Current Events > New laws that could be applied to art and entertainment.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I've been thinking about stuff like this for a while. I know it's highly unlikely these rules would be adopted in the Western World, but I honestly think they would improve things a LOT. What do you think of them?

1. No TV series should be allowed to run for more than 3 season.

Reason(s): to keep things fresh.

2. Video game relelases and compilations should be kept to an absolute minimum. Furthermore, no video game is allowed to be rereleased until at least 10 years have passed since its original release, or until things are 3 generations further along, whichever comes first. Note: it is acceptable to port video games "sideways", e.g. from XBox One to PS4, and also, simulatenous development for multiple platforms of the same generation is allowed.

Reason(s): to encourage more new games to be rereleased; to make a console feel more unique, because its games aren't being ported as much; to stop companies whoring games and tricking people into buying enhanced versions of games that are barely different than the originals.

3. No film, or book, is allowed to have more than 2 sequels or spinoffs.

Reason(s): to encourage filmmakers and writers to come up with new settings and ideas, to say nothing of to bring hacks to their knees...and hopefully make them find other types of employment.

4. Musical rereleases are forbidden under all circumstances, except due to newer formats, e.g. MP3s over CDs.

Reason(s): Musical rereleases, except to take into account newer formats, serve no purpose. Also, albums that have a mix of new and old songs are moneygrabbing, and in the case of a recently deceased artist, cheap, tacky and opportunistic.

5. Films are forbidden from having budgets of over 30 million US dollars, and filmmakers should be encouraged to make films with budgets of less than 10 million US dollars.

Reason(s): so companies produce more arthouse style films, and less mainstream style works; to encourage a focus on plot, characters, ideas and themes, rather than action; to completely prevent the production of any further CGI driven superhero popcorn flicks.

6. No TV series is permitted to have sequel series, or spin-off series.

Reason(s): to keep things fresh.

7. No TV series is allowed to return after a hiatus of more than 10 years, unless strong evidence can be provided to justify its return, e.g. large DVD, Blu-Ray or online sales of the original season or seasons.

Reason(s): to prevent a returning series from tarnishing its overall reputation; to avoid problems with much older cast members.

---

You used the word law why...?
---

Well, this is probably the most Sunhawk thing I'll read all week
---

There are lots of good sequels and remakes, and limiting seasons is stupid. There are plenty of shows that are good longer, and some that should end in less time. As for re-releases, there is obviously some situations (rare game, shitty platform, etc) call for it.

Seriously, though, law is a shitty word to use for it.

I can understand some of these, but making them laws? Fuck that. I'd be okay with making some of these the norm, but to legally enforce this shit would be fucking awful.

Let's not obstruct the creation of media, even if the actions taken are hacky as fuck. Hold content creators to a higher standard, and vote with our wallets, sure - but most of this through the lens of law enforcement is batshit insane.
---

This is one of the dumber things you've come up with, and that is saying something.
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Well, this is probably the most Sunhawk thing I'll read all week

It does have that feel to it, doesn't it?

As for the word "law", I meant that completely literally. Laws would be passed by Congress in the United States, the Commons in the UK, to make this stuff legally required. It wouldn't just be suggestions, or advisory in nature. You can't except individual artists, and particularly whorehouse companies to follow this stuff unless it's put into law. They frequently want more money, to say nothing of having some stupid ideas. I think laws like this would be good.

Think of the things we could've prevented, if these laws had gone into effect years ago! Just Friends, and no Joey. We wouldn't have ports of video games from one generation back, with hardly any improvements at all. No Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Spider 1 - 3, and so on. After Michael Jackson had died, we wouldn't have had an album with 1 new song, and about 9 old songs. There would've been no Waterworld. Just Babylon 5, and no Crusade...or The Lost Tales, or Legend of the Rangers.

---

Yeah, no. We get it. You have God-awful opinions. We don't need specifics.
---

Why is this board so hostile to my ideas? I think a lot of them would work pretty well.

I sometimes wonder if I'm just a free-thinker on a board of mostly sheep. Anything new or unusual really bothers them.

I do appreciate the proper responses I've gotten, though.

---

Sunhawk posted...

Why is this board so hostile to my ideas?

Because they are almost universally some of the dumbest shit we've ever read.
---

Any nation with draconian laws like that would very quickly see its entertainment industry relocate to other, more free countries.
---

@pegusus123456

Are you doing to bother to refute ANY of the ideas I've laid out in this topic, or just flame and troll me? There are so many posters on this board that just cannot respond directly to the original post, instead launching into (bad and untrue) ad hominem attacks on the TC. I think that's sad, but I doubt those people care that I think this.

---

After reading the first three suggestions and seeing three violations of freedom of speech I did not even bother to read the rest of the OP.
---

Thompson posted...

Any nation with draconian laws like that would very quickly see its entertainment industry relocate to other, more free countries.

This has occured to me. Although, I think the word "draconian" is too strong. Besides, it would be impractical for a lot of people and companies to move. I doubt writers or musicians would, although perhaps the TV and film companies would.

---

Sunhawk posted...

