Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)
When I was in high school I remember Eddie Murphy's Nutty Professor being shown on TV with the line "man, everyone here has a nice BUTT... this must be the nice BUTT section." I also seem to remember Friday with the terrible reading of "that STUFF is FUNKED up".

The thread title is interesting because Matt Parker and Trey Stone claim the original subtitle of the South Park film was "All Hell Breaks Loose", but the MPAA complained and they came up with the dick joke "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut." The MPAA claims they never sent it with that name.

Another movie that snuck something past the censors was Fight Club. There is a pillow talk scene where the love interest proudly exclaims "I haven't been hosed like that since kindergarten!" The original line was "I want to have your abortion." The director, David Fincher, promised to change it if the second line would definitely be kept, and came up with the much riskier in my opinion kindergarten line.

And in the last example I have from poo poo I loved in high school, Um Jammer Lammy was a sequel to Parappa the Rapper with a guitarist instead of a rapper. The second to last stage originally took place in Hell, but the US version was changed so Lammy travels back in time or something like that. It really doesn't make much sense, but it fits the wacky humor of the game well enough (though the US missed out on a great meta-joke!). The fact that it is Hell made so much sense to me because the song was awful, the singer was an annoying parody of Yoko Ono, and the stage was aggravatingly hard.

Here's a pretty lovely video with both intro scenes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrlPQvzyHAY

I hated this stage so loving much.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Panfilo posted:

It's interesting to speculate how streaming affects censorship and the MPAA . how much sway is it going to have when most of this media is easier to access?

I expect you'll still see it play an important role like how the ESRB does for games, but be less of a killer budget wise. I think most of the streaming services have "kids" mode to keep parents from freaking out, and have the ability to limit based on rating, so most of the concern about showing NC-17 films is lessened. However, I don't think theaters are going away anytime soon, and that'll still be limiting. But for TV shows and things like that, you can already see that they are fine showing HBO level stuff, and are not penned into the rules of broadcast TV.

Additionally interesting, the streaming services are not stopped themselves from rejecting things. For example, Steam does not allow erotic games at all, and will require developers patch out explicit sexual content. But of course, that doesn't stop you from going to the developer's site and getting a patch to patch it back in, usually for free...

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Subjunctive posted:

Counterpoint: Wild Things

I only remember two things about this movie. Kevin's Bacon, and it had Smashmouth's cover of Why Can't We Be Friends.

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

AlphaKretin posted:

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Oh well.

Content: You know how ESRB makes games have that "online content not rated" disclaimer because you can't reasonably rate what random dickheads say over voice chat? Yeah that's way too logical for the ACB, "online interactivity" is a rating category they look at and bump games up for.

I remember the ESRB used to use the very confusing terminology of "game experience may change online" by which they meant "people may be dicks online", but it's read as " the online game is totally different!"

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

LORD OF BUTT posted:

Are you British? The BBFC used to be really, really weird about nunchaku and headbutts, for whatever reason.

Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles!

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Thin Privilege posted:

I just learned that Fallout 3 and Fallout NV (initially) were censored in Germany to get rid of the gore of heads exploding and limbs flying off. Gore is the best part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTYcdjJjOc

Germany is very strict on violence (as well as Nazi symbols for that matter). The strangest change for this to me is Team Fortress 2, which made the blood black, and replaced the gory gibs with silly little objects. Arguably that's an improvement.

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

twistedmentat posted:

I was thinking earlier about how quickly nudity and sex became acceptable in games. GTA San Andreas cost Rockstar 80 million due to the Hot Coffee thing, something that wasn't accessible without mods and wasn't even explicit. Now you can play Witcher 3 and have HBO level sex scenes and casual nudity, or Stick of Truth with full on swinging ball sacks.

Though I think the fact most PC games are sold digitally these days, so who cares as long as its up on steam. Though that doesn't explain console versions, but does wal-mart and target stock these games?

