China Bans Horror Movies 292
KublaiKhan writes "According to an article on Reuters, the Chinese censors have decided that horror movies are verboten. 'Offending content included "wronged spirits and violent ghosts, monsters, demons, and other inhuman portrayals, strange and supernatural storytelling for the sole purpose of seeking terror and horror," the administration said. This is apparently a sort of Chinese version of the Jack Thompson effect, as the "mental health of adolescents" is cited as one of the reasons for the ban. Presumably, this ban — much like the spitting ban — is intended to improve China's image in the rest of the world before the Olympics open; but given the Streisand effect, would this ban perhaps unintentionally spur a surge of horror movie popularity in China?" Blizzard has had trouble with skeletons in World of Warcraft , and I imagine this decision stems from similar objections.
So much for Documentaries... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Improve their image? (Score:5, Insightful)
And just how exactly is it supposed to improve their image with the rest of the world to look like a bunch of censorious tyrants?
Re: (Score:2)
And just how exactly is it supposed to improve their image with the rest of the world to look like a bunch of censorious tyrants?
If you need to try to improve your image, then that shows that there is already something wrong with your image. It's what gives sales people a bad name. Attempting to make a bad image appear good is amplifying the lie. It makes me think of Bill Clinton stating that he never had sex or smoked marijuana; like all politicians, no matter what country they are from, they will make themselves look like more of an asshat than they may actually be.
In the end it doesn't really matter; asshats will always be asshat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Granted, they still have school knife attacks in China, but we have those too, plus gun rampages; I believe their total body count is quite a bit lower).
Re: (Score:2)
and what of our image abroad? (Score:2)
Have you ever wondered what non Western societies make of flicks like "Saw" and "Hostel?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine they're just as disgusted by them as I am. I don't understand how those movies succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition they get a cheap thrill by arbitrarily creating a law, based upon their own personal preferences.
You can just imagine the nob head patting them self on the back about their great stroke of genius, while the various underlings dutifully agree with and compliment the decision, but secretly mock
I didn't know what it was either (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh,The Horror! "Google.cn" still works (for now) (Score:2)
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=GB2312&q=Horror [google.cn]
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&q=Horror [google.cn]
-I am sure the Chinese will "kindly suggest" to Google.cn that they "voluntarily redirect" all search request traffic on these topics to the friendly 'Golden Shield Great Firewall of China'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project [wikipedia.org]
(Imperfect as the US might be, I t
They also send the coppers after you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nitpick first: Hong Kong isn't a "democratic" bastion, otherwise why all the fuss about when we'll actually have universal suffrage? It is, however, supposedly a bastion for "related democratic goodies" such as free speech, right to fair trial, etc.
Well obviously I do agree that the recent events raised doubts about whether we're still that bastion, but in these few days we've seen the "recovery" process kick into place. While the HK police seems to be still thick faced and not admitting to any w
What a worthless government (Score:4, Insightful)
It's embarrassing.
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly, Chinese people, having only formed an impression of us through our media (just like your impression of China, yes?) think that Westerners are horrid people. The women are either gigantasaurs who can't stop eating or dirty sluts ("Sex in the City" was widely popular). The men are weak and are infested with disfiguring body hair. We are also inexp
Re: (Score:2)
As if we were weren't trying to stop them, and as if we don't steal whatever secrets from other countries that we can. Irony is flying a spyplane over another country, then complaining about stealing of secrets when it crashes and they try to reverse-engineer it. (A second example, our rocket program is Nazi in origi
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to reality. China is not a dictatorship from a year or so, and this is not their first act of censorship. Rather, it is one with least human rights violation. If the West cared about democracy, censorship etc. at all, we would have done something in China.
China is world's manufacturer, just like Saudi Arabia being world's gas station.
It should be the Westerners' embarrassment.
Re:What a worthless government (Score:5, Interesting)
I have always been perplexed by Westerners' belief that they are somehow responsible for human rights and democracy in China. I have been more perplexed at how they believe sticking their noses into another country's matters will make things better.
I don't live in Mainland China (which is the part under direct control of the CCP), so I don't claim to have authentic first hand facts. However, my proximity with mainland China is probably good enough for me to tell you what I believe is a fact: Most people in China would like to have more civil/political rights, ARE aware of abuses by their government, but nevertheless loathe any foreign attempts to meddle with the problems. Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".
