Censoring?

[Dr Maturin]

<<Violence only shows hate and anger>>

That is HIGHLY debatable.

And as for execs changing stuff...that's not censorship, it's making business decisions. They don't go "Hey, we can't show this because it's against our standards," no, they go "Well, this might anger more people than it will please, especially our advertisers, so let's cut it so we don't lose them."

[The One to come]

That is HIGHLY debatable.

why thank you, that's what I'm here for

And as for execs changing stuff...that's not censorship, it's making business decisions. They don't go "Hey, we can't show this because it's against our standards," no, they go "Well, this might anger more people than it will please, especially our advertisers, so let's cut it so we don't lose them."

Your right it's a form of censorship, and frankly that the reason why TV has become "the cultural chum bucket of society" as sideshow Bob would say. Chaging or rejection shows because it might anger the advertisers, that's the reason that there are only cop dramas, law dramas, medical dramas, yupy sicoms, and the horrors of reality TV. I meen how CSI or Law ans Order do we need on TV, and servivor after servivor make me sick, there nothing new of interresting out there and as long as execs. think like that there won't be for a long time.

[grumbler]

TOTC,

You are aware that TV sponsership has been a part of TV in the US since its inception, are you not? If your thesis were true, then all US television would ever have had was "cop dramas, law dramas, medical dramas, yupy sicoms, and the horrors of reality TV." Since the consequence you predict based on your thesis fails the test of our knowledge, it is false.

The types of shows you mention are merely the current vogue. Network execs like them because they are cheap, and still sell in today's market. Tomorrows market will be different, and then we will see a glut of, say, science fiction shows and people will be complaining that the network execs are pandering to their advertisers by showing "the horrors of Science Fiction TV."

'Tis the nature of the industry to be imitative and cyclical.

[Capt.Montoya]

More context for censorship in the USA:
Remember that Wal-Mart won't sell any CD that has a "Parental Advisory" label. Record companies will edit "clean versions" with swear words beeped out or replaced so they can sell them in Wal-Mart. That's on music, but it still is a worrying example of forced censoring due to the commercial influence of one single company.

And now there's a DVD player with built-in censorship...
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...6/6178726s.htm
There was an article (funnily sarcastic) at the New York Times on this today (You'd need to register to see it though)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/te...ts/27stat.html

This is not real censorship, I know. It modifies what is shown, not the contents, but I mention it for context of the puritanical climate that a vocal minority sometimes imposes on all of the US viewing choices.
I consider Clear Play editing technology one of those "only in America" things...

-------------

Z'ha'dum Dweller:

In my wife's defense I'll say that she really liked B5, once I got her into it (wasn't immediate) she was hooked and when we watched it from the beginning on TNT (and once more on Sci Fi) she also appreciated the arc/novel aspect a lot.
And I also got her into Farscape... she claimed she saw it only because Ben Browder looks hot but I know better. There was also some intial resistance to Farscape (given how quirky it was sometimes I'm not surprised) but she also learned to appreciate it.
My wife used to say that B5 was something like a soap opera... in a sense she is right, there are ongoing stories and story arcs in soap operas. I would always counterargue that the big difference is that B5 was more realistic in the characters behavior and stories, dramatic, not melodramatic, well acted and scripted.
If soap operas learned a lesson from B5 they might be watchable...

Most telenovelas you'd see in Univision are from MÚxico, produced by the large media conglomerate known as Televisa. Business reasons exclude many sources: Televisa is one of the shareholders of Univision. If you see telenovelas from South American countries in Univision they most likely come from another Televisa business associate.

The other Spanish TV network, Telemundo (now owned by NBC-Universal) shows many telenovelas from Brazil (dubbed to Spanish) as well as from other South American countries. They used to have some from the other Mexican media conglomerate, TV Azteca, but Azteca has entered the US market with their own affiliates (Azteca America) in many cities with a large hispanic presence. The Azteca telenovelas used to have higher production and story values than those from Televisa, however they have lowered their standards and got away with it.

To be honest I do consider most Star Trek and Star Wars silly, but that's because I'm a voracious SF reader with a preference for hard SF and the disregard for science and preference for technobabble of Star Trek annoys me.

Many of my best friends (from many years back) like Sci-Fi things (pure SF, as well as horror and fantasy), movies, and books. My brothers in law are really into fantasy. Remember "V" (the miniseries about the reptilian invaders)? That was also a hit with many of my male friends back then. In my own family I'm the one most into SF, but my brothers appreciate it and don't disparage it, one of them is into fantasy (big fan of Tolkien and Star Wars).

I mention all of this for an important reason: I am Mexican...

So I can tell you that you made a gross overgeneralization by saying that the Latin American culture considers sci-fi silly...
I'll grant you that Mexican females do have a lower opinion of sci-fi... but that's also true for the USA. Most SF appeals more to males.

I completely agree that Sabado Gigante and shows like that are silly, stupid in fact, because they appeal to the lowest common denominator. Most educated people in MÚxico also consider them silly (and lower-class fare).

The fact is that most Mexican TV is bad, whether it is sitcoms, sketch comedy, telenovelas, is of inferior quality. That's one of the reasons why so many syndicated US shows are shown dubbed in MÚxico. There is nothing made in Mexico than can replace them.
I have missed very little of Mexican TV in my eight years in the USA... if I move back to Mexico the first thing I'll do is get satellite service with direct access to US channels.

[The One to come]

Originally posted by grumbler
TOTC,

You are aware that TV sponsership has been a part of TV in the US since its inception, are you not? If your thesis were true, then all US television would ever have had was "cop dramas, law dramas, medical dramas, yupy sicoms, and the horrors of reality TV." Since the consequence you predict based on your thesis fails the test of our knowledge, it is false.

Actualy that's only some what true, it's only been since the late 1970's that Add corps and sponsers have had as much power has they have now. per 1978 and the Ragen era TV was 'protected' by laws that prohibited such corps form influencing the programing.

I just finished a coures on TV and society this year so I know (somewhat) the history and evolution of TV, I asked asmost the same questions as you, and like I'v just stated that was the anser a got.

[Dr Maturin]

Hey, Monty, don't get me wrong, I've met lots of Hispanic sci-fi fans on the internet and in person. I may be understating the fact that a good portion of the entire North American continent considers sci-fi to be "silly." My whole life I'd be reading a Star Wars book or whatever and people always have this smirk when they ask me what I am reading. Every so often someone would go "Hey, good book!"

And don't forget about Gems, which is from Argentina, I do believe. Back home in California, we had like 4 or 5 Spanish stations (Mexican Channels my mom called them) plus some Spanish content on the International Channel.

My old lady is from El Salvador and she lived there from the ages of 1-5 and 11-13. She told me the dubbed sitcoms and such aren't funny because the jokes don't translate well.

[Capt.Montoya]

Z'ha'dum Dweller:
Don't worry, I wasn't offended or anything.
I think the problem with the reputation of the sci-fi genre is a problem of misunderstanding, it applies both to printed SF and TV, because there are way too many silly and bad examples. That's what motivated Sturgeon's Law:
"Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud."
But as many critics sympathetic to SF have noted the genre is the only one consistently mischaracterized by its worst examples.
And I think that most sci-fi movies out there don't help much to dispel the notion.

Your old lady is right: most dubbed sitcom jokes do not translate well. One of the few exemptions is the dubbed version of The Simpsons, because it adapts the jokes when appropriate instead of just making a direct translation, and the dubbed voices were well chosen (with the show creators involvement). I am so used to the original now that I can't fail to notice the defficiencies in the Spanish dubbed version when I see it (on vacation in MÚxico). The dubbing of some recent animated movies (Shrek, Finding Nemo and most Disney movies) is also exceptional because the studios supervise the process. But most dubbing is terrible. So bad that there's a satellite/cable channel (Sony TV) that presents US programming subtitled.
If you want to see terrible dubbing just tune in to any dubbed movie in the Spanish language channels... Telefutura (a susbsidiary of Univision) shows a lot of those movies I think. I avoid them like the plague.

The problem that motivates dubbing is because people prefer to listen than to read subtitles... the same reason few foreign films have mass appeal in the USA.

-----
Going back to the censorship issues:

Correct me if I'm wrong TOTC, didn't US TV start with fully sponsored programs? Things called something like "The Colgate Variety Hour" (to say something, I can't think of a real example).
In fact doesn't the term "soap opera" comes precisely because the soap and detergent companies used to be the ones sponsoring that program originally.
I find it hard to believe that those companies had no say in the content of those programs.
Maybe you're right and the influence of the sponsors has increased, but I'm really under the impresion that they did have a large influence from the beginning as Grumbler said.

This relates also with the vocal minority pressure groups issue I mentioned: some extreme Christian groups would sometimes organize boycotts against companies just because they advertise during a program which is "morally corrupt" in the eyes of that small group.

Any way, I think it's a shame that TV programming won't take some chances and fall into self-censorship due to a fear of offending a few people.

And I'm glad that B5 had the chance to tackle some controversial issues. The opportunity to examine some of those issues in a different light, and challenge our social customs on them, should be one of the strengths of SF TV, I think that was the case in Babylon 5.

[JackBauer]

which episode was the gkar cutting his hand and counting the drips of blood?

[Radhil]

I looked it up - it's Comes the Inquisitor, season 2 ep 21. I should've known that all the times I've rewatched it, but hey.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by The One to come
Actualy that's only some what true, it's only been since the late 1970's that Add corps and sponsers have had as much power has they have now. per 1978 and the Ragen era TV was 'protected' by laws that prohibited such corps form influencing the programing.

That was true, perhaps, in the 1970s, but do some reading up on shows like "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and you will find lots of evidence of advertisers influencing shows. Not heavily, or in terms of plots, but in such things as limiting the appearances of Mary Tyler Moore in those Capri pants!

[The One to come]

Capt.Montoya
I never said they did'nt have power, just that they did'nt have the amount they have now, there are with many thing difrent levels of power.

As for "The Dick Van Dyke Show" the influence would be at most useing somthing made by a sponsor and like you said no plot was ever affected, but you have to remeber that dick van dyke played in the 60's.

Mary Tyler Moore on the other hand played in the 70's when all these major changes began to happen which when into full swing in 78 and has really been affecting all TV since then

[Dr Maturin]

<<Mary Tyler Moore on the other hand played in the 70's when all these major changes began to happen which when into full swing in 78 and has really been affecting all TV since then>>

Mary Tyler Moore was ON Dick Van Dyke. Yello! I think that was his point.

And as for anyone whining about TV, about anything on it...go live like the Amish and don't watch TV, then you don't have to worry. This includes people like GLAD, who once demanded that World Championship Wrestling stop using two "gay" characters because they feared it would garner "homophobia." They were the coolest team ever, too! When they came out, they had suckers and they'd do the arm crossing thing (like bride/groom cake eating). Prior to the gay gimmick, for weeks, there were scenes implying that they were gay, like "What do we do if they find out about us?" and stuff, and then it was revealed they were worried because they were brothers and they didn't want management to think they were in the wrong for family members working together. It was great. So to thumb their noses at GLAD, the characters and one of the then new Nitro Girls, newly christened Ms. Hancock (now Stacy Keibler on WWE programming) were a team called Standard and Practices, and came out criticizing what was going on during the show. This was before Vince McMahon picked up on the idea for his show's "RTC" (a jab at the PTC, who were harassing WWF at the time).

Anyways...true true Christians live like the Amish, so if anyone has a problem with TV, go throw your TV out the window and find other methods of entertainment.