Dr Who bleeped

For fuck’s sake.

a) Why didn’t they just put an unbleeped audio track as an option on the DVD?

b) Since when did one “bastard” prevent a PG rating? Dr Who was never going to get a U – that only goes to documentaries and chidlren’s animations.

c) How the fuck do you confuse “bastard” with “fucker”, bleeped or not? Furthermore, why would the BBFC think the BBC would have the word “fucker” in a family programme that goes out at teatime?

Similar situation in the US.

Apparently, there is a boxed set of classic Bugs Bunny cartoons now available. A disclaimer at the beginning of the set has Whoopi Goldberg preaching at the viewer about how ‘unfunny’ the cartoons are (because they were racist, or sexist, or something), and that disclaimer, is, apparently (I don’t have the set, so I’m going on 2nd hand information) unavoidable.

Bizarre. I’m supposed to buy a set of cartoons, then be told, on the tape itself, that they actually aren’t funny and that I shouldn’t enjoy them. And I’m being told this by a very un-PC, vulgar commedienne to boot.

A natural solution: don’t buy the DVDs.

Steve

How the fuck do you confuse “bastard” with “fucker”, bleeped or not?

They take the same amount of time to say, have the same cadence, and both end with “er”. Presumably the “er” was all that could be heard from the original word, and it is said in a situation where “fucker” would be likely nowadays.

steve’s story is brilliant!

Steve’s story–which Steve himself admits is something somebody told somebody who told somebody who told him–strikes me as a stretch.

From the Amazon review of The Looney Tunes Golden Collection, Volume 3:

Whoopi Goldberg introduces the set, explaining that some of the ethnic gags would no longer be considered appropriate. But she correctly adds that to remove them would falsify both the history of animation and American popular culture.

As amazing as it may seem, some of those old Looney Tunes are racist: bone-in-the-nose, minstrel show, shuckin’ & jivin’ racist. Rather than censor out the bad bits, or simply leave them to rot in the vaults, WB chose to release them with a little disclaimer that some people might find them offensive. And yes, apparently you have to watch the intro each time. Annoying? Perhaps. Does it bear even the faintest relationship to “censorship”? Of course not–but the myth of totalitarian political correctness must be maintained one way or another.

Here is an amusing link to a nice Granny warning that the following show will contain language such as “Bastard, wanker..” Hilarious. And It appears to be BBC 4.. http://www.devilducky.com/media/36756/
\

Why would anyone watching old cartoons expect them not to contain racist images? Are people stupid and ignorant?

Stupid, no. Ignorant, yes, and that’s why they tell you at the beginning. Given how amazed most people are when I show them my collection of weird WW2 propaganda cartoons, ignorance of history in animation especially is quite widespread (certainly because the past history of many modern cartoon characters has been significantly whitewashed.)

Benny Hill reflects an earlier, earthier, tradition of what is often called “seaside postcard humour”
Got to

http://www.axenautique.com/specs/postcard.htm

and you’ll see why.

By the end most of it was sexist crap (which is why he became so hated). But he was, on occasion, incredibly funny — with clever sight gags and flights of surreal fantasy. His early work on the radio (in the 50’s — I’ve heard a total of about 2 hours of it, so am going on that) is as good as anyone’s at that time (except, I suppose, Hancock). Even in his final years he had one great asset — his whole act was based on a deep self-deprecation, which made it in one way funnier and more tolerable than the cruelty and self-aggrandisement of the more socially acceptable satirists (Bennett excepted, but pretty much only him).

Its funny to get an unfunny comedian (chosen presumably because she is black, not because she has any particular expertise in social history or the history of the cartoon or, well, anything) to introduce it

Not to be argumentative, Harry, but according to the press materials for the DVD: “It’s not well-known, but Whoopi is an animation collector herself.” She’s done a lot of high-profile animation voiceover work, as well as hosting cartoon-related documentaries like “The Making of A Charlie Brown Christmas.” In short, I think she qualifies on something more than the basis of her skin color.

(I also happen to think that she is, in certain contexts, very funny, but YMMV, of course.)

Why would anyone watching old cartoons expect them not to contain racist images? Are people stupid and ignorant?

What perianwyr said. It’s very easy to imagine someone who’s not an avid animation geek picking up a Looney Tunes DVD for their kids, imagining that it contains the innocuous (and thoroughly edited) WB ‘toons that were shown on Saturday morning TV in the 60s and 70s. They would be mistaken. So why not give them fair warning?

ginger yellow — The explanation must be that they think that a 12 rating is actually a benefit. You should hear preteenage boys talk about ratings (maybe you do) — a U or a G is the kiss of death with a certain sector of their market. I would be amazed if there’s a parent out there who might buy a Dr. Who DVD for their kid and would pass on 3 classic stories from 63-4 (when it was targetted at much younger kids than the recent new series which has prompted the current wave of repackaged releases) because it has a 12 rating.

