40th Anniversary Watch Party

[Styles Bitchley]

An episode like this helps me to understand the impact MPI had on young boys in the 80s.

You had a manly, at times tough, at times goofy, positive television hero (and supporting cast and story) that taught valuable lessons in honour and integrity.

Even simple lessons like it's okay when friends are going through tough times and end up lashing out at you. Very impactful to a 12 year old kid.

Indeed. I certainly relied on the tv for finding some positive male role models as a kid. There’s a lot to learn from this episode and it feel like it’s something the writers often addressed intentionally.

This episode ranks pretty high for me for its structure and plausibility. I often get annoyed by plot hikes and things that don’t make sense. But this ones very tight. Maybe the only one is how they found Joey’s flop house through one of Rick’s connections at the phone company...I’d like the hear that conversation with your buddy. And what is it with guest characters named Joey in 80s shows? There’s alway an episode with a Joey and he’s always an inept young guy who’s in trouble.

Interesting that there are two fourth wall breaks in this one episode.

Also, early in the episode, when TC is checking Joey’s eyes, we get a decent close up of TC’s watch. I’ve always wanted to know what kind it is. I’m not sure if I can tell but I’m going to go back and get a decent screen grab.

[T.Q.]

Indeed. I certainly relied on the tv for finding some positive male role models as a kid.

Who are the role models these days?

Drug dealers and addicts and criminals and assassins.

Where's "The Ripper" when we need him to clean up the scum?



Get off my lawn!

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Indeed. I certainly relied on the tv for finding some positive male role models as a kid.

Who are the role models these days?

Drug dealers and addicts and criminals and assassins.

Where's "The Ripper" when we need him to clean up the scum?



Get off my lawn!

Role models today? Oh, we've got some good ones! You've got that Walter White character who cooks crystal meth, deceives his family at every turn, oh... and kills people. Then there's some Dexter guy who apparently is a serial killer who both solves and commits murders. I don't know but somehow it's all justified. Or so I'm told.

Wait, what was the question again?

[Pahonu]

Indeed. I certainly relied on the tv for finding some positive male role models as a kid.

Who are the role models these days?

Drug dealers and addicts and criminals and assassins.

Where's "The Ripper" when we need him to clean up the scum?



Get off my lawn!

Role models today? Oh, we've got some good ones! You've got that Walter White character who cooks crystal meth, deceives his family at every turn, oh... and kills people. Then there's some Dexter guy who apparently is a serial killer who both solves and commits murders. I don't know but somehow it's all justified. Or so I'm told.

Wait, what was the question again?

There are lots of older examples in entertainment depicting less than honorable types. How about the thief Robin Hood. Sure he steals from the rich to give the poor but it’s still armed robbery. It actually sounds a bit like communist theory. Then there’s the Pirates of the Caribbean who pillage and plunder and in reality raped and murdered also, yet Disney created a ride and series of films celebrating them. They even have there own song. I’d argue cooking meth is not as bad as murder and rape, though I don’t care for Breaking Bad either, or Dexter. Celebrating the ripper from Death and Taxes seems ethically questionable also. The guy’s a vigilante murderer. Magnum feels pity for the man but clearly sees his actions as unethical.

Sorry to disagree, but the antihero as protagonist in literature, film, and television is simply not a new phenomenon to this generation.

[Styles Bitchley]

There are lots of older examples in entertainment depicting less than honorable types. How about the thief Robin Hood. Sure he steals from the rich to give the poor but it’s still armed robbery. It actually sounds a bit like communist theory. Then there’s the Pirates of the Caribbean who pillage and plunder and in reality raped and murdered also, yet Disney created a ride and series of films celebrating them. They even have there own song. I’d argue cooking meth is not as bad as murder and rape, though I don’t care for Breaking Bad either, or Dexter. Celebrating the ripper from Death and Taxes seems ethically questionable also. The guy’s a vigilante murderer. Magnum feels pity for the man but clearly sees his actions as unethical.

Sorry to disagree, but the antihero as protagonist in literature, film, and television is simply not a new phenomenon to this generation.

