• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OK, censoring movies on TV has gone a little far...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: gopunk
yea kind of like how they deleted the 4th stanza from eminem's stan. i still can't believe most people only heard 3/4 of it and never got to hear the conclusion.

You mean when Mathers is writing Stan back and it dawns on him that Stan is the guy who drove his car off the bridge, right? Why do they not play that part?

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well you can thank the Religious wankers of the Moral Minority for this.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Obviously you don't listen to yourself.

Ignored.
Fortunately most of us ignore your posts too!

Thanks can I have another?
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: gopunk
yea kind of like how they deleted the 4th stanza from eminem's stan. i still can't believe most people only heard 3/4 of it and never got to hear the conclusion.

You mean when Mathers is writing Stan back and it dawns on him that Stan is the guy who drove his car off the bridge, right? Why do they not play that part?

or maybe i meant the third stanza... whichever is the one where the guy drives off the bridge. yea, i think they just skip to that last stanza. i think they did it because it was "too graphic" or some bs like that
rolleye.gif
 
thats pretty bad, the worst goes to kevin smiths 'mallrats' on FX. one of the characters, jay, cusses a alot, so its understable to put in different words to cover it up. but the voice they got to do the different words and lines is not even REMOTELY close to jason mewes (actor playing jay) voice. it is the worst editing ive ever seen for a film to tv conversion ever!
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: pulse8
For things like the Shake and Bake, they are probably just avoiding paying them any money every time the movie is shown on TV.
It works the other way around. Like in this case, ABC called Coca-Cola and said, "Hey, we're gonna air the Charlie's Angels movie and it mentions Coke in it. If you want us to leave that in, pay $$$ or we'll edit it out." (Of course, they soften that up, with lovely words like "product placement," etc.)

For it to work that way in this case is silly. The products are already in the movie and I'm sure the studio that made the movie isn't going to all the trouble, and cost, of editing out products just because the companies didn't pay.
 
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well you can thank the Religious wankers of the Moral Minority for this.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Obviously you don't listen to yourself.

Ignored.
Fortunately most of us ignore your posts too!

Thanks can I have another?

/breaks out the popcorn

I always love to see the n00bs try to take on Red Dawn. 😀

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well you can thank the Religious wankers of the Moral Minority for this.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Obviously you don't listen to yourself.

Ignored.
Fortunately most of us ignore your posts too!

Thanks can I have another?


/breaks out the popcorn

I always love to see the n00bs try to take on Red Dawn. 😀

- M4H

LOL you dumbass, you are the newb! ROFL!
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: pulse8
For things like the Shake and Bake, they are probably just avoiding paying them any money every time the movie is shown on TV.
It works the other way around. Like in this case, ABC called Coca-Cola and said, "Hey, we're gonna air the Charlie's Angels movie and it mentions Coke in it. If you want us to leave that in, pay $$$ or we'll edit it out." (Of course, they soften that up, with lovely words like "product placement," etc.)

Actually it works both ways depending on the situation. If Coke wants to be shown then it will contact ABC and pay ABC to advertise Coke (product placement). If Coke doesn't want to be shown (which is their right as the copyright owner of the Coke name/trademark) they'll call ABC and say, "Blur/edit out "coke" or pay us money to use our product in your broadcast."

Another example. TV Networks pay big bucks to get TV rights to broadcast NFL games because NFL brings big rating, which brings big sponsors, which brings big $$$. On the other hand CART doesn't bring big ratings, big sponors, or big $$$ so CART has to buy time on CBS in order to broadcast its races on.


Lethal
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Trinitron
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well you can thank the Religious wankers of the Moral Minority for this.

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Obviously you don't listen to yourself.

Ignored.
Fortunately most of us ignore your posts too!

Thanks can I have another?

/breaks out the popcorn

I always love to see the n00bs try to take on Red Dawn. 😀

- M4H


Yeah,it's like getting a free pay per view movie😀
 
Back
Top