Sanitized films

[TheOtherVillainess]

I hope we can keep this a nice, safe, friendly debate. But just to be safe, I'm donning my fire-proof suit now, in case of flames.

I just finished watching a program that I TiVo'd off of AMC late last night called "Bleep! Sanitizing Hollywood". Until I watched this, I never knew that censoring of films existed beyond what they censor for television/commercial airlines. I didn't realize that companies existed like Clean Flix and Family Flix (both located in Utah) that existed solely to sanitize movies for the home viewer. They remove nudity, gratituous violence, cursing and other things normally edited as if you were going to watch it on a regular TV channel.

However, this has the directors in an uproar and I have to sort of take their side on some of it. These people are censoring movies just to censor them, because apparently the directors can't seem to do it themselves. And the MPAA (I think that's what it is..somebody correct me if I'm wrong) ratings such as PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 aren't good enough for the sanitizers. They feel they must go a step beyond this and do it themselves.

There also exists a DVD player with software for censoring called CleanPlay that lets YOU the viewer decide what to censor. Which is fine, I think. You are choosing to censor what you see in your own home without altering the original DVD itself.

The sanitizers make 'cleaned up' copies of movies and sell/rent them to the public as if it were not a copyright violation, which it is. It's illegal and somehow they are still managing to get away with it. While I agree in part with the idea of wanting to clean up movies for your children, I also think that it's YOUR job as the parent to decide what your son/daughter is old enough/mature enough/ready to see. That's where the MPAA rating comes in..it helps you make your mind up as to whether or not movies of a certain rating or subject matter are appropriate for your family.

I know that's the way it was when I was growing up. We weren't allowed to see/rent anything that was PG-13 or R until I was in HS and even then my parents weren't really thrilled about us watching them Even when I was engaged to DH, certain movies were still taboo. One, The Breakfast Club (which isn't exactly tame, but fairly tame by today's teen flick standards), was forbidden because of a split-second scene where one male character (Bender)ends up looking up the skirt of a female character (Claire) and sees her virginal white panties.

Why is it now all of a sudden H ollywood's responsability to make movies that are clean enough (even if they are rated R) for young children to watch? Isn't a parent's job to make sure their young kids don't see movies that aren't appropriate? One woman on the documentary complained about a PG-13 movie not being suitable for her 10 year old DD. I was screaming at the TV at this point. I thought PG-13 meant not suitable for kids under the age of 13. The girl is 10!!! Maybe in 3 years she'll be ready for PG-13 movies but until then it's her mother's job to make sure she doesn't see anything she's not supposed to.

People are always clamoring for this show or that show to be taken off of television because it's too violent, too sexual, etc. HELLO! Why else did they invent the V-Chip if not to allow parents greater control over what comes into their living rooms?

TOV

 

[bicker]

Folks around here know I'm typically a pretty staunch advocate for complying with the law. There is a legal way to accomplish the intent without violating the law, via the CleanPlay technology. With that technology, the filtering is no different from the fast-forward button.

The remastering of movies and selling the filtered versions, however, is a violation of copyright, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, with severe sanctions applied in the penalty phase.

 

[Twinkles6892]

I agree.

Although, I did see a commercial for a new Quentin Tarrentino (horribly spelled) movie, that warned viewers that in test audiences paramedic's had to be called due to graphic torture scenes. They went so far as to show you hedge clippers around a man's little toe, the man screaming and drills and all sorts of other happy things, this movie basically seemed like a torture fest, with no plot. I don't think that that is acceptable.

 

[zagafi]

I think it's an asinine concept. It's really not that difficult to make an informed choice about what is and is not appropriate for myself and my family.

 

[blowinbubbles]

The problem is, if a parent wants to shield their children from sex, profanity and unnuendo, the choice of films narrows considerably. It seems that every filmmaker these days just *has* to include cuss words and at least sexual innuendo.

So if I can take an otherwise perfectly good movie and clean it up a bit for my kids, I'm all for it.

Maybe Hollywood should take the hint!

 

[zagafi]

I agree.

Although, I did see a commercial for a new Quentin Tarrentino (horribly spelled) movie, that warned viewers that in test audiences paramedic's had to be called due to graphic torture scenes. They went so far as to show you hedge clippers around a man's little toe, the man screaming and drills and all sorts of other happy things, this movie basically seemed like a torture fest, with no plot. I don't think that that is acceptable.

Then you may absolutely feel free to choose not to view this movie. But, it's not your choice, or anyone elses's, to decide what others may or may not choose to view, and that's what these companies do.

I have no use for Quentin Tarantino's work, either, but don't begrudge my hubby (who loves them) his choice to watch them.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

So be it, Twinkle, but if people want to see stuff like that, they should be able to see it without some conservative yayhoo mucking up and crying foul.


The documentary said that both Clean Flix and Family Flix had been in court with the DGA (director's guild of America) for more than 3 YEARS!!! with opening motions and what-not.

I'm with you, I think that CleanPlay should be allowed to exist but that people who do sanitization of films at home for profit should be put out of business. To me, CleanPlay is the exact same thing as the V-Chip in your television. You can filter out what you want because you're making the choice. The sanitizers dont' let YOU make the choice, they're choosing for you what is acceptable and what isn't.

One scene they showed in both the original and cleaned up versions was part of the opening sequence in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The sanitizers wanted it cleaned up because it was 'too disturbing'. Hello! It's SUPPOSED to be disturbing..that's the way the director intended it. If you clean up a film and sell it to people that way, the director has no say in how the film is edited. You could potentially change the entire tone/plot of a movie by cutting this or censoring that. It would still have the director's name attached to it, even if the director didn't approve the way you cut it.

TOV

 

[4greatboