American Movie Studios Appease Chinese Censors (nationalreview.com) 284
An anonymous reader writes: To stay on Beijing's good side, U.S. filmmakers are willing to kowtow to China's authoritarian regime, and there seems no limit to their willingness to acquiesce. Take Top Gun: Maverick, a long-awaited sequel to the 1986 classic action film that made Tom Cruise a superstar. After the sequel's trailer was unveiled at San Diego's ComicCon last week, alert fans noted that the iconic leather flight jacket worn by Cruise's character in the original film had been altered. All of the patches from the original film were there except for flags representing Chinese adversaries Japan and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Those flags were missing. The culprits were soon pretty obvious. The Hollywood Reporter found that the Chinese company Tencent is co-financing the sequel. Co-producing the film along with Paramount Pictures is Skydance, which is partially owned by Tencent.
"Top Gun is an American classic, and it's incredibly disappointing to see Hollywood elites appease the Chinese Communist Party," Senator Ted Cruz of Texas lamented to the Washington Free Beacon. "The Party uses China's economy to silence dissent against its brutal repression and to erode the sovereignty of American allies like Taiwan. Hollywood is afraid to stand up for free speech and is enabling the Party's campaign against Taiwan." Senator Lindsey Graham, a colleague of Cruz's, chimed in. "I hate to see the flag removed because of Chinese financing," he said in an interview with TMZ. "It's nothing the government can do, but I think it sucks." Nor is Top Gun: Maverick the only example of genuflection. China is almost uniformly portrayed in American movies as a technologically advanced superpower (see movies such as The Martian, 2012, and Looper). In Looper, a science-fiction drama, a time-traveler is learning French and saving his money so that he can move to Paris. But his boss, who is from the future, says he is making a mistake.
"Top Gun is an American classic, and it's incredibly disappointing to see Hollywood elites appease the Chinese Communist Party," Senator Ted Cruz of Texas lamented to the Washington Free Beacon. "The Party uses China's economy to silence dissent against its brutal repression and to erode the sovereignty of American allies like Taiwan. Hollywood is afraid to stand up for free speech and is enabling the Party's campaign against Taiwan." Senator Lindsey Graham, a colleague of Cruz's, chimed in. "I hate to see the flag removed because of Chinese financing," he said in an interview with TMZ. "It's nothing the government can do, but I think it sucks." Nor is Top Gun: Maverick the only example of genuflection. China is almost uniformly portrayed in American movies as a technologically advanced superpower (see movies such as The Martian, 2012, and Looper). In Looper, a science-fiction drama, a time-traveler is learning French and saving his money so that he can move to Paris. But his boss, who is from the future, says he is making a mistake.
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the *real* article:
"Hypocrites who endlessly promote the concept that making money and building wealth and power is the only virtue worthy of recognition, suddenly find themselves feigning disapproval at corporate mega-giant who does thing to make money. Hypocrites have yet to return any campaign bribe money from said mega-giant corporation."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the *real* article:
"Hypocrites who endlessly promote the concept that making money and building wealth and power is the only virtue worthy of recognition, suddenly find themselves feigning disapproval at corporate mega-giant who does thing to make money. Hypocrites have yet to return any campaign bribe money from said mega-giant corporation."
This is that awkward moment, the so called Liberal, proponent of free speech and liberty and human rights finds themselves on the side of the most brutal, inhumane and horrific regimes in human history simply because they don't like that someone has an (R) after their name.
Congrats sunshine, you're now the very thing you claim to hate.
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are certainly those people who are only ever capable of seeing two sides to any difference of opinion.
In other words, it's possible to point out a politician's hypocrisy on this issue, and simultaneously condemn China's crackdown on free speech. But you do you, man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He neither pointed hypocrisy nor condemned China's human rights record. What he did was create a strawman, assign it to a political opponent and then back a regime through moral solidarity. But hey, you do you too.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
From the *real* article:
"Hypocrites who endlessly promote the concept that making money and building wealth and power is the only virtue worthy of recognition, suddenly find themselves feigning disapproval at corporate mega-giant who does thing to make money. Hypocrites have yet to return any campaign bribe money from said mega-giant corporation."
