This was the text of one of the google ad links in Katharina's grief thread. And i just couldn't help but click on it. Here's the link if anyone is curious:
It's a site for some sort of movie rental service, similar to Netflix, called CleanFilms.
They take movies and edit out all the profanity, violence, nudity, etc...
A couple things about this site. First, here's the text from something some girl who used to work in hollywood wrote:
quote: In my younger days I worked in the Hollywood TV and movie industry. From my experiences there I can tell you this: Everyone from the screen writers to the costume and set designers to the actors and agents - they live a completely different lifestyle than you and I do.
The majority of them aren't married and don't have children. A large number are homosexuals, and the rest are very supportive of the homosexual behavior of their friends and colleagues. The attitude is that "it's all good" and they're open to try and accept anything. Most of them don't align themselves with any sort of religion or set of morality - yet these are the people who create the programming that all of us Christians watch! Should we be surprised when it doesn't meet our standards?
These ultra-liberals are rabid mad at anyone who dares insinuate that right and wrong exist, because it means that they would have to re-evaluate their lives and choices. This is why they are doing the best they can to use their influence in the media to indoctrinate our youth with their agenda; to "teach" them to embrace of the things that we know are wrong. Today's Shrek watchers are tomorrow's choice-making adults, voters and lawmakers.
First off, look at her picture, she looks evil! I swear!
Second, maybe it's just me, but I feel they should've got someone else to write that little intro. Granted, they're not writing for someone like me as I'm not religious and don't have a problem with hollywood, but for some reason I still feel offended reading it. I mean, what does homesexuality have to do with profanity or nudity in movies? Why the attack? And what's wrong with Shrek anyway?
But this isn't really the point of my thread. I'm curious about people's thoughts on this in a broader aspect. My feeling is that if you have a problem with the content of a movie, don't watch it. Isn't the problem for religious people, the message that is being sent? Take away some nudity and swearing and the message is still the same right? You're saying, Hollywood is bad, these movies are corrupt and send our children the wrong message, but if we cut out 5 or 10 minutes then it's all good. Seems sort of disengenious to me. Your child is still going to see the "evil" movie, just a watered down version of it.
Thoughts?
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
There's a local company out here called CleanFlix that does a similar thing. I haven't done it in a couple of years, but I have rented movies from them.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I'm somewhere in the middle. Ratings are not as clear cut as, say, grades. For instance, if a quiz is out of ten points, and you get 8 questions right, you get an 80%, but movies cover such a wide range, it's impossible to fit them all netly into the few ratings categories there are. Ratings are general guidelines, and parents/moviegoers have to go from there and decide what it right for them.
In a way, ratings are determined in much the same way that essays are scored on standardized tests. The test may score on a scale of 1-4, but there are hundreds of essays, each a little different. You just have to establish some relatively specific criteris and assign the level that best corresponds. I've done this. It sucks. I like to describe it like so: Put 50 people in a room and give them each a pile of Jelly Bellies and tell them to separate the jelly beans into four categories...and then expect all 50 people to come up with the same category. Good luck.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Those kinds of services have been around in Utah for years.
I'd say there's a whole spectrum of thought on that, from "They took out that sex scene so now it's safe to watch" to "The overall feel and message of the movie is such that even without that sex scene, I still don't feel comfortable watching it."
Businesses who clean up movies are obviously in the former end of the spectrum and will market as such. But like I said, there's a whole spectrum of thought. Lots of gray. I don't think you can always call it hypocrisy when someone watches one of those movies.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
okay, I understand that there may be a certain amount of films out there, that aside from an occasional swear word are devoid of any content a religious person may find offensive. And a parent may want their child to be able to see that movie, without having to hear some of the language.
But I feel a much large percentage of movies, even with all the the profanity removed, still send that same wrong message that these folks are trying to edit out.
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
quote: Take away some nudity and swearing and the message is still the same right?
In some cases, yes. I think it depends on the movie.
