View Cart | View Account | Help
Order by phone: 800-880-2592
Check out our favorite NEW ARRIVALS
Need it fast? Order before 4pm Eastern and your order ships SAME DAY.

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Were you offended by Janet's display at the Superbowl?
Yes, I thought it was in poor taste. 32%  32%  [ 15 ]
No, in my opinion it was perfectly fine. 68%  68%  [ 32 ]
Total votes : 47
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:51 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 614
Location: geographic center of Alabama.
pyrodude wrote:
I downloaded the clip, also to research the possiblity of a screw up in the dress. So far, after view numbering in the thousands, I haven't gotten any leads. I guess I'll watch it a few more times.


In the photos I saw, the cups of the bousteir had snaps, so that was intended to come off. The story I am hearing now is that the cup was supposed to come off, but the red "bra" part was supposed to stay. Also hearing something about a lawsuit for $27,000 against clothing designer, don't know how that'll change anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:52 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 512
Location: San antonio, texas
Scorpio wrote:
pyrodude wrote:
I downloaded the clip, also to research the possiblity of a screw up in the dress. So far, after view numbering in the thousands, I haven't gotten any leads. I guess I'll watch it a few more times.


heh, how long do u think it'll take u to get any leads?



I'm guessing a few more thousand views...Then I will have to zoom in for a closer look.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:58 am 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
allbritton: I don't know anything about a lawsuit against the clothing designer, but $27,500 is the amount the FCC can fine each of the CBS stations and affiliates that broadcasted Janet's little peek-a-boo:

From cnn.com:

On Monday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell ordered an investigation of the incident.

An estimated 140 million people were watching the show when at the end, pop star Justin Timberlake popped off part of Jackson's corset, exposing her breast.

Powell told CNN he was not convinced the incident was an accident.

"Clearly somebody had knowledge of it. Clearly it was something that was planned by someone," he said. "She probably got what she was looking for."

MTV posted this tease on its Web site last week: "Janet Jackson's Super Bowl show promises shocking moments."

Powell said he was watching the game Sunday evening with his two children and found the incident "outrageous."

"I knew immediately it would cause great outrage among the American people, which it did," he said, citing "thousands" of complaints received by Monday morning. "We have a very angry public on our hands."

Powell said MTV and the CBS network's more than 200 affiliates and company-owned stations could be fined $27,500 apiece.

"I think it's all of their problem," he said. "The law allows you to reach many of the different parties." He said he would like to see the enforcement penalties strengthened to 10 times their current amount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:18 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 614
Location: geographic center of Alabama.
balducci wrote:
allbritton: I don't know anything about a lawsuit against the clothing designer, but $27,500 is the amount the FCC can fine each of the CBS stations and affiliates that broadcasted Janet's little peek-a-boo:

From cnn.com:

On Monday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell ordered an investigation of the incident.

An estimated 140 million people were watching the show when at the end, pop star Justin Timberlake popped off part of Jackson's corset, exposing her breast.

Powell told CNN he was not convinced the incident was an accident.

"Clearly somebody had knowledge of it. Clearly it was something that was planned by someone," he said. "She probably got what she was looking for."

MTV posted this tease on its Web site last week: "Janet Jackson's Super Bowl show promises shocking moments."

Powell said he was watching the game Sunday evening with his two children and found the incident "outrageous."

"I knew immediately it would cause great outrage among the American people, which it did," he said, citing "thousands" of complaints received by Monday morning. "We have a very angry public on our hands."

Powell said MTV and the CBS network's more than 200 affiliates and company-owned stations could be fined $27,500 apiece.

"I think it's all of their problem," he said. "The law allows you to reach many of the different parties." He said he would like to see the enforcement penalties strengthened to 10 times their current amount.


My bad, I understood it wrong. I caught a news blurb in the car on the way to work, and thought it said Justin said that, I was wrong.

I would like to know though, whay are they fining the affiliate staions? The ones that should be fined are the performers and producers, they are the ones that ultimately had control of what happened, even if there was "faulty" clothing. In my opinion, they use language that is more offensive, than what was shown in mainstream television. It was only a flash, it's not like the camera stayed on her, and they also cut the lights off of them.
Personally, I think people need to get their pantys out of a wad. The ones claiming "the kids saw it", I would like to ask them, "You let them watch football, which could be considered somewhat violent (lets face it, it isn't like tennis), You let them watch the beer comercials, and your worried about a flash that isn't any more harmful than a flash of you getting out of the shower in the morning. :roll:

I think people are making too big of a deal, I would have a problem if it were done while in some move simulating a sexual act, but the fact is, it was not a sexually explicit deal, heck you can see more than that in National Geographic.

Anyway, Balucci, sorry I had my info mixed up. Thanks for pointing out the good info, I'll do better to check it before I post next time. I don't mean that to be taken in any disrespectful way either. :wink:

My two cents,

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:58 am 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
No problem, I'm not saying there isn't a lawsuit against some designer just that the dollar figure you gave reminded me of the other one I heard about.

