The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don't really watch a great deal of TV, but if I happen to just leave the old TV on, and watch it on any given evening, what I see displeases me.
Soaps. I'm sure on any given evening you could watch over 2 hours of soaps what with Neighbours, CrossRoads, Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Eastenders, Brookside and Hollyoaks to choose from, and no doubt a few more I've missed.
What exactly is my problem with soaps then? Well it may be something to do with the fact that a large percentage of the country care more about what goes on in a fictional area, than they do about their local community.
They care more about the rape of Toyah Battersby more than they do some girl that was beaten just down the road. They'd rather find out who shot Phil Mitchel, than who broke into a neighbours house. Surely this is not right?
What's worse with soaps is that the simply continue to recycle the same old storylines with different characters. Neighbours is the worst culprit of these, even goig as far as using the same props and clothing for a character in the same predicament years later.
Soaps also show a severe lack of moral fibre! Just how many couples stay together in soaps? Almost every family is split up in some way. No wonder there are so many divorces in the country, if Kevin and Sally can split up, so can anyone. If Frank can have an affair with Pat, why shouldn't you? The only couple I can think off that have stayed together in any soap would have to be Jack and Vera in Coronation Street, and they're a comedy couple really, aren't they?
The only soap I ever watch with any regularity (about once a week) is Hollyoaks! Why is this? Probably because it's so unrealistic! The majority of the characters are attractive, and the storylines don't even attempt to stay on the lines of realism like the more serious soaps do.
Still, I'm bored of that now after watching it for a while.
Any soap fans out there willing to defend them?
Soaps. I'm sure on any given evening you could watch over 2 hours of soaps what with Neighbours, CrossRoads, Emmerdale, Coronation Street, Eastenders, Brookside and Hollyoaks to choose from, and no doubt a few more I've missed.
What exactly is my problem with soaps then? Well it may be something to do with the fact that a large percentage of the country care more about what goes on in a fictional area, than they do about their local community.
They care more about the rape of Toyah Battersby more than they do some girl that was beaten just down the road. They'd rather find out who shot Phil Mitchel, than who broke into a neighbours house. Surely this is not right?
What's worse with soaps is that the simply continue to recycle the same old storylines with different characters. Neighbours is the worst culprit of these, even goig as far as using the same props and clothing for a character in the same predicament years later.
Soaps also show a severe lack of moral fibre! Just how many couples stay together in soaps? Almost every family is split up in some way. No wonder there are so many divorces in the country, if Kevin and Sally can split up, so can anyone. If Frank can have an affair with Pat, why shouldn't you? The only couple I can think off that have stayed together in any soap would have to be Jack and Vera in Coronation Street, and they're a comedy couple really, aren't they?
The only soap I ever watch with any regularity (about once a week) is Hollyoaks! Why is this? Probably because it's so unrealistic! The majority of the characters are attractive, and the storylines don't even attempt to stay on the lines of realism like the more serious soaps do.
Still, I'm bored of that now after watching it for a while.
Any soap fans out there willing to defend them?
Page:
Meka_Dragon wrote:
> Okay, quick question.
You have no TV license, as you don't watch
> any TV. Fair enough.
But if someone was to tape 24 hours of BBC1
> for you, would you legally be allowed to watch it on your TV?
lol@Meka...
good call...
thats funny man! :)
> Okay, quick question.
You have no TV license, as you don't watch
> any TV. Fair enough.
But if someone was to tape 24 hours of BBC1
> for you, would you legally be allowed to watch it on your TV?
lol@Meka...
good call...
thats funny man! :)
ahhh... So you do watch vids with your mates then huh? ...
> just no shuffling for drinks during the ad breaks? :)
Yep, I buy the movies that interest me, not watch whatever is on at the time.
Dont you need a license to own a TV?
Nope, the license fee is to fund the BBC, I dont recieve that service therefore I don't have to pay.
If you dont care what they think... how can it
> become heated?
I care what my friends think, it's just the average schmo that can walk past without me even remembering what they looked like.
You're not a person until you're in my phone book, or MSN.
>Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is
>
> deep
& its wrong... in a literal sense... sorry man :)
So Lofty lied to me? But Chelle dumped him at the altar.
(I used to watch this stuff, until I realised it wasn't for me, so I do have a basis on which to form my opinion)
> just no shuffling for drinks during the ad breaks? :)
Yep, I buy the movies that interest me, not watch whatever is on at the time.
Dont you need a license to own a TV?
