Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Channel 4 has destroyed The Simpsons


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-02-2013, 12:33
CreamPuff
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 243
Then I am sure we are both sighing in relief we are not mother and son
CreamPuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-02-2013, 13:35
GibsonGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 811
I feel your pain. I have given up watching films on commercial channels because I haven't come across a single one that will show a film intact. That and the flow of the film is ruined because of the breaks. There are also shows that I refuse to watch on television. Most notably Buffy, Angel, Scrubs, Stargate: SG-1, and Babylon 5. The cuts in those are horrendous. Take Buffy for example. When I watched the repeats on Sci-Fi a few years ago, they skipped not one, but two episodes (Hush and Where the Wild Things Are) from season four. The rest of the episodes were butchered beyond belief. I gave up watching and bought the DVDs. I also watched a few of the re-mastered episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation on Sci-Fi. I stopped watching after Conspiracy. This scene had the bit in-between Riker and Picard firing their phasers and walking out of the room cut out.

However, Eurosport never apologized for German show jumper Phillipp Weishaupt saying "Holy Shit" after he had just won the Portuguese leg of the Global Champions Tour. This was left intact for the Riders Club magazine show, and for the Global Champions Tour review programme. However, I'm not sure if it was edited for the repeat on Horse and Country.

The way I see it is that a book store would not sell books with words scored out or paragraphs and chapters missing. So, why the hell should television companies get away with insane censorship?

I am also glad the title of this thread was changed and not removed in its entirety. OP: Please don't liken something like this to rape again. As bad as it is, it doesn't come close to being raped.
GibsonGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 13:50
GibsonGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 811
So you agree that the "sex offenders line" joke should be censored? After all that is an unnecessary piece of humour that has connotations to rape.
To me, there is a BIG difference. A sex offender can be one of a number of things. Ranging from a peeping tom to having consensual relations with an underage person. It does not necessarily mean rape. Rape is something that is extremely violent and can leave a victim emotionally scarred for life.

For that reason, I think the original title was in very poor taste. I know that I am for the most part anti-censorship, but some things just aren't morally or ethically right.
GibsonGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:00
The Gatherer
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,566
To me, there is a BIG difference. A sex offender can be one of a number of things. Ranging from a peeping tom to having consensual relations with an underage person. It does not necessarily mean rape. Rape is something that is extremely violent and can leave a victim emotionally scarred for life.

For that reason, I think the original title was in very poor taste. I know that I am for the most part anti-censorship, but some things just aren't morally or ethically right.
I agree with you about the original title being in poor taste, but rape does not have to be extremely violent, what gave you that idea? Also, isn't consensual sex with someone underage statutory rape?
The Gatherer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:14
CreamPuff
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 243
I agree with you about the original title being in poor taste, but rape does not have to be extremely violent, what gave you that idea? Also, isn't consensual sex with someone underage statutory rape?

Statutory rape is an entirely different thing, it tends to be someone on the brink of age of consent who has consented but is technically too young, A 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend for example. Some people are missing the point. The word 'rape' is not open to different interpretations or meanings, it has one meaning and one meaning only, i.e. non-consensual sex(ual assault).
CreamPuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:18
CreamPuff
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 243
Anyway, I'll bow out now. Said my piece and title changed, I'm happy
CreamPuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:50
GibsonGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 811
I agree with you about the original title being in poor taste, but rape does not have to be extremely violent, what gave you that idea? Also, isn't consensual sex with someone underage statutory rape?
What gave me that idea was that a woman or man is more often than not physically restrained and forced to do a horrible something they don't want to do. To me, that is an extreme act of violence. However, when someone actually consents to having sex, then (in my opinion) it cannot be considered rape. By law, it is technically statutory rape, but it doesn't compare to the other kind of rape. Look at Megan Stammers (the teenager who ran off with her teacher). He was considered to be the sole guilty party, but nothing was said of Stammers, who was readily allowed to wear lots of make-up and revealing clothes. Nor the fact that she voluntarily went away with him. At fifteen-years-old, she knew exactly what she was doing. When I was that age, I would have known that running away with a married man was wrong. I'm not saying that the teacher was blameless (he was after all married and knew how old Stammers was), but should he have taken all the flak and Stammers get away with her reprehensible behaviour without even getting a slap on the wrists? However, a line should be drawn if the person genuinely does not know what they were doing. I know I'm veering off course a bit, but I am trying to clarify my opinions.
GibsonGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 14:52
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 49,603
Everytime I saw the original thread title it reminded me of South Park, Indiana Jones, Lucas and Speilberg.

If you've seen that episode then you would have got the context of this thread and title.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 15:43
logansdad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 765
Everytime I saw the original thread title it reminded me of South Park, Indiana Jones, Lucas and Speilberg.

If you've seen that episode then you would have got the context of this thread and title.
That's what it made me think of, AICN is full of George Lucas raped my childhood posts!!

Pretty ironic that the person who objected to the thread title went on to say that they don't watch The Simpsons and have decided to "bow out happy" now that their will has been imposed. As Mrs Lovejoy, the good Reverands' wife would say "Won't someone please think of the children".
logansdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 15:46
Paul Wilson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,473
Definitely, don't know why, there's nothing particularly great about the one repeated this evening.

