| User | Comment |
|---|
Enheduanna  | | posted 19-Jan-2005 3:40pm |
I don't know. |
bill   | | posted 19-Jan-2005 3:49pm |
Unlikely, even if I watch the game, I tend to ignore it. I missed the nipple last year, though I watched most of the game. |
| Tazwert | | (reply to bill) posted 19-Jan-2005 3:52pm |
> Unlikely, even if I watch the game, I tend to ignore it. I missed
> the nipple last year, though I watched most of the game.
Thankfully we have the internet and TV new "magazines" to show it to us over and over and over and over and over.... 
|
| bill | | (reply to Tazwert) posted 19-Jan-2005 3:56pm |
I had to go looking for it. *pout* Most legit sites blocked it out. Didn't it have some sort of metal thing on it? |
cerealkiller   | | posted 19-Jan-2005 4:23pm |
I already said I wouldn't be watching the Super Bowl in the first place, so no I also wouldn't be seeing the halftime show.
Obviously this year they will be clamping down on skin exposure. I saw Janet Jackson's bewb after the fact on the internet. It wasn't an overly exciting one either. |
| Updown | | posted 19-Jan-2005 4:34pm |
With the exception of Aerosmith a few years ago I am not generally moved by the performers they have. I would rather got to the kitchen and meander about. |
| wolfchik9 | | posted 19-Jan-2005 4:39pm |
Not sure, who's going to be in it? |
| darkshadowsseeker | | (reply to bill) posted 19-Jan-2005 4:41pm |
It had some sort of metal nipple cap on it so I don't see what the big deal was. |
| jettles | | posted 19-Jan-2005 4:41pm |
i will be at work that night. i live in jacksonville, where the superbowl is being held this year. i am not looking forward to it really. so if i am able to watch the halftime show i will because paul mccartney is a part of it and it will be cool to see him. |
| darkshadowsseeker |
Since Paul McCartney is doing the halftime show, I don't think we'll get much "nipple" action this year. |
| cerealkiller |
He could always drop his pants "accidentally" |
| darkshadowsseeker |
I don't see that as being his style. |
| caviartaste | | posted 19-Jan-2005 6:31pm |
Probably NOT!!! |
| RainingFeathers | | posted 19-Jan-2005 7:03pm |
Nope. I never have before, and I don't see a reason to start now. |
| Amanda | | posted 19-Jan-2005 8:59pm |
I don't know. Probably bits and pieces, but not the whole thing. I'll watch the game, though. I always seem to miss most of the half time show for some reason. |
| Biggles | | (reply to bill) posted 19-Jan-2005 9:32pm |
The BBC website showed it "in all its glory" - we Brits know how to have a good time...  |
Galomorro  | | posted 19-Jan-2005 10:00pm |
No. I do not have cable. I'll probably be out hiking someplace. |
| moonstone | | posted 19-Jan-2005 10:46pm |
probably |
| Jemmy | | posted 20-Jan-2005 12:00am |
Maybe. Will it interfere with Desperate Housewives? |
| bill | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Jan-2005 7:23am |
The way I understand it, Britain and Europe are more OK with nudity and less OK with violence. Where, the US is the opposite. Which begs the question: which is more obscene?
The US's relationship with violence runs deep and appears to have some significant effects. It's startling that we combine it with a prudishness about nudity. If there was such a thing as psychotherapy for an entire country, I would recommend that the US get some. |
| lily333 | | posted 20-Jan-2005 9:48am |
Maybe |
| Biggles | | (reply to bill) posted 20-Jan-2005 9:55am |
I think you're probably right - nudity here is fine, although full-frontal shots probably have to be post-watershed (9pm) and erect penises (there's a certain angle they can't go beyond) are also banned. We get uncut violence in imported series but British TV companies don't tend to inset too much graphic violence in their own programmes. I don't like violence though - it often seems gratuitous. It's fine if it's necessary to make a point, but I don't literally need to see everything. I went to see Alexander recently and found the battle-scenes too much. Same with Gladiator, the fights ruined the film for me. I'm all for realism, but there can be too much detail at times. |
| autumnlight | | posted 20-Jan-2005 10:27am |
No. I don't know if it's even shown on TV here. |
| bill | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Jan-2005 11:16am |
Being born and raised in the US, it's hard for me to have much perspective. I play violent video games, watch violent movies and TV, even read books with violence. My wife is into crime shows and serial killers. Still, neither of us are violent people and I think we tend to be against violent solutions to problems. I think I'm even a little prudish about nudity. I'd be upset if they took my violent entertainments away from me!
I've heard that "violence to make a point" rationale before. I think the violence in Gladiator (I haven't seen Alexander) could be justified by saying that it was there to accurately portray what it was like to be a gladiator (in a way, it made a point). Still, since violence is entertainment for people (since Roman times!), it's not always clear if it's there to make a point or entertain. |
| Biggles | | (reply to bill) posted 20-Jan-2005 12:21pm |
It's fair to say that Gladiator couldn't shy away from portraying violence and I'm not sure what I base my assertion that it went too far on, beyond the fact that I found it too much. I suppose I feel that I have enough of an imagination to fill in the gaps between a shot of a sword sweeping down and a shot of a man lying dead on the ground. I don't need to see the sword cutting into him realistically again and again.
I'm fine with fake-violence for the sake of entertainment in some ways though. I play violent computer games and watch films happily enough where the violence doesn't cross my personal threshold. I think for me, the difference is that they *don't* feel real. When films start feeling real in a way that is beyond making you suspend your disbelief, I feel as though I can't enjoy them anymore.
So I suppose my feelings are pretty illogical really  |
| icurok | | posted 20-Jan-2005 1:34pm |
No, I'm not into American Football anymore so I'm not even interested in watching the game. I don't even know which channel it's on. |
| bill | | (reply to Biggles) posted 20-Jan-2005 2:11pm |
feelings... illogical ... makes sense.  |
| Biggles | | (reply to bill) posted 20-Jan-2005 2:16pm |
I'm glad something does |
| Tazwert | | (reply to bill) posted 20-Jan-2005 2:33pm |
IIRC it did. It was like a nipple cover. Heard it was pierced through the nipple. 
|
| ElvisFan67 | | posted 20-Jan-2005 7:30pm |
I always do. This year it features Paul McCartney (an Elvis influence). |
| Zang | | posted 20-Jan-2005 10:23pm |
I don't watch television, so I doubt it very much. |
| southernyankee | | posted 21-Jan-2005 12:05am |
I probabbly will hoping someone controverial happens (but I doubt we'll have a repeat of last year) this time but it usually doesnt. If it did, then its sort of would be like the MTV music awards where you just have to see it live because something *always* happens that they will edit out. Other than that, the halftime show pretty much sucks. |
LindaH  | | posted 21-Jan-2005 6:11pm |
No. I'm not the least bit interested in the super bowl, much less the halftime show. |
| Maarten | | posted 21-Jan-2005 7:43pm |
No way. Imagine I would be exposed to a..... nipple!!!! |
