Why Is MTV Skittish About Skins?

  • 20 Comments
 
Why Is MTV Skittish About <i>Skins</i>?  

Multiple companies are pulling ads for MTV’s Skins as the series faces accusations of child pornography. With ratings falling for the show’s second episode, I can’t help but wonder: Shouldn’t this kind of controversy be a good thing?

By the show’s second episode, Taco Bell, Subway, Wrigley, General Motors, Schick Hydro and H&R Block had all pulled their ads from the show, leaving MTV to use promos for other shows to fill the dead air, after the show suddenly became the target of concerns over whether the show could fall foul of federal child pornography laws. The problem is that many of the actors in the show – a remake of a British series that sells itself on a blunt attitude towards sex and drugs amongst its teenage characters – are, unusually for television or movies, actually teenagers, leading some, even within MTV itself, to wonder whether the show has gone too far (Famed prudes the Parents Television Council haven’t helped by calling the show “the most dangerous program that has ever been foisted on your children” even before it had seen an episode).

Maybe it’s because of the internal concern, but MTV has stayed remarkably quiet on the matter, saying that the show will “connect with the audience it was created for,” and hoping that “advertisers will take advantage of the opportunity to reach them,” but with ratings falling pretty much in half this week after having the highest-rated series premiere on the network to date, it’s clear that the show is in real trouble. So why aren’t MTV taking the obvious route to help it?

Okay, make that two most obvious routes. The first is: Work out whether or not the show does go too far, and re-edit episodes to make sure that’s not happening. And then, secondly, play up the controversy for all it’s worth. Go out there and be bold about the show: “We can confidently say that we are not breaking any laws concerning indecency, but we understand that people are worried because it is such a shocking series that needs to be seen to be believed.” It’s not as if the controversy is going away anytime soon, so why not use it? The series is meant to be about teenagers being teenagers, and about rebellion, so I don’t see why MTV wouldn’t want to make “You can’t handle it, Grandad!” into a selling point for the show, if they believed in it.

Maybe that’s the problem, of course: That, for all the faux disapproval surrounding Jersey Shore or Teen Mom or [Name Your MTV Reality Show Of Choice Here], MTV doesn’t really want to be thought of as responsible for something actually controversial. We’ll see on the 31st, when the “problem” episode of the show is due to air. Originally, it featured the bare buttocks of a 17 year old actor… but will those make it to air? And, if they do, will anyone be prepared for the fact that the world will still be the same afterwards, the world having realized that, hey! It’s only a television show?

  • John Lees

    Given that the legal age of consent is 16 here in the UK, the teenage cast regularly getting naked and screwing each other was never really a problem for the original “Skins”. So all this controversy being stirred up by the American remake is quite amusing. The PTC would have crapped their pants watching a then-teenage Charlie Hunnam getting rimmed then porked in the ass by Aiden Gillen in the UK’s “Queer as Folk”.

  • Bill Reed

    Yeah, isn’t Teen Mom much more dangerous, in that it’s (a) real, and (b) teaches young viewers that you can be a sexually irresponsible young dolt, and pawn the consequences off on MTV?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    The PTC is ridiculous (can’t stop thinking about Hunnam). They tried to do this same thing to Gossip Girl (can’t stop thinking about Hunnam). But, The CW took the logical route and used their commentary as promotional material (can’t stop thinking about Hunnam).

    It’s so weird to think of Jax having gay sex on TV. XD

  • Yep

    I think the real crime isn’t the fact that it may be child pornography, I think the fact that it’s just a really bad version of a good UK show is.

  • Superman

    Yeah very true.

    And it seems this version is following the exact same storyline the first seaon of the UK Skins did. Can’t they just show the better UK product instead of remaking it into crap.

  • Qmail

    The thing is television people and movie people should just stop trying to give the argument of ‘thsi is real’ or ‘this is what society’ needs because their shows are neither. I don’t see any ‘unity’ or anything that is really good for society on television. Just empty slogans. You have to do something with your life and this is about doing nothing with your life. It’s garbage.

