Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2018, 04:20:27 AM
597572 Posts in 46079 Topics by 6121 Members
Latest Member: SalpetL Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  I just saw SCHINDLERS LIST uncut on regular TV again! « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: I just saw SCHINDLERS LIST uncut on regular TV again!  (Read 7360 times)
Chris K.
« on: April 19, 2001, 10:56:39 PM »

I know we all talked about this before, but it just really p**ses me off that SCHINDLERS LIST is able to be shown to the public uncut on regular TV. All the violence, nudity, sex, and four letter words are all left intact. Now am I the only one who seems to realize that the TV censorship clearly states that any film featuring nudity, sex, violence, and swearing must be edited out for content. Jesus, what is wrong with these TV censors. You can't show BLAZING SADDLES or SCARY MOVIE uncut on TV, but boy when they show SCHINDLERS LIST uncut you can't stop these so-called "TV censors".

And I am not arguing that Speilberg made the film. I could care less who made it. But to show it uncut on TV is really bizzare as hell. They edit out all these other classic films that are violent, but SCHINDLERS LIST does not get the choping block. Even the word "F**k" is left intact in the film!

So the next time I see BLAZING SADDLES cut for TV, I will request for it to be shown uncut. And if the TV stations don't show it uncut, then I will ask "Why was SCHINDLERS LIST not cut for TV?" I would like to see them explain that. Of course they could say it is a historical film. And indeed it is a historical film, but the TV censorship rules say what they say. And this is why I hate both TV and film censorship. They say they have a perfect system, and all of a sudden they screwit up!

Questions or comments?
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2001, 11:02:54 PM »

in Nz they just have "this program is recommended for adults only, it contains....."

then they play as much of it as they want, thats how it should be shown, uncut.

there is nothing more annoying then being able to spot where they have cut out swearing and violence.  Like in Die Hard 2 one night on TV4 (crummy tv channel) instead of John McClain saying the usual "yippy kia aye mother f^%^ker" they dubbed over it and said (in a completely different voice) "yippy kia aye mother burner"

BOOOOOO!!! :(((((
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2001, 11:04:46 PM »

that movie is a great veiwing for schools, we watched it at school for our War Study, it taught us a lot,
it think thats why they show it like that, to shock people.
Faerie Of Death
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2001, 11:11:25 PM »

I think the censors were choosing the lesser of two evils.  If they had edited out the swearing, graphic violence, and full frontal nudity, there would have been an incredible outcry among all of us movie-loving Americans, saying how the bloodsucking censors had taken so much of the substance and gritty realism out of such a powerful movie, etc. (and, of course, we would have been correct.)  But, in choosing to leave it intact and putting a big parental warning on it, they can be a little inconsistant, but still please the masses.  What's an MA rating for, anyways?  And, unfortunately, I don't think the majority of the viewing public would care if a few naughty words were cut from Blazing Saddles.
Chris K.
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2001, 11:14:53 PM »

As much as I hate censorship and that I feel that SCHINDLERS LIST is an important film to educate the children about the Holocaust, the rules of TV censorship need to be followed in order to show that "they care". Remember, parents and TV censors want to "protect the children" and they feel that a strong censorship is nessasary. Otherwise, if you break the rule then that makes the audience want television networks to show their favorite films uncut on TV and will also cause the parents to get in an uproar as well.

And even though the beginning might say "This film is for adults and is graphic...", the people will still want the TV networks to cut the film down.

"So if they show SCHINDLERS LIST uncut, then I want to see such and such uncut on TV as well", is what the people will say. And I would have to agree with them on that.
Chris K.
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2001, 11:22:42 PM »

Even though the tv rating of MA is in existance, some statistics show that some children are actually watching the MA films with the parents present. Remember, these so called parents want to "protect the children" and don't want them  watching the violent stuff. And as a classic film that BLAZING SADDLES is, nobody might care if it is being cut for TV but they still tamper with a film that is indeed a good film.

And to bring up another point, the famous "fart sequence" from BLAZING SADDLES was heavily cut from TV. And yet on THE DREW CAREY SHOW, their is an episode in which Drew's friends place farting noises on his instructional video. So BLAZING SADDLES gets the "fart scene" cut out for TV, but they leave a "fart scene" intact on THE DREW CAREY SHOW. Now how strange is this?
Faerie Of Death
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2001, 11:42:42 PM »

Censorship is a flawed and arbitrary system which sucks.  I suppose that's the best answer you're going to get at this particular moment.
As for children watching MA rated programs, I think I'd rather a ten year old be watching Schindler's List than anything else coming even close to its graphicness (if that's a word?).  It doesn't depict ANYTHING that would make a child truly want to go out and shoot people, it probably would have the opposite effect.  It's true that the poor kid would have nightmares for weeks, but I'd rather that than have violence glamourized.  Of course, I'd rather that the hypothetical ten year old not watch any MA movies at all, but if I had to choose, it would be Schindler's List all the way.
Josh Leman
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2001, 12:42:08 AM »

You know what's really sickening?  Pulp Fiction butchered to run on the WB.  This happened three or four years ago, and my friends and I all had a great and wonderful laugh.  Probably more than half the dialogue was botched, and The Gimp was completely edited out of the movie (which rendered that whole scene absolutely incomprehensible).  Oh yeah, it was a hell of a thing.

"Thing is, Butch, this business is filled to the brim with unrealistic gum-mothers."

Oh yeah.
Mofo Rising
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2001, 02:59:20 AM »

Trying to get any level of consistency or meaning in the rating systems on TV is a near pointless endeavor.  Every network is trying to push the envelope, and they usually succeed.  NYPD BLUE succeeded in getting nudity on during primetime.  Not full frontal of course, but nudity.  They said "@!#$" on CHICAGO HOPE a while back.  Hell, MTV showed the Prodigy video "Smack My b***h Up" with full frontal nudity and drug use, uncut.

There is going to be no hard and fast rules to airing standards.  Just a loose concensus among the networks, the advertisers, and what the public will put up with.  A complete system would probably cause more harm than good in its rigidity.

Here's an interesting article I found about an ex-MPAA rater breaking the silence:
Not a lot of real content as to what goes on, but it does solidify the view of an arbitrary MPAA.  Just as much a mess, if not more, than the networks.

I could also go into a rant about people hiding behind their children in order to push forth their own views on what should and should not be seen, said rant being based, of course, on my and several other's experiences as former children.  I had a very open childhood, in that I could watch, read and listen to almost everything I wanted to, and I did not grow up to become violentally unstable, nor did any of my friends who were also raised in the same circumstances.  But that would be beside the point.
El Chupacabra
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2001, 03:17:07 AM »

They did a great parody of TV editing on MR.
SHOW once... it was a gangster film, with
all the swear words dubbed over (badly) &
"the finger" replaced with a picture of a
thumps-up (!).  Of course, the blood was
kept in ;)

Man, what a great show that was...
Chris K.
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2001, 10:18:02 AM »

I found what Mofo Rising about him watching and reading anything did not make him violentally unstable. Personally, I myself at the age of 17 have seen many a violent film at a younger age. I saw BLOOD FEAST when I was either 10 or 12 years old and after watching the film it did not make me violent or unstable to cope with society. The film scared the hell out of me. I have seen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD at a young age as well and that film did not promote violence. Even today when I see a Dario Argento or Lucio Fulci film I expet the violence to be in there and indeed it is. But even the works of Fulci or Argento don't even come close to promoting violence. I remember one time when I bought DEEP RED (1975) on video and watched it with my mom. When that scene of the killer's head got cut off very breifly, my mom says that I should stop watching these films because people will think I am weird or they will influence me to become violent. Though I don't really want to argue what my mom says (she always thinks she is right, so I just go along with it until she is proven wrong at some time), I just had to say that the whole "violent movie creating violence" is just not true and violence is brought upon a person on their own free will.

But the theme of "seeing violence on the screen promotes violence" does not hold up well. Say a person decides to go on a shooting spree, lets say he does it because he is stressed and just snapped. Does this incident look like the man was watching a film and it "gave him the idea of violence". No, but alot of people ususally pin that thought on these type of incidents. But violence happens almost anywhere you go and violence is caused by people who want to do violent things through their own thoughts.

To bring up an interesting subject, I knew this kid that would really do some bad things. Now as the years have passed, this kid has grown up to be a "gang banger" who cannot be enroled in any school due to his records of violent behavior. And believe me, none of this was caused by violent TV or film. This kid hardly ever watched a movie or TV show. This kid is a perfect example of a person bringing violence onto himself.
Stupid Jacob
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2001, 08:13:46 PM »

This sorta off topic, but have any of my fellow canuks notiched how f-ed up the Canadian Ratings System is? They give Dogma a R-rating while a movie like Scary Movie gets a PG-14 rating. What the hell? Who works there? A bunch of monkeys?!
Chris K.
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2001, 08:39:51 PM »

Film censorship in foreign countries is very different than that of American censorship. For example, the film ME, MYSELF, AND IRENE is rated R in the U.S. However, the film is rated PG in Singapore! Even the films of Lucio Fulci were able to play in Italain theatres without a rating at all. So the answer is very clear that censorship in different countries are much more different than that of the United States censorship. But does it suprise me at all? Not really. In foreign countries, they seem to understand that their is a difference between reality and fiction unlike an American. And in foreign countries they don't even take any of the films too seriously and feel that they just want to be entertained like the regular person. And if they feel that an R rating film from America meets the standards of a PG film, they don't seem to have any problems showing it to their kids. Probably because America makes films that are vulgar and obscene, but in countries like Spain, Italy, Japan, etc. they feel that the American film is rather tame and easy to display with no problems. It's understandable to the advicated film buff.

Also for a refference note, Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD is not cut for video in the UK, but in Germany about 3 minutes had to be exterminated in order to get the release. So some films from other countries get cut to meet the desired calaber of the general public. It's nothing new.
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2001, 10:40:07 PM »

I think it's worth noting that the film was aired on PBS rather than one of the six major networks (those being ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, UPN and the WB). With its being educational, public television that runs primarily off of viewer donations rather than advertising, it's possible that PBS would be given some leeway in regards to its content. The majority of people would seemingly be willing to trust the judgment of the folks that brought us Sesame Street, amongst other wholesomely wholesome programs.

I have serious doubts this would fly on any of the commercial networks, but with public television, one would have to assume the rules are a bit different.

Oh well, this wasn't terribly insightful or anything, but I figured I'd throw it out there. Now, when I can view uncut movies with a rating stronger than PG/G on network television, I'll be a happy camper.
Faerie Of Death
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2001, 12:18:48 AM »

Sorry to disappoint, but Schindler's list WAS shown on a regular network ( I believe NBC, but might be wrong) about 3 or 4 years ago, completely uncut and commercial-free, except for the 1/2 hour block of Ford commercials beforehand.
Pages: [1] 2 Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  I just saw SCHINDLERS LIST uncut on regular TV again! « previous next »
    Jump to:  

    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email

    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.