For those of you who don't know what a ClearPlay DVD player is, it filters out a determined amount of bad language, violence and sex from the movies you watch on it. You download the filters from the internet, put the filters on a USB memory stick, then plug it into the DVD player and enjoy.
I know what OSC says about watching rated R movies, but I have generally steered clear of them with a few exceptions. Now that I have this player I would like to watch some that I have missed. Any suggestions on which I should watch?
After looking around, these are the movies I'm thinking of so far: Fight Club The Last Samurai Braveheart The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford The Matrix (already seen) Enemy at the Gates Black Hawk Down Shaun of the Dead Apocalypto 3:10 to Yuma Gladiator (already seen) Wanted Troy
Thanks for any suggestions.
?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I really can't see the point of watching films if you're going to neuter them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Answering this question would be like responding in detail to someone's heartfelt inquiry about the best way to go about trepanning.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I have to agree with Tom. Although... it might be fun to watch something like An Evening with Kevin Smith using a filter like that. And make a drinking game out of it, where each time it goes "beep", you have to drink. I can't imagine you'd remain conscious more than half way through it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all seriousness, there are some movies on your list that, once you remove the sex, language, and violence, would not hold up as films.
Fight Club, Wanted, Shawn of the Dead, Apocalypto, and Troy spring to mind immediately as ones that would not seem like good ClearPlay candidates.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I agree with Tom. Some movies are simply not effectively editable; but I don't think that's true of all movies. I think movies that are rated "R" for language and/or drug use/references can generally be more effectively edited than the ultra-violent films that make up most of your list. I've seldom found watching such films in their edited form satisfying (although that's not universally true; I did quite like Usual Suspects and L.A. Confidential when I watched their edited versions).
I imagine our taste in movies is quite different, but if I had a ClearPlay player (something I've been contemplating since our DVD player went kaput), I'd probably start with some of these:
The Pianist Das Leben der Anderen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Slumdog Millionaire Gran Torino Donnie Darko* Children of Men* Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of our Fathers Before Sunrise/Before Sunset Mystic River* Magnolia
* I would probably look into how "cleanable" these films are; as I said, some movies just aren't effectively editable
Some edited R-rated films that I've seen in the past and liked:
Shawshank Redemption Memento Leon (The Professional) LA Confidential The Green Mile Twelve Monkeys Good Will Hunting The Usual Suspects Glory
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hi,
I've recently bought a ClearDrink filtering device from my local Christian bookstore. It filters the alcohol out of common drinks, leaving only the water and other assorted flavors. I'd like to catch up on this whole alcohol craze, without actually drinking any.
Thinking that most of those would taste like AVON purfume that's been on your grandma's dresser since 1962! ***dang it... that would have alcohol in it, too.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Hi,
I've recently bought a ClearDrink filtering device from my local Christian bookstore. It filters the alcohol out of common drinks, leaving only the water and other assorted flavors. I'd like to catch up on this whole alcohol craze, without actually drinking any.
During my freshman year in high school, we were all forced into a Speech & World Issues class. I recall a student advocating for the government to force tobacco companies to remove all the "bad stuff" from cigarettes so that they wouldn't be harmful. Yeah...that'd TOTALLY work. Why didn't anyone think of it before?!
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
In the spirit of Orincoro's post I want to know if "The Devil in Miss Jones", "Behind the Green Door" or "Deep Throat" will have ClearPlay filters available anytime soon.
Posted by ? (Member # 2319) on :
Just to clarify a bit. It's not like it'll be turning these movies G rated (although that is possible). I completely agree if you take out all of the sex, violence, and bad language in some movies they wouldn't be the same movie and therefore useless to watch. I'm just talking about toning it down some (taking out the worst words that I'd rather not hear, skipping the blood squirting out of a severed head, ect).
Thanks SenojRetep for the suggestions. There are 7 or 8 movies on your list I was thinking about watching, but wasn't sure yet.
?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Just a little water in your Scotch, you say?