Now I think about it, the ones being repeated seem to be 'feel good' stories with 'messages. Or is that just me reading too much into it?
Yvan Eht Nioj......
Paul Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 16:35
ChuckyBlackhart
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wentworth Detention Centre
Posts: 2,382
Exactly. Shoot 'em down!

Shoot? You can't say words like that on here. It might bring to mind someone being shot.

Hmmm I thought the original thread title was pretty badly-chosen (although it's interesting that it managed to survive four whole years unmolested.) But I'm not sure I like the idea of someone changing the thread title to a different word entirely. Like it or not, that's the word the OP chose to use to convey the meaning they wanted to convey. If it isn't acceptable then surely blanking it out would be better than substituting a completely different word with a different meaning. I wouldn't like to see that done to one of my posts.

"Destroyed" dosn't even have the same meaning. You can accidentally destroy something, after all. Whereas the original word clearly means to do something with intent.
Molested? You can't say words like that on here. It might bring to mind someone being molested. Come on people, get with the programme.
ChuckyBlackhart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 18:46
Agent F
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 37,627
Oh dear.

Honestly, it's the last word that would spring to my mind. When there are so many to choose from that convey the intended meaning why you'd pick that one is beyond me.
Agent F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 19:02
drykid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,476
Molested? You can't say words like that on here. It might bring to mind someone being molested. Come on people, get with the programme.
Heh well molestation is ok apparently. At least no-one has complained about it being in poor taste yet

When there are so many to choose from that convey the intended meaning why you'd pick that one is beyond me.
Well firstly, only the OP can state objectively what their intended meaning was. And unfortunately they're not around any more, so all we can do is speculate really.

Secondly, if so many words would do, then give me an example of another one which implies intentional (as opposed to accidental or collateral) harm. The only one I can think of off-hand is "murdered", and if they'd substituted that then I don't think I would've had a problem with it. Although it would still raise the issue of why murder is acceptable as a metaphor but rape isn't. According to dictionary.com one meaning of rape is "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation." Which doesn't seem so out of place here. Although it depends largely on how much you care about The Simpsons I guess.
drykid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 20:52
DVDfever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,662
Hmmm I thought the original thread title was pretty badly-chosen (although it's interesting that it managed to survive four whole years unmolested.)
I was about to say the same thing about the gap, but for all I know there may have been comments on previous pages. I haven't looked back and I can't remember offhand.

But I'm not sure I like the idea of someone changing the thread title to a different word entirely. Like it or not, that's the word the OP chose to use to convey the meaning they wanted to convey. If it isn't acceptable then surely blanking it out would be better than substituting a completely different word with a different meaning. I wouldn't like to see that done to one of my posts.

"Destroyed" dosn't even have the same meaning. You can accidentally destroy something, after all. Whereas the original word clearly means to do something with intent.
However, 'destroyed' is a much better word for what C4 have done to the show. I would also add "because they are a bunch of ignorant and arrogant morons", as they don't care how much of the show they ruin.

Quite. The PC brigade swarmed over this thread like flies on manure. I know what the OP meant, it's just others who twisted it to fit into their warped agenda
Not warped at all. It was stupid to use that word in a thread title. It's like comedians who think they're clever to make a rape joke, when they're just lazy.
DVDfever is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 17:56
DVDfever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,662
Just sent this to Channel 4. God I bloody hate them.

More cuts to the Simpsons. I spotted two scenes sliced for the first time, today in "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy", which included was most of the following such as Grampa's comical pronunciation of the word 'sex'. You know already how ridiculous your cuts are, so why do you still insist on it? Please do enlighten me.

Abe: Unsatisfying sex life?
Homer: N -- yes! But please, don't _you_ say that word!
Abe: What, seeeex? What's so unappealing about hearing your elderly
father talk about sex? I had seeex.
Homer: [groans]
DVDfever is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 18:44
Caxton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 20,610
Channel 4 has destroyed The Simpsons

I this is a fact its he best think C4 ever did they should have been destroyed years ago.
Caxton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 19:06
000Mark000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 360
There are guide lines on what can be said at certain times of the day. It's nothing new to change something or even a reference to something.

If you want real inconsistancy then look no further than the BBFC since anything they censor about a film or pass with one certificate a local council can overturn and make their own decision on the film and even show films the BBFC have banned. And this is from the BBFC's own website.
You might want to read the BBFC's website more closely. They do not censor films, nor ban them. The only classify them within given criteria and any film which fails to meet the criteria is simply unclassified.

Your local council does not overturn any decision made by the BBFC. Your local council as the licensor of cinemas, has always been the arbiter of what can and cannot be shown. Most, if not all, local councils permit the public exhibition of films classified by the BBFC to the persons specified without any further clearance/permission from the council.

Should a film not be classified by the BBFC the council, as the arbiter, can give permission, and conversely, even if the BBFC has classified a film, your local council can refuse permission for it to be shown, as it is the ultimate arbiter.
000Mark000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 19:13
DVDfever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,662
You might want to read the BBFC's website more closely. They do not censor films, nor ban them. The only classify them within given criteria and any film which fails to meet the criteria is simply unclassified.

