Sanitized films

[Geoff_M]

Why would anyone want to see a butchered movie in the first place? Either you want to see the movie or you don't. Period. If you think your kids are too young to watch the original version, how about just waiting until they are old enough, and rent or buy something else family friendly for them to watch?

As I pointed out above, the network TV version of "The Green Mile" without the profanity or the worst of the scenes of the sabotaged execution still made for a great film for our 13 year-old daughter. The power of the film was not lost due to those elements being removed.

 

[bicker]

I am assuming that the special DVD player that runs "Cleanplay" is included in "private use".

I believe you are correct about that.

I'm also assuming that the third parties take an already packaged DVD and alter it at your request for an additional fee - which isn't all that much different from customizing a car.

The analogy is understandable, but invalid. You can take a Ford and a Chevy, slice them each in half, weld the front of the Ford onto the back of the Chevy, and you wouldn't be violating any license with Ford or Chevy. You're simply allowed to customize a car, where your use of a song or a movie is limited by license.

 

[bicker]

I was basing my statements mainly on this paragraph in a story imbedded in one of the OP's links.

Okay, well you'll need to get the reporter who wrote the article, and then the people who the reporter was paraphrasing, involved in this discussion to follow-up on that element. My answer to your inquiry was, "The objection is that [with services like CleanFlix] the director's artistic vision was vulnerable to involuntary alteration."

 

[bicker]

Perhaps you can tell me how exactly the ClearPlay player is illegal?

I think you and Mike are talking past each other. I know that my objection is to CleanFlix, not ClearPlay, and I suspect that is what Mike is referring to as well.

 

[Marseeya]

I'm not going to get into the legality angle, but I think the whole "sanitized and edited" version is ridiculous. Why would anyone want to see a butchered movie in the first place? Either you want to see the movie or you don't. Period. If you think your kids are too young to watch the original version, how about just waiting until they are old enough, and rent or buy something else family friendly for them to watch?

Yes, now there's a concept! Why do our kids have to watch everything fit for adults anyway? I'm sure little Susie isn't going to die if she can't see Kill Bill edited down to an unobjectionable 10 minutes of viewing.

 

[Barb D]

I'm not going to get into the legality angle, but I think the whole "sanitized and edited" version is ridiculous. Why would anyone want to see a butchered movie in the first place? Either you want to see the movie or you don't. Period. If you think your kids are too young to watch the original version, how about just waiting until they are old enough, and rent or buy something else family friendly for them to watch?

Do you have kids in the 10-15 age group? There are many movies that are "mostly" OK for them, and some even beneficial -- with the elimination of certain scenes. Why should my kids miss out on entire movies because they have one or two objectionable scenes? I gave the example of Love Actually before; another is Braveheart. I WANTED my kids to see it, but at the time I didn't want them to see the hanging scene at the beginning, for instance.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

Yes, now there's a concept! Why do our kids have to watch everything fit for adults anyway? I'm sure little Susie isn't going to die if she can't see Kill Bill edited down to an unobjectionable 10 minutes of viewing.

ITAWTC.

When I first heard about this, I was thinking to myself that no matter how well it was 'cut' or 'screened' or whatever there were SOME movies that would not be able to be made fit for children. Kill Bill is one, American Pie is the other that came to mind.

TOV

 

[cardaway]

Do you have kids in the 10-15 age group? There are many movies that are "mostly" OK for them, and some even beneficial -- with the elimination of certain scenes. Why should my kids miss out on entire movies because they have one or two objectionable scenes? I gave the example of Love Actually before; another is Braveheart. I WANTED my kids to see it, but at the time I didn't want them to see the hanging scene at the beginning, for instance.

Let's look at the two movies you gave as examples.

Love Actually - If you cut every "bad" part out of that movie just how much sense is the story going to make at the end? Maybe some remains, but a great deal will be lost because of losing the whole "naked couple" story line and the love scenes.

Braveheart - I don't see any point to editing out what would be objectionable to pre-teens. Just hold off until they can see the movie the way it was made. It's not like the mature themes are approriate for theat age group, violence or no violence.

While it's obvious that one system doesn't do anything that you couldn't do with a fast forward or chapter skip button, there is also a thing called common sense. IMO it's doesn't make any sense to try and twist something to your standards when there is plenty out there that requires no twisting at all. Ranks right up there with demanding programs be removed from the air rather than just finding the programs you do want to watch.

This attitude is why there may not be enough "acceptable material". People don't support it.

