Forum - View topicOn the fascinating nature of broadcast censorship.
|
|
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yttrbio
 Posts: 3714 |
|
|||
|
Unfortunately, there's no real way to talk about this without sounding like a dude who has an unnatural obsession with high school girl panties, but my actual unnatural obsession is with institutional systems.
Presumably, Japanese broadcasters have rules about what can and can't be shown. I don't know if there's a centralized institution like the FCC there, but each broadcaster, at least, has its own standards, I assume. So I always find it fascinating when some shows get censored in some parts, but not in others, and I can't find any rhyme or reason to the decisions. I've seen it in a couple of shows, but I'll just use "A Dark Rabbit has Seven Lives" as an example here, since it just streamed, and clearly had some censorship discussions with the broadcaster. (I won't be including screenshots, because I think that would get me arrested in my jurisdiction) At 5:26, we see a bunch of girls going gaga for some asshole, because everyone knows that girls love not-so-nice-people. (I don't think the creators quite understood the concept, here, but that's a different issue) Careful camera work and some forward leaning gives the viewer a panorama of a panoply of panties. Luckily, a mighty angel was out to protect the innocence of the not-at-all perverted viewer and cast a great beam of light across the screen in a last-ditch effort to save said viewer from eternal damnation. However, a mere 4 minutes and twenty seconds later, at 9:45, we see a much closer and more detailed shot of panties, in a scene where some chick is trying to hold back some demonic force in a manner carefully crafted to maximize sexual innuendo. Was the angel on a smoke break? He doesn't show up until a giant phallus shoots out of the wall between her legs, as demonic phalli are wont to do in Japanese animation, and even then he's still sort of phoning it in. So what gives? I don't understand how to draw a line that somehow excludes the first scene, but not the second. Is it the context? Is the first situation too plausible that it might give viewers the wrong idea, where they'll just shrug and say "yeah, demons, panties, whatever" in the other? Is it a matter of quantity? Only four or less allowed on the screen at a time? I'm a nerd, dammit. I don't care how the show is censored, I just want my censorship systems coherent! Bonus question: What's the most distracting form of this kind of censorship? I'm partial to the situations where beneath a girl's skirt is a bottomless pit of infinite darkness. When my response isn't "seriously, you couldn't just edit around it?" but rather "man, I wonder what kind of inter-dimensional hijinks are going on here," I'm completely out of the show. (Edit: It occurs to me that, though I was thinking of females, naked males frequently have the same "black void crotch" syndrome, which must be some kind of venereal disease.) Last edited by Yttrbio on Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
HyugaHinata
 Posts: 3505 |
|
|||
|
[EDIT: Post's content has been entirely replace because it was pure soapboxing instead of making any effort to respond to the OP. That is not acceptable. - Key]
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shenl742
Posts: 1526 |
|
|||
|
Most of it ends up getting restored when it hits DVD right? So I don't really see the big deal...
|
||||
|
||||
|
HyugaHinata
Posts: 3505 |
|
|||
Well, yeah, but that's a different issue. I don't have any gripes with industries regulating themselves when it comes to free-to-air viewing. Self-censorship is the only justifiable form of censorship. More info: http://www.deception.com.au/ Edit: Sorry, Key, but these facts are important when weighing idealism vs. pragmatism. |
||||
|
||||
|
Yttrbio
Posts: 3714 |
|
|||
|
I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of censorship, when it's appropriate, etc. Broadcasters have standards of appropriateness, and I just find the application of such standards to be fascinating and, at least for the moment, somewhat incoherent. I'm genuinely curious to learn about what goes into these censorship decisions and, by proxy, cultural standards of a culture that is quite foreign to me.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18588 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||
And I'm sorry, but you're continuing to stray off into soapboxing by continuing to bring that article up in situations where it has no relevance; that is not, in any way, what the OP is talking about. I'll let it stand, this time, but continue off the focus here and there will be consequences. I do agree with Yttrbio that the censorship in that episode was incredibly uneven; I, too, wondered why they were censoring some of those scenes but not others. There was no logical consistency that I could discern. EDIT: Corrected grammatical error. Last edited by Key on Sun Jul 10, 2011 3:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||
