No Nate, movies and TV shows are not real life. Actors wear whatever the director wants them to wear. There may be several factors that figure into this- including product placement fees. TV/movie companies make money by having actors wear a certain brand of underwear as a form of advertising. Also, a director knows that media is more careful than ever about not offending anyone in their audience so they avoid anything that anyone might find objectionable (like bare butts). In short- having a actor wear UW is just a easy way to avoid any hassle.
I was saying, on both of those shows they indeed did show bare butts, as the actors were freeballing
but this was on cable tv channels like HBO and Showtime, which are known to be racy and inappropriate anyways
they are known for showing sex, or people having sex
throwing around cuss words like they are normal talk
and showing drugs like pot, and even showing them smoke the pot
but even for those shows showing bare genitals from the front is too much for American censorship
I did say I know it is a show and not real life
but you would think they would ask the actor to bring boxers, and not give them breifs for the day they are shooting that scene
but maybe I am thinking too hard
Underwear???Where????
Bye Now
From Planet Nate Who insanely
loves the freedom and comfort of his Penis and Balls freeballing in his loooose Basketball Shorts!!!!!!!!!!
I suspect the studio supplies the clothes actors wear- they have large wardrobe departments for that sort of thing.
But movies are easily manipulated- in "Road House" there was a nice scene of Patrick Swayze getting out of bed nude and slipping into a pair of jeans freeball. When I use to see this movie you could see his whole backside. Now all you see is his back from the waist up. In fact, you don't even know that he was nude or put the jeans on freeball. Movies are edited this way all the time.
I can't understand why you (not just you, Nat, I mean the whole American people) don't rebel against such a censorship. Editing films is exactly the same thing as doctoring pictures for political purposes as was routinely done in the Soviet Union, and in all dictatorships.
Because many Americans- specifically religious conservatives WANT such censorship- they are the reason it is done- because if TV stations show bare butts on the channels their kids watch they complain to the FCC about it.
When Janet Jackets' nipple was briefly visible on the 2004 Superbowl half-time show millions of people complained to the FCC and their congressman about it and tough new rules were passed requiring time-delays and "kill-buttons" on live broadcasts to prevent unexpected profanity and nudity.
So it's just easier to not show anything that offends anyone- that way you don't get complaints.
"So do they show naked people giving blow jobs on all your TV channels?"
They probably do, on some of the ones I haven't paid for. I don't fancy the thought of having payments in a name like "Canal Porno XXX" on my bank statement.
What I find sick is that in the USA, it seems perfectly acceptable to depict brutal murder on TV; yet one showing of a body part that every single person who has ever lived has seen one of when they were a baby got people up in arms complaining.
They also say, it's them as aren't getting it that complains the loudest about it .....
Yes I have always found it strange that so many Americans have no problem with graphic violence in movies and TV but freak out if a female nipple is shown.
Europeans are the opposite- movies are much more likely to be rated "adults-only" from violence than nudity.
Not to defend censorship by any means, but I don't see how you can compare the creative process of a fictional television program to political censorship. I am not saying that we should all agree with the levels some producers go through - but they most likely would rather have their work exposed to a large audience and that is the price they pay. But again, I think you take a significant leap to compare someones voluntary changes to their (fictional) work product to political censorship. Let's not even start to talk about the election process in the US - that is far from freeballing and less than democratic......
Once people know what the censors won't accept then most of the changes become "voluntary". Censorship isn't just about having a magic marker to cover up all the "undesirable parts". It's about keeping people from producing "undesirable parts" in the first place and, hence, limiting the free flow of ideas -- or at least the ideas the censors find unacceptable.
Well censorship has become so pandemic on American TV now that it's used as a gimmick by comedians. One of the few shows I bother to watch is "The Daily Show" on the Comedy channel. I just like political satire. And there is not a day goes by that there are not a dozen "bleeps" on that show- and ofcourse Steward and the writers know they will be "bleeped"- and use this as a comedy tool- so that the bleeps themselves have become their "cuss words". What's next?- bleeping the bleeps?
And its so silly because today's kids know all these words anyway- they hear them on the school bus everyday. Just as there is hardly a teen alive who has not seen porn in magazines and on the net. All this censorship does is have the opposite effect- when something is censored it just makes it more enticing to kids. It's the "forbidden fruit" thing.
It's not just about directors forcing actors to wear underwear, or brand sponsorship or prudish attitudes. Those things are relevant. However another factor here is what is appropriate to the character played by an actor. Even if an actor freeballs in real life he may feel that the character he's playing would never freeball. Just to take a possible example: actor David Duchovny is said to freeball in real life, but his Fox Mulder character in the X Files wore underwear and you can imagine he would never freeball; just not the type. I have no idea whether that was actually a factor in determining Fox M's wardrobe, but it could well be. David D's personal clothing preference would be subordinate to his interpretation of the role. I don't like facial hair, but if I played Adolf Hitler on TV I would grow a moustache (or mustache as the Americans spell it).