If you're asking why China has been so resistant to external pressures to human rights reforms... this is the reason. Basically nobody in China wants "Western democratic countries" to dictate their path. I'd add that the recent Iraq disaster is deemed to be a telling story of what it could be like to be "liberated" from a dictatorship.
If you think I'm misguided, and have good reasons for that, please let me know.
Re:What a worthless government (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody in America with half a brain and true concern for the flagrant abuses of basic universal human and civil rights is advocating doing anything with China other than cutting off the (economic) lifeblood that's keeping this despicable government in power in the first place. We are entirely within our rights to advocate this sort of policy because many of us cannot stand the idea of supporting that government financially through trade. A violent overthrow in the style of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen, I can't see America attacking China unless we slip pretty far (Nevermind how far we've slipped already in the past eight years).
It's not that we're responsible for democracy and human rights in China, but rather that every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry. It doesn't matter how proud the Chinese people are or how powerful they think they could possibly be against the government that made Tienanmen Square happen. There's a point where you have to realistically view just how weak and powerless you are to prevent your government from doing whatever it damn well pleases.
No, basically, it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems if you don't because tomorrow it might be us becoming subjects." If the Chinese people won't or can't step up to the plate to prevent the spread of a very dangerous totalitarian government, well, sorry guys but someone will do something about it.
To reiterate, nobody's with good intentions and a solid head on their shoulders is advocating a violent overthrow, we want peaceful change, we want to take the steam out of this current regime so that the Chinese government would be that much more willing to sink or swim. Sadly, this will have the side-effect of being at least partially harmful to the population, but it's definitely the path of least bloodshed. Chinese citizens are proud of their history and culture, as they very well should be, but to refuse the assistance of those with genuine concern is just stupid and foolhardy. We aren't trying to dictate the future of your country so much as we're assuring the continuance of civilized society that doesn't suppress its citizens mercilessly. And you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.
This will be interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Odd statistic (Score:2)
Does the ban cover Dragons then? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and of course, the Chinese dragon.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be true... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=chinese+ghost+stories [imdb.com]
On So Many Levels (Score:3, Insightful)
As a a movie watcher, fan of the genre (My all time favorite movie is Alien), and fellow human being who enjoys being able to watch, read, and listen to whatever I damn well please, this is quite offensive. But banning movies? With that they're just piling it on now--and it was a big pile already. China sucked before this, it just sucks a little bit more after. This is a symptom of a larger disease, so I hope I don't see any groups spring up to fight for the rights of Chinese horror movie fans. How about you try and stop them from executing political dissidents first, and work from there. Not being able to legally buy scary movies seems a tad frivolous by comparison when there are people getting a bullet in the head for speaking out against the party. This is the same country that has a "Great Firewall" (that doesn't work) so does it surprise us that they'd have the audacity and arrogance to think this is a good idea and one that can actually be effective?
Re:On So Many Levels (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the frivolous stuff that actually hits a lot of people that gets a lot of people angry enough to do something. The big things that only hit a few people are easier to sell to the masses, since it's always someone else being affected. But when everyone is affected...
If horror movies is the only thing hit, I predict nothing will come of it. But if this is the start of a trend, then something very interesting might be about to happen.
Revolutions have been started over taxes on tea...
So... (Score:3, Funny)
whats scary is: (Score:3, Insightful)
China, where graphic
what's scary to me is, the last time that I can think of when the olympics were used as a "coming out party for a rising political power," was this. [viewimages.com]
Re:whats scary is: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The similarities between Jack Thompson and a dictatorial government keep rising.
The real reason - social control (Score:2, Funny)
Historically, superstitious and supernatural beliefs have a tendency to unite rebellious factions with
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I see the problem with Falungung, but monsters in horror stories as a basis for rebellions?! I guess your comment has more mysticism than those fictitious monsters and probably has a better chance in "uniting rebellions"
Doesn't change much (Score:4, Insightful)
no need to watch horror movies (Score:2)
Meta commentary by the /. site (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the current fortune at the bottom of the page.
Can I moderate the fortune +1 ?