I honestly can't see it for movies like Gladiator and Fight Club. Take the edge off, and you lose half the movie. But I think you should try it, just in case. Maybe there'd be more left than I think.
Apocalypto might have some exciting-looking chases but it might be unclear what they are about.
Thought it helps to understand you're not shooting for G-rated (which I am interpreting to mean you are OK with PG-13 stuff), it is funny that your list contains some of the most famously violent movies that exist (considering only big-budget wide-release movies, of course). Those movies are arguably about the extremes which you prefer not to sit through, and a PG version simply wouldn't make any sense. For instance, Shaun of the Dead is a comical/satirical take on zombie horror, and as such needs to use the tropes it is having fun with, including gore. And there's so much of it that you really wouldn't have a lot left even if you only removed the really awful stuff.
It's not like this is an unusual goal, though. Heck, they made an edit of Showgirls to air on basic cable.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I am thinking about getting one of these systems. For those that have them, do they work well? Are you glad you got one?
Thanks.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I have a clearplay system. I have never used it. When I have kids that will probably change.
I don't see why anyone has a problem with it. If the poster wants to watch a movie but has made a personal choice to avoid violence, sex, and profanity, that is their choice. There is no need to be rude about it.
I for example have made the personal choice not to drink alchohol. Thing is, I like the taste of beer. I drink O'Douls every once in a while because I like it. I'm sure some would say that the alchohol is the point, and I would say that is their personal decision.
I grew up in a house where every Saturday night I would watch old horror films with my father. There was a network television station that would remove the profanity, sex, and a lot of the gore. I don't feel like I missed anything.
Certain films put sex and profanity in their films so they can get a certain rating. The second Matrix movie could have easily been PG 13, but they added a sex scene, flashed a couple of breasts, and added in a few F-words when Neo was speaking with the architect. None of this contributed to the story, so removing it would not really change a thing.
Now there are certain movies that you could not realistically edit without losing the story. If you removed the violence from Fight Club, you wouldn't really have much of a movie left.
I believe Clearplay has an option though to block certain content and not others. It comes with a USB drive, and using your computer you choose what you want to block, and it creates a custom file for you. You plug the USB drive into the Clearplay DVD player, put the DVD in, and you watch the movie with the protocols you set. Realistically you could leave the violence in while removing any nudity and profanity in the film.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Some edited R-rated films that I've seen in the past and liked:
Shawshank Redemption Memento Leon (The Professional) LA Confidential The Green Mile Twelve Monkeys Good Will Hunting The Usual Suspects Glory
Excellent list right there. I don't particularly get this clearplay thing but all of those movies are excellent and IMO were really not that bad in a ratings sense either so if this works like it should, these should all still be excellent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If it has largely been determined that a piece has lasting artistic merit and cultural significance due to the quality of the work and the realization of an excellent screenplay, I am not going to filter a word or a dilute a single scene or inch of it, since I'm going to want to understand it as presented.
Feel free to filter filler or movies like The Matrix Reloaded.
But filtering/de-offensivizing a movie like Pulp Fiction or No Country for Old Men?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Can Clearplay filter television shows? I'd recommend True Blood.
The best part? After the filtering, the episodes would probably only be five minutes long. You could get through the whole season in an afternoon!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Looks like they have TV shows in general, you can check for specific movies and shows on their site. Crappy foreign movie selection though
Lord of the Rings trilogy Braveheart Sin City The Patriot The Jacket The Machinist Moon Team America: World Police
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But filtering/de-offensivizing a movie like Pulp Fiction or No Country for Old Men?
Man, can't even imagine pulp fiction filtered down to a G level. It would be ten minutes long and totally obscure. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'd love to see that, though.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I want to use it to make movies like "My Best Friend's Wedding" acceptable (in my mind) to my younger children - it has one F-word that made it PG-13...
I have no interest in editing or seeing Pulp Fiction.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Looks like they have TV shows in general, you can check for specific movies and shows on their site. Crappy foreign movie selection though
Some of the movies I've seen listed I think would be fine with these limitations.
