quote:Originally posted by katharina: There is a list as long as my arm of movies that are excellent and worthwhile that I wish didn't have certain scenes, language, or violence because they are too private for my eyes or make me very uncomfortable and they distract me away from the movie.
I'm sorry you haven't heard of those movies. They do exist.
I can totally get behind this idea except that in my case it's not "language or violence" it's just wishing movies didn't have certain scenes, or characters. It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar, or Transformers without any of the scenes which don't feature giant robots.
posted
Rakeesh, I didn't say that I reviled them, nor did I say that you had to agree with me.
Three of my co-workers were 16-17 year olds who decided to move out of their parents house for disagreements that I found relatively minor. One had a fight with her father about how late she could stay out and the other two where caught drinking. These seemed like problems that could be easily reconciled.
Up until last week, I was working for Starbucks.
Edited for clarity.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar, or Transformers without any of the scenes which don't feature giant robots.
This would be awesome.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be great if you could buy a version of the Star Wars without Jar Jar
While you can't buy it, somebody did a re-edit of episode 1 called "The Phantom Edit" which does that. Check it out.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia says that is was illicitly available on DVD, so you could probably buy a copy if you tried.
I wonder why studios don't consider buying the rights to this sort of thing and putting them on an special edition DVD set with the real thing. I'm sure they'd sell enough to make a decent profit.
I know they will claim its a matter of artistic integrity, but studios are more than happy to permit changes for TV licenses or airline contracts. I suspect that they just don't think the market is big enough to make it profitable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Three of my co-workers were 16-17 year olds who decided to move out of their parents house for disagreements that I found relatively minor. One had a fight with her father about how late she could stay out and the other two where caught drinking. These seemed like problems that could be easily reconciled.
There is big big difference between working at Starbucks to make enough money to move out of your parents house when you are 16 or 17 and going into prostitution when your 14 so that you can move out of your parents house.
I would not assume that the motive typical of those in the first case were likely to be the same as the motives for those in the second case.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I'll concede that it may not be very likely, but it was the most likely scenario to me based on my recent experiences.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:...but it was the most likely scenario to me based on my recent experiences.
Have you considered the possibility that you might not actually understand the motives of other people, and that having certain experiences doesn't necessarily give you deep insight into other people's lives?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since when has experience been a bad place to draw conclusions from?
I shared my experiences in hopes of further explaining why I think the way I do. Based on other's responses to my posts, I felt I wasn't communicating clearly, so I felt I should try to explain why I assumed what I did. I didn't mean to give the impression that anything I've said was anything more than my opinion.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To play Devil's Advocate, I should note that there are movies in which scenes of violence or sexuality are not, strictly speaking, gratuitous. Rather, they were placed with great thought and care by the director, writer, and editor, intending to elicit a specific reaction from the audience. That reaction may be to shock, or horrify, or titilate, or to make the audience do a double-take and consider why they have that particular reaction; to examine their own perceptions and preconceptions, or their own role as spectators, evaluators, and members of society.
For some movies, to see them in a form other than what was released in the theaters is to miss out on being a genuine part of a common experience. And to be unable to fully understand and discuss its impact and ramifications.
As far as what has happened to Clean Flix founder, perhaps it need not be a tragedy to those who might be unfairly associated with his actions. Perhaps it will encourage them to be all the more active in living lives they view as moral, and recognizing the need for that life to be more than a public image.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: '...elucidate what you mean by that' is still an awkward construction to my eye.
*shrug*
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I shouldn't have jumped on BB just because he irritates me. Especially given how easily irritated I am this week.
That first, "by" was a rogue one who sneaked into my post. I don't feel jumped on, but I do feel you have avoided the issue.
While I am sorry that I irritate you, I still think you should explain your comment regarding Scott R.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with everything Katharina has said. There are plenty of great movies out there, with just one or two scenes in there that ruin it for me. They aren't crucial to the plot, they don't deepen or develope the characters. I see no point to depicting that.
For a fairly tame example, take one of my favorite movies: The Princess Bride. The whole movie goes by with nothing distasteful happenning at all, then at the end, Inigo kills Count Drugen saying "I want my father back you son of a..." Everytime that happens I just kind of groan and wish they'd changed that one line.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually more troubled by the grandson's profanity in the middle of the movie than by Inigo's crudity.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Princess Bride: In my opinion, if there was ever a good place to put a curse word in a movie, that was it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: For some movies, to see them in a form other than what was released in the theaters is to miss out on being a genuine part of a common experience.
