Red band previews are back
I don't know that it was censorship. I think it was probably more geared towards not pissing off audiences.
Think about it, you can't show these red band trailers before a kids' film right? Is that censorship? No.
Based on the actual ratings rules, the only films you could actually show these trailers prior to are films that would have the same audience in terms of age.
That being said, those restrictions probably severely limited the number of films they could show these to back in the day. Now, there are so many films and so many potential segments of the audience, I have a hunch you'll see different versions of the red band trailer for a single film. One might play up the humor and be shown before another comedy. Another might play up the nudity and be shown before an adult feature that also features nudity.
Think about it, you can't show these red band trailers before a kids' film right? Is that censorship? No.
Based on the actual ratings rules, the only films you could actually show these trailers prior to are films that would have the same audience in terms of age.
That being said, those restrictions probably severely limited the number of films they could show these to back in the day. Now, there are so many films and so many potential segments of the audience, I have a hunch you'll see different versions of the red band trailer for a single film. One might play up the humor and be shown before another comedy. Another might play up the nudity and be shown before an adult feature that also features nudity.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
The ratings system in and of itself is censorship that the gov't essentially forced Hollywood to adopt.
Yes. It is. Perhaps cos of good intentions, but it is nonetheless.
Edited By Malcolm on 1205814008
Think about it, you can't show these red band trailers before a kids' film right? Is that censorship? No.
Yes. It is. Perhaps cos of good intentions, but it is nonetheless.
Edited By Malcolm on 1205814008
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Can't? Or is it good business practice? Is there actually a law, or do theaters/etc just know that showing something bad before 'Horton' would be bad for business?
If it's just a business decision, then that's not censorship. That's a personal choice. My not swearing in front of my kids is not censorship. It's me making a decision that I don't want to say that stuff in front of my kids.
If it's a law, then ya, it's censorship.
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1205816375
If it's just a business decision, then that's not censorship. That's a personal choice. My not swearing in front of my kids is not censorship. It's me making a decision that I don't want to say that stuff in front of my kids.
If it's a law, then ya, it's censorship.
Edited By Cakedaddy on 1205816375
cen·sor /ˈsɛnsər/ [sen-ser]
–noun
1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
Emphasis mine.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I'm sure that if someone from the MPAA happened to be there witnessing the infraction, someone would get fined.Cakedaddy wrote:Can't? Or is it good business practice? Is there actually a law...
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I'm sure that if someone from the MPAA happened to be there witnessing the infraction, someone would get fined.
Just because someone would get fined, that doesn't mean making a choice not to show the preview for Saving Ryan's Privates before Horton Hears a Who is censorship.
Is it censorship when a video store puts the adult titles in their own room? Should they put them on display at the front of the store so nobody accuses them of censorship?
Just because a business prevents its customers from seeing something doesn't mean it's censorship. It could just be a decision based on business and not on oppressing the masses.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Actually, yes, it's technically all censorship. Technically. Doesn't mean it's also not often good business sense, too. All because your goal isn't oppressing the masses doesn't mean your actions aren't still censorship.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Actually, yes, it's technically all censorship. Technically. Doesn't mean it's also not often good business sense, too. All because your goal isn't oppressing the masses doesn't mean your actions aren't still censorship.
You know what? You're right.
Covering your child's eyes as your spouse/their parent is raped and/or murdered in front of you both, IS technically censorship.
And why do I use such an extreme example? Because it proves something I've been preaching here forever. People need to pull their fucking heads out of the extremes of arguments, debates, beliefs, viewpoints, etc. and start realizing that the answer to any and all issues is somewhere in the middle.
While not putting porno boxes with uncensored goatse pictures on them in the front window of your video store might be a form of "censorship", it's necessary in the grand scheme of things.
Sure, people should have access to such things if they'd like *cough*Paul*cough*, but people should also have the ability to avoid such images if they'd like.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Leisher wrote:Covering your child's eyes as your spouse/their parent is raped and/or murdered in front of you both, IS technically censorship.
By the definition of the word, this statement is accurate.
There's a big difference between the conotation of a word and the denotation of a word. The word censorship has a very strong negative conotation centered around trying to control someone. But what it means is limiting access to what someone can see. Period.
The denotation is in the eye of the beholder. For some people the word censorship has a positive denotation centered around protecting people from seeing things not appropriate for them. Such as the trailers specifically being discussed here.
