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

301–310 of 891 posts

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#301

Post by ascar »

xdennis wrote: post #278
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 :(

> TBBT actually doesn't use canned laughter I don't believe that one bit. Just because they have an audience, doesn't mean they don't edit the laugh track. And just because the laugh happened in real time, it doesn't mean it's authentic. Even for live TV shows, they prod the audience into laughing. This is made clear when they laugh at awkward times, when nothing funny is being said.

If you've ever experienced a group of tv/movie enthusiasts watching something you would believe that laughs happening at awkward times are not just possible, but I would rather see them as a supporting argument for real laughter than a rebuttal.

One of my favorite moments was watching Kick Ass in a sneak preview. No one knew which movie would be shown and Kick Ass starts with a shock moment of a guy shooting a little girl with a revolver. One guy in the back started laughing so hard and it was so inappropriate that the whole theater burst into laughter.

Doing a bit of post production on the real laughter doesn't make it canned laughter.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#302

Post by joezydeco »

dj_gitmo wrote: post #289
coryfklein wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

Part of me still thinks Aereo wasn't honest with their technology. They showed off massive boards full of miniature UHF antennae, but a tuner/encoder is more than that. They never showed that part.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#303

Post by jrumbut »

joshstrange wrote: post #139
ALittleLight wrote: post #10

I can see how this might backfire. You notice a censored jump and start to feel the itch of curiosity as to what it concealed. I had to watch several of the censored scenes whereas I would have never just randomly watched clips of the show. Also, love the presentation on this page.

That was my first thought as well. Those skips would drive me crazy and would send me searching for the "raw" episodes. Wanting to know what was said would only be a part of the issue, the other would be how jarring it is and how you never know if it was a censored clip or if the media "skipped".

It's apparent because you're used to the rhythm of English speech and the forms of American sitcoms.

I'm not sure if I would notice a Chinese show was censored.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#304

Post by ascar »

vlunkr wrote: post #239
paxys wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Afaik they prefilm these and show them on a screen to the audience at the right moment of the episode and then capture that reaction.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#305

Post by wizofaus »

nineplay wrote: post #255
wizofaus wrote: post #193

Earlier 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).

Talking about sex is taboo because having sex is taboo. Having sex is taboo because if women have sex with more than one man, none of men can be sure whose child she is carrying. Men, in general, really like having their genes carried on. Men, in general, really hate wondering if a child is theirs or not.

That women having sex with multiple men is taboo has a rationale behind it, sure (even if it's not a very good one). But not talking about sex would surely make the issue of uncertain fatherhood even worse...

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#306

Post by tjs8rj »

wizofaus wrote: post #193
alldayeveryday wrote: post #146

Earlier 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).

Is there any culture in the world without significant taboos or social rules around sex?

I can totally see why that’d be the default, simply because sex is such a charged act in any culture. Purely biologically: it’s a very vulnerable act and has tons of “political/social implications” in a social species. Who you have sex with and be that vulnerable with signals your “allegiance” in a sense.

Even chimps have taboos and social rules around sex for this reason. Who you have sex (or don’t have sex) with decides who’s in charge, who you support, what your clique is, and so on. A chimp caught having sex with the wrong chimp might be attacked.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#307

Post by coryfklein »

dj_gitmo wrote: post #289
coryfklein wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

This reminds me of Aereo. They provided each user with their own individual TV antenna, DVR and streaming server. Their case went to the Supreme Court but they ultimately lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo

It was exactly like Aereo. Their Supreme Court battle set the precedent that made the VidAngel battle a no-contest. Which makes me wonder how VidAngel ever thought they could get away with that business model.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#308

Post by MichaelCollins »

coryfklein wrote: post #277
wrs wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a home version of this called ClearPlay that auto-redacts movies and TV. It actually started with DVD players (!) but now does streaming. Ref: https://amazon.clearplay.com/

My Mormon neighbors tend to use VidAngel, which got in huge trouble with an absolutely hilarious payment model. 1. VidAngel purchases a bunch of Blu-ray discs and stores them in a warehouse 2. Tag all the content of a film and create filters so the user can, for example, filter out all sex and violence but leave in vulgarity 3. User "purchases" a Blu-ray for $20 (!!) and VidAngel says, "since we now know you're the o…

Leaving aside the matter of Mormons and their weird puritan sensibilities, what this company essentially did was reinvent movie rental, but because they did it on the internet instead of a brick and mortar shop we're all expected to think it obvious and self evidence that what they did was horrible.

In other contexts on sites like this, "do [common thing] but on a computer" patents get mocked and derided because "but on a computer" is seen as a farce, not a fundamental difference from the [common thing].

Anyway, I guess the mormons could get around this and achieve their desired effect by instead selling DVD players with a subscription to a service that distributes EDL files; instructions to the DVD player about which parts of movies should be skipped.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#309

Post by wizofaus »

moonchrome wrote: post #256
wizofaus wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Arguably the most stable societies are those that existed for 10s of 1000s of years before the agricultural revolution etc. Societies of n>100s. By tabooing sex you reduce promiscuous behaviour - which stabilises society. I don't really see how this would be controversial. Modern social values have unambiguously shown that they lead to a population decline. Huge difference being that technology makes us less reliant…

Is there evidence at all that tabooing discussion of sex reduces promiscuity? I'd expect the exact opposite is just as likely.

Re: The Big [Censored] Theory

#310

Post by ginger2016 »

sudhirj wrote: post #58

We have this kind of censorship in India as well, even the in weirdly innocous places. In James Bond movies, and I think Gone Girl as well, scenes were by zooming into character's faces or just straight cuts. This is probably the only reason I maintain a US iTunes accounts (used to have to buy gift cards from sketchy sites online to keep this going, but I recently discovered that my Indian Amex card works fine with a…

Given the racist protrayal of Indian American Raj Kuthrapalli, I am of the opinion Indians are magnanimous in allowing this show to be aired there.
Post reply on HN