One of the interesting things about censorship and moral panics is that they often seem super quaint as the shocking thing becomes normal. For example, look at Mortal Kombat 1, which was a big deal as far as violence in video games, and eventually led to current game ratings in the US as Sega chose to start their own rating compared to Nintendo who decided to censor. But there were constant articles, congressional hearings, and so on and so on. For this:

:nws: :nms: if you're Tipper Gore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPyIK_Vnbl4

Now, compare that to Mortal Kombat X, released just last year, which didn't really attract all that much attention and handwringing:

:nws: :nms: it's the loving fatalities video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxPFw7lfY0

Like I don't even like watching this at all, partially because I've grown up a little, and partially because it's so much more visceral than I want to see. Seriously, a game like Mortal Kombat 1 would seem a little violent and gory, but I'd be fine with my teenager playing it. They would not get to play Mortal Kombat X without serious discussion and convincing me they are as mature as they think they are and serious followup on how much they play and what they take away from it. And I'd still be really unhappy they want to play it. I'm old. :sigh:

Anyway, as I mentioned, Nintendo in the NES and SNES days were very harsh censors and held games to a high standard. This was on purpose just the same as it being called the Nintendo Entertainment System and coming with a gun and/or robot, Nintendo was responding to the recent crash of console games in the US where Atari pumped out too much poo poo, treated their programmers like poo poo, and could not control 3rd party developers. When people reminisce about the Atari 2600, they're really reminiscing about Activision games, which tended to be much better quality. Or they were weirdos who had bought Custer's Revenge because drat if native rapin' isn't fun. (It's not.)

So Nintendo strictly limited what could be in games and limited publishers in the number of games they could make in a year. Sure companies like Konami just made shell companies like Ultra Games so they could make Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (huh huh shell company :v:), and there's plenty of dreck on the NES and SNES, but it helped reignite the console industry (which will probably die again after this generation, imo). I mention this because one of the things that you should read on game censorship is The Expurgation of Maniac Mansion, where Douglas Crockford, who managed the NES port of the popular Maniac Mansion explains what Nintendo complained about. In short, Maniac Mansion was a campy game aimed at adults and teenagers, probably at the level of a PG-13 movie or so. But to get Nintendo to accept it required a great deal of changes in bizarre ways. But hey, at least they gave it a kick-rear end soundtrack!

e: Oh, and he mentions the hamster. You steal a hamster during the game, and two of the characters are sick enough to put it in the microwave, and obviously kill it. It did not get caught the first time Nintendo looked at it, and it shipped with it, and then they found out about it and forced a recall and rerelease.

foobardog has a new favorite as of 07:30 on Feb 22, 2016

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Blue Footed Booby posted:

I'm trying to imagine what the equivalent of that awful anti-anti-social behavior message would be like in a sex positive society. Because you know someone would find a way to ruin everything.

It's weird, because a lot of sex positivity is rooted in the idea you individually should decide what you want to do, when you want to do it, while seeking the enthusiastic consent of others. Having the prudish character who doesn't want to fool around be shown as bad would defeat the idea of sex positivity in the first place. You could have the character that doesn't stand up for their own desires, and goes along with what others want, but that then becomes victim blaming. I guess the only generally bad character could be a skeezy PUA-style person, but Jesus Christ, if this character is like that, they shouldn't be tolerated as part of the group.

But then again, the anti-individuality message is really a poor messed up version of the generally good pro-social message (at least in American culture), so maybe these examples are relevant.

BiggerBoat posted:

I think ratings serve a purpose to a certain extent. I just hate how they're attached to specific ages like PG-13, R and X are. I don't see a whole lot wrong with a system that lets us know of something is heavy on profanity, sex, violence, gore or what have you - be it music or a movie or anything - just as a general guideline for concerned parents or anyone. I look at it like ingredients on food products.

IT's OK to let us know what's in it.

As the parent of a five year old, I realize it's my job to monitor this sort of stuff and sometimes a description helps. That way, I can decide for myself. I'm just always baffled by the ambiguity of what's considered "age appropriate" and the frequent hypocrisy of the whole thing.

Yeah, I think content descriptors are probably way more useful, and I would always want them there. Despite the fact they are very similar to trigger warnings, and idiots bitch about that. Plus, they often end up being funny or weird!