Streisand effect doesn't apply (Score:5, Insightful)
Streisand effect applies when some private information is leaked about a public figure, and the person tries to protect his/her own privacy while inadvertently making that information more popular. It has to do with people's curiosity to peer into someone else's private life, but anti-censorship is most often used as an excuse.
In the case of horror movie ban, there is no person's private life involved, so Streisand effect doesn't apply. It is perhaps more similar to public ban of pornography in some countries, where people still try to stealthily distribute pornography by various means. However, pornography is fueled by people's curiosity about sex. I don't think horror movies incite people's curiosity about anything.
My own feeling is that there will still be a small percentage of people who are fatally attracted to spirituality, psychic, voodoo, and witchcraft. They will continue to smuggle these horror movies and perform cult worship. However, most people will live happily without being bothered with annoying horror movie advertisements.
Speaking of which, I was eating at a food court that has some television, and it showed a trailer of a horror movie with green slime, deteriorated tissue, fermented blood, and all this crap. Though I didn't react outrageously about it, it really disturbed my appetite. Such a dining experience!
The real reason behind the ban (Score:5, Funny)
English Major (Score:3, Insightful)
It probably isn't nightmares that the Chinese government is against but some element of society that horror critiques.
Mary Shelly's Frankenstein critiques the notion of the outsider, conformity, beauty and justice for example. Distopian film has been a powerful tool in contextualizing societies problems since Metropolis (1927) [imdb.com].
Can anyone with a study of horror themes beyond the obvious ( catharsis towards human frailty and the proximity of sexuality to violence) give us an indication of the social consciousness being repressed here?
The US do the same for japan anime ! (Score:3, Informative)
Please read this before criticizing China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editing_of_anime_in_American_distribution [wikipedia.org]
Extract:
"Religious symbols are commonly airbrushed out if they appear in contexts that are not acceptable in the U.S. Religious terminology is often removed from dialogue for the same reason. Sometimes a character appearing to be crucified by being bound to two wooden beams in the shape of a cross is enough to be considered unacceptable[1].
For example, representations of the Christian cross were airbrushed out of Pokémon and One Piece, while references to Hell were replaced with "HFIL (Home For Infinite Losers)" in Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. Alleged demonic imagery is also commonly removed or toned down, as are uses of pentagrams, because of their religious meanings and their apparent association with Satanism and Paganism.
Commonly, the censorship of violence is done by removing the exact moment when a physical attack, such as a punch or kick, connects with a person. In some cases this is achieved by airbrushing the scene to include a caption or object (such as an explosion or movement lines) over the point of impact, or by flashing the screen so that the impact is never seen. In other cases, the frames containing the connecting blow are removed and the frames immediately before and after it are extended to procure a slow motion or comic book frame effect.
"
The problem with this, is that other countries receive a translated version from the English censored version
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how people rationalize their random choices of which animals are edible and which are just too damn fuzzy-wuzzy lovable to eat.
For the record, I'll eat anything (as long as it's made out of meat).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate pigs, they are roughly on par with a dog in all the traits you mention, provided of course they are reared in a simlar manner.
In some parts of Asia dogs are (illegaly) treated much worse than cattle, I can't imagine that those people see them as pets.
Not all dogs are pets - some are working animals (Score:2)
So even if there is a quote on Wikipedia, I would still think that dogs are more trainable and useful to people.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban Horror, Monsters or Shlock Stock? (Score:4, Funny)
Al Gore:The movie and it's Sequal Al Gore gets gored.
Re:Ban Horror, Monsters or Shlock? (Score:5, Funny)
Geography 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on this, I can't help but wonder what a Korean horror movie (The Host) and a Japanese horror movie (Godzilla) have to do with the Chinese government banning horror movies...
What makes this a coincidence?
It just seems like saying, "Oh? You are from the United States? Coincidentally, there's a special about Costa Rican rain forests on TV right now."
Re:Geography 101 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing how Canada is located in America, this is an easy mistake to make :).
But seriously, it is interesting to see how different America (the continent) and Europe are in this regard: no single country dominates Europe to the point where being called European would mean you're a resident of that country, rather than a resident of some unspecified country in the continent.
Godwin 101 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Godwin 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geography 101 (Score:5, Informative)
It's not, really. The common understanding is:
America = USA
US = USA
USA = USA
Canada = Canada
North America = continent
Re: (Score:2)
Any Canadians know if this is common?