    The bad people in television are usually people who want things to change for the better. If they want the government to spend its money responsibly they are those bad Tea Party people. If they think that they stay sober and not steal or kill people, it’s those nasty religious people. If it’s those ISLAMIC foriegn people blowing everyone up, they’re not the problem it’s us that is the problem. Oh yeah, and Go Green, because it’s an empty slogan that will bury our economy and the air and water will still be polluted. Ofcourse this show is garbage. They don’t care about us. It’s the bad people that are the good guys.

  • Werkingman

    I find the show offensive. There is a seamy side of life, there is a nice side of life. This show is one sided. Thank heaven that most kids don’t act this destructively. There is no balance to this show, so how can you say this is the norm, that this accurately reflects what kids are up to? It’s offensive, and trades in degrading destructive behaviors. Spin it anyway you like, one does not need this show to be able to instill morals and a respect for the law in young people. This show seems to glorify the immorality, drugs, and destructive personal habits. So do you draw a line for portraying anything and everything visually? Oh it’s just TV? Really?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    I’ve been wondering this myself. Why do we remake shows instead of airing the successful original version? Doesn’t really make a mountain of sense to me.

    Shameless I get, there are a lot of references to each nations government programs that foreign markets wouldn’t understand. But a show like this? Or Being Human? It could probably be imported without any significant problems, for fucking pennies compared to what they’re paying to remake the entire damn thing.

  • Yobofofas

    There was recently several articles PRAISING MTV and Teen Mom and 16 & Preggers, for showing the “Reality” of teen pregnancy, and stating that these shows had helped LOWER teen pregnancy rates.

  • demoncat_4

    if mtv had any problem with skins they never would have even gone for the remake. but like all networks they need advertiser revenue which the show is losing all due to the characters having sex. as for the episode showing the butt odds are it will air but to placate the censors mtv will have the rear pixeled out or cut completly.

  • http://twitter.com/naciusari Ari N

    the problem is mainly about the subject of the show and the underage actors. It doesn’t matter if they pixel out the shot, it’s the simple fact that the actors are underage. That enough is ground for child porn allegations. They don’t have to show anything, the suggestion alone falls under child exploitation category.
    There are other tv shows in the US of the same caliber but the actors aren’t underage.

    US law isn’t UK law and advertisers aren’t ready to taint their corporate image as sponsors of child pornography.

  • Jimmystardust

    I can understand the issue here if the actors are underage. Just cracks me up that we Brits are stereotyped as ‘uptight’ and a show that barely raised an eyebrow over here causes such a stir across the pond.

  • John Lees

    It’s even weirder when you think about him having gay sex with Mayor Carcetti from “The Wire”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QKN5MHOI6VUFOYCTV5REK7M7A4 Jacob

    Never saw The Wire, but I’m sure that if I had, my mind would no longer exist.

  • knivesinwest11

    i will never understand this aspect of america. it’s immoral and terrible to show people having sex, yet it is perfectly fine to show people performing violent acts and blowing each others brains out. it’s completely absurd.

  • Exandakane

    The original show was naff – and the amount of debates I’ve witnessed concerning just how far from the truth Skins was with its representation of teenagers, especially when it stressed its own versimillitude – but this is a bit of a joke, America.

    By all means re-make the show, no one is going to miss it, but please tell the more hysterical opponents of the show (such as the PTC) to calm the heck down: you’re embarrassing us.

  • nik

    Maybe they don’t mind airing trash, but they’re shying away from filth? I’ll never accuse MTV of having standards but it’s a thought.

  • Sijo

    Hah, this reminds me of the scandal some time ago when a teenage girl was accused of posting child pornography online…for posting naked pictures of HERSELF. Now, I’m not saying that was a good idea, it was in fact pretty stupid, but some people wanted her arrested. Really, throw the C-P term into anything these days and you’ll have a media frenzy, regardless of context.

  • Tesseract77

    @Qmail – What the **** are you babbling about? You are clearly borderline illiterate and are a perfect example of what’s really wrong with our society – we let every uneducated piece of **** get on a soap box and grandstand on topics they couldn’t even begin to grasp. Go ahead and work on some misspelled Tea Party protest sign with the usual anti-middle eastern xenophobia thrown in and leave the socioeconomic dialog to others.

  • Bill Reed

    Except for all the girls trying to get knocked up so that MTV will give them lots of money.