Allow me to shed some light on the matter, though realize I'm speaking from knowledge of the MPAA's history and those of television. From the aspect of the MPAA, there isn't so much of "what" gets taken into consideration for a rating, but "how much". It is this foundation which really dictates the ratings on television, as most broadcasters will not take the chance to offend advertisers. Therefore, the application will come off as confusing, especially when a trend is sought. More importantly, people realize the trend shows tremendous fault in the application, but yet can not define a regulatory application so each is identical regardless who does the broadcast. For example, the MPAA has come under scrutiny by both outspoken directors and independent film makers because of the increased usage of NC-17, which no theater will play (and many retailers will not carry). Most find the increased usage a pretty strong coincidence movies by the big studios often get a passing grade despite having much worse content as a means to stop film distribution. As a reminder, this is still my speculation, but I wanted to address an interesting conversation I had with a few anime fans a few weeks ago. I had addressed my opinion anime seems to be delivering many more "loli" shows but the application of fanservice seems a bit perplexing when it seems most censoring doesn't apply when the girls are more mature than the rest of the cast. Though this isn't a "for sure", it just seems quite odd the growth of these characters seems to stem from artists who are very vocal against the Tokyo's government being involved in the restriction of anime and manga using very questionable guidelines. The discussion went well, and a few people agreed the trend seemed coincidental, and we all agreed to sit and watch what 2011 delivers us, and almost on cue, the final episodes of Lotte's Toy seem to deliver themselves from the coincidental discussion. The crotch shots of the Strike Witches, as another example, shows another established connection between "mature" and "we'll forgive it". Though remember mature isn't always a criteria. At any rate, expect the confusion to continue, especially if such titles make it into the US. Crunchyroll has been quite generous with its "beams of light" and "steam", which is rather disappointing considering many of the titles it carries will not be released on DVD. Not that I'm looking for the fanservice, but when the application is so noticeable it distracts, it's a problem. Well, that's my opinion anyway. |
||||
|
||||
|
HyugaHinata
Posts: 3505 |
|
|||
Yeah, self-policing is often incoherent at best. In Australia, at least, violence is always OK, but a mild sexual reference will push the rating up to PG. |
||||
|
||||
Jessica Hart
 Posts: 219 |
|
|||
|
Sales gimmicks and incentive is usually the main reason for stuff like that.. you get a preview in some scenes but 'nope, shell out some cash, otaku' in others.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shenl742
Posts: 1526 |
|
|||
The US video market is just as guilty as this though, with many horror films or raunchy comedies getting unrated DVD releases with such monikers as "Too Hot/Intense/Outrageous/Naughty for Theaters!!" on them. |
||||
|
||||
HaruhiToy
 Posts: 4118 |
|
|||
Really? So they are taking the position that you can be "just a little bit" pregnant. Which is OK. A "lot" pregnant isn't. How amusing. |
||||
|
||||
|
HaruhiToy
Posts: 4118 |
|
|||
Don't lose sight of the fact that these kinds of government activities are intensely political. Very often the personnel involved in carrying out the so-called "policy" have no real personal interest in it but are subject to all sorts of pressures from all sides. Very often what they choose to do has more to do with the appearance of doing something rather than actually doing something. For an even more egregious example of this effect, just look at TSA in the U.S. I mean really. Not even a drooling moron would believe that most of their activities actually have anything to do with providing security for air travel. Common discourse even has a well-accepted name for it: "security theater." The whole purpose of it is so elected politicians can say they are "doing something" or "doing all they can" to manipulate panicky voters. Yet people who should no better are still taking their shoes off and throwing away perfectly good (and harmless) toothpaste just to board an airplane. No politician or bureaucrat is going to stop it because think of what their situation would be if later something bad happened. So don't waste time looking for logic or consistency based on logic regarding censorship in anime. It just ain't there. |
||||
|
||||
|
Yttrbio
Posts: 3714 |
|
|||
But it is, just like it's there for the TSA. You identified the logic behind security theater, even if it's not exactly the same as the "official line." Regardless, even if you don't agree with the motivation behind TSA rules, you at least know what they are. This is a case where I can't even figure out the rules. I don't know the exact structure of broadcast television in Japan, but I'm pretty sure the details of how to censor a particular show isn't a government decision, it's a broadcaster decision, and often comes down to a decision by the production staff. The decision isn't (directly) political, it's cultural. In this case in particular, we actually know something about the difficulties, and that people who do care about the project were involved in the censorship calls. |
||||
|
||||
JaffaOrange
 Posts: 254 |
|
|||
Perhaps they have a point system and if they exceed the number of points allowed (for the time slot or whatever) they aren't allowed to broadcast based entirely on the amount of (supposed) titillating aspects as opposed to (supposed) relative titillation. Or maybe this time, somebody dropped the ball and didn't notice. |
||||
|
||||
|
PetrifiedJello
Posts: 3782 |
|
|||
I find it interesting you make light of my position only to turn and say the exact same thing two posts later. And for the record, young man, "pregnant" was, at one time, a word not uttered on our television or radio broadcasts, so yes, "stork coming" and "pregnant" validate your argument between "a little bit" and "alot". Which now makes this amusing to me. You're done trolling. Note this is not a question. Take your ignorance elsewhere if you can add nothing else to the discussion. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group