Sanitized films

[Geoff_M]

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.

Call me naive if you wish, but I find it hard to believe that when a director walks away from a project they know percisely how their work may be presented on the small screen. Often times years down the road at a time that TV standards may, or may not, have changed. I also doubt that the director has final editorial say on network TV edits. This often isn't even true before the theatrical release... studios have been known to do a snip-n-cut after the director turns it over to them before it hits the theaters. I also recall seeing motion pictures on network TV repeatedly over the years that have appeared in various configurations... a scene may be dropped on one network and re-appear on another. I find it hard to believe that the director is consulted (assuming they're still alive) each time a variation is aired to insure that their artistic vision has remained intact.

 

[cardaway]

For example, Steven Kloves wrote the screenplay for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, not J. K. Rowling. J. K. Rowling maintains the integrity of her artistic work by making sure she's happy with the person writing the screenplay, as is her right. (She could have signed-away this right, incidently, or required that she get a higher or lower of oversight, up to an including full editorial rights over the screenplay, if she wished. However, that's the point -- it was fully up to her, both what the terms and conditions would be, and who she'd grant what rights to.)

Great example.

 

[cardaway]

Call me naive if you wish, but I find it hard to believe that when a director walks away from a project they know percisely how their work may be presented on the small screen. Often times years down the road at a time that TV standards may, or may not, have changed. I also doubt that the director has final editorial say on network TV edits. This often isn't even true before the theatrical release... studios have been known to do a snip-n-cut after the director turns it over to them before it hits the theaters. I also recall seeing motion pictures on network TV repeatedly over the years that have appeared in various configurations... a scene may be dropped on one network and re-appear on another. I find it hard to believe that the director is consulted (assuming they're still alive) each time a variation is aired to insure that their artistic vision has remained intact.

I'll pass on calling you anything but wrong. I didn't say always. With films being made today, there is a lot of attention given to what will have to be cut for different places (TV, Airlines, even other countries). Usally all done at the same time. In fact with the advent of DVD, there is also a lot of attention given to what will be added.

 

[bicker]

Beyond that, the objections being raised are due to the objectional way the artistic work is being treated. Why would directors complain about something they don't have a problem with?

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm just not following your argument, here, Geoff. If I create an artistic work, and I say it is okay for someone I trust to maintain key aspects of my artistic vision to abridge it, then, well, it's "okay". That doesn't mean that it is okay for just anyone to do whatever they want to my artistic work!

No, my point in that in both cases the director doesn't have final editorial control of the end product. Without the final editoral control, there's no assurance that "artistic vision" will be preserved... be it by someone given the legal right to do so, or someone else. Are you trying to tell me you've not seen a motion picture edited for network TV and thought that something was missing with the overall impact of the film?

I also think that it's safe to that J. K. Rowling probably had final editorial say over the screenplay.

 

[bicker]

No, my point in that in both cases the director doesn't have final editorial control of the end product.

Only because that editorial control was voluntarily ceded.

I also think that it's safe to that J. K. Rowling probably had final editorial say over the screenplay.

Exactly.

 

[arminnie]

Contract vs. no contract, not that hard to understand.

Interesting to know if those of you that are adamant opposed to the editing just because it is illegal feel as strongly about illegal immigrants?

I'd like to pay someone to edit out the boring car chases and fight scenes that go on for 30 minutes.

 

[Geoff_M]

With films being made today, there is a lot of attention given to what will have to be cut for different places (TV, Airlines, even other countries). Usally all done at the same time. In fact with the advent of DVD, there is also a lot of attention given to what will be added.

You are correct, but I didn't think the issue at hand was films being made nowadays. But I think my point holds: I doubt that directors (unless perhaps they are Hollywood heavyweights) have the amount of editorial control over their projects that you are generally assigning to them. As such their "artistic vision" can be legally altered by others without consent. Be it a studio that makes a last minute alteration (in some cases new endings have been ordered by studios, last minute edits have been made against the director's objections, etc.), or a network deciding to trim a little more to add a few more commericals.

 

[bicker]

Interesting to know if those of you that are adamant opposed to the editing just because it is illegal feel as strongly about illegal immigrants?

I sure am!

Please send me a link if you start a thread about that, okay?

 

[cardaway]

You are correct, but I didn't think the issue at hand was films being made nowadays. But I think my point holds: I doubt that directors (unless perhaps they are Hollywood heavyweights) have the amount of editorial control over their projects that you are generally assigning to them. As such their "artistic vision" can be legally altered by others without consent. Be it a studio that makes a last minute alteration (in some cases new endings have been ordered by studios, last minute edits have been made against the director's objections, etc.), or a network deciding to trim a little more to add a few more commericals.

What are you basing this on? This issue is basically opening a brand new can of worms.

