×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
NEWS: Sword Art Online Episode Censors More Content on U.S.-Based Streaming Services


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shiflan



Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:18 pm Reply with quote
NeverConvex wrote:

In addition, many media companies are the sole publishers of their properties, and if they choose not to run something, you simply will never see it, because they chose not to allow you access to a venue in which you could do so.


First off, I'm not sure what you were implying with your discussion of piracy. I am not advocating piracy, and I'm not even sure how it is relevant to our discussion here, so please clarify.

As for what I quoted above. Absolutely: I understand that happens. But while the end result seems similar (the viewer doesn't get to see the content), the motivation and the mechanism behind it is completely different. A media company choosing not to produce a given work (be it a book, song, movie, anime, whatever) is not the same thing as expending effort to apply restrictions and limitations to an extant work. Creating a work and then destroying it is not the same as never having created that work in the first place. Censorship is particularly evil because it implies that there are people who are actively working to restrict knowledge. It is the same thing as comparing a child who died because of natural causes with a child who was murdered. In both cases the child is dead so you could say "what's the difference in the end", while I'm sure we agree that nature taking its course is totally different than a person (or persons) actively committing murder. And that's what censorship is: it is the premeditated, planned, and deliberate murder of ideas, and we ought to reject it in any form. Just as how we consider premeditated murder to be a more serious crime than causing an accidental death, actively restricting ideas and information by premeditated action is very serious indeed.

Quote:
Whether the media publisher's particular reasons for refusing you access to some of their property were reasonable or not is worth discussing (and you may think e.g. that they could offend or traumatize a large portion of their audience is a bad reason, say), but the simple act of them refusing to allow you to view their content can't itself be impugned as evil. It's just them deciding whether they think showing it to the audience you're part of is worthwhile for them.


I say it is evil and entirely worth discussing because it's a system in which people are working to restrict others access to the media in question. I'm not sure how that can be described as anything other than sick, twisted, and evil. We should be working to advance knowledge, not restrict it.

It is not the media company's job to police their content for the public. It is our job as adults to choose what we do with our time. If we want to watch something, that's our decision. And if we want to avoid something that is likewise our decision. It is not some 3rd party's right to decide what someone else can and cannot consume. The principle is fundamentally flawed. If I was religious I would call it a sin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scherzo



Joined: 27 Feb 2013
Posts: 149
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:32 pm Reply with quote
CatSword wrote:
One of the English voice actors for SAO said Toonami was likely hesitant to air GGO because of its light treatment of gun violence. (This is just one statement from someone who may or may not know what they're talking about. Don't come after me if GGO does manage to get on Toonami.)

I guess Alicization is out as well. Jason DeMarco will take one look at that scene, even censored, and run for the hills.


I mean, they did air the 'licking' scene from the end of Alfhiem, so...

Also do you have a quote for that? That doesn't make much sense given how much gun fetishism was in say, Black Lagoon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TexZero



Joined: 25 Oct 2017
Posts: 583
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:52 pm Reply with quote
Shiflan wrote:

I say it is evil and entirely worth discussing because it's a system in which people are working to restrict others access to the media in question. I'm not sure how that can be described as anything other than sick, twisted, and evil. We should be working to advance knowledge, not restrict it.


Ironic no ?

People always claim they want more empathy and understanding but they choose the most innane ways to go about it. Censorship as a general practice restricts one's ability to be "educated" and just says you shouldn't because they system says so.

If people actually wanted real understanding and empathy they'd allow for media of all kinds to be produced so that the medium could actually grow and share knowledge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeverConvex
Subscriber



Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 2306
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:02 am Reply with quote
Shiflan:

I wasn't implying anything about you in regards to piracy. I know these forums are hyper-sensitive about that topic, but my only purpose was to point out that, when a media company chooses not to release a product to which they own production or distribution rights, they are in fact typically legally barring you from viewing it -- that it is not a polite suggestion, and they are in fact choosing what you are 'allowed' to view/read/hear.

