Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Censorship


Vigile

Recommended Posts

Japedo,

Well at least I know now what type of philosophy I'm dealing with when talking to you, Individualist anarchism.

 

 

Individualist Yes, anarchist.. Uhh No. You asked if there was other means, I said yes and listed them for you. It seems to me you want everyone to do everything for you so it makes your choice making simple, least amount of work for you, no matter how much work for everyone else. This is what drives the cost of things up. .

 

You believe having a human being tortured and beatin to a bloody pulp for 2 plus hours doesn't warrant an NC17 warning? Are you for real? This is exactly the point we're making. A 10 year old isn't suppose to be watching a rated R movie either, but I digress.

 

You are the one that tried to confirm you were right by using majority hyperbole my friend, I merely stated I don't follow the herd mentality is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too feel that it is not the governments responsibility to tell me what is okay/not okay for my children to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too feel that it is not the governments responsibility to tell me what is okay/not okay for my children to watch.

 

Sure, same here, and the MPAA, CARA, NATO, and the Appeals Board are not the government.

 

Japedo

An individual anarchist is a philosophical tradition that has a strong emphasis on equality of liberty and individual sovereignty, they believe that individual conscience and the pursuit of self-interest should not be constrained by any collective body or public authority. Trust me, it fits you.

 

[/qoute] "You believe having a human being tortured and beatin to a bloody pulp for 2 plus hours doesn't warrant an NC17 warning? Are you for real? This is exactly the point we're making. A 10 year old isn't suppose to be watching a rated R movie either, but I digress."

 

And how would a 10 year old be watching it with an R rating versus an NC17 rating? He can't get in a theater alone either way to view it. NC17 isn't the law, it is the choice of the theater to let them in or not. The FCC does not control ratings in theaters or what parents choose to pop into the DVD when their children are present.

 

 

"You are the one that tried to confirm you were right by using majority hyperbole my friend, I merely stated I don't follow the herd mentality is all."

 

Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.) CIA World Factbook on Intelligence. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the US Census does not collect information on religion.

 

Now please cite your statistical data shows that the majority of people are lazy idiots.

 

Vigile,

"A simple set of guidelines could be easily established to make sure definitions are not too broadly defined"

If it could be easily established, why don't you submit it? Speak up and let yourself be heard.

 

"Why let an unregulated group that doesn't represent my own and many other's values make value judgements for the rest of us?"

 

So should there be a group to regulate the group to ensure your needs are being met? Who's going to regulate them to make sure that they are meeting the needs of others? How do you represent every single person in America and still effectively warn parents about what a movie contains. You say that the group is unregulated. Should all theaters and the MPAA come under Federal or State law to regulate how ratings are done? Isn't that the very thing you are fighting against?

 

What difference is there in how many times something objectionable is done in a movie? Is murdering 1 person in a movie better than murdering 2? You are still exposing your child to murder. Is exposing a child to nudity only once in a movie more acceptable to a parent than exposing them twice in one movie? You are still exposing your child to nudity. Why not just say violent content and brief nudity? That is what they do! What is so censoring about saying a movie contains violence and brief nudity? Why not complain to your local movie theater and see what they have to say about the ratings? Believe me, they will be shocked to hear from a parent that ratings are too lax. Or, are you guys under 17 and just don't want to be restricted in what you can view in a privately owned theater.

 

Ok, let's think this through with getting rid of NC 17. What does NC 17 mean? "This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not necessarily mean obscene or pornographic; in the oft-accepted or legal meaning of those words. The Board does not and cannot mark films with those words. These are legal terms for courts to decide. The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be excessive violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children."

 

The National Association of Theater Owners as well as the MPAA both volunarily abide by what CARA, the Classification and Ratings Association, suggest. They don't have to, but they do. So ask yourself this, is it a problem with how the movie is rated or is it a problem with the theater you go to? If you want to see an NC-17 movie, go to a movie theater that doesn't abide by CARA. Producers and distributers don't even have to submit their movie for a rating. So isn't your problem with them as well? The very artists that you are defending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont see the difference between that and what they do now.

 

In any case, would you support a similar ratings system by a group with similar powers to deny access to others to be applied to web pages?

 

Just so I don't forget this one. Yes, I would. Why? Because if it is set up the same as CARA's ratings with an equivalent MPAA and NATO set up it would be completely voluntary for a webmaster to submit it for a rating. And before you say it, the NC 17 rating for a webpage and whether or not a child could view it would be controlled by the parent, because when it is on your computer it is effectively a theater in the home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system?

 

Well, just an idea, but they could just list items of interest:

 

This film contains 49 instances of graphic violence, 20+ F words, and brief nudity...

 

Not perfect, but at least it takes some of the subjective judgement out of the hands of a few and lets the parents make their own judgement from there. This way, instead of a censorship board, they would merely have a board of catalogers.

This is probably the best idea that I have heard so far. I have heard of individual ratings for graphic violence, nudity, and sex, but cataloging them and assigning a count to each removes the subjective ratings, which make it much harder for the system to be abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can parents know what movies are safe for their children without a rating system?

 

Well, just an idea, but they could just list items of interest:

 

This film contains 49 instances of graphic violence, 20+ F words, and brief nudity...

 

Not perfect, but at least it takes some of the subjective judgement out of the hands of a few and lets the parents make their own judgement from there. This way, instead of a censorship board, they would merely have a board of catalogers.

This is probably the best idea that I have heard so far. I have heard of individual ratings for graphic violence, nudity, and sex, but cataloging them and assigning a count to each removes the subjective ratings, which make it much harder for the system to be abused.

 

Well, luckily I have already responded to this and I think I cleary showed the fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Japedo and Onyx,

Are you suggesting that people go see a movie twice? Once to see if it is ok to bring their family and once with their family? Isn't that kind of off the wall? That would go over like a lead balloon. The first thing that would happen is people would want movies rated so they wouldn't have to spend the time and money just to see if their kids can watch it. Remember that the majority of people in this country are not like you and I. They are uptight Christians. And despite the media hype, most parents actually care about what their children do and see. I didn't see McDonalds being open about the dairy and whey content of their fries, they just wanted to sell more fries regardless of the risks to those who are allergic to dairy and whey. There are a million examples why businesses, and movie production and distribution is a business, should be regulated.

 

Relying on word of mouth and producers words, is rarely a good idea. With no or a sensible system (I'm not a strict no rater guy, actually.) It will usually turn out alright. I actually practice what I preach even if I have no kids. I see stickers as having little value myself but it can be a guideline if used properly (Not probhiting any one from watching it.) I like to judge movies on their own merits. There should be no fines if the person is underage. As I said, the only punishment is stupidity.

 

Relying wholly on ratings doesn't mean they're accurate always, this is why you must do research on the movies. The reactions and emotion is usually the most accurate gauge of the movie you're watching. Plus, it will lessen the sheep mentality of people if they can rely on themselves.

 

If they are digusted by what they watch, they can either leave or turn it off. Then they can warn other people but not impose on us who want to watch that sort of stuff. Remember, countries with systems similar or exactly like this usually has the lowest crimes and very easy to live in.

 

Supervision, research and discretion is the most important tools of censorship not mugging, imposing unwanted values and other making decisions for other people.

 

I'm not advocating a complete destruction of rating boards. (They should be renamed "Film Content Review Board or cataloger boards (Depending) and include clear minded people not subject to religious, emotional and dictatoral outbursts) The role of these boards is to stamp out real and geniunely hurtful movies and they should stick to it. Also productions should hand over information on whether a movie has illegal and hurtful scenes or not. If it is fake and nobody is hurt, beyond any doubt, these movies should be released and should not be banned in perptuality no matter if it is challenged or not.

If it is real and it actually harms the people involved and the viewers beyond any doubt, it should be banned. (I outlined the illegal contents in my first general censorship post.) But if the content is real, not preying on others in outbursts of serious crimes and people consent to it, it should be released. (Think Jackass and Dirty Sanchez.)

 

My advice is: Common sense and education is the best guide to movies. Use it.

 

How ever, this is only my view and I've revised my views as I take in some interesting ideas. I'm not a hypocrite if I fine tune my views. I LIKE to learn and there is nothing you can do about it!

Feel free to disagree. This is after all, a forum that is geniunely a free speech advocater!

:woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably the best idea that I have heard so far. I have heard of individual ratings for graphic violence, nudity, and sex, but cataloging them and assigning a count to each removes the subjective ratings, which make it much harder for the system to be abused.

Well, luckily I have already responded to this and I think I cleary showed the fallacy.