This is that awkward moment, the so called Liberal, proponent of free speech and liberty and human rights finds themselves on the side of the most brutal, inhumane and horrific regimes in human history simply because they don't like that someone has an (R) after their name.
Congrats sunshine, you're now the very thing you claim to hate.
Actually we don't. If government should be hands off even in silencing foreign governments and their efforts to dictate speech terms for profit in their country, at the very least it is proper for our governments to demand disclaimers on movies, "Warning, this movie's content may have been altered to appease a dictatorship."
That's part of the problem with current troll farms from Russia and China -- it's difficult to separate real opinions from manipulative dictatorship statements on message boards includi
Re: (Score:2)
No matter if your pathology is biological or by choice (indoctrination?) don't you see the obvious logical problems with that post?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have only one goal: Profit.
Really? So explain the existence of nonprofit corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi Germany and Holywood (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just Hollywood but most of corporate America too. I'm all for making money but there should be some regard to ethics. Hollywood will come to regret this, much like IBM and others did when they got in bed with Nazi's.
One thing here that stands out however, much of what the Nazi's did wasn't common knowledge until after the war. What China has done and is doing is known to all but willfully ignored all for the money.
Maybe it's a California thing. They've been exploiting the Chinese for centuries, this is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for making money but there should be some regard to ethics.
What a nice campaign slogan.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a period before US entered WW2 when Nazi Germany was financing Hollywood productions, where Nazis were imposing similar rules.
The worst atrocities of the Nazis weren't public knowledge till after the war. The Holocaust didn't start will after the Wannsee Conference [wikipedia.org] in 1942.
Meanwhile, in America, black actors were excluded from the Academy Awards. Hattie McDaniels only received her Oscar when Clark Gable threatened to boycott the ceremony if she was excluded. But she still wasn't allowed to sit with the white people.
Black lynchings were also regular events in the American South.
Easy answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't spend your hard-earned dollars to see this or other movies subsidized by the Chinese.
We all like to bitch on Slashdot about how terrible is it that American companies are giving in to Chinese money... Now is your chance to prove that this is not all just words! Vote by not seeing these movies, and sooner than later the problem will resolve itself.
Or... Be a sheeple and go see it with your sheeple friends just to be part of the crowd, but then stop being a hypocrite and complaining about how others are supporting this regime.
You can't have it both ways!
Darn right leaning liberal capitalist socialist. (Score:2)
It is almost like those Liberal Hollywood people are doing whatever it takes to bring in the most money.
It is almost like people and organizations don't fit neatly into little pidgin holes but apply compromise to their ideology where it doesn't make the most sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberal, conservative... seeking profit knows no political ties beyond those of convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it seems to the people who watch Fox News, because Hollywood, is using minorities and women for non-traditional roles it make them a a bunch of Liberals.
However even working for organizations with Liberal Left leaning leadership, they still push hard to get the money in.
Chinese censors are killing Chinese movies (Score:5, Informative)
Four big Chinese films have been pulled in a month with barely an explanation [cnn.com]
The latest controversy began on June 24 with a message posted to the official "Better Days" social media account.
"After considering the level of completion of 'Better Days' and our market pre-assessments, and following consultations between the production and distribution parties, the film will not be released on June 27. A new release date will be announced at a later time," the statement said.
Fans were shocked. The film had been due to release that week.
So far, no new release date has been given and the account has since been silent. The day after "Better Days" was pulled, promoters behind "The Eight Hundred" announced on social media that the film wouldn't be releasing on July 5 as planned, adding a new release date would be made public "when decided."
It said that after "consulting and discussing (with) every side," screenings of the film were being canceled. Fans were shocked. The film had been due to release that week.
"After consultation between the production team and other entities, 'The Eight Hundred' will cancel its original July 5 premiere and temporarily vacate the summer release date window. The new release date will be announced at a later time," said a statement posted to the film's social media.
It happened again with the "The Hidden Sword," which was pulled just four days ahead of its planned release on July 15. A statement was issued on the film's social media account: "Due to market reasons, the film 'The Hidden Sword' has canceled its original July 19 release. Thank you for your anticipation, your attention and support!"