Are these movies ever shown edited on airplanes and/or network TV?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doing a bit of research, it seems like this is one of the rare cases where the legal system has actually worked out a good compromise.
Something about reselling edited movies directly (if the copyright holder is against it) just strikes me as being both wrong and against the law as I understand it and sure enough both Clean Flicks and Clean Flix seem to be legally prevented from doing that.
On the other hand, that company called Clearplay that Pooka referenced is essentially just selling an electronic list of scenes and times to skip as if you had a really knowledgeable and fast buddy that knew exactly when to skip. That seems to be legal and a good compromise.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something about reselling edited movies directly (if the copyright holder is against it) just strikes me as being both wrong and against the law as I understand it.
I once bought a used copy of a George R R Martin book which had the f-bomb marked out with black pen.
Do you think that it was wrong for that person to mark out that word in the book they had bought?
Once it had been marked out, do you think that it was wrong for them to sell it to me?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your situation is fine, but its not quite analogous to the situation at hand.
The analogous situation would be if a company started that bought books, photocopied them, edited the copies, and then started selling the photocopies despite not having permission to.
Somehow that just strikes me as wrong although I am not entirely sure how to articulate that. One quick objection is that the author (or filmmaker) has to rely just on the word of the company in question (without a contract) that they will never sell the originals that they made copies from and that they really did maintain a 1:1 relationship between originals and copies. There are other objections in the summaries of the legal rulings in the two cases.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The analogous situation would be if a company started that bought books, photocopied them, edited the copies, and then started selling the photocopies despite not having permission to.
It would be more analogous have people bring in their own books that they had previously bought, and then the company would make an altered photocopy, then give the original and the photocopy back to the customer.
And the only reason why they made a photocopy instead of marking out parts of the book is because the books were written on paper which is impossible to write on with mortal ink.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the impression that they were not taking DVDs that customers had and creating edited copies. As I read it, they directly bought DVDs and then sold the edited copies while keeping the originals.
quote: CleanFlicks and Family Flix USA are movie distributors that buy DVDs, edit them and burn the revamped version onto a blank disc. Those are then sold over the Internet to video stores such as CleanFilms and Play It Clean Video. They also are sold for use by airlines and network television.
If they adopted a system like what you were proposing where customers brought in discs that were copied and then both returned, then that would be better in the "right/wrong" sense for me. (Albeit still illegal since as I understand it, copies for commercial use are prohibited)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I dealt with one such company (admittedly several years ago), if you rented or bought an edited version, the original version came with it, riveted to the DVD case. The 1:1 ratio was obvious and transparent.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
There's some naming confusion here; are Clean Flicks and CleanFlix two different companies? Did one precede the other? Is one bigger than the other (of course, I imagine both are now defunct in light of the copyright infringement ruling)?
The only company I remember from my time in Utah was Clean Flicks (the ones claiming defamation).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think the sleazeball who got arrested is still a hypocrite, but yeah, the charges of hypocrisy directed at CleanFlicks were unfounded.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for CleanFlick's hypocrisy in zealously suing to protect their IP rights after years of violating other's copyrights.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a lot fuzzier and more up to interpretation than passing yourself as someone who makes PG-rated movies in order to gain access to young teenagers in order to make porn.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Except for CleanFlick's hypocrisy in zealously suing to protect their IP rights after years of violating other's copyrights.
How are IP rights remotely like movie copyrights?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that it's obvious that the guy arrested was not the founder of CleanFlicks, could the OP edit the title, please?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think the sleazeball who got arrested is still a hypocrite
I still haven't seen any good evidence of this. He sold a product to a market and now it's been shown that he's apparently not a member of that market. How is that hypocrisy? Is a male gynecologist also a hypocrite? A woman who works at a men's clothing store? A power company employee that owns a windmill?
Yeah, he's a sleaze, but words have meaning and I don't think hypocrite is being correctly used here.
I don't think CleanFlix is hypocritical either. Though CleanFlix may have been ruled to have violated copyright law, I don't think it is at all clear that they felt they were breaking the law when they offered their service. They altered a product, copied it to another media, then destroyed the original media. They never attempted to claim that the altered product was their original work and the product, as it was finally consumed by the customer, was practically indistinguishable from the DVD player/download service that automatically skips objectionable content while you are viewing it. CleanFlix had no less respect for IP than that company does - they just used a mechanism which was judged, from a purely technical standpoint, to be in violation of copyright law.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
