Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

No MOVIES! for me


NipkowDisc
 Share

Recommended Posts

last nite after about an hours worth of Khartoum I cut away to watch the final hour of Lady in Cement on MOVIES! and then Roger Corman's The St. Valentine's Day Massacre from 1967. So here's Jason Robards as Capone ranting to his er...board of directors :lol: about Bugs Moran and starts to recount a past incident of Hymie Weiss attempting a hit on him. As Robards as Capone puts it "Damned if that crazy polack don't come looking for me with a whole army!" Well sir....the word polack was dubbed out. Nuthin'. Just silence where we should here Robards say polack. I disappointingly turned the channel thinkin' to myself "That tears it!" I ain't gonna put up with that. Are they serious? Polack? I mean c'mon. How many times does Carroll O'Connor throw polack at Rob Reiner on All in the Family? That's it. I am thru with MOVIES!. If they're gonna show such ridiculously censored prints, they're gonna lose alotta viewers right back here to tcm. An' I wanted to watch The St. Valentine's Massacre a lot..but not like that. So I set out determined to locate a file of a good print. nothing out there torrent-wise at all. found a file on a file hosting site and grabbed it. widescreen too with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. consequently it was the only file out there I could find. :)

love the opening music...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last nite after about an hours worth of Khartoum I cut away to watch the final hour of Lady in Cement on MOVIES! and then Roger Corman's The St. Valentine's Day Massacre from 1967. So here's Jason Robards as Capone ranting to his er...board of directors :lol: about Bugs Moran and starts to recount a past incident of Hymie Weiss attempting a hit on him. As Robards as Capone puts it "Damned if that crazy polack don't come looking for me with a whole army!" Well sir....the word polack was dubbed out. Nuthin'. Just silence where we should here Robards say polack. I disappointingly turned the channel thinkin' to myself "That tears it!" I ain't gonna put up with that. Are they serious? Polack? I mean c'mon. How many times does Carroll O'Connor throw polack at Rob Reiner on All in the Family? That's it. I am thru with MOVIES!. If they're gonna show such ridiculously censored prints, they're gonna lose alotta viewers right back here to tcm. An' I wanted to watch The St. Valentine's Massacre a lot..but not like that. So I set out determined to locate a file of a good print. nothing out there torrent-wise at all. found a file on a file hosting site and grabbed it. widescreen too with a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. consequently it was the only file out there I could find. :)

 

love the opening music...

 

 

I was also watching that and to me it looked like more than a few words were missing and my screen got 'funny',  so I assumed it was just a broadcast error and not an edit.    MOVIES has been having a few of these lately.    But MOVIES does edit for content so you could be right.

 

The sad part if that stations like MOVIES,  a cable broadcaster that does NOT have to edit to follow FCC rules,   decided to try to please both the left and the right by editting content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I don't watch movies on any other channel but TCM. And even on TCM I've caught an edit here and there (though it is apparently the provider of prints that is to blame rather than TCM).

 

TCM and DVD's - and if I'm really desperate, YouTube. That is all, and it's almost enough (many movies I've not been able to locate in any of these sources, unfortunately).

 

If I were wealthy, it would be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The sad part if that stations like MOVIES,  a cable broadcaster that does NOT have to edit to follow FCC rules.

 

Not sure if this is correct here, James. I believe the Movies! network is a broadcast channel that those even without cable service can receive via a "digital sub=channel"(yeah, still havin' problems with this darn 'dash' key on my keyboard here) on their TV sets.

 

(...and so I'm thinkin' they just might have to adhere to those FCC regulations which you mentioned above)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the "resident" POLACKS here, I've never been offended by robards barking that in the movie.  That a "Polack son of a b i t c h " is more or less shown to be pointing the gun in the correct direction is kind of a relief, after the crap we had to listen to for some years!  :P

 

Sepiatoncz!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is correct here, James. I believe the Movies! network is a broadcast channel that those even without cable service can receive via a "digital sub=channel"(yeah, still havin' problems with this darn 'dash' key on my keyboard here) on their TV sets.

 

(...and so I'm thinkin' they just might have to adhere to those FCC regulations which you mentioned above)

 

Thanks for the info.    I was just watching MOVIES and they had another of those glitches I mentioned in my post.   So I don't believe the word polack was removed by some censor because of content but that it was just a broadcast glitch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a broadcast glitch. I think polack was dubbed out. MOVIES! ain't a good place to watch Dog Day Afternoon either. :)

 

Well after watching MOVIES this weekend I now really question how they censor films.   I was watching the noir film The Dark Corner (Mark Stevens, Lucy Ball,  Clifton Webb, and William Bendix).    This movie was made in 1946.    

 

At the end there is a scene in an art gallery.   There is a statute of a women done in the Greek or Italian style from many centuries ago.  Well it looked like the breast were shaded out!      Come on!   If they could show that in 1946,   they should be able to show it in the 21st Century!    This was ART WORK no less!  

 

Just insane.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some sites don't even allow you to say "breast" - including, for a time there, this one. Fixed here now, but I'm sure there's someone out there who's prepared to make an issue of it.

 

Since MOVIES has to follow FCC guidelines (they broadcast over the air I was told) I can understand why they have to censor out certain content but I highly doubt that the showing of breast on a work of art from a movie made in 1946, that was approved by the Production code censors at the time,  breaks these guidelines.       They shouldn't have to censor movies made while the Production code was in place,  but it appears they do.   That stinks.  

 

As you noted at the start of this thread this is what makes TCM special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOVIES! is broadcast tv just like GeTV and all the rest. Its free, hence the commercials. Just like anything else, you get what you "pay" for. Why would anyone expect something free to be the same quality as paid ?

 

At this point, TCM, and live sports are the only reason I have pay tv at all. The moment TCM can go on its own in some fashion, I am gone. And if I leave earlier, I'll have to put up with MOVIES! and its bleeps and censors.

 

I am happy that there are other options that exist. Competition keeps everyone on their toes. And keeps the quality up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOVIES! is broadcast tv just like GeTV and all the rest. Its free, hence the commercials. Just like anything else, you get what you "pay" for. Why would anyone expect something free to be the same quality as paid ?

 

At this point, TCM, and live sports are the only reason I have pay tv at all. The moment TCM can go on its own in some fashion, I am gone. And if I leave earlier, I'll have to put up with MOVIES! and its bleeps and censors.

 

I am happy that there are other options that exist. Competition keeps everyone on their toes. And keeps the quality up.

 

What you posted does NOT explain why MOVIES would censor content the FCC does NOT require them to censor.  That is my only complaint (e.g. I understand the need for commercials even if I hate them).

 

In fact since you raised the issue of cost,  it cost more for MOVIES to censor content they don't have to to ensure FCC compliance.  Therefore I wonder if MOVIES is leasing pre-censored movies (i.e. movies already editted for broadcast to comply with the FCC).   So why does MOVIES go to the expense of censoring more than they have to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What you posted does NOT explain why MOVIES would censor content the FCC does NOT require them to censor.  That is my only complaint (e.g. I understand the need for commercials even if I hate them).

 

In fact since you raised the issue of cost,  it cost more for MOVIES to censor content they don't have to to ensure FCC compliance.  Therefore I wonder if MOVIES is leasing pre-censored movies (i.e. movies already editted for broadcast to comply with the FCC).   So why does MOVIES go to the expense of censoring more than they have to?

 

Well James, the only answer I CAN come up with here is that maybe the MOVIES! network wanted to get the definitive answer to that age old question.......wait for it:

 

How many Polacks does it take to censor a movie?

 

(...Sepia's gonna love this one) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you posted does NOT explain why MOVIES would censor content the FCC does NOT require them to censor.

 

The answer seems obvious. MOVIES doesn't feel the FCC rules are stringent enough, a notion possibly supported by input from certain viewers. They've probably decided to play it "safe" when it comes to not offending the delicate sensibilities of those viewers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer seems obvious. MOVIES doesn't feel the FCC rules are stringent enough, a notion possibly supported by input from certain viewers. They've probably decided to play it "safe" when it comes to not offending the delicate sensibilities of those viewers.

 

Yes,  this might be a case where the simple \ obvious answer is the answer.    But to censor a movie made in 1946?   That is playing it real safe.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,  this might be a case where the simple \ obvious answer is the answer.    But to censor a movie made in 1946?   That is playing it real safe.    

 

Yes, well....they say the dumbing down has been going on for about three and a half decades now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you posted does NOT explain why MOVIES would censor content the FCC does NOT require them to censor.  That is my only complaint (e.g. I understand the need for commercials even if I hate them).

 

In fact since you raised the issue of cost,  it cost more for MOVIES to censor content they don't have to to ensure FCC compliance.  Therefore I wonder if MOVIES is leasing pre-censored movies (i.e. movies already editted for broadcast to comply with the FCC).   So why does MOVIES go to the expense of censoring more than they have to?

 

Every channel in existence has there own policy concerning censorship. In theory , cable channels can air uncensored content if they like. And their carrier can end their contract also. Companies and also refuse to advertise on said  channels too !

 

Advertisers talk to every network, channel or company they wish to do business with. They tell them what their own standards are. If the channels wants their business, they will comply. If not , they won't. Watch any channel that is uncensored or lightly censored. Then notice the ads that run there. Porn, male enhancement, etc...

 

There are well known companies like McDonald's, Disney that won't touch you unless you are squeaky clean. And they have lots of money to spend so some channels will censor to get that money. That's also true on the internet. If a site has certain content, companies won't buy ad space. And credit card companies won't do business with them either.

 

This isn't about the law. Its about money. But, then aren't most things ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well....they say the dumbing down has been going on for about three and a half decades now.

This, and the fact that so many people freaked out over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl in 2006.  I've noticed some dialogue is edited on Golden Girls re-runs on Hallmark Channel as well as some Family Guy and American Dad episodes on Cartoon Network.  It's disgusting...no one has a sense of humor anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, and the fact that so many people freaked out over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl in 2006.  I've noticed some dialogue is edited on Golden Girls re-runs on Hallmark Channel as well as some Family Guy and American Dad episodes on Cartoon Network.  It's disgusting...no one has a sense of humor anymore.

 

Wow,  interesting.   So the so called 'standard' is more restrictive for some stations.   Insane.   Again, I understand having to follow FCC rules (policies),  but to censor something that was A-OK for broadcast T.V. years ago,  in this day and age;   I don't get it (or I do get it and that makes it all the more disgusting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I understand having to follow FCC rules (policies),  but to censor something that was A-OK for broadcast T.V. years ago,  in this day and age;   I don't get it (or I do get it and that makes it all the more disgusting).


 

What about censoring the term "colored" or worse, the N word? We've all talked about the "mighty white of you" comments in old movies. There ARE examples of terms/words that were commonly used 60 years ago that make us cringe today.

 

"Barefoot & pregnant" makes me cringe, but that's all. I'm sensitive to terms that are considered rude today, but that's all they are-RUDE. They should not be eliminated just because they can make some people uncomfortable. IT'S THE PAST.

 

That is more the issue I have with censorship.....who or what does it really "protect"? No one. Ignorance is not bliss. The example of fuzzing out a statue's breasts is the craziest thing I've ever hoid!

 

raquel.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This, and the fact that so many people freaked out over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl in 2006.  I've noticed some dialogue is edited on Golden Girls re-runs on Hallmark Channel as well as some Family Guy and American Dad episodes on Cartoon Network.  It's disgusting...no one has a sense of humor anymore.

I've always joked about that in a way, Midwestan.  In a tretise (sp?) about being "American" I gibed:  "Millions of Americans will turn a blind eye and be accepting of the fact that their children will sit and watch, orplay hours, of cartoons or video games in which the "hero's" opponent is shot, stabbed, beat up or blown up.  But GOD FORBID they should see TWO SECONDS of Janet Jackson's T I T!  It's true that some people have their priorities and sensitivities  mixed up!

 

Oh, and TIKI---My ex wife was pregnant with both daughters through summers---one, the summer of '72, the other, the summer of '75.  She'd often go around the house barefoot, as was her habit EVERY summer.  And I'd often kid her about the "Barefoot and pregnant" thing!  She'd always giggle.  ;)

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, I understand having to follow FCC rules (policies),  but to censor something that was A-OK for broadcast T.V. years ago,  in this day and age;   I don't get it (or I do get it and that makes it all the more disgusting).

 
What about censoring the term "colored" or worse, the N word? We've all talked about the "mighty white of you" comments in old movies. There ARE examples of terms/words that were commonly used 60 years ago that make us cringe today.
 
"Barefoot & pregnant" makes me cringe, but that's all. I'm sensitive to terms that are considered rude today, but that's all they are-RUDE. They should not be eliminated just because they can make some people uncomfortable. IT'S THE PAST.
 
That is more the issue I have with censorship.....who or what does it really "protect"? No one. Ignorance is not bliss. The example of fuzzing out a statue's breasts is the craziest thing I've ever hoid!
 
 

 

 

I'm against all forms of censorship,  from either the left or right, but a broadcast network does have to follow the FCC rules.    Each 'side' wishes to control certain content,  either historical (e.g.  in programs created long ago),  or current (programs created today).

 

As for breast; Remember there were some members in Congress that wished to cover up the Lady of Justice statue.  But most people, even fellow conservatives, laughed them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...