It seems that the Chinese filmmakers aren't appeasing the Chines censors
Re: (Score:2)
They could always release those movies in the international film festivals and see if the audience like them there, and get some of their investments back.
And then have to hide from the Chinese authorities for the rest of their lives
Re: (Score:2)
PRAY, they don't alter it any further.
Regarding The Martian (Score:5, Interesting)
The Chinese space program has the second-highest budget in the world after NASA, outspending Russia, Japan, or Europe. China currently has the capability of manned spaceflight, which the US does not (more due to poor planning on the part of the US than anything else). Is it really such a stretch for a film set in the near future to portray China as having a viable space program? China's space budget is like 3x that of Russia.
Re:Regarding The Martian (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not due to poor planning. It's due to blatant corruption. Rather than let NASA request bids and prototypes from contractors, so they can put them through tests and select the best company to produce each part, members of Congress keep adding text in funding bills requiring NASA to use a specific contractor located in their state or district. The honest folks at NASA don't want to endanger lives or waste obscene amounts of money complying with these requirements if they don't feel the design or parts were up to par or the best choice for the job. So they do the only thing in their power to do - stall in the hopes the private sector can come up with something better.
When the Shuttle was introduced in the 1980s, the parts were certified for 25 years of use. The manufacturer ran accelerated aging and stress tests on the parts, and that's how long the engineers felt they could guarantee the parts would stay within spec. After 25 years, they had to run inspections and tests to re-certify the parts for extra use - typically 5 or 10 more years. That's why the shuttle was in operation from 1981 to 2011 - 30 years. Even Endeavour (built to replace Challenger, lost in 1986) was under the same age constraint because a lot of its parts were actually spares built during the initial production.
Everyone knew the Shuttles were going to be retired in 2011. Plans for a replacement started in the 2000s. But Congress kept interfering, adding conditions to NASA's purchase requirements. Enough so that the replacement SLS (Space Launch System) picked up the nickname "Senate Launch System".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Corrections to the summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Take Top Gun: Maverick, a long-awaited sequel to the 1986 classic action film that made Tom Cruise a superstar
Top Gun isn't an classic anything, and there never has been a "long-awaited" anything for it. As for making Tom Cruise a superstar, it made him something. Jury is still out on what that is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Take Top Gun: Maverick, a long-awaited sequel to the 1986 classic action film that made Tom Cruise a superstar
Top Gun isn't an classic anything, and there never has been a "long-awaited" anything for it.
LOL.. I know, I've not been waiting for a sequel of Top Gun. Let's call this what it really is.. A project that was put off a LONG time, because everybody involved knew it would have to be a totally different movie, or it would be a disappointment to anybody who remembered the first installment. In short, it would have been a huge mistake that cost a lot of money to make.
This movie isn't "long awaited by the movie going public" it is really "a long avoided mistake by Hollywood".
Besides, how on earth do
Re: Corrections to the summary (Score:2)
Re: Corrections to the summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Top Gun became a classic a good decade or so after it came out, because of the amazingly cheesy story, the fantastic 80's soundtrack and the tensely homoerotic locker room scenes.
The soundtrack is awesome, and Top Gun did become an epic something: a Navy recruitment video. Supposedly after the release of the movie the Navy saw a 500% increase in people wanting to be Naval Aviators. Clips from the film were also used in recruitment campaigns.
And remember, Yvan eht nioj!
Re:Corrections to the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Dislike him, his life, his faux-religion, even his smug smile all you like, but I don't think objectively you can say he's not a "superstar" or at least wasn't one at one time.
Not saying that I don't do it too, but it would be nice if people at least TRIED to set set aside their biases in the pursuit of an objective truth we can consensually agree on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but thanks to Risky Business he was already pretty popular before Top Gun came out.
Re: (Score:3)
Top Gun is literally one of the most well-known films of all time. Even if you think it's crap, which it is in many ways, you have to acknowledge that it really shows off a stereo system.
Re: (Score:3)
Top Gun is a classic. You may not like it but many people do, and while it's annoying in its use of the same footage multiple times for purportedly different aerial incidents, it's a very professionally put together film.
The opening title scenes are world class cinema but the whole film puts together visuals, music and action superbly, the script has drama and humour and the editing matches that with its pacing.