I sometimes wonder if I'm just a free-thinker on a board of mostly sheep. Anything new or unusual really bothers them.

You want the government to limit the number of sequels.

But sure. It's everyone else that's the issue, and not the person who wants to lawfully restrict artists because he doesn't like what they make.

Surely it's the freethinker that can't handle others liking something he doesn't like that is the real problem, here.
---

Frasiers 4th season opened with The Two Mrs Cranes

Cant support this
---

Well this is stupid.
---

Kitt posted...

Well this is stupid.

Sunhawk, please make this your sig in order to save CE the trouble of saying it for all of your posts.
---

Sunhawk posted...

Thompson posted...

Any nation with draconian laws like that would very quickly see its entertainment industry relocate to other, more free countries.

This has occured to me. Although, I think the word "draconian" is too strong. Besides, it would be impractical for a lot of people and companies to move. I doubt writers or musicians would, although perhaps the TV and film companies would.

It won't happen overnight, but eventually the major players will set up in Canada and Europe, or any other country they deem suitable for continuing their business with continued freedoms. Even smaller authors, such as writers and musicians, may choose to publish their works in, say Australia, wherefrom it's then exported to the US.
---

Mr_Rian posted...

Sunhawk posted...

I sometimes wonder if I'm just a free-thinker on a board of mostly sheep. Anything new or unusual really bothers them.

You want the government to limit the number of sequels.

But sure. It's everyone else that's the issue, and not the person who wants to lawfully restrict artists because he doesn't like what they make.

Surely it's the freethinker that can't handle others liking something he doesn't like that is the real problem, here.

WRT artistic freedoms in the Western World, we already have various restrictions on what can and can't be released. It's not unpresedented. There are limits on too much violence in an artistic work, or having sex or swearing before a TV watershed, and you can't put child pornography in films or TV. This would just be an extension of that, but instead of relating to decency standards, it would be about classiness, and also about quantity. I don't think that's a bad thing.

---

Thompson posted...

Sunhawk posted...

Thompson posted...

Any nation with draconian laws like that would very quickly see its entertainment industry relocate to other, more free countries.

This has occured to me. Although, I think the word "draconian" is too strong. Besides, it would be impractical for a lot of people and companies to move. I doubt writers or musicians would, although perhaps the TV and film companies would.

It won't happen overnight, but eventually the major players will set up in Canada and Europe, or any other country they deem suitable for continuing their business with continued freedoms. Even smaller authors, such as writers and musicians, may choose to publish their works in, say Australia, wherefrom it's then exported to the US.

Maybe, maybe not. Although you used a bad example. Australia is quite conservative with what it allows to be published, broadcast, etc. I think. I know it's meant to be a Western style country (despite clearly being geographically a long way from the West, before some troll in this topic points that out), but it's quite right wing in some ways. Oh, and also, Canada can be conservative about some things, compared to America.

---

Sunhawk posted...

WRT artistic freedoms in the Western World, we already have various restrictions on what can and can't be released. It's not unpresedented. There are limits on too much violence in an artistic work, or having sex or swearing before a TV watershed, and you can't put child pornography in films or TV. This would just be an extension of that, but instead of relating to decency standards, it would be about classiness, and also about quantity. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What does any of that have to do with you believing you are a freethinker?
---

Mr_Rian posted...

What does any of that have to do with you believing you are a freethinker?

How can one be a "Free Thinker" if they come up with this many restrictive rules?

Who is he to try to restrict anybody?
---

Mr_Rian posted...

Sunhawk posted...

WRT artistic freedoms in the Western World, we already have various restrictions on what can and can't be released. It's not unpresedented. There are limits on too much violence in an artistic work, or having sex or swearing before a TV watershed, and you can't put child pornography in films or TV. This would just be an extension of that, but instead of relating to decency standards, it would be about classiness, and also about quantity. I don't think that's a bad thing.

What does any of that have to do with you believing you are a freethinker?

I'm providing a legal / sociological justification. It's easier to accept something if it's not completely new, but builds on something that already exists. Do you deny this?

---

Kitt posted...

Well this is stupid.

---

Sunhawk posted...

Thompson posted...

Sunhawk posted...

Thompson posted...

Any nation with draconian laws like that would very quickly see its entertainment industry relocate to other, more free countries.

This has occured to me. Although, I think the word "draconian" is too strong. Besides, it would be impractical for a lot of people and companies to move. I doubt writers or musicians would, although perhaps the TV and film companies would.

It won't happen overnight, but eventually the major players will set up in Canada and Europe, or any other country they deem suitable for continuing their business with continued freedoms. Even smaller authors, such as writers and musicians, may choose to publish their works in, say Australia, wherefrom it's then exported to the US.

Maybe, maybe not. Although you used a bad example. Australia is quite conservative with what it allows to be published, broadcast, etc. I think. I know it's meant to be a Western style country (despite clearly being geographically a long way from the West, before some troll in this topic points that out), but it's quite right wing in some ways. Oh, and also, Canada can be conservative about some things, compared to America.

