“You Are My Friend” Tom Hanks as Mister Rogers

[Star-Crunch]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1075815001

 

[The Ween]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't see this being anything but boring, unless they make a comedy/parody out of it.

 

[Snake Plissken]

No T hanks.

 

[MegaPrime33]

I think this is actually a pretty good pairing. Can't honestly think of anyone else who could do it.

 

[Shawpaw]

I'm actually interested in seeing what they come up with.

 

[Shawpaw]

double post

 

[EVILFACE]

I think this is actually a pretty good pairing. Can't honestly think of anyone else who could do it.

Eddie Murphy, duh.

 

[TheJediQueen]

Eddie Murphy... actually not a bad idea, he has a nice personality and heart, he could do it and add some humor too.

 

[karamazov80]

I think this is perfect casting. As for Mr. Rogers, he was a good man trying to do genuinely good work. There's not much of that in this world, where everyone seems to be so selfish, thin-skinned, and looking for a fight. We can use a good injection of Mr. Rogers in society today. But knowing where we are, he would just be ridiculed and mocked by everybody. If you aren't cynical or polarizing, then everyone wants to knock you down.

Eddie Murphy... actually not a bad idea, he has a nice personality and heart, he could do it and add some humor too.

Heart isn't something I would associate with Eddie Murphy. . .ever. Funny, yes, if we're talking 1980s. I'm guessing EF is referring to Ms. Robinson's neighborhood.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mr-robinsons-neighborhood/n9117?snl=1

 

[Spazz]

I think this is perfect casting. As for Mr. Rogers, he was a good man trying to do genuinely good work. There's not much of that in this world, where everyone seems to be so selfish, thin-skinned, and looking for a fight. We can use a good injection of Mr. Rogers in society today. But knowing where we are, he would just be ridiculed and mocked by everybody. If you aren't cynical or polarizing, then everyone wants to knock you down.




Heart isn't something I would associate with Eddie Murphy. . .ever. Funny, yes, if we're talking 1980s. I'm guessing EF is referring to Ms. Robinson's neighborhood.

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mr-robinsons-neighborhood/n9117?snl=1

I disagree. I think pacification and arrested development are both a problem, and rampant. We have more than enough people begging for the Mr Rogerfication of children, (boys and girls). Rogers himself was in arrested development. Sure, it would be nice if we could thrive while being soft in a world made of nerf. We can't, because it isn't. That's not cynicism, but realism. You have to adapt. Raising soft kids leads to soft adults, in a world where soft people are dominated and exploited.

We need balance, not Mr. Rogers. You need to teach kids that co-operation, sharing and being nice to people leads to great things like kindness, reciprocity, community etc. We also need to teach kids that sometimes, some people need "a bop on the head", as Mr. Rogers naively put it. The ability to wield violence is a necessary part of life, in order to maintain the very community that results from kindness and sharing, despite the presence of bullies. Unfortunately, there are way too many Mr Rogers out their, trying to convince people otherwise.

 

[karamazov80]

I disagree. I think pacification and arrested development are both a problem, and rampant. We have more than enough people begging for the Mr Rogerfication of children, (boys and girls). Rogers himself was in arrested development. Sure, it would be nice if we could thrive while being soft in a world made of nerf. We can't, because it isn't. That's not cynicism, but realism. You have to adapt. Raising soft kids leads to soft adults, in a world where soft people are dominated and exploited.

We need balance, not Mr. Rogers. You need to teach kids that co-operation, sharing and being nice to people leads to great things like kindness, reciprocity, community etc. We also need to teach kids that sometimes, some people need "a bop on the head", as Mr. Rogers naively put it. The ability to wield violence is a necessary part of life, in order to maintain the very community that results from kindness and sharing, despite the presence of bullies. Unfortunately, there are way too many Mr Rogers out their, trying to convince people otherwise.

