People who rant about censorship.

[DezoPenguin]

I'm referring to the general bowdlerization of pop culture, specifically manga and videogames, by the removal of nudity, and/or bloody violence, and the way the Internet culture seems to explode all over it as if we were living in 1984 or something.

Okay, censorship bad. I get it. But somewhere along the line some people have lost a little focus. There's a significant difference between having a work of social, religious, or political significance having its very ideas suppressed to suit the agenda of an oppressive regieme and altering an almost purely commercial product for the sake of making it suitable for a broader target audience.

I'm tired of hearing people react to minor snips and erasures as they were somehow the end of the world. The rants are violent and explosive and they appear to encompass the kind of moral indignation I'd expect to see in response to death threats against Salman Rushdie or having books burned because they don't suit the theories of the ruling elite.

I mean, okay: yes, the original manga artist drew a penis on the withered mummy in the second volume of Claymore, and yes, it isn't there in the Viz edition of the manga. Does this represent the triumph of crass commercialism over art? Sure. With one sweep of the eraser, the book no longer has to be shrink-wrapped on the shelves and can be freely sold to a market of younger readers with disposable income. A publishing company has made a marketing decision based on the bottom line.

Somehow, I can't just work my way up to indignation. Mockery, maybe. I mean, remember how Nintendo would carefully excise any religious references from its games? That was often laughable, and moderately stupid.

I mean, okay, when these kind of edits go so far as to destroy the basic point of the original work, a certain flap is justified--just not a morally indignant flap. The response, for example, to CMX's wholesale censoring of TenTen was, "Darn it, half the point of this manga is all the fanservice. You show me panties or I'm not paying!" Or back when the SNES Mortal Kombat II had the gameplay, but the Genesis version had the blood and gore--well, which version you preferred says a lot about why you were playing MKII in the first place.

But all too often lately I poke my nose into forums and what I hear are things like "the artistic integrity has been ruined!" and a lot of high-pitched complaining that looks like it belongs in a legal brief of a First Amendment case! I'd love it if we could all keep a little perspective on this and remember:

1) This is a commercial product. The author (whom half the time is a company itself, in the case of videogames) has licensed it to a publisher. The publisher has licensed it to another publisher. What rights each has to tamper with, alter, or screw around with the work are defined in the contractual agreements, which were entered into in exchange for cash. Nobody's civil rights are being trod upon by these examples of censorship.

2) The correct way to fight commercial censorship is in the commercial marketplace. The only way publishers will stop wanting to censor things released in the American market is if they come to believe that uncensored material will make them more money then censored material.

3) Rather than going off into major rant mode, stop to consider what it is you're ranting about. Does the removal of a depiction of blood and gore
from a particular scene steal its artistic and emotional impact? Or does it just reduce the visceral shock value? Do you really need to see the nipples on a twelve-year-old to fully appreciate the meaning of a scene, or is it just the difference in cultural standards between Japan and the United States regarding nudity taboos?

Take a step back and decide with your dollars. It's your money, spend it where you want to. But by all that you may consider holy, please don't sit there claiming that some faceless company trying to improve its bottom line is the moral equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, and Savonarola.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

If only all rants could be this good http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif

[Danger_Girl]

Art tailored to be generic enough for everybody.

[Danger_Girl]

Corperate committee member A: Well we're ready to begin marketing this statue called David sculptured by some guy named Michelangelo.

http://blueskyblueriver.homestead.com/files/David_von_Michelangeloa.jpg

Corporate committee member B: Ah yes, about that...well our consultants have raised objections about marketing that version.

Corporate committee member A: Oh really? And why is that?

Corporate committee member B: Well you see, he has a penis. It's likely Wal-Mart will find it obscene and refuse to carry it. According to our consultant that will effect its profitability by 5.3%.

Corporate committee member A: Oh good heavens! Someone quick get a hammer and chisel.

http://blueskyblueriver.homestead.com/files/David_von_Michelangelob.jpg

Corporate committee member B: Oh yes, much better. And we clearly didn't steal its artistic or emotional impact.

Corporate committee member A: Yes, and it is now culturally within the standards of American nudity taboos.