Only recently has the technology been cheap enough that companies would even try and make second hand editing profitable.

In fact it's so easy, lots of individuals have been making edits of movies, supposedly making them better. Edits that have nothing to do with sex and nudity. Usually changes in pacing and taking out anything related to Jar Jar Binks. Should the people who created the edited version of The Phantom Menace (The Phantom Edit) be able to sell their version?

 

[Geoff_M]

Only because that editorial control was voluntarily ceded.

I was under the impression that the primary objection was that the director's "artistic vision" was vunerable to alteration, not the nature of the alteration... contractually allowed or not.

 

[bicker]

I was under the impression that the primary objection was that the director's "artistic vision" was vunerable to alteration

The objection is that the director's artistic vision was vulnerable to involuntary alteration. Why would anyone object to being allowed to agree to something?

 

[Tanuki]

I have no objection to "Cleanplay".

I also have no objection to someone asking another person to perform the service of removing objectionable content from a DVD as long as that person and the buyer are clear about what is going on and the original is still available for the general public to purchase if it wants.

In some ways, I think the situation regarding "sampling" in hip-hop is analogous. Except in this case it is "removing" so I'm not sure a royalty is even indicated.

I really don't understand why these Directors feel they have the right to insist that once we buy or rent their product that we must view it frame by frame in its entirety. What a bunch of egos! Does it compromise the director's "artistic vision" If I get up for a few minutes and use the restroom?
Maybe I'll miss a swear word. What If I decide to quit watching halfway through because I don't want to bother to see the rest?

Once we have paid them their money that's the end of the transaction. We bought it. What we do with what we bought is now up to us.

 

[bicker]

I really don't understand why these Directors feel they have the right to insist that once we buy or rent their product that we must view it frame by frame in its entirety.

There's a lot of things I don't understand about artists. That's probably why I was a management consultant, and now I'm a software developer.

Once we have paid them their money that's the end of the transaction. We bought it. What we do with what we bought is now up to us.

You're utterly mistaken. All they're offering you is a license to use the content the way they allow you to use it. If that offer is unacceptable to you, your only choice is to refuse their offer, and not purchase the CD, DVD, cassette, etc.

 

[Geoff_M]

What are you basing this on? This issue is basically opening a brand new can of worms.

A classic example is the original ending of Risky Business. The writer/director wanted an ending there Cruise's character didn't make it into Princeton and it was an pretty "down" ending. The studio wanted an "happy" ending, so an "up" and "down" ending were shot and the one the test audience like (the "up" ending") was used in the final version. As for other examples, I've heard on more than one deleted scenes section of a DVD the director's voice-over say something along the lines of "the studio opted to cut this scene in the interest of running time".

As for things like "The Phantom Edit", I in no way am claiming the legality of third-party derivative works.

 

[cardaway]

A classic example is the original ending of Risky Business. The writer/director wanted an ending there Cruise's character didn't make it into Princeton and it was an pretty "down" ending. The studio wanted an "happy" ending, so an "up" and "down" ending were shot and the one the test audience like (the "up" ending") was used in the final version. As for other examples, I've heard on more than one deleted scenes section of a DVD the director's voice-over say something along the lines of "the studio opted to cut this scene in the interest of running time".

That has nothing to do with this discussion... I give up. Support any illegal operation you want.

 

[Tanuki]

The license agreement is on the outside of the box. It has to do with copying and distribution. The restriction is to "private use".

I could decide to use it as a coaster as long as I don't make copies and distribute it.

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

 

[eclectics]

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?

 

[Geoff_M]

The objection is that the director's artistic vision was vulnerable to involuntary alteration.

I was basing my statements mainly on this paragraph in a story imbedded in one of the OP's links. It references the "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" of last April:

While last week's passage of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act was welcomed by Hollywood because it harshly penalizes bootlegging, the bill also contains a smaller provision that essentially OKs ClearPlay's editing software.

The provision is based on the idea that at-home scrubbing of bad language or a nude scene is no different from a TiVo customer skipping commercials. Neither permanently alters the show's original format, so they're not breaking copyright laws.

The bill leaves directors and anyone else who doesn't like what people at home do to their work arguing that artistic vision has been violated — a position that tends to lose topspin when the vision is, say, "Kangaroo Jack" or "The Bachelor."

Link

Which is why I raised my initial point: How is the director's "artistic vision" any more or less safeguarded by a Network TV editor preparing a film for boardcast (assuming there's no director pre-packed version that meets the network standards and desired running time) than it is when subjected to the ClearPlay DVD player?

 

[Geoff_M]

Support any illegal operation you want.

Perhaps you can tell me how exactly the ClearPlay player is illegal? Can you point to the physical derivative work that it creates?