I guess the real rub is, how dramatic is too dramatic? Charging the battery at Ft. Wagner in Glory has lots of guns going "poof" and you see a guy or two get stabbed, but there's almost zero blood. The most graphic scene in the whole movie is probably when Denzel gets whipped. But if relatively toned down violence is removed as well, it'll neuter several of the most powerful scenes of the movie.
Gladiator would be fine as well, except you probably wouldn't be able to watch either the beginning or the end, and thus you'd have no idea what is happening.
Slumdog Millionaire would come out just fine. Donnie Darko would come out fine.
A lot of the movies listed put their most important plot movement scenes pretty heavily in some form of violence, either intense, graphic, or both. But the difference in opinion on what is and isn't really violent could be vast. I mean, Sin City is one of the bloodiest movies I've ever scene, all the more so because the style emphasizes it rather brilliantly. You can watch it without the violence, but you'll probably lose a half hr of the movie. It might be hard to follow. Glory has a couple bloody scenes, at the beginning and the end, like Gettysburg shows blood as well, but otherwise it's a lot of puffs of smoke and people falling down. Rarely any gushing blood. Post-2000 movies treat violence much most viscerally, and perhaps realistically.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
This is why the application of an arbitrary metric for moral acceptableness in art, ie: censorship, is absurd. It produces absurd results.
quote: For those of you who don't know what a ClearPlay DVD player is, it filters out a determined amount of bad language, violence and sex from the movies you watch on it. You download the filters from the internet, put the filters on a USB memory stick, then plug it into the DVD player and enjoy.
I recently bought an ice-pick. For those of you who don't know what an ice-pick is, it filters out a determined amount of stimuli. You just insert the ice-pick into areas of the face, such as the eyes and ears, and this prevents the experiencing of real life stimuli such as sounds and sights, all of which may be disturbing, and so are best avoided not by, oh I don't know, living out in the country with like-minded folks and burning an effigy of the corn god every year, but rather by subjecting myself to the humiliation of childproofing my own experience of the artwork of other people.
You know Pablo, I liked your paintings a lot better after I bought prints and chopped the penises off...
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm just going to make a comment in support.
I find it really amusing how people here are so full of themselves such as to project their own values on to others.
No one is suggesting that YOU get a ClearPlay DVD player.
There are people who find these things to be objectionable. But that doesn't mean they are perfect. It's like the desire to be skinny - you want to diet, but you also want to eat another slice of cheesecake. How is it possible that you want both? A lot of good dieting is figuring out how to satisfy all of your desires in a healthy way.
People who don't want to watch sex or violence for moral reasons are not above actually enjoying sex or violence. They try their best to enjoy the real world as best they can while filtering out things that don't gel with their vision of morality.
And yes, you may call it art - but in the mind of some people, art, or at least, the public expression of certain forms of art, should have boundaries.
So maybe a little respect, or at least tolerance is due?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I tolerate a complete lack of taste and couth on behalf of people who don't respect art and artists. My suggestion to those people is to bury their heads in the sand, not to neuter the work of other people for their personal enjoyment, it's insulting. They are absolutely free to do it, but I feel, quite rightly, put upon by a culture that caters to these people and their horrifying lack of taste and perspective.
What I said was not respectful, I find the prospect of these things revolting. I am however tolerant, I wouldn't advocate the banning of such implements for obvious reasons.
quote: I find it really amusing how people here are so full of themselves such as to project their own values on to others.
I'm arguing that using one of these machines projects one's values onto someone else's speech. If you had a machine that re-wrote books to agree with your moral values, that would amount to the same act. It's perverse. We should show respect for such an act?