I take it that you are referring to this:
I dont see the difference between that and what they do now. Ratings that are given with the trailer are accompanied by a list of what the movies contain. From what I can tell you just want the producer/distributor to decide what to tell the public about its films. That would be a bad idea. Hollywood has never been known for their honesty and there would be some directors, with no oversight, that would take advantage of the situation. Not everyone would agree with a producer on what would be appropriate. Would you call a flash of beaver or pubic hair brief nudity? Would you call two people discussing oral sex or something similar sexual content? What about just a face shot of a woman having an orgasm? What if you were trying to make money off the movie and wanted to get a large box office showing? Would you scimp on anything?

I want to see this:

Count of graphic violence: 256

Count of nudity: 0.1

which would give an R rating.

 

And this:

Count of graphic violence: 1.5

Count of nudity: 0.8

which may give a NC-17 rating.

 

You may have noticed that there are decimal places in the "counts." Yes, I agree that you cannot totally remove subjective ratings and chances for abuse, but you can minimize the subjective activity while allowing for more detail. Perhaps calling it a "count" is a poor choice of wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that you are referring to this:
I dont see the difference between that and what they do now. Ratings that are given with the trailer are accompanied by a list of what the movies contain. From what I can tell you just want the producer/distributor to decide what to tell the public about its films. That would be a bad idea. Hollywood has never been known for their honesty and there would be some directors, with no oversight, that would take advantage of the situation. Not everyone would agree with a producer on what would be appropriate. Would you call a flash of beaver or pubic hair brief nudity? Would you call two people discussing oral sex or something similar sexual content? What about just a face shot of a woman having an orgasm? What if you were trying to make money off the movie and wanted to get a large box office showing? Would you scimp on anything?

 

No, I was referring to this which is not as far up.

 

What difference is there in how many times something objectionable is done in a movie? Is murdering 1 person in a movie better than murdering 2? You are still exposing your child to murder. Is exposing a child to nudity only once in a movie more acceptable to a parent than exposing them twice in one movie? You are still exposing your child to nudity. Why not just say violent content and brief nudity? That is what they do! What is so censoring about saying a movie contains violence and brief nudity? Why not complain to your local movie theater and see what they have to say about the ratings? Believe me, they will be shocked to hear from a parent that ratings are too lax. Or, are you guys under 17 and just don't want to be restricted in what you can view in a privately owned theater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference is there in how many times something objectionable is done in a movie? Is murdering 1 person in a movie better than murdering 2? You are still exposing your child to murder. Is exposing a child to nudity only once in a movie more acceptable to a parent than exposing them twice in one movie? You are still exposing your child to nudity. Why not just say violent content and brief nudity? That is what they do! What is so censoring about saying a movie contains violence and brief nudity? Why not complain to your local movie theater and see what they have to say about the ratings? Believe me, they will be shocked to hear from a parent that ratings are too lax. Or, are you guys under 17 and just don't want to be restricted in what you can view in a privately owned theater

Take "The Passion of The Christ" for example. A Christian parent might look at the graphic violence rating and justify that the story line (the crucifixion) would necessitate a little graphic violence, therefor, it must be OK (to a Christian where the crucifixion story is a good thing for a child to know about)! The problem is that the parent may underestimate the amount of graphic violence, so we need some kind of metric to tell us how much of each content there is. Due to the complains of this movie about graphic violence, I do not see how one could justify that there were no parents who underestimated the amount of graphic violence in that movie even though they understood that it had an R rating.

 

So yes, the number of times that objectionable material comes up does matter (along with some kind of subjective impact of that material). Different parents have different limits for their children at various ages. A few sizes do not fit all. Also, parents may view their older teenagers as responsible enough to see brief nudity, but not enough to see something with a little bit more than that. So I would argue that NC-17 is not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrXC, yea I can understand that and I think I already addressed that in saying that all ratings are accompanied with the why's. Parents who thought that taking their children to an R rated movie in which the rating said "Rated R for scenes of graphic violence" was ok made it their own fault for ignoring the rating. Plus with all the media hype before the movie was first released, you would have thought they would catch on. Children can get the crucifixion story from the Bible, there is no inherent need for them to view the graphic violence delivery by Mel Gibson on the big screen. I don't think having "Rated R for 36 bloody lashes" or a regulatory agency saying that they give it a 7 on the gruesome scale would have deterred these fanatical parents who took their child to see the movie any more than "graphic violence" would have.

 

For those parents who "may view their older teenagers as responsible enough to see brief nudity, but not enough to see something with a little bit more than that," again, there are brief nudity, sexual content, strong sexual content, nudity, etc. warnings that are all given with the rating. It seems to me you are asking for more regulation than is already given and Vigile would still be shouting it is censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should there be a group to regulate the group to ensure your needs are being met? Who's going to regulate them to make sure that they are meeting the needs of others?