Fair enough point, too, about ignorance—despite the story prompting this thread, the British TV authorities were much more warts and all in what they showed, so it would be much harder for Brits to be as ignorant about the content of old cartoons.

Right. Many Americans’ notion of Bugs Bunny et al. is skewed by the fact that these “controversial” ‘toons haven’t been shown on TV in decades. I remember seeing some of them at an independent theatre in the 80s under the rubric of “Uncensored Looney Tunes!” or something like that, but they were completely absent from the tube.

I am struck by the eccentric standards applied

Well, the Better Half and I are avid watchers of BBC America, and we’re continually amazed by how much more frank & explicit British TV is. And yes, the “standards” here in the US are so bizarre, and so bizarrely applied, that sometimes you really would think we were a nation of children.

Are you getting all that stuff from Amazon, or do you own the bloody thing?

I got all the info above from Amazon…but I’ll take this opportunity to point out that I own Vol. 1 and am eager to get my mitts on the entire collection, should Santa or any of his minions be reading this.

(Vol. 1, by the way, is positively brilliant: the restoration job is exquisite and some of the commentary tracks are really great [and informative] fun. My personal highlight so far: “Duck Amuck” dubbed into French. Kills me every time.)

Does BBFC stand for BB Fucking C?

Classification, Chris. Calling censors censors is all very 1950s.

Hilarious. And It appears to be BBC 4..

BBC 3. The rude digital channel. But old people swearing is perennial comedy.

On the cartoon issue: am I right in thinking that the WB 5-minute short pretty much vanished from the American TV schedule a lot longer ago than the British schedule? Also, I’d be happy to hear a disclaimer, as long as it was by the sainted Derek Griffiths.

Just figured out where i heard about the Whoopi apologia-in a column by Mark Steyn this summer.

“I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the ”Looney Tunes Golden Collection.” Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we’re not meant to find funny: ”Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups,” she tells us sternly. ”These jokes were wrong then and they’re wrong today” — unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg’s most memorable joke of recent years, the one at that 2004 all-star Democratic Party gala in New York where she compared President Bush to her, um, private parts. There’s a gag for the ages.

I don’t know what Whoopi’s making such a meal about. It’s true you don’t see many positive images of people of color on ”Looney Tunes,” but then the images of people of non-color aren’t terribly positive either (Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam). Instead, you see positive images of ducks of color, roadrunners of color and tweety birds of color. How weirdly reductive to be so obsessed about something so peripheral to these cartoons that you stick the same damn Whoopi Goldberg health warning on all four DVDs in the box. And don’t think about hitting the “Next” button and skipping to the cartoons: You can’t; you gotta sit through it.

A Hollywood that’s ashamed of one of its few universally acknowledged genuine artistic achievements is hardly likely to come up with any new artistic achievements. As the instant deflation of that Whoopi cushion reminds us, the movies are now so constrained by political correctness the very act of storytelling is itself endangered. That’s something slightly more ominous than the feeble limousine liberalism…”

Yep, it remains strange to me I’m actually expected to buy a product, then be preached at by the corporation I just gave money to that the product I just bought isn’t good and that I should be ashamed if I enjoy it, and to be preached at by, of all people, Whoopi Goldberg. Would you pay Whoopi Goldberg for moral advice? If you bought the cartoon collection, you already have.

“What perianwyr said. It’s very easy to imagine someone who’s not an avid animation geek picking up a Looney Tunes DVD for their kids, imagining that it contains the innocuous (and thoroughly edited) WB ‘toons that were shown on Saturday morning TV in the 60s and 70s. They would be mistaken. So why not give them fair warning?”

Uhm, a fair warning would be to put the disclaimer on the box before the discs are bought (which is also done). A sermon from Whoopi after the films are already paid for doesn’t warn anybody of anything. Presumably, it was the balance that Warner Brothers thought would appease all parties: the fans of the cartoons, who wanted to see them, get to see them (they like that). But they have to sit through a liberal scolding first (they don’t like that, but they’ve been socialized to accept a scolding by a celebrity, so they won’t dislike it too much). And liberal activists, who don’t want anybody to see those cartoons, have to suffer through the fact that some people watch cartoons contrary to their wishes (they don’t like this). But those viewers have to sit through a liberal scolding first (and liberal activists like that very very much). Thus, everyone is kind of happy and kind of unhappy-but not unhappy enough to either not buy the tapes (cartoon fans) or make a scene (scolding liberals).

Steve

…part of that is from the summer job I had dubbing Hong Kong action flicks…

OMG, you lucky f**ard! For a long time that was, quite literally, my dream job. Which ones did you do?

OMG, you lucky f**ard! For a long time that was, quite literally, my dream job. Which ones did you do?

I’m ashamed to say I don’t remember. One was a “big-budget” action flick about a special police task force charged with breaking up a drug ring run through Vietnamese refugee camps; the other one (not exactly action) was one of the later God of Gamblers flicks, maybe III?

Thank you, Uncle Kvetch. You enjoyed that little scolding, didn’t you (you liked it very, very much…).

Steve