DreAming in DigITal Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 LOS ANGELES - A Carl's Jr. commercial starring a scantily clad Paris Hilton frolicking with a water hose is too hot for a media watchdog group. "This commercial is basically soft-core porn," said Melissa Caldwell, research director for the Los Angeles-based Parents Television Council. "It's inappropriate for television." The Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that the group plans to mobilize its more than 1 million members to protest and is considering asking the Federal Communications Commission to declare the ad indecent. The commercial shows the hotel heiress and reality TV star vamping in a revealing swimsuit as she soaps and rinses a black Bentley. She also takes a bite out of a Carl's Jr. hamburger. The commercial for the jalapeno-laden "Spicy BBQ Six-Dollar Burger" ends with Hilton's signature tag line, "that's hot." "Paris was chosen to star in the ad because she is an intriguing cultural icon and the 'it girl' of the moment," Brad Haley, marketing chief for Carl's Jr., said in a statement issued before the commercial began airing last week. "She fascinates Carl's Jr.'s most loyal customers, 'young, hungry guys,' as well as 'young, hungry gals,'" Haley said. The company is known for its racy television ads, one of which featured a woman eating a burger while riding a mechanical bull. Another starred Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner and several playmates. Personally I am getting really tired of "Parental Watchdog" groups deciding what is "too hot" for television. What happened to personal responsibility and parenting? The television is not a baby-sitter...this goes for many things like movies, video games, etc. I think it should be up to parents to decide what their kids see and don't see...It seems to me that many European nations show much more nudity/sexual content and it is not adversly affecting children. This kind of thing is only "bad" if your taught that it is "bad". :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 I'm actually for them regulating commercials. Television shows come on at a certain time and carry a certain rating, with proper parenting and observation you could effectively control exactly what shows they see, however commercials do not have the same caveats. They can come on at any time, on any channel, and do not have to carry a rating. Therefore a commercial you don't find suitable for children may happen to come on during a television show that you may find suitible for children. Now obviousely this will be rare because it's unlikely that Fox would show the ad during Saturday cartoons, but I do see where they are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 So why is sexuality bad for children? Like I said earlier many other countries have sexually suggestive ads airing, but they have lower teen pregnancy rates than the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdb815 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Paris was chosen to star in the ad because she is an intriguing cultural icon and the 'it girl' of the moment *Shudders* Anyways, I agree that this morality crap is getting old. I've noticed even some cable channels are censoring things that aren't in the slightest bit controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 So why is sexuality bad for children? Like I said earlier many other countries have sexually suggestive ads airing, but they have lower teen pregnancy rates than the U.S. 585965575[/snapback] I'd rather my child see a half-naked women then an ad for a violent video game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 I'm not saying it's bad, shoot as a 25 year old male I'm for all the female nudity I can get on TV, with the exception of Miss Hilton, who I don't like to see even clothed. And I'm the same way for violent commercials to be honest. I'm all for whatever you want in your TV shows, the V-chip, and scheduled programming time in my opinion gives everyone a way to ensure what thier children watch. The thing for me though is that not everyone thinks nudity, sexuality, or violence is OK. With an actual TV program you can just enforce the time your kids watch TV or use the rating system, but with commercials you can't. You can't really stop them from seeing a commercial even if you're in the room, they're too short and to the point. By the time you switch the channel they've seen it. That's a huge difference compared to a television show where you see the into and say hell no and change it. Does any of that gimmicky stuff work? Are you going to buy Tag because of thier commercial with the naked guy? Are you going to buy Carls Jr. because of a naked Paris Hilton? The only thing that gimmicky crap works on IS children. And the deal breaker for me on this is it's public television. Cable should be exempt from this kind of regulation and whining IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) I'd rather my child see a half-naked women then an ad for a violent video game. 585965584[/snapback] This is just my opinion, but I feel like a child can see sexuality or violence and only be affected by it adversly if there is no parenting. I remember when I was little I used to see violent movies all the time and I always had my parents reminding me that "it's just Hollywood" or "gunshot wounds don't look anything like that in real life" etc... I'm all for whatever you want in your TV shows, the V-chip, and scheduled programming time in my opinion gives everyone a way to ensure what thier children watch. Yea I agree with the scheduled programming time and such...thats a good idea. Cable should be exempt from this kind of regulation and whining IMO. Agreed on that point too Edited May 24, 2005 by DreAming in DigITal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Carlton Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 policing what is available will not work...ever. it's up to the parents and the children to learn to be responsible. when I was 4 I got a tv in my room for my birthday, I also got a $1200 encyclopedia set. left to my own devices I watched TLC and the discovery channel, and read through the encyclopedias cover to cover. it's not the availability of mature things that is the problem, it's the parents not putting it into context or properly educating the children about what they're seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 policing what is available will not work...ever.it's up to the parents and the children to learn to be responsible. when I was 4 I got a tv in my room for my birthday, I also got a $1200 encyclopedia set. left to my own devices I watched TLC and the discovery channel, and read through the encyclopedias cover to cover. it's not the availability of mature things that is the problem, it's the parents not putting it into context or properly educating the children about what they're seeing. 