I can think of two examples. First, I love the newest version of Peter Pan. I love the mixing of reality and fantasy, the symbolism of childhood, and the coming-of-age. It's not necessarily a Christian message, but I happen to be a Christian who finds it compelling. However, there is one shot in the movie that shows the naked butts of two boys as they hang upside down. It's not at all sexual in nature, and I'm sure it was only meant to be funny, but it's just something that I really didn't need or want to see. Taking that shot out would not change the message at all, or detract from the story, but it would make me feel more comfortable about watching that movie.
My second example is I Capture the Castle. That movie could have easily been rated only PG if it didn't have two scenes of nudity. As it is, it had to be rated R. And again, taking out those two scenes, or at least not showing as much as they did, would not change the message or the story. It would just be better for those of us who do not wish to see that kind of thing.
I'm sure there are also examples of movies that, even if all the "bad" stuff was taken out, it would still be giving a bad message, but I can't think of any examples right now. I'll have to think about that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We just moved into derivative works in Copyright today. I'll keep an eye out for an applicable case.
I do know that editing a movie is the creation of a derivative work, which is a protected right. But there are many exceptions.
Dagonee
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I don't think i'd have such a problem with the site if its purpose was just to remove profanity from movies. It's because they're saying how hollywood and the messages the movies are trying to convey are evil, but they've fixed it all up by removing those few things.
I mean their title is "protect your children from hollywood's evil influences". Wouldn't the way to do be more along the lines of not supporting those movies? Not watching them? Telling you're children not to watch them...
[ March 21, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Censoring art forms is good!
That way people won't have to deal with real aspects of life they don't like.
If I don't see it, it isn't happening!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: However, there is one shot in the movie that shows the naked butts of two boys as they hang upside down. It's not at all sexual in nature, and I'm sure it was only meant to be funny, but it's just something that I really didn't need or want to see.
Why not?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
jebus, i don't know what you're talking about. I've never been naked, and don't plan on it any time soon.
Tobias is my hero.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
The fact is, fostering the "us vs. them" mentality is a more effective marketing strategy than "we have a product that is more suitable to your tastes." This is a sad trend in American marketing. It is what has led to the incredible amounts of success of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore. It's so much easier on today's lazy consumer when you remove any hints of the gray area, and conveniently relegate the entire world to black or white. In this case, Hollywood=Evil, therefore CleanFilms=Good.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
Jebus202, you made me *snort* with laughter.
Movies are intellectual property and should NOT be futzed around with. Directors, producers, editors, writers and a boatload of other people spend quite a bit of time creating, editing and producing THAT VERSION of the film. What you see is what they feel needed to be included, for *whatever* reason. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Just like changing the channel . If you do not want to (or are not willing to) experience what the people who produced the film WANT you to experience (ie: their version) then don't bother.
sorry, but this is a sore spot with me - I think it's ridiculous that someone would take the time to hack up perfectly good movies becuase they don't want their kids to see a little bare flesh or hear a bad word. How about REAL life, people? It's waaaaay worse than the movies.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Gryphon, by that argument, it should be illegal to hilight, take notes in, or cross out part of a textbook that you own.
[ March 21, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
not at all - if you're making or taking notes for your own personal enlightenment, then that's fine - these people are editing and RE-DISTRIBUTING the films to the public. That's the kicker... Editing without permission in order to produce an altered end product based on the original without the input of the creator and distributing it under the ORIGINAL name is just plain wrong.
You marking up your texts for study is not editing or changing.
Look at it like this - what if you decided you didn't like the face that Ender killed Bonzo, and you thought that the novel was just a wee bit too graphic - well, you decide that you'll just go ahead and change a few things, leave a few things out, and re-publish the book in your local library under the same title. Is that right? Not in my humble opinion.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not the same thing at all.
If I highlight or even cross things out of a book and sell it, it's understood that I'm selling it "as is" and I'm not trying to sell it as a revised or derivative work.
If I retyped the textbook, made some changes here and there to suit my preferences, and sold as a new entity I would be violating the copyright of the creator(s).
