|
Post by stcoop on Jun 10, 2020 13:29:14 GMT
Kind of inevitable really after "Little Britain" got the chop too.
And there's no point trying to explain that Papa Lazarou is not the same thing as blackface as I don't think people would be in the mood to hear it right now.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jun 10, 2020 13:50:20 GMT
The thing with deleting Series/films though is where do you draw the line? should every example of racial/ cultural stereotype be erased , if so that's most of Comedy gone and some fine drama, content warning changes would be better IMO
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by stcoop on Jun 10, 2020 14:13:45 GMT
I'm amazed that episode of "Fawlty Towers" where the Major has some choice words to say still exists uncensored.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Jun 10, 2020 14:19:23 GMT
The thing with deleting Series/films though is where do you draw the line? should every example of racial/ cultural stereotype be erased , if so that's most of Comedy gone and some fine drama, content warning changes would be better IMO Regards mark687 I still think they should do what they did when it came to the old Tom and Jerry shorts. Have a warning or a short introduction explaining the social context of when they were made whilst leaving them uncensored.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 10, 2020 15:57:29 GMT
The thing with deleting Series/films though is where do you draw the line? should every example of racial/ cultural stereotype be erased , if so that's most of Comedy gone and some fine drama, content warning changes would be better IMO Regards mark687 Content warning may be an alternative. But the examples so far are not being deleted or erased, they are still available on physical media.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Jun 10, 2020 16:13:19 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for.
If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Jun 10, 2020 16:15:20 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity. Couldn’t have put it better myself Digi.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 10, 2020 16:48:54 GMT
Depressing for those of us who still have our sense of humour.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 10, 2020 16:54:26 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. But these shows are not being withdrawn from broadcast based on the views of an actor or writer but by the content. What you are talking about is a different debate. Depressing for those of us who still have our sense of humour. Why is it depressing? If you like these shows I would assume that you have them already on DVD? So how does their withdrawal from broadcast make you depressed?
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 10, 2020 17:00:17 GMT
I guess; it just feels like some people are missing the point that's all. I don't look at shows like The League of Gentlemen, Fawlty Towers and even Little Britain and see small minded prejudices being played out.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 10, 2020 17:00:52 GMT
I'm amazed that episode of "Fawlty Towers" where the Major has some choice words to say still exists uncensored. I'm not, the episodes of Little Britain & League of Gentlemen still exist uncensored they are just no longer being broadcast.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 10, 2020 17:03:55 GMT
I guess; it just feels like some people are missing the point that's all. I don't look at shows like The League of Gentlemen, Fawlty Towers and even Little Britain and see small minded prejudices being played out. Possibly. I find the Fawlty Towers episode 'The Germans' quite embarrassing & cringy to watch. But I don't think it is my place to say that some people are missing the point if they are offended by some of the stereotypes in Little Britain for example.
|
|
|
Post by BHTvsTFC on Jun 10, 2020 17:15:12 GMT
I guess; it just feels like some people are missing the point that's all. I don't look at shows like The League of Gentlemen, Fawlty Towers and even Little Britain and see small minded prejudices being played out. Possibly. I find the Fawlty Towers episode 'The Germans' quite embarrassing & cringy to watch. But I don't think it is my place to say that some people are missing the point if they are offended by some of the stereotypes in Little Britain for example. It's an old argument but I find that scene hilarious but I appreciate that I am watching two 'broken' characters played by performers that pitch those roles perfectly. I think one of the problems that people struggle with is both of them engender sympathy from the viewer throughout the run of the show despite being idiots. That said I don't think anyone watches that series and aspires to be like both of those characters. It's a thorny issue that people will fight over for decades to come, but I personally like my viewing to be varied because it makes me think. I really despise tories in real life but this week a colleague of mine who is a staunch tory has really helped me out without asking for anything in return. Real life is like that and our entertainment should be as well.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jun 10, 2020 18:15:43 GMT
I was actually quite surprised by this one as well as HBO Max taking down Gone with the Wind.
Though with the latter they have said that they'll put it back up at some point, just with a content warning like was mentioned above
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 11, 2020 0:22:02 GMT
Art should not be censored. Put as many warning labels as you want left, right and smack dab centre.
if it illicits constructive dialogue then that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by masterdoctor on Jun 11, 2020 1:30:09 GMT
This is not a case of art being censored at all. Netflix is a privately owned company that has full say on what they choose to show on their streaming service. If they don't want to show League, or anything else for that matter, then that is fully their choice. They aren't censoring it, they are choosing not to associate with it. Big difference.
Now I would much prefer that networks and streaming services would put content warnings as opposed to taking things off of their sites willingly, as I think it allows for better conversations on the merits of specific works, but either choice is perfectly fine and up to those in charge of the business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2020 3:33:27 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity. *nods* I'm all for content warnings. That quest for purity can prove rather dangerous. The Motion Picture Code (better known colloquially as the Hays Code) was created with the intention of "purging immorality" from Hollywood films. That meant violence, harsh language, eroticism and all the expected controversial themes, but it also extended into areas that became damaged by censure. Filmmakers couldn't present stories that contravened the "correct standards of living", this included depictions of poverty, mixed-race marriages or homosexuality, all of which were Code violations. All of which were used as excuses not to talk about the subject matters. Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 11, 2020 5:01:44 GMT
I was actually quite surprised by this one as well as HBO Max taking down Gone with the Wind. Though with the latter they have said that they'll put it back up at some point, just with a content warning like was mentioned above I was even more surprised by people from the UK complaining about this on social media when currently HBO Max is not available in the UK! They are free to watch Gone With the Wind if they want. The dvd is available on Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by aussiedoctorwhofan on Jun 11, 2020 5:04:35 GMT
I would think that a content warning would be sufficient. There isn't a movie or TV show made, at any point from silent films up until this very day, which isn't tainted in some way by an actor or director or writer or DP or someone on set, holding some kind of prejudiced viewpoint or who has made off-colour remarks--whether publicly or in the privacy of their own home with their friends or family--at some point in their life. Even the nicest person in the world on occasion has moments of darkness, when they don't live up to what they and we should all strive for. If it's significant enough to merit comment, then sure absolutely: give it a PG-13 rating and slap a warning flag on it. And then move on. Don't just attempt to erase all film/TV in a futile quest for purity. Another strong argument against censorship is to provide evidence that such transgressions happened in the first place. To use a real-life example, there is a road called Boundary Street which was the outer city limit of where Aboriginal people were permitted after dark. There was a furore to have the street renamed, the sign removed and everything else. However, the communities most affected by it were the ones who said to leave it. Indigenous activists said it was an important site to remember. That the segregation and mistreatment happened, that the knock-on effects of it continue to happen and that it hasn't been forgotten. If it made people uncomfortable, good, it should. It's an unpleasant lesson, but one worth teaching and remembering. Yes, I was taught about this in school in the mid 80's.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Jun 11, 2020 5:04:43 GMT
This is not a case of art being censored at all. Netflix is a privately owned company that has full say on what they choose to show on their streaming service. If they don't want to show League, or anything else for that matter, then that is fully their choice. They aren't censoring it, they are choosing not to associate with it. Big difference. Now I would much prefer that networks and streaming services would put content warnings as opposed to taking things off of their sites willingly, as I think it allows for better conversations on the merits of specific works, but either choice is perfectly fine and up to those in charge of the business. Yes well said, the shows in question are still available to buy on physical media formats.
|
|