Corporate committee member B: And most importantly we'll be able to sell it through Wal-Wart.

[RuneLateralus]

On 2006-08-25 17:34, Danger_Girl wrote:
Corperate committee member A: Well we're ready to begin marketing this statue called David sculptured by some guy named Michelangelo.

http://blueskyblueriver.homestead.com/files/David_von_Michelangeloa.jpg

Corporate committee member B: Ah yes, about that...well our consultants have raised objections about marketing that version.

Corporate committee member A: Oh really? And why is that?

Corporate committee member B: Well you see, he has a penis. It's likely Wal-Mart will find it obscene and refuse to carry it. According to our consultant that will effect its profitability by 5.3%.

Corporate committee member A: Oh good heavens! Someone quick get a hammer and chisel.

http://blueskyblueriver.homestead.com/files/David_von_Michelangelob.jpg

Corporate committee member B: Oh yes, much better. And we clearly didn't steal its artistic or emotional impact.

Corporate committee member A: Yes, and it is now culturally within the standards of American nudity taboos.

Corporate committee member B: And most importantly we'll be able to sell it through Wal-Wart.



Pretty much sums my ideology on censorship in terms of art and film. The artist chooses for the work to be a certain way for a reason. Not because it is marketable.

[saturnihilist]

Art has always been the cause of social change--generally speaking. However, it seems that anything aesthetic has been drained of those qualities that give it that very trait, be those qualities controversial views, the truth, or what have you. Society reflects art, but we've little to reflect. Ah, the unreflecting herd.

[saturnihilist]

I suppose I should put "In my opinion..." before everything.

[DezoPenguin]

On 2006-08-25 17:34, Danger_Girl wrote:
Corperate committee member A: Well we're ready to begin marketing this statue called David sculptured by some guy named Michelangelo.


*snip*




Corporate committee member B: And most importantly we'll be able to sell it through Wal-Wart.



Funny as heck. ^_- Also probably just about how these people make their decisions (less the pithy sarcasm).

Also exactly why I posted the rant in the first place.

Of course, it was meant as humorous sarcasm -- exaggeration to make a point. But the pure fact is, this is exactly the way people talk on the 'net about censorship; that the "Great Works" are exactly equal to some videogame churned out by a collective design team in the depths of a corporate studio.

The pure and simple fact is this. If an artist didn't want his/her work censored to the extent of it being the most important thing in the world(again assuming that we're dealing with one single person or at least a collective consciousness who can be referred to as "the artist") then self-publication is an option. But if that artist wants to mass-produce copies of his/her work and sell them in bulk to the masses, then compromises must be made. Whomever is kicking through the kale for paper, ink, shipping, distribution, and whatnot isn't interested in "artistic integrity," they're interested in "profit." That's the difference between pure art and commercial art.

The "artist" we're talking about gave the right to the company to change and alter his/her art for publication, rights that were handed over in exchange for cash. If you don't like the changes that were made; hell, if you don't like the fact that publishers obtain editorial rights at all, then don't buy what you object to. It's your money. Just recognize that you're making a commercial decision about the economic value of a commercially produced product of the consumer media, not firing the first shots in some war of anarchic free speech versus the thought police.

[Danger_Girl]

Ah yes, I can't wait for the day when everything marketed to consumers is as generic, bland, and unobjectionable as possible.

Heh, sorry I'm not usually this sarcastic. I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't like the idea of corporate interests becoming the standard. It's not just manga and videogames we're seeing this. Have you watched the news lately? Last time I did it was nearly wall to wall coverage of John Karr. They were reading his poetry for Chirst's sake. But hey, it gets the ratings so it must be alright.

The real truth is there probably is a strong market out there for adult video games, but in the end the corporations don't want to take a chance.

Hell, its the Wal-Mart model. Tailored to be generic for just about anyone, and cheap enough to make it a no-brainer. It's apparent in U.S. entertainment, media, gaming, and the news, and really, in every facet of industry.

