It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Well, American censorship is non existent. Have you seen 'Zero Dark Thirty'. There you actually SEE how Afghans are brutally tortured by Americans, the so called 'waterboarding'. So this has everything to do with politics if you ask me.
Besides 'Zero Dark Thirty', other political movies like 'Lincoln', 'Argo' and 'Django Unchained' are directly or indirectly about politics. Not to mention the most famous political movie of all time, 'All The President's Men', about the Watergate Scandal.
All movies that will never -or at least not in the recent future- be released in China at all. Not to mention Chinese produced political movies about their own government. To come up with a story, like the melaline-scandal in babymilk, that is absolutely not done.
So what you're saying is so not true. If 'upset' is the reason to censor a movie, than that's even worse.
Hollywood and the West has as much of an agenda as any other nation or state. If you think Zero Dark Thirty is completely factually accurate and impartial, maybe you should watch it again.
It's not a question of being able of downloading or not, it's a question of being the rule rather than the exception.
I agree that film was not that bad in Americans eyes as it about the capture of bin laden and every American wanted to do that even if they had to torture people do it. The other films you mention are set in the past have little baring on modern politics except maybe Argo people watch those films and think this is over 150 years ago so will not take much politically from it. American has a very pro america agenda look at all the all american or all western in the case of bond saving the world from themselves.
Hm, is there still some "live" broadcast on America ? :) [This a true question for US readers, I know in major networks they delay everything to control, but is it general ?]
It is always nice if people only take one sentence for quotation, thus putting the entire post out of perspective :-).
Not really. You said American censorship is non existent. I disagree.
Thats the art of arguing and making peoples points look like nonsense just ask newspapers and politicians lol!
The point I wanted to make: You can actually make a movie in all freedom without complications or without being banned from society. If the movie isn't accurate or impartial? So be it. It is then the mistake of the moviemakers, not the government's.
I prefer an inaccurate movie produced in all freedom over a completely censored movie that is showing a distorted accuracy.
And that's the point I want to make. I am actually quite flabbergasted how many people in here take freedom in moviemaking for granted :-S :-S :-S .
Ok, I'm trying to see your point, I think I know what you're grasping at, but I don't agree. A film made in an uncensored society that is inaccurate is no different to a 'censored movie showing a distorted accuracy' as you say. As we were talking about politics in a cinematic sense, I was referring to Directorial/Producer/Studio input. If you have the so called freedom of cinematic expression, you should strive for impartiality otherwise your work becomes propaganda. There's nothing wrong with this, hell Oliver Stone's been doing it most of his career. But you can't argue Hollywood cinema is uncensored, it's just censored at the development stage.
My point is that the Chinese censoring material is no different from a Western film maker actively choosing a political through line in a movie. What we do agree on is the obvious oppressive nature of how they conduct their business. The west just does it behind closed doors. ;)
I think you are wrong on certain aspects of your post.
First of all, I said I prefer an inaccurate movie produced in all freedom over a completely censored movie that is showing a distorted accuracy. And there is a difference. Let me explain:
A) In the first example a moviemaker, let's say 'Cubby' Broccoli, decides to replace SMERSH, based on the real counterespionage section of the KGB, by the fictious crime syndicate SPECTRE. Actually, that is what has happened to 'From Russia With Love'. Cubby and Harry thought there is place for politics in a James Bond film, but only to a certain extend. Also, back in 1963, the Cold War was at an all time high, and the Bond producers were afraid that United Artists would not greenlit the film.
Is it censorship? No. Propaganda? Not at all. Why not? The government, the state is not deciding for EON Productions and United Artists. They do it themselves, from their own reasonable, enlightened minds. Especially considering the times; 1963 was a tense political period.
B) With 'Skyfall' in China it's different. Barbara Broccoli is known for having a bit more critical approach to political themes in Bond films. In fact, Barbara admitted that 9/11 changed her view on cinema drastically.
Hence the fact that ever since 9/11 Bond films are more accurately showing today's political environment. In 'Skyfall' Bond is mentioning the sex trade of which Severine used to be part of. A hot issue, especially since sex trade from Eastern Europe to Western Europe is reality at the moment. Lives are destroyed because of it, so is Severine's life.
Another example is the torture of Silva in the Chinese prison. American movies are very open-minded nowadays about torture and 'waterboarding'. THANKS to -accurate or inaccurate- movies about this subject ('Zero Dark Thirty'). In China that is not done, it can't be done.
So what happens then? The Bond film gets altered by the state government, because it is talking in a bad, but alas real, way of China as the movie is highlighting torture and sex trade in China. THAT is censorship, my friend. And that's something completely different from example A).
My point is that censorship, in whatever form, is something that can be attributed to anyone or anything, a media organisation, a private company, an individual, whomever. It's not just government's that censor. If exposure is inconvenient, then the subject is suppressed. I'm completely aware of the situation in China, I think it's despicable, but it's their choice.
Look at that KONY nonsense. Produced in a 'free', western democracy. People power, let's change the world! Every sucker bought into it. We're not so different really, we just do things in a much more conniving way, masked behind a facade of liberty.
The government's of the west don't need to censor, the roots of western politics run deeper. The corporations, the media giants and the government are in bed with each other. Look at News International.
Hmm.. I'm not convinced :)
And can some US readers tell me if there still a way to have "true live" broadcast in the US ? I'm really curious to know if the censorship delay is only on the big networks or if it's really everywhere...
That is not censorship. The same example you mentioned, more or less happened in my example A). If you do it to please the Chinese, and the Chinese state government, or if you 'think' this should be deleted, then you can call it at most indirect censorship.
Direct censorship is, when the finished product is being scrambled afterwards....because it is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government.
It is off course a topic that you can discuss until you weigh an ounce :-P.
For me personally, I never go to the cinema to see a movie like 'Iron Man III'. The strength of 'Skyfall' is the fact that it is a very strong espionage thriller. It has themes, it has a multi-layered plot, it has not very obvious links to past Bond films ('Die Another Day'), but it does have ingenious, skillfully crafted recognizable links to previous Bond films.
I personally think the late Ian Fleming would have loved to see what the Bond producers did with 'Skyfall'. On top of that, this film gets recognized deservedly with 5 Oscar nominations.
I fail to see why he would've loved SF. He probably wouldn't have liked any Bond film.
I bet he would have loved Die Another Day.
There probably would be elements of Skyfall that Fleming would have liked, as Im sure there would be in all the films.
Anyway, to the topic.
Skyfall seems to be underperforming in China. Not too surprising given the apparent, and rampant, piracy that happens in the country. Not surprising that demand is severly diluted given the three month gap. Anyone who was desperate to see it would have done so illegally.
Actually it's not really under performing in China i think many thought around $50 mil from China would be good and it should do at least that so from that viewpoint its good. It's just under performing relative to other countries particularly western Europe and America. Certain types of movies do well in certain regions of the world like Avengers was stronger in Latin america and Asia then it was in Europe for example and Skyfall is much stronger in Europe and America then it is in Asia.
Exactly. And my arguments slightly explain why that could be.
After watching Dr. No Fleming changed his mind and like both the film and Connery.
Yes because it could make him a lot of money lol!
Maybe I'm imagining things.