Someone should sue "Californication"

[LaRascasse]

Until last season I was a huge fan of the show, and I absolutely love the crass sexual humour. This season, they have crossed a line.

Just 3 episodes in, there have already been 2 instances which feature Stuart Jr. (Charlie's three year old son) exposed to some sexual situation. In episode 1, it was when he saw Stuart eating out Marcy in the bedroom and in episode 3 where he accidentally turns on the TV to see the porn that Charlie was watching just prior. (The producers use his head to hide the pornstar's pussy in the latter instance.)

Now, I understand that it is all choreographed, but that is a real kid (who can't be older than 5) exposed to two very explicit sex scenes. That is wrong on so many levels. People are arrested and ostracized as registered sex offenders just for exposing themselves to kids and here we are seeing it live on TV (sick sick sick!!!)

Your thoughts?

 

[PennLady]

Hmmm. I've never seen the show, so I'm not trying to defend it. I wouldn't think much of those situations either. However, I know that there are very strict rules about kids on TV and movie sets, so I think it's quite possible that the actual kid did not see what it looks like he saw.

For example, I think it's possible that in the scene where the kid's looking at the TV, the kid on the set did not see porn. Seems to me that'd be easy enough to do via computer in post-production or whatever. The kid may have seen a cartoon, or nothing at all. For the other scene, where he catches the people, I'm not sure but I imagine they can do that with "smoke and mirrors" as well.

 

[LaRascasse]

Hmmm. I've never seen the show, so I'm not trying to defend it. I wouldn't think much of those situations either. However, I know that there are very strict rules about kids on TV and movie sets, so I think it's quite possible that the actual kid did not see what it looks like he saw.

For example, I think it's possible that in the scene where the kid's looking at the TV, the kid on the set did not see porn. Seems to me that'd be easy enough to do via computer in post-production or whatever. The kid may have seen a cartoon, or nothing at all. For the other scene, where he catches the people, I'm not sure but I imagine they can do that with "smoke and mirrors" as well.

Even so, they are implying this stuff on TV. Isn't that revolting?

 

[sr71plt]

I guess there's an up side to not having the premium channels. (Adds to the writing time too.)

But my thoughts on this particular program. You seem to have been revolted multiple times by this program. So . . . hmmm . . . you continued to watch why?

 

[mynameisben]

Even so, they are implying this stuff on TV. Isn't that revolting?

TV is revolting. And so is suing people.

 

[LaRascasse]

I guess there's an up side to not having the premium channels. (Adds to the writing time too.)

But my thoughts on this particular program. You seem to have been revolted multiple times by this program. So . . . hmmm . . . you continued to watch why?

Don't get me wrong, I like every other aspect of this TV show- the raw sexuality, the situations and the eccentric, over-the-top humour. Until last season it was great. Now, they have added this to the mix. That is what I am ranting against.

Seasons 1-4 are pure awesomeness.

 

[PennLady]

Even so, they are implying this stuff on TV. Isn't that revolting?

Considering what else is on TV, I don't know. I mean, yes, I wouldn't want a 3yo (or a 5yo) for real exposed to things like that. But it's fake.

Think of the other shows on TV. Dexter is about a serial killer. Game of Thrones (which I love) has incest, and lots of blood, guts and gore. Boardwalk Empire has lots of blood and the "hero" is a criminal (again, a show I love). So -- is that better or worse?

I really can't comment on the scenes you mentioned in Californication, as I don't watch the show, so I don't know the context or anything else. But I'm willing to bet that the kid on set did not see anything he shouldn't have.

 

[LaRascasse]

Considering what else is on TV, I don't know. I mean, yes, I wouldn't want a 3yo (or a 5yo) for real exposed to things like that. But it's fake.

Think of the other shows on TV. Dexter is about a serial killer. Game of Thrones (which I love) has incest, and lots of blood, guts and gore. Boardwalk Empire has lots of blood and the "hero" is a criminal (again, a show I love). So -- is that better or worse?

I really can't comment on the scenes you mentioned in Californication, as I don't watch the show, so I don't know the context or anything else. But I'm willing to bet that the kid on set did not see anything he shouldn't have.

I love Dexter, Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire. But, yes I draw the line at kids.
BTW another favourite show of mine from yesteryear (Nip/Tuck) pushes the boundaries even more than the ones you mentioned, but even they stopped short of using prepubescent sex props.

 

[Stella_Omega]

here's something you can do: tap into the grass roots. Start some action.

http://www.change.org/victories

 

[mikey2much]

Or you could just not watch

If you don't like what they are showing you, don't watch it. But don't try to stop others from watching just because you don't choose to. Everybody deserves to have that same choice.

 

[amofiga]

I think Penn Lady probably hit it on the head when she said that the kid probably wasn't actually exposed to seeing what was implied via the use of "Hollywood magic". Look at all the commercials that have elephants in living rooms and allegators crawling out of bed next to sleeping women. Special effects studios get big bucks for making things appear "there" that really aren't really there and vice versa. I remember the big controversy in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut" with the scenes showing action at the sex club. The movie ratings people insisted that extra "digital people" be put in the scenes as part of post production to hide apparent sexual penetration or the movie would get an X-rating. I personally thought the movie should have then been released in two versions, R and X for those who wanted the option.

