Episodes recut for different markets
quote:
Originally posted by FX:
[b]…but getting back to censorship, blackie brought up a good point, cutting for commercials which then use sex to sell, and you brought up england not allowing weird/violent stuff in…so do you think in the us censorship is less consistent and more commercially driven whereas the uk seems to be making a more consistent statement with their banning of certain works?[/b]
Actually, I think that film and video censorship in Great Britain is far more inconsistent, arbitrary and unfair than in the US (though the ratings board/MPAA *do* give ’em a fair run for their money), but we’re essentially talking about broadcast television, and on that subject I’d best defer to a resident. I’m not exposed to GB’s broadcast rules and regulations in regards to programming, but I think that they’re allowed to get away with far more across the pond than we are in the US. What frightens US broadcasters is *explicitness*. Hinting around about sex is okay, but showing anyone *enjoying* the act is out of the question. Showing a cleaned-up version of violence is fine, but show the horrifying after-effects of said violence, and that’s out. US TV pussyfoots around the “taboo” topics of sex and violence without providing anything close to the truth about what these things are. And this is as true about commercials as it is about programming. Sure, advertisers are going to use sex to sell their product — it’s one of the basic human drives, and to associate their product with sex is going to capture people’s attention. Of course films are going to feature violence — the destructive urge and the need to release it vicariously is part of our psyche, and to some people, seeing someone having their eye gouged out by a zombie is as good as it gets when it comes to releasing this urge. But when it comes to TV broadcasting, I would rather be exposed to these things *honestly* and *openly* than treated like a 5-year-old who might take these things the *wrong way*. Is US TV censorship commercially driven? You bet. Advertisers are more than happy to sneak a little innocuous innuendo in a 30-second commercial, but if a TV show pushes the envelope farther than what the sponsor is willing to show in its own commercials, then that sponsor is going to worry about losing the audience in Topeka (no offense to any Topekans in the crowd) and pull their advertisements. No ads=no network money=no show. So, yes. US TV censorship is *incredibly* commercial-driven, moreso than in the UK, where they don’t have to answer to sponsors.
Nwmonikr: I have to disagree with you over the lack of quality in today’s films, and the reliance on SFX and gore to sell them. Before the Hays Code went into effect, Hollywood films were often at *least* as risque as today’s network fare. Soon afterward, though, and until (I think) 1968, the Hays Code determined what mainstream Hollywood fare could depict, and did so stringently. Hollywood films could not under any circumstance venture into territory that the independent studios could, and after the code was lifted, inched into the territory slowly until we are where we’re at now. If Hollywood film had been allowed to develop unfettered by the Hays Code, the sex and gore we see now could have been present back in the 50’s. And, as for quality, 95% of movies have *always* stunk. There were just as many turkeys let loose back in 1932 as there will be in 2002. You just don’t hear about them because nobody wants to remember them, and the same will be said for our current crop in 2072. As for actors, most of the leading lights back then were as insipid and those parading around right now. I mean, *Nelson Eddy*??? What were people *thinking*??? I think that there are a number of extremely talented actors out there right now (Derek Jacobi, Kenneth Branagh for the classical folk; Steve Buscemi for the character-actor fans; DeNiro, fercryin’outloud, who’s great in about 75% of his work…just to name a few on my list) that can stand the test of time.
But, as Dennis Miller says, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
–Aleck