What’s the context?
DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
The context is that Venkman is saying that the regular people in the restaurant are being freaked out by Ray, Egon, and Winston acting like lunatics covered in pink slime.
In other words, it has nothing to do with sexual identity.
I'll never understand why people think there's more censorship today than there was in the past. I guess the context is that things that were seen as acceptable then are now recognized as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., but that's not about censorship, that's about society becoming more considerate to people whose humanity was devalued before. It's not that those movies couldn't be released today, it's that filmmakers today would know better than to make them that way in the first place.
**office same picture meme**
It’s censorship if you’re secretly (or not so secretly) itching to say that stuff.
Must be a tough character to get a handle on, I didn’t care for Pedro Pascal’s version either.
Post-Legends Justice League is the version I’m most familiar with, none of the live-action versions I’ve seen lean on that version in any real way.
There was more to Lord, early on.
That's what I thought.
Edge was from Kirby's run on Jimmy Olsen, but also the other Superman books of that era. Owner of Galaxy Communications which bought the Daily Planet and turned Clark into a TV reporter. On the side he was running InterGang and working for Darkseid.
Rutger Hauer was Edge in Smallville and the very similar Earle character in Batman Begins. They could almost have made them the same person and watched the internet explode.
That's my point. Certain people don't understand that it's actually possible to care about the rights and feelings of people different from themselves, so they assume the only reason you can't perpetuate stereotypes or say bigoted things anymore is because of nebulous forces preventing it, rather than because people have actually become more enlightened and realized how harmful those stereotypes and language were, so that they don't want to use them anymore.
And no, it's not censorship. If someone wants to make a story expressing those attitudes, the First Amendment guarantees their right to do so. But the marketplace may decide it's unacceptable. It's censorship if the state decides you can't say certain things, but it's not censorship if the public tells you you're a jerk to say those things. They're just expressing their free speech in return.
There was smoking, swearing, sexual innuendo, sexual content. By today's standards that would give it a harsher rating then back then.
I definitely remember that when Ghostbusters aired on British tv in the 1990s, they’d edit out the “dickless”…”this man has no dick” exchange.
Yeah, but just PG-13, which is basically the equivalent of what PG used to be. Nobody would "call child protective services" for letting a kid watch a PG-13 movie. The PG means Parental Guidance Suggested -- it's up to the parents to decide if they think their kids can handle it. Even the R rating means that children under 17 can still watch it if escorted by a parent or adult guardian. It's not a prohibition, it just recognizes the parents' right to make that choice for themselves. (Although there are common-sense limits. I still remember how when I saw RoboCop 2 in the theater, a couple of parents unthinkingly brought their 3- or 4-year-old children to an ultraviolent R-rated movie and had to take them out of the theater bawling.)
And it's not that PG-13 is a harsher rating; it's that the meaning of G and PG ratings has been shifted so far down the maturity spectrum that PG-13 has spread out to engulf pretty much everything that used to be PG, and some things that used to be G. G stands for General Audiences, meaning suitable for everyone, and in the '70s it was used for films as mature as Rio Lobo or The Andromeda Strain or Silent Running or Jesus Christ Superstar. Basically it started out being for all the movies that would've been acceptable under the old Hays Code, when there was one standard for everyone, and being suitable for children wasn't seen as making a film unsuitable for adults. But once harder ratings like PG and R were in use and films started to include more graphic content, the definition of a film for adults shifted, and the G rating came to be seen as suitable for children only. So filmmakers started slipping in the odd cuss word or bit of violence to get their otherwise G-worthy films PG ratings, gaming the system to avoid a rating seen as box-office poison. Then, when the PG-13 rating was introduced, a similar shift happened -- PG-13 was better box-office than PG or R, so makers of PG-worthy films would add enough cussing to get bumped up to PG-13, and R-worthy films would get enough trims to slide down to PG-13, and so the definition of PG-13 got progressively stretched out in both directions, to the point that it's become basically useless as a content indicator.
So it doesn't mean there's been a change in what content society finds acceptable, it just means that the ratings don't mean what they used to mean. Heck, it used to be possible to include nudity in a PG-rated movie if it wasn't sexual, e.g. in Clash of the Titans. These days that would probably be an automatic R. It speaks more to the arbitrariness of the labeling system than to any real cultural change.
To be clear, I was making a joke about conservative mentality. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.
Similar threads