[Sinue_v2]

Just to play devils advocate though, who decides what are "Great Works"? It may seem silly to compair a Comic Book to Tolstoy, or to DeVinci - but honestly, who makes the decision? Is there a specific critera which defines what is worth circumventing standards & practices, and what is just "Entertainment"? If the Venus DeMilo were sculpted today and shown in highly public forums, expecially those with kids preset, would people grant it the artistic licence they do now simply because it's "old".

IMO, Artwork is Artwork. It may not meet the acedemic criteria that many hold as what true art should represent - but it does mean a great deal to a great many people. Moreso, even, than the "Great Works". So why is artwork which also has the potential to move people censored because of the manner in which it's delivered?

[TheyCallMeJoe]

If a product doesn't have any considerably graphic or controversial content, that does not immediately classify it as "generic" or "bland." Simply because shocking material isn't visible in said product does not mean that it has suddenly lost it's shock-effect. To some, the aforementioned statement is probably true. But that's what "unrated and uncut" DVD releases are for. "Footage we couldn't show in theaters!" advertises to the people who are just dying to get more of the action. For the rest of us, shots of various human orificium aren't a standing requirement for an enjoyable piece.

So, what I guess I'm trying to say is:
--censorship is sometimes necessary for a product to sell. Something may be really great, but retailers aren't authorized to offer it to the general public because of some ridiculous detail.
--censorship to the extremity is bad. If it detracts from the original impact/meaning of the piece, than by all means leave it be. Michaelangelo is a very "generic" example. Try censoring some modern-day stuff and see if it does anything to the message the product is trying to convey.

[Danger_Girl]

Censorship to the extremity is bad,if it detracts from the original impact/meaning of the piece.

By whos judgment? A Wal-Mart executive? A corporate consultant or committee? Does removing David's penis detract from the original impact/meaning of the piece?


Michaelangelo is a very "generic" example.

I used David because it's an easily identifiable nude. I guess you think Michaelangelo's works are "generic"?


Try censoring some modern-day stuff and see if it does anything to the message the product is trying to convey.

Would it make a difference to you if I found a modern nude and photoshoped the nipples off? I think the example of David illustrates my point well enough.


human orificium aren't a standing requirement for an enjoyable piece.

I don't think we're talking about spread eagles here.

[TheyCallMeJoe]

Alright, I need to clarify a few things. I did a pretty bad job of explaining the first round.

The Generic Michaelangelo
His works aren't generic, they're just easy examples in the field of censorship. Removing certain aspects of them would obviously be damaging.

Modern Day Censorship
Hmm...I need to clarify better there too, sorry. In terms of modern-day works, I meant things like video games and/or films since they're newer developments in terms of chronology. Let's take the Thomas Crown Affair for example. It's original purpose: to entertain. If you censored some of the scenes in that movie, would it really be that big of a deal? No. The original purpose of David: to depict the human body. Naturally something like that will be more cause to worry than say a toned-down video game or movie.

Human orrificum
I definitley used the wrong word choice here. I wasn't referring to the aforementioned "orificum" in specific. In general, I suppose anything that could be categorized as "shocking"...e.g. revealing imagery, excessive viloence, etc. In terms of modern-day material (video games, films, Myspace pics *ahem*)censoring a few things isn't gonna hurt much. There are certain cases where certain films or game titles will require the nasties. It's what they rely on to be of any worth whatsoever (ahem, House of Wax remake http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif).

But I can agree with you on one thing: who decides what's right and wrong? In truth, it's the corporate people who decide whether or not the product is released on the market. More often than not, the consumer's opinions conflict with the "executive choice." Keep in mind though...there are a lot of people these days who hunt around and nitpick ridiculous details for the sake of a lawsuit and $$$. Companies don't want to take that risk.

-EDIT-
Now my opinion is probably biased off of personal experience. I haven't encountered anything in which censorship has left me disappointed, or feeling that the product was made "lesser" for that reason.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TheyCallMeJoe on 2006-08-25 22:34 ]</font>

[Danger_Girl]

The following excerpts are from A Gamers' Manifesto (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/manifesto.html). I don't agree with all the points in the article, but I certainly agree with some.


