Is 'edgy' better?

Each year, one or more new series is described as being 'edgy', or pushing the envelope, by using material which was previously deemed as being too graphic or offensive. As an example, CSI and other forensic shows often display autopsies in a manner that would not have been seen 10 or 15 years ago. Increased use of profanity and explicit scenes of sexual encounters are also considered edgy.

Does 'edgy' content by itself make a program better?

Does increased edginess desensitize a person?

Does the media have a long-term goal in mind for increasing edginess?

What do you think?

reply to post by qisoa


To me "edgy" = find something else to watch. I find most broadcast TV comedies and dramas offensive.

I'd add more to the thought but it's time to go shopping.

Take care.
SL

I've never really heard any tv shows being described as edgy over here. No one really minds about the swearing and that if it's after the watershed. The only exception may be the "C" word. I'm not phased by swearing any more, I use it as part of my vocabulary without realising all the time

Edgy is better, because it pushes boundaries. I don't like to be stuck watching the same thing over and over again. I don't think it desensitises you to violence, when I was younger I used to laugh when I saw someone get blown up or shot in a film, now I cringe and imagine how much it would hurt

Does 'edgy' content by itself make a program better?

Does increased edginess desensitize a person?

Does the media have a long-term goal in mind for increasing edginess?

No, being edgy does not, in and of itself, make a show better. It still has to fit the context of the scene and the show.

I think that increased use of it does desensitize people a bit, but TV is actually slower than other media and than society, in this....so can't really put the blame there. Movies and just life in general have grown more culturally corrupt.

I don't think it's the long-term goal of the media. Their only goal is higher profits. To do so though, they have to play to the larger audience, and these days, that means more sex, more gore, more swearing, etc.

I'm all for it, if it fits the concept. There are plenty of tools for parents to ensure their young ones aren't exposed to it, if they'd just use them. That's the bigger problem. For example, I went and saw SAW 3D the other night at the theater. You wouldn't believe how many parents brought in kids in single digits, or barely in the pre-teens... Totally irresponsible.

reply to post by qisoa


i think increased edginess gets boring. all of media is doing it now, and i'm sorry, but its plain to see where stuff is going. i can imagine a pop star completely naked, i can imagine a crime scene on tv with a head smashed like a watermellon, etc, etc, etc.

its just lame. media is pouring their efforts and energy into edginess when they should be finding the newest, best talent and cultivating great writers, musicians, etc.

back in the day, monarchs financed art. today corporations are the stewards of culture. they have a responsibility in my opinion to finance good art. ANY SONG or ANY SHOW pushed hard enough will get ratings/downloads etc, with corporate backing. so the profit motive is out as an excuse to me.

if cbs picked up great indie writers and let them go wild on truly edgy plot lines and not just gore and violence and sex. if rca picked up truly great muscicians and let them flourish with mass radio backing and advertisement, we'd all be better off.

and yea, ofcourse it desensatizes us. anyone who says it doesn't is kidding themselvs. anytime you view something you've never seen before the reaction is going to be harsher then after you've seen it 50 times, 100 times, and so on.