And why did they censor all her scenes? Because her son is gay, and in this episode she meets her son's boyfriend's mother. I read the episode guide to confirm my suspicion, and when I read that there was an actual storyline for Bree, it became obvious that I was right.
WHAT THE FUCK, CHANNEL 5.
Tell me what's the point of airing an episode when one storyline is completely truncated? Is it because of the "wedding gift" part? How utterly ridiculous. How the hell can they just cut out ONE ENTIRE STORYLINE? It wasn't even like last week's, when they clearly censored the gay porn DVD cover; it's ONE WHOLE STORYLINE.
Is it just me, or is this uber-censorship, which I've never experienced before (but then, I hardly watch anything on Channel 5 besides DH, Lost, Harper's Island and American Idol), completely ridiculous that it just boggles the mind and defies all logic and good sense? I honestly can't even begin to put into words how stupid I find it. I'm not even a huge Desperate Housewives fan, but it just seems idiotic to me to cut out one whole storyline about one of the main characters just because it has some/a lot/I don't know 'cause I didn't get to watch it homosexuality content.
Fuck this crap. Seriously. It's precisely what this country does: We want these imports from the West, but we're not ready to embrace all of it. We want their TV series, we want their investments, we want their MNCs; but when push comes to shove, we begin to pick and choose, as if we can really weed out the so-called "undesirable" elements. Just take a simple episode of a TV show: It's a one-hour show and I only got to see forty-five minutes of it. Did all of it make sense? Yes, the stuff that I got to see all made sense. But what about the next episode? Bree's son isn't going to stop being gay; are they going to cut out ALL her storylines? What's the point of even bringing in this show? If not, how the hell am I supposed to follow the rest of her storyline if I missed such a huge chunk?
This is censorship at its most crass, most base, most incoherent. I fucking hate it. I'm so glad I don't watch Brothers and Sisters on our stupid English channel; if I find out about all the hot Kevin/Scotty make-out scenes way after the fact, I'd cut a bitch. I've always crusaded against censorship and I've always been irritated when cable stations/Channel 5 edit out swear words and "unsavoury" content; but their treatment of today's Desperate Housewives episode has officially sunk to a new low.
And the funniest part? This is DESPITE a freaking "mature themes" parental advisory warning. SERIOUSLY? And even funnier? Last week when I saw the PG theme I was wondering if it wasn't because of the pretty dark storyline involving Edie Britt's husband and how he lied about starting the fire at the pub, and in the process of covering his own ass, fingered another guy as the culprit and thereby screwing up that guy's life. I thought it was rated PG because, I don't know, kids shouldn't learn from such bad behaviour, but when Andrew (Bree's son) showed up with his boyfriend at Bree's house for dinner, I finally saw the light.
How damn sad for this country that homosexual content is deemed "bad" enough to warrant a PG rating, but not content that is actually, and universaly, morally abhorrent. Blaming someone else for your own crimes is clearly wrong, nd "bad" if we want to use that word, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see how THAT wouldn't warrant a PG rating, but homosexuality does.
I'M SO IRRITATED. Our double standards are shocking sometimes, even though I should be used to it by now. When you really think hard about it, it's disgusting to deem a person's sexual orientation as capable of possessing a moral value when things like murder and lying and cheating get free passes over and over in the media without so much as a PG rating.
I'm not even saying those things should be censored; I'm 100% against censorship. All I'm saying is that it makes no sense, at least to me, that shows with obvious morally-abhorrent content escape the censors, but not shows that merely feature some gay dude, or some gay storyline. SERIOUSLY. What the hell is the big deal? And if you really want my honest opinion, the sooner we teach everyone that gays are human beings, the better. This whole discrimination shit is utterly ridiculous.
I just read that the Bree storyline involved her and her son's boyfriend's mother competing for the couple's affections.
Is Channel 5 worried that once parents with gay kids see the episode, they'd start accepting their gay children? Because, you know, it's so damn terrible that a parent would actually accept and continue to love a child that comes out to them?
Fuck you, Channel. FUCK. YOU.
I'm not even the biggest proponent for gay rights. I sympathise and support, but I don't go out of my way, and sometimes I find some of their methods questionable and kind of whiny. But it just aggravates me so much that the mainstream disdain for gay people, who are really just people, is so strong that one whole storyline can actually be censored, and when I read about it I don't even see the big fucking fuss.