Speaking of adult games, where are they? Politicians bemoan the bloodthirsty horror of video games, but really the standards are almost Victorian when compared to R-rated Hollywood fare such as Sin City and Kill Bill and Cinemax's Voyeur Safari IV: Dildo Island. You get a little harsh language and some comic-booky sprays of gore, but that's about it. There is an "AO" (Adults Only) ESRB rating for games, but when is the last time you saw it?

We're not for speeding the moral degradation of the modern world, but imagine a Hollywood where only PG-13 movies could get made. Say goodbye to everything from Shindler's List to The Matrix.

Chances of that happening...

We've got one hyphenated word for you: Wal-Mart. The largest game seller in the world simply won't stock games with the "AO" rating. Period. So those games won't sell and developers won't make them. So we're stuck with the AO games found only in our fantasies.

Half of the gamers are now over age 18, and almost a quarter are over age 50. Where are the games for the old-timers? Where's the game where we get to play as Dr. House and diagnose mysterious illnesses while crushing the patient's spirit with cruel insults? Where's the game where we're a pre-op transsexual where the object of the game is to gather enough money to complete the operation?

Considering how broad the gaming market is now, there is a remarkably narrow range of games out there. Could this be what the news wires (http://www.forbes.com/business/newswire/2004/03/26/rtr1313656.html) were talking about last year when they spoke of a "crisis of creativity" in gaming?

Chances of that happening...

See item #1. If the new consoles are built with a graphics-first mentality, how easy is it going to be to make games that stretch the boundaries of game logic and player freedom? And if so, can we at least have our damned adventure games back?

But there's another, less-obvious side of that muffin: if a machine is so "advanced" it can draw a photo-realistic city in the background of every level, that only means that developers now must to hire somebody to render that photorealistic city instead of pasting on a bit of flat, blurred wallpaper. That means game development costs are skyrocketing and that leads to the big-budget Hollywood blockbuster syndrome. Bigger investments means developers must "play it safe" for fear of losing their ass. And that means fewer and fewer oddball "niche" games like those mentioned above and more quickie knock-offs based on movies.

And on the opposite side of the coin...

Sadly, the proven money-making designers in the industry are the same ones that have given us Dead Or Alive Beach Volleyball and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (where the main character rampages though a city populated with violent men and sex-crazed street whores). Game creators aren’t just casually missing the point, they’re showing a unified front of stupidity.



I think some of the points of that article lend themselves well to this discussion.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Danger_Girl on 2006-08-25 23:03 ]</font>

[TheyCallMeJoe]

Lol, well there's one thing that was certainly surprising....a quarter of the gamers over age 50? Exactly where did they find this statistic? I guess it makes sense, since with age comes limited mobility and recreational opportunities...but a quarter? It seems a bit much.

Some of the points I can agree with too...even if they're not related to censorship. I'm gonna slip a little off-topic here and say that (in terms of personal preference) 70% of a game is play and design, and 30% are the graphics. Far too often, there are games whose only running beneft are the graphics...which are virtually worthless to me if it's gameplay sucks.

K, back on topic. I'm fairly neutral on the whole AO thing, since I don't really have to worry about that yet. But I can say that I agree with the DOA volleyball & Grand Theft Auto statement. The problem isn't censorship with those products...the very concept of the game itself is just wrong http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif.

[Danger_Girl]

I also agree that number seems high. Although the half over 18 almost seems a little low. That would mean 25% of gamers are between 18 and 49, and 25% are 50+, I don't buy it. But regardless, I think we can all agree there are a large number of adult gamers who would buy AO titles IF they aren't crap. AO doesn't have to mean GTA and Leisure Suit Larry.

[DezoPenguin]

Well, D_G, if you're going to start complaining about the narrowness of corporate marketing in the entertainment world, be it books, videogames, magazines, movies, television, comics, and so on, then we're no longer on opposite sides. I mean, heck, I'm 34 and married, which means that to the media I'm an old fogy whose entertainment dollars they're apparently not interested in catering towards, since not a darned thing is advertised in my direction.

Part of it, specifically referring to the videogame area, has to do with the nature of the people involved and their ability to perceive the market. Remember how often the gaming industry has said, "we need to attract more female gamers!" ('cause, y'know, that's 51% of the world population) and yet every attempt to market to females is consistently pathetic and juvenile, proving nothing but that game companies have no idea how to appeal to the female mind.