 

You go on to make a lot of assumptions about what I want.

 

As I've stated, I think clearly, I don't want any regulation. If parents like yourself need guidelines to follow, then by all means, let some monkey catalog Fucks, Shits, Goddamns, pubic hair, etc... and then you can decide if you want your children to see the film or not based on that. No value judgement is necessary by the monkey tallying up the list.

 

But alas, I have conceded that my ideal world is not likely to fly in the real world known as the US, so I am willing to just make a stink about the damn NC-17 rating, which is hamstringing directors the most at this point.

 

I to could probably be labeled an individual anarchist as you have labeled Japedo. That's probably why we agree on so much. I'd rather like to think of myself more in terms of a JS Mill Libertarian though.

 

As for the internet, I hope you don't get your way. Your suggestion may be voluntary, but again you ignore the nuance in this statement. Conservatives seem to have trouble with nuance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So should there be a group to regulate the group to ensure your needs are being met? Who's going to regulate them to make sure that they are meeting the needs of others?

 

You go on to make a lot of assumptions about what I want.

 

As I've stated, I think clearly, I don't want any regulation. If parents like yourself need guidelines to follow, then by all means, let some monkey catalog Fucks, Shits, Goddamns, pubic hair, etc... and then you can decide if you want your children to see the film or not based on that. No value judgement is necessary by the monkey tallying up the list.

 

But alas, I have conceded that my ideal world is not likely to fly in the real world known as the US, so I am willing to just make a stink about the damn NC-17 rating, which is hamstringing directors the most at this point.

 

I too could probably be labeled an individual anarchist as you have labeled Japedo. That's probably why we agree on so much. I'd rather like to think of myself more in terms of a JS Mill Libertarian though.

 

As for the internet, I hope you don't get your way. Your suggestion may be voluntary, but again you ignore the nuance in this statement. Conservatives seem to have trouble with nuance.

 

It's kind of funny, I'm not a parent and I consider myself a liberal Democrat. I even joined with the freaks and am a card carrying member of the ACLU. But, I also see myself sliding into the social democracy realm sometimes, especially when it comes to health care.

 

You're just taking the ratings and making them more specific, not less. And if they catalogued all of that stuff you mentioned, parents still wouldn't want their children to go see it so I can't see a difference. If the NC-17 rating is hamstringing directors, I guess it is hamstringing them just for children under the age of 17.

 

The good news is that if you are a JS Mill Libertarian, you can still believe in Individual anarchism. One is a political stance, one is a philosophical view on government. Both JSL and IA are very close in definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MrXC, yea I can understand that and I think I already addressed that in saying that all ratings are accompanied with the why's. Parents who thought that taking their children to an R rated movie in which the rating said "Rated R for scenes of graphic violence" was ok made it their own fault for ignoring the rating. Plus with all the media hype before the movie was first released, you would have thought they would catch on. Children can get the crucifixion story from the Bible, there is no inherent need for them to view the graphic violence delivery by Mel Gibson on the big screen. I don't think having "Rated R for 36 bloody lashes" or a regulatory agency saying that they give it a 7 on the gruesome scale would have deterred these fanatical parents who took their child to see the movie any more than "graphic violence" would have.

 

For those parents who "may view their older teenagers as responsible enough to see brief nudity, but not enough to see something with a little bit more than that," again, there are brief nudity, sexual content, strong sexual content, nudity, etc. warnings that are all given with the rating. It seems to me you are asking for more regulation than is already given and Vigile would still be shouting it is censorship.

Well, just something that is less subjective and less of a categorical label; which is not necessarily more regulation. What about taking away the R and NC-17 and just having the "brief nudity, sexual content, strong sexual content, nudity, etc. warnings." I suppose the first objection would be that you would not know when to restrict the movie by age if you had just the warnings, but I think the warnings may be good enough and everyone can decide for themselves about which warnings make something unsuitable for someone. Perhaps standardize that parental consent begins at strong sexual content or nudity, but that "parental consent is required" does not need to be labeled on every movie since you already have those warnings.

 

I agree with Vigile_del_fuoco1 that doing a catalog would be nice, but it is not very realistic. So I am just wondering if there can be a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just taking the ratings and making them more specific, not less.

 

You can keep repeating this, but it still doesn't make it true. I've simply offered a way to take much, not all, but much of the subjectivity away from others in a way that could still be useful to parents if they so wished to use it. Current censors also catalog the types of things I suggested then they go a step further and place a rating on the film. I'm suggesting they delete that step.