I believe what the movie resellers are doing is legal because of the wording that allows television studios to edit movies for time and audience considerations (I think). Personally, I think creators should start adding language to their contracts to either permit or deny this right to resellers such as the ones mentioned here. If you want your vision to remain untouched, put it in your contract and enforce it. If you don't, you really can't bitch about it when it happens.
[ March 21, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, I really like that Mona Lisa picture, but I hate that smile. I'll just paint over it and call it the same. That smile is the kind of smile one has after really lewd adulterous sex, and I don't want that image to be stared at.
[ March 21, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Legally, that's what they are trying to do.
They don't sell edited movies. They sell the service that will edit movies for people that those people already own.
The companies that rent out those movies use a similar work-around. In order to rent movies from them, you have to pay to become a member and therefore a partial owner of those movies.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
adam613, what the heck does that have to do with this?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I doubt moviemakers will have any luck fighting this with existing movies due to pre-existing legal loopholes. But future deals should be available for moviemakers to prevent such alterations without permission, even if they have to give up revenue for it.
Some moviemakers might not care. Some may care very much, and they should be able to control how their work is presented.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think we're arguing different things. I'm discussing the rights of the moviemakers to keep their work from being altered without their permission.
If a movie is sold to a network, that permission has been given already. Some moviemakers may opt to edit a TV-friendly version themselves to maintain control, some just give it up for the networks to chop. But permission was granted, either way. And I really doubt the moviemaker cares if you watch the commercials or not.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
well, Adam, I seem to have pushed your buttons.
I can choose to watch or not watch commercials - they're not part of the television show I'm watching. I'm also not editing the content of the show OR the commercials and re-broadcasting. Commercials are paid advertisements that the networks *hope* we'll watch in between the bits of the TV show. They sell that "air" based on the ratings of the particular SHOW. If I don't like a commercial, I will indeed change the channel, or fast forward if I've DVRed the show. That's not altering the content of what I'm there for in any way.
Am I making sense yet? You seem to be missing my point.
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
quote: Why not?
Tom, it's not that I'm all, "What a horrible movie that is, showing nude children!" or anything. I just don't like to go around looking at butts. No matter whose butt it is.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't know about evil - she's kinda cute, but she does look pissed about something.
I do kinda wonder if this isn't a blatant ploy to target the rabid, ultra-rightwing conservatives and sell a product, good and/or service.
-Trevor
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Which is an interesting thing to talk about, true. But it's a different subject than this one. Similar, but not the same thing.
[ March 21, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
If they edit Casino, I bet the movie's about sixteen minutes long.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I simply feel mildly uncomfortable with editting films. Doesn't seem right. It's not that I am a big fan of cussing. Really, too much cussing can get annoying. Nudity can be rather delicious, depending. But violence. Gods, I HATE too much violence. It makes my body ache.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Does CleanFilms edit DePalma movies? I bet their cut of "Body Double" is a laugh riot.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:However, there is one shot in the movie that shows the naked butts of two boys as they hang upside down. It's not at all sexual in nature, and I'm sure it was only meant to be funny, but it's just something that I really didn't need or want to see.
I don't remember it this way. As I recall, the suggestion is that is what the little girl sees, but we really just see the boys turned upside down in a blur, and then they are holding their nightshirts in such a way as to cover themselves. Unless the movie was different from the DVD, that is . . .
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
You know, she has a point-- sometimes there's just that one scene (like the one in The Matrix Reloaded) that ruins the rest of the film.
On the other hand, websites shouldn't talk. We need a fist-shaking smilie. Or even an I-had-nothing-to-do-with-this-noise-coming-from-my-machine-so-you-can-all-stop-staring-at-me-now smilie.
--j_k
Posted by HesterGray (Member # 7384) on :
quote: I don't remember it this way. As I recall, the suggestion is that is what the little girl sees, but we really just see the boys turned upside down in a blur, and then they are holding their nightshirts in such a way as to cover themselves. Unless the movie was different from the DVD, that is . . .