Re: (Score:2)
South of the border (Score:2)
Every Spanish speaking American that I know call you "gringos". Perhaps you should adopt that denomination, it's short, simple, and easy to pronounce in many languages.
Anyhow, the first continent to be named "America" was South America, named after Amerigo Vespucci traveled along the coast of what is now Brazil. Therefore, if one continent should be called just "America", it's the southern one. Calling North America simply America is l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually (and this is drifting even FURTHER off topic, heh), America wasn't named after Amerigo Vespucci. For a long time it's thought it was that way, but unless someone is a royal or a leader then a place they discover is named after their LAST name (so it would have been named Vespuccia if it was named after he) - take a look at other examples... Cook Straits, Magellan Straits etc.
The man they think America was actually named after was Richard Amerike, a merchant from Bristol in the UK who traded and s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if you believe current customs were always applied everywhere, think again. They seemed to have different customs in old Italy. Whoever talks about Simoni's [wikipedia.org] sculptures, or Vinci's [wikipedia.org] inventions, or Sanzio's [wikipedia.org] paintings?
Anyhow, the question of who was America's eponym is easily settled: find the oldest map where that name is used. AFAIK, it was Martin Waldseemueller's map in 1507, and he wrote a book explaining wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Geography 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
And besides, the be honest, "European" is more and more starting to become "Citizen of the EU". Not so much in Europe, but in the rest of the world. Too bad for the swiss, norwegians and some others, but they are in fact an insignificant minority, thats the price you pay for staying independent.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that "European" in that sense hasn't been around forever, either. From the fall of Rome all the way up to the 18th century, people in France, Spain, Switzerland, etc. were far more likely to think of themselves in terms of their country (or their ethnic group) than in terms o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but, with PUBLIC EXECUTIONS in the country...
and the real horror being in thrillers of course.
Re:What is the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can dilute and diverge the argument over more trivial cultural differences (nice try), but the topic is about censorship and more generally human rights, and not more specifically (as you imply) about a cultures spitting habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a matter of degree. For the sake of this topic, and the Western perspective given this Web site, I will let the definition rest with people's pre-conceived notions.
This is a non-answer for sure. I almost feel like a politician
Re:What is the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The leaders of China stifle free speech, do not hold elections, and imprison political opponents: therefore they are dictators. The same goes for the leaders of countries like Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, arguably Pakistan, etc.
On the other hand, the leaders of countries like the USA, Canada, Britain, France, etc. encourage free political speech, hold elections that the majority even of their opponents believe are free and fair, and do not intimidate or imprison peaceful dissidents; therefore they are not dictators, by my definition.
Seems fairly clear and consistent to me, but I'm sure you'll find something to nitpick.
A simpler definition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can dilute and diverge the argument over more trivial cultural differences (nice try), but the topic is about censorship and more generally human rights, and not more specifically (as you imply) about a cultures spitting habits.
Dilute and diverge, huh? To be fair (and not to offer an defense of the original post), using the term "dictators" in a vagu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know, but human rights seem like a very bad thing if that's the case.
I will defend this right with as much force as I can. I will attempt to be as fanatical as my opponents are to do me harm if I exercise these freedoms.
To answer your direct questions:
But more important to having these freedoms, however trivial they may appear to you; is the right (not so much) to be free to do something, but to have the right to be free from oppression and punishment. If what a person "hurts" is nothing more than some religious, political, ethnic or traditional dogma or moral; then these rights should be paramount and superceding. I don't mean to insult a persons traditions, but these traditions cannot harm me, or anybody else. If a person imposes their own morals or traditions on me then this would be offensive. In the same vein, I will not impose my morals on you or anybody else. And no, giving somebody freedom is not imposing.
I will say that the issues you bring up do not reflect on my personal moral outlook (for example, adultery is something that I personally feel uncomfortable with) or lifestyle, but I wish for people to have freedom of choice and more importantly freedom from repression.
Best regards,
UTW
Re: (Score:2)
using the term "dictators" in a vague, hand-wavy ill-defined manner
Nice try. It's not. China is a single party totalitarian regime. Hu Jintao, is a dictator in a long line of dictators that stretch back to Chairman Mao.
implying that "cultural differences" are generally "trivial"
Nice try. He said, spitting habits were trivial. He didn't say that all cultural differences are trivial. I would Saudi and western treatment of women are not trivial matters.
