Torchwood: Naked Saucy Censorship?
Feb. 10th, 2009 08:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, just read an interesting (albeit kind of old) article on Torchwood.
While I'm all against censorship, the article and comments are kind of annoying, since they seem to be along the lines of "ZOMG AMERICA SUCKS WHYYYYYY ARE THEY/WE SUCH PRUDES", which kind of misses the point that no one in America will be editing it as far as I can tell (although to be fair I have no idea what BBCA has done to past episodes, and might very well have been editing for content as well as time) -- it's being toned down by the BBC so they can attract the American market. Which means that's it's not really censorship so much as a [sacrifice of artistic integrity/change in their artistic vision] (delete whichever is inappropriate), which is a whole different kettle of fish (ALIEN fish).
Personally, I didn't really notice much of a difference in terms of risquecity between series 1 and 2. This might have had something to do with the fact that in series 1, there seemed to be an unfortunate correlation between adult content and EPIC FAIL and thus I was somewhat distracted by applying a desk directly to my forehead, mainly because it wasn't so much "adult content" as "adults channeling hormonal teenage boys content" (see also: alien date rape cologne; heterocentric sex alien and Dr. Owen "Sexual Harassment" Harper; evil lesbian alien; et cetera et cetera). Anyways, one of the reasons I theorize series 2 is less ARRGH inducing is that they didn't rely on shock value quite as much, which facilitated their increased mastery of things like PLOT and CHARACTER. That, and 100% less naked Owen.
In conclusion, I really doubt that series 3 is going to fail any harder than the other two.
However, the real point of that article is clearly the hilarious picture of Jack at the top. What happened to the rest of the Angels?
While I'm all against censorship, the article and comments are kind of annoying, since they seem to be along the lines of "ZOMG AMERICA SUCKS WHYYYYYY ARE THEY/WE SUCH PRUDES", which kind of misses the point that no one in America will be editing it as far as I can tell (although to be fair I have no idea what BBCA has done to past episodes, and might very well have been editing for content as well as time) -- it's being toned down by the BBC so they can attract the American market. Which means that's it's not really censorship so much as a [sacrifice of artistic integrity/change in their artistic vision] (delete whichever is inappropriate), which is a whole different kettle of fish (ALIEN fish).
Personally, I didn't really notice much of a difference in terms of risquecity between series 1 and 2. This might have had something to do with the fact that in series 1, there seemed to be an unfortunate correlation between adult content and EPIC FAIL and thus I was somewhat distracted by applying a desk directly to my forehead, mainly because it wasn't so much "adult content" as "adults channeling hormonal teenage boys content" (see also: alien date rape cologne; heterocentric sex alien and Dr. Owen "Sexual Harassment" Harper; evil lesbian alien; et cetera et cetera). Anyways, one of the reasons I theorize series 2 is less ARRGH inducing is that they didn't rely on shock value quite as much, which facilitated their increased mastery of things like PLOT and CHARACTER. That, and 100% less naked Owen.
In conclusion, I really doubt that series 3 is going to fail any harder than the other two.
However, the real point of that article is clearly the hilarious picture of Jack at the top. What happened to the rest of the Angels?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-10 07:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, I assume if they were going to censor content they would do it like that and kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I've heard people complain about what they edit out of Doctor Who, but not Torchwood, but I don't know if that's because they don't cut much, or because I haven't been paying attention.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-11 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-11 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-11 10:14 pm (UTC)