I agree that there is some qualitative difference between restricting access to extant work and refusing to create work in the first place, but that isn't really relevant, because media companies primarily make choices about existing work. Editors choose not to run stories they dislike or think will be ill-received, or push for them to be rewritten. Publishing companies reject drafts. News studios cancel stories. Film studios create but don't release movies. These things happen all the time, and very actively involve one group of people deciding whether another group of people is allowed to view, read, or hear some existing work.

That is not to say there's nothing worth debating here, but the way you're framing it is oversimple. The issue is not that one group of people deciding what some other group can see/read/hear is evil; that is a routine event in the media industry, and is most often completely unavoidable. Rather, it is that you disagree with the specific (ostensible) reasons for Aniplex choosing to make restrictions in this case, and specifically that you clearly don't think anticipated offense or trauma are good reasons for restricting or carefully curating the release of media. I think you've taken that position too far (in particular, when you argue that the earlier proposed compromise for streaming services is completely unnecessary - though, to be fair, I also don't think Aniplex's actual policy was a very good choice), but it is at least a position that can be defended.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiflan



Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:28 am Reply with quote
NeverConvex wrote:
Shiflan:
I wasn't implying anything about you in regards to piracy. I know these forums are hyper-sensitive about that topic,

No worries, I wasn't offended, I was just confused as to what piracy had to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:
but my only purpose was to point out that, when a media company chooses not to release a product to which they own production or distribution rights, they are in fact typically legally barring you from viewing it -- that it is not a polite suggestion, and they are in fact choosing what you are 'allowed' to view/read/hear.

Sure, I understand that. And that's what I addressed in my prior post when I said "the end result seems similar because we still don't get to see the content". But I think the motivation behind the two scenarios is very, very, different, which is why I used the example of premeditated murder versus accidental death.

These things happen all the time, and very actively involve one group of people deciding whether another group of people is allowed to view, read, or hear some existing work.
Again, I understand exactly what you are saying, but I think it is a very different thing than censorship in the literal sense because the motivations are entirely different. You might argue that I am being overly pedantic or I am being a sucker for semantics, and that is true, but I'm sticking to my guns here.

Quote:
Rather, it is that you disagree with the specific (ostensible) reasons for Aniplex choosing to make restrictions in this case, and specifically that you clearly don't think anticipated offense or trauma are good reasons for restricting or carefully curating the release of media.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not arguing anything about the specific reasoning here. I'm making a broad statement that censorship in any form, for any reason, is evil. Period. Hence why I referred to it as a "sin" in a previous post.

Quote:
I think you've taken that position too far (in particular, when you argue that the earlier proposed compromise for streaming services is completely unnecessary

Maybe this is me being pedantic again, but I think you misunderstood me again.
I did indeed state that I think the compromise is unnecessary*, and I still do. It is my personal belief that the job of filtering what content one watches and one doesn't watch falls exclusively on the person doing the watching, and nobody else. That said, I am not opposed to the compromise. If other people think it will help in some way then sure, I'm not going to oppose it one bit. My stating that I think it is unnecessary does not mean that I oppose it.

*Just to clarify, the reason why I think the compromise is unnecessary is because:
a) it won't matter to responsible adults one bit
and
b) no matter how advanced or detailed any sort of warning system, opt-in, etc, you implement it will never be good enough for that small % of the population who blame other people for their own poor choices.

Go ahead and implement more elaborate warnings, I'm not holding anyone back. But I am saying: mark my words, it will all be for naught.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeverConvex
Subscriber



Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 2306
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:54 am Reply with quote
I think the compromise would matter quite a bit to responsible adults. Yes, it is possible for someone concerned about the content to which they'll be exposed to research media ahead of time and avoid shows likely to upset, offend, or anger them; however, in doing that research it's very easy for them to spoil the content of shows that they would in fact like to watch, and doing that research can be a considerable time investment. By contrast, letting a streaming service pre-filter at the user's request for 'objectionable content from category XXX' poses only the most limited of spoiler threats, with no meaningful time cost to anyone involved, and yet lets both groups of people enjoy the content they'd like in the way they'd like.

