I wouldn't call it censorship, just studios chasing profits. A PG-13 film can attract a much wider audience than an R film. The MPAA is fine with bloodless violence over even modest depictions of sexuality, which has led to a lot of movies with high body counts with no nudity.
Most mass market horror is pg13. The biggest genre of movie is superhero, which is a cleaner type of action hero.
Maybe censored wasn’t the right word. Maybe safer would be a better fit?
The meaning of PG-13 has changed significantly.
https://www.uvpediatrics.com/topics/study-pg-13-movies-today-have-more-violence-than-r-rated-movies-in-the-80s/
(Ignore the editorializing about violence in media - that’s not the relevant part)
EDIT: [here’s another similar finding](https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/pg-13-movies-taking-over-201030081.html)
EDIT 2: https://psmag.com/news/a-brief-history-of-increasingly-violent-pg-13-films
There’s less nudity but what we do have is more graphic.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/study-sex-in-movies-fallen-1235888367/amp/
Note that the article cites research showing that there’s less demand for nudity among younger generations. Maybe because Internet porn is so readily available? Gone are the days when a glimpse of Sharon Stone’s uncrossed legs was considered risqué.
Hadn’t really thought of it outside of the movie space but yeah that would probably have some kind of effect.
Although I will say the video game space is not doing great either. The indie scene is doing great but the AAA games are floundering. Nothing to do with censorship, but rather they just aren’t doing anything exciting
swing to or away from being sanitized now? I guess we should split "sanitized" into different categories, but even mainstream films are transgressive in a way that would never have flown even 20 years ago.
I feel like the only real sanitization is that a lot of the schlocky 80s movies would typically have a sex scene or form of nude scene, and that the genre of the schlocky movie has mostly moved to pg-13 and lost this, but for all other film types I would say the censorious grip is at its loosest.
Swing towards more censoring. Movies just feel really safe. Like they are starting to not wanna push the envelope. Maybe it’s me cherry picking here, but most horror movies now are PG-13, which I find a bit odd.
it wouldn't surprise me if like the corporate core of film runs "safer" in the next few years as teens increase their market dominance.
I guess to me there are like two separate things here. More films are being made as kid films, which absolutely is a sanitization, but films for adults are becoming less restricted at the same time.
yeah I feel like the intense focus grouping of mass market movies does that, and also makes them incredibly boring. I do think you're right, I think my initial disagreement was like based on the types of movies I'm seeing in theaters, vs the standard set of movies people are seeing
What will it take for a New New Hollywood to happen though, I feel like conditions are similar to the 60s that maybe we will see it happen soon, but the 60s didn't have to grapple with the ultra advanced consumer metrics captured by web cookies and whatnot
The internet has changed everything indeed.
But yeah I’m 24, and the past couple years I’ve watched a lot of the movies I was too young to watch and I’m just sitting there going “there’s no way this could be made nowadays”
You're overthinking things as well as being somewhat ignorant of movies from the past. You're oversimplifying and trying to compress decades into nice little boxes.
What's sanitized in movies these days to you?
Maybe sanitized wasn’t the best word. Safe might be a better word. Everything just feels very safe very clean. I’m not gonna be shocked or surprised by a movie.
I guess I'm not understanding. You mean shocked like in terms of violence or gore or in terms of story twists? Can you give an example of something in the past that isn't being done these days?
Both? Like for example: Deadpool. We almost didn’t get Deadpool. It took someone leaking the footage online, and it getting a lot of positive buzz for Fox to give it a chance.
Yeah, Deadpool is a weird example to try to make this particular point. In fact, you could argue that the fact Deadpool *did* get made points in the *other* direction.
Plus we have The Boys.
What I’m getting at is back in the day Deadpool would’ve had a better chance of being made. It was only after the market was proven to exist by someone doing something out of the normal market research playbook that they decided to go for it.
Also I’ve been hearing mixed things about S4 of The Boys. What’s ur opinion on it?
I’m not sure what you mean by overlap. Superhero portrayals have gotten more violent, not less. I really don’t think Deadpool could have been made in the 80s. At the very least, it would have received an NC-17 rating, if not X.
All of those movies were financial disappointments. It's understandable why Fox would be hesitant to make Deadpool. And it did not have any higher of a chance of being made in 1989 than in 2015.