I mean, if you get right down to it, while there may be better graphics, orchestral music, surroundsound, varied gameplay modes, and elaborate control schemes, I'd say a good, what, 75% of videogames are just Space Invaders redone with better technology. That's not just a rut, that's a three-decade rut.

[BogusKun]

Art has had censorship since the beginning of time... even through Regimes such as Imperialism, Communisto, and Democracy...

Bush is hailed as this all high American Heroic Figure... but if he was so much of a hero.. how come he never show his face in the hood?

You see... they set an art or standard.. it is criticized.

Boom.

Serial Killing is even considered an art and takes criticism from the best psychologists

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2006-08-25 11:53, DezoPenguin wrote:
Or back when the SNES Mortal Kombat II had the gameplay, but the Genesis version had the blood and gore--well, which version you preferred says a lot about why you were playing MKII in the first place.



The idea that anyone picked up MKII for the gameplay is laughable...

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2006-08-26 05:32, DezoPenguin wrote:
I mean, if you get right down to it, while there may be better graphics, orchestral music, surroundsound, varied gameplay modes, and elaborate control schemes, I'd say a good, what, 75% of videogames are just Space Invaders redone with better technology. That's not just a rut, that's a three-decade rut.




You'd have to be going down to a stupidly basic level to think that games have been stuck in a three decade rut. I mean seriously, that's a horrible exaggeration. What is there to change if you discount how it plays, how it looks and how it sounds?

[AzureBlaze]

For cencorship, no one's hit on the real enemy that no one wants!

The crazy loudmouths. These are the people that spill McD coffee on themself and sue cause it was hot. They're the reason that my dish washer says "Not for use on babies". Wait, I shouldn't shut the baby into the dishwasher and give it a cycle? I'm glad I read that warning...it looked handy to wash off all the plastic bags the baby was covered in.

Did you know there's an organization in the midwest of USA called the "Christian Parents Association" (thats' probably not an exact label, this is off memory) that consists of a total of like 50 guys, and one main guy. Their sole purpose is to watch TV, read media and then object loudly. They send an excess of like 5,000 letters a MONTH around to various companies including publishers (of all sorts, this means you manga readers too!) Their goal is to control EVERYTHING America sees on television. And they're doing a good job. They just nag the book folks at this point, but it's working.

They pretend to be 'everybody', and because no one else has anything to say, they get away with it.

See, loudmouths tend to win. Even if they're wrong. Why? They're loud, and no one else is. Like Dezo says, speak with your money, but speak with letters too! If you don't like something getting censored up, WRITE a physical paper piece and buy a stamp to get it there. If you want something, SAY SO, let people know you want it made. Companies want money, and they want to sell you more stuff. They're not gonna sit around and ignore 10,000 requests for "Item X" or "Change Y".

Walmart wants money above all else. If suddenly Pot is legal or something, I doubt they'd say 'no to drugs' if it meant another billion or two annually. Who is telling this WallMart what is acceptable? Who rails on them when they slip up for $$s?

But so far, the only "opinion" and "reccommendation" they're getting is from these loud guys who in no way speak for the majority. They're a cynch to defeat, all you gotta do is out shout 'em. Their power relies on everyone else being too lazy--or the nemisis of the free world...

"I don't count"
Oh I won't vote for the guy I believe in, because he'll never win. I pick the lesser of 2 evils. I won't write in cause no one will listen to me. My opinion is just 1, it won't matter. Big companies don't listen to just 1 person's letter. I don't make a difference.

What if everyone thought that way?
What if no one did?
The people who make stuff happen are the people who get loud about it. You have to know you matter: there's other people out there with the same idea, even if you don't know they exist.

**as for authors wanting cash for getting published and giving up their rights, from some interviews a lot of them end up mad/burned because of censorship that was promised not to happen and then did, and the early-manga issue of pageflipping/pagemirroring so it reads western style. (This exposes errors in the work sometimes, as some poses look faulty or awkward when mirrored--a common technique to improve your art is to mirror it and then fix the errors that you can now see. This aggrivated creators because theirs is a finished piece and you don't want your shabbyness exposed if every pannel was not spot-on) So not always do you agree to sell your item's "soul integrity" when its published I guess you expect it to be treated reasonably.