Oh wait, even better: Just clicked on the TWoP recap, and guess what was the first thing I read? "Previously, Andrew and Alex told Bree they were engaged."
I DIDN'T SEE THIS IN THE PREVIOUSLY. I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THIS IN LAST WEEK'S EPISODE.
Gosh, I'm SO mad. Someone at Channel 5 is going to get a really angry email from me. RIGHT NOW.
Just shot off my angry email. (Speaking of angry emails, I still haven't emailed Starhub about what Supersports did to my Roger match.)
To whom it may concern:
I write as an extremely exasperated viewer of Desperate Housewives, which is shown on Channel 5 every Mondays at 10 p.m. I noticed that today's episode (Episode 11) ended at 10.45 p.m., which was 15 minutes earlier than the time at which it usually ends. I was perplexed and confused, until I realised that an entire storyline - Bree Hodge's storyline - was censored. There can only be one reason for the censorship: It involved her gay son and her boyfriend.
I am extremely irritated, exasperated, and angry at your network for the censorship for the following reasons:
1. On the most basic level, I wonder how you expect your viewer to follow a storyline if part of it was cut out from one episode. I guess I should be grateful that I at least got to see the cold open, but what is the point when I didn't get to see the follow-up? Even better, I had to resort to a recap on Television Without Pity to, first, catch up on what happened in this episode, and second, find out that Bree's son and his boyfriend are ENGAGED. And this supposedly happened in the previous episode, which, once again, I did not get to see. Your censorship has effectively left Bree's storyline utterly incoherent and incomplete, not to mention truncated, and I do not appreciate having to go through the trouble of finding out what happened in an episode online when I supposedly have watched the episode on Channel 5.
2. This week's censorship has officially sunk censorship on your channel to an all-new low. I can accept editing out swear words and editing out the cover of the gay porn DVD that Bree and Andrew was holding last week; but I cannot - CANNOT - accept censoring one entire storyline. To add insult to injury, this censorship was done despite already rating the episode PG. May I ask what was the point of the PG warning when the storyline wasn't even aired? I feel extremely insulted as a heterosexual female who enjoys the vapid stupidity and melodrama of this show. I feel like my intelligence has been undermined, as if the executives in your channel have a better understanding of what I can or cannot accept - and I'd be the first to tell you that that is dead wrong. I thought the point of a PG rating was so that the viewer has notice of the "mature" content of the episode, so that he can have the discretion of choosing whether to watch it, not so that he can have his choice taken away by whoever decides at Channel 5/Mediacorp.
3. I understand, although it annoys me greatly to say so, that homosexuality is a sensitive subject in this country. But that does not warrant the censorship of an entire storyline from one episode that effectively renders the rest of the season in respect to that storyline incoherent. I do not see the sense in wanting to broadcast Desperate Housewives, but not ALL of Desperate Housewives. If you are not going to have the decency of doing justice to the show that the people behind it have created, for the love of my sanity, please do not bother broadcasting it, and if you are going to broadcast it anyway, at least warn me that a quarter of the episode is not going to be aired. Besides, what is so wrong about broadcasting the episode at 11? Or even 12? I'd stay up to watch it if it means I get a complete episode.
Watching this week's episode of Desperate Housewives on your channel has reinforced all the reasons I have stopped watching so many good shows on Channel 5. There is just no point in watching a TV show that has been censored senseless. I wonder why you even bothered bringing in Brothers and Sisters when Kevin Walker has been gay since Episode 1. If you are really so interested in keeping with the national policy of treating homosexuality as a taboo subject, don't bring in shows that feature prominent gay characters. Don't continue broadcasting a show whose secondary character has come out as gay. I do not appreciate having my intelligence insulted by your blatant, senseless and unapologetic censorship; it does nothing for my enjoyment of a drama series, and in fact, only serves to aggravate me - not to mention waste my time when I have to go online to catch up on what happened in the censored parts.
I am utterly disappointed in and disgusted with Channel 5. I have never seen such blatant censorship before in my life - but then again, I have largely stopped watching American shows on Channel 5 anyway, apart from American Idol and Desperate Housewives. And witnessing what you did to Episode 11 of Desperate Housewives gives me zero faith that you'd do better in the future.
They BETTER give me a decent reply, or I'd be even more pissed off. I might even send another angry email. Because, yeah, just don't mess with me when I'm fucking irritated.