Heck, MTV doesn't even have music anymore. The creative buzz of the 80's and 90's has slowly been killed off with networks that care more about profit than style. If not for the rise of the internet, I have no idea where I'd go for my daily dose of pop culture. So basically, television of late should not be considered a form of art since it's more of a program of societal control and brainwashing and network execs should all be punched in the face for canceling my favorite shows and abandoning my childhood.
That said, I believe it is possible to judge certain values and aspirations of a society by its art. There was a storybook by a German author which a U.S publisher was interested in. In this particular book, there was an illustration of an art museum in which there was a nude statue of a man and a picture of a nude female. The publisher asked the author to "hide" these parts to make it more palatable for American parents. The artist would not comply to the demand of self censorship, which caused some controversy. With that example alone, it is possible to distinguish societal beliefs about the human anatomy between America and most of Europe.
This can be found in non written art as well. One simply needs to take a look at some old propaganda to see what sorts of visions they wanted to imprint upon the public.
Daria
QUOTE (sirdudly @ Jan 19 2008, 06:49 AM) *
Television is no longer worth watching in the United States.

Check out a newish show, Chuck. It is awesome biggrin.gif

I would add to this thread, but I am le tired.
PsychWardMike
On the opposite side of Candice's argument, I just want to know what would happen if there was a show where the woman was slovenly, slow witted, and flawed and was partnered (as many sitcom husbands are) with a statuesque perfect and condescending man. Can you imagine the uproar there would be if there was a femal Homer Simpson with a male Marge or even a female Ray Romano with a male Debora? The whole thing would be completely decried as sexist and the show (as well as the guy who greenlit it) would be immediately canned.

I'm not trying to defend sitcoms as a whole (I hate most of them) but it's just something to think on.

As far as the issue of high art's relevance in today's society, I think that on the whole Mata's correct. The "high artists" are so wrapped up in maintaining their academic ideals that they lose their relevance - people start to not care, and rightfully so. I'm a composer, but most people would rather listen to rock or pop. Are people getting more and more stupid? Possibly. But a lot of the reason that composers aren't as culturally relevant as they were two hundred years ago - hell, sixty years ago - is because in the fifties and sixties composers got fed up with their audience and started writing pieces that intentionally sounded terrible as a way of making fun of their patrons. Their egotism cost them a lot (kind of a biting the hand that feeds you scenario) and now it's up to my generation of composers to help try to rectify this.

Now what's truly interesting is the hybrid of "high" and "low" art. Artists who incorporate pop culture into their art are en vogue. Of course there were people like Andy Warhol, but one of my favorites is a composer named Michael Daugherty (here's his wiki) who incorporates Americana like Superman, Elvis, and Cadillacs into his own quite brilliant music. If you have the time, I'd reccomend checking out his "Metropolis Symphony."

Continued later. For now I party!
patback87
Well when I try to write something like a screen play I try to use my flaws for the characters flaws and then usually make a cultural statement. The thing is, that I don't have anything published and even if I ever sold an idea unless it was an indie project, a producer would probably butcher it and make it more "General audience" approved. See producers like to think their audiences are stupid and as long as they think that then the audience is going to be stupid, because that's what they are going to targeting.

The problem is that it's not so much that we define the culture, we become a part of someone’s idea of what our culture should be. MTV is seen a major cultural statement about America, in reality the execs are making the cultural and quoting some ex-MTV producers "Corrupting the youth." That's what they do, that's why I really don't care for rap, to be honest I think it promotes horrible values and is pure as I would call it "Pop fluff," but it a lot people eating up as if it’s how culture really is, you know all women are smoking hot and bitches and ho’s.

I made my mom get in a fit when over Christmas I told her that It's a Wonderful Life, The Sound of Music, and Gone with the Wind were nothing but Hollywood Pop Fluff, but as I continued I said they were still classic movies and good movies, but nothing but pure Hollywood pop fluff.