Nope, the license fee is to fund the BBC, I dont recieve that service therefore I don't have to pay.
If you dont care what they think... how can it
> become heated?
I care what my friends think, it's just the average schmo that can walk past without me even remembering what they looked like.
You're not a person until you're in my phone book, or MSN.
>Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is
>
> deep
& its wrong... in a literal sense... sorry man :)
So Lofty lied to me? But Chelle dumped him at the altar.
(I used to watch this stuff, until I realised it wasn't for me, so I do have a basis on which to form my opinion)
Okay, quick question.
You have no TV license, as you don't watch any TV. Fair enough.
But if someone was to tape 24 hours of BBC1 for you, would you legally be allowed to watch it on your TV?
You have no TV license, as you don't watch any TV. Fair enough.
But if someone was to tape 24 hours of BBC1 for you, would you legally be allowed to watch it on your TV?
Goatboy wrote:
> I do have a television in my house.
But it does not have an aerial
> connected to it from outside.
It has a PS2 connected, a video and
> that's it.
I save on license fees.
ahhh... So you do watch vids with your mates then huh? ... just no shuffling for drinks during the ad breaks? :)
lol... Dont you need a license to own a TV?
This is just my opinion, I
> dont care if anyone agrees.
This is called a "heated
> debate"
If you dont care what they think... how can it become heated?
>Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is
> deep
& its wrong... in a literal sense... sorry man :)
:)
> I do have a television in my house.
But it does not have an aerial
> connected to it from outside.
It has a PS2 connected, a video and
> that's it.
I save on license fees.
ahhh... So you do watch vids with your mates then huh? ... just no shuffling for drinks during the ad breaks? :)
lol... Dont you need a license to own a TV?
This is just my opinion, I
> dont care if anyone agrees.
This is called a "heated
> debate"
If you dont care what they think... how can it become heated?
>Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is
> deep
& its wrong... in a literal sense... sorry man :)
:)
I do have a television in my house.
But it does not have an aerial connected to it from outside.
It has a PS2 connected, a video and that's it.
I save on license fees.
This is just my opinion, I dont care if anyone agrees.
This is called a "heated debate"
And the Aristotle / Eastenders connection, I would agree to some point, and hey
Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is deep
But it does not have an aerial connected to it from outside.
It has a PS2 connected, a video and that's it.
I save on license fees.
This is just my opinion, I dont care if anyone agrees.
This is called a "heated debate"
And the Aristotle / Eastenders connection, I would agree to some point, and hey
Every Loser Wins
Now THAT is deep
Goatboy wrote:
All my mates
> are aware that I do not possess a tv,
Then how do you know TV is filled with mindless pap?
Why are you buying DVD's? ... (not through the computer, dear god not through the computer!)
yet they love coming round
> because we sit for hours and argue, discuss and entertain each
> other.
That you you supply free pot huh? :)
(which itself, in the 21st centruy, requires acess to a televisual unit and preferable either a VCR/DVD or console?
What you will not find is a room full of people staring at a
> tv, shuffling off to make a drink when the break comes on.
I've listened to a lot of peoples opinions over the years... and compaired to most, the silence during a program and the meek drink shufling during breaks is about as insightful and profound as they get :)
The tv
> could be so much, a window on the world, the same as the
> internet.
24hr International Porn?
Yet it is filled with game shows, cookery programmes, bad
> sitcoms and soap operas.
I dont care what other people do, but I
> can't understand people that watch a programme about people and then
> discuss it like it matters, when there are so many other options
> available.
Given the universally agreed pointlessness to existance and the obvious lack of relevance that any of mankinds actions have on anything other than the short term, surey the considerations of Eastenders and the myanderings of Aristotle shre equal usefulness and uslessness?
And if anyone doesnt
> see the irony of a nation sitting indoors to watch a programme about
> people sitting indoors, then you really, really should break out the
> books and go outside more.
All my mates
> are aware that I do not possess a tv,
Then how do you know TV is filled with mindless pap?
Why are you buying DVD's? ... (not through the computer, dear god not through the computer!)
yet they love coming round
> because we sit for hours and argue, discuss and entertain each
> other.
That you you supply free pot huh? :)
(which itself, in the 21st centruy, requires acess to a televisual unit and preferable either a VCR/DVD or console?
What you will not find is a room full of people staring at a
> tv, shuffling off to make a drink when the break comes on.
I've listened to a lot of peoples opinions over the years... and compaired to most, the silence during a program and the meek drink shufling during breaks is about as insightful and profound as they get :)
The tv
> could be so much, a window on the world, the same as the
> internet.
