Small text iconNormal text iconLarge text icon

INTERACTION

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MembersMembers   GroupsGroups   RegisterRegister 
 User Control PanelUser Control Panel      LoginLogin 


All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:11 pm
Posts: 2122
Location: Cheshire, UK
Clockwork O the movie revelled in its violence whereas the book, which had a different ending, did not. As I remember the whole point of the title was lost in the movie version.

It's a long time since I saw it and I was impressed but I would not try to see it again or any remake. (That latter will happen one day)

As for censorship let's move the technology on now because we are an SF reading audience. Suppose we could make the movies mentioned with a much greater level of audience involvement, beyond 3 D into something like a virtual reality? Would your attitudes to censorship by an external authority change?

See The Haptic Cow to see where we might be going with the technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 868
Location: The Village
Roy wrote:
Suppose we could make the movies mentioned with a much greater level of audience involvement, beyond 3 D into something like a virtual reality? Would your attitudes to censorship by an external authority change?


This is different question to here-and-now concerns about consumer choice vs. authoritarian film censorship, though... (and to forum mods: should this discussion be shunted to its own thread?)

If we look ahead to a hi-tech realisation of spec-fic VR futures (Egan, Stross, etc. and other post-cyberpunk texts) where individuals 'plugged-in' for life have created their own private/ pocket 'heavens' or 'hells', I think - from our limited 21st-century experience - we might have a default attitude to the 'righteousness' of social intervention to 'save' people from themselves.

Basically, I think the big question is: how much freedom is enough?

I remember, after reading one of Tony Ballantyne's novels, that he seemed to be asking (like so much VR-based SF) the questions: 'if anything is possible - within the 'safe' confines of virtuality - then should there be (or can there be?) any limit on what is permissible?' And - rather more importantly - 'Or, must we abandon all morality?'
:roll:

_________________
Pigasus Press | VideoVista | The ZONE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:54 pm
Posts: 153
Wasn't the strap line for the Cronenberg film "Naked Lunch" - "everything is permitted". I sensed irony attached.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
Quote:
Tony wrote:-
(and to forum mods: should this discussion be shunted to its own thread?)


Agree. I'll break off from Roy's post above and move to General Discussions.

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:11 pm
Posts: 2122
Location: Cheshire, UK
I thought it somewhat confusing leaving my Clockwork O comment at the top. Perhaps you or I should have split that post Pete.

Quote:
This is different question to here-and-now concerns about consumer choice vs. authoritarian film censorship, though...


I'm not sure it is that different and I'm not talking 'jacking in' or direct brain links, the technology doesn't seem to be moving that way.
Dramatisation/simulation of perceived reality is 'improving' steadily and the question of censoring this material should be considered now. This is a very difficult subject and, timewise, it could apply backwards as well as forwards.

It links with other 'difficult' decisions like privacy. People censor their own lives in the sense that they don't want others viewing their activities 24/7. That was not a concern a decade ago but technology is making it a problem now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm
Posts: 3341
I don't think you can split a post Roy, or if you can afraid I don't know how to. It was all your post, or nothing.

You could, of course, edit your post to delete that bit, and then post it again back on the original thread.

Back in the Black Static forum I could have done that myself (though not here in General), but the irony of editing somebody else's post in a thread about censorship didn't appeal to me :lol:

_________________
http://trumpetville.wordpress.com
http://ttapress.com/blackstatic/casenotesblog/


Last edited by Pete on Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:11 pm
Posts: 2122
Location: Cheshire, UK
No worry, my comments on C Orange are not that important


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Roy, how can we now consider (in any detail) censorship involving products using technological media developments that we do not yet have? Or worse, don't even know that we don't have?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Tony, I read your post twice and thought of one problem.
Concerning VR (uploaded or produced as virtual) personalities, suppose some form of them can feel pain. Then I'd certainly say that we should think of the morality of their worlds. If we program the morality then we have, I think, a problem. If your "default" means that we should apply our morality concerning pain to their worlds, then I do not now know what to say. For a decision to use or not use some notions from our (your default) morality can depend on other aspects of their world. For example, suppose someone produced a world for virtual masochists. I for one don't know what to say about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:11 pm
Posts: 2122
Location: Cheshire, UK
G Berger
Quote:
how can we now consider (in any detail) censorship involving products using technological media developments that we do not yet have? Or worse, don't even know that we don't have?


We are SF readers so we have to use our imagination. Did anyone follow the Haptic Cow link?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:16 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Roy---Yes, but if our imaginations run on unfettered they can stray into regions that will most likely never portray moral problems in the real world. Then two things (perhaps both in some cases) can happen. First, our moralizing will only help us write or judge stories. Second, We can use such far-out moralizing to illuminate present or possible real-world problems. I'm sure the second case has often turned up in SF and I know that philosophical ethicists have used SF in their writings. Philosophical ethics and far-out SF meet seamlessly in Stapledon's great "Last and First Men." The author knew exactly what he was doing. His imagination was not unfettered.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group