Anyway I keep winding around ideas here, but I see independents sometimes portray life a little more accurately or at least parts of culture. One thing I have to say about TV representing America's culture is that a lot of people talk in one liners, I think this is a result of growing up with noting but one liners on TV and in Movies. I think that's why people don't enjoy my stories sometimes, because they tend to be just a pure retelling of an event without one liners.

Anyway I often feel I don't fit into different cultural values preached to me by TV shows. TV shows tend to show America's as a not so smart public, we have this anti-intellectualism thing going on in America, which just kills me, I mean I'm no genius but some people are afraid to be smart in this country. I have a tendency to know a lot of random things and the more I get the newspaper, Time and Newsweek and keep up with the news the more I know about the world. I had a manager who was surprised because I held an intelligent conversation with a customer about oil prices and it's effects. That's one thing I like about working on Michigan Ave is that I get to interact with a lot of foreign people and usually I can have a brief conversation, recently it's been about the falling dollar and, unless their Canadian, that it's like half price for them, actually had a couple from the Northwestern coast of England that said that was the exact reason they were in Chicago shopping.

Summary: I got really off topic, but to summarize, media and art have come pretty far I would say in a more accurate portrayal of culture, but a lot of TV and Movies try to create a certain idea of what American culture should be i.e. MTV and in fact the whole Viacom company. I hope that people were able to get something out of that rambling, lol.
Phyllis
QUOTE (PsychWardMike @ Jan 20 2008, 02:42 AM) *
Can you imagine the uproar there would be if there was a femal Homer Simpson with a male Marge or even a female Ray Romano with a male Debora? The whole thing would be completely decried as sexist and the show (as well as the guy who greenlit it) would be immediately canned.

I don't think so -- especially not for a female Ray Romano with a male Deborah. A male being the main caretaker for the kids and being portrayed as a complete shrew while the woman is a sports writer and the less conventionally attractive, funny one? Yeah, not seeing the sexism there.

I think even Homer and Marge would have very little sexism if the roles were reversed. Marge and Homer both have their own moments of stupidity, and Marge really isn't very condescending (especially when compared to most sitcom wives). She just gets (justifiably) annoyed with Homers wacky antics.

The nagging sitcom wife is almost always painted negatively. The audience wants to side with the good-natured (but often dim-witted) husband, no matter what silly thing he's gone and done this time. The only way that wives are portrayed as perfect on TV is in regards to their looks. Nine times out of ten they are annoying, humorless nags that are completely unsympathetic as a character. I don't think anyone really likes Deborah -- not even women who are housewives themselves.

If the role was reversed, people wouldn't say "OH EM GEE, he is verbally abusing her!" Whether most of the US would watch it is another story, however. I don't think that they would accept the man as a househusband.
PsychWardMike
See, I disagree there. While I personally (and many of my friends would agree) that there's nothing wrong with the woman being the silly stupid main character and the husband being the shrew, I think that the outspoken and overly sensitive people out there would take great offense. It might not be someone like the head of the ACLU or a highly regarded feminist; it could be CNN and Fox News: they continuously over scandalize meaningless events in pop culture - from celebrity weddings and brushes with the law to covering that stupid "Read A Book" parody rap video on BET. Even if people didn't care before that, the sensationalized media would make them care.

This, by the way, is an interesting aspect of the judging a culture by its art. Look how the news companies in America polarize the citizens with yellow journalism and extremist pundits. Most Americans are not hardcore liberals or conservatives, but the Presidential parties and the news networks cater to the vocal minority which thereby forces people to be in a party that doesn't adequately express their ideals.
Phyllis
It really would depend on the show in question. If the husband stayed at home with the kids like Deborah from Everybody Loves Raymond, then I can't see it being called sexist. It would probably get more attention for not being about traditional gender roles. I could see it getting some bad press from Fox News -- possibly a segment about eroding family values or interviews with anti-feminists who have a problem with sitcom men not being manly enough.

If it was more like the roles of Doug and Carrie from The King of Queens (which, unlike Everybody Loves Raymond, I actually like), however...hmm. They both work (and I think she earns more than him), and Carrie often teases Doug about his weight. I could see some people being a bit annoyed if those roles were reversed and the guy looked like a model.