It is not "trying one's best to enjoy the real world." It's trying one's best to live in a fairy-tale world where other people's art conforms to your personal expectations, arbitrary as they may be. That's in their own bible: "if thine eye offendeth thee, pluck it out," which is not the same thing as, "if a word offendeth thee, bleep it out." People are free to avoid all kinds of things, they are even free to advocate that such films and tv shows are not even made, (good luck with that) but to pretend at being a part of your culture by viewing it through this kind of prism is revolting to me, and I'm equally free to spell that out. I think censorship is indicative of a moral failing on the part of the censor. Does he believe well enough in his own moral compass to allow himself to experience the reality of other people's art and speech? If not, why not? Why is it not good enough to avoid that which offends you- why is it necessary to change things in order to make them acceptable, and to do so in such a perversely artificial way? I think all of that is evidence of a rather deep corruption of that supposed belief system- a focus on the artifice of moral living, rather than the principles that these people supposedly live by. Our culture gives a HUGE pass to the religious in accepting the idea that their moral views are even self-consistent, but to go one further and accept this depravity and be understanding of it? Why?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
So your argument is: If something offends you, great. But don't interfere with the art and expression of others. That in itself is offensive.
I disagree. I can see how an author or an artist might be upset by any tampering with his work - but that's because he feels deeply personal about it. If a critic thought that a particular scene was unnecessary, the artist may freak out, but no one would say that the critic is insane. It's his right to disagree.
People who filter movies still enjoy the movies after they have been filtered. I watched Good Will Hunting, skipped the sex scene, and it's still in my top 5 movies of all time. People still enjoy these works of art, minus the morally objectionable material. And of course, we understand the argument that they art - they probably are, but those aspects of life that they are trying to connect with others about, many people feel are inappropriate to do publicly.
Filtering, censoring, may freak you out. But it's chosen, for other reasons.
What I'm basically saying is - yes , it is okay to project your own values on someone else's speech because I'm not changing you, I'm changing myself. You don't have a right to control how you interact with me. I have that right. And if I find you offensive, I'm gonna bleep you.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: accept this depravity and be understanding of it? Why?
Really? Someone watching an edited movie in the privacy of their own home is depraved? Seriously? Do you feel as strongly about edited content being aired on network TV, for example? Because in that case a moral standard is being imposed on others.
I think of the word "censorship" as implying some kind of force -- not allowing someone else access to original content. Somehow censoring loses all its evil connotations to me if we are talking about what a person chooses of their own free will not to view/read/listen to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's not the matter of not listening, reading, or viewing something. It's the idea that you can and should change things you read and view to agree with your moral standards- it belies the fact that the original work is not aimed at meeting your moral standards, and you are neutering it, silencing both the artist and the art. I do find it perverse- as perverse as releasing censored versions of, say, 1984 to excise all of the references to violent rape, murder, and torture. Whether you do it to yourself or have it done for you is academic in my opinion.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Orincoro - are you really this ignorant about how movies get made? You really think that the "artist" has full control over the content of the movie? Please, the studios "censor" (it is called editing, by the way) the content so that the movie has the best chance to make money. In fact, some movies have a few swear words thrown in JUST to make it a PG-13, or PG movie - cause the cool kids won't go to a G or PG movie. It is about money - so take your artistic disquiet and edit it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The artists have control depending on their clout and ability and their contracts. But even the best don't always know.
Cast and point, Martin Scorsese filmed the brutal torture-for-information scene from GoodFellas as a sacrificial lamb. He fully expected the producers/editors to cut that out, and hopefully leave in more important (and in comparison to that scene, tame) scenes.
Instead, the scene was left in.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Orincoro, it seems like you're against censoring what comes out. On some level, I agree. Free expression is important. But editing a movie in your own home is not about censoring what comes out, it's about choosing what goes in. To me at least that's quite a distinction.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Orincoro, I understand where you are coming from. I am interested to know if you you apply the same scrutiny to video games?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Can Clearplay filter television shows? I'd recommend True Blood.
The best part? After the filtering, the episodes would probably only be five minutes long. You could get through the whole season in an afternoon!
