Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Big [Censored] Theory

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#141

Post by ascar »

nindalf wrote: post #124
ascar wrote: post #110

Side note: the article mentions canned laughter in TBBT rather early. TBBT actually doesn't use canned laughter but uses laughter from the live audience for its laugh track. I pity that I didn't have the chance to visit the studios and be part of that laugh track :(

Most shows that use canned laughter (Friends, Seinfeld etc.) were filmed in front of an audience. It’s not worth the hassle to set up audio recoding for the audience, especially because people aren’t reliable. They might not laugh at the right moment, one or two audience members might have a weird laugh, they might be too soft or loud. The audience reaction is useful feedback for the actors, but the laughter is canne…

Well, TBBT is especially known for recording and using the audience laughter. That's why I explicitly mentioned it and it creates some interesting moments the producers didn't even intend to be funny. You can find multiple sources for that like point 10 here [1]. There are some YouTube videos giving deeper insight into the process but I don't have them at hand.

[1] https://www.cbr.com/big-bang-theory-annoyed-anger-fans/

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#142

Post by thebradbain »

jrm4 wrote: post #3

I find that it's always interesting to THEN consider, okay -- while there's no centralized board or anything -- what does e.g. American censorship go after?

The US _does_ have examples of government censorship in media, some more extreme than others. The fact you don't even think of it as censorship just shows how prevalent it is. It's not on the same level as the CCP, but it does exist!

For example, during the AIDs epidemic, Reagan used his social and political power to effectively ban the mention of that word on primetime television (remember, not only was he the president of the United States, he was also once the president of the Screen Actors Guild). Not even Will And Grace, a 1998 sitcom about a gay couple, was allowed to mention AIDs or HIV at all in its 11 season run!

He's also the reason movies in the 80s got away with so much more than they did even in the 90s, when cultural values themselves hadn't changed that much comparatively. the MPAA board was completely sized up, what was allowed to be said on TV was changed, and seemingly arbitrary rules put in place ("Fuck" can be said only once in a PG-13 movie or once-an-episode in certain network shows ONLY if it's non-sexual). This is why you have classic kids movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988, PG) that if they were re-released today would be either R or possibly not even allowed to be shown a wide release in theaters.

And you know, now we have the whole "banned books" things in (my home state of) Texas, Florida, etc, which almost exclusively censors books with deal with LGBTQ and race issues from even being available in a library to be checked out by a curious student on their own time (including, in a Dallas suburb and throughout Virginia, Anne Frank's Diary).

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#143

Post by commandlinefan »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #28
Dig1t wrote: post #18

[flagged]

I'm not sure what aspects of the current Chinese government/communist party would be called "left". For instance, they don't seem especially interested in prioritizing any kind of equality of distribution of resources or power (I'm not sure if they even pretend they are, at least in a way that even any 'true believers' believe? I'd be curious for a read from someone in China though); or with providing any real level…

> what aspects of the current Chinese government/communist party would be called "left"

That would be the end-state of what inevitably happens when you adopt leftist policies.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#144

Post by wizofaus »

jedberg wrote: post #122
jacobsenscott wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I constantly hear right wingers referencing it. It must be very popular in the echo chamber.

Yes, it does support a right wing point of view, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. It's just one video, but there are many other videos and essays about the same topic.

What "right wing point of view" exactly? That racism isn't a real problem? Are there mainstream right-wing organisations that actually promote that view?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#145

Post by ryanobjc »

sltkr wrote: post #57
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #2

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of them. For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken") plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats, and the “passing off” remark implies that the Chinese restaurant owners are decep…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#146

Post by alldayeveryday »

wizofaus wrote: post #137

Is aversion to discussion of sex a part of traditional Chinese culture? Seems odd given I'm not aware of any puritanical religions taking hold there.

Why would a culture require a puritanical religions to have an aversion to discussion of sex? And do you consider an aversion to discussion of sex to be default lacking or present in a population?

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#147

Post by commandlinefan »

function_seven wrote: post #115
commandlinefan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such a bland, un-subversive show ... is so heavily censored American censorship is honestly no better, it's just that the show was written with the specifics of American censorship in mind.

Bullshit. Sorry, this "we're the same" retort is exhausting. The United States government does not employ censors to remove portions of shows before allowing them to air (or stream, whatever). The closest thing I can think of is DoD not giving access to a movie unless it paints Navy pilots in a certain light. Okay, fine. Not nearly the same as what this site is showing us. Yes, we have cultural taboos, like any cultu…

> The United States government does not employ censors to remove portions of shows

What? Yes it does - the FCC has been doing this for a half-century at least.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#148

Post by RajT88 »

okasaki wrote: post #73
RajT88 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It seems to have had the effect of removing pieces of reality. I had a conversation once with a Chinese national, about an article about LGBTQ+ people in China. "There's no Gay people in China" (me, points at a picture of 2 young Chinese men in the article) "They're from Hong Kong. There's no Gay people in China." OK then! (This was quite a while back, I suspect the same conversation today would play out diff…

What a bizarre and ridiculous view to form based on one conversation. I'm sure you can find plenty of people in the west who believe stupid things. Does that mean that western countries are "removing pieces of reality"?

> I'm sure you can find plenty of people in the west who believe stupid things. Does that mean that western countries are "removing pieces of reality"?

Yes. The past 20 years or so the media ecosystems have been trying to do exactly that, at least in the US where I live. Remove the bits they don't like, and invent out of whole cloth replacement bits.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#149

Post by dogleash »

sltkr wrote: post #57
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #2

It's really interesting that such a bland, un-subversive show whose only mentions of sensitive topics are in bad throwaway jokes is so heavily censored. I guess a more interesting show would just not get aired at all.

Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are, but I can definitely see why the censors took offense at some of them. For example, the joke about the Chinese restaurant ("I'd be more concerned about what they're passing off as chicken") plays off of the stereotype that Chinese people eat dogs and cats, and the “passing off” remark implies that the Chinese restaurant owners are decep…

>Personally I'm mostly offended how stale and unoriginal a lot of these jokes are

It's CBS. The channel for old people on a medium for old people.

>I dare you to show that scene at a liberal college and notice how few laughs you get.

Yes, and? Everyone thinks they like 'irreverent' comedy until it violates the wrong proprieties. "On the way out of fashion" is a flavor of subversive comedy, often targeted at different audiences than "on the way into fashion" flavor of subversive comedy.

The people old enough to watch CBS are from a generation where they and their friends can exchange jokes at the expense of eachother's lineal stereotypes without it being inherently toxic. I just let them have their laughs, it seems pretty harmless.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#150

Post by aetherane »

okasaki wrote: post #73
RajT88 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. It seems to have had the effect of removing pieces of reality. I had a conversation once with a Chinese national, about an article about LGBTQ+ people in China. "There's no Gay people in China" (me, points at a picture of 2 young Chinese men in the article) "They're from Hong Kong. There's no Gay people in China." OK then! (This was quite a while back, I suspect the same conversation today would play out diff…

What a bizarre and ridiculous view to form based on one conversation. I'm sure you can find plenty of people in the west who believe stupid things. Does that mean that western countries are "removing pieces of reality"?

I have heard the same statement several times too. I think the point was in relation to the context of censorship of LGBTQ content.
Post reply on HN