zlacker

>>GavCo+(OP)
Those of us who grew up near various religious communities in the second half of the twentieth century are familiar with the edited and abridged versions of media made to be more palatable to the morals of whichever community, as well as the scandals over media which were an affront to them for whatever reason.

Obviously, a publisher committed to those communities and who can get the rights to do so will make a “clean” versions for them. For better or worse, it happens all the time.

The only news here is in whose morals are behind expressed in the edits, because we had gotten used to it just being a religion thing and forgot that secular morals can run just as puritanical.

>>swatco+MR
Can you give me an example of whatever community it is that you grew up in?

Me? Rural northern Arkansas. Dry county. Unaffected by these edited/abridged version of media.

In other words, Han shot first in my day, sonny.

>>NDizzl+D71
That’s more personal than I like to share here, but vaguely I was in the rural Northeast while a rising tide of born-again Baptist churches absorbed Catholic and mainline Protestant communities. Maybe it was more obvious to me because of the flux.

In any case, you must at least remember Wal-mart’s role in demanding “clean” versions of rap and hip hop content (and punk) as those genres went mainstream. That was happening at a national level and persists to this day in all of our streaming services.

The genres had underground roots and artists were not devoted to satisfying the word or theme preferences of the Walton family’s target demographic, but producers and studios knew that obliging them with alternate versions was a compromise that paid worthwhile dividends.