![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, March 31, 2007, March 31, 2010, March 31, 2012, March 31, 2020, and March 31, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Motion Picture Production Code to Hays Code. The result of the discussion was moved. |
http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/27/t/000395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 ( talk) 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following. Strictly speaking, the Miracle Decision had no impact on the Production Code. The Code was never a First Amendment issue since it was put into place by the film industry itself. Thus, it was self-censorship and not governmental censorship. The Miracle Decision really only applies to govenmental censorship. -- Jeremy Butler 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
` 149.171.91.189 ( talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I think this is a particularly badly written article. 149.171.91.189 ( talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The article includes a shot from "Glorifying the American Girl", which I assume is because it is pre-Hays and the showgirl is topless, but the article doesn't specifically mention why this was included. Is there a specific reason this was chosen? I personally never heard of the film. Is it representative of what was happening at the time, which prompted the Code or was it somewhat unusual, but more and more frequently occuring in films? Please note, I am NOT objecting to the picture, just want it to be placed in context. Thanks Jimaginator 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would somebody familiar with the code please add a bit saying exactly what these codes mean? Thanks!!! AMackenzie ( talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
While the films in the tagged section are notably influenced by the Hays Code, it appears that they are written in an entirely unprofessional, POV, unencyclopedic manner, almost as if ranting. The passages are long analyses of trivial details that could perhaps still be referenced or included but in a different manner. Any help would be appreciated. 208.0.108.69 ( talk) 08:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the "Coded Films" Articles -
I removed one but what the heck are they doing here on this page? I came on to further research the Hays Code and find someone decides to have an entire portion of the page devoted to 4 movies with gay themes or what the author supposes are gay themes. Now I know why this site is not allowed for referencing for any papers.
There is hardly any information about the pre-code films (before 1934) or much about Joseph Breen and his Breening techniques.
As for the person who answered the question regarding the MPAA ratings - Why the heck would you answer if you were unsure? M stood for mature audience. It preceded GP that stood for General with Parent and was replaced by PG that stands for parental guidance. X never stood for anything - it was adults only and usually contained nudity or sexuality (Last Tango In Paris was rated X). You were right - R stood for restricted, but it is anyone under the age of 17, not 18.
I appreciate the author who wrote extensively about 4 movies (out of hundreds of thousands that were coded) put effort into their work, but they are out of place on this page. They should be moved to a page about gay themed movies during production code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.53.186 ( talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a subsection on Kings Row. As I find other sources on other movies, I'll add to this article, as subsections if significant enough. As I said before, I agree with the edits removing mini-essays on films that had nothing to do with the Hays Code. However, removal of large segments of material without explanation is usually reverted as vandalism. Please be sure to use proper edit summaries and explanations on this page, when removing content in the future. Stetsonharry ( talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The “Enforcement” section is a mess. Organizationally, it reads as though paragraphs were randomly placed, and flow is non-existent. Made the following changes: 1. Removed two sentences about US Customs prohibiting the movie “Ecstasy”. Information does not seem relevant. 2. Minor - Changed location of “Enforcement of the Production Code led to the dissolution of many local censorship boards.” to preceeding sentence (more relevant location). 3. Minor – changed location of RCA offices to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 4. Minor - Changed location about Betty Boop to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 5. Minor – merged information about Cassablance to the previous paragraph; this is used to illustrate the subject of the previous paragraph and is not needed as a stand-alone paragraph. 6. Removed information about the Tweety cartoon. This doesn’t add any new information or further the subject matter and, though interesting and technically relevant, is inappropriate in the body of the article. 7. Removed sentence about “The Moon is Blue” early in “Breen Era” section. This sentence was irrelevant in its location, and topic is discussed later in the article. 8. Removed subsection about “King’s Row.” While it is a good illustration, the length and location are awkward. Further, there is no indication as to why this is an example important enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Did it have an impact on the content or application of the code? If so, this information should be delineated. If not but inclusion is desired, perhaps a section dedicated to such examples should be created and this included as a subsection within. 9. Though content was preserved, “Political censorship” was eliminated as a subsection. Subsection applied to one paragraph, and not any other content within it. 10. Subsections are based upon chronology, which is great. However, most of the information towards the end of the “Breen Era” relates to the weakening and elimination of the production code. I feel this information is bettered centralized. Therefore, moving to “Final Years” subsection and renaming “Decline of the Production Code.” This increases localized relevancy and also enhances readability. 11. A lot of minor edits, mostly relating to location of content, within “Decline” subsection. 12. Though content was preserved, removed subsection heading for “The Pawnbroker.” Though there is a lot of information on this film, its own subsection is unnecessary when folded in “Decline” subsection. It also enhances readability by flowing more smoothly into the next section, which is a continuation of the “Decline” subsection. Geno the Great ( talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Motion Picture Production Code Aervanath ( talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There's vandalism throughout this Wikipedia page with the word penis.
Well played, vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.230 ( talk) 08:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of an article where strict neutrality doesn't work well, because it prohibits discussing matters that need discussion (either within the article, or in referenced material). The "unfortunate" thing about the Production Code is that it forced film makers to show some degree of wit and creativity, rather than pandering to the lowest tastes of the audience. I am absolutely against censorship, but I also realize that censorship (or at least minimal levels of taste and discretion) can result in better motion pictures. This needs to be addressed. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Not directly related to previous comment, but dealing with POV. I removed the italicized material from the paragraph below:
My reasoning was that "beacon of rectitude" sounds snarky but provides no real info about Hays, and the part about lying to the Senate does not include helpful detail; for example, what exactly Hays lied about! This change was reverted earlier, and while I think the part about lying to the Senate could be included if more info were included, I see no reason to keep the "beacon of rectitude." Philip K Glass ( talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
References
25. Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy."
I have no idea what this means.
Xylon.doulas ( talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards
of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should
never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
Correct standards of life shall be presented on the screen,
subject only to necessary dramatic contrasts.
Law, natural or human, should not be ridiculed,
nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
—"Principles Underlying the [Production] Code," 1930 [1]
This quotebox might be useful, but I couldn't figure out where to put it so that didn't mess-up the page →
~E: 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
References
So this is what the line in the early, pre-Sylvester Tweety Bird cartoon is referring to. One cat forces the other to climb a ladder to grab the baby bird out of the nest. He gets to the top, and the one on the ground is yelling at him to "Get the bird, stupid! Give me the bird! Give...me...the...bird!" The other cat looks at the audience and quietly mutters "If the Hays Office would let me, I'd give 'im the boid alright!". So much for Looney Tunes being for children (it wasn't, of course). Does anyone think this would be useful in a "Popular culture section", or something? AnnaGoFast ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Is a picture of the famous "Thou Shalt Not" poster available? That would be a good addition to this article. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motion Picture Production Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything about the legacy of the code? I Think this would be super interesting and what its long term effects on American cinema were. dh74g3y ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. As the most common name. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Motion Picture Production Code → Hays Code – I think that Hays Code would be the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. I didn't realize that there was already a requested move discussion (from 2009) when I tried to boldly move this page, so I'm starting this discussion to see if consensus may have changed. I will say that even the lead of the article brings up that it's popularly known as the Hays Code. There's also plenty of reliable sources that describe it as the Hays Code [2] [3] (specifically stating that it's "commonly known" as this), [4] [5] [6], etc. Clovermoss (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 31, 2004, March 31, 2005, March 31, 2006, March 31, 2007, March 31, 2010, March 31, 2012, March 31, 2020, and March 31, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 8 July 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Motion Picture Production Code to Hays Code. The result of the discussion was moved. |
http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/27/t/000395.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 ( talk) 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following. Strictly speaking, the Miracle Decision had no impact on the Production Code. The Code was never a First Amendment issue since it was put into place by the film industry itself. Thus, it was self-censorship and not governmental censorship. The Miracle Decision really only applies to govenmental censorship. -- Jeremy Butler 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
` 149.171.91.189 ( talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I think this is a particularly badly written article. 149.171.91.189 ( talk) 06:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The article includes a shot from "Glorifying the American Girl", which I assume is because it is pre-Hays and the showgirl is topless, but the article doesn't specifically mention why this was included. Is there a specific reason this was chosen? I personally never heard of the film. Is it representative of what was happening at the time, which prompted the Code or was it somewhat unusual, but more and more frequently occuring in films? Please note, I am NOT objecting to the picture, just want it to be placed in context. Thanks Jimaginator 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Would somebody familiar with the code please add a bit saying exactly what these codes mean? Thanks!!! AMackenzie ( talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
While the films in the tagged section are notably influenced by the Hays Code, it appears that they are written in an entirely unprofessional, POV, unencyclopedic manner, almost as if ranting. The passages are long analyses of trivial details that could perhaps still be referenced or included but in a different manner. Any help would be appreciated. 208.0.108.69 ( talk) 08:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the "Coded Films" Articles -
I removed one but what the heck are they doing here on this page? I came on to further research the Hays Code and find someone decides to have an entire portion of the page devoted to 4 movies with gay themes or what the author supposes are gay themes. Now I know why this site is not allowed for referencing for any papers.
There is hardly any information about the pre-code films (before 1934) or much about Joseph Breen and his Breening techniques.
As for the person who answered the question regarding the MPAA ratings - Why the heck would you answer if you were unsure? M stood for mature audience. It preceded GP that stood for General with Parent and was replaced by PG that stands for parental guidance. X never stood for anything - it was adults only and usually contained nudity or sexuality (Last Tango In Paris was rated X). You were right - R stood for restricted, but it is anyone under the age of 17, not 18.
I appreciate the author who wrote extensively about 4 movies (out of hundreds of thousands that were coded) put effort into their work, but they are out of place on this page. They should be moved to a page about gay themed movies during production code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.53.186 ( talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a subsection on Kings Row. As I find other sources on other movies, I'll add to this article, as subsections if significant enough. As I said before, I agree with the edits removing mini-essays on films that had nothing to do with the Hays Code. However, removal of large segments of material without explanation is usually reverted as vandalism. Please be sure to use proper edit summaries and explanations on this page, when removing content in the future. Stetsonharry ( talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The “Enforcement” section is a mess. Organizationally, it reads as though paragraphs were randomly placed, and flow is non-existent. Made the following changes: 1. Removed two sentences about US Customs prohibiting the movie “Ecstasy”. Information does not seem relevant. 2. Minor - Changed location of “Enforcement of the Production Code led to the dissolution of many local censorship boards.” to preceeding sentence (more relevant location). 3. Minor – changed location of RCA offices to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 4. Minor - Changed location about Betty Boop to previous paragraph (more relevant location). 5. Minor – merged information about Cassablance to the previous paragraph; this is used to illustrate the subject of the previous paragraph and is not needed as a stand-alone paragraph. 6. Removed information about the Tweety cartoon. This doesn’t add any new information or further the subject matter and, though interesting and technically relevant, is inappropriate in the body of the article. 7. Removed sentence about “The Moon is Blue” early in “Breen Era” section. This sentence was irrelevant in its location, and topic is discussed later in the article. 8. Removed subsection about “King’s Row.” While it is a good illustration, the length and location are awkward. Further, there is no indication as to why this is an example important enough to warrant inclusion in this article. Did it have an impact on the content or application of the code? If so, this information should be delineated. If not but inclusion is desired, perhaps a section dedicated to such examples should be created and this included as a subsection within. 9. Though content was preserved, “Political censorship” was eliminated as a subsection. Subsection applied to one paragraph, and not any other content within it. 10. Subsections are based upon chronology, which is great. However, most of the information towards the end of the “Breen Era” relates to the weakening and elimination of the production code. I feel this information is bettered centralized. Therefore, moving to “Final Years” subsection and renaming “Decline of the Production Code.” This increases localized relevancy and also enhances readability. 11. A lot of minor edits, mostly relating to location of content, within “Decline” subsection. 12. Though content was preserved, removed subsection heading for “The Pawnbroker.” Though there is a lot of information on this film, its own subsection is unnecessary when folded in “Decline” subsection. It also enhances readability by flowing more smoothly into the next section, which is a continuation of the “Decline” subsection. Geno the Great ( talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was moved to Motion Picture Production Code Aervanath ( talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There's vandalism throughout this Wikipedia page with the word penis.
Well played, vandal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.230 ( talk) 08:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of an article where strict neutrality doesn't work well, because it prohibits discussing matters that need discussion (either within the article, or in referenced material). The "unfortunate" thing about the Production Code is that it forced film makers to show some degree of wit and creativity, rather than pandering to the lowest tastes of the audience. I am absolutely against censorship, but I also realize that censorship (or at least minimal levels of taste and discretion) can result in better motion pictures. This needs to be addressed. WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Not directly related to previous comment, but dealing with POV. I removed the italicized material from the paragraph below:
My reasoning was that "beacon of rectitude" sounds snarky but provides no real info about Hays, and the part about lying to the Senate does not include helpful detail; for example, what exactly Hays lied about! This change was reverted earlier, and while I think the part about lying to the Senate could be included if more info were included, I see no reason to keep the "beacon of rectitude." Philip K Glass ( talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
References
25. Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy."
I have no idea what this means.
Xylon.doulas ( talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards
of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should
never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
Correct standards of life shall be presented on the screen,
subject only to necessary dramatic contrasts.
Law, natural or human, should not be ridiculed,
nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.
—"Principles Underlying the [Production] Code," 1930 [1]
This quotebox might be useful, but I couldn't figure out where to put it so that didn't mess-up the page →
~E: 74.60.29.141 ( talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
References
So this is what the line in the early, pre-Sylvester Tweety Bird cartoon is referring to. One cat forces the other to climb a ladder to grab the baby bird out of the nest. He gets to the top, and the one on the ground is yelling at him to "Get the bird, stupid! Give me the bird! Give...me...the...bird!" The other cat looks at the audience and quietly mutters "If the Hays Office would let me, I'd give 'im the boid alright!". So much for Looney Tunes being for children (it wasn't, of course). Does anyone think this would be useful in a "Popular culture section", or something? AnnaGoFast ( talk) 05:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Is a picture of the famous "Thou Shalt Not" poster available? That would be a good addition to this article. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 20:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motion Picture Production Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything about the legacy of the code? I Think this would be super interesting and what its long term effects on American cinema were. dh74g3y ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. As the most common name. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Motion Picture Production Code → Hays Code – I think that Hays Code would be the WP:COMMONNAME for this article. I didn't realize that there was already a requested move discussion (from 2009) when I tried to boldly move this page, so I'm starting this discussion to see if consensus may have changed. I will say that even the lead of the article brings up that it's popularly known as the Hays Code. There's also plenty of reliable sources that describe it as the Hays Code [2] [3] (specifically stating that it's "commonly known" as this), [4] [5] [6], etc. Clovermoss (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)