#It depends if it's strictly the character taken into account and the boundary is clear.

[genshinconfessions]

Okay before I even start talking: pls I'm not here to start shit I'm just genuinely curious about people's takes on this! I don't give a damn what anyone ships or doesn't this is just something I've been wondering about!!

Anyways, the thing:

We all know there's this debate on whether Kaeluc is bad or not on account of them being brothers (sworn brothers or adoptive brothers depending on translation).

So, in the chinese version, they are sworn brothers, which, as I understand it (only from getting it explained to me), isn't strictly a familial relationship. Please do correct me of I'm wrong or add more info if you'd like, I just don't wanna give false info on this which is why I don't wanna try to explain it myself.

Now, my question is: do you think we should interpret their relationship from a Chinese cultural standpoint, since the creators are Chinese and the original version is Chinese, or should we look at it from a more western point, since the nation the two of them live in is heavily inspired by Germany, where the cultural context would be very different?

I'm German. We don't really have the same concept of Sworn siblings, or at least not that I know of. For most other German people I know, a sibling is a sibling, blood relative or no. The way Kaeya was taken in and raised by Diluc's father would make them something like adoptive brothers, whether Kaeya is officially adopted or not.

Again, I wanna mention I'm NOT saying that the German viewpoint is necessarily correct, I'd just like to know what other people think, since Chinese culture is where the story was made, but the place the story takes place in is pretty obviously German. I'm not even quite sure what I think on the subject, since both interpretations could be argued for.

I mean, in the end, there isn't really a "right" interpretation of you ask me, since everyone can (and should!!) have their own, but I really wanna hear someone else's thoughts on this!

PS: it's Venti Jesus Anon again (I have returned!) (Less chaotic as last time) (Sorry for any mistakes, English is (unsurprisingly) not my first language)

venti jesus anon!!!!

NOTE: PLEASE respect venti jesus anon and the admins and DO NOT make this another war on these characters.

now that we've gotten that out of the way, what are your thoughts?

i personally think it's very important to realize that the company is chinese, regardless of whether or not mondstadt is based on germany. this is due to the fact that chinese developers will ofc be more well-versed in their own culture, so even if they don't mean it, they may accidentally or unconsciously put something in that's very clear in chinese culture but more ambiguous in other cultures.

or (and this is what i've noticed most) the chinese text makes total sense but the translations aren't as good. see: allogenes vs 原神 (yuan shen/genshin) [it's off-topic but if anyone's interested, just send in an ask].

as for sworn siblinghood, it depends a lot on, well, the sworn siblings' relationship. for some ppl, it's just the same as family and you'd do the same for them as a blood sibling, but for others (and this is especially relevant in the danmei/BL genre), there can be some avoidance of traditional sibling boundaries.

granted, please take this with a grain of salt as i am not well-versed in this topic, and the tradition itself is old as fuck and not done much nowadays (to my incomplete knowledge ofc).

now the phrase they use is 义兄 (yi-xiong), for which the definition is this: 义兄指两个人之间没有血源关系，但是兴趣相投，或者是志向相同，或者在江湖上两人彼此讲义气，守信用，虽不同路，但相互怜惜便结拜为兄弟。(trans: yi-xiong refers to two people without blood relations but with similar interests or goals, or are loyal and trustworthy to each other in the world. though they are on different paths/lead different lives, they appreciate each other and swear to be brothers.)

with this definition, it is usually more commonly seen when both parties are older and making their way in the world. now, there COULD also be another 'definition' for it, that being 名义上的兄弟, or 'brothers in name'. in other words, they are brothers in name ONLY. this is, uh, admittedly mostly used when real siblings have a falling-out and cut off contact; technically they're still siblings, but they are not siblings in any aspect other than name.

these are just some of my personal thoughts, and we encourage everyone to share your own thoughts.

but once again:

PLEASE DO NOT START ANOTHER WAR.

if you are absolutely hellbent on bashing anyone or anything, DO NOT do it on our blog >:( move it to your own blog. we're NOT responsible for anything on your personal blogs.

- katheryne from liyue

[emsomersa2blog]

Media Essay: What is the current state of the ratings system?

Back when I was a child, I remember going to my local blockbusters on a Saturday to look for a film to watch with my family, and stumbling upon a plethora of films rated 15 and 18 during our search. I remember how excited I felt to finally grow up and be able to watch these movies on my own, as does most children around the age of five. Now that I have reached the age where I’m responsible for myself and moving on with my life, I realize that my childhood fantasy has altered slightly. More and more I start to notice the 18 rated film start to disappear from our cinemas, replaced by an increasing number of 12As and 15s than ever before. For me this is a disappointment, as from the outside it presents films as unwilling to show more graphic and adult content and themes in favour of being family friendly to pull in the masses (and their wallets). But is this really the case? Are films favouring these lower ratings to be more appealing to all, or is this choice a chance to increase profits as streaming is slowly starting to take over the audio-visual landscape? Well, the answer isn’t so clear cut, as it’s more on a greyscale rather than black and white.

Part one – The ratings system itself

The first thing to look into would be the status of the ratings system itself, specifically in England and the United States. They are the British Board of Film Classification, more commonly known as the BBFC, set up in 1912, and the Motion Picture Association of America, or the MPAA, set up in 1922. Both of them have the same agenda: to police a film’s content and rate them on how appropriate they are for a specific audience. The BBFC also deals with rating television programmes in the UK, using the same ratings system for both television and film, unlike in America where they have a separate system detached from the MPAA known as the TV Parental Guidelines. The ratings used by the BBFC are: U – Suitable for all audiences, PG – Parental guidance is advised, 12A – Unsuitable for children under 12, but can go if accompanied by an adult, 12 – Suitable for people aged 12 and up, 15 – Suitable for people aged 15 and up and 18 – Suitable for people aged 18 and up. The first two ratings, U and PG, are the same for the MPAA (although U is now a G), along with: PG-13 – Some content may not be suitable for children under 13/parents warned and R – Contains some adult content/parents advised not to take young children. There is also the R18 and NC17 for strictly adult content, but the former is mostly used for the sales of pornographic content. NC17 is a little more interesting, as unlike its UK counterpart, this rating covered all content too extreme for an R rating, not just sexual content. NC17 films carry much greater restrictions in terms of how they are presented, as they often receive more limited screenings, and can’t be shown before a certain time, which can drastically hurt a film, especially with marketing and profits. The majority of films that receive an NC17 are re-edited to make them more suitable for an R rating, such as A Clockwork Orange or the Saw series, with only a few maintaining the rating, two examples being cult films Showgirls and Pink Flamingos.

An interesting aspect between the two countries is how they enforce these ratings in cinemas. In England, starting with 12 rated movies, you are not allowed to watch a film if you are underage with no ID. In America however, as long as an adult who is over the age of 18 is with you, children are able to be taken into films rated PG-13 and R. Out of both systems, on a surface level the MPAA’s would definitely be seen as the more flawed and problematic, as their system isn’t nearly as streamlined compared with the BBFC’s. Their lack of having specific age groups to categorise films into means that unless looking into the content of a film before going to see it, an everyday filmgoer may not know if the film is suitable for their children to see as well. For example let’s take two films that were rated R in America: Allied and Pulp Fiction. In the UK the former was rated 15, and the latter 18. Though of different genres, both had violence and repeated uses of profanity, however Allied wasn’t nearly as bad as Pulp Fiction, despite America deciding to give them both the same rating. This system only gets worse when you consider American cinemas, as the ability to take children to see these movies almost makes the system redundant in its ability to restrict who can see the film.

The content maintained by both organisations also have the same overall components that they judge off: violence, sexual content/themes, substance usage/abuse, profanity, language, and nudity. Out of the two systems, the BBFC also have more specifics when it comes to their restrictions, being harsher on content such as depiction of suicide, imitable acts, detailed criminal acts etc. Despite their guidelines being extremely similar, the way they judge these things are vastly different depending on the country. The MPAA have much harsher restrictions on sexual content and language than any other content, which has taken heavy criticism from the likes of Roger Ebert and other critics, with the former claiming that the system focusses on the more trivial aspects of a film. One of my favourite examples of the MPAA’s treatment of this censorship is South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, the film version of the aforementioned Comedy Central show, released in 1999. The film remains to be, what I personally believe, one of the best jabs against the MPAA’s regulations, with the entire premise of the film being that America decides to declare war on Canada for releasing a film, of which is rated R, that contains profanities that the children begin copying. If it was not blatantly obvious that the entire film is mocking the American ratings board, one of the character even says it outright:  “Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!” Due to the restrictions the NC17 rating would put on their film, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone had to fight to make their film an R, though wanted to remain as controversial as possible within these guidelines, in the spirit of how their show pushes the boundaries of acceptability. One example would be that if a film has over 400 uses of swear words, they automatically gain an NC17 rating. Therefore, in the tradition of mockery that is South Park, they used 399 just to spite the MPAA.

