U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:46 PM
 
3,585 posts, read 1,158,873 times
Reputation: 1085

Advertisements

I was watching family guy on VOD streaming, and I watched the episode where Lois tries to do sexual role play with Peter and she puts on costume of the McDonald's character Grimace. Peter wanted Lois to dress up as the Hamblurger, and corrects Lois telling her she got it wrong and that "Grimace is Ronald McDonald's retarded friend".

However, I found this odd cause I remember back when I saw this episode on the Fox TV channel that Peter said that "Grimace is Ronald McDonald's autistic friend".

So did TV or the FCC decide to change the word 'retarded' to 'autistic'? Why is that? Why is one word more offensive to people than the other, to the point where they felt the need to change it?

Personally I thought it was more funny that Peter said 'autistic' because it's funnier in the sense that he had Grimace narrowed down so specifically, where as 'retarded', is kind of vague and anyone can call anyone that. But to nail it down so specifically was just more funny to me.

But why did they feel they needed to change the word, and what are the rules when it comes to what words you need to sensor for broadcast TV and what not, when it comes to this sort of thing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,462 posts, read 1,480,574 times
Reputation: 6380
You would have to know who made the change, and then ask them why. Since streaming is largely free of Standards & Practices restrictions applied to open broadcast, it's more common to find different edits (with bits cut for broadcast) and words un-bleeped and so forth.

I have also noticed dubs similar to what you've noted that have no particular offensive aspect... but it looks as if the production company took the opportunity to change dialogue for other reasons.

Assuming your example has anything to do with "censorship" or undoing it is probably wrong. It's more likely to be the producers using a fresher, funnier, less-offending word because they could.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:51 PM
 
119 posts, read 22,659 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
I was watching family guy on VOD streaming, and I watched the episode where Lois tries to do sexual role play with Peter and she puts on costume of the McDonald's character Grimace. Peter wanted Lois to dress up as the Hamblurger, and corrects Lois telling her she got it wrong and that "Grimace is Ronald McDonald's retarded friend".

However, I found this odd cause I remember back when I saw this episode on the Fox TV channel that Peter said that "Grimace is Ronald McDonald's autistic friend".

So did TV or the FCC decide to change the word 'retarded' to 'autistic'? Why is that? Why is one word more offensive to people than the other, to the point where they felt the need to change it?

Personally I thought it was more funny that Peter said 'autistic' because it's funnier in the sense that he had Grimace narrowed down so specifically, where as 'retarded', is kind of vague and anyone can call anyone that. But to nail it down so specifically was just more funny to me.

But why did they feel they needed to change the word, and what are the rules when it comes to what words you need to sensor for broadcast TV and what not, when it comes to this sort of thing?
The word 'retarded' does not run afoul of the FCC. Anyway, the decency standards apply to broadcast media. The FCC has no regulatory power over content on video-on-demand.

I think the term 'edit' is more appropriate that 'censor'. For example, the term 'radio edit' is used for versions of a song that would either result in FCC fines if played in its original form (Pink Floyd's Not Not John, which uses the radio friendly 'stuff all that' instead of the obvious original term) or might offend listeners even though it wouldn't run afoul of the FCC (such as Lou Reed's Walk on the Wild side, which usually omits the second verse and its reference to oral sex). The impetus here is not some authority mandating the word change but a private entity choosing to do so.

I have an issue with the FCC now allowing certain terms. I have no issue with businesses making business decisions not to allow certain content. Some of it seems silly to me but there will never be consensus on such things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:56 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, Tx
7,252 posts, read 7,746,446 times
Reputation: 8635
Quote:
Another scene edited was a naked Peter shown crouched on top of Lois's head (attempting ear sex) (even though it was shown on Adult Swim every time the episode repeats). On the TV version, Peter is still naked, but it is implied (through sound effects) that Lois forcibly pushed him to the floor and she has a hand on her ear (impling Peter attempted ear sex).[2] In this scene, Peter refers to the Grimace as Ronald McDonald's autistic friend, which was originally penned as "retarded friend" (and is included in the uncut version).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prick_...rs_(Family_Guy)

So it seems that wherever you were watching it streaming aired the undedited version and initially Fox had the word changed from "retarded" to "autistic" as they felt the word carried negative connocations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:49 PM
 
3,585 posts, read 1,158,873 times
Reputation: 1085
But if feels so nitpicky though. That's like cutting out the word 'idiot' and replacing it with 'moron', as if idiot is worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:50 PM
 
3,585 posts, read 1,158,873 times
Reputation: 1085
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
The word 'retarded' does not run afoul of the FCC. Anyway, the decency standards apply to broadcast media. The FCC has no regulatory power over content on video-on-demand.

I think the term 'edit' is more appropriate that 'censor'. For example, the term 'radio edit' is used for versions of a song that would either result in FCC fines if played in its original form (Pink Floyd's Not Not John, which uses the radio friendly 'stuff all that' instead of the obvious original term) or might offend listeners even though it wouldn't run afoul of the FCC (such as Lou Reed's Walk on the Wild side, which usually omits the second verse and its reference to oral sex). The impetus here is not some authority mandating the word change but a private entity choosing to do so.

I have an issue with the FCC now allowing certain terms. I have no issue with businesses making business decisions not to allow certain content. Some of it seems silly to me but there will never be consensus on such things.
Why do you have an issue with the FCC allowing certain terms?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Montreal -> CT -> MA -> Montreal -> Ottawa
16,275 posts, read 25,802,189 times
Reputation: 25393
My guess is that "autistic" is a diagnosis, while "retarded" is not and, more importantly in today's world, it's not politically correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:24 PM
 
3,585 posts, read 1,158,873 times
Reputation: 1085
This is actually why I thought it was more funny when Peter used the term autistic cause he was giving Grimace an actual diagnosis, which makes it more weird and funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
4,462 posts, read 1,480,574 times
Reputation: 6380
Well, in the end you're still watching Family Guy, so it's kind of a lose-lose proposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:07 PM
 
3,585 posts, read 1,158,873 times
Reputation: 1085
But that's just it, if it's a lose lose, then why does TV bother trying to make it less offensive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > TV
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top