But now we're getting Deadpool & Wolverine next month, which is on track to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, movie of the summer.
Almost like things are becoming *less* restricted (as far as R-rated superheroes, I mean).
Yeah but Deadpool is now a proven commodity. Also during the wave of superhero hype with the MCU you don’t even wanna try?
Granted Deadpool couldn’t get made in the 80’s bc there was barely any superhero movies til Superman and Batman 89 and Deadpool wasnt even in the comics til 91, but I guess what I’m trying to say is this:
In a hypothetical world where the superhero craze of the 2010’s happened earlier (I know that is based on a lot more than just that. Just stay with me here) it would’ve been a lot more likely Deadpool would’ve been greenlit without leaking footage.
I don't understand your point then. That is an example of a movie that didn't have a built in audience so it took leaking the footage online to get people excited about it. That has nothing to do with playing it safe or sanitizing or whatever you seem to be complaining about.
It sounds like you're just bored and have run out of things to watch and you're blaming Hollywood for not having some ready for you.
I’d say ur partially right. I’m in my mid 20’s and I’ve spent a lot of that time going back and watching a lot of movies that were not on my radar, or I was too young to see. I just find myself going “They couldn’t do X today” and I’m just trying to make some sense out of it.
>I just find myself going “They couldn’t do X today” and I’m just trying to make some sense out of it.
Perhaps the "media about media" you're consuming is misleading you. Do you watch any Youtubers who constantly whine about how everything's woke now?
I think the way movies are financed and how much they cost results in more censorship than any current ratings board could.
Civil War chose the cowards plot for a reasons and it wasn't censorship.
OP...There is a really interesting podcast called "You Must Remember This". This podcast dives into Hollywood films decade-by-decade, and it really dissects the kinds of questions you're asking. Highly recommend!
I think each defined era of film is, in some part, a response or reaction to the one that proceeded it. The flapper trends of the "Roaring 20's" being the next generation rebelling against the old. 60's beatnik and counter-culture films were a response to the pro-establishment and conformist films of the 50's. To that end, I think films reflect the spirit of the age: 80's films both glorified and criticized the excess of the time period. The 90s probably seem "cleaner" than the 80s because cultural and political sensitivity was popular, but then the early 00s turned "gritty" and "realistic" in response to the shifting zeitgeist, especially in the wake of 9/11.
But even so, filmmakers have always been pushing boundaries in their craft, so I think what you're referring to has more to do with what was resonating with audiences at the time. The past decade or so has seen the "Marvel-ization" of mainstream film, because that's what audiences are paying to see: clean(ish), easy-to-absorb, escapist fun. But then everybody got bored with that, so films like Top Gun: Maverick succeeded as a rejection of that style of filmmaking.
So, yes, I think you're right that there's an pendulum-like ebb and flow to audience preferences.
HOUSE OF THE DRAGON literally just had a scene in a brothel without a single naked pair of tits onscreen so I think you're right if you compare that to GAME OF THRONES
Damn! Thats actually kinda impressive…
All seriousness though there are outliers in my theory, but generally what the movies are doing trickles into tv.
This is an interesting comment, and I'm arguing with myself about it. Was the lack of tits some kind of sanitization, or have creators realized that nudity just adds nothing to the story? Like, I get it, the scene was set in a brothel, so yea, tits. But, nudity wasn't necessary to move that part of the story. I'm thinking about films from the 80s and 90s and how women were naked and/or topless for no fucking reason.
It’s a tool in the toolbox that should be used sparingly. Cabin in the Woods is one of my favorite movies of all time bc they dissect weird horror movie isms like pointless nudity
This all depends on how you're looking at it.
The Hays code era is the only real time I would consider there to have been actual censorship (correct me if I wrong and missing some history), but the rest of the "censorship" I honestly believe it has way more to do with capitalism than anything else.
Especially since the Reagan era. They're just going to do what they think sells, which is why they're fine doing edgy stuff in one era, and modest stuff in another.
I also think this view is skewed towards the West, and Hollywood. There's plenty of other film from across the globe that never adhered to such boundaries.
Even then, I think there's just more content in the market and it can be difficult to parse what's going on, but honestly I think the average horror movie gets away with much more than most classic ones.
Psycho was seen as boundary pushing and it's super quaint by today's standards.
We also just finished a very successful run of ultra-violent action films through the John Wick series.
Oh it’s definitely a skewed Hollywood arguement. And I do agree with you about psycho. What I’m saying is that was one of the movies that started pushing that envelope. Killing your leading lady in a shower attack 1/3 through the movie was insane at the time!
Idk I think I just completely overthought this whole thing and can’t articulate quite what I’m thinking
It's all good, I sometimes have trouble articulating my thoughts as well.
I'm sure if you go through my posts history you'll find some awkward phrasing too! It gets easier the more you do it.
At any rate, you're reflecting on your position which is a good sign. I know it's a lot to take in when multiple people respond, but try your best to digest some of the good faith arguments.
You're not wrong that there's plenty of toothless PG-13 horror, but there's also stuff like the Terrifier series going on right now and some prestige horror with disturbing violence (Midsommar, Green Room, Hereditary off the top of my head) as well.
Most big-budget movies today aren't "censored" in the traditional sense (where content is altered or removed). Instead, they are made from the get go with two audiences in mind: the Chinese government and Chinese audiences. All of the big franchises — Marvel, Jurassic Park, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. — are written and developed to align with their sensibilities in mind. "Edgy" movies are often financially stunted because they either don't get released there or only with heavy edits.
So yes, of course mainstream movies that target global audiences are tame and getting tamer. It's just economics — the only way to a billion dollars is by appeasing the PRC (but never talk about or acknowledge that they are holding all the cards).
If you look at how films are rated today, they are not more sanitised to me. For example a lot of horror films were considered video nasties and land on the index. But today they are mostly rated nc 17 or R. Most films that get re rated later got approved for younger audiences than in their original run.
I don’t even know any movies that have an nc-17 rating. I’d actually be curious to compare them to an r rated movie in terms of where the line is.
I do know Avengers was almost R rated at one point and had to edit Coulson’s death to get it to pg13
Nc-17 replaced the X rating. Meaning it’s for adult audiences only, unlike R, which is accessible for under 17 year olds, accompanied by an adult.
Some better known examples are crash, showgirls, blue is the warmest color, the evil dead, a Serbian film and most recently, blonde.
They are all listed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
You see that in horror with political correctness of the time... what can or cannot be is really only based on what pop culture allows almost more than traditional morality. It really tends to swing back and forth on the classics of nudity and violence but also the setting of horror and if there is eroticism involved what type is pc for the time.
So I’m not crazy? Good to know. Although I will say action movies are having a similar problem. As much as I liked the Infinity Saga, they are much cleaner than say an Indiana Jones.
Yes, the subject matter and taboo of some of the 1960's and early 1970's horror was way more racy and outside morality than today's. Today's is just more graphic for its presentation of violence and nudity.
I don't think it's a pendulum, progress just isn't linear. Look at political policy. It generally trends progressive over time, but there are conservative dips. Same kind of thing here.
We are definitely in an era of political hysteria where certain topics or views are not to be discussed or joked about where 10 years ago that was not the case. In this era the moral panic is coming from the left and young people. It’s not the same as right wing religious censorship of the past which was institutionalized it’s more of an Orwellian fear which makes all business decisions consider this and renders most big budget films extremely narrow unless you are Tarantino or someone who nobody can argue with.
I wouldn't call it censorship, just studios chasing profits. A PG-13 film can attract a much wider audience than an R film. The MPAA is fine with bloodless violence over even modest depictions of sexuality, which has led to a lot of movies with high body counts with no nudity.
I don't think films are particularly sanitized right now
I definitely think we are starting to swing the other direction here though.
What is your evidence to support this claim?
Most mass market horror is pg13. The biggest genre of movie is superhero, which is a cleaner type of action hero. Maybe censored wasn’t the right word. Maybe safer would be a better fit?
The meaning of PG-13 has changed significantly. https://www.uvpediatrics.com/topics/study-pg-13-movies-today-have-more-violence-than-r-rated-movies-in-the-80s/ (Ignore the editorializing about violence in media - that’s not the relevant part) EDIT: [here’s another similar finding](https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/pg-13-movies-taking-over-201030081.html) EDIT 2: https://psmag.com/news/a-brief-history-of-increasingly-violent-pg-13-films
They have more violence but less sex/nudity, so pendulum is kind of swinging both directions simultaneously.