I did mention Europe, which ranges from conservative (East Europe) to liberal (The Nordic countries). I doubt a place like Norway would see any use to the laws you have conceived, as their entertainment industry is quite small as it is and would only shrink to almost nothing imposed with undue limits.
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

Mr_Rian posted...

What does any of that have to do with you believing you are a freethinker?

How can one be a "Free Thinker" if they come up with this many restrictive rules?

Who is he to try to restrict anybody?

I'm absolutely amazed nobody in this topic has brought up the 1st Amendment, since Americans always assume people they're speaking to online is American.

Also, we need laws to ensure our freedoms. It's counter-intuitive, but it's true.

---

Sunhawk posted...

I'm providing a legal / sociological justification. It's easier to accept something if it's not completely new, but builds on something that already exists. Do you deny this?

Your laws are not at all analogous to preexisting laws. Every single one of your laws are solely designed to limit what you personally don't like.

When people want to promote "new" and "fresh" ideas, they open their pocketbooks.

Your "laws" honestly sound like something a terrible villain in an episode of an 80s cartoon would come up with, only to be foiled in the end by the highschool heros showing the old man the error of his ways.

If anything, there should be more freedom, not less.
---

Bandit_Keith posted...

This is one of the dumber things you've come up with, and that is saying something.

Mr_Rian posted...

Sunhawk posted...

I'm providing a legal / sociological justification. It's easier to accept something if it's not completely new, but builds on something that already exists. Do you deny this?

Your laws are not at all analogous to preexisting laws. Every single one of your laws are solely designed to limit what you personally don't like.

When people want to promote "new" and "fresh" ideas, they open their pocketbooks.

Your "laws" honestly sound like something a terrible villain in an episode of an 80s cartoon would come up with, only to be foiled in the end by the highschool heros showing the old man the error of his ways.

If anything, there should be more freedom, not less.

To limit what I don't like? How is that like so many Americans being terrified of sex and nudity (and swearing), so you can't show it at all on broadcast TV? How is that people not saying they don't like something, and passing laws to prevent it? Also, how is that not prudish and stupid? Britain TV isn't like that at all, although we do have the 9 o'clock watershed.

---

Sunhawk is like an average 12 year oldthat thinks he's more cultured than others. But everyone else can clearly see that he isn't mature enough for real life.
---

Sunhawk posted...

To limit what I don't like? How is that like so many Americans being terrified of sex and nudity (and swearing), so you can't show it at all on broadcast TV? How is that people not saying they don't like something, and passing laws to prevent it? Also, how is that not prudish and stupid? Britain TV isn't like that at all, although we do have the 9 o'clock watershed.

Because it's you. Just you. Not the vast majority. And as I said:

Mr_Rian posted...

If anything, there should be more freedom, not less.

---

Mr_Rian posted...

Sunhawk posted...

To limit what I don't like? How is that like so many Americans being terrified of sex and nudity (and swearing), so you can't show it at all on broadcast TV? How is that people not saying they don't like something, and passing laws to prevent it? Also, how is that not prudish and stupid? Britain TV isn't like that at all, although we do have the 9 o'clock watershed.

Because it's you. Just you. Not the vast majority. And as I said:

Mr_Rian posted...

If anything, there should be more freedom, not less.

You've never heard anyone complain about all the sequels a film gets? Or how am album comes out, with a mix of old and new songs? Or how all the rereleases we get these days in video games take away time from making new games? Or how Simpsons has over 15 bad seasons, and people are really upset it's still going?

Seriously? Mr_Rian, you're pretty bad at making stuff up. You're not particularly convincing, saying things like "just you". Tell the truth, it's much better.

---

I'm saying you're the only one who wants to make it a law.

But I don't have to convince you of anything. Your ideas are simply terrible. Everyone has told you so. But you whined that most aren't engaging with you, so I threw you a bone work some discussion, rather than just laugh at you like everyone else does.

Your reasoning for every single law would fail to hold up in any court of law in the US, Canada, U.K., etc. They are just outright bad, and can be circumvented with ease. They ultimately serve no meaningful purpose.
---

I don't think those would actually lead to the results you expect.

All of those ideas sound terrible
---

sunhawk doesnt actually want the mainstream to shift to his sensibilities because then he couldnt hold them over others
---

Sunhawk posted...

No TV series should be allowed to run for more than 3 season.

No
---

Sunhawk posted...

Why is this board so hostile to my ideas? I think a lot of them would work pretty well.

I sometimes wonder if I'm just a free-thinker on a board of mostly sheep. Anything new or unusual really bothers them.

I do appreciate the proper responses I've gotten, though.

your ideas are not new or unusual. they're just stupid
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Well, this is probably the most Sunhawk thing I'll read all week

Not true, what if he posts about the heritage center again
---

Ah, the heritage centre. My single favourite building in Britain. I was thinking of getting a rich friend to donate a million pounds to it. What do you think? If they add in extra books, though, they would have to tighten the rules further. At the moment, it's using pencils, not pens. They could confiscate the pencils as well! You have to remember hundreds of pages from books, then transcribe them at home. And instead of switching your phone off upon entering the main part of the building, they can take your iPhone X and smash it infront of you, and only then allow you in.
---