24hr International Porn?
Yet it is filled with game shows, cookery programmes, bad
> sitcoms and soap operas.
I dont care what other people do, but I
> can't understand people that watch a programme about people and then
> discuss it like it matters, when there are so many other options
> available.
Given the universally agreed pointlessness to existance and the obvious lack of relevance that any of mankinds actions have on anything other than the short term, surey the considerations of Eastenders and the myanderings of Aristotle shre equal usefulness and uslessness?
And if anyone doesnt
> see the irony of a nation sitting indoors to watch a programme about
> people sitting indoors, then you really, really should break out the
> books and go outside more.
Ah The Simpsons.
I love that show, my sister tapes that for me and I watch them when I can.
Matt Groening, the creator, admits that he loves to push that show to see how far they can on a Network.
It's subversive, counter-culture, amusing and so many details in each episode.
Top
I love that show, my sister tapes that for me and I watch them when I can.
Matt Groening, the creator, admits that he loves to push that show to see how far they can on a Network.
It's subversive, counter-culture, amusing and so many details in each episode.
Top
Which reminds me, as bad as soaps are, they aren't nearly as bad as 'reality TV'.
I for one shall not watch Big Brother when it returns. I saw half of one episode, whilst waiting fo ra film to come on Channel 4, and can honestly say that I'd never seen anything quite as dull. The narrator just spoke about how one of the girls had been out of bed for 2 hours, but had not had breakfast.
I really only use my TV for watching movies and sports, and for playing the N64, because the majority of TV shows simply do not appeal to me.
Except The Simpsons.
I for one shall not watch Big Brother when it returns. I saw half of one episode, whilst waiting fo ra film to come on Channel 4, and can honestly say that I'd never seen anything quite as dull. The narrator just spoke about how one of the girls had been out of bed for 2 hours, but had not had breakfast.
I really only use my TV for watching movies and sports, and for playing the N64, because the majority of TV shows simply do not appeal to me.
Except The Simpsons.
Seeing as you object so much to T.V
> then i presume you won't be watching 'Raging Bull', possibly on of
> the greatest films ever made, which is on tonight, beacuse it is
> "mind sapping".
No, I have Raging Bull on DVD, I consider Martin Scorcese to be one of the most innovative directors operating today, and I am also looking forward to the reaction for "Gangs of New York", seeing as it will suprise a lot of people
If you object to the idea of watching
> other people live their lives, then why do you watch films? are they
> not, unless i am strangely mistaken about people living their lives;
You've missed the point dude.
Taxi Driver? oh yes how boring, one
> man living his live, how "mind sapping", i'd much rather
> move metal object around a wooden bord and trading little pieces of
> paper money...
So you see, like you, your point has no backbone.
> Thus deeming it worthless and with point.
But then again, if the
> extent of you mind is moving objects round and round and round a
> cardboard square on a table every night, then i'm sure the
> voyerestic "masses" which you talk about would be pleased
> to watch you...
And thanks for proving my point entirely Corleone.
My idea of fun is talking, laughing, joking, discussing issues with my friends.
All my mates are aware that I do not possess a tv, yet they love coming round because we sit for hours and argue, discuss and entertain each other.
What you will not find is a room full of people staring at a tv, shuffling off to make a drink when the break comes on.
The tv could be so much, a window on the world, the same as the internet.
Yet it is filled with game shows, cookery programmes, bad sitcoms and soap operas.
I dont care what other people do, but I can't understand people that watch a programme about people and then discuss it like it matters, when there are so many other options available.
Your opinion of me doesn't matter because I don't know you.
Say what you want, but you could not and did not respond to any of my points, merely take the sneering route without providing any kind of argument for tv.
Watch what you want, go home, load up on snacks and prepare for Big Brother 2.
And if anyone doesnt see the irony of a nation sitting indoors to watch a programme about people sitting indoors, then you really, really should break out the books and go outside more.
Steve Bass wrote:
Are you suggesting that an affair or a divorce on a television
> soap will influence people to go out and do the same thing? Thats
> ridiculous!
Not exactly the point I was trying to make, though re-reading it, it did come across that way. It's that soaps come across as trying to be realistic one week, trying to get us to care about the characters and the like, when they don't really live in realistic worlds. I mean they all complain about having no money, then spend every evening in the Queen Vic, or in the Rovers!
I take it you're from the same school of thought
> that says people who watch violent films and tv shows instantly
> become more likely to go out and be violent themselves.