As the BBFC do not place the same restrictions on their 18 rated films in comparison to the treatment of NC17s, there are a lot more films with this rating with less content cut out from cinema releases. However as mentioned earlier, they tend to focus more on specifics in film rather than broad aspects. For example, they often cut out words such as “retard” or “spastic” from U and PG films, as unlike in America; they are considered derogatory slang in the UK. Another thing they tend to be stricter with compared to its American cousin is violence, with an example of the film Suicide Squad being rated 15, compared to the MPAA giving it a PG13 due to its content of sustained threat and moderate violence. However, there is less to criticise with the BBFC’s regulation, as their more constrained ratings system means that their censorship of films is less consistent.

But what does this amount to today?  In recent years, there have been fewer and fewer mainstream films that push these boundaries of content in the same way that South Park or Pink Flamingos have. In 2010, eleven mainstream films rated 18 were released worldwide, whilst in 2016 only five were released, and even then two of these films (Elle and The Neon Demon) only had limited releases in England and America, so technically there are only three. So the question remains; why are 18 rated films becoming more of a rarity? Well this question has several answers, but the first would have to be the change in film content within recent years.

Part two – The change in film content

The content in films today is a drastic change from what it was 20/30 years ago. Before the 70s, films that everyone could enjoy were a rarity, as cinema wasn’t as focused on commercial success and appealing to masses of people like it is today. This could be down to the social roles at the time, as there was still a lack of work/home life balance amongst working men and women, with the majority still in 9-5 jobs or families to look after, meaning they couldn’t just go to the cinema every other week or so during their small amount of free time. It was also still fairly expensive to go to the cinema during this time as well, as in 1971 one ticket costed £1.65, which when taking inflation into account, averages out at £21.40, meaning not many people (especially families) could not afford these costs. However the biggest factor in why people weren’t seeing movies at the cinema was simple: the television. After just coming off its golden age from the 50s, by 1970 over 90% of British and American households owned a tv, as they were becoming more available for a more affordable price. With a television, people didn’t need to go out and buy a ticket to a movie when they could just sit at home and watch whatever they wanted that was broadcasting. The old Hollywood styles of film were going out of fashion, as demographics changed from educated middle-aged adults to college students who had the time and money to go to cinemas. They were also more interested in artistic and foreign cinema rather than the big budget musicals and grand historical epics that dominated Hollywood. With profits rapidly decreasing, Hollywood had no choice but to let the old styles of film die out, handing over the gauntlet to young and upcoming creators, who took risks used innovation to revise the movie formula, a move that proved extremely successful, with notable actors and directors from this era still working and celebrated to this day.

Along with costs for cinema tickets rapidly decreasing, going down to just under £10 after inflation, the line of new films was making cinema popular once more and returning it to the populous of the mainstream. However, even with the demographics for audiences getting younger, there was still a huge lack of family films during the 70s. During this time, the closest you could get to family features were Disney’s slew of animated and live action films, as well as a very small amount of films that didn’t do well financially compared with its mouse-eared competitor, but have since attained somewhat of a cult status such as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Charlotte’s Web. However, this would soon come to an end, as with the death of Walt Disney in ’66, his influence slowly fell away from the company’s films during the 70s and 80s, only being revived by Jeffrey Katzenberg in the dubbed “Disney Renaissance” in 1988. With Disney no longer the powerhouse it used to be for family entertainment, others could now expand onto this market, with the likes of Don Bluth, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg becoming the new leads in family film during the 80s and 90s, with The Land Before Time, ET The Extra Terrestrial, Star Wars and The Goonies to name a few. The trend also had something that had rarely been seen before in the Hollywood landscape: mass appeal to both young and old. You could argue that there are still films from before this time that are loved by all, such as Wizard of Oz or Miracle on 34th Street, but never had there been such a high demand for films that could be watched and enjoyed by everyone at any age. To accompany this higher demand, Hollywood started putting in aspects that could appeal to older children (teenagers) and adults, such as darker tones and more mature themes and content. Examples of this include dealing with death and coming to terms with it, which mostly revolved around children’s perspectives, more threatening citations, again with children involved, and many stories featuring those who must mature and come of age during their journeys. The family film proved to be a huge success with audiences, which prompted Hollywood to create more. They were also a great way to cover larger demographics, as it is much cheaper to create one film that appeals to all rather than several that only cover a niche audience. Each year more and more were being released, with more challenging themes slowly being realised in these films.