I can kind of understand why they would be annoyed if it was the first show of its kind. If shows like the reverse of Everybody Loves Raymond were common, it would be another story. But having the first unconventional looking lady/supermodel guy pairing in a sitcom focus on how many things he finds wrong with her body just sends the same message as all the shows with fat husbands and hot wives.

Hrm, does that last part make sense?
patback87
Well it really depends on the individual and the TV show in question, because we are all unique and identify with different shows. Like when I watch Roseanne, now that I'm older I understand the dymanics at work there, because several of the early episode take place during the late 80's when America was still in a recession, which my hometown is still recovering from. During the 80's my parents managed to budget through my dad going to night school, union strikes at the factory he worked at, and then multiple lay offs and 4 kids all during that time. So when I watch Roseanne it reminds me a lot of when I was younger and the way my parents survived all that and still put food on the table, kept us clothed, and kept a roof over our heads. Thankfully though in the 90's my dad got better jobs and what not and now they are in good shape, but much like Roseanne's family they struggled. Anyway got way off topic, but I was trying to show different people identify with different shows and why they do. Hope that made sense.
PsychWardMike
Cand, I must say that is the single best avatar of all time.

And to keep this somewhat on topic, if there was an alien judging our species solely on our media output, he would decide to not blow up the earth upon watching Firefly.
Phyllis
QUOTE (PsychWardMike @ Jan 23 2008, 05:29 AM) *
Cand, I must say that is the single best avatar of all time.

And to keep this somewhat on topic, if there was an alien judging our species solely on our media output, he would decide to not blow up the earth upon watching Firefly.

I know! Dinosaur comics and Wash quotes...what more do you need?

If the alien somehow didn't learn that Firefly was cancelled, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But if he did find out it was taken off the air...well. He'd whip out his intergallactic space modulator faster than you could say "earth-shattering kaboom."
Daria
QUOTE (candice @ Jan 23 2008, 08:49 AM) *
QUOTE (PsychWardMike @ Jan 23 2008, 05:29 AM) *

Cand, I must say that is the single best avatar of all time.

And to keep this somewhat on topic, if there was an alien judging our species solely on our media output, he would decide to not blow up the earth upon watching Firefly.

I know! Dinosaur comics and Wash quotes...what more do you need?

If the alien somehow didn't learn that Firefly was cancelled, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But if he did find out it was taken off the air...well. He'd whip out his intergallactic space modulator faster than you could say "earth-shattering kaboom."

Hmmm.. deja vu?
(Ally McBeal episode of Futurama where they have to remake an episode to stop Earth from being destroyed.)

I had lots of good ideas to add to this thread, but whenever I thought them, I wasn't sober. So I decided it would be best not to post. Now I can't remember what the great ideas were, but they had something to do with Malcolm In The Middle.
PsychWardMike
Pshaw. The only thing the Intergalactic Modulator would do would be change our key. We can take him.
pgrmdave
Mike, not too long ago I would have agreed with you about the problems with role reversals (silly, dumb woman with her husband being the foil) but then I watched some I Love Lucy. That's a perfect example of exactly what you think wouldn't be allowable (although I don't know if it would be allowed today...)
Some example dialogue:

RICKY: It's a good thing you didn't enter us into the radio show.
LUCY: Err....
RICKY: Lucy!
LUCY: Well, you were doing so well yesterday!
RICKY: Lucy, before I horribly murder you, tell me exactly what you did.


Most of that is paraphrased, except for the phrase "horribly murder".


To get back on topic, I don't really think that today's art really reflects socity's values, nor do I think it should. Television, music, movies - these are all entertainment, not reflections of society. They are designed to be entertaining to their target audiences, and we don't always like looking into a mirror. It does, indirectly, show what we value by showing us what we want - American heroes are independent, rebellious, innovative, and a bit arrogent. Our villians are typically smarter than the hero, and cunning, but overly confident. Our entertainment often has a strong, clear seperation between good characters and evil characters.

I think that it would be silly to draw any conclusions from the fact that we tend to prefer more attractive men and women. I cannot think of any culture, at any time, which preferred unattractive people to attractive people (although the definition of attractive may be different).
Mata
So it would be silly to draw conclusions about American culture from the description of the American heroes you just gave? How does the feature of arrogance fit with the idea of people being attractive? The description you gave is not universally attractive, and has a direct lineage back to the Western frontier, and more specifically back to the way the frontier was influentially represented by Frederick Jackson Turner:

QUOTE
[The frontier man's character has] coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom – these are traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier.


This person was a myth created in 1893 to justify how the American character was distinctive from the rest of the world - this description was highlighting ways in which American culture was different from other societies and it was largely unquestioned at the time and became accepted as the truth. It was massively influential on the way that America sees itself and can be seen permeating American media still: the Republicans use this imagery constantly when they're trying to whip up national pride.

British media tends towards represent us as eccentric (Dr Who), ugly (Little Britain), borderline alcoholic (Eastenders, any detective show, any teen show), or violent (Eastenders and pretty much everything else). That's definitely not the American ideal of heroism, so something different is happening in our media. I think Britain takes pride in being strange, but we are also divided by centuries of a class system which produces tension and revulsion in the population. The rich think the poor are violent and alcoholics, the working class think that the rich are ugly, self-obsessed, arrogant, and cold-hearted. Note how arrogance is a major sin in the UK!

I think that a lot of British culture is still defined by shame at our time as an Empire. We colonised the world, destroying anything we disapproved of and reaping anything we wanted for ourselves. We spent most of the 20th century giving things back, and this has led to a national sense of subliminal guilt, which combines with the class divisions to create media which is incredibly distinctive from that found in the mainstream US.

I'm not saying that our cultures don't find similar physical attributes attractive, and there is also a degree of conjunction on the mental attributes too, but what we choose to show to the world in our media. America seems a lot more interested in making their leading figures heroes overcoming the odds (harking back to the challenges of the frontier) than Britain, where we seem to wallow in self-disgust.
pgrmdave
I think that there is some truth in our media, but that the average american will not be like the characters on TV, but might want to be like them. I think that entertainment tends to be good at displaying what a culture admires and respects, and loathes and dispises, but it isn't always as good at displaying how that culture is in reality. However, it is possible that my feelings on this can be attributed to my culture - idealism has a strong tradition in American culture, and perhaps our media reflects that with characters which are, in many ways, ideal (whether good or bad).
Mata
I wouldn't suggest that television is an accurate literal reflection of populations (for a start, the relative lack of diversity of colour, religion, and sexuality would invalidate that idea) but I do think that preoccupations of cultures can be somewhat seen in their media. Like you say, American media describes what is commonly idealised, and the choices made for the heroes do seem to have some broad similarities that suggest things about the popular American psyche.

I wonder if this aspect of art and media becomes stronger or weaker as it becomes more influenced by market forces? There's a business model in selling people their own dreams, so I guess it should be that the relationship gets stronger, but that always creates the opportunity for something different to fill the absence of variety.
Mutilation
Not only the television shows themselves, but the adverts between them also give away alot about it's parent culture. In Britain, the way we semi-mock, semi-revive our patriotism for King and Country is reflected well in the solemn faces and fanfares of Rugby, Guiness and Clover adverts. Another example is the amount of men in labcoats that appear in Chinese adverts, the uniformed, authorative voice. I'm sure there're many more.
Mata
Adverts have got to be the biggest indicator that we're barely above the animals: it's all about sex and territory (except perhaps adverts for toys, but even then I suspect that the instinct to make your genes more successful than those of your competitors is still a big part of what's going on).

Discount clothing stores selling cheap Chinese imports? The message is that you might not spend as much but you'll still get laid.

Perfume? Who cares what it smells like, you'll look sexy wearing it. (How does that work?)