While it's easy to write off as a cheesy male wish fulfilment fantasy that would not just be lazy
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are some indy studios that won't do this, but they're the exception that defines the other category.
Disney is not going to turn down hundreds of millions of dollars to not-censor a movie. That's why they make movies, not for art.
So, be a good little consumer and go put on your costume and go give Disney more money this weekend, so you can help crowd out the art pieces.
Spoiler: in Spiderman 11, we find out Spidey Sense is caused by midichlorians. Stay riveted.
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is not going to turn down hundreds of millions of dollars to not-censor a movie. That's why they make movies, not for art.
You're 100% correct. That said, is it vitally important to the character that he have a patch with the Taiwan flag on it? Is it important to the plot that he have a patch with the Japanese flag on it?
If they were to decide that the antagonists in the movie were, say, North Koreans instead of Chinese [latimes.com], I might be a bit more sympathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to miss the point.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about money, not movies. They agree with not using tje wird fuck so more people are allowed to see it to make money.
Always been the case for 100 years.
We will get away from that eventually. You can already hear "shit" on TV fairly regularly, and I've seen Deadpool broadcast several times on cable with "fuck" not edited out.
I'm with the Zodiac Killer (Score:2)
I'm actually with the Lyin' Ted on this one. The O.G. Top Gun was made using U.S. Navy resources. These thing are permitted generally on the basis of reasonable concessions made to not misrepresent the Navy or its mission.
It's reasonable to expect the beneficiaries of the Navy's good will to properly represent the U.S. and its allies.
Re: (Score:2)
You're sounding like a Pentagon spokesman. They are sooo concerned with accuracy, it's always the same line.
I think the reality is the military and other government institutions have a big say in Hollywood movie making, from the scenario to the finished product, to make it serve their interests. To make them look good, to sell their message. To call that 'accuracy' is deceptive. Top Gun was a propaganda movie for the airforce.
Sometimes there are articles about it https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
https://med [medium.com]
Re: I'm with the Zodiac Killer (Score:2)
I never said anything about accuracy. And yeah, the military has a big say, that was my whole point. They SHOULD have a say in a movie they are essentially bankrolling.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not reasonable. Top Gun was a recruitment film. If they want to use those resources they need to either accomplish a military goal like that, under contract, or pay for the privilege of renting them out.
The producers did pay for the flight time for the use of military aircraft.
Nothing new here (Score:2)
The US Government has been telling Hollywood what to do since the silent film days.
It's only in recent times that Hollywood has stepped away from the US Government to a degree, at least publicly. I imagine behind closed doors, they're still being told what's cool and what's not by the government.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Government influences the media it's population consumes? Duh?
Or... (Score:2)
The emblems on the back are about the events of the first movie which had nothing to do with either Japan or China. I always find this level of detail in movies pretty interesting. The fact that the emblems in the first movie actually had meaning and weren't just some random design that looked cool.
Good for the Goose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude... that's pretty insensitive... Goose is DEAD!
Appeasing whom? (Score:2)
The film is being partially financed and produced by a Chinese company. Why is it surprising that Chinese sensibilities are being taken into account?
"Chinese sensibilities" (Score:3)
Is "Chinese sensibilities" the new euphemism for mass incarceration of people base on their ethnic/religious background, the omnipresent censor/surveillance state, or the organ harvesting of political opponents, or asking family of executed prisoner to pay for the bullets used in the execution. While all of this is happening the elite Chinese communist members are sending their family to live abroad.
"Chinese sensibilities" . . . I see.
Fake Controversy (Score:5, Informative)
Maverick's large back patch in the original "Top Gun" is from his father's Vietnam tour. It says "Far East Cruise 63-64 USS Galveston". The new patch says "Indian Ocean Cruise 85-86 United States Navy", a reference to where some of the action took place in the 1986 original.
Now I'm not saying that the producers wouldn't remove a Taiwan flag from a patch for PRC audiences, but it might have been a reasonable artistic choice as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Might? Neither Japan or Taiwan are in the Indian Ocean. This site rails against fake news and then goes and promotes this. story. What a complete joke this place is. For the record, even the NYPOST set the record straight as to the back story behind each patch. That said, the UN flag on each is really the totally bogus part.