I would think that there are some sorts of "child movie performer" laws that limit what underaged people can be exposed to, just like there are filming laws that limit how much time minors can be forced to be on set in any 24 hour period. There are also laws that forbid injury to animals that often appear to be shot, run over by cars, fall out of windows, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't "inspectors' on set to monitor what kids are exposed to just like there are "animal safety" people on set.

As for the "implication" of this taking place, I'd say, just roll with it. TV, movies, etc are all about make believe. We have movies showing sexual activity between underaged kids, prostitution, drugs, and a myriad of other "immoral" or illegal activity. It's what can make a story dramatic, humorous, shocking, etc. Personally, I'd rather get a chuckle out of a kid seeing his father/parents/neighbor lady whatever having sex than bloody disgusting scenes of hands, arms, heads being lopped off with swords or people being tortured by psychos with chain saws.

It's all "Hollywood magic" and make believe. If something upsets you as an individual, then either don't watch or write the producers. There are a lot of people who aren't upset and can enjoy it. I knew one person who thought the old Charlie Harper character in "2 and a Half Men" was disgusting, and a bad role model and the show should be banned from TV. I personally thought he was funny as hell. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I must be in the majority because it was up for awards for many years till the the "real" Charlie truly went 'round the bend.

 

[3113]

Not all Fun and Games

Even so, they are implying this stuff on TV. Isn't that revolting?

1) there are strict rules about child actors, and I have not ONE doubt that the child actor did not see any porn or simulated sex. It can all be done easily with camera tricks to show him seeing something he's not seeing at all--and these are not new camera tricks. Some have been used since the silent era. So, no, the kid actor didn't see a thing.

2) The show isn't about good people--or have you really been watching it? The hero cheats, lies, gets into terrible trouble all thanks to his sexual desires and activities. So do most of the other characters in the show. The show is ALL about crazy sex and the consequences not only of it, but of those who think more about fulfilling their sexual kinks then they do about other people--their spouses, friends or children.

THAT is the story you signed on to watch--and have been watching for 4 seasons now. But ONLY NOW you're getting the idea that all four seasons have been putting forth? That anyone or anything might be influenced or damaged by this?

I think the show is absolutely on target here. Funny, raw, sexy, wild as it is, it has never made "heroic" what its characters were doing. There are consequences. And they're showing you one. How can people be this selfish regarding their desires and NOT get seen by their kids? Though the show presents it in a darkly humorous way--*AS ALWAYS*--their topic has--*AS ALWAYS*--a serious undertone. And this time around, it's the influence of these selfish sexual desires the adults have been giving into on their children.

if this is revolting to you, then you've finally woken up from being blind to what half the show is all about and has ALWAYS been about. And shame on you if you were happy to ignore that revolting side for so many seasons and now are all upset that you can't. Because, to me, that's exactly what you're saying. "Wah!" they're forcing me to see that it isn't all fun and games!" It never has been. That's what the show is all about. That these kinds of narcissistic, sexual shenanigans are dark as they are absurd.

 

[Handley_Page]

Just 3 episodes in, there have already been 2 instances which feature Stuart Jr. (Charlie's three year old son) exposed to some sexual situation. In episode 1, it was when he saw Stuart eating out Marcy in the bedroom and in episode 3 where he accidentally turns on the TV to see the porn that Charlie was watching just prior. (The producers use his head to hide the porn star's pussy in the latter instance.)

Now, I understand that it is all choreographed, but that is a real kid (who can't be older than 5) exposed to two very explicit sex scenes. That is wrong on so many levels. People are arrested and ostracised as registered sex offenders just for exposing themselves to kids and here we are seeing it live on TV (sick sick sick!!!)

Your thoughts?

You make it sound like such events (as in real sex) actually do not happen and therefore the child should not know about it.
When is a child going to learn about good sex, then ?

 

[3113]

As for the "implication" of this taking place, I'd say, just roll with it. TV, movies, etc are all about make believe.

While those making the show may not really be showing the 5 year old actor any sex, they are yet creating a realistic possibility. And I don't think we should undermine that by saying, "it's make-believe." I think they want the audience to be a little disturbed--which, by the way is the show's calling card. Absurdity with just enough realism to unsettle.

Realistically, kids do see sex. They walk in on their parents, and if the adult has been watching porn on tv or the internet, they might catch it. They might open drawers and find dildos, etc. This can REALLY happen. It has happened, and we usually don't get "revolted" by such stories. We chuckle at the parent who kid found the condoms and is told "they're balloons...." Right?

And? Is it revolting to know that little kids *might* catch a glimpse of sexual activity between adults? Should parents forgo having sex until their kids are in college and won't be able to walk in on them? And if the parent is, as this parent is, kinky, involved in the porn industry, and having sex all over the house...what is "make-believe" about the possibility of his kid seeing this? And shouldn't that be discussed? What are the consequences of being such a person and having a five-year-old who might see such things?