Of course, I agree that there will be some - hopefully small, but who knows - subset of people who won't be pleased at that (or any) compromise, for whatever reason, though I think your description of that group is unrealistically one-sided. Regardless, though, I don't think that really matters, because the target group is 'responsible adults,' or, more generally, reasonable and reasonably thoughtful consumers.

Regarding the rest -- I feel like we're somewhat going in circles. I think I'll just observe that "I'm not arguing anything about the specific reasoning here" is flatly contradicted by "I think it is a very different thing than censorship in the literal sense because the motivations are entirely different", and that I think your argument can only be made effectively by focusing on the motivations in question (because the simple act of one group choosing what another group can view is not in itself evil or wrong, without considering context, reasons, motivations).

But that'll be my last thought on the issue, don't want to clog up the thread too much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shiflan



Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:07 am Reply with quote
NeverConvex wrote:

Regarding the rest -- I feel like we're somewhat going in circles. I think I'll just observe that "I'm not arguing anything about the specific reasoning here" is flatly contradicted by "I think it is a very different thing than censorship in the literal sense because the motivations are entirely different", and that I think your argument can only be made effectively by focusing on the motivations in question (because the simple act of one group choosing what another group can view is not in itself evil or wrong, without considering context, reasons, motivations).

But that'll be my last thought on the issue, don't want to clog up the thread too much.


I don't want to clog up the thread too much either, but as I think that I've been misunderstood again, I feel the need to clarify:

When I wrote "I'm not arguing about the specific reasoning here" I was referring to the type of content being censored....the specific thing that is being used as the reason to censor. In other words, I don't care if they are censoring foul language, nudity, sexual content, vices like gambling, drugs, or alcohol, violence, blood, racism, sexism, domestic abuse, rape, religious discrimination etc. None of those distinctions matter to me, which is what I meant by "not arguing about the specific reasoning". I was making the point that censorship is wrong, period, regardless of the specifics of what is being censored.

That is totally different from the motivations involved. Deciding not to release show X because we don't think it will sell well is a totally different motivation than deciding to edit out [content] from show Y because we don't think people should be seeing that. That is what I meant by motivations.

The two statements you quoted have nothing to do with each other; perhaps I did a poor job explaining at first?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sailor Sedna





PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:09 am Reply with quote
Considering there was a borderline tentacle hentai rape scene in one part of the first SAO anime from what I saw of it, I'm not surprised.

This kinda reminds me of how Japan handled the "Maze/Maze Megaburst Space" anime (horrible anime that's a Slayers/Ranma 1/2 wannabe with so much horrible creepy overtones, including sexual assault also, you're missing nothing by skipping out), when they released it on VHS they censored it and released it uncensored on laserdisc. Somehow it managed to legally be licensed in the US on DVD using the censored version for it, whilst Japan never had a DVD release.
Back to top
Key
Moderator


Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 18194
Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley)
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:35 pm Reply with quote
Sailor Sedna wrote:
Considering there was a borderline tentacle hentai rape scene in one part of the first SAO anime from what I saw of it, I'm not surprised.

This kinda reminds me of how Japan handled the "Maze/Maze Megaburst Space" anime (horrible anime that's a Slayers/Ranma 1/2 wannabe with so much horrible creepy overtones, including sexual assault also, you're missing nothing by skipping out), when they released it on VHS they censored it and released it uncensored on laserdisc. Somehow it managed to legally be licensed in the US on DVD using the censored version for it, whilst Japan never had a DVD release.

So where in Maze is this alleged sexual assault? Where are these "horrible creepy overtones?" This is not the series I remember seeing.

(That aside, I won't deny that it owes a lot to Slayers.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Sailor Sedna





PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:11 pm Reply with quote
@Key
I remember reading about some scenes where when Maze turns into a guy, he/she whoever actually rapes some people, one of them being the character Mill, who supposedly enjoyed it and constantly says, and it doesn't help that Maze is college aged and Mill looks like she's round about 12-13...if I'm correct?

What I really meant to say was, the whole censoring thing reminds me of how said anime was handled with censoring in Japan and America, sorry if I ended up going off topic.
Back to top
Shiflan



Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:25 pm Reply with quote
Sailor Sedna wrote:
@Key
I remember reading about some scenes where when Maze turns into a guy, he/she whoever actually rapes some people, one of them being the character Mill, who supposedly enjoyed it and constantly says, and it doesn't help that Maze is college aged and Mill looks like she's round about 12-13...if I'm correct?