Cabin Fever included a 'family friendly' cut in its DVD extras. It was like .. literally, thirty seconds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: So maybe a little respect, or at least tolerance is due?
whoa whoa whoa Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Orincoro, I understand where you are coming from. I am interested to know if you you apply the same scrutiny to video games?
I agree on video games. Remember Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES? There was no blood, only transparent "sweat" (unless you entered a cheat code). The game with neutered of all artistic merit. It's vision was squandered so that the masses (ie children) could decapitate each other without all of the blood and gore.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I feel like I should point out the obvious, why in the name of your god would you watch Fight Club without the violence sex and vulgar speech?
quote: People who filter movies still enjoy the movies after they have been filtered. I watched Good Will Hunting, skipped the sex scene, and it's still in my top 5 movies of all time.
So... ignorance is bliss then? Good Will Hunting is an intelligent and well writen movie, the sex scene is a part of that story and not to be confused with a Julie Strain movie. Would you cover your eyes if you were to visit the Sistine Chapel with all its depictions of nudity? Ender's Game with no fart jokes, and Ender's Shadow circumventing any part where Bean is naked and crawling around in the ducts?
It just seems contradictory, you wish to enjoy the art of another person whom you consider to have produced an admirable piece of work yet filter it blindly and still regard it as that persons work. If you find a part of someones art too offensive to overlook then why not just ignore it altogether, I mean no one is going to look down on you for not seeing a particular movie.
P.S. if you were being really hardcore about obliterating any immorality from a movie you were to watch, how much of the original Star Wars would have to be cut just on the stance of two unwitting siblings experiancing sexual tension?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
It'd be better if it did what Todd Solondz did in Storytelling
One of the stories was emotionally and sexually violent, and it was going to get an R rating. As a solution (and a middle finger to the rating commission), Solondz inserted a giant red rectangle over the sex and nudity. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Movies might be fun if they're filled with bleeps and brightly-colored shapes to hide violence and sex. Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Why do I have to watch a film the way a bunch of studio executives, lawyers, and advertising gurus want me to see that film? You seem to think that a film is the artistic child of an artist... Who decided that the sex scene be part of that movie? I have been to the Sistene Chapel and your comparing it to a movie is silly.
I like Big Macs, but always order them without onions. Should I just not eat them because I am changing the original product?
Who are you claiming is "hardcore about obliterating any immorality from a movie"?
I think if YOU were sincere, you would only watch directors cuts of movies.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Somehow despite the ongoing efforts of the studios there are some films and directors who have not bowed to MPAA and thier ilk. I dont think Jamie Babbit is intimidated by film studios to include sexuality in her movies to increase revenue, if she has sexuality in her work its because she wanted it there.
Why are you comparing premade generic food items to movies?
That question was obviously sarcastic, and meant to point out what people may or may not be willing to censor.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: It'd be better if it did what Todd Solondz did in Storytelling
One of the stories was emotionally and sexually violent, and it was going to get an R rating. As a solution (and a middle finger to the rating commission), Solondz inserted a giant red rectangle over the sex and nudity. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Movies might be fun if they're filled with bleeps and brightly-colored shapes to hide violence and sex.
In watching Bruno with the commentary on (the movie is much more funny with them explaining just how candid the movie is) Cohen mentions that he was told to increase the size of the black bars over the non-exposed genitalia during a mock sex scene in which they perform things that are just plain impossible, to which Cohen replied "if you make them too big, people might actually beleive its real because they cant see its fake."
That and his defense of the pantomime scene involving very strong referances to Milli of Milli and Vinilli, he explained that if you think the pantomime is obscene then you have already been perverted and the scene has no further ill effect on you while someone else might not assume that Bruno was doing anything sexual.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
lobo has an excellent point. There's no more coherent artistic vision in most mainstream movies than there is in a Big Mac. The primary motive is profit, and adding yourself to the committee that designed what you are about to consume is no sin.
Sure, it might neuter or distort some products, but it's no great hubris to make an attempt at adjusting an offering to make it more palatable. People pick the garnishes off the most haute of cuisine, you know.