Sad. . .but this is what internet culture yields.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I disagree. I think pacification and arrested development are both a problem, and rampant. We have more than enough people begging for the Mr Rogerfication of children, (boys and girls). Rogers himself was in arrested development. Sure, it would be nice if we could thrive while being soft in a world made of nerf. We can't, because it isn't. That's not cynicism, but realism. You have to adapt. Raising soft kids leads to soft adults, in a world where soft people are dominated and exploited.

We need balance, not Mr. Rogers. You need to teach kids that co-operation, sharing and being nice to people leads to great things like kindness, reciprocity, community etc. We also need to teach kids that sometimes, some people need "a bop on the head", as Mr. Rogers naively put it. The ability to wield violence is a necessary part of life, in order to maintain the very community that results from kindness and sharing, despite the presence of bullies. Unfortunately, there are way too many Mr Rogers out their, trying to convince people otherwise.

 

[Spazz]

Sad. . .but this is what internet culture yields.

How is that sad? Would you ever enroll your kids in self-defense? Would you teach your kids to stop bullies from picking on others? And if so, is that sad or encouraging? I don't think there's anything sad about raising a young boy or girl to wield violence when they see bullies picking on other kids. Quite the opposite. It's sad that bullies exist both on the playground, and in the adult world. However, teaching kids how to deal with it shouldn't be considered cynical. When you teach kids self-defense and show them how to dominate bullies, you're teaching them how to create the kind of neighborhood Mr Rogers wants to live in, but wouldn't be able to sustain himself.

 

[BurningRage]

My junior high music teacher was a guest on his show when he was younger. He brought the vhs tape to class.

 

[TheJediQueen]

I think this is perfect casting. As for Mr. Rogers, he was a good man trying to do genuinely good work. There's not much of that in this world, where everyone seems to be so selfish, thin-skinned, and looking for a fight. We can use a good injection of Mr. Rogers in society today. But knowing where we are, he would just be ridiculed and mocked by everybody. If you aren't cynical or polarizing, then everyone wants to knock you down.

Not everyone. Youth and internet culture is a cruel narcissistic world unto itself, it's not the real world even though it can and does infect it.

Heart isn't something I would associate with Eddie Murphy. . .ever. Funny, yes, if we're talking 1980s.

Sorry, I forgot to hold up my sarcasm sign when I said that.

 

[karamazov80]

How is that sad? Would you ever enroll your kids in self-defense? Would you teach your kids to stop bullies from picking on others? And if so, is that sad or encouraging? I don't think there's anything sad about raising a young boy or girl to wield violence when they see bullies picking on other kids. Quite the opposite. It's sad that bullies exist both on the playground, and in the adult world. However, teaching kids how to deal with it shouldn't be considered cynical. When you teach kids self-defense and show them how to dominate bullies, you're teaching them how to create the kind of neighborhood Mr Rogers wants to live in, but wouldn't be able to sustain himself.

You don't seem to understand what Mr. Rogers was doing with his show, or where he was coming from. Just like other shows on PBS, it was geared largely toward kids who weren't getting education regarding proper behavior and strong social and emotional development at home. Or if they were, to supplement that learning with pro-social concepts. Sesame Street had a similar mission.

If you grow up living in poverty, with only others living in poverty for role models, you'll probably learn how to fight just fine, among other things.

Mr. Rogers teaches little kids about feeling good about themselves, about the positive side of life, about overcoming adversity in a functional way (not pitching a fit and whining), and about not judging other people, like kids with disabilities. And the bulk of research out there on brain development, and social development suggests that the stuff he was selling is what people need to develop trust and become functional adults.

The last thing a show like that needs to do is fill the minds of impressionable young kids without strong role models that they live in a world where people can't get along and have to solve their problems through violence. Of course the world can be a hard place, and we all have to adapt to that world the best way we can. But if you are to be able to successfully adjust to those harsh realities, then you need a strong foundation based in a confidence for who you are, and how people should behave with one another. Kids who don't get that end up with anxiety, depression, and isolation, with failed relationships throughout their lives.

 

[plasticcrapmoneywaster]

........Mister Rogers was THE man. Any imbecile can throw a punch. It takes a real man to have never needed to. In the overwhelming vast majority of conflicts encountered in life, violence is the path of the weak. Btw.. I have been in more than one or two fights in my life myself all out of nothing more than stupidity, youth and ego.

 

[Spazz]

You don't seem to understand what Mr. Rogers was doing with his show, or where he was coming from. Just like other shows on PBS, it was geared largely toward kids who weren't getting education regarding proper behavior and strong social and emotional development at home. Or if they were, to supplement that learning with pro-social concepts. Sesame Street had a similar mission.

If you grow up living in poverty, with only others living in poverty for role models, you'll probably learn how to fight just fine, among other things.

Mr. Rogers teaches little kids about feeling good about themselves, about the positive side of life, about overcoming adversity in a functional way (not pitching a fit and whining), and about not judging other people, like kids with disabilities. And the bulk of research out there on brain development, and social development suggests that the stuff he was selling is what people need to develop trust and become functional adults.

The last thing a show like that needs to do is fill the minds of impressionable young kids without strong role models that they live in a world where people can't get along and have to solve their problems through violence. Of course the world can be a hard place, and we all have to adapt to that world the best way we can. But if you are to be able to successfully adjust to those harsh realities, then you need a strong foundation based in a confidence for who you are, and how people should behave with one another. Kids who don't get that end up with anxiety, depression, and isolation, with failed relationships throughout their lives.

Yes, I'm familiar with the self-esteem movement, and all of the baby-boomer nonsense that coincided with it. Current identity politics is interwoven with this nonsense.

 

[Spazz]

........Mister Rogers was THE man. Any imbecile can throw a punch. It takes a real man to have never needed to. In the overwhelming vast majority of conflicts encountered in life, violence is the path of the weak. Btw.. I have been in more than one or two fights in my life myself all out of nothing more than stupidity, youth and ego.

This is the kind of nonsense people are being taught in schools. How do you control whether or not you need to wield violence? If you only use violence in self-defense, the person attacking you determines whether or not you need to use it. Meanwhile, when you call the police because of an incident, does that count as wielding violence? Or does it not count, if you ask someone else to wield violence on your behalf? Are you an anarchist? Or do you agree, that we need police officers in order to maintain a peaceful society? You seem to think that delegating the use of violence makes you a "real man". In reality, it makes you a coward.

Edit: My point is, in a world where bullies / authoritarian people exist, it is important for kids to toughen up, so that they have the physical ability and emotional strength to protect each other. To suggest that it is somehow a kid's fault that they're being bullied, because they weren't "man enough" to prevent themselves from being assaulted, is the worst advice you could give a child.

"Dad, Johnny threw sand in my face!"
"Well son, what could you have done to avoid that!"

Your child's dignity is no less important than yours. If you were institutionalized with people who assaulted you, would you blame yourself? Of course not. Neither should your kid. However, allowing your kid to be a victim is also unhealthy. That leads to emotional trauma and PTSD. Instead, if your kid is comfortable with violence, they can prevent, control and deter bullying toward them, and other people.

 

[plasticcrapmoneywaster]

This is the kind of nonsense people are being taught in schools. How do you control whether or not you need to wield violence? If you only use violence in self-defense, the person attacking you determines whether or not you need to use it. Meanwhile, when you call the police because of an incident, does that count as wielding violence? Or does it not count, if you ask someone else to wield violence on your behalf? Are you an anarchist? Or do you agree, that we need police officers in order to maintain a peaceful society? You seem to think that delegating the use of violence makes you a "real man". In reality, it makes you a coward.

You act like assault is an every day occurrence. If you laid a hand on me, my wife, or my kid of course I would drop your ass. However, 99% of conflicts can be resolved peacefully.