Malcolm never said not putting R rated trailers in front of kids movies was a bad thing. I certanly think that R-rated trailers in front of G-rated movies is a generally bad idea. That doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Edited By TPRJones on 1205863207
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
And, no, I don't think this is nitpicking. Language is important. A whole lot of the bile in political debates these days comes mostly from the two sides having completely different denotations on their vocabulary.
For example to one person a "gun" is a generally good thing, denoting freedom, protection, and security. To another a "gun" is generally evil, denoting murder, facistic control, and vigilantism. If there could be two seperate words for gun to represent these two different versions of the concept, then I think the debates on the topic would be less insane. Well, three words, because we'd still need the generally neutral "gun" word, too, for when there is no particular denotation attached.
They'd still disagree, sure, but as it is they disagree so violently because each side can't understand how the other side can look at this thing they love/hate that is obviously a good/bad thing and see something that is evil/good. It just doesn't parse. And thus the flailing of arms and gnashing of teeth begins.
For example to one person a "gun" is a generally good thing, denoting freedom, protection, and security. To another a "gun" is generally evil, denoting murder, facistic control, and vigilantism. If there could be two seperate words for gun to represent these two different versions of the concept, then I think the debates on the topic would be less insane. Well, three words, because we'd still need the generally neutral "gun" word, too, for when there is no particular denotation attached.
They'd still disagree, sure, but as it is they disagree so violently because each side can't understand how the other side can look at this thing they love/hate that is obviously a good/bad thing and see something that is evil/good. It just doesn't parse. And thus the flailing of arms and gnashing of teeth begins.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I censor shit from my kid all the time, and it confuses the hell out of my wife.
She doesn't know why I'll watch the rated-R Tenacious D movie in front of my kid, yet I won't let him watch the 1st PG-13 Pirates of the Caribbean movie...
I don't think movie theaters need a controlling body to not allow ads for pornos in front of kiddie movies... because i surely would not take my kid to a kiddie movie if there was a chance at seeing an ad for a porno. Let the market decide.
She doesn't know why I'll watch the rated-R Tenacious D movie in front of my kid, yet I won't let him watch the 1st PG-13 Pirates of the Caribbean movie...
I don't think movie theaters need a controlling body to not allow ads for pornos in front of kiddie movies... because i surely would not take my kid to a kiddie movie if there was a chance at seeing an ad for a porno. Let the market decide.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TPRJones wrote:Leisher wrote:Covering your child's eyes as your spouse/their parent is raped and/or murdered in front of you both, IS technically censorship.
By the definition of the word, this statement is accurate.
That above was followed up by two posts lecturing me on language. Shall I point out the comedy? You just wrote two posts explaining to me how important language is, while completely missing the point of my post.
Keep in mind that when Al Gore was inventing the internet he forgot to allow for "inflection", which can completely alter the meaning of a word or phrase.
It also doesn't alter a thing regarding my point about extremes.
I don't think movie theaters need a controlling body to not allow ads for pornos in front of kiddie movies... because i surely would not take my kid to a kiddie movie if there was a chance at seeing an ad for a porno. Let the market decide.
How would you know there was an ad for a porno there? What if you went to see something on opening day? What if the theater owner decided to slip one in on the day you visited? How would you know who to blame? What if the theater got a new copy that day from the studio and it was on it? How many times is it ok for your kid to see and hear such trailers?
I'm as against a government body examining everything with a fine tooth comb as you are, but are you really against having some guidelines? Again, can't we find a happy medium? Does everything have to be one extreme or another? And hey, if we don't need guidelines on trailers, why do we have film ratings?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Leisher wrote:It also doesn't alter a thing regarding my point about extremes.
So far in this thread you are the only person to use extreme examples and extreme arguements. I assumed from your post that you were accusing others of this. I was explaining why using the word censorship is technically accurate, because even if it's a very bad word to many people it's actually a neutral word in reality (and even positive to some), and not on it's own an extremist statement.
If that assumption was incorrect and you were just making a seperate point, then I apologize and withdraw the language discussion.
Edited By TPRJones on 1205868514
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Why would they try so hard to lose my business forever? And they know about 'word of mouth.' It would be a bad business decision on their part.Leisher wrote:How would you know there was an ad for a porno there? What if you went to see something on opening day? What if the theater owner decided to slip one in on the day you visited? How would you know who to blame? What if the theater got a new copy that day from the studio and it was on it? How many times is it ok for your kid to see and hear such trailers?I don't think movie theaters need a controlling body to not allow ads for pornos in front of kiddie movies... because i surely would not take my kid to a kiddie movie if there was a chance at seeing an ad for a porno. Let the market decide.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
So far in this thread you are the only person to use extreme examples and extreme arguements.
That statement is actually incorrect.
Also, my point didn't just relate to this thread, but I thought I explained that pretty well here:
And why do I use such an extreme example? Because it proves something I've been preaching here forever. People need to pull their fucking heads out of the extremes of arguments, debates, beliefs, viewpoints, etc. and start realizing that the answer to any and all issues is somewhere in the middle.
I assumed from your post that you were accusing others of this.
I was, as I explained, but not in this thread. I was posting in advance of what I knew was coming.
I was explaining why using the word censorship is technically accurate, because even if it's a very bad word to many people it's actually a neutral word in reality (and even positive to some), and not on it's own an extremist statement.
If that assumption was incorrect and you were just making a seperate point, then I apologize and withdraw the language discussion.
Too be honest, like Cake, I was making a point about business when Malcolm clung to the "technicality". I must be in an argumentative mood today as it made me cite the example, which reminded me of how often folks around here are preaching such extremes as of late. Not just the word of forum folks, but also of other folks whose words we post either to heed or laugh at. It is rapidly becoming an annoyance for me.
Now watch me counter my business argument from earlier just to fuck with Gordon.
Why would they try so hard to lose my business forever? And they know about 'word of mouth.' It would be a bad business decision on their part.
Now if you've read anything else, then you probably deduced that I was waiting for a post like your original one here, however this last comment made me laugh. Not at you, but just because of business in general.
I think it's a great question, but hilarious at the same time.
I mean, you're wondering if corporations are going to go out of their way to lose your business? You've thinking they won't make bad business decisions? I'm pretty sure that by now you have to be thinking of all the business world stupidity you've seen reported over the years and get my point, but just in case, "Joe Camel". That example, says it all.
And yeah, after one attempt and the resulting backlash, other film studios might not air porno trailers before kid's shows. But eventually, someone will try again. That's how business rolls. It won't start as porno trailers either, that's a bad example, but it'll be something that'll piss people off and it'll be on that cusp where half the audience is pissed and the other half isn't. Starting more debate...and going back to Joe Camel, you know it'd piss you off to know some cigarette company was advertising via a cartoon camel prior to the movies and shows your kid watched.
And what about the parents and kids who have to sit through the first attempts of corporate stupidity?
(Oh, and nobody please be dumb enough to give the "A parent should monitor what their child does" speech. Yes, a parent should be involved, but there's a limit as to what a parent can monitor and control. Besides, creating such a strict and domineering parent creates the "big government" that most of us hate.)
Anyway, my only point is asking if it's really that bad to have a simple set of movie trailer guidelines? I'm not asking for a huge tribunal or armies used to enforce their decree. I'm looking for that happy middle ground.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
If moderation applies to all things, then it applies to moderation itself.Leisher wrote:People need to pull their fucking heads out of the extremes of arguments, debates, beliefs, viewpoints, etc. and start realizing that the answer to any and all issues is somewhere in the middle.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I don't think movie theaters need a controlling body to not allow ads for pornos in front of kiddie movies... because i surely would not take my kid to a kiddie movie if there was a chance at seeing an ad for a porno. Let the market decide.
Amen.
How would you know there was an ad for a porno there?
I dunno. Perhaps take the responsibility to check for yourself. Instead, you have entrusted the sanitizing to several other groups of people. I question the ability of those groups to make rules that reasonably simulate the guardians of the potential victims taking an interest themselves. How would you know? Maybe you subscribe to some public, non-gov't, non-Hollywood organization that keeps an eye out for such things on behalf of concerned citizens? If you can't get one of them, then the citizens don't give enough of a shit.
What if the theater owner decided to slip one in on the day you visited? How would you know who to blame? What if the theater got a new copy that day from the studio and it was on it?
Perhaps some concerned citizens should form a non-gov't, non-Hollywood group that's capable of handling such matters. Or perhaps you just call the place & try to find out yourself? If they stonewall you, don't go there anymore.
How many times is it ok for your kid to see and hear such trailers?
That's really up to you, isn't it? If you want to slap ratings and rules on trailers and films, I don't care. Go for it. As long as "you" is the certain segments of the public at large & not the gov't. If I don't like your morality rules in that case, I should not be bound by them. I should be allowed to disagree with society as long as I'm not overtly destroying it by disagreeing. As soon it became a crime for people of certain ages to see certain films based on the opinions of small groups of people, I became pissed.
Edited By Malcolm on 1205874139
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."