Your local council does not overturn any decision made by the BBFC. Your local council as the licensor of cinemas, has always been the arbiter of what can and cannot be shown. Most, if not all, local councils permit the public exhibition of films classified by the BBFC to the persons specified without any further clearance/permission from the council.

Should a film not be classified by the BBFC the council, as the arbiter, can give permission, and conversely, even if the BBFC has classified a film, your local council can refuse permission for it to be shown, as it is the ultimate arbiter.
The council can indeed award a film a different certificate if it so chooses. It rarely happens, but the first 12-certicate film was not Batman, but actually Madame Sousatzka - albeit only in one council (it's been 26 years so I forget which) - instead of the BBFC 15-cert.
DVDfever is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 21:15
giggityfish80
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1,527
Just sent this to Channel 4. God I bloody hate them.

More cuts to the Simpsons. I spotted two scenes sliced for the first time, today in "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy", which included was most of the following such as Grampa's comical pronunciation of the word 'sex'. You know already how ridiculous your cuts are, so why do you still insist on it? Please do enlighten me.

Abe: Unsatisfying sex life?
Homer: N -- yes! But please, don't _you_ say that word!
Abe: What, seeeex? What's so unappealing about hearing your elderly
father talk about sex? I had seeex.
Homer: [groans]
Yet Sky One showed an ep where Homer said a line about a penis that was left uncut at about 6 or 7PM
giggityfish80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 21:17
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 49,603
Yet Sky One showed an ep where Homer said a line about a penis that was left uncut at about 6 or 7PM
Maybe it was Jewish
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2014, 22:18
LolaSvelt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,403
It's not just The Simpsons. They do the same with Will & Grace in the mornings. And what is worse is how horribly edited the clips are because I'm not overly familiar with Will & Grace and I can tell when they have edited it. They don't even try to do it nonchalantly.
LolaSvelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2014, 02:43
000Mark000
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 360
The council can indeed award a film a different certificate if it so chooses. It rarely happens, but the first 12-certicate film was not Batman, but actually Madame Sousatzka - albeit only in one council (it's been 26 years so I forget which) - instead of the BBFC 15-cert.
There are two distinct processes which occur, although they are often confused:
- Classification, the act of giving the film a rating of the form U, PG, 12A, 15 or 18 which states the audience that the film is deemed suitable for.
- Certification, the act of producing the paper documentation which accompanies the film to certify to the licencing authority that the film has been classified as stated.
A film is both classified and certified by the BBFC, they decide the classification, and produce the certificate.

If a film has a BBFC certificate with which a local authority disagrees, the normal process of modification is one of 'reclassification' where the council dictates to the cinemas they licence the classification they require the cinemas to follow, which may be an alternative BBFC classification, or one of their own. They may also issue an outright ban.

A local authority can also permit screenings of an uncertified film. For example in the case of film festivals, which usually screen titles that have not received British distribution and which have therefore not been examined by the BBFC.

The notion of a local authority issuing a certificate for a film they have reclassified locally is nonsensical, as they would be issuing the documentation to prove to themselves their own classification of the film.

Madame Sousatzka was classified 12 by the BBFC as part of a classification experiment, the certificate for which being valid only for cinemas licensed in Greater London (I believe). For the rest of the UK the BBFC awarded the film a 15 classification and issued certificates accordingly. The 12 Certificate has now lapsed and only the 15 Certificate stands for the whole of the UK.
000Mark000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2014, 12:13
DVDfever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,662
Just spotted a new censorship in Homer Badman, on at the moment. I haven't seen them cut out the word 'sexual' from this news broadcast previously:

Anchorman: "Simpson scandal update: Homer sleeps nude in an oxygen tent which he believes gives him sexual powers!"

Homer: "HEY! That's a half-truth!"

However, they still chop up the TV news clip on a farm which in full reads:
Anchorman: "Tonight on Rock Bottom: We go undercover at a sex farm for sex hookers."
Reporter: "I keep telling you, I just grow sorghum here."
Anchorman: "And where are the hookers?"
Farmer: "Around back."
DVDfever is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2014, 12:25
DVDfever
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 14,662
And another new one into the already-butchered Granpa Vs Sexual Inadequacy. The last three words of this sentence. This is just taking the piss now. I've complain if I thought that (a) I'd get a response that shows they were bothered, and (b) Channel 4's Viewer Enquiries team had two brain cells to rub between them all.

Homer: "Marge, there's just too much pressure, what with my job, the kids, traffic snarls, political strife at home and abroad. But I promise you, the second all those things go away, we'll have sex."

They're just stopping scenes from making any sense whatsoever.
DVDfever is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-05-2014, 12:51
Wallasey Saint
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 3,996
One line that's always cut in The Simpsons, in the episode Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amendment, Rex Banner brought in to replace incompetent Chief Wiggum, catches Fat Tony & his mob smuggling Alcohol, Fat Tony tries to bribe Banner which Banner refuses the bribe Fat Tony responds "Ok you win we'll stick to smuggling Heroin" Banner "See that you do".
Wallasey Saint is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:52.