Skins Isn't Kiddie Porn, It's Just Lame
Critic: Controversy detracts from bigger problem: 'lack of quality'
By John Johnson,  Newser Staff
Posted Jan 21, 2011 6:58 PM CST
In this publicity image released by MTV, James Newman portrays Tony, right, and Sofia Black-D’Elia portrays Tea in 'Skins.'   (AP Photo/MTV)

(Newser) – First things first: The MTV teen drama Skins doesn't dabble in child pornography, writes Jace Lacob in the Daily Beast. The scene in question featuring a teen boy's naked butt isn't even "remotely sexually suggestive," he writes, and thus doesn't meet the criteria for breaking indecency rules. (See for yourself—the video clip is provided with Lacob's column on DB.) In fact, the whole brouhaha smells like a publicity stunt and detracts us from the real problem with the show: "An appalling lack of quality."

The British original on which it is based "was groundbreaking in its honest depiction of millennial teenage life," and it skillfully "mined the rich interior lives of the lads and lasses of Bristol for narrative effect," he writes. This US version is "wooden" in comparison. It goes heavy on raunch for the sake of raunch, even if it doesn't break any laws. "Illegal or no, this cheap-looking remake doesn’t do the audience any favors."
 

My Take on This Story
Show results without voting  |  
27%
47%
4%
3%
13%
4%