[Danger_Girl]

By in large I agree with you with the caveat that this discussion was primarily focused on corperate censorship, when the groups you speak of tend to go after retailers and advertisers.


Walmart wants money above all else. If suddenly Pot is legal or something, I doubt they'd say 'no to drugs' if it meant another billion or two annually. Who is telling this WallMart what is acceptable? Who rails on them when they slip up for $$s?

I have to take issue with you there.
This is Wal-marts official statement on stickered music:

"Wal-Mart will not stock music with parental guidance stickers. While Wal-Mart sets high standards, it would not be possible to eliminate every image, word or topic that an individual might find objectionable. And the goal is not to eliminate the need for parents to review the merchandise their children buy. The policy simply helps eliminate the most objectionable material from Wal-Mart's shelves."

This is an exerpt from PBS.org in regards to Wal-Marts stance on censorship:

"With its roots in the Southern Christian heartland, Wal-Mart believes that being a "family" store is the key to their mass appeal. They refuse to carry CDs with cover art or lyrics deemed overtly sexual or dealing with topics such as abortion, homosexuality or Satanism. While Wal-Mart is the world's largest CD retailer, and in some regions the only place in town to purchase music entertainment products represent only a fraction of their business. However, it is a different story for recording artists. Because Wal-Mart reaps about 10 percent of the total domestic music CD sales, most musicians and record companies will agree to create a 'sanitized' version specifically for the megastores. Sometimes this entails altering the cover art, as John Cougar Mellencamp did when asked to airbrush out an angel and devil on one of his album covers. Other times, musicians change their lyrics and song titles. Nirvana, for example, changed its song title from 'Rape Me' to 'Waif Me' for the Wal-Mart version. They also changed the back-cover artwork for the album In Utero, which Wal-Mart objected to because it portrayed fetuses. And when Sheryl Crow released her self-titled album, Wal-Mart objected to the lyric, 'Watch our children as they kill each other with a gun they bought at Wal-Mart discount stores.' When Crow would not change the verse, the retailer refused to carry the album. This type of censorship has become so common that it is often regarded as simply another stage of editing. Record labels are now acting preemptively, issuing two versions of the same album for their big name artists. Less well-known bands, however, are forced to offer 'sanitized' albums out of the gate."

So you can see Wal-Mart acts on its own accord in effort to "eliminate the most objectionable material from Wal-Mart's shelves." It is a store policy put in place devoid of outside influcence.

[saturnihilist]

^Just to support the above statement, Kurt Cobain was forced to change the title of "Rape Me" to "Waif Me". This change is still in effect.

[space_butler]

On 2006-09-03 11:43, saturnihilist wrote:
^Just to support the above statement, Kurt Cobain was forced to change the title of "Rape Me" to "Waif Me". This change is still in effect.



not on any nirvana album ive ever seen...

[Danger_Girl]

On 2006-09-03 13:27, space_butler wrote
not on any nirvana album ive ever seen...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_Me


Quoted from wiki:

the song's title was censored as "Waif Me" on Wal-Mart and Kmart releases of In Utero, an intentionally comical name chosen by Cobain himself (he had originally wanted to call it "Sexually Assault Me", but that name was too long).



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Danger_Girl on 2006-09-03 14:48 ]</font>

[space_butler]

you expect me to have seen an american version of a nirvana album? I dont even like the damn band...

[BogusKun]

Watch Samurai Champloo... english dubbing is HEAVY

Mugen says he will rape the girl while shes sleeping, but in english he just says something different... I dunno. I've never heard the actual english comment in the earlier episodes or anything. I just heard it's different words used in America.

Also on the live action IZO. Izo is having sex with his own mother and she is LOVING IT!!! Screaming all sorts of nasty things in Japan I don't feel like popping the DVD in to tell you EXACTLY what she says. But it's a fun scene to watch around 6 christian girls haha.
but in the English version dub... he is just sexing it off with some random woman. sucks.