 

 

And if they catalogued all of that stuff you mentioned, parents still wouldn't want their children to go see it so I can't see a difference.

 

I don't care what they choose to do. That's their choice. At least the film wouldn't have a stigma attached to it that would keep it out of the theaters or worse, from being made at all.

 

 

If the NC-17 rating is hamstringing directors, I guess it is hamstringing them just for children under the age of 17..

 

Sigh, no, once again it is hamstringing them to the point that they are scared to make the film the way the want to at all for fear of having the stigma of an NC-17 attached to their film, thus killing its economic viability. You keep on ignoring this fact.

 

 

It's kind of funny, I'm not a parent and I consider myself a liberal Democrat. I even joined with the freaks and am a card carrying member of the ACLU. But, I also see myself sliding into the social democracy realm sometimes, especially when it comes to health care.

.

 

You had mentioned your daughter, but I can see now it was just as an example.

 

A lot of card carrying liberals can be fairly conservative when it comes to individual liberties. Many liberals, for example, are quite strong in their desire to apply their standards of morality on others. Smoking laws are one example of this. This is why I refered to you as conservative.

 

I'm conservative in areas as well. I'm fairly fiscally conservative. I wish to apply some of my values on others in many areas, such as the environment for e.g.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched the documentary "This Film is not Yet Rated."

 

If you haven't seen it you're probably in for a shocking surprise, but a little background first.

 

The documentary was intelligent and made some very nice points, but most of which the average person could probably figure out by common sense and deductive reasoning watching the American film industry's products. It's no big shock, for example that the MPAA is much more concerned with sex than it is with violence. Commit 249 graphic homicides, get an R rating; show a shock of pubic hair, get an NC-17.

 

I probably don't need to mention, but will anyway just in case some don't know, that an NC-17 rating kills a film's potential. Film makers are forced to bend over backwards in order to avoid the death nell of this rating, which will keep their film out of the theaters and will destroy the ad budget.

 

On the bright side, MPAA ratings mean nothing on bittorent. I downloaded the movie the other day and will hopefully have time to watch it tonight or tomorrow.

 

I do so love the intranets! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Finally had some time to watch it tonight. May I just say:

 

Jesus. Jesus fucking Horatio Christ.

 

I don't think I'm ever going to be able to go see a conventional, big-business Hollywood film again without feeling dirty. :ugh:

 

On the bright side, I did get a nice little list of interesting-looking independent NC-17s to check out. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.

 

Finally had some time to watch it tonight. May I just say:

 

Jesus. Jesus fucking Horatio Christ.

 

I don't think I'm ever going to be able to go see a conventional, big-business Hollywood film again without feeling dirty. :ugh:

 

On the bright side, I did get a nice little list of interesting-looking independent NC-17s to check out. :wicked:

 

 

YOU PERV!

 

 

 

 

 

Send me the names of the movies. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you know, Jesus died for your entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you know, Jesus died for your entertainment.

 

I can't wait for the sequel. What does everyone think it will be about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abolish the DVD Region system, it've caused nothing but piracy, annoyance and frustration.

Also, all DVDs should be subtitled. Should be, not nothing! Sorry, it's just that I can't hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Onyx, I wish they were all subbed. I miss watching foreign films over here. There's nothing worse than watching a French film with a Russian voice dub over done by some idiot reading the script in monotone.

 

As for the regional system, all the pirate CDs here are region free. I love that Russians thumb their nose at copywrite law. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vigile, try understanding what the person is speaking, it's in english and you need to read subtitles in order to understand! Such times is when I wish I was hearing so I don't have to get pissed off when a movie I've been dying to see has no subtitles and wishing the studio'd thought to put subtitles on that. (E.g Escape from New York)

 

The DVD regional system is very frustrating to me because if your sought after cult movie is not sold in your area, you'd have to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain them. (E.g Flash Gordon, I loved that movie as a kid, it'd been a while since I last saw it but it is only available in Britain and America; last I heard.)

 

Finally, I'm sick of studios being too chicken to put some movies on DVD or don't care about putting them on. What is wrong with you? You can make some money off that! (E.g Taxi- it've been too long and I've been dying to see Christopher Lloyd, one of my fav geek actors in one of his earliest roles, Rev Lubowski.)

 

Now that's a rant. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you tried downloading movies from Torrent? You can probably find all the cult classics you want there. But alas, I'm not sure if they are subbed. That does suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.