However, there was also a growing change with media aimed towards older audiences as well. As society grew and altered due to feminism, multiculturalism etc, films also grew alongside it. Old tropes, such as the damsel in distress and moustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain, were being swapped out for strong and developed female protagonists and antagonists with tragic backstories to explain their actions. The content and themes were also becoming less overt; an example of this being The Matrix trilogy, and how many wrote books of their interpretations of these films.

Content may also change so that it can be shown to a desired target audience. Horror movies for examples used to be mainly rated 18 during the 70s and 80s, due to usage of intense gore and psychological terror. However, as demographics shifted to teenagers being a huge demographic for these sorts of films in the 90s and up, horror films had to change their content in order to fit within a more commercial rating. Today, many horror films choose to use tactics such as jumpscares and suspense, which can get them a lower rating and have a wider audience. One instance was The Woman in Black, which didn’t have any frightening content objectively so was rated a 12, but it’s use of tension and startling imagery made many believe it should have received a higher rating.

With this evolution that film was starting to take, you would think that the ratings system would treat them harsher than before. However, contrary to what was to be expected they didn’t seem to change from how they previously rated movies at all, and a reason for this is due to how the media has desensitised the world.

Part three – Media Desensitization

It’s safe to say that over the last few decades, media has seamlessly integrated into our lives, even if we don’t seem to realise it. Through radio and eventually television, we were able to get news stories and learn about the greater world via satellites. However, during this period from around the 1950s to around the 1990s, we were limited in what technology was capable of, as well as the public only being presented these news stories at certain parts of the day. However, in early 1990 the world was introduced to something that would change our ingestion of media forever: the World Wide Web.

Though the World Wide Web was created around 1991, it didn’t begin to pick up major traction till around the late 90s/early 2000s, as slow dial up was replace with what would later be known as Wi-Fi, as well as it being integrated onto other devices such as phones. Now people could access almost anything they wanted at all times, and this wasn’t limited by age, gender or where you live. By the early 2000s, many companies were using the internet for marketing, mostly by having advertisements on webpages. Ten years later everyone began to use the internet in some way or another, whether it be social media, research for projects, reaching out to new clients etc. But with this new ability to access anything, there would come a point where things that were once considered shocking or controversial would become somewhat normalised, or at least not garner the same level of response.

One such example would be terrorist attacks. As they become more frequent in Western society, they have gone from only happening on a small scale around three or four months, to at least one each month in a largely public space, with some even occurring weeks between each other. As they became more common, these attacks began to evoke less reactions from the public each time they occurred, to the point where for many they were just another everyday occurrence. This desensitisation is further brought upon by constant news coverage, with some attacks even being the main headliner for over a week. Our ability to also access this news whenever we want from the internet and 24-hour news channels also numbs us to this concept, and therefore it would be less taboo to explore in media and film.

This idea of our level of exposure affecting how sensitive we are to an issue can also explain why violence is more commonly used throughout Western films of all ratings compared to sexual content. As we see more violence in the media, usually through the news, the internet or even in videogames, it becomes more normal to us, and therefore can be used more in film and television. There are certain levels of violence that can be shown however through different rated pictures. Those aimed at young children usually make their violence rather cartoony, or at the very least not be too imitable by children. An interesting aspect about violence in 12 and 15 rated films is that they can often be very similar in terms of their severity, but a few aspects can be cut out to make it a 12. One example is the use of blood, as if blood is taken out of a scene it can have its rating lowered, such as with The Hunger Games or World War Z, which took out the blood in violent scenes so that it was more accessible to a younger teenage audience. Sexual content on the other hand doesn’t have that same level of media exposure. Even though it’s starting to become less taboo to discuss, the topic of sex is still heavily regulated within America in comparison to violence. .