Speaking of “South Park: BL&U,” the song “Uncle Fucka” was originally called “Mother Fucka” The MPAA was going to issue an NC-17 rating for the film, but upon changing the song to “Uncle Fucka,” Parker and Stone were able to get the R rating for the movie. Go figure. Actually, I think “Uncle Fucka” was more hilarious and added to the satire.
Cite?
I don’t know how you feel about Wikipedia as a source. Some take it with a grain of salt, so I found more than one source. Unfortunately not on Comedy central’s own site, though.
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is the most profane animated movie ever produced. The film features a song entitled “Uncle Fucka” that uses the word fuck 24 times in a little over one minute. The song title originally used mother rather than uncle, but it was changed to qualify for an R rating (instead of NC-17); also, the authors say uncle sounds funnier than mother.
The original intention was for the song to be called Mother Fucka, but that was considered too offensive and would have given the movie a NC-17 rating, rather to be Rated R, rating. Thus, co-creator Matt Stone changed the word to “uncle”, partially due to the fact that it sounds sillier than “mother.”
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut is allegedly the most profanity-filled movie ever produced. It is difficult to dismiss this claim, considering the film features a song entitled “Uncle Fucka” in the Terrance and Philip movie that uses the word fuck over 30 times. The song title originally used mother rather than uncle, but it was changed to qualify for an R rating (instead of NC-17); also, the authors say uncle sounds funnier than mother.
Like I said, I wish I could find a quote from Matt Stone, Trey Parker, or Comedy Central, but it sounds reasonable enough not to be an urban legend.
So the 6 o’clock news is rated R now? Because the screaming bleeding children and bloody body parts left over at the scene of the latest bombing sure as hell qualify as “horrible” and “deplorable” to me.
They don’t show body parts on the six o’clock news.
Thanks, Frylock. It’s good to know from your post and those of control-z that I’m not a lone voice crying out in the wilderness after all.
you’ve clearly never met my mother
[QUOTE=pulykamell]
But the words are part of the event, part of the history. There is no good reason to sensor them. QUOTE]
I think that’s a silly argument. Are the words part of the event? Certainly. Reporters are not required to record every single exacting detail, though… only the parts that are significant. If a firefighter’s zipper was down during the 9/11 disaster, should CNN be required to record that?
In other words, if they don’t record every single word, then they shouldn’t record anything at all? I think that’s just plain absurd.
I disagree. As I said, if a fireman’s zipper was down, should they be required to record that as well?
Nobody’s saying that these expletives should NEVER be recorded. Heck, if an historian wants to record these in an exhaustive report on 9/11, I think he should feel free. When reporting matters to a general audience, however, a measure of discretion is advisable.
Such gestures are among the earmarks of civilized society; only a boor would say “I’ll use whatever language I want, and f**k the rest of you if you don’t like it!” I might expect a callow high school student to feel that way, but mature adults know that there are times when it’s more important to treat cautiously.
Let me fix the coding in my previous post. Here we go:
I think that’s a silly argument. Are the words part of the event? Certainly. Reporters are not required to record every single exacting detail, though… only the parts that are significant. If a firefighter’s zipper was down during the 9/11 disaster, should CNN be required to record that?
In other words, if they don’t record every single word, then they shouldn’t record anything at all? I think that’s just plain absurd.
Recording and broadcasting are two different things. As a historian, I want every possible bit of information recorded and kept for future generations. Whether it should be broadcast is a different debate all together.
I don’t care about profanity. It’s been used in other programs on network television when it was thought that the work merited it. (*Schindler’s List *and Saving Private Ryan come to mind as examples.) But I don’t think we should automatically grant that * everything *should be broadcast because of the importance of the event. (If they had close-up footage of someone dying on 9/11 in a greusome, painful manner in the documentary, I’d hope it wouldn’t be aired.)
Point taken, but that’s basically consistent with what I said. If historians want to record it, fine… but that doesn’t mean that everything recorded is suitable for general broadcast.
I haven’t seen this 9/11 documentary for a couple of years (the French brothers, right?) but I seem to recall that when they entered the lobby of the first tower they encountered people burning to death due to jet fuel pouring down the lift shafts. Nothing is shown of this in the documentary, other than the immediate reaction of the firemen. IIRC one of the brothers describes the scene later and states “I could not allow this to be shown/filmed”. Is my memory accurate here?
Anyway, that strikes me as a good rule to work from - don’t show stuff (outside unavoidable live broadcast situations) that shows the death of a recognisable individual unless it is the entirety of the story*. As for this bad language nonsense, it’s not as if the programme is on at tea-time with Big-Bird going "The letter “C” is for “cuntbubble”.
- I’m thinking JFK here. However there is an enormously moving documentary about 9/11 called The Falling Man which does focus on, probably, an identified individual. It’s very powerful. Be warned with the link, it’s only text, but it contains one of the most tragic phrases I’ve ever read: some with makeshift parachutes
Well, how can I possible argue decency? I think in the context of a 9/11 documentary, swearing is suitable for broadcast. It makes no sense to me whatsoever logically to cut that out. You show images of people dying, and you can’t air profanity? What’s the justification for that?
That said, I would not be against showing bodies, either. I personally think the media coverage of war is too sanitized. But that may be taking it too far for most people, so it’s not a view I popularly advance–but that is what I believe.