The age based ratings aren't the best and are completely subjective, though, and with different countries putting the same product in different age ranges, it gets weird. But for a quick overview, and as a limitation on say, preventing kids from buying it without adult permission, I'm fine with it. It's one of those things like drinking age where there are definitely people under 21 who could responsibly drink fine, and people over 21 who probably shouldn't be allowed, but the law needs a hard line.

BiggerBoat posted:

Off topic a bit, but the last time I went to Dave & Busters and even Chuck E. Cheese, it was a tad alarming and a bit off putting to see so many 8 year old kids shooting guns, even if it's only pretend. Almost all the game are shooters and racers, aside from the pop a shot and ski ball type games.

This is the sad result of the improvement of console game systems, partially. Basically arcade machines used to have extremely better hardware than console systems, and so that itself was enough of a draw. As console systems got closer to arcade hardware, as well as finding niches that best suited their form factor, "plain" arcade machines fell by the wayside, because it was just easier to release a game that didn't require anything special on console. Arcades then mostly became "gimmick" type games like Dance Dance Revolution, shooters, and racers, but the hardware cost for those machines were still much higher, and had little benefit over the home versions that eventually came out. So you're left with the type of "gimmick" machines that are relatively cheap, racers and shooters compared to things like snowboarding or jetskiing.

This is a similar thing that drove a lot of the gimmicks in movie theaters in the 40s and 50s, because TV started taking away audience members. Eventually, rather than stupid 3d glasses or piping in smells or having live actors interact with the audience, movie studios just started making films that had things that couldn't be shown on television. Interestingly, that probably led to the MPAA ratings, and then their effect led to the opposite effect we see today where films are toned down to make PG-13.

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Rigged Death Trap posted:

I dunno.
Maybe its because the only representative figures are also broken husks of what they used to be. The lesbian character is even implied to be interested in the My Unit/Avatar because of what happened to them in the past.

Which IMO is a weak-rear end way to start representing any sort of homosexual relationship. Nintendo has shied away from anything regarding homosexuality so as the first foray its...not that heartening.

One of the hardest things to do about representation is not just representing good people but showing that someone can be homosexual but still be a bad person for other reasons. You have to find this balance between mincing evil stereotypes, and sterile token characters. Equilibrium is a dumb movie for a lot of reasons, but the fact that the main villain was black without being a black stereotype was really good, and something that should happen. And I don't remember any other black characters, but I never felt like he was a villain because he was black.

But yeah, if only the bad characters have those traits, that's not a good place to start. Japan is in general not really as far along on gay acceptance as you might think as a teenager discovering yaoi and yuri for the first time. Or perhaps they were better in the 90s and the US has passed them, I don't know.

Uh... anyway, I'm derailing.

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Blue Footed Booby posted:

All the while street fighter does just fine with Cammy, sakura, etc.

Final Fight was released in 1989 (ported to the SNES in 1991), a few years before Street Fighter 2 in 1991 (ported to the SNES in 1992). So no Cammy, Sakura, or even Chun Li yet. In Street Fighter 1 in 1987, there were no female enemies or characters. I figure that given Chun Li in Street Fighter 2 is a player character rather than a random enemy, it was probably less worrisome. Honestly, Poison's legs-which-don't-quit-for-days is probably more of a corruption of the youth, but what a corruption!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

foobardog
Apr 19, 2007

There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend :)

Nckdictator posted:

In an example of pseudo-censorship not being all bad I have to bring up the 1962 movie Cape Fear. It's a wonderfully creepy thriller about a lawyer and his being stalked by a former client of his who has just been released from prison for a unspecified crime. The crime is never stated but it's heavily implied to be rape. There's a scene that stands out where the lawyer and a detective visit one of the felon's victims who has just been "beat up" by him. For a modern viewer it's obvious the character was sexually assaulted but everyone in the movie refers to it like "he beat her up"

The fact that the movie self-censors and never bluntly refers to "rape" or sex of any kind just makes it all the more creepy.

Yeah, it's interesting because this is the same sort of thing where implications are often scarier than actually seeing things. Like we should not be applauding censorship for the sake of censorship, but great artists often do better when limited. I think John K of Ren and Stimpy fame is a great example. It was better when he had to sneak past the censors rather that just say whatever offensive thing came to his head.

  • Locked thread