h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To broadcast or not to broadcast?

or

'my wish to determine what I want to watch, slept with a white-trash klu-klux-klan hooker. Help me Jerry - will we all go to Hell?'

or

What a palaver over nothing.

Personally I'll be tuning in to see what all the fuss is about (and not have to buy a theatre ticket in the west end for the privelege, I might add.)

Anyone else care to venture their thoughts on issues of censorship and right to offend or related issues? (See file under: 'Atikinson, Rowan' and offence of inciting reigious hatred.)

Bring back Mary Whitehouse she'll keep us on the straight and narow!

There has been some debate on the Moral Majority thread
F135418?thread=524287?thread=&skip=400&show=20
starting from post 416

Yeah I might tune in if I can be arsed.
Or I might watch Big Bro, quite fancy seeing what a stir Greer is making.

Ice.

Thanks for the link.

Stupid jetlag. I fell asleep 20 mins before it started and missed the first hour.

I woke up to a large man running about in a nappy. So far so oddball. I like it

Love it so far. F*****g fantastic! Very funny and the music ain't bad.

Second act now.

Ice.

I love the aria/song:
"It ain't easy being me" - GOD

Very true.

Ice.

“Accidentally shot my a man in a diaper trying to shoot a member of the Klu Klux Klan” not quite the epitaph I was hoping for. - Jerry.

Fab stuff.

Am I the only one watching this thing or maybe others are paying more attention?

Ice.

should read: shot BY a man

I saw most of the last half (admittedly while reading a newspaper at the same time, and with most of my mind further elsewhere).

Seemed OK, but musicals really aren't my thing, and the baby whatsername character's singing voice didn't make comprehension particularly easy, which is a common difficulty with high-pitched voices.

I really can't see what the fuss was about. Didn't seem blasphemous to me, and given the time it was on, the language wasn't excessive.

Very different, very funny.

I'd go along with that. Best bits:

Any Scene involving Satan. That guy was brilliant.

Jerry suspended in mid-air from a gimp gibbet.

I want an apology! leading to the the 5 minute held- note 'fuh' - uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh. QUE!!!! - sort of summed up the whole Heaven 'n Hell thing in one go.

I think it lived up to its pitch: It was The Jerry Springer Show (in Hell) and set to Music. I'd go watch it!

That said, I can see that anyone who takes offense at swearing might have it in for the show. Also if you happen to take any of the bible at all seriously, the shows irreverant treatment of the source material (and it was ireverant from top to bottom - God in an Elvis suit and looking like Brando circa Don Corleone? Genius.) could have been construed as somewhat offensive.

*If* you are so rigid in your beliefs that parody is beyond you.

But having just come from listening to the reaction(ary) commentary on Radio 4 I think - the main bones of contentment seems to be that 1. It was offensive and a a danger to children. 2. That the BBC as a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee, was in derliction of it's duty by seekig out a minority to persecute. And that finally if this was performed with any other religion in mind Sikhs, Hindu's, Jews etc would have been outraged so why can't Christians be be outraged too?

Frankly I'd say there were missing the point, its art (i.e likly to offend) and the off button has a purpose. They can't really be offended a priori - 45,000 complaints - but how many of those were offended beforehand at the thought of Jerry Springer the Opera being broadcast as opposed to being offended by the programme. And trotting out the hoary old line about children is a bit below the belt. It was broadcast after the watershed afterall.

I liked it. Good on the beeb for sticking to their guns over it.

'it's art (i.e likly to offend)'

Interesting definition. I wonder what our Community Artists would make of it.

Personally I thought the scenes of outraged protestors chanting in unison and the co-ordination of of the waves of outraged criticism had a certain aesthetic sensibility...

yes I wondered about that after I typed it.

>> "That the BBC as a public service broadcaster funded by the licence fee, was in derliction of it's duty by seekig out a minority to persecute."

If they actually *were* going after the minority which happens to be an unrepresentative number of Christians who are intolerant knee-jerk rentacrowd self-appointed moral guardians, then all I could say was good luck, and have an extra licence fee.

Of course, the BBC are doing nothing of the sort, they're simply just not pandering to the wishes of a handful of petulant sheep who absolutely hate the fact that most other people don't share their particular delusions and prejudices.

If the protesters honestly think that their God or their faith is so weak that a little misical could damage it, I don't see how they deserve to call themselves beleivers.

>>If they actually *were* going after the minority <<

I'd tend to agree with that. Anyone else think the BBC deliberatly persucutes minorties?

There seemed to be an unshakable belief from them however, that christians weren't or aren't given fair hearing on the Beeb in all its media output, and the decision to screenn JStO was exaserbating.

Have they got nothing better to protest about?

Fox news would be my preference.

'Have they got nothing better to protest about?'

Not an issue; they're exercising their right to freedom of expression. Aren't they?

Well I thought it was quite funny, as fair a representaion of the Springer show as hootoo is about life.

<<*If* you are so rigid in your beliefs that parody is beyond you.>>

Let's see, what's your favourite book? What do you value? Football club? (no, no one with very much going on in their head should take sport that seriously...) maybe there is no analogy - but let's see, can you see past the arrogance of your statement, and assess whether there's something you think *you* wouldn't find a parody of very funny?

<>

All valid points, IMHO. Why is that some, maybe many people on h2g2 seem to think that causing (needless) offence is somehow very mature, clever and to be admired?
It makes me think of a little boy in a pre-school, who draws a picture of say, his grandmother with fangs, and dripping brown stuff, and says "oh, look, this is Granny with a stinky poo-face" and wants to be hugged and admired for it. Or maybe he goes over to the little Indian child, throws sand at her and says "stupid wittle Muslim girl, go away!"
Or maybe he goes over and hits the white boy with glasses and lets out a few swear words he learned from Daddy when he last got a skinful, and says (again quoting dad) "hey, you four-eyed God-bothering pansy, go away". Then he wants to be praised for his cleverness!

What do you believe in Potholer? Anything? Any minority interests?

Let's see how happy you'd be if your licence fee paid for say, cave wossnames, speleologists, to be called intolerant morons!

<>

Well, that says it all, really, doesn't it? It tells me volumes about your own prejudices!

Let's see, like most people, I have political views (prejudices). If there was a film or musical on that was parodying my political beliefs, and I knew it was going to do so, I'd likely just avoid it.
*I* can accept that I have prejudices, and that other people have different ones.

I very much doubt I'd decide to protest about it if I did watch it.

I doubt even more that I'd protest without having watched it.

I doubt *even more than that* that I'd protest because someone was telling me that I should do. In fact, as a natural sceptic, incitement would tend to make me *less* likely to conform.

From my perspective, religion is *nothing more* than a politicisation, organisation and manipulation of individual spirituality, so I don't see any reason why it should deserve any special treatment.
Omnipotent Gods and unshakable faiths shouldn't be in any danger from a little irreverence.

In any case, since I don't believe in supernatural beings, I'm in rather a different position. If someone was parodying one of the real people closest to being a real-life hero of mine, at least I'd have reality to compare their portrayal with, and be able to take a partially objective view of how fair they are being.

I don't generally have the problem of comparing someone else's portrayal with my own wishful imaginings, except perhaps being disappointed when a bad film adaptation is made of a book I really love. Lucky me.