It might be shocking, but it's logical and realistic, and I'm glad they're pointing it out. Maybe it will make real viewers of the show think about what their kids might be seeing--and whether or not they want their kids to see it, and if they don't what they should be doing instead.

 

[autoplot]

Either this is a troll or the OP is supremely stupid.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Either this is a troll or the OP is supremely stupid.

An interest in sex doesn't guarantee a high IQ.

 

[Handley_Page]

An interest in sex doesn't guarantee a high IQ.

Sad, but all too true
Quite the reverse all too often

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[LaRascasse]

Apologies if what I said here got misconstrued to me hating the show (which I don't). I just wish they wouldn't drag kids into it.

For sake of comparison, look at Becca in the first 2 seasons. One of the running gags was her trademark "Dad, why is there a naked lady in my bedroom?", but they did not actually SHOW the naked lady and her in the same frame, so it is acceptable imho.

Am I missing something here?

 

[3113]

What would you say to someone else?

Am I missing something here?

You're missing two things:

(1) You're talking to a bunch of writers--and what we know is that you don't bring something in that you're not going to use. Which means the minute they created Charlie's kid, made him a dad, they HAD to use that kid. They couldn't just ignore it. So the question for the writer then becomes, "what happens to a kid raised these parents?" And here is the answer. And no writer worth his/her salt is going to back down from showing the audience the truth no matter how "revolting" it might be.

(2) This is not a silly sit-com that strives to keep within the comfort zone of some generic audience. It's been making people uncomfortable and crossing lines since season one. It just took a while to cross your line and make you uncomfortable. And if you didn't know that before, well, you know it now. Welcome to Californication. The show that works very hard to make people squirm even as they laugh. Sorry you were totally blind and unaware of this till now, but everyone else watching the show was very much aware of it and either decided they didn't want to squirm, or they wanted to go on this ride no matter how unpleasant it sometimes made them feel.

Kids are just the next step in this on-going ride--or maybe not as Hank's daughter was 14 when the show started, and clearly she's been influenced by her dad's behavior since she was little...were you never bothered by that? Showing how such parents affect their kids is not, as you so desperately want it to be, beyond the pale. Not for this show--it's just beyond the pale for you, personally, to witness it real time rather than off-stage.

Consider what you would say to anyone else who said, about any behavior shown by any of these characters in previous seasons up till now, "I don't want them showing this to me on-stage, I want them to joke about it off-stage" (be it the affairs, or kinky sex, or whatever). What would you say to them if they said, "It makes me uncomfortable to see it. Why can't this show be like this other sit-com where they only joke about what they're doing, rather than showing it?"

What would you say? That is what you need to say to yourself about this. That is what you're missing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Apologies if what I said here got misconstrued to me hating the show (which I don't). I just wish they wouldn't drag kids into it.

For sake of comparison, look at Becca in the first 2 seasons. One of the running gags was her trademark "Dad, why is there a naked lady in my bedroom?", but they did not actually SHOW the naked lady and her in the same frame, so it is acceptable imho.

You're kidding. You don't see it happen so it's okay?

Am I missing something here?

yeah... Somehow i think you are.

 

[autoplot]

Also, as I believe has already been mentioned television shows use green screen and compositing all the time to finesse scenes, often invisibly. Even if you actually saw the kid in the frame with someone's penis, that doesn't mean they were in the same room or the same continent. That sort of thing's trivial to fake now.

Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZio1NA15I

Now, if you're objecting to the very concept, just go back to watching King of Queens or whatever.

 

[mynameisben]

Also, as I believe has already been mentioned television shows use green screen and compositing all the time to finesse scenes, often invisibly. Even if you actually saw the kid in the frame with someone's penis, that doesn't mean they were in the same room or the same continent. That sort of thing's trivial to fake now.

Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKZio1NA15I

Now, if you're objecting to the very concept, just go back to watching King of Queens or whatever.

What if they green screened it, seamlessly, so that the penis that was never in the same room with the kid gives the flawless illusion of pumping in and out of the kid's mouth? Is that okay because it's not real?

 

[lovecraft68]

Until last season I was a huge fan of the show, and I absolutely love the crass sexual humour. This season, they have crossed a line.

Just 3 episodes in, there have already been 2 instances which feature Stuart Jr. (Charlie's three year old son) exposed to some sexual situation. In episode 1, it was when he saw Stuart eating out Marcy in the bedroom and in episode 3 where he accidentally turns on the TV to see the porn that Charlie was watching just prior. (The producers use his head to hide the pornstar's pussy in the latter instance.)

Now, I understand that it is all choreographed, but that is a real kid (who can't be older than 5) exposed to two very explicit sex scenes. That is wrong on so many levels. People are arrested and ostracized as registered sex offenders just for exposing themselves to kids and here we are seeing it live on TV (sick sick sick!!!)

Your thoughts?

Except for football and Red sox games, I have not watched television in over five years.

Posts like this tell me I am missing nothing. That and everything I hear about the Kardashians

 

[mynameisben]

Except for football and Red sox games, I have not watched television in over five years.

Posts like this tell me I am missing nothing. That and everything I hear about the Kardashians

Right on. I only watch it for Lakers games and old episodes of The Patty Duke Show.