Youtube does not allow footage of the recent/outgoing protests against banks in China.
The Big [Censored] Theory
231–240 of 891 posts
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#232Side 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…
Seinfeld didn't use canned laughter except to mask editing cuts as is the norm for shows with an audience.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#233Companies & Governments in the US & West censor for political reasons. Why is this any different?
Citation needed. Please show an example of a foreign piece of content which has been chopped to bits by the US government before being allowed to be distributed here.
Broadcast anime on daytime television. While companies like 4Kids that did the actual censoring (like digitally editing cells) and replacing lines ( "localization" as they would call it), it is the FCC that has power over broadcast licensing and provides a disincentive for showing work that soccer moms found distasteful, even if otherwise covered under the First Amendment.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).
> Because why else would such an aversion arise? > I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But, you seem to think a lack of aversion to talking about sex to be a default? To your question, I've known many people whom are not practicing any religion and yet have an aversion to sexual discussion, within a population that has a lack thereof. There are many such topics that some feel are not k…
> Let's say in China there is a general aversion to sexual discussion. What will be your explanation given lack of puritanical religion?
I genuinely don't know, that's why I asked. Presumably it's served some sort of purpose at some point. Or maybe, as another poster suggested, it was an trait borrowed from other cultures where puritanical religion did have an influence.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#235It'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.
I suspect some of it is just censoring for the sake of censoring.
It is a common problem, if your job is to inspect something and you find nothing wrong, how do you show that you did your job?
Here is an anecdote: in the game "Battle Chess", the graphists were quite happy with how their work turned out, but they knew it will be reviewed, and the reviewers will have to say something. So they added a small duck going around the queen piece, in a way that was easy to remove. As planned, reviewers said "everything is fine, but remove the duck", which they did, leaving the original design intact.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).
Totalitarian governments seem to be naturally disposed towards controlling people’s sexual behaviours, sometimes with downright absurd results.
(The early Soviet Union moved from abolishing marriage in favour of cohabitation to actively promoting it; the official stance on abortion, IIRC, flipped several times; and while the equilibrium was extremely prudish—“there is no sex in the USSR”—the adult literacy campaign of the first decade was not above commissioning and printing a literal porn ABC if it got the job done.)
I mean, they are totalitarian governments, they are defined by asserting control over the totality of people’s lives. But the fixation on sex, in particular, seems to go beyond that, and yet it’s fairly universal among them.
(If you have read Orwell and Zamjatin [which, let’s be honest, are nearly the same book] but not Moscow 2042, I highly recommend picking that up as well—the bizarre sexual Zeitgeist of the ripe Soviet state is much more vivid there than in the “serious” dystopian works. Though I don’t really know if it’s readable without at least an extensive set of footnotes, and given that it’s supposed to be bitterly funny that might be missing the point.)
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
MPAA ratings are not government censorship, they're cartel censorship. The reason corporations follow the cartel's rules are financial agreements and the fear of PR backlash for not letting parents outsource parenting.
So there's literally no government involvement in what content can be shown in broadcast material in the US? Even for FTA TV? In Australia the ratings system is administered by the commonwealth government, so I incorrectly assumed the same was true in the US.
We have law that restricts indecent/obscene content, and it applies exclusively to FTA TV and radio. But it's completely unrelated to the ratings system for tv and movies.
Most channels not restricted by those rules (subscription cable & satellite) set in-house standards on content for commercial reasons. And of the broadcasters that are covered by the regulation, they are the old stodgy networks and never choose to get near the boundaries.
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because why else would such an aversion arise? I don't think there are any sensible "defaults" for human cultures. But I wouldn't expect aversion to talking any sex to arise spontaneously among a population that hadn't had it imposed by prior generations or from outside. We're naturally curious beings and have lots of sex (compared to other species).
>Because why else would such an aversion arise? Because it promotes social stability ? As much as I dislike defending religion - those values produced the most stable societies through history
Why would not even talking about sex promote social stability? Arguably the most stable societies are those that existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the agricultural revolution etc. Did they generally have taboos around discussion of sex?
Re: The Big [Censored] Theory
#239Side 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 :(
It's normally a mix of both. All such shows will heavily edit/enhance the audience laugh track during post production.
Also scenes are occasionally filmed outside the studio where there is no live audience.