I must admit it's been years since I have seen Maze but I remember it being a rather unremarkable show that was rather generic among many other shonen titles at the time.

I don't recall Maze (male) raping anyone, but I certainly recall Mill fawning over Maze in both his/her forms. If there was any hanky-panky I can't imagine it being anything other than consentual on Mill's part.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zalis116
Moderator


Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 6867
Location: Kazune City
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 6:41 pm Reply with quote
Sailor Sedna wrote:
This kinda reminds me of how Japan handled the "Maze/Maze Megaburst Space" anime (horrible anime that's a Slayers/Ranma 1/2 wannabe with so much horrible creepy overtones, including sexual assault also, you're missing nothing by skipping out), when they released it on VHS they censored it and released it uncensored on laserdisc. Somehow it managed to legally be licensed in the US on DVD using the censored version for it, whilst Japan never had a DVD release.
At least according to generally-accepted rumor, JC Staff et al lost the uncensored version between the release of the Japanese LDs and the US DVD release, so the censored TV version was all they were able to give CPM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Key
Moderator


Joined: 03 Nov 2003
Posts: 18194
Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley)
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:15 am Reply with quote
Sailor Sedna wrote:
@Key
I remember reading about some scenes where when Maze turns into a guy, he/she whoever actually rapes some people, one of them being the character Mill, who supposedly enjoyed it and constantly says, and it doesn't help that Maze is college aged and Mill looks like she's round about 12-13...if I'm correct?

Yeah, not a stitch of that was in the version that made it to the States. I originally saw much of the series in fansubs and don't recall there being anything like that in it. I'm having a hard time buying that what I saw was a heavily edited version, too, since there's no place that rapey scenes would fit and they'd be utterly incongruous with the tone of the series.

Now, male Maze IS portrayed as a lecher, Milli is on the young side, and there is a lot of sex-related humor, but the series still isn't that racy compared to other fare from the later '90s.

Never heard anything about what Zalis116 is talking about, but I'll admit that I wasn't paying close attention to such things at that time, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Shiflan



Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:30 am Reply with quote
Key wrote:

Yeah, not a stitch of that was in the version that made it to the States. I originally saw much of the series in fansubs and don't recall there being anything like that in it. I'm having a hard time buying that what I saw was a heavily edited version, too, since there's no place that rapey scenes would fit and they'd be utterly incongruous with the tone of the series.

Now, male Maze IS portrayed as a lecher, Milli is on the young side, and there is a lot of sex-related humor, but the series still isn't that racy compared to other fare from the later '90s.


I watched Maze on fansubs first, and then on Japanese LD so there is no doubt that what I saw was unedited. I am agreed 100% with Key on all of this. Generic 90's anime sex-related humor? Sure. Male maze is a stereotypical lecher trope? Yes. Rape scenes? No.

Quote:
Never heard anything about what Zalis116 is talking about, but I'll admit that I wasn't paying close attention to such things at that time, either.

Same here.

It's entirely possible that Maze was edited in some way for domestic release--I haven't seen the domestic one so I can't compare--but having seen the original Japanese LDs repeatedly I don't recall anything like a sexual assault scene or similar.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blanchimont



Joined: 25 Feb 2012
Posts: 3453
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:36 am Reply with quote
Key wrote:
Yeah, not a stitch of that was in the version that made it to the States. I originally saw much of the series in fansubs and don't recall there being anything like that in it. I'm having a hard time buying that what I saw was a heavily edited version, too, since there's no place that rapey scenes would fit and they'd be utterly incongruous with the tone of the series.

Never heard anything about what Zalis116 is talking about, but I'll admit that I wasn't paying close attention to such things at that time, either.

Haven't personally seen the series, but the first full fansub based on the Japanese LD-rips came only two years ago, any fansubs before that were either straight rips from the US DVDs or used the Japanese TV-raws as base. So if you saw it earlier than that, you would have missed any cut content...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group