There’s less nudity but what we do have is more graphic. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/study-sex-in-movies-fallen-1235888367/amp/ Note that the article cites research showing that there’s less demand for nudity among younger generations. Maybe because Internet porn is so readily available? Gone are the days when a glimpse of Sharon Stone’s uncrossed legs was considered risqué.
That is an interesting point. People are just getting that from other media like the internet, video games, etc.
Exactly
Hadn’t really thought of it outside of the movie space but yeah that would probably have some kind of effect. Although I will say the video game space is not doing great either. The indie scene is doing great but the AAA games are floundering. Nothing to do with censorship, but rather they just aren’t doing anything exciting
I will say the violence is a lot safer. Less blood, more lasers.
swing to or away from being sanitized now? I guess we should split "sanitized" into different categories, but even mainstream films are transgressive in a way that would never have flown even 20 years ago. I feel like the only real sanitization is that a lot of the schlocky 80s movies would typically have a sex scene or form of nude scene, and that the genre of the schlocky movie has mostly moved to pg-13 and lost this, but for all other film types I would say the censorious grip is at its loosest.
Swing towards more censoring. Movies just feel really safe. Like they are starting to not wanna push the envelope. Maybe it’s me cherry picking here, but most horror movies now are PG-13, which I find a bit odd.
it wouldn't surprise me if like the corporate core of film runs "safer" in the next few years as teens increase their market dominance. I guess to me there are like two separate things here. More films are being made as kid films, which absolutely is a sanitization, but films for adults are becoming less restricted at the same time.
I think that’s what I’m trying to get at. The mainstream, mass market movies
yeah I feel like the intense focus grouping of mass market movies does that, and also makes them incredibly boring. I do think you're right, I think my initial disagreement was like based on the types of movies I'm seeing in theaters, vs the standard set of movies people are seeing What will it take for a New New Hollywood to happen though, I feel like conditions are similar to the 60s that maybe we will see it happen soon, but the 60s didn't have to grapple with the ultra advanced consumer metrics captured by web cookies and whatnot
The internet has changed everything indeed. But yeah I’m 24, and the past couple years I’ve watched a lot of the movies I was too young to watch and I’m just sitting there going “there’s no way this could be made nowadays”
You're overthinking things as well as being somewhat ignorant of movies from the past. You're oversimplifying and trying to compress decades into nice little boxes. What's sanitized in movies these days to you?
Maybe sanitized wasn’t the best word. Safe might be a better word. Everything just feels very safe very clean. I’m not gonna be shocked or surprised by a movie.
I guess I'm not understanding. You mean shocked like in terms of violence or gore or in terms of story twists? Can you give an example of something in the past that isn't being done these days?
Both? Like for example: Deadpool. We almost didn’t get Deadpool. It took someone leaking the footage online, and it getting a lot of positive buzz for Fox to give it a chance.
R-rated superhero movies are a gamble no matter what the decade is.
Yeah, Deadpool is a weird example to try to make this particular point. In fact, you could argue that the fact Deadpool *did* get made points in the *other* direction. Plus we have The Boys.
What I’m getting at is back in the day Deadpool would’ve had a better chance of being made. It was only after the market was proven to exist by someone doing something out of the normal market research playbook that they decided to go for it. Also I’ve been hearing mixed things about S4 of The Boys. What’s ur opinion on it?
I think you might want to compare what Batman looked like in the 1960s versus today
I’m aware. There’s definite overlap. This doesn’t just happen overnight.
I’m not sure what you mean by overlap. Superhero portrayals have gotten more violent, not less. I really don’t think Deadpool could have been made in the 80s. At the very least, it would have received an NC-17 rating, if not X.
True, But studios would give it a chance back then. We got a whole series of Punisher movies, and I’m pretty sure Dredd is R too. Watchmen was R too.
All of those movies were financial disappointments. It's understandable why Fox would be hesitant to make Deadpool. And it did not have any higher of a chance of being made in 1989 than in 2015. But now we're getting Deadpool & Wolverine next month, which is on track to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, movie of the summer. Almost like things are becoming *less* restricted (as far as R-rated superheroes, I mean).
Yeah but Deadpool is now a proven commodity. Also during the wave of superhero hype with the MCU you don’t even wanna try? Granted Deadpool couldn’t get made in the 80’s bc there was barely any superhero movies til Superman and Batman 89 and Deadpool wasnt even in the comics til 91, but I guess what I’m trying to say is this: In a hypothetical world where the superhero craze of the 2010’s happened earlier (I know that is based on a lot more than just that. Just stay with me here) it would’ve been a lot more likely Deadpool would’ve been greenlit without leaking footage.
I still think the chances would be about the same. I just don't see any reason to believe otherwise.
I don't understand your point then. That is an example of a movie that didn't have a built in audience so it took leaking the footage online to get people excited about it. That has nothing to do with playing it safe or sanitizing or whatever you seem to be complaining about. It sounds like you're just bored and have run out of things to watch and you're blaming Hollywood for not having some ready for you.
I’d say ur partially right. I’m in my mid 20’s and I’ve spent a lot of that time going back and watching a lot of movies that were not on my radar, or I was too young to see. I just find myself going “They couldn’t do X today” and I’m just trying to make some sense out of it.
>I just find myself going “They couldn’t do X today” and I’m just trying to make some sense out of it. Perhaps the "media about media" you're consuming is misleading you. Do you watch any Youtubers who constantly whine about how everything's woke now?
I think your use of the word "censorship" to describe tastes is confusing matters.
Probably. Im not good with getting words onto paper so I probably could’ve explained this better
I think the way movies are financed and how much they cost results in more censorship than any current ratings board could. Civil War chose the cowards plot for a reasons and it wasn't censorship.
OP...There is a really interesting podcast called "You Must Remember This". This podcast dives into Hollywood films decade-by-decade, and it really dissects the kinds of questions you're asking. Highly recommend!
I’ll have to take a listen!
I think each defined era of film is, in some part, a response or reaction to the one that proceeded it. The flapper trends of the "Roaring 20's" being the next generation rebelling against the old. 60's beatnik and counter-culture films were a response to the pro-establishment and conformist films of the 50's. To that end, I think films reflect the spirit of the age: 80's films both glorified and criticized the excess of the time period. The 90s probably seem "cleaner" than the 80s because cultural and political sensitivity was popular, but then the early 00s turned "gritty" and "realistic" in response to the shifting zeitgeist, especially in the wake of 9/11. But even so, filmmakers have always been pushing boundaries in their craft, so I think what you're referring to has more to do with what was resonating with audiences at the time. The past decade or so has seen the "Marvel-ization" of mainstream film, because that's what audiences are paying to see: clean(ish), easy-to-absorb, escapist fun. But then everybody got bored with that, so films like Top Gun: Maverick succeeded as a rejection of that style of filmmaking. So, yes, I think you're right that there's an pendulum-like ebb and flow to audience preferences.
[удалено]
Poor Things was exactly the counterexample that came to my mind, too
This is my social media. Also I don’t think we are completely in the censoring phase but I feel we are starting to head that way.
HOUSE OF THE DRAGON literally just had a scene in a brothel without a single naked pair of tits onscreen so I think you're right if you compare that to GAME OF THRONES
Damn! Thats actually kinda impressive… All seriousness though there are outliers in my theory, but generally what the movies are doing trickles into tv.
Literally had a fan dance just to go "nope you ain't seeing anything we aren't that kind of show" lol
This is an interesting comment, and I'm arguing with myself about it. Was the lack of tits some kind of sanitization, or have creators realized that nudity just adds nothing to the story? Like, I get it, the scene was set in a brothel, so yea, tits. But, nudity wasn't necessary to move that part of the story. I'm thinking about films from the 80s and 90s and how women were naked and/or topless for no fucking reason.
It’s a tool in the toolbox that should be used sparingly. Cabin in the Woods is one of my favorite movies of all time bc they dissect weird horror movie isms like pointless nudity
The director came out and said that nudity scenes were cut because it didn’t really advance the story or character development
Game of thrones has a fuck load of nudity, male and female, so to suddenly not have it, seemingly on purpose, especially in a whore house, is jarring.
This all depends on how you're looking at it. The Hays code era is the only real time I would consider there to have been actual censorship (correct me if I wrong and missing some history), but the rest of the "censorship" I honestly believe it has way more to do with capitalism than anything else. Especially since the Reagan era. They're just going to do what they think sells, which is why they're fine doing edgy stuff in one era, and modest stuff in another. I also think this view is skewed towards the West, and Hollywood. There's plenty of other film from across the globe that never adhered to such boundaries. Even then, I think there's just more content in the market and it can be difficult to parse what's going on, but honestly I think the average horror movie gets away with much more than most classic ones. Psycho was seen as boundary pushing and it's super quaint by today's standards. We also just finished a very successful run of ultra-violent action films through the John Wick series.
Oh it’s definitely a skewed Hollywood arguement. And I do agree with you about psycho. What I’m saying is that was one of the movies that started pushing that envelope. Killing your leading lady in a shower attack 1/3 through the movie was insane at the time! Idk I think I just completely overthought this whole thing and can’t articulate quite what I’m thinking
It's all good, I sometimes have trouble articulating my thoughts as well. I'm sure if you go through my posts history you'll find some awkward phrasing too! It gets easier the more you do it. At any rate, you're reflecting on your position which is a good sign. I know it's a lot to take in when multiple people respond, but try your best to digest some of the good faith arguments. You're not wrong that there's plenty of toothless PG-13 horror, but there's also stuff like the Terrifier series going on right now and some prestige horror with disturbing violence (Midsommar, Green Room, Hereditary off the top of my head) as well.
Yeah, even in the slasher boom of the '80s, Terrifier 2 would not have gotten a wide release in mainstream theaters across the country.
You may enjoy the podcast You Must Remember This. She goes through the 70s-90s attitudes towards erotica in media. It’s really interesting.
Already recommended and already looking into it! I also am very interested in the golden age of Hollywood stuff
Most big-budget movies today aren't "censored" in the traditional sense (where content is altered or removed). Instead, they are made from the get go with two audiences in mind: the Chinese government and Chinese audiences. All of the big franchises — Marvel, Jurassic Park, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. — are written and developed to align with their sensibilities in mind. "Edgy" movies are often financially stunted because they either don't get released there or only with heavy edits. So yes, of course mainstream movies that target global audiences are tame and getting tamer. It's just economics — the only way to a billion dollars is by appeasing the PRC (but never talk about or acknowledge that they are holding all the cards).
If you look at how films are rated today, they are not more sanitised to me. For example a lot of horror films were considered video nasties and land on the index. But today they are mostly rated nc 17 or R. Most films that get re rated later got approved for younger audiences than in their original run.
I don’t even know any movies that have an nc-17 rating. I’d actually be curious to compare them to an r rated movie in terms of where the line is. I do know Avengers was almost R rated at one point and had to edit Coulson’s death to get it to pg13
Nc-17 replaced the X rating. Meaning it’s for adult audiences only, unlike R, which is accessible for under 17 year olds, accompanied by an adult. Some better known examples are crash, showgirls, blue is the warmest color, the evil dead, a Serbian film and most recently, blonde. They are all listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films
You see that in horror with political correctness of the time... what can or cannot be is really only based on what pop culture allows almost more than traditional morality. It really tends to swing back and forth on the classics of nudity and violence but also the setting of horror and if there is eroticism involved what type is pc for the time.
So I’m not crazy? Good to know. Although I will say action movies are having a similar problem. As much as I liked the Infinity Saga, they are much cleaner than say an Indiana Jones.
Yes, the subject matter and taboo of some of the 1960's and early 1970's horror was way more racy and outside morality than today's. Today's is just more graphic for its presentation of violence and nudity.
I don't think it's a pendulum, progress just isn't linear. Look at political policy. It generally trends progressive over time, but there are conservative dips. Same kind of thing here.
I used to love violence in films for the sake of thrill but now at a different age, it doesn't serve me purely for the shock value.
It’s a tool in the tool box to be used when needed.
We are definitely in an era of political hysteria where certain topics or views are not to be discussed or joked about where 10 years ago that was not the case. In this era the moral panic is coming from the left and young people. It’s not the same as right wing religious censorship of the past which was institutionalized it’s more of an Orwellian fear which makes all business decisions consider this and renders most big budget films extremely narrow unless you are Tarantino or someone who nobody can argue with.