Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Sensationalized Cruelty": FCC Complaints Regarding Game of Thrones

Posted by samzenpus on from the it's-a-nice-day-for-a-red-wedding dept.

v3rgEz writes: As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over HBO's content. That doesn't stop people from complaining to them about them, however, and after a FOIA request, the FCC released numerous complaints regarding the network's Game of Thrones. While there were the usual and expected lamentations about 'open homosexual sex acts,' other users saw Game of Thrones as a flashpoint in the war of Net Neutrality.

39 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Please by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Theon Greyjoy deserved it.

    1. Re:Please by N1AK · · Score: 2

      I have not read the novels so I can not comment on how much of this is George's work and how much is Benioff's and Weiss's idea, but GoT does get worse while the seasons progress and I have the idea that the first series were more George's creation and the later were more Benioff's and Weiss's

      The first series sticks quite close to the books, at least compared to the later ones. Theon suffers some pretty disturbing stuff in the books (having fingers flayed, and being left to suffer until the pain is so unbearable that he has to chew them off) which probably wouldn't make it onto TV, in any detail, but it never felt sensationalist or like prime-time BDSM.

  2. Glad they didn't read the books by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism... I mean really I think GRRM went through the list of things that might get a nuns panties in a bunch, and found a way to write them down.

    The TV show might in some ways be considered censored for good taste!

    1. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's get pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship and paganism off the TVs in America, and back into the White House, where it belongs!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by timrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's funny because most of those things are also in the Bible, and yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever made a serious campaign to ban the Bible.

    3. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by sehlat · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.christianpost.com/n...

    4. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The TV show might in some ways be considered censored for good taste!

      Perhaps in terms of content, but not in terms of being explicit and graphic. Whenever others have showed violence or sexual assault by or on young people usually it's far more implied or indirectly shown. They show the burned carcass that's supposed to be Bran and Rickon, Geoffrey very painfully dying of poison, Arya cutting a man's throat, Sansa getting raped, princess Shireen burned at the stake, Olly stabbing John Snow and the list just goes on. I almost expected them to film Meryn Trant having his way with the young girl in the brothel, but I guess even they decided that would be over the top. Yes, the books are cruel but they could have shown it far more subtly if they wanted to. I'm sure they're aware of all the headlines they get though and being so mainstream and established they can push it without getting much social stigma attached. At least going by their ratings they're still in the zone where most people want to tune in to whatever fucked up thing happens next rather than turn away in disgust. More people than you think have some morbid curiosity.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism...

      All of those things are found throughout the Old Testament. While Jahweh seems to get his knickers in a twist over idol worship, paganism and the like, He seems to be down with pedophilia, incest, rape, pillage, slavery, torture, genocide, etc. In addition there are many spectral figures, angels, demons and the like. Other than the religion, there's nothing in GOT that the average Solomonic Era soldier wouldn't recognize. It looks even more like the Middle Ages of the Crusaders and the Teutonic Knights. I don't see a lot of difference between the Red God and the Auto da Fe of the Inquisition.

      If we're going to start banning things for bad taste and hate speech, can we start with CBN and the 700 Club?

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by starless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny because most of those things are also in the Bible, and yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever made a serious campaign to ban the Bible.

      Does Jesus count as a zombie?

      I suppose the eating of body and blood in some churches is a bit of a giveaway...

    7. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism...

      I'm pretty sure most of that can be found in the bible.

      Things I've seen in Game Of Thrones is on the same level or more tame than things I've read in books. So why aren't the "moral majority" up in arms about about that?

      Well because books dont get the same media coverage and more likely, these people dont read.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're dead for 3 days and then come back to life, you're a zombie.

      No. If you come back as a zombie you are a zombie.

      For example, the turning of Vampires is usually accomplished by death, being dead, and then a return to undead. Vampires are not Zombies.

      At least, nobody but a pedant brandishing a dictionary definition would try to call them zombies.

      Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.

    9. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by alhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.

      So did he get all his experience back?

    10. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jesus was the prophesied one and he came back to life after being killed by soldiers of the powers that be, after being betrayed by a trusted colleague.

      He could heal people and cast out demons that invaded their minds.

      He was, wait. Oh my god. He was just like Neo in The Matrix. They must have based him on Neo.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by odie5533 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if his party had enough money to spring for a true resurrection. Otherwise he loses one level and it can not be repaired by any means.

    12. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While Jahweh seems to get his knickers in a twist over idol worship, paganism and the like,

      In other words, competition.

    13. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      The New Testament is for casuals. You just have to run back from the graveyard. Took him 3 days, though. And he had to put up with Barrens chat.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by kheldan · · Score: 2

      So did he get all his experience back?

      Yes, but he lost all the items in his inventory.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    15. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since Jesus never actually existed, this is a moot point.

      As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing.

      There's not a single verse, poem, story, carving, sculpture, painting or drawing of him from the time period in which he supposedly lived. Absolutely nothing. Pretty strange considering all of the amazing miracles he was supposed to have performed. You'd think someone would have made even just a passing mention of all this stuff, but nope, not a word.

      In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind.

      We do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned, not once.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  3. Theon Greyjoy is for Reeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are all Reek. Reek says "Reek". REEEEEEEK Reeeeeek REEEEEEEEK! REEEEK! You Reeeeek!

  4. If you don't like it, don't watch it. by kronnek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FCC should just reply with the following: Thank you for your concern, We have read your complaint and come to a solution, if you don't like it just don't watch it. Regards, FCC

    1. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Since it's HBO, the better answer is "If you don't like it, don't buy it."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't like what other people watch, get over it, you're not the thought police.

    3. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

      How cute. You actually believe that the majority of people who watch GoT pay for it.

      I believe that the majority of people who steal it don't have the balls to call the FCC and complain about it.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the people complaining have never watched it. They are just writing letters because that's what the group is rallying against this week. The kind of people who write letters to the FCC aren't the ones who stay up late to watch pay cable.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. I just got bored of the bloody thing by Malc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The explicit violence just doesn't seem necessary. It detracts from the story more than anything - what's the point of it? Are the producer simply just trying to shock people? They could just cut the content by 75% and focus on the character development and the plots (i.e. The story), and they would have a way better show.

    1. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      as one who has thoroughly enjoyed reading the books, and generally enjoys the show, i'm hardly unbiased. i'm also not going to argue for historical accuracy or realism, since, obviously, it's a work of fiction. but in the sense of depicting a time/place where people were generally assholes, and sometimes did terrible things to each other, i find the sometimes-very-graphic depictions of those things perfectly acceptable.

      i also acknowledge that it's HBO, and there's a fair bit of pandering to people's baser demands for entertainment (T&A, blood&guts). that point means some of it is gratuitous, sure, but it's not in strict conflict with the artistic desire to "accurately" depict a very brutal world.

      YMMV

    2. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe I'm just silly but it's probably because it's in the fucking book. If you want to watch a soap opera that "focuses on character development and plot" they are on in the afternoon.

    3. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hitchcock knew that implied violence is more effective long term than overt gore. You can't become desensitized to your own imagination. GRRM's books are stories first, not gore & boob fests. He made you imagine the boobs and gore while showing you the story. Why do the GoT TV writers show you all the boobs and gore while making you imagine the story? I'll tell you why. It's because ...

      *Sunglasses*

      ... it's titillating.
      YEAAHH!!!

    4. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      The explicit violence just doesn't seem necessary.

      Have you seen The Pacific? It's way gorier than Game of Thrones, and from what I have heard, not anywhere near as cruel or gory as the actual events depicted. Toning it down would be a lie.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  6. Keep your regulations off my non-broadcast shows by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Get over it! If you don't like it, don't watch it. And if you have children, it is YOUR OWN FAULT if you allow them access. And if you didn't KNOW it was going to offend you- get a life and read reviews first.

    Yeesh

  7. Re:I sort of skip around by mjphil · · Score: 2

    The HBO VP of Boob Display thanks you

  8. Tough titties by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's on a cable network you have to pay to get, it's not on OTA broadcast networks, so if you don't like it, then don't watch it, but for fuck's sake stop complaining, and stop trying to impose your spiritual/religious/whatever values on the rest of the world!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  9. Dangling participle error in title by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Today's grammar lesson: dangling participle

    As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction...

    Oops... the FCC is not a cable channel. Suggested rewrites:

    As a cable channel, HBO is pretty much not under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

    As HBO is a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over it.

    P.S. I really enjoy a good dangling participle. "Landing at the airport, our car was visible in the parking lot."

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Dangling participle error in title by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You beat me to it. Actually it's dangling participle twice over, as "HBO's content" is also not "a cable channel". So maybe I'd rewrite it as:

      "As HBO is a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over its content."

      Of course, if you have jurisdiction over a cable channel then you also have jurisdiction over its sensationalized content.

    2. Re:Dangling participle error in title by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Today's grammar lesson: dangling participle

      As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction...

      I really hate to interrupt a good pedantic grammar rant, but a "dangling participle" needs... well... a participle, i.e., a verb form that modifies another word.

      The phrase "As a cable channel" has no verb and no participle. If it instead said "Being a cable channel,..." then you might be more justified in your complaint about a dangling participle.

      But "As a cable channel" is a misplaced modifier or a dangling modifier, specifically a prepositional phrase. No participles were harmed in the creation of that sentence.

  10. Too much like the real world? by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In fact, Game of Thrones is arguably even less depraved that what is going on right now in the real world in any number of places. South Sudan, Syria and North Korea just off the top of my head. Compared to the perps running amok in those places, the horrible people depicted in Game of Thrones are just a bunch of lovable kittens.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Too much like the real world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is game of thrones shows people doing those things. Nobody cares when the dark competition does it.

  11. It is depraved, that's true by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    GOT celebrates all the ugly things people can do to each other. I watched it for a little less than a season, until I understood that the point was to just be as horrible as possible.

    I don't need to seek out ugliness in my life, the real world is full enough of it as it is.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  12. George Carlin said it best by dkman · · Score: 2

    Like George Carlin said, you are aware that there are two knobs on the tv - one to change the channel and one to turn it off. If you don't like it go F yourself.

    I may have paraphrased that a bit. And I'm aware that your TV likely has no knobs. So if you were going to whine about that you can definitely F off.

    The Theon scenes were disturbing, and they were meant to be. Nothing about torture should be appealing. Nothing from those scenes was simply made up or sensationalized, those were all torture or psychological warfare that people have done in the past. History is filled with cruel things that people have done to each other. History also shows redeeming factors that can restore faith in humanity.

    Nothing in GoT should make anyone say to themselves "Hey, let's go rape/torture/poison/etc someone today." If you're claiming that a show is sensationalizing something, you would think that the show was making it seem OK or at least less bad. I don't think GoT is doing that at all.

    I notice they're not complaining about GoT's depiction of homosexuality as buggery and bad.

    As the AC said above YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!

    --
    I refuse to sign