A Plausible Alternative to Censorship?
- Thread starter Einherjar86
- Start date
Badbird
Never banned
I can see why they are used but there are so many things fucked up about the rating system it not even funny.
R-rated films actually enjoy a very competent advertising campaign. The primary problem stems from the fact that before those films eventually earn an R rating they're subjected to severe censorship by the MPAA in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. NC-17 films are highly discriminated against when it comes to advertising and theaters picking them up. Therefore, films are forced to cut questionable material in order to obtain the R rating, although it might detract from the film's artistic merit.
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
America has such a pussy culture with censorship. Over in East Asia, more adult stuff is shown to younger audiences. However, in that culture, younger people seem to steer away from the more adult stuff because stuff aimed for their age group simply entertains them more.
Examples of this "more adult stuff is shown to younger audiences" is the difference between the Japanese broadcast and American broadcast of animes. The things that America usually cuts down are the cursing, blood and brutality. In a graphic novel, I noticed that breasts were shown by a girl who was bathing. On tv in the US, the breasts were taken out. This is a graphic novel aimed at a teen audience.
Personally, I think censorship can be retarded. If you're creating something for a specific crowd, then it's pretty retarded to change pieces of it simply because one crowd gets offended by it.
Examples of this "more adult stuff is shown to younger audiences" is the difference between the Japanese broadcast and American broadcast of animes. The things that America usually cuts down are the cursing, blood and brutality. In a graphic novel, I noticed that breasts were shown by a girl who was bathing. On tv in the US, the breasts were taken out. This is a graphic novel aimed at a teen audience.
Personally, I think censorship can be retarded. If you're creating something for a specific crowd, then it's pretty retarded to change pieces of it simply because one crowd gets offended by it.
derek
Grey Eminence
Vimana
Member
- Mar 2, 2007
- 11,671
- 20
- 38
We are such a sheltered country. The problem with sheltering is, it makes the ones being sheltered more eager to experience what is forbidden to them. This forbidden experience will usually be more irresponsible than if they were not to be forbidden from it at all.
I think a better alternative to censorship would be better regulation of media.
I think a better alternative to censorship would be better regulation of media.
I hear waht einherjar is trying to express but I still dont see the problem. Theres plenty of NC 17 stuff on satelite/cable. I wonder how important the Theaters are anymore anyhow. Ive seen a crapload of them torn down over my life span due to changing entertainment tools. I also question what artistic merit has been lost by turning something down a few knotches. I would be willing to bet its alot harder to make a good movie without all the foul language, titie shots, or grafic blood spurting than it is to carry your "artistic value" by being sick on your sleeve.
I guess some people just need to see sick stuff to be entertained and frankly I think thats sad.
I guess some people just need to see sick stuff to be entertained and frankly I think thats sad.
Badbird
Never banned
:zombie:
Well some movies were meant to be that way so to toned it down to Nc-17 to R is bullshit.You are just an old person from what I can tell.Movies are a art forum and entertainment forum.Movies like Transformers are for entertainment and then there stuff like The Wrestler which is a artistic movie.If every movie was the same happy ending it would get boring so you need to have some violent or dark movies.
Movies should
Ya OK, my point still stands as valid. Rateings are in place for a purpose, they serve that purpose well, its not going to change, deal with it.
Theres larger demons to fight in this country, like immigrants, globalism, elite boy clubs, huge spred in work force wages. Who gives a fuck if there is a systom in place to call movies or stupid music for what they are.
Theres larger demons to fight in this country, like immigrants, globalism, elite boy clubs, huge spred in work force wages. Who gives a fuck if there is a systom in place to call movies or stupid music for what they are.
derek
Grey Eminence
You can consider the rating system without saying it in more important than every other problem the world has at the moment, so back off a bit.
Also, I think there is a general consensus that young children shouldn't be watching porn or gorefests, but the structures presently in place and the philosophy behind the ratings system are very much misguided.
Also, I think there is a general consensus that young children shouldn't be watching porn or gorefests, but the structures presently in place and the philosophy behind the ratings system are very much misguided.
Badbird
Never banned
Well children shouldn't be anyway near porn movies or gorefests so if there mom and dad let them watch it the parents are brainless.I get why ratings are around but they should fix the system up and try to make it good.
Im not sure whats misguided, perhaps you could elaborate.