Anyway, just like you I can't believe there is such a fuss about something like this going on at a football game. Oh well, it's not like there's anything else going on in the world to talk about (sarcasm) ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:57 pm 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 2941
Location: Greensburg PA Ring 158
balducci wrote:

From cnn.com:

An estimated 140 million people were watching the show when at the end, pop star Justin Timberlake popped off part of Jackson's corset, exposing her breast.

"I knew immediately it would cause great outrage among the American people, which it did," he said, citing "thousands" of complaints received by Monday morning. "We have a very angry public on our hands."



Ok you do the math.....that's a drop in the bucket who freakin' cares...:-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:27 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
I began this thread saying that Janet probably wouldn't have been censored in Canada. Canada's major national newspaper, the Globe and Mail (sort of like a Wall Street Journal but also with regional news and entertainment and sports), came to my defense today. On the front of its Review (Entertainment) section is a 4x4 inch non-censored picture of Janet in all her exposed beauty :-)

Of course, to some this just proves that us Canadians are "way out in left field" wackos with no moral values to speak of :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: No
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:38 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Penguin

Joined: 06 Sep 2002
Posts: 243
Location: BOFFOville
Here's the problem, the Super Bowl is one of the highest rated shows of the year. Millions of kids are watching, many of them with irresponsible parents that will not explain right from wrong to them. The problem wasn't as much the exposed breast, as much as it was the way it was exposed. Are children supposed to believe that ripping off a girl's shirt is okay? Behavior like this should be scorned. As for the "well, kids shouldn't watch football and beer commercials" argument, that is ridiculous. Football is a sport. It may be violent, but they have pads. The attitude isn't to go out and get hurt. If anything, football promotes safety precautions to children. And beer commercials are not marketed towards children, they are marketed towards adults. The Justin Timberlake display was marketed towards children, after all he was a Mouseketeer. Just my 2 cents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:05 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
I don't think I ever said that what Janet did was good or bad (that's why I started the poll, to see what people thought) ... but I have pointed out that it would have been received differently in many other Western countries (i.e., not censored, and not made into a huge deal).

I will say this, I think the Superbowl is inappropriate for kids the way it is packaged and presented on television. Skimpy cheerleader costumes, the lingerie bowl, the ads for sexual dysfunction ... Janet was just more of the same inappropriate content.

Maybe it would be better if it had just stayed a football game, without all of the extras.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:38 pm 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 20 Jun 2003
Posts: 512
Location: San antonio, texas
PLEASE guys.

You think that your kids haven't ever seen a woman's jug(s)?

LOL

My generation is just a bunch of porn addicts and druggies...A few good kids out there, but I guess Janet practically cost them their virginity. I mean, kids gotta know what to expect later on in life. If you raise your kid to think that girls are nasty and sex is not good, they will believe that forever.

I'm not saying everybody's children go home and look at porn, but I don't know ONE person that hasn't seen a nude woman or man. edited, my 11 year old brother has seen them. They are in video games even!

Don't put your children in a shell. We don't like that. We learn better from our mistakes then your teaching.

This coming from a previously sheltered kid. I was nearly a father at 13, and believe me, that convinced me more then ANYTHING that safe sex and abstinence etc. is the way to go. School didn't help me. Parents didn't help me. But that experience did.

Now I am WAY off topic.

Anyways, what I am saying about Janet is that, who the edited cares now, nobody is gonna die over it (I hope). It's fine to talk about it, but nobody is going to change what they or their children saw.

It's the little things in life (Uhh, maybe not THAT tiny in this case) that make it so great.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:19 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
After Janet's peek-a-boo on CBS, I felt sure that they would show Richard Hatch uncensored this week on Survivor just to raise the stakes :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:23 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 9637
Location: Toronto, Ontario
balducci wrote:
After Janet's peek-a-boo on CBS, I felt sure that they would show Richard Hatch uncensored this week on Survivor just to raise the stakes :-)
i remember seeing connan obrian replay that. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:26 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Posts: 6302
Location: Neither here nor there.
You mean Janet or Hatch? Maybe you weren't aware that Hatch is back and currently gallavanting around again in the buff on Survivor : All Stars?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:52 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Moderator

Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Posts: 9637
Location: Toronto, Ontario
balducci wrote:
You mean Janet or Hatch? Maybe you weren't aware that Hatch is back and currently gallavanting around again in the buff on Survivor : All Stars?

i meant hatch,

there was a scene where he was sitting and exposed himself and CBS censers were asleep at the switch :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:00 am 
User avatar
Offline
born to perform.

Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 614
Location: geographic center of Alabama.
bravesaint wrote:
balducci wrote:
You mean Janet or Hatch? Maybe you weren't aware that Hatch is back and currently gallavanting around again in the buff on Survivor : All Stars?

i meant hatch,

there was a scene where he was sitting and exposed himself and CBS censers were asleep at the switch :?


Oh, God, now that is a sight that makes you want to gouge out your eyes! :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2009 Penguin Magic, Inc.