Here's a use for DeepFake programs (Score:2)
Chinese government is everyones' enemy (Score:2)
New "Red Dawn" Movie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know a person is more likely to die then survive an ejection, right?
ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood: "Nothing we could do . . ."
People: "You could say no."
Hollywood: "Yep, real shame."
People: "You could just not take their money"
Hollywood: "Yep, a real problem with the Chinese government . . "
"Dam Busters" by Peter Jackson & "N!gger" in U (Score:2)
Apparently the dog that was on the Dam Busters was called "N!gger". Peter Jackson was told by the US film censors that if you go true to life then you will automatically be censored with some silly rule. I see no difference here except I can swap out China with the US. It's a matter of perspective and from my perspective China == US (there, I insulted EVERYBODY :) )
[Wow, can't type N!gger, /. is in the same camp]
Who. Gives. A. Shit? (Score:2)
It's a goddam work of fiction.
Funny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if the script writers and director could do whatever they want regardless of viewer opinion, investors, advertisers, etc.?
on another note, Dan Pedersen, the first officer in charge and co-founder of the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, discussed his book "Top Gun: An American Story" on this CSPAN presentation. https://www.c-span.org/video/?... [c-span.org] I found it interesting was back in his days he was able to fly much more than today's aviators who don't fly as much because the aircraft are so expensive. We
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That kind of thinking is why militant-gay lobby has nearly succeed in destroying the American family. The KGB did not need a bunch of fancy weapons to destroy us only propaganda and getting us to drop our guard.
Re: (Score:2)
but those pilots in the Mig-28s sure looked scary (they were faceless). Regarding MIC boogiemen for the new movie, is it Iranians or Chinese? Not sure how much creativity to make Iranians scary, maybe they will extrapolate the leftover F-14s from the 1970s. Confronting China or leave that for container ships and tariff disputes (no military, just a lot of business people yelling). What enemy? I guess it all depends on what blog the president is reading.
I looked up trailers for the new TG movie (interesting
Re: (Score:2)
Top gun wasn't even close to realistic, So does the enemy really matter for this version of the US recruitment movie?
Rank may mean you can't fly, but it isn't a guarantee. I've known colones that fly.
First good life rule I learned in the military:
There can always be exceptions to rules.
While no official, there are places in the US where pilot fly in formation close to the ground, and violate air speed rules.
Bunch of testosterone young men strapped into something that powerful and shit happens, even if the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they where, and the had 2 cold wars. One with the US and one with China. Although the one with China got hot from time to time. One time to the point where an island disappeared.
Desperate people with a nuclear arsenal are always scary.
"better vote for the Conservative or the big bad Commie will crawl out from under your bed and eat you!"
It was nothing like that. Take it from those of us who were there. Sometimes literally.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been a time when Hollywood was not powerfully influenced by the Pentagon and its predecessors. Even during WW1, Washington painstakingly crafted Hollywood's output to suit its own agenda.
See, for example:
Hollywood and The Pentagon: A Dangerous Liaison
https://documentaryheaven.com/... [documentaryheaven.com]
Military interference in American film production
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl... [wsws.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Top Gun was basically a US Navy recruiting film. The US government helped finance it, and in return got to review, edit and approve the script. The navy set up recruitment booths outside theatres.
It's not the only film with US government involvement either.
Now a Chinese company is helping finance the sequel and wanted a couple of incidental visual details removed. Oh noes!
Re: (Score:2)
Now a Chinese company is helping finance the sequel and wanted a couple of incidental visual details removed. Oh noes!
To me the more interesting aspect is, why is a Chinese company helping finance it? The movie is guaranteed to make money. It's guaranteed to be a $1B plus movie. I'd have to think that if the studio even WANTED to share that profit with someone else, in the name of mitigating risk, any number of US lenders would be falling all over themselves to help finance the movie. Hell, Cruise is worth over a 1/2B himself. I'd think HE would want first dibs at financing some of it and getting the benefits from it.
S
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. China's a big market. It's like how the antagonist in Master and Commander was suddenly a French ship, not an American.
Re: (Score:2)
Make more money by supporting evil... that planet-killer asteroid can't hit the reset button on Earth fast enough....
Re: (Score:2)
China has a lot of power... Like any other country with a lot of potential content viewers.
China has the need to control what their viewers see... and "needs" require a certain amount of "power" to fulfill. In other words, they have a need to allocate power... which is exactly the opposite of [whatever the fuck] you were trying to say.
Re:Dorky and controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
The Prime Directive is a useful storytelling tool in a work of fiction, nothing more. It's violated by the characters any time it would be an interesting plot complication.
Even if it were real, it has to do with altering the progress of less-developed cultures, which hardly applies here. China enjoys the same level of technological development as the USA. The fruits of technology are perhaps not distributed to as much of its population as here, but then, the middle class is rapidly disappearing in the US. They're advancing, we're retreating.
It's perfectly valid to have opinions on how the Chinese are running China, and to try to change that from a distance. We can't do that by throwing money at them, though. That generally tends to lead to more of the same kind of behavior that was occurring while you were throwing money (or possibly, immediately previous.)
Re:Dorky and controversial (Score:5, Insightful)
The Prime Directive is a useful storytelling tool in a work of fiction, nothing more. It's violated by the characters any time it would be an interesting plot complication.
Further, the Prime Directive is outright immoral. It's a jazzed up "noble savages" philosophy with spaceships and pew-pew lasers. In practice, the PD posits that its better for a primitive people to die out en masse than to be "corrupted" by other cultures. Its actually one of the most 'effed up things ever conceived of.
"Captain, look, that volcano is going to erupt on that primitive planet and kill everyone on that continent. These people will go extinct!"
"Yes, but at least their culture will die pure. On to the next planet, Number One".
Re:Dorky and controversial (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed the point. The prime directive isn't just some rule. The purpose is that by helping, sometimes it ends up a worse outcome down the line.
Its a rule of non interference to promote the development of other cultures. The philosophy is that we don't necessarily "know whats best" for others. That just because starfleet as a culture, believe in a philosophy, doesnt mean its universal. There is no such thing as a universal belief that applies to everyone, and they have smartly realized this in the 24th century.
What if you go and save that race that is being killed by the volcano and then 2000 years later they become an evil empire that murders all their close stelar neighbours. Its the same exact logic as not fucking with the timeline in time travel fiction. You can't possibly understand all the variables so its better to not fuck with it and just leave people to develop on their own.
What if some aliens diverted the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? I think we would be pretty pissed at not existing.
Anyway just watch the show. This comes up at least once a season in most of the series. With nice concrete example scenarios. Its a pretty big plot device.
Re: (Score:3)
The purpose is that by helping, sometimes it ends up a worse outcome down the line.
Not sure I see the difference. We can never really know all the consequences of any of our actions, even inside a culture. Between cultures? Cultures? Where is the line between a situation we can help to the best of our knowledge and one where we should stand back and do nothing.
How is a policy of not helping ever better than doing the best we can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Prime directive. Do not interfere.
Seriously. It is their choice, not ours. If you don't like their governments decisions, don't move there. Cultural change takes time and diversity is the spice of life.
If you want to change China, learn the language, move there, and promote your perfect ideals and morals.
Do you really base your real-world decisions on a 50-year-old fictional TV show?
I think Howdy Doody or Bozo the Clown would be better choices.
SJW cancer in a nutshell (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. It is their choice, not ours. If you don't like their governments decisions, don't move there. Cultural change takes time and diversity is the spice of life.
I.e. tolerance of intolerance... but only the intolerance as practiced by non-western cultures. Hell, this is not just a toleration you're describing... Chiense censorship is the "spice of life", yeah! That's wonderful.
This is an anathema to the liberalism I hold dear.
If you want to change China, learn the language, move there, and promote your perfect ideals and morals.
Orrrrr... you know, we could work to promote our values within our culture, which of course includes American companies (many of which are of course are already very busy actively promoting the cultural values and political causes they consider important--Google, DICE, Mozilla Corporation, Kathleen Kennedy, etc.)
Of course there are pragmatic concerns re: not pissing off the Chinese, but celebration of (not just respect for, but celebration of--"the spice of life!", fuck me) the totalitarian aspects of their "culture" is pretty disturbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A) Wanted equity and equality for people (SJW) is not cancer.