Did you see the fullscreen version on DVD? Because that's what I have, and after I watched it, I realized that I hadn't seen the naked butt shot. I was really happy because I thought they had decided to take it out. Then I watched it at a friends house. And she had the widescreen version. The shot was still in. You just can't see it (much) in the fullscreen version.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If their editing is on the up-and-up legal, let them edit. I don't have a problem with this type of censorship at all.
Recently, I completed a children's poem where one of the protagonists loses his trousers to a band of goblins.
Here's the passage in question
quote: Stand up in a forest, as deep as the other. There's no help for you now, not father nor mother! The goblins that dwell here are both cunning and wild And they'd just as soon eat one as look at a child. If you can summon a wizard, you might have a chance. Or the goblins might barter your life for. . . your pants. Not a bad bargain, as such bargains go, And thankfully, here they never see snow.
I was suprised by the reaction of some of my readers-- quite a number of them were uncomfortable with the idea of a child walking around in his underwear for the rest of the poem. (My kids thought it was funny)
Underwear and bare bottoms are inherently funny to kids (as long as the subject is similarly aged). Watch some older cartoons-- naked backsides and near-nakedness abound. By one standard, we have become much more puritanical about innocent or accidental nudity; and yet, we have begun to sexualize children earlier and earlier.
When John and Michael get hoisted into the tree by Tiger Lilly's trap, that nudity is funny and acceptable. The Bratz dolls (bare midriffs) are not. John and Michael's predicament is funny AND it acknowledges a social more that my family supports-- the boys do try to cover up, after all. The Bratz dolls do the opposite.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't really see the problem here. Don't networks alter movies all the time to edit out explicit content? I mean, when they show something like Me, Myself, and Irene, they even digitally impose new images over offending ones - as well as cut scenes and dub over language.
How is this different? They are not claiming it is an original work, just a "cleaned" one. What rights does a network have to censor or edit and redistribute, that another company doesn't have the right to do for some reason?
I really don't see an issue here.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
The networks have been given permission to do this.
The companies that do it for households like mine don't.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The thing is, why have the networks been given permission? The studios want their product out, to as many people as possible, so that they can make more money.
If an edited version will accomplish this on a network television station, why not an edited copy sent directly to the home? The studio is still making money off of the sale of the product - and now to one more person than before.
If they have such an issue with these middle-man companies, they should offer the service themselves. Just like they offer widescreen v. fullscreen, they should offer versions with different ratings.
If nothing else, this would allow teachers to show movies like Shakespeare in Love (sans nudity), or Glory (sans head exploding), or Excalibur (sans nudity) to their students without worrying about the R rating.
In spirit, there really isn't much difference in what the networks are doing and this "cleaning" company is - allowing wider audiences to have access to the product. If it's strictly a letter of the law problem, then studios would be best served licensing these companies or taking over operations for themselves.
As for the attitude of the introduction, it was abrasive and done for effect. Its intent was to draw attention, and it has done so, it seems. Try checking out www.capalert.com if you want excessive, over-the-top Christian film commentary.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I saw Glory in my high school American History class. They forwarded past the exploding head thing.
quote:they don't consider commercials optional.
:muses: Didn't one of the Turner executives make this claim? That the public was stealing from the broadcast networks by flipping channels?
Mmm. . . Not quite. TiVO is stealing though, according this guy.
quote:I'm a big believer we have to make television more convenient or we will drive the penetration of PVRs {Personal Video Recorders, such as TiVo} and things like that, which I'm not sure is good for the cable industry or the broadcast industry or the networks... {Interviewer: Why not?} ...Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.
[ March 23, 2005, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Luckily, legally speaking he's full of bs. All Tivo's doing is allowing a timeshifting of the shows, and the ability to move around in those shows at various speeds. The first of which is a well protected right, and the second of which is pretty much a consequence of the first -- people have been fast forwarding and rewinding timeshifted copyrighted content since they started taping radio shows, if not before.