It's far easier to distance yourself from a movie though, isn't it. Soaps are there day in, day out, with the same characters. Movies aren't.
Also, you cannot deny that some people aren't influenced by what they see on television. How many kids get hurt in the playgrounds because they've tried to re-create something that The Rock did on WWF last night. It's not everyone, but it is a small percentage, especially children. As a parent I am quite concerned by some of the stuff that slips out onto our screens before the watershed. If my daughter sees someone getting stabbed, and crying out in pain, then no, I wouldn't expect her to do it herself, but I imagine she'd be quite scared by it.
>I do like Eastenders, and I do like Hollyoaks.
> But not because what happens in them is believable and true to life,
> but because it's good entertainment. I know of millions of others
> that would agree with me.
You see this is where I really disagree with you. Yes it's quite entertaining sometimes, but in general I (personal opinion alert!) don't find them entertaining. I find Eastenders mostly depressing, with ocassional storylines that are only there with the intent to shock.
>Lots of people believe that TV is a
> very bad thing, because it closes off our minds etc. And yes there
> are real issues and real lives to be living. But peoples houses will
> not stop getting broken into if soap operas get taken off of TV. And
> muggings, no matter how unbelievably evil and nasty, will not go
> away.
I'm not saying they would, but surely what goes on in your own community should be of more concern than what goes on in a TV show?
And anyway, most people out of the way of such events (not
> the case for police, fire, ambulances, even journalists) seem to
> have detached themselves from caring. Its human nature to distance
> oneself, and in that way alleviate any negative feeling - sorrow,
> guilt.
So why do they watch soaps that try to recreate the same emotional factor? I've heard people talking about how bad they felt for a TV character!
I believe someone else mentioned an occurance in which our Prime Minister stuck his oar in regarding a soap. I've never had a great deal of respect for Tony Blair, but when he gave a speech as to how he'd do everything in his power to free Deirdre, regarding her imprisonment in Coronation Street, any respect I had left for the man went out of the window.
Are you suggesting that an affair or a divorce on a television
> soap will influence people to go out and do the same thing? Thats
> ridiculous!
Not exactly the point I was trying to make, though re-reading it, it did come across that way. It's that soaps come across as trying to be realistic one week, trying to get us to care about the characters and the like, when they don't really live in realistic worlds. I mean they all complain about having no money, then spend every evening in the Queen Vic, or in the Rovers!
I take it you're from the same school of thought
> that says people who watch violent films and tv shows instantly
> become more likely to go out and be violent themselves.
It's far easier to distance yourself from a movie though, isn't it. Soaps are there day in, day out, with the same characters. Movies aren't.
Also, you cannot deny that some people aren't influenced by what they see on television. How many kids get hurt in the playgrounds because they've tried to re-create something that The Rock did on WWF last night. It's not everyone, but it is a small percentage, especially children. As a parent I am quite concerned by some of the stuff that slips out onto our screens before the watershed. If my daughter sees someone getting stabbed, and crying out in pain, then no, I wouldn't expect her to do it herself, but I imagine she'd be quite scared by it.
>I do like Eastenders, and I do like Hollyoaks.
> But not because what happens in them is believable and true to life,
> but because it's good entertainment. I know of millions of others
> that would agree with me.
You see this is where I really disagree with you. Yes it's quite entertaining sometimes, but in general I (personal opinion alert!) don't find them entertaining. I find Eastenders mostly depressing, with ocassional storylines that are only there with the intent to shock.
>Lots of people believe that TV is a
> very bad thing, because it closes off our minds etc. And yes there
> are real issues and real lives to be living. But peoples houses will
> not stop getting broken into if soap operas get taken off of TV. And
> muggings, no matter how unbelievably evil and nasty, will not go
> away.
I'm not saying they would, but surely what goes on in your own community should be of more concern than what goes on in a TV show?
And anyway, most people out of the way of such events (not
> the case for police, fire, ambulances, even journalists) seem to
> have detached themselves from caring. Its human nature to distance
> oneself, and in that way alleviate any negative feeling - sorrow,
> guilt.
So why do they watch soaps that try to recreate the same emotional factor? I've heard people talking about how bad they felt for a TV character!
I believe someone else mentioned an occurance in which our Prime Minister stuck his oar in regarding a soap. I've never had a great deal of respect for Tony Blair, but when he gave a speech as to how he'd do everything in his power to free Deirdre, regarding her imprisonment in Coronation Street, any respect I had left for the man went out of the window.
Page: