Kane & Lynch 2 TV Ad Censored to Ten Seconds

[Therumancer]

...

I think the censors are too picky myself, as I honestly didn't see too much that was really wrong with that trailer at least for prime-time or late night. This is not a game for kids to begin with.

I'm thinking in terms of various cop and action shows here, the days of the "A-Team" when every shot missed are long gone. Heck, on TV you can watch "real police" shows with a ton of violence going in reality, not to mention things like "best police chases" complete with crashes and fatalities, or even "Nascar highlight reels" which can be even worse.

Okay they are the bad guys, but in the end this trailer basically shows some people being shot, and a hostage being taken and used as a human shield.

I know the UK isn't the US, but I think this represents some free speech issues the people there should be becoming concerned about. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't morally reprehensible, as warrents the nature of crime games to begin with (put your hair down and try your hand at being the bad guy), but then again that's the point and perfectly okay as people do have their dark sides. However the issue of moral censorship and anyone, even a private network, and especially the goverment, to make a desician like this is even more wrong than the criminal protaganists in the trailer.

As far as the networks go (I have no idea how they work in the UK admittedly) as far as I'm concerned being willing to give space to say some cop show, and not be willing to sell the same space to advertise this game with that trailer is tantamount to discrimination, like saying your not willing to sell a house to a black guy specifically because he's black.

I can understand the setting of time slots, but once you hit the adult time slots where your already showing violent programming, there should be no room allowed for subjective moral standards. Either allow it all to be shown, or ban all violence and show nothing but re-runs of "Hello Kitty" and "The Smurfs" which I'm sure most viewers will not watch and nobody will be itching to buy tons of advertising space for to begin with.

 

[kerkanka]

...

I think the censors are too picky myself, as I honestly didn't see too much that was really wrong with that trailer at least for prime-time or late night. This is not a game for kids to begin with.

I'm thinking in terms of various cop and action shows here, the days of the "A-Team" when every shot missed are long gone. Heck, on TV you can watch "real police" shows with a ton of violence going in reality, not to mention things like "best police chases" complete with crashes and fatalities, or even "Nascar highlight reels" which can be even worse.

Okay they are the bad guys, but in the end this trailer basically shows some people being shot, and a hostage being taken and used as a human shield.

The difference is they are tv shows. Before that type of show or in the TV guide, it will say "this show contains violent scenes/strong language" etc. It can, therefore, be avoided by anyone who would be offended by that type of content but does not have to be censored for those that do want to see it. As long as what's being advertised isn't censored too much there is no loss of freedom of speech.

With adverts, they are on between shows and are generally unannounced so you will never know which advert is coming up next. Because of this it would be hard to avoid the content if you do not wish to see it and networks/ advertisers are not going to want o place a "this advert break may contain strong violence" as it could result in less people watching the content which would defeat the point of having that advert.

I think censorship of adverts to the level that only very unnusual people would be offended is fine: as long as that does not extend to the programme itself: afterall the advert is just a teasr and the real content comes in the film/show/product.

 

[Therumancer]

...

I think the censors are too picky myself, as I honestly didn't see too much that was really wrong with that trailer at least for prime-time or late night. This is not a game for kids to begin with.

I'm thinking in terms of various cop and action shows here, the days of the "A-Team" when every shot missed are long gone. Heck, on TV you can watch "real police" shows with a ton of violence going in reality, not to mention things like "best police chases" complete with crashes and fatalities, or even "Nascar highlight reels" which can be even worse.

Okay they are the bad guys, but in the end this trailer basically shows some people being shot, and a hostage being taken and used as a human shield.

The difference is they are tv shows. Before that type of show or in the TV guide, it will say "this show contains violent scenes/strong language" etc. It can, therefore, be avoided by anyone who would be offended by that type of content but does not have to be censored for those that do want to see it. As long as what's being advertised isn't censored too much there is no loss of freedom of speech.

With adverts, they are on between shows and are generally unannounced so you will never know which advert is coming up next. Because of this it would be hard to avoid the content if you do not wish to see it and networks/ advertisers are not going to want o place a "this advert break may contain strong violence" as it could result in less people watching the content which would defeat the point of having that advert.

I think censorship of adverts to the level that only very unnusual people would be offended is fine: as long as that does not extend to the programme itself: afterall the advert is just a teasr and the real content comes in the film/show/product.

I feel that breaking the broadcast day into "periods" like Daytime, Prime Time, and Late Night and having them influance what can be shown at each time already covers this. If violence of the sort being shown in that trailer offends, then the person shouldn't be watching TV during "Prime Time" to begin with. A "warning label" of sorts already exists.

What's more, I'd argue that it's already a very unusual person who would be offended by this to begin with. Generally speaking those who argue against violent programming and the like do not do so not because of genuine personal offense, but due to an attitude of moral guardianship. The idea being that they believe (incorrectly) that the world is such a violent and messed up place because of the depiction of violence in the media and within society. If we get rid of the violent media then people won't be violent anymore, and society will be ushered into a utopian period of understanding, peace, and harmony. These are the same guys who won't let their kids play with action-based toys, and who go on rampages like the one reported here on "The Escapist" where Marvel Super Heroes are being considered too violent and frightening for happy meals.

The number of people who might be offended by the violence in of itself are such a tiny and aberrant minority that I don't think policy should be adapted just to cater to them. That's sort of like letting lunatics run the asylum.

In some cases I might say "okay, well yeah, they should probably only be allowed to show that late at night", given how things work, but as I said that trailer doesn't involve anything paticularly over the top. It's not anything like a "Saw" movie, or "Erotic Thriller", all it really has is a couple of not paticularly nice people in the middle of a shoot out with the police and winning. Big whoop. Has the UK ever shown the movie "Heat" on prime time, or any of a number of "shoot 'em up" movies?

 

[JiveBunny]

Hi! I am a UK TV advertising regulator. Methinks SquareEnix are puffing this up a bit as the original trailer isn't all that familiar to me! We do clear ads for games, it's very rare that we decide they are unsuitable for broadcast (as opposed to putting a post-11pm timing restriction on there), and the super 'Not actual game footage' is because viewers have actually complained when non-game footage was used in gaming ads as they bought the game on that basis.

I'm confused by the comparison between the trailer and the 'broadcast ad'. The first is a trailer for the game (which is something we often get submitted for games now). The second is a 'retailer tag' - where a retailer wants you to be aware of Product X and that it can be bought in their store. These are usually very brief and very careful on what footage they use as they want to avoid late timing restrictions. Comparing the two ads is really not a like for like comparison. If you want to do an article about censorship in gaming then you really would be better off speaking to the ASA, BBFC or other organisations rather than taking press releases at face value.


"ff the top of my head i can't think of any ad that has killing: car chases yes, mild horror yes, but no killing. I'd imagine this would be because you can choose not to watch a film or show with violence in it but you can't predict which adverts will be on so you won't be able to avoid them if you don't want to watch"

That's exactly it, and generally applies to advertising in general. It really depends on the level of gore/violence involved - I'm not going to name specific games but we have allowed zombies, gunfights and a small amount of gore. It's mainly because games are becoming more and more realistic and unlike films the viewer/player is at the centre of the action. It's definitely more unusual for something to be decided as unacceptable for broadcast -usually we see it, tell the makers what time we think this would be allowed on air, and then they go off and cut bits out if they want it on earlier. Usually this is a case of moving, say, a post-9pm restriction to a post-7.30.

 

[Odegauger]

"Oh we need to cut this down, it's too violent for children."

"but sir, this game is being marketed to adults."

"Marketed to adults? We'll that's just preposterous, everyone knows that video games are toys, and toys are meant for children. You sound like one of those fools who think that video games can have artistic merit, ha!"

 

[MarsProbe]

Coincidentally, I just caught this markedly brief trailer a few hours ago....just that is, given it's length.

Seems a bit ridiculous all in all, the actual full length clip wasn't that violent and I can't recall actually seing much in the way of gore. Considering just other day, the 6 o clock news featured a clip of an amputee actor, with the aid of some very realistic TV make up, playing the role of a man whose legs had been reduced to bloody stumps while his stomach was a mess of guts and entrails. There was more gore on display there in 10 seconds than there was in that whole minute and a half.

Still, the media has to have its double standards after all....

 

[Jamash]

Coincidentally, I just caught this markedly brief trailer a few hours ago....just that is, given it's length.

Seems a bit ridiculous all in all, the actual full length clip wasn't that violent and I can't recall actually seing much in the way of gore. Considering just other day, the 6 o clock news featured a clip of an amputee actor, with the aid of some very realistic TV make up, playing the role of a man whose legs had been reduced to bloody stumps while his stomach was a mess of guts and entrails. There was more gore on display there in 10 seconds than there was in that whole minute and a half.

Still, the media has to have its double standards after all....

It's not really a double standard, because there is a lot more to violence than just blood and gore, which is why an episode of Animal Hospital showing a bloody operation on a injured puppy isn't considered to be more violent than a snuff film showing somebody being smothered with a pillow.

If this had been a film or a TV program, then it wouldn't be scrutinised under the same strict regulations that all TV adverts for products have to abide by, regardless of their audience, length or broadcast time.

I think the objectionable things in that trailer, as far as Advertising Standards Authority are concerned, is the violence towards and murder of police officers, and hostage taking in a normal, everyday street setting, both of which would fall under section 6.2 of the BCAP Television Advertising Code - section 6 harm and offence [http://bcap.org.uk/The-Codes/BCAP-Code/BCAP-TV-Code.aspx?q=BCAP%20Television%20Code_Section%206%20-%20Harm%20and%20Offence].

Spoiler: 6.2 Violence and cruelty

6.2

(a) Advertisements must not encourage or condone violence or cruelty

(b) Gratuitous and realistic portrayals of cruel or irresponsible treatment of people or animals are not acceptable

Notes:
(1) Careful judgements are needed in this area. 'Theatrical' violence (for example, the mayhem common in action/adventure films) is generally acceptable, as is violence which has a stylised 'cartoon' or slapstick quality. Problems are more likely to arise where the violence seems to take place in everyday life and to involve ordinary people. However, care should be taken to avoid giving young viewers the impression that copying wrestling, martial arts etc would be safe, harmless fun.
(2) Advertisements must not appear to condone people using violence or aggression to get their own way in everyday life.
(3) Jokes about or involving violence require care and will usually need to be distanced from everyday life by being, for example, in cartoon form.
(4) Scenes which would otherwise be inappropriate may be acceptable to the audience in, for example, charity advertising or newsreel footage in advertisements for news media.
(5) Timing restrictions are necessary for advertising featuring violence. See 7.4.6 (Distress) and 7.4.7 (Scheduling)

I also think that because of the art style, the gritty, realistic 'user-generated content' look that Kane & Lynch 2 uses, the violence portrayed in this trailer is enough for it not to be considered to be obvious "theatrical" violence... the "mayhem" shown is too realistic to be considered to be "violence which has a stylised 'cartoon' or slapstick quality".

However, I think this has been a cynical exercise to produce a viral "Too violent for TV" trailer on the internet, since nobody in their right mind would make advert like that and submit it expecting it to be passed, not when possessing even basic knowledge of the codes and standards for TV advertising (which I'm sure Square Enix are familiar with, considering they've advertised other game on TV in the past).

 

[MarsProbe]

Snip

Perhaps, but if you had seen that news report, you would know couldn't really compare the two. One showed artificial, but nonetheless very convincing, serious injuries on a real human being - that, along with the actors very convincing performance, made for much more unpleasant viewing than the Kane & Lynch ad which for all it's suggestions never really once showed anything particularly grotesque. Certainly not comparable to a man having recently lost both his legs, let alone an operation on a small animal.

Not that I actually bothered to read the extract from that advertising code that you posted. Though I suppose if you're into that sort of thing, fire away.

 

[blankedboy]

Not actual game footage, gotta love that sort of stuff.

I'll bet when my iPod breaks and I send it to Apple to get a refund (i have warranty) they'll say something along the lines of 'Well, sir, if you look at page 784 of the warranty license, it says in 4pt letters between these two lines, we've been bullshitting this entire time and won't replace anything for you. I'm going to have to ask you to leave the store now, please.'

 

[Antari]

Wow ... Why don't they make it manditory for anyone viewing the commercial to wear a helmet while they are at it. Political Correctness will be the death of us all.

 

[Super Toast]

Reminds me of that fake trailer Don't from Grindhouse.

 

[silasbufu]

Hahahahaha poor Square Enix. That was pathetic.

 

[Phoenixlight]

kids, if you're under 17 you're not allowed to click that link. Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days is set for release on August 17 in North America and August 20 in Europe.

You actually need to be 18 to watch the link as the game is rated 18.

 

[Vuljatar]

Utterly ridiculous.

The government censors need to get over themselves.