It would be pretty horrible to arbitrarily censor artistic works for everyone. Don't ban onions on all the Big Macs, even if you are absolutely sure they are better that way. But for yourself (and anyone for whom you must make decisions anyway)? Who cares.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Plain, honest, simple question.
Why watch Fight Club without the violence sex and vulgarities? Its kinda like watching Short Bus with no nudity or The Story Of O with no allusions to S&M. I'll give you that movies like The Expendables are designed to simply sell tickets, but that doesnt make films like Lo and Ink dissapear now do they? some movies are true art wether you like them or not, and I dont understand the idea behind seeing part of a piece when the whole is waiting to be seen.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Why? Because you want to be entertained, and have the idea in your head that you will be entertained despite the excisions.
Most people will tell you not to bother with Fight Club, or (especially) Shortbus. They're right.
It's worth asking the question, and seeing what people say. Is this movie good, and will it be good if I excise the parts I don't want to experience? If it's a near-universal "no" - as I believe it would be for those two movies - then don't bother.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: It is about money - so take your artistic disquiet and edit it.
How small and shallow you are. How very sad your outlook has become. I pity you.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
I think that needs a bit more editing...
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Please stay away from personal attacks.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't understand why you're making it about editing Fight Club. Sure, Fight Club is a stupid choice to edit. Definitely if you are sensitive to violence. But if you are filtering for sex, then it becomes less absurd.
I generally try to filter my movie content for sex, and I feel like I am able to keep up with the best films of our time.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The one sex scene in Fight Club is visually when I caught on to the twist of the story, that the strange filter wasnt there just to be cool but instead we were seeing the memory through his damaged psyche. Therefore in this example the possibly ignored sex scene would have provided story context had it not been censored, it was not there just so little boys can pause and rewind the DVD.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Two quick notes:
quote:Originally posted by lobo: ... I think if YOU were sincere, you would only watch directors cuts of movies.
I don't know about Orincoro, but I *do* only watch directors cuts of movies (or extended versions) where they exist, so that particular attempt at pointing out hypocrisy might not work.
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: ...Would you cover your eyes if you were to visit the Sistine Chapel with all its depictions of nudity?
Interesting note, many of the works in the Vatican Museums *are* censored. They have their penises covered up with fig leaves and this does extend to the Sistine Chapel
quote: The latest round of tests has also apparently settled the question of the fresco's nearly 30 nudes. They were ordered covered up after the Council of Trent ended in 1563. Michelangelo refused to do the work. His message for the Pope was, "Let him make the world a suitable place and the painting will fit in." But Daniele da Volterra, a reputed admirer of the master, agreed to paint cloths over the genitals.
Tests have now shown that in several cases Volterra apparently did not simply paint over the plaster but replaced the plaster or retouched it in fresco, so the colors merged with the original surface. In either case, the restorers cannot remove the additions. The Vatican, which was once told publicly that the "genitals and organs of those in ecstasy" were "more appropriate for the walls of a brothel," has thus been spared a debate over propriety.
Personally, I would have sided with Michelangelo Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Our kids pooled their money and bought one. I'm neutral about the idea of this kind of art-editing: for the most part, our kids aren't interested in the types of movies where the violence and graphic sex is necessary to the story. They just want to be able to watch Iron Man, Transformers, and Fame.
:shrug:
I watched Twilight with the troupe last night; alas, the ClearPlay machine did not make any of the characters better role-models.
And it did not make Robert Pattison a better actor.
I've got some substantive complaints:
1) I can't understand why they filtered out what they filtered out. What they left in was just as violent as what they took out. I wish I understood the...geometry of how the ClearPlay folks go about selecting seconds and milliseconds of PureEvil to edit out.
2) The filtering process ain't transparent -- when the filter kicks in, it makes the scene appear as if it's suffering from a scratched disk.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Mucus - so you don't watch any movies in the theatre - you wait for the DVD to see if there is a directors cut? I find that hard to believe.