585965655[/snapback] I agree completely however I think society should meet them at the middle. If we were to keep all commercials clean they should let us keep all our shows however we want. That way they are ensured a "safe" environment for the shows they do allow thier children to watch and we are free to watch what we want. Lets face it commercials really mean jack to us TV afficianados, so if giving up that fight gave us some leverage for the fight against censoring actual television programs then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 that tv ad has nothing on the new giligan's island commercial. it shows ginger and mary ann wrestling and then showering. :drool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 that tv ad has nothing on the new giligan's island commercial. it shows ginger and mary ann wrestling and then showering. :drool: 585965693[/snapback] Yup and at least those two women have something called a butt, unlike Paris's , ive seen kitchen counter with more curves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undeRliRcs Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Sex sells but the external/internal advertising agency that produced the Carl's Jr. commercial must be running out of ideas. Compare their commercial to Jack In The Box commercials (if you can draw a comparison), I think Jack In The Box would probably get more, because their commericals are at least creative and at times funny. But like I said, sex sells but why the hell would they use Paris Hilton?! PLEASE DON'T take offense to this comment, but she looks close to being a Holocaust victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 Group to Burger King: Halt Star Wars Deal The Force may - or may not - be with Burger King's latest Star Wars-themed Kids Meals.One day after a record-shattering weekend for Star Wars, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, an advocacy group is asking Burger King to stop the tie-in of its Kids Meals with the film because it is rated PG-13. The same group, Dove Foundation, got McDonald's 13 years ago to apologize for "confusion" from its promotion of PG-13 Batman Returns with Happy Meals. Now, it's going after BK's latest Kids Meal promotion - targeted at kids ages 4 to 9. The meals feature characters from Sith or other Star Wars films. "When Burger King puts that in a Kids Meal, there's an implicit endorsement of the movie," says Dick Rolfe, chairman of Dove Foundation. This is no small matter. Product licensing and promotion is a $100 million annual business. Since the first Star Wars was released in 1977, the six films have racked up almost $9 billion in merchandise sales and product promotions. For Burger King, the stakes are huge. The No. 2 burger chain is in the 16th month of a major rebound. The Star Wars promotion, dubbed "Choose Your Destiny," is the 50-year-old chain's first global promotion. Burger King officials insist the promotion isn't specific to the latest film (the others are rated PG), but one that relates to the chain's long-term relationship with the Star Wars franchise. Executives point out that only four of the 31 Kids Meal toys are specific to Sith. The toys "clearly celebrate not just one film but the entire Star Wars saga," says Edna Johnson, a Burger King spokeswoman. "The reception at our restaurants and from our customers has been overwhelmingly positive." But Rolfe says "the tie-in is very specific to this film." Wrappers around Kids Meal toys all promote Sith, he notes. Dove Foundation, a non-sectarian family advocacy group, sent an overnight letter to Burger King last Thursday requesting the promotion be stopped. It also conducted a national phone survey of 889 adults and says 83% felt the promotion was not appropriate for kids. Another critic says the fault isn't that of Burger King but Star Wars creator George Lucas. "It's irresponsible of George Lucas to OK the marketing around this PG-13 movie to young children," says Susan Linn, a Harvard psychologist and author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood. "Star Wars is broader than a single movie," says Lynn Fox, a LucasFilm spokeswoman. "Parents know that Star Wars has been a positive influence." This is another example of Watchdog Groups making demands.... :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undeRliRcs Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Group to Burger King: Halt Star Wars DealThis is another example of Watchdog Groups making demands.... :no: 585966317[/snapback] And the more they try to structure everyone else in accordance to their standards, the more blacklash they will feel. Yes children shouldn't watch the movie because it might be too violent for them but that doesn't mean that parents won't stop their child/children from playing with those toys. And please explain to me what is the harm in children playing with the Sith toys if they don't see the movie? Are they going to convert to the dark side?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Carlton Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 that is the stupidest thing ever (so far today) it's the same as all the other movie (cept for anakder killing a room full of children...oops) but the message is that good prevails, even after that...they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted May 24, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 24, 2005 Carl's Jr. doesn't have locations in Canada (that I know of anyway) so I went to the website to see what the fuss was about. I watched the 30 second clip and then learned there was an 60 second extended internet-only edition. So now I've seen the ad twice and I have yet to see the hamburger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spazztastic Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I think Paris Hilton should be banned from Television, Newspapers, magazines, and the internet. Infact, she should also be sent to a foreign country so she learns what its like to not have a 1 billion dollar father covering up all the stupid **** she does and finally learns what its like to work and not be able to get away with doing stupid ****. This girl actually was in my home town... and a stench remained for 5 weeks. (true story) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyzeguy Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 im still undecided if im going to let my kids watch cable/listen to the radio/buy magizines i dont want my kids to think that they need to look like paris hilton or britney spears or any other male/female in the media today to be popular thats all thats seen these days, "you must be like this to be successful". Bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Carlton Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 dude, the media's not the problem, tell your kids that she's a stupid ho, and if they try to be like her you'll kick them out...that'll fix them...or like read to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyzeguy Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 jesse....me.... read?? haha like i said, im undecided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Carlton Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 my thing is people starting to expose children to tv, etc too early. you shouldn't sit a baby down in front of the tv and wander off, spend the first 2 years just parenting and then make it a privelege for good behaviour after that, no tantrums, no yelling, just care about the kid and they'll turn out all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Personally I am getting really tired of "Parental Watchdog" groups deciding what is "too hot" for television. What happened to personal responsibility and parenting? The television is not a baby-sitter...this goes for many things like movies, video games, etc. I think it should be up to parents to decide what their kids see and don't see...It seems to me that many European nations show much more nudity/sexual content and it is not adversly affecting children. This kind of thing is only "bad" if your taught that it is "bad". :angry: 585965538[/snapback] I'm going to agree and disagree with you here. I do agree that it is completely up to the parent what their child watches and doesn't watch, however, I disagree that "it is not adversly affecting children". How children are having sex at younger ages today (compared to 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc.), higher abortion rates, more kids with STDs, etc. There's no way you can say that it isn't affecting our children, because it is, plain and simple. Now, the question is who is to blame. We can put the blame on the shoulder of the kids, but only to an extent. The kids should know right from wrong by the age of 13+, however, I think we need to take sexual education out of the class room and put it on the shoulders of the parents. Schools don't need to be handing out condoms like it is candy, that should be up to the parents. The list can go on and on of who to blame for that, but I do firmly believe that nudity/sex on T.V. does affect our children though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted May 25, 2005 Veteran Share Posted May 25, 2005 Now, the question is who is to blame. We can put the blame on the shoulder of the kids, but only to an extent. The kids should know right from wrong by the age of 13+, however, I think we need to take sexual education out of the class room and put it on the shoulders of the parents. Schools don't need to be handing out condoms like it is candy, that should be up to the parents. The list can go on and on of who to blame for that, but I do firmly believe that nudity/sex on T.V. does affect our children though! 585969263[/snapback] In Canada (where we enjoy lower rates of teen pregnancies, lower rates of STD infections and lower rates of abortions), we begin sexual education in Grade 5 (at least in Ontario). There has recently been talk of making it earlier. Parents have shown to be completely incapable at this job (especially lower income and immigrant families). I'm not talking about specific parents here, obviously their are more positive examples, but society as a whole. If you remove sex education from schools then you will create an even bigger divide between rich and poor which may lead to greater crime, higher use of welfare, medicare and other services that drain the nation. It is comparitively cheaper to attack the problem preemptively with education. If you, as parents, do not like the message coming from your local school board than it is your job to educate your children the way you think is best. I'd rather children get two different messages then to get none at all. The latter is just too dangerous and too costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spazztastic Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I'm going to agree and disagree with you here. I do agree that it is completely up to the parent what their child watches and doesn't watch, however, I disagree that "it is not adversly affecting children". How children are having sex at younger ages today (compared to 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc.), higher abortion rates, more kids with STDs, etc. There's no way you can say that it isn't affecting our children, because it is, plain and simple. Now, the question is who is to blame. We can put the blame on the shoulder of the kids, but only to an extent. The kids should know right from wrong by the age of 13+, however, I think we need to take sexual education out of the class room and put it on the shoulders of the parents. Schools don't need to be handing out condoms like it is candy, that should be up to the parents. The list can go on and on of who to blame for that, but I do firmly believe that nudity/sex on T.V. does affect our children though! 585969263[/snapback] Seeing ###### on TV does not affect a child... if breasts are offensive, then you might as well say a guy with no shirt on is offensive. My parents were the type who didn't care what I saw because I knew the difference between reality and virtual reality. This goes for videogames too. Just this last sunday a student from my school was hit by a train a few blocks from my house, and if you walk infront of a train in San Andreas, all you gotta do is respawn. I knew the difference between the two. Now, just because a child goes off and sees breasts on TV doesn't mean they're going to go off and have sex at younger ages. It's a matter of the parent teaching the child to wait. That is what is important. Of course... this doesn't mean you should go off and show sex on television... but it shouldn't be considered an obscene activity. I have a feeling I left out a whole lot of stuff, but I don't feel like typing any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts