Sky Race Warnings on movies

[El Kabong]

Just for clarification are these flicks, other than Gone with the Wind on a certain platform, actually going anywhere? Sounds like it’s literally a 2-3 line label to viewers almost like warnings that already exist on movies. Yeh def a little hyper sensitive but there’s a difference between chopping or 86ing them outright and a FYI label.

I mean seriously name any movie in the history of Hollywood and at least 1 line or scene can be highlighted as outdated, offensive or racially ‘whitewashed’. You’d literally have to delete the majority of Westerns from the early Century 30’s through 70’s. How many times did Burt Reynolds depict an Indian ffs. Aliens is a head scratcher. I thought it was for ‘Vazquez’. Ironic though as it spawned one of the most badass characters for a female lead over the movies and stood apart.

Warnings like what? Don't record this & sell on the black market? Or "This movie contains nudity, profane language, sexual content, etc" .....the warnings have only gotten longer you've got to warn people about smoking these days. Why? Who is the target audience for these warnings? And as you see from the list of films the warnings themselves are arbitrary and lump everything together regardless of if it's satire or a comedy or serious. 'Tropic Thunder' is offensive? Really? To who?

Lots of things are fucking dumb if you are outraged by a few words before a movie you are a full on fucking broflake. Get over yourself.

As per usual Beanz excuses stupidity.

Nowhere did i condone or approve your stupidity.


If your idea of censorship is not having the right to demand a private company remove a warning from a product they have paid for the rights to, you probably need to have a little more grit sprinkled in your shoes... softy.

Ironic how Mr. Photographer, Mr. Punk Rock is ok with warning labels on art. I guess you wouldn't remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC who slapped a warning label on Frank Zappa's entirely INSTRUMENTAL album, Danzig skirted the PMRC with the lyrics in 'Mother', Dee Snider of 'Twisted Sister' railed against Tipper Gore in front of Congress, NOFX wrote 'The PMRC Can Suck on This'......and yet here you are defending this warning label. How very punk of you


It ain't my place to speak over the artist's meaning or crowd their style. I can have an opinion on art, but I don't require a warning Grandma.

[Beanz]

Just for clarification are these flicks, other than Gone with the Wind on a certain platform, actually going anywhere? Sounds like it’s literally a 2-3 line label to viewers almost like warnings that already exist on movies. Yeh def a little hyper sensitive but there’s a difference between chopping or 86ing them outright and a FYI label.

I mean seriously name any movie in the history of Hollywood and at least 1 line or scene can be highlighted as outdated, offensive or racially ‘whitewashed’. You’d literally have to delete the majority of Westerns from the early Century 30’s through 70’s. How many times did Burt Reynolds depict an Indian ffs. Aliens is a head scratcher. I thought it was for ‘Vazquez’. Ironic though as it spawned one of the most badass characters for a female lead over the movies and stood apart.

Warnings like what? Don't record this & sell on the black market? Or "This movie contains nudity, profane language, sexual content, etc" .....the warnings have only gotten longer you've got to warn people about smoking these days. Why? Who is the target audience for these warnings? And as you see from the list of films the warnings themselves are arbitrary and lump everything together regardless of if it's satire or a comedy or serious. 'Tropic Thunder' is offensive? Really? To who?

Lots of things are fucking dumb if you are outraged by a few words before a movie you are a full on fucking broflake. Get over yourself.

As per usual Beanz excuses stupidity.

Nowhere did i condone or approve your stupidity.


If your idea of censorship is not having the right to demand a private company remove a warning from a product they have paid for the rights to, you probably need to have a little more grit sprinkled in your shoes... softy.

Ironic how Mr. Photographer, Mr. Punk Rock is ok with warning labels on art. I guess you wouldn't remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC who slapped a warning label on Frank Zappa's entirely INSTRUMENTAL album, Danzig skirted the PMRC with the lyrics in 'Mother', Dee Snider of 'Twisted Sister' railed against Tipper Gore in front of Congress, NOFX wrote 'The PMRC Can Suck on This'......and yet here you are defending this warning label. How very punk of you


It ain't my place to speak over the artist's meaning or crowd their style. I can have an opinion on art, but I don't require a warning Grandma.

Unlike you, i don't suck Murdoch's cock so i don't have to read any warnings.


This is just you stamping your feet and demanding that people be outraged like the Politically Correct Corporate boot licking arsehole you have always been.

[El Kabong]

Unlike you, i don't suck Murdoch's cock so i don't have to read any warnings.


This is just you stamping your feet and demanding that people be outraged like the Politically Correct Corporate boot licking arsehole you have always been.

Thought you said the warning labels were Murdoch's idea so he wouldn't be sued?

Ha!

So they are still showing them but including a legal disclaimer because Murdoch doesn't want to be sued or something?

If I support Political Correctness why would I oppose the warning labels?


Are you having trouble comprehending this Beanz?


I believe in what Mark Twain said “Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”

[El Kabong]

[Beanz]

Unlike you, i don't suck Murdoch's cock so i don't have to read any warnings.


This is just you stamping your feet and demanding that people be outraged like the Politically Correct Corporate boot licking arsehole you have always been.

Thought you said the warning labels were Murdoch's idea so he wouldn't be sued?

Ha!

So they are still showing them but including a legal disclaimer because Murdoch doesn't want to be sued or something?

If I support Political Correctness why would I oppose the warning labels?


Are you having trouble comprehending this Beanz?


I believe in what Mark Twain said “Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.”

Unlike you I don't buy the Sun, watch Fox or subscribe to Sky. So I don't have to read the bloke you supports warnings. The fact remains though that the films are still available unedited. Nobody is telling you that you can't deep throat as much prime beefcake as you want.

And still you seem to be forgetting that being politically correct is not just something misused by people on the left. Right Wing prissy nutjobs like you are just as bad. Here you are in all seriousness as a staunch defender of decidedly anti Christian hyper capitalism insisting that a private subscription company should be prevented from deciding to include a warning before an unedited film, purely because you personally are so pathetic, you are offended by some words on screen.

The irony is delicious.

[El Kabong]

Unlike you I don't buy the Sun, watch Fox or subscribe to Sky.

I don't buy The Sun, I have watched both Fox & FoxNews but I no longer have cable, and I've never watched Sky. However, the warnings aren't only being placed on Sky. HBO/Max has provided a lecture for 'Gone With The Wind'. One that I do not need or want to see as I know of the historical context of both the Civil War and era around 1939 when the movie was produced.

So I don't have to read the bloke you supports warnings. The fact remains though that the films are still available unedited. Nobody is telling you that you can't deep throat as much prime beefcake as you want.

And still you seem to be forgetting that being politically correct is not just something misused by people on the left. Right Wing prissy nutjobs like you are just as bad. Here you are in all seriousness as a staunch defender of decidedly anti Christian hyper capitalism insisting that a private subscription company should be prevented from deciding to include a warning before an unedited film, purely because you personally are so pathetic, you are offended by some words on screen.

The irony is delicious.

Again, I don't pretend to speak for the artists and I don't care if it's "Piss Christ" or "The Greatest Story Ever Told" artists should have their say and nobody should step in front of them to attempt to explain their art to their audience.


But I guess Mr. Punk Rock feels differently about that.....indeed, delicious irony, on that we can agree.

[Spicoli]

Just for clarification are these flicks, other than Gone with the Wind on a certain platform, actually going anywhere? Sounds like it’s literally a 2-3 line label to viewers almost like warnings that already exist on movies. Yeh def a little hyper sensitive but there’s a difference between chopping or 86ing them outright and a FYI label.

I mean seriously name any movie in the history of Hollywood and at least 1 line or scene can be highlighted as outdated, offensive or racially ‘whitewashed’. You’d literally have to delete the majority of Westerns from the early Century 30’s through 70’s. How many times did Burt Reynolds depict an Indian ffs. Aliens is a head scratcher. I thought it was for ‘Vazquez’. Ironic though as it spawned one of the most badass characters for a female lead over the movies and stood apart.

Warnings like what? Don't record this & sell on the black market? Or "This movie contains nudity, profane language, sexual content, etc" .....the warnings have only gotten longer you've got to warn people about smoking these days. Why? Who is the target audience for these warnings? And as you see from the list of films the warnings themselves are arbitrary and lump everything together regardless of if it's satire or a comedy or serious. 'Tropic Thunder' is offensive? Really? To who?

Lots of things are fucking dumb if you are outraged by a few words before a movie you are a full on fucking broflake. Get over yourself.

As per usual Beanz excuses stupidity.

Nowhere did i condone or approve your stupidity.


If your idea of censorship is not having the right to demand a private company remove a warning from a product they have paid for the rights to, you probably need to have a little more grit sprinkled in your shoes... softy.

Ironic how Mr. Photographer, Mr. Punk Rock is ok with warning labels on art. I guess you wouldn't remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC who slapped a warning label on Frank Zappa's entirely INSTRUMENTAL album, Danzig skirted the PMRC with the lyrics in 'Mother', Dee Snider of 'Twisted Sister' railed against Tipper Gore in front of Congress, NOFX wrote 'The PMRC Can Suck on This'......and yet here you are defending this warning label. How very punk of you


It ain't my place to speak over the artist's meaning or crowd their style. I can have an opinion on art, but I don't require a warning Grandma.

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

[El Kabong]

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

Netflix to introduce smoking warnings to its ratings system
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...atings-system/
The Man With No Name is about to be slapped with a health warning. Netflix is to add smoking to its online rating system, listing it alongside scenes of sex and violence.

Classic films that will be branded for their tobacco content include The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, in which Clint Eastwood is rarely seen without a cigarillo between his lips.

All future films made by Netflix will omit smoking unless the writer and director can prove it is “essential to the creative vision” of the project. A remake of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western would be unlikely to feature Eastwood drawling: “After a meal, there’s nothing like a good cigar.”

From Princess Margaret in The Crown to Don Draper in Mad Men, Kristin Scott Thomas in Four Weddings and a Funeral to Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary, some of film and television’s most memorable characters have a cigarette in their hand.

All will merit smoking warnings under new rules announced yesterday(7/3/19) by the US streaming service, along with a ban on smoking in all new content (a TV-14 or below rating for television, PG-13 or below for film) aimed at young people except “for reasons of historical or factual accuracy”.

Higher-rated projects will only include smoking if it is “essential to the creative vision of the artist or because it’s character-defining (historically or culturally important).”



All I'm saying is allow artists to create art.

[Spicoli]

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

Netflix to introduce smoking warnings to its ratings system
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...atings-system/
The Man With No Name is about to be slapped with a health warning. Netflix is to add smoking to its online rating system, listing it alongside scenes of sex and violence.

Classic films that will be branded for their tobacco content include The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, in which Clint Eastwood is rarely seen without a cigarillo between his lips.

All future films made by Netflix will omit smoking unless the writer and director can prove it is “essential to the creative vision” of the project. A remake of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western would be unlikely to feature Eastwood drawling: “After a meal, there’s nothing like a good cigar.”

From Princess Margaret in The Crown to Don Draper in Mad Men, Kristin Scott Thomas in Four Weddings and a Funeral to Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary, some of film and television’s most memorable characters have a cigarette in their hand.

All will merit smoking warnings under new rules announced yesterday(7/3/19) by the US streaming service, along with a ban on smoking in all new content (a TV-14 or below rating for television, PG-13 or below for film) aimed at young people except “for reasons of historical or factual accuracy”.

Higher-rated projects will only include smoking if it is “essential to the creative vision of the artist or because it’s character-defining (historically or culturally important).”



All I'm saying is allow artists to create art.

Yeh now ya see that’s just dumb. I can see a line affixed to the general rating system as passable but no go at all at omitting content. Isn’t that the whole point of a rating system in the first place, adult material sexual content, gore, blah blah gets slapped with an R rating. It fixes itself it would seem. I highly doubt there will be a stringent follow through of actually chopping content and if their is than better buckle up for some lawsuits as said content was created and distributed under standing laws etc. Censoring a cigar in a scene while gunning down five whiskey swilling hombres seems a little assbackwards and unlikely but we’ll see.

[walrus]

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

Netflix to introduce smoking warnings to its ratings system
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...atings-system/
The Man With No Name is about to be slapped with a health warning. Netflix is to add smoking to its online rating system, listing it alongside scenes of sex and violence.

Classic films that will be branded for their tobacco content include The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, in which Clint Eastwood is rarely seen without a cigarillo between his lips.

All future films made by Netflix will omit smoking unless the writer and director can prove it is “essential to the creative vision” of the project. A remake of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western would be unlikely to feature Eastwood drawling: “After a meal, there’s nothing like a good cigar.”

From Princess Margaret in The Crown to Don Draper in Mad Men, Kristin Scott Thomas in Four Weddings and a Funeral to Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary, some of film and television’s most memorable characters have a cigarette in their hand.

All will merit smoking warnings under new rules announced yesterday(7/3/19) by the US streaming service, along with a ban on smoking in all new content (a TV-14 or below rating for television, PG-13 or below for film) aimed at young people except “for reasons of historical or factual accuracy”.

Higher-rated projects will only include smoking if it is “essential to the creative vision of the artist or because it’s character-defining (historically or culturally important).”



All I'm saying is allow artists to create art.

Yeh now ya see that’s just dumb. I can see a line affixed to the general rating system as passable but no go at all at omitting content. Isn’t that the whole point of a rating system in the first place, adult material sexual content, gore, blah blah gets slapped with an R rating. It fixes itself it would seem. I highly doubt there will be a stringent follow through of actually chopping content and if their is than better buckle up for some lawsuits as said content was created and distributed under standing laws etc. Censoring a cigar in a scene while gunning down five whiskey swilling hombres seems a little assbackwards and unlikely but we’ll see.

I noticed that smoking warning on Netflix has been around for a few months unless they are making even a bigger deal about it now.

[Spicoli]

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

Netflix to introduce smoking warnings to its ratings system
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...atings-system/
The Man With No Name is about to be slapped with a health warning. Netflix is to add smoking to its online rating system, listing it alongside scenes of sex and violence.

Classic films that will be branded for their tobacco content include The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, in which Clint Eastwood is rarely seen without a cigarillo between his lips.

All future films made by Netflix will omit smoking unless the writer and director can prove it is “essential to the creative vision” of the project. A remake of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western would be unlikely to feature Eastwood drawling: “After a meal, there’s nothing like a good cigar.”

From Princess Margaret in The Crown to Don Draper in Mad Men, Kristin Scott Thomas in Four Weddings and a Funeral to Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary, some of film and television’s most memorable characters have a cigarette in their hand.

All will merit smoking warnings under new rules announced yesterday(7/3/19) by the US streaming service, along with a ban on smoking in all new content (a TV-14 or below rating for television, PG-13 or below for film) aimed at young people except “for reasons of historical or factual accuracy”.

Higher-rated projects will only include smoking if it is “essential to the creative vision of the artist or because it’s character-defining (historically or culturally important).”



All I'm saying is allow artists to create art.

Yeh now ya see that’s just dumb. I can see a line affixed to the general rating system as passable but no go at all at omitting content. Isn’t that the whole point of a rating system in the first place, adult material sexual content, gore, blah blah gets slapped with an R rating. It fixes itself it would seem. I highly doubt there will be a stringent follow through of actually chopping content and if their is than better buckle up for some lawsuits as said content was created and distributed under standing laws etc. Censoring a cigar in a scene while gunning down five whiskey swilling hombres seems a little assbackwards and unlikely but we’ll see.

I noticed that smoking warning on Netflix has been around for a few months unless they are making even a bigger deal about it now.

I dunno man I had a helluva slow day at work so had a look. Cape Fear, Good the Bad and the Ugly and even something called ‘Rolling Papers’ and there was no sight of a smoking tag. Oddly Fear had a strong violence, language and suspense but nothing else. Clint has his stogies and Rolling Papers just listed ‘substances and language’ but it was rated TV MA. I forgot how sadistic Cape Fear was btw, dude was sick.

