posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Just a friendly discussion guys, no reason to take anything personally or intend a remark to be so.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
