• US DVD cover for "Pride" removes all reference to homosexuality
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The film, about a group of gay and lesbian activists who rallied in support of striking miners in the 1980s, was released in the UK to acclaim last year. However, the US DVD cover makes a number of shocking changes, entirely removing homosexuality from the story. Firstly, the film’s synopsis has been changed to state the film is about “a group of London-based activists”, removing a mention to sexuality.[/QUOTE] Original image: [IMG]http://6682-presscdn-26-26-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/images/2014/02/Pride1.jpg[/IMG] US cover version: [THUMB]http://6682-presscdn-26-26-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/images/2014/02/dvd.jpg[/THUMB] Source: [URL]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/01/02/us-dvd-cover-for-pride-removes-all-references-to-homosexuality/[/URL]
Borderline censorship.
You can still see Lesbian & Gay on their shirts. Or well, part of Lesbian
It looks to me more like the banner was removed to not blend in with the barcode box.
Just realised you can make out the word "gay" on their t-shirts if you look closely enough, so not all references. Just the ones you'd actually see.
That looks like the back cover of the DVD. What does the front cover look like, I wonder?
Thatcher did nothing wrong.
[QUOTE=ijyt;46855438]It looks to me more like the banner was removed to not blend in with the barcode box.[/QUOTE] There's a reason the barcode has a big white space around it and a black outline.
[QUOTE=shozamar;46855460]Just realised you can make out the word "gay" on their t-shirts if you look closely enough, so not all references. Just the ones you'd actually see.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't really say you would have to look closely though. Unless the text on the cover is smalelr in print size
Anyone else noticed they moved the speakerphone guy where the flag was ? I bet they did all this to make the Big Ben more noticeable, so people know it's an UK movie.
its because in america they are 50 years behind the times i for one am not surprised. thank you for listening [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - BANNED USER))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=AntonioR;46855661]Anyone else noticed they moved the speakerphone guy where the flag was ? I bet they did all this to make the Big Ben more noticeable, so people know it's an UK movie.[/QUOTE] Proof US hates gays and UK.
When removing all trances of sexuallity from the description, it just sets up the movie to be watched by biggots. It's the perfect plan.
[QUOTE=Antlerp;46855676]its because in america they are 50 years behind the times i for one am not surprised. thank you for listening[/QUOTE] Got any proof to back up your bullshit claims?
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;46856083]Got any proof to back up your bullshit claims?[/QUOTE] You can't really quantify how behind-the-times a place is. It's not a strictly provable claim but it's useful rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;46855425]Borderline censorship.[/QUOTE] Borderline? I think it's quite clear censorship.
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;46856134][img]http://puu.sh/e4jLt/2eb2a50269.png[/img][/QUOTE] Jan 4, 1965 was a monday.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46856168]Jan 4, 1965 was a monday.[/QUOTE] No. Today is 4th January 1965 and its a Sunday
[QUOTE=LuaChobo;46856134][img]http://puu.sh/e4jLt/2eb2a50269.png[/img][/QUOTE] There are certain parts of this I wish were true. But the rest fuck
It seems like they removed it to better balance the image and focus on the ginger guy and also the Big Ben. I see nothing wrong.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46856379]It seems like they removed it to better balance the image and focus on the ginger guy and also the Big Ben. I see nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] Would have been somewhat believable if they didn't also nuke everything about it in the descriptions.
[QUOTE=Ogris;46856154]Borderline? I think it's quite clear censorship.[/QUOTE] As long as the content of the movie isn't changed it's not really that big of a problem. I think they're just trying to avoid angry bible-thumpers and bigots on their doorstep.
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;46856379]It seems like they removed it to better balance the image and focus on the ginger guy and also the Big Ben. I see nothing wrong.[/QUOTE] If it were just image changes then I'd agree but leaving out any reference to sexuality in the description would be too much a coincidence. It looks like it's been deliberately altered to conceal that portion of the plot. Which I don't really see a problem with. If hiding that it's about gay and lesbian activists dupes bigots into watching it, all the better.
Yet people are allowed to spout about the "truth" in an infomercial.
It's not really fair to say the "US is X years behind the times." The USA, from what I understand as an outsider, is a collection of States, each of which is run essentially like its own country for the most part. Some are quite cosmopolitan in their laws and values, and are keeping pace with the rest of the world, while others can quite fairly be compared to theocracies in the third world.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46856168]Jan 4, 1965 was a monday.[/QUOTE] pretty sure it's sunday dude
[QUOTE=archangel125;46856747]It's not really fair to say the "US is X years behind the times." The USA, from what I understand as an outsider, is a collection of States, each of which is run essentially like its own country for the most part. Some are quite cosmopolitan in their laws and values, and are keeping pace with the rest of the world, [B]while others can quite fairly be compared to theocracies in the third world.[/B][/QUOTE] factually incorrect
well at 36 states with legalized gay marriage it's fair to say 72% of our population supports it, or at least 72% of our govt. things like this and religious politicians that talk loud doesn't change the fact that we're probably going to see a fully gay-supportive America within 5 years to a decade. Anything less than instant legalization is too slow by my standards, but hey we're definitely not the worst when it comes to this field.
[QUOTE=archangel125;46856747]It's not really fair to say the "US is X years behind the times." The USA, from what I understand as an outsider, is a collection of States, each of which is run essentially like its own country for the most part. Some are quite cosmopolitan in their laws and values, and are keeping pace with the rest of the world, [B]while others can quite fairly be compared to theocracies in the third world[/B].[/QUOTE] I would love to frame this sentence and put it on my wall. My god, you are so full of your own shit.
[QUOTE=archangel125;46856747]It's not really fair to say the "US is X years behind the times." The USA, from what I understand as an outsider, is a collection of States, each of which is run essentially like its own country for the most part. Some are quite cosmopolitan in their laws and values, and are keeping pace with the rest of the world, while others can quite fairly be compared to theocracies in the third world.[/QUOTE] I know it's cool to hate on the US and think it's some Dystopian State where people are beheaded for their opinions but we aren't even close to countries like, say, Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.