Very true. Even the protagonist Alex in A Clockwork Orange was charismatic and strangely celebrated in that way that makes you question yourself. Walter White too. I actually enjoyed most of Breaking Bad, particularly the aspect of it that makes you question what you would do in a particular circumstance. Think of Magnum pulling the trigger on Ivan...that's a pretty Walter White moment, no? And one of my other favourite shows in the 80s was Mike Hammer - he'd blow away pretty much every bad guy or bad girl - judge, jury, and executioner. The world isn't black and white and that grey area is where reality lives. Nevertheless, I do feel like there are fewer characters (male or female) that portrayed as responsible/honourable these days. It probably just attracts a bigger audience.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

There are lots of older examples in entertainment depicting less than honorable types. How about the thief Robin Hood. Sure he steals from the rich to give the poor but it’s still armed robbery. It actually sounds a bit like communist theory. Then there’s the Pirates of the Caribbean who pillage and plunder and in reality raped and murdered also, yet Disney created a ride and series of films celebrating them. They even have there own song. I’d argue cooking meth is not as bad as murder and rape, though I don’t care for Breaking Bad either, or Dexter. Celebrating the ripper from Death and Taxes seems ethically questionable also. The guy’s a vigilante murderer. Magnum feels pity for the man but clearly sees his actions as unethical.

Sorry to disagree, but the antihero as protagonist in literature, film, and television is simply not a new phenomenon to this generation.

I don't care for that whole Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Never could understand all the hoopla around it or Johnny Depp's "performance". I mean he was Oscar nominated for it! Huh???? His weird tics irritated me more than entertained me. That said, these pirates as presented to kids aren't presented as rapists or pillagers. That would be disturbing. These are fun-loving pirates. So it's all about the presentation. Same with Robin Hood - he stole from "bad greedy highly unlikable characters" and Robin Hood was presented as a fun-loving "good" guy who looked out for the poor. Again, presentation matters.

In modern TV shows, however, they make a point to take things to the extreme with the lead character and make his actions as controversial as possible, yet STILL to have us root for him as if he's the good guy. That's essentially to get us to say yeah we're all capable of doing this. And what's right or wrong or moral is all relative. All relative to any given situation. Well, I'm sorry but there is right and there is wrong. And presenting wrong as right is WRONG!!! For some reason they don't show antiheroes today as easy-going, happy-go-lucky caring types, the way they did with Robin Hood back in the day. Why? Because that doesn't sell today. People want things that push boundaries, that are amoral. It says something about us as humans. Think about the Kevin Spacey character in HOUSE OF CARDS. A completely morally bankrupt individual who has complete contempt for everyone and will climb over bodies to attain complete power and control. Yet we're supposed to be drawn to this "ambitious" and "charismatic" character and think how cool and bad-ass he is.

[Pahonu]

There are lots of older examples in entertainment depicting less than honorable types. How about the thief Robin Hood. Sure he steals from the rich to give the poor but it’s still armed robbery. It actually sounds a bit like communist theory. Then there’s the Pirates of the Caribbean who pillage and plunder and in reality raped and murdered also, yet Disney created a ride and series of films celebrating them. They even have there own song. I’d argue cooking meth is not as bad as murder and rape, though I don’t care for Breaking Bad either, or Dexter. Celebrating the ripper from Death and Taxes seems ethically questionable also. The guy’s a vigilante murderer. Magnum feels pity for the man but clearly sees his actions as unethical.

Sorry to disagree, but the antihero as protagonist in literature, film, and television is simply not a new phenomenon to this generation.

Very true. Even the protagonist Alex in A Clockwork Orange was charismatic and strangely celebrated in that way that makes you question yourself. Walter White too. I actually enjoyed most of Breaking Bad, particularly the aspect of it that makes you question what you would do in a particular circumstance. Think of Magnum pulling the trigger on Ivan...that's a pretty Walter White moment, no? And one of my other favourite shows in the 80s was Mike Hammer - he'd blow away pretty much every bad guy or bad girl - judge, jury, and executioner. The world isn't black and white and that grey area is where reality lives. Nevertheless, I do feel like there are fewer characters (male or female) that portrayed as responsible/honourable these days. It probably just attracts a bigger audience.

Good points also, Styles.

My wife loves Breaking Bad and I watched the first few with her but couldn’t really get into it.

I said this in another post somewhere, but I think the reality is that today we have available to us so much more content, from so many more creators, that we are bound to see all kinds of topics and viewpoints. Many of these we may question or completely dislike, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there is so much to choose from. More voices is better in my view, and indeed in any democracy. In the past, networks were very limited in their content, and while they created some truly great programming, it was in a far narrower window.

[Pahonu]

There are lots of older examples in entertainment depicting less than honorable types. How about the thief Robin Hood. Sure he steals from the rich to give the poor but it’s still armed robbery. It actually sounds a bit like communist theory. Then there’s the Pirates of the Caribbean who pillage and plunder and in reality raped and murdered also, yet Disney created a ride and series of films celebrating them. They even have there own song. I’d argue cooking meth is not as bad as murder and rape, though I don’t care for Breaking Bad either, or Dexter. Celebrating the ripper from Death and Taxes seems ethically questionable also. The guy’s a vigilante murderer. Magnum feels pity for the man but clearly sees his actions as unethical.

Sorry to disagree, but the antihero as protagonist in literature, film, and television is simply not a new phenomenon to this generation.

I don't care for that whole Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Never could understand all the hoopla around it or Johnny Depp's "performance". I mean he was Oscar nominated for it! Huh???? His weird tics irritated me more than entertained me. That said, these pirates as presented to kids aren't presented as rapists or pillagers. That would be disturbing. These are fun-loving pirates. So it's all about the presentation. Same with Robin Hood - he stole from "bad greedy highly unlikable characters" and Robin Hood was presented as a fun-loving "good" guy who looked out for the poor. Again, presentation matters.

In modern TV shows, however, they make a point to take things to the extreme with the lead character and make his actions as controversial as possible, yet STILL to have us root for him as if he's the good guy. That's essentially to get us to say yeah we're all capable of doing this. And what's right or wrong or moral is all relative. All relative to any given situation. Well, I'm sorry but there is right and there is wrong. And presenting wrong as right is WRONG!!! For some reason they don't show antiheroes today as easy-going, happy-go-lucky caring types, the way they did with Robin Hood back in the day. Why? Because that doesn't sell today. People want things that push boundaries, that are amoral. It says something about us as humans. Think about the Kevin Spacey character in HOUSE OF CARDS. A completely morally bankrupt individual who has complete contempt for everyone and will climb over bodies to attain complete power and control. Yet we're supposed to be drawn to this "ambitious" and "charismatic" character and think how cool and bad-ass he is.

I have two points in response. First, all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes. There are many great films and now TV series about characters that in no way are presented as being positive. I think there are things that can be learned by watching tragic characters descend into truly awful circumstances. That’s the whole point of so many children’s fairy tales and folk stories, to teach kids a lesson about other children who did the wrong thing or made poor decisions.

The second point is that you basically argued both sides of the issue in terms of moral relativism. You state there is definite right and wrong, and that presenting something wrong as right, is itself wrong. Before that however, you seemed to accept the idea that piracy can be presented as not being wrong. Piracy is morally wrong, and illegal internationally. It is armed robbery on the open seas and it is wrong. In accepting the presentation of pirates as fun and harmless you are engaging in the same moral relativism that you argue against.

The same could be said of your argument that stealing from unlikeable or greedy people by Robin Hood is acceptable. You are saying that if I find someone greedy then I can steal from them. It’s ultimately still theft. That’s precisely the point Styles was making about gray area.

[Styles Bitchley]

all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes.

I don't think that all programming does this, but some really does. I think that the impressionability of kids via television was the impetus behind Sesame Street and the many other kids shows that followed. Think of all the after school specials we were exposed to in the '70s and '80s...they were designed to provide moral guidance. Lots of family-oriented sit coms were carefully crafted to provide these lessons, often with virtuous parents who taught lessons. Think of Steven and Elyse Keaton or Cliff and Clair Huxtable. Clearly some programming is designed to provide role models and heroes and some is not.

[Pahonu]

all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes.

I don't think that all programming does this, but some really does. I think that the impressionability of kids via television was the impetus behind Sesame Street and the many other kids shows that followed. Think of all the after school specials we were exposed to in the '70s and '80s...they were designed to provide moral guidance. Lots of family-oriented sit coms were carefully crafted to provide these lessons, often with virtuous parents who taught lessons. Think of Steven and Elyse Keaton or Cliff and Clair Huxtable. Clearly some programming is designed to provide role models and heroes and some is not.

I absolutely agree. I was challenging other arguments, namely that content today somehow doesn’t provide any role models or focuses almost entirely on antiheroes. I think the increase in overall content means all types of stories are presented, whereas in the past many other points of view were not given a voice.

[Styles Bitchley]

all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes.

I don't think that all programming does this, but some really does. I think that the impressionability of kids via television was the impetus behind Sesame Street and the many other kids shows that followed. Think of all the after school specials we were exposed to in the '70s and '80s...they were designed to provide moral guidance. Lots of family-oriented sit coms were carefully crafted to provide these lessons, often with virtuous parents who taught lessons. Think of Steven and Elyse Keaton or Cliff and Clair Huxtable. Clearly some programming is designed to provide role models and heroes and some is not.

I absolutely agree. I was challenging other arguments, namely that content today somehow doesn’t provide any role models or focuses almost entirely on antiheroes. I think the increase in overall content means all types of stories are presented, whereas in the past many other points of view were not given a voice.

That's true. There sure are many, many options.

[Pahonu]

all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes.

I don't think that all programming does this, but some really does. I think that the impressionability of kids via television was the impetus behind Sesame Street and the many other kids shows that followed. Think of all the after school specials we were exposed to in the '70s and '80s...they were designed to provide moral guidance. Lots of family-oriented sit coms were carefully crafted to provide these lessons, often with virtuous parents who taught lessons. Think of Steven and Elyse Keaton or Cliff and Clair Huxtable. Clearly some programming is designed to provide role models and heroes and some is not.

I absolutely agree. I was challenging other arguments, namely that content today somehow doesn’t provide any role models or focuses almost entirely on antiheroes. I think the increase in overall content means all types of stories are presented, whereas in the past many other points of view were not given a voice.

That's true. There sure are many, many options.

Absolutely, and I think that can lead many to feel overwhelmed by so many viewpoints. That’s not a criticism of any point of view, just a comment on individual’s many reactions to all the options.

This may be getting into the weeds a bit, but there is growing psychological literature drawing a connection between individual’s response to variety and complexity in general and their political inclinations. I’ve had several discussions on the topic with a colleague over the last few years, though not lately. Essentially, several recent psychological studies have shown that individuals who view new and unique experiences, such as trying a new foreign cuisine, as a negative and uncomfortable tend to fall on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Individuals who find such exotic experiences more positive and enjoyable tend to lean more liberal. These studies don’t approach it from a political perspective but rather the lens of personal behavior traits that are very likely biologically motivated. I’m not too familiar with all the details but find the topic fascinating. I’ll have to get more specific details from my coworker, because I feel I’m not explaining this very well.

[Styles Bitchley]

all programming is not meant to provide role models or heroes.

I don't think that all programming does this, but some really does. I think that the impressionability of kids via television was the impetus behind Sesame Street and the many other kids shows that followed. Think of all the after school specials we were exposed to in the '70s and '80s...they were designed to provide moral guidance. Lots of family-oriented sit coms were carefully crafted to provide these lessons, often with virtuous parents who taught lessons. Think of Steven and Elyse Keaton or Cliff and Clair Huxtable. Clearly some programming is designed to provide role models and heroes and some is not.

I absolutely agree. I was challenging other arguments, namely that content today somehow doesn’t provide any role models or focuses almost entirely on antiheroes. I think the increase in overall content means all types of stories are presented, whereas in the past many other points of view were not given a voice.

That's true. There sure are many, many options.

Absolutely, and I think that can lead many to feel overwhelmed by so many viewpoints. That’s not a criticism of any point of view, just a comment on individual’s many reactions to all the options.

This may be getting into the weeds a bit, but there is growing psychological literature drawing a connection between individual’s response to variety and complexity in general and their political inclinations. I’ve had several discussions on the topic with a colleague over the last few years, though not lately. Essentially, several recent psychological studies have shown that individuals who view new and unique experiences, such as trying a new foreign cuisine, as a negative and uncomfortable tend to fall on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Individuals who find such exotic experiences more positive and enjoyable tend to lean more liberal. These studies don’t approach it from a political perspective but rather the lens of personal behavior traits that are very likely biologically motivated. I’m not too familiar with all the details but find the topic fascinating. I’ll have to get more specific details from my coworker, because I feel I’m not explaining this very well.

My experience has been that it has more to do with class than politics. Wherever I’ve been in the world, eating foreign / international cuisine is a marker of being a successful or well educated professional.

Yes, I think we’re thoroughly in the weeds!

[T.Q.]

This may be getting into the weeds a bit, but there is growing psychological literature drawing a connection between individual’s response to variety and complexity in general and their political inclinations. I’ve had several discussions on the topic with a colleague over the last few years, though not lately. Essentially, several recent psychological studies have shown that individuals who view new and unique experiences, such as trying a new foreign cuisine, as a negative and uncomfortable tend to fall on the more conservative side of the political spectrum. Individuals who find such exotic experiences more positive and enjoyable tend to lean more liberal. These studies don’t approach it from a political perspective but rather the lens of personal behavior traits that are very likely biologically motivated. I’m not too familiar with all the details but find the topic fascinating. I’ll have to get more specific details from my coworker, because I feel I’m not explaining this very well.

LOL

Me conservative type. Me don't understand complek things. Me no like far-away food or them ways. Me just simple caveman. Me wish me was more soffisticatated.

[T.Q.]

March 5th, 1981

No episode aired.

[CBS 9:00] People's Choice Awards [special]
With Carol Burnett, Barbara Mandrell, Alan Alda, Burt Reynolds.
The selection of favorite performers in flims, television and music, telecast from Hollywood, as voted on by the general public.

However, just out of curiosity I looked it up and SUPRISE:

1981 People's Choice Award for Favorite New TV Drama:
Magnum P.I.

1981 People's Choice Award for Favorite Actor in a New TV Series:
Tom Selleck
Honoured for: Magnum, P.I.