[walrus]

Well yeh the standard rating system warnings they do. As long as I can recall there’s been advisories for shows or movies on public air and sure they’ve added in as times change. Like I said I’d rather that than editing out or censoring movies. But that’s also been done for the longest. Studios often rework versions both for ‘public’ aka free commercial network vs an HBO or theater etc. As long as I can get the uncut version than as a consumer that’s where I’ll go. Do they really have warnings for smoking in movies?? Truth is I haven’t been to a theater in years but haven’t seen a warning for it on a Netflix or Hulu etc. I know they prohibit paid product placement for tobacco but unsure of a mandated warning.

Netflix to introduce smoking warnings to its ratings system
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...atings-system/
The Man With No Name is about to be slapped with a health warning. Netflix is to add smoking to its online rating system, listing it alongside scenes of sex and violence.

Classic films that will be branded for their tobacco content include The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, in which Clint Eastwood is rarely seen without a cigarillo between his lips.

All future films made by Netflix will omit smoking unless the writer and director can prove it is “essential to the creative vision” of the project. A remake of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western would be unlikely to feature Eastwood drawling: “After a meal, there’s nothing like a good cigar.”

From Princess Margaret in The Crown to Don Draper in Mad Men, Kristin Scott Thomas in Four Weddings and a Funeral to Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones’s Diary, some of film and television’s most memorable characters have a cigarette in their hand.

All will merit smoking warnings under new rules announced yesterday(7/3/19) by the US streaming service, along with a ban on smoking in all new content (a TV-14 or below rating for television, PG-13 or below for film) aimed at young people except “for reasons of historical or factual accuracy”.

Higher-rated projects will only include smoking if it is “essential to the creative vision of the artist or because it’s character-defining (historically or culturally important).”



All I'm saying is allow artists to create art.

Yeh now ya see that’s just dumb. I can see a line affixed to the general rating system as passable but no go at all at omitting content. Isn’t that the whole point of a rating system in the first place, adult material sexual content, gore, blah blah gets slapped with an R rating. It fixes itself it would seem. I highly doubt there will be a stringent follow through of actually chopping content and if their is than better buckle up for some lawsuits as said content was created and distributed under standing laws etc. Censoring a cigar in a scene while gunning down five whiskey swilling hombres seems a little assbackwards and unlikely but we’ll see.

I noticed that smoking warning on Netflix has been around for a few months unless they are making even a bigger deal about it now.

I dunno man I had a helluva slow day at work so had a look. Cape Fear, Good the Bad and the Ugly and even something called ‘Rolling Papers’ and there was no sight of a smoking tag. Oddly Fear had a strong violence, language and suspense but nothing else. Clint has his stogies and Rolling Papers just listed ‘substances and language’ but it was rated TV MA. I forgot how sadistic Cape Fear was btw, dude was sick.

I can’t comment on cape fear as I didn’t watch it on Netflix but I watched a documentary and one of the warnings was smoking. It was a documentary on innocent people who did a bunch a jail time. By the way you should watch the original cape fear if you haven’t yet, good stuff.

[Spicoli]

Random but have to throw in, the Dee Snider testimony was and remains one of the truest moments before Congress that we’ve witnessed. I remember it very well and the push for album labeling and frankly only purchasing albums and cassettes WITH the labels for that very reason . But Dees main point of contention wasn’t that warning labels are good or bad it was that he was personally targeted and his art misrepresented and his content distorted by the PMRC. To the point of Gore outright lying about merchandise and presenting their lyrics out or order to push their agenda and use him as a scapegoat. I recall the go they had at Biafra and Frankenchrist too as mostly the PMRC were distorting actual content solely based on album covers or jackets and talking out of their asses. Snider made the case perfect..they watched the video but ignored the lyrics. The actual parental advisory sticks actually became a marketing tag in time blowing up in their faces and an exercise in Government futility and idiocy.