I also find it hard to believe that you would prefer the extended versions. Did you really prefer George Lucus' remake of Star Wars?
Posted by ? (Member # 2319) on :
labo: The good: For the most part it edits pretty well. If a scene is vital to the plot it will keep it in no matter what. It still shows fight scenes, just cuts out the worst of it. I had some friends joking that Gladiator would be a half hour long edited. It might have cut out 3 minutes.
The bad: On one movie it edited parts that had nothing whatsoever offensive about it. For instance I had seen Gladiator before. While watching it again, it would skip forward a couple of seconds, and the girl I was watching with would turn to me and ask what just happened, and there was no reason for it to skip. I haven't noticed it happening on any other movies though. So probably just a glitch. Also I seem to have trouble downloading the filters from the website sometimes. The actual DVD player is cheaply made. My sister has gone through 3 or 4 of these things, but they always replace it with no hassel. I only watch the movies I want edited on mine, all other DVDs I use my normal player.
The ugly: One of the movies we watched the filter was off by a second or two so it would skip a second, then a second later you would see a guys neck slit or hear a swear word. We laughed.
Overall, it's nice to have. Mine was a gift, but I would still consider buying it if I had the money. Any other questions about it just ask.
Orincoro:
How was it not seeing Lord of the Rings in the theater? I'm sure you knew they would be releasing the extended editions on DVD later, so I know someone like you wouldn't have gone to watch them when they were edited for something as simple as time constraints. You wouldn't do that.
Or when you buy music, it's nice to know that you always buy the whole album and not single songs, cause an album is a work of art, and to only buy a song or two would be "insulting and perverse." Or once you got the album, you like all but that one song, but you wouldn't skip it because, even though you don't like it, you don't want to mess up what the artist has done. You wouldn't do that.
Or maybe you think an album is a collection of many pieces of work. Of course when you start a song, you have to finish it every time. If you aren't in the mood to listen to the rest of it, it doesn't matter. That would be editing something that you aren't in the mood for out. I would hate driving in the car with you. I couldn't change the station if in the middle of a song, because if I did I would be editing out something I didn't like, or wasn't in the mood for. You, of course, wouldn't do that.
Or when you start a TV show and you realize it's just not that good, It's good to know you finish it no matter what, even if you are annoyed by it, just so you can preserve the artist original intentions.
Maybe you are a reader. Ever start a book and a hundred pages into it realize it's not that interesting. To stop reading it would be a horrific action. You wouldn't do that.
I can just see you getting more and more angry with people as they walk out the theater during the ending credits, because that is a part of the art, and they are missing it. You would never do that.
Maybe when you are bored you browse videos at youtube. Ever click on a video and 20 seconds into it you realize it's just a 10 minute video of a guy picking his nose and eating contents of said nose. I'm glad you would have watched the whole 10 minutes, cause if you stop watching, you are diluting his artistic creation.
I'm sorry, but me editing some parts that I don't care to see is just like what everyone else does, just in a different way. People edit the things they watch, read and listen to all the time. If you don't want to finish a book, you don't. If I don't want to hear the f-word, I don't. You may look at it differently, but I don't.
I can come up with dozens of other examples of how people edit art.
Is my friend that always skips the last 2 minutes of Hey Jude because he is sick of the "na na na's" really that bad of a person? I may or may not agree with him, but I don't think he's horrible, cause we all do it, all the time. But not you of course.
[ August 18, 2010, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: ? ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Just a friendly discussion guys, no reason to take anything personally or intend a remark to be so.
Posted by ? (Member # 2319) on :
Achilles:
You are of course correct. I reread my post and realized I was attacking him without really meaning to. I should probably edit it a little. I just wanted to get my point across that people manually edit things all the time. I don't think this is any worse.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I personally thought it was a brilliant post, but that could be the snark in me talking. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Just a friendly discussion guys, no reason to take anything personally or intend a remark to be so.
Somehow that still leaves room for a lot of snark.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)