 

[eclectics]

Do you have kids in the 10-15 age group? There are many movies that are "mostly" OK for them, and some even beneficial -- with the elimination of certain scenes. Why should my kids miss out on entire movies because they have one or two objectionable scenes? I gave the example of Love Actually before; another is Braveheart. I WANTED my kids to see it, but at the time I didn't want them to see the hanging scene at the beginning, for instance.

And I'm sure your kids will still find it beneficial when you feel they are old enough to view the movie in it's entirety. The film isn't going anywhere and your kids might actually get more out of the movie when they are a couple of years older. I still say cutting and editing a movie is butchering it. If the director and writer didn't feel every single scene was important to the film, they wouldn't have included it in the first place.

 

[txgirl]

I understand the part about selling them but come on! How does it hurt you for there to be edited films for families to view?

E.T. is one of the best movies ever and I want my kids to see it while they are kids and I don't need my 8 year old hearing "_ _ _ _ _ breath". Big shocker that I would love for my family to watch clean movies or better yet (hold your breath on this one) even *I* would love to watch movies without profanity all the time. I know this is a dying/nearly dead desire in this country but there are a few of us left.

If movie makers really wanted to rake in the dough they could make two versions and everyone who wants the "f" word thrown around could watch their version and all the other prudish weirdos (me) could watch theirs.

If you go to screenit.com and click on the "no thanks" at the bottom and view some of your *favorite films* and actually read each and every curse word you can almost become sensitive to them again!

 

[TDC Nala]

kickitykickitykillkillkill

Isn't this the title of Tarantino's next film?

 

[bicker]

I understand the part about selling them but come on! How does it hurt [film directors] for there to be edited films for families to view?

I believe artists greatly value their artistic work, perhaps far more than those who partake of that work. It isn't our place to tell them what is of value and not, for them, and the law guarantees that they get to determine what happens with regard to their work, for up to 75 years after their death.

If movie makers really wanted to rake in the dough they could make two versions and everyone who wants the "f" word thrown around could watch their version and all the other prudish weirdos (me) could watch theirs.

This does indeed show that movie-makers, as individuals, care more about art than profit. It isn't a choice I would make, but it is the choice they make, and it is their choice to make, not ours.

 

[TDC Nala]

From the summary to the opinion of Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1976)

OVERVIEW: Appellants created the television series "Monty Python's Flying Circus." Under a contract with the British Broadcasting Association (BBC), appellants retained strict creative control over finished programs. The BBC licensed the programs to defendant for rebroadcast in America. When appellants learned that defendant had drastically shortened the programs and edited them for profanity, they sued for copyright infringement and violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a). The district court refused to enjoin defendant's broadcast. On appeal, the court held that the programs were derivative works under § 7 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 101 et seq., and therefore did not subsume appellants' underlying copyright in the scripts. Although American copyright law did not recognize a cause of action for violation of artists' moral rights, the Lanham Act protected against mutilation of artistic works as a false designation of origin of goods. The court enjoined appellees from further infringement.

OUTCOME: The court ordered the district court to enjoin appellees from further broadcasting of appellants' severely edited television programs, because the editing constituted infringement of appellants' copyright in their scripts and because mutilation of appellants' programs was precluded by the Lanham Act.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

From what I know of it, by the time the first prints hit the theater, those involved already know what's going to be cut for content on TV or airlines. In some cases they shoot more footage so the TV version is the same length once the edits are made.

Most movies are edited for time and content b/c commercials need to be added in. Usually it is just for content...but with obvious FCC restrictions--particularly for the major networks (not including cable)--the movie you see is the same exact one that was shown in the movie theater with voiceovers to change the profanity and scenes modified to block nudity or deleted all together.


I'm for a legal compromise that permits the company to accomplish it's mission to sanitize movies of profanity and nudity.

However, in its current state it is a clear copyright violation.

I also find it funny that the filmmakers are okay with the edited for television b/c they make more money by it airing on television...but they aren't okay with it edited for rental...b/c they don't really see any money from it. It is a copout to say that their artistic work is being ruined--when it is "ruined" for television and advertising dollars. They could just as easily agree (for profit) to do it for the clean rental places. If it isn't sanitized enough for the rental places--then they don't purchase the film. Easy enough. ETA: And if the rental place wants it sanitized too much and literally destroying the plot line--then they don't give them license to use the movie.

 

[Planogirl]

They may be in it for the money and protesting because they don't see any monetary benefit to censorship of their films but legally they have that right.

You know, Disney heavily controls the use of their products. Even if using their characters seems innocent somehow, like at a daycare, they put a stop to it. I don't see this as that much different from the filmmakers trying to keep some control of their product.