Cars? You'll have a sexy, fun life if you buy this.
patback87
That's true I think that advertising gives better look, it kind of shows what standards are trying to be pushed you know *cough*Apple*cough* you know you'll die if you don't have an IPod or now an IPhone or be a social outcast at worst.
Mata
My favourite observation on advertising is that it always reveals what the makers of the adverts are most afraid of:

iPods - they tell you that you start dancing with cool moves against funky backgrounds and that it will make your life better, because they're afraid it won't

Cars - I think there was one advertised with the slogan 'It's not just a hatchback' or something similar a few years ago. Funnily enough, it was actually just a hatchback

Alcohol - the adverts say you'll be out, having fun in bars, chatting up gorgeous men and women. They're afraid that you'll think it's to be drunk sitting alone in your room, pissing away your brain cells on another meaningless evening getting drunk and watching rubbish adverts.
Daria
A new car I saw an advert for today (can't even remember who make it) called Cee'd. [insert phallic joke here]
Witless
Odd that this hasn't been mentioned until now in this thread, but I feel in a fairly decent situation to say this considering my work history and current study. But the writers of films and adverts are people too (no really, they are, the bleed when poked with sharp objects and everything).

They are inspired by things around them just like anyone else. They don't live out as hermits away from civilisation inventing stories and media campaigns (well most don't). In a sense everything they make is going to be influenced by the society they inhabit. Perhaps not always directly reflective but certainly a comment on society according to the opinion of those writers.

In addition there are the influences of higher ups constantly hammering down on "creative types" to make things more relevant to todays society. Great example is the spiderman films.

In the original Spiderman story Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider which causes everything, which is reference to the time the story was written when the fear that Nuclear Power was messing with our bodies. In the new version of Spiderman suddenly it's a genetically engineered spider that bites Peter Parker, reflecting the more current and relevant (and fashionable) fears of people.

Who the bad guys are is changes in action films very often change to reflect fears.

Rom, Coms (romantic comedies) often reflect how writers presume the genders feel nowadays, under the belief that all men feel unsure how to act in an age where feminism have given them very complicated rules on how to be, and women supposedly are all supposedly confident, but lost feeling not realising that it's the unsure guy they really want.

I'm not saying the stereotypes are actually true, it's more that writers write how some people see things (that's their job after all.. write interesting social stories based on things people can relate to).


It's an odd situation.. I don't think the media is a good representation of how society genuinely is, more that it is like a reflection of how a lot of society sees itself (not very objectively).

We sometimes see the worse in society and films exist that sometimes show that aspect of society really well, we see the good and films show that too.

Perhaps the problem is that art is like a polarising filter, it shows one aspect of reality without showing the rest of the picture. The aspect is sometimes fairly accurate, but it ignores too much to see the all the factors.
patback87
It's funny you say that we were just talking in my editing class about how comedians draw from everyday things and that George Carlin has said that he is only telling you things you already know and what not I don't remember the quote.
michael1384
QUOTE (Daria @ Jan 23 2008, 10:20 AM) *
QUOTE (candice @ Jan 23 2008, 08:49 AM) *

QUOTE (PsychWardMike @ Jan 23 2008, 05:29 AM) *

Cand, I must say that is the single best avatar of all time.

And to keep this somewhat on topic, if there was an alien judging our species solely on our media output, he would decide to not blow up the earth upon watching Firefly.

I know! Dinosaur comics and Wash quotes...what more do you need?

If the alien somehow didn't learn that Firefly was cancelled, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But if he did find out it was taken off the air...well. He'd whip out his intergallactic space modulator faster than you could say "earth-shattering kaboom."

Hmmm.. deja vu?
(Ally McBeal episode of Futurama where they have to remake an episode to stop Earth from being destroyed.)

I had lots of good ideas to add to this thread, but whenever I thought them, I wasn't sober. So I decided it would be best not to post. Now I can't remember what the great ideas were, but they had something to do with Malcolm In The Middle.


We demand the one you call... McNeal!

But anyway, I don't think you can judge a culture by television. Its art maybe but not telly.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.