I'd suggest folks with a similar politically-correct set of assumptions start with a slow reading of Wikipedia article on human rights and make a list of all shit they they haven't read, studied, or heard about, all the while keeping in mind that China is a permanent member of the Security Council.
A country's status on the UNSC is completely irrelevant. The permanent members of the the UNSC are the victors of World War II. And China's seat? Until the US normalized rel
Re: (Score:2)
> legitimacy to impose total arbitrary will over others. That's the hallmark of a totalitarian regime, and that's
> always wrong.
If you learnt a bit more about China, you'd know that the guys at the top are nowhere close to imposing total arbitrary will over others. There are numerous social problems that the guys at the top wish to fix, if only to reduce civil unrest, to prevent "peasant
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for input, offtopic police.
Re: (Score:2)
It is quite often that /. are commenting not about the main subject of the post, but about general attitude or racial prejudices expressed in the post. That is what AC did. And this is normal.
Thanks for input, offtopic police.
The fact is the AC is using racism as an excuse for bad behavior. Human rights are colour-blind. And yes the AC is being racist for suggesting that Chinese are immune from human rights because of their race.
Another fact is that governments have always played the race card against their own citizens: that is excusing their own malignant behavior to other governments that would dare condemn them. Excuses are just that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be very curious to see this paper.
(There's incoherent rambling, and then there's incoherent rambling that states some pretty tenuous claims as fact)
Re: (Score:2)
Abstract:
Investigated the effects of emotional desensitization to films of violence against women and the effects of sexually degrading explicit and nonexplicit films on beliefs about rape and the sexual objectification of women. Males viewed either 2 or 5 R-rated violent "slasher," X-rated nonviolent "pornographic," or R-rated nonviolent teenage-oriented ("teen sex") films. Affective reactions and cognitive perceptio
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Investigated the effects of emotional desensitization to films of violence against women and the effects of sexually degrading explicit and nonexplicit films on beliefs about rape and the sexual objectification of women. Males viewed either 2 or 5 R-rated violent "slasher," X-rated nonviolent "pornographic," or R-rated nonviolent teenage-oriented ("teen sex") films.
The objectivity of this research is in question. The abstract uses language that presupposes conclusions (i.e. "violence against women", "sexually degrading", "explicit" are value-judgment terms which are undefined [in the abstract at least] but have generally negative conotations). These researchers are not objective, so therefore no objective evidence can (accurately) be determined. This is not science. There is no evidence to back up your statements.
However you not only fail to prove your point, you giv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bet on it, it won't last. China and America are dangerously codependent. If America goes down, China goes with it.
Under the rule of the next superpower, learn to like cricket and curry.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. I see. Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that. An ability to consume things isn't a unique national merit of the US.
Re:Mao was horrifying, do they ban him ? I guess s (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese people I know learnt that it happened in 1989. It was the turning point because the soldiers were reluctant to run people down at the end of it. Next question?
I was hoping that the general tone of my post meant that it would not be taken literally. However you only offer anecdotal evidence.
We all should know that China has been censoring Tiananmen Square issues [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But a lot of mentions of the Tiananmen Square are not to inform, but to incite. I know this is hard to understand for you westerners, but if you were to remove prominent political figures from office, you might as well kill them as well. Inciting people to doubt the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not really too far away from inciting people to revolt, or at least perform a bloody coup. Unless you're Chinese you probably have no idea why this is the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is certainly harder for people (like me) to understand how posting these things can be viewed as bad or dangerous. I wish there were an easy way to get rid of bad policies or bad governments. The US has certainly showed us that the simple approach (like using brute force) doesn't always work.
R
Re: (Score:2)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, @12:27PM (#22444256)
Just out of interest, do you actually give a shit what happens to the average Chinese person, or are you just happy to have cause to spout your smug, holier than though bullshit?
I do give a shit. You're just too close minded to read without defensive bias. The whole point was to say that although this is bad for them up-front, it is better for the long term struggle that this kind of shit happens at a quick rate (as opposed to the slow, masked, controlled violations in countries such as ours). I'm not being smug at all, just putting up an idea for debate, comrade. I have no idea why you're all worked up.