I believe einherjar and I discussed this along time ago in the roots of this thread, but I am of the opinion that it is the fault of the industry themselves if they choose not to promote a NC17 movie but will a R. Its not like anybody is stopping "artists" from makeing a NC17, it seems according to einherjar that the problem is in promotion.
Then Im not sure what NC17 actually stands for ? If its got something to do with the age of 17 I cant see how thats too late to introduce someones children to bullshit. As if they cant find anything they want on the internet anyhow. Or grow up watching the local news stations dramatize everything bad that goes down around town. I think news stations should be drawn in on a choke collar. I think taking pictures of someone without their permision should be outlawed with severe punishment. Crap like the drama rags do, I hate that garbage. Rite to privacy is not respected so there should be laws or it should otherwise be legal for whoevers privacy is being invaded to punch the cmaeramen in the face and take and destroy their cameras. But NOOO we cant do that... its a "violent crime". Ya know there are reasons people get "violent", when are we going to have laws that stop the instigators ? That is where this country and others have become pussified.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
Badbird
Never banned
musicevangelist
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 111
- 0
- 16
The main aim of most movies is to make money. It is a business, so studios will do what they have to do to try and make back their money. When you have invested $100m in a film, there is a desire for it to do well at the box office. If this means cutting out some shots of boobs or not showing someone beeing force fed their own ear then so be it.
Film makers know what they are getting into when they make their movies. One question I have is where is the artistic merit in a film like Hostel or the Saw series? Why should this not be rated so that parents have a quick easy method of telling what is or is not suitable?
The suggestion that ratings should be abolished is in my opinion a foolish one. That the ratings systems needs changes, yes I can agree with that, but not abolition. Standardising of ratings is needed and a more liberal attitude to sex/nudity combined with a more conservative attitude to violence would work well.
Film makers know what they are getting into when they make their movies. One question I have is where is the artistic merit in a film like Hostel or the Saw series? Why should this not be rated so that parents have a quick easy method of telling what is or is not suitable?
The suggestion that ratings should be abolished is in my opinion a foolish one. That the ratings systems needs changes, yes I can agree with that, but not abolition. Standardising of ratings is needed and a more liberal attitude to sex/nudity combined with a more conservative attitude to violence would work well.
Badbird
Never banned
musicevangelist
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 111
- 0
- 16
Ok, fair point but there is still an aim from the studio to make their money back, and you still have not argued about what makes gore and sex an artistic choice. These styles of movie making are still all about the money, take the Saw series as a point, makes its money back and rated R18 here in NZ.
Badbird
Never banned
So Saw is rated R18 and still makes its money back?R18 sounds like your Nc-17 or is there a even higher rating then that?
musicevangelist
Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 111
- 0
- 16
From what I can find on the NZ Censorship board website it appears that R18 is the highest rating available, other than that I believe it get banned.
Badbird
Never banned
BBC says sorry after Rage Against the Machine singer swears on radio show
The BBC apologised today after US rock band Rage Against the Machine - battling with The X Factor winner Joe McElderry to be the Christmas No 1 - turned the airwaves blue on the Radio 5 Live breakfast show.
Rage Against The Machine were guests on the morning show, hosted by Nicky Campbell and Shelagh Fogarty, and invited to play a live version of their song, Killing in the Name.
The band had been asked not to sing the final refrain, "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" but singer Zack de la Rocha sang it anyway.
It was not until the fourth repetition that the breakfast show production team faded out the microphone and returned to the studio.
"Get rid of it!" Fogarty could be heard shouting in the background. "Sorry, we needed to get rid of that because that suddenly turned into something we weren't expecting," she told listeners. "Well, we were expecting it and we asked them not to do it and they did it anyway."
But Fogarty enjoyed revenge – of sorts – when she told listeners: "So buy Joe's records."
It remains to be seen whether the incident will affect sales of the two records, which are said to be neck and neck in the race to be Christmas number one.
Campbell had earlier introduced the song by saying: "Let's get Christmassy!"
Fans of the band commenting on the audio on YouTube suggested Radio 5 Live should not have been surprised by their behaviour.
"This was always gonna happen!" said one. Another added: "She actually sounds surprised they didn't do what she told them to do."
"5 Live breakfast featured a live broadcast of the song Killing in the Name by Rage Against the Machine. We had spoken to the band repeatedly beforehand and they had agreed not to swear. When they did we faded the band out and apologised immediately to anyone who was offended," a spokesman for the station said.
