therower
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,922
- Type of diabetes
- Type 1
- Treatment type
- Insulin
Buck Rodgers. Apparently he’s already in the 25th century.Who knows what the future will hold
Buck Rodgers. Apparently he’s already in the 25th century.Who knows what the future will hold
We are now in a different era, the era of information. Whether we make good use of the internet/global data etc is really up to us but I have to say that we have to, must, be signposted.@Guzzler . A good point.
I personally think that black box in the corner can be far to big a part of our lives than it should be.
What would be interesting to find out is. Who was deciding on the content of these programs?
The NHS and worldwide healthy organisations ?
The big pharmaceutical companies?
The government in this country and other countries?
Or was it the TV companies following what was believed to be right in society at the time?
It’s all history now and can’t be altered.
Tomorrow can be changed but how many people will switch off those TV’s tonight? Theoretically of course. We watch and listen now. Will a similar topic surface again in another 40 yrs?
Will diets publicised currently be blamed for health issues in 30 yrs time?
Buck Rodgers. Apparently he’s already in the 25th century.
I can no longer watch a smoking scene without wondering if the actor inhales, and if they do whether there is a clause in their contract committing to future medical bills. Maybe Method actors just embrace the risk, to feel the character?
No need for CGI.....This occurred to me not long ago when watching For All Mankind. It's an alternative-history, fictional TV drama set in the Apollo moon landings era (and it's excellent). Rampant smoking left & right by everyone, as you'd expect. But, I have a feeling that today's mega-budget movies and TV shows employ CGI to add the necessary effects to 'cigarette props' and even the exhaling of the smoke by actors. I know it sounds far fetched, but I already know it's been done to do things like add steam to supposedly hot drinks and the like. In 2020, all is not as it seems
Fake cigarettes which give off vapour.I’m equally fascinated by the way the portrayal of smoking and drinking has changed over the years.
Smoking was everywhere, and just part of life on screen, elegant leading ladies, heroic leading men... then people gradually stopped smoking so much, it became an unhealthy habit, and now the ones who puff do so in a way intended to describe their attitude to life. We just watched the latest Tarantino, where smoking and full ashtrays were clear signs of social degradation, professional failure and carelessness. Private Eyes smoke to show stress, moral ambiguity (from Randall and Hopkirk to the Dublin Murders) and the state of their soul (Constantine).
I can no longer watch a smoking scene without wondering if the actor inhales, and if they do whether there is a clause in their contract committing to future medical bills. Maybe Method actors just embrace the risk, to feel the character?
As for booze... everyone drank as part of everyday living (60s and before, cut glass decanters everywhere), then hardly anyone did (except for scenes in pubs and clubs), home drinkers became somehow morally lax, then we had Beaujolais on the national news, wine tasting evening classes in sitcoms, alcopops for the yoof, pictures of beer cans in recycling boxes and now Prosecco is a by word for Friday evening relaxation after a hard week of professional toil.
Script writers and journalists just sway with the current breeze for booze and cigs as much as fat intake.
This occurred to me not long ago when watching For All Mankind. It's an alternative-history, fictional TV drama set in the Apollo moon landings era (and it's excellent). Rampant smoking left & right by everyone, as you'd expect. But, I have a feeling that today's mega-budget movies and TV shows employ CGI to add the necessary effects to 'cigarette props' and even the exhaling of the smoke by actors. I know it sounds far fetched, but I already know it's been done to do things like add steam to supposedly hot drinks and the like. In 2020, all is not as it seems
I agree I think society does influence tv, past and present, no money to made in tv no one is interested in. I also think the reverse is true also tv does influence society, don't get me started on the Kardashian's! And I think also influences what we think the past was like, did you ever see Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes with Gene Hunt swaggering about with a ciggie in one hand and a pistol in the other! Was life ever really like that? Did that sexism really exist? The past apparently is a foreign country but I'm not sure it's one I'd like to visit!@Guzzler .
Back in the 80’s we had far less choice. What was it, 4 channels?
Back then I think society influenced certain types of TV programs . Sit coms, dramas, soaps etc
Others may have differing opinions.
I suggest you do not watch Monty Pythons Flying Circus on Netflix then if you are easily offended.Did that sexism really exist? The past apparently is a foreign country but I'm not sure it's one I'd like to visit!
Welease Woderwick!!I suggest you do not watch Monty Pythons Flying Circus on Netflix then if you are easily offended.
At least Disney Plus warns of 'outdated cultural depictions' in some films.
I should have mentioned that it was the TV series that run over four seasons in the late 60's and early 70's, that I was on about not the movies that came out later.No! I would never watch Monty Python, I'm far too refined!
I knew the first two quotes were from Life of Brian and the Meaning of life but I thought the parrot sketch was from the flying circus. It's so long since I watched any MP i can't really remember. Anyway I was just being playful, I loved Monty Python and Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes.for that matter. I have a pretty robust sense of humour usually. It's too much seriousness that upsets me! Life's too short. I get the impression you like a lark as well @TipetooI should have mentioned that it was the TV series that run over four seasons in the late 60's and early 70's, that I was on about not the movies that came out later.
I am a "non" politically correct person...get the impression you like a lark as well @Tipetoo
I noticed that! Wouldn't have you any other way @Tipetoo just wouldn't be you. You speak your mind and that keeps things interesting. You are certainly NEVER boring!I am a "non" politically correct person...
I’m equally fascinated by the way the portrayal of smoking and drinking has changed over the years.
Smoking was everywhere, and just part of life on screen, elegant leading ladies, heroic leading men... then people gradually stopped smoking so much, it became an unhealthy habit, and now the ones who puff do so in a way intended to describe their attitude to life. We just watched the latest Tarantino, where smoking and full ashtrays were clear signs of social degradation, professional failure and carelessness. Private Eyes smoke to show stress, moral ambiguity (from Randall and Hopkirk to the Dublin Murders) and the state of their soul (Constantine).
I can no longer watch a smoking scene without wondering if the actor inhales, and if they do whether there is a clause in their contract committing to future medical bills. Maybe Method actors just embrace the risk, to feel the character?
As for booze... everyone drank as part of everyday living (60s and before, cut glass decanters everywhere), then hardly anyone did (except for scenes in pubs and clubs), home drinkers became somehow morally lax, then we had Beaujolais on the national news, wine tasting evening classes in sitcoms, alcopops for the yoof, pictures of beer cans in recycling boxes and now Prosecco is a by word for Friday evening relaxation after a hard week of professional toil.
Script writers and journalists just sway with the current breeze for booze and cigs as much as fat intake.