MTV show Skins...is it a provacative drama or trash TV?

Is this the same Skins that is shown on Channel 4 in the UK or does America have it’s own version? The British version is based and filmed in a city very local to me but that’s by the by. I enjoy it, I like edgy shows that don’t worry about being politically correct. I wouldn’t go so far as saying that programmes like Skins represet real life real life can’t be that depressing for everyone after all but it certainly has an honesty about it that I like. People that are offended by programmes always have the option to change channel or switch off completely and as they are shown after the watershed (in the UK), they really shouldn’t have anything to complain about. So yeah, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

@Leanne1986 The american version is not as raunchy. but other than that its more or less the same deal.

I don’t know exactly what it is, but if it’s on MTV then it’s geared to be shown to kids and it’s probably just another example of how the media doesn’t give a rat’s tush, and take no responsibility, for the impact they can have on the children and the way they influence them. It’s the glorified, fake, in-your-face sexuality on the media that probably contributed the most to the kids passing around naked pictures of themselves to each other and all of the horrible consequences of that. And things just get worse and worse….
And @Leanne1986, that’s just the problem. For the kids it’s not a question of standing up and saying “I don’t like this,” and walking out. As an adult I could, and would do that, but our kids are in a different universe than we are.

@Dutchess_III It depends on what you consider a “kid” to be. Over here (obviously I can’t speak for the US) Skins is not really geared to be shown to kids (at least not young kids), it’s more for the 16 + age group I would say. Can you explain what you mean by your last couple of sentences. As a kid/young teenager (and that wasn’t very long ago) if I didn’t want to watch something or copy something that I had witnessed on TV then I simply didn’t. Yes, some do experience peer pressure but I think more and more young people are striving to not follow the crowd these days. Give them more credit is what I say. Many kids are not the mindless sheep that people seem to think they are.

Because teenagers are so highly influenced by pop culture and by their peers, I think Skins is a dangerous show. It promotes and glamorizes drug use and sex among teens.

How is that a good thing?

I haven’t seen this… but now that I have read this, I want to.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of this show because it doesn’t show the consequences. At least on the show “Degrassi”, it showed the bad end of the spectrum or the lifestyle. For example, Emma once slept with some guy in a trailer down by the ravine, and then she got herpes and was socially shunned.

I’ve seen the British version…and it’s utterly brilliant. If the American version is half as good, it’s neither – it’s art, for every reason that @Leanne1986 says but also that it presents amazing truths about human nature, the nature of life and chance, and our existential conflicts resolving the two.

I’m not kidding – I hate to judge people a priori, but comments where people are talking about the titillating aspects of themes of it should be reserved until posters see the show and see the themes in context. Whether or not it’s beautiful is up for debate, but there’s real value here…

I’m with @Leanne1986 and @iamthemob here. Though if it’s like every single other Americanized show that originated in the UK that I’ve ever seen, it’s probably rubbish. I’ve given up trying to watch them. :(

The British version is all right. (Nicholas Hoult is pretty hot, yeah.)

I watched the American debut and it’s not good. The characters, dialogue, and events are all essentially the same as in the British version, tweaked for American audiences. They’re so similar that I was actually kind of insulted because it was like watching the same show with a less attractive male lead and less competent actors.

There’s only been an episode so I’ll reserve most of my judgment, but the American version already seems to lack the ‘charm’ that the original had (pathos here being supplanted by bathos).

It’s not likely to feature as much nudity as the original. Not likely to feature as much drug-use. In fact it’ll probably be pretty plain if the first episode is any indication. I’m surprised to read it’s a hit.

@absalom – I totally thought that might be the case. I’m going to fight to reserve judgment myself, as the first season of the American Office was essentially the same thing (well, the first couple episodes). As soon as it started being its own show, it became fantastic.

@MacBean – I will stand by the Office as an example to the contrary.

@absalom I don’t know if it’s the same for the US version but the UK version of Skins completely changes it’s cast after two series. Nicholas Hoult was in the first two series but in the last couple of series the only original member of the cast was Hoult’s on-screen sister Effie (played by Kaya Scodelario). The new series starts this Thursday and I believe that it will be a completely new cast again.

@Leanne1986 I’m thinking more along the 9–14 year olds. It’s not like the show isn’t accessible to them. But…as always, it goes back to the parents. They need to judge for themselves and then have the guts to do as much as they can to prevent the kids from seeing it, at least at their house. Yes, the kids will probably still see it elsewhere, but at least the parents have sent a good, strong message about their own values. In the end, that’s all we really can do.

I’ve never seen the American version, but I think the UK version is fantastic. I like the humour and I like that it’s edgy.

@stardust This isn’t about what adults think of it. MTV is geared toward kids…9 to whatever. This is about what adults think the impact will be on kids.

@Dutchess_III I’m not in the US, but here Skins has an older following – late teens and upwards. I can certainly see how it might have a negative impact on younger kids for a myriad of reasons(such as the ones mentioned above – by yourself & others), but ultimately I think it’s up to the parents to deem what’s suitable for the younger age group.

@Dutchess_III – If kids are going to probably see it, watch it with them. Talk about the context.

The outrage about the early episodes is ridiculous. I love it when people get reactionary about a show with a storyline that goes through the season and there aren’t consequences early on….I’m surprised that someone hasn’t just said “hey…I don’t want to ruin it for you…but all this dumb behavior ends up having consequences…trust us.”

@Dutchess_III I agree that it is the parent’s and the network’s responsibility to make it less accessible to certain age groups. I would never say that it was a suitable programme for children under 14 years old. Over here it is shown after the watershed (9pm) which is an indication to parents that it isn’t for young children. The network has done their job, it’s up to the parents now to make sure that their children aren’t watching it.

@iamthemob I disagree. You can talk about the general negative concepts of say, porn, or doing drugs, without actually watching porn or doing drugs with them. That’s an extreme, I realize, but sometimes that’s the right way to put things in perspective. It’s important to familiarize yourself with whatever you think your kids might be into and bringing it up at appropriate times in an off-hand manner, but sharing it with them is a whole different animal.

@Dutchess_III – The problem with your example is not that it’s extreme…but that it’s not really relevant. It has to apply to something that does harm. Not something that can be, theoretically, interpreted as advocating people do harmful things.

This is a piece of fiction…a piece of art (arguably). It’s about people being reckless. It’s not a contrary message by necessity…but preventing kids from seeing this stuff makes it tantalizing, and also ignores the possibility to use it as a learning tool.

Watching fiction of any sort doesn’t “cause harm.” And trying to prevent something that you can’t…especially when it’s not objectively harmful…is just going to send the wrong message. Or allow them to get the message from their friends…

@iamthemob OK, I have to concede to a certain extent because I really don’t have any idea what the show is about. However I can disagree with the statement “Watching fiction of any sort doesn’t “cause harm.” Of course there is fiction out there that can cause harm or emotional trauma!

Also, I didn’t say I was trying to “prevent” them from watching something that I deem inappropriate, because I know that I can’t prevent it. They’ll probably see it at a friend’s house. I can, however, send the message that I don’t approve of it by not allowing it in my house.

As I said, in the end, that’s all we really can do for our kids: Let them know where we stand on certain issues, and hope that they adopt those same morals. That’s all we can do.

@Dutchess_III

In terms of the “harm” disagreement – I feel like that’s mostly semantic. When I discuss harm, I mean more large-scale and longitudinal. The suppression of ideas or speech generally is a terrible idea, and that’s where I see a lot of arguments about the harm done by certain shows, etc., going. The thing of it is, sometimes we need to see stuff because it starts us talking about assumptions we have.

I really think we’re on the same page – and I totally respect that there are certain things that you tell your kids “not in my house.” But those need to be chosen carefully – and at least for me, because I think Skins is an amazing show, sitting down with your kids and asking them why they might like the show could be revelatory. After all, you can determine what is best in your house. But reactionary groups like the “Parents Television Council” stop us thinking about how our kids learn and attacking things based on buzzworthy opinions.

I get defensive about speech – so don’t think I’m targeting anything other than that…

Well…I’ve never seen it! And my kids are grown and gone and probably watching stuff I wouldn’t approve of! Put it this way, if I’m at my son’s and ask if I can borrow a certain movie he might say, “You’re not allowed to watch that, Mom!” :) When they were teens listening to the radio in the car while we were driving, if there was a song on that had bad language, they’d jump turn the volume down at the bad language part. I viewed it as respect for me, and I sincerely appreciated the gesture!
I totally respect your opinion @iamthemob—and you’re right. I think we’re on two different pages. I sheltered my kids the best that I could, down to not even having cable, or internet in my home. Now, when my grandkids come over and want to watch some show that I deem not appropriate they’ll say, “We’ve seen it before!”
My response: “Not in this house you haven’t!”
I try to live my life the same way I want my kids to live, which means there isn’t a single movie or book in this house that they couldn’t watch—well, some exceptions to that would be some very good movies, thought provoking movies that have some graphic content that I wouldn’t want kids to see, like A Time To Kill, and Mississippi Burning.

@Dutchess_III

I think we only really differ in theories of how to deal with the media onslaught that kids face. And we can’t kid ourselves – it’s an onslaught. I shy off of the “sheltering” arguments for a head-off-the-pass approach – knowing what’s out there, knowing what kids are watching, watching it, and if appropriate watching it with them. I think kids can get a lot, from the middle school age on, from being exposed to bad media in a way that requires them to approach it critically. Then, when they see something that we don’t catch, they can build on that knowledge of how to read it, and what it’s really saying.

I respect that and you’re so right. It is in their faces. I feel sorry for them…....I just went about the “training” in a different way. I had a pretty good idea of what they were up against, and when the chance presented itself (which moments are few and far between with teenagers) I’d discuss it with them. I’d find out something that they were doing that was disturbing for me, but rather than get in their face about it, I’d find a moment to talk about it…obliquely and in general so they wouldn’t feel targeted. It can be a tricky slope. You really have to pick your fights with teens…..and try not to “fight” at all. Which can be damn near impossible with the cheeky, snotty, know-it-all little sh…...um. I digress!

I love the British show. came into it very cynical, but found it to be very um…titillating!