B) This has nothing to do with SJW, at all.
C) Anti-SJW is an anathema to liberalism.
D) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:SJW cancer in a nutshell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a problem that you sometimes see in leftists on that entire half of the spectrum, and even in some areas on the right (see Trumpist chumminess with all kinds of authoritarianism, and conservative willingness to turn a blind eye to it for a quick buck/a place to park fighter jets). I don't know why you're painting "SJWs" in particular with it. Tolerating intolerance obviously flies in the face of social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Tolerating intolerance obviously flies in the face of social justice.
You say "obviously" but this kind of thing is becoming really, really common, in all kinds of ways, on all sorts of scales and a
GP is a troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think a massive trade relationship constitutes interference.
He is the truth China is the greatest human rights abuser the world has perhaps ever seen. Hitler only wishes he could have exterminated so many people. Its FUCKING DISGUSTING and wholly debases all the core values that made America what it is to 'deal' with them. Nixon should never have opened China. The UN should NEVER have accepted the PRC but instead stood by the ROC from the get go. Anyone who isn't for at least a cold war with Chi
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here, like several other locations around the world, is that China was permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Once a nation crosses that threshold, it is impossible to keep them in check - they can always threaten to blow something up, esp. if they have nothing to lose anyway. You can bet Iran knows this.
China has "the bomb" and now must be dealt with as an equal, instead of being subjugated and told how it is going to be. That's too bad.
Re:Dorky and controversial (Score:4, Insightful)
"Seriously. It is their choice, not ours."
And its out choice to complain and make effort so it doesn't happen.
"If you don't like their governments decisions, don't move there."
So the next time you government makes a decision you don't like, you will move away? no? well at least maybe you see how stupid your statement is.
"If you want to change China, learn the language, move there, and promote your perfect ideals and morals."
Or, apply economic, social, and media pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and yet stargate had area 51 & Cheyenne Mounta (Score:2)
and yet stargate had area 51 & Cheyenne Mountain in the tv shows.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of films that have had US government involvement, including review, modification and approval of the script.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: Innuendo and Speculation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious conclusion sure and IMO probably correct but do we have anything but speculation, does Senator Cruz have any actual, you know, evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
So the defendant shoved the victim out of the airplane, but can you PROVE that nobody else murdered him on the way to the ground?
Re: (Score:2)
Government intervention into content approval is in every aspect of Chinese culture.
Mobile games have to have government approval. If you want to get published in China, you have to remove every reference to real-world Chinese locations or political events (there are exceptions, which sometimes include bribery).
eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This isn't new or "suspected" behavior. It's literally part of day-to-day business in China. Tenecent can't fund a movie that references China iconography. It's un
Re: (Score:2)
I
Go away 50 cent army 7-digit UID. We know.
Says the "anonymous coward", if you had actually, you know, read my comment you would see I also believe the Chinese were behind it but was wondering if maybe there was some actual evidence instead of speculation and presumption. But here I am replying to an AC that enjoys being the BMOK (Big Man On Keyboard).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be stupid, the prop department might not have had patches laying around and no one thought it would be worthwhile to slap them on since it contributes nothing to the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Chi-Com??? LMFAO Might be time to update your vocabulary. Chi-Com is so Reagon era.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say he should be censored? are you unable to comprehend?
And the PC mob down-moderates the posting. (Score:2)
Why shouldn't Hollywood warp their product in response to Chinese political correctness? They warp it for the U.S. version, too. [Example of censoring a gun-culture friendly bit in Who Framed Roger Rabbit's DVD/VHS release.]
And the PC mob down-moderates the posting.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this is the same as political correctness, then you have problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this is the same as political correctness, then you have problems.
Attempting to exterminate the lore of a culture in order to deny a civil right that exists to enable self defence against their conquest, from without or (especially) from within? Sounds like classic political correctness to me.
Re: (Score:2)
We no longer have sovreign nations.
Blame the people promoting open borders and allowing people to enter a nation illegally or under pre-text, with virtually no consequences. You know, the same people who want to extinguish the very concept of citizenship.