The 5 Live Breakfast editor, Richard Jackson, defended the decision to broadcast the live performance by the rock band, despite the fact the lyrics contained numerous uses of the word "fuck".
"When Rage Against the Machine swore on Breakfast this morning, some people felt we should have seen it coming. The song Killing in the Name includes the F-word in the lyrics – and when the band accepted our request for an interview for today's programme and then agreed to perform the song live from Los Angeles, we were aware of the need to address this issue," Jackson said on the Radio 5 Live blog.
"Which is why our producer had several conversations with the band and their management about the requirement not to swear. We told them it was a breakfast show. We took them at their word when they said there would be no bad language. When it became clear on air they were including the F-words, we faded the song out and apologised.
"Not before we heard some swearing on air. We're sorry for that and I apologise again to anyone who was offended."
Jackson said the response from listeners had been mixed. "A minority were angry or offended. Some thought we had been naïve. A fair number reckoned the song was awful. But many people said they find these live, unplanned, unpredictable moments the highlight of their listening – and they were quick to tell us so."
It was the second four-letter incident on a BBC national radio network in two days after singer George Michael swore on Chris Evans's BBC Radio 2 drivetime show.
Asked if he would ever appear on Top Gear, Michael said: "Other than the fact I'd be afraid of coming last on that fucking scoreboard."
Evans told Michael he could not swear on the show and the singer later said he "sincerely apologised". At the end of the show Evans added: "Once again we apologise for some colourful language."
What do people think of this?
The BBC apologised today after US rock band Rage Against the Machine - battling with The X Factor winner Joe McElderry to be the Christmas No 1 - turned the airwaves blue on the Radio 5 Live breakfast show.
Rage Against The Machine were guests on the morning show, hosted by Nicky Campbell and Shelagh Fogarty, and invited to play a live version of their song, Killing in the Name.
The band had been asked not to sing the final refrain, "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me!" but singer Zack de la Rocha sang it anyway.
It was not until the fourth repetition that the breakfast show production team faded out the microphone and returned to the studio.
"Get rid of it!" Fogarty could be heard shouting in the background. "Sorry, we needed to get rid of that because that suddenly turned into something we weren't expecting," she told listeners. "Well, we were expecting it and we asked them not to do it and they did it anyway."
But Fogarty enjoyed revenge – of sorts – when she told listeners: "So buy Joe's records."
It remains to be seen whether the incident will affect sales of the two records, which are said to be neck and neck in the race to be Christmas number one.
Campbell had earlier introduced the song by saying: "Let's get Christmassy!"
Fans of the band commenting on the audio on YouTube suggested Radio 5 Live should not have been surprised by their behaviour.
"This was always gonna happen!" said one. Another added: "She actually sounds surprised they didn't do what she told them to do."
"5 Live breakfast featured a live broadcast of the song Killing in the Name by Rage Against the Machine. We had spoken to the band repeatedly beforehand and they had agreed not to swear. When they did we faded the band out and apologised immediately to anyone who was offended," a spokesman for the station said.
The 5 Live Breakfast editor, Richard Jackson, defended the decision to broadcast the live performance by the rock band, despite the fact the lyrics contained numerous uses of the word "fuck".
"When Rage Against the Machine swore on Breakfast this morning, some people felt we should have seen it coming. The song Killing in the Name includes the F-word in the lyrics – and when the band accepted our request for an interview for today's programme and then agreed to perform the song live from Los Angeles, we were aware of the need to address this issue," Jackson said on the Radio 5 Live blog.
"Which is why our producer had several conversations with the band and their management about the requirement not to swear. We told them it was a breakfast show. We took them at their word when they said there would be no bad language. When it became clear on air they were including the F-words, we faded the song out and apologised.
"Not before we heard some swearing on air. We're sorry for that and I apologise again to anyone who was offended."
Jackson said the response from listeners had been mixed. "A minority were angry or offended. Some thought we had been naïve. A fair number reckoned the song was awful. But many people said they find these live, unplanned, unpredictable moments the highlight of their listening – and they were quick to tell us so."
It was the second four-letter incident on a BBC national radio network in two days after singer George Michael swore on Chris Evans's BBC Radio 2 drivetime show.
Asked if he would ever appear on Top Gear, Michael said: "Other than the fact I'd be afraid of coming last on that fucking scoreboard."
Evans told Michael he could not swear on the show and the singer later said he "sincerely apologised". At the end of the show Evans added: "Once again we apologise for some colourful language."
What do people think of this?