I was again watching another episode of weeds online
last night
and one of the guest stars was lexington steele, I had never heard of him before the episode (he is a porn star), but it was very obvious that they showed his penis and balls, they were shooting a porno, and one of the main characters on the show was catering to the set
there was no censorship box or anything it was just all right there hanging.....
so yeah I have no idea how it matters now, with Marseil and Nat fighting over censorship and whatnot....
that's all
Underwear???Where????
Bye Now
From Planet Nate Who insanely
loves the freedom and comfort of his Penis and Balls freeballing in his loooose Basketball Shorts!!!!!!!!!!
Think of it this way. Would you wear clothes that fit one size too small in normal circumstances? Well, Jason Alexander did in his role for George in Seinfeld. It's all about the character. Cosmo Kramer ended up freeballing in his role. Who knows if Michael Richards ends up freeballing in real life. It's all about the role that is trying to be presented. I don't think it has to do with censorship or product placement. In most camera angles, you're not going to see "Fruit of the Loom" or "Calvin Klein" on a tiny waistband in a short clip. In most cases, what is better marketing is big bold brand names on t-shirts.
Oh, and Nate. You sound ridiculous with your superfluous signature at the end... We can give a shit less about fucking "Planet Nate" and about your "penis and balls."
>"Nat, you have probably never heard of showtime or hbo, but some people on here probably have "
Gee Nate, I'm not as ignorant of technology as you may think- I've been a broadcast engineer for 44 years- see http://www.network54.com/Forum/157869/thread/1244871442/The+End+of+a+Era-+Analog+TV+-+R.I.P. for one of many discussions about this at POTPOURRI, furthermore I remember well when Time-Warner put HBO on the bird- Satcom-I at the time, it was the first 24-transponder satellite to go up and I was very interested in seeing how it was working as we were converting our stations' network feed from ground coax to satellite at this time too. In fact I had my own C-Band dish I built our of a kit in my back yard in the early '80s and could watch HBO' feed direct on it- and yes Showtime too which was owned by Viacom back then.
The fact the program you saw on the net had also been shown on broadcast TV means nothing since I explained earlier- its very easy to edited and crop movies to remove objectionable material for broadcast TV. In short- there can be different versions of the same show- one showing nudity- one without- depending on what outlet it's shown on.
From what I understand, FCC regulates only that which is broadcast over the public airwaves in the USA. Cable TV is not broadcast over public airwaves like your local station and FCC does not and cannot regulate it. Still, I see lots of censorship on cable, especially cable news channels, like CNN. I remember once when somebody in either Congress or the White House used some expletive, probably the "s" word, and Wolf Blitzer saying they could not air what was said. I think they could have, legally, but they don't want to upset the applecart.
It's true that the FCC does not currently have the authority to regulate cable TV programming but several congressmen (who constantly hear complaints from conservative religious groups like "Moral Majority" and "Morality in Media" have threaten to pass legislation that would give the FCC that authority. And the cable channels are scared to death of this happening- so they are censoring themselves to avoid it. Pay-channels like HBO and Showtime have somewhat more freedom since people must specifically request and pay extra to get them, but even they are more cautious then in the past.
"Pay-channels like HBO and Showtime have somewhat more freedom since people must specifically request and pay extra to get them, but even they are more cautious then in the past."
like I was saying, because less people have the channels than lets say nickelodeon or Disney channel, or news channels like msnbc
they can get away with a lot more stuff than most other common channels
nat, sorry for saying you had no idea what you were talking about
I forgot what profession you were in, most people that are not my generation or the 2nd generation above me do not know how to use the internet or know much about channels like hbo or showtime
it was an assumption (a verry wrong one at that), not a purposeful insult
Underwear???Where????
Bye Now
From Planet Nate Who insanely
loves the freedom and comfort of his Penis and Balls freeballing in his loooose Basketball Shorts!!!!!!!!!!
Oh don't worry Nate, I wasn't really upset- however since HBO and Showtime have been available on nearly every cable system in the country for 30 years I doubt that there are many people who haven't heard of them.
But when people subscribe to things like HBO they know they will see (and want to see) adult content. People watching basic channels like CNN or Lifetime don't so these channels don't want to offend even their most prudish viewers.
Of course even HBO is not uncensored- they don't show anything truly pornographic. Even the Playboy channel only shows soft-porn. For hardcore you'd have to go to something like BlueMax or Ecstasy. And while the FCC may not control what cable systems show- many city franchises do- and prohibit them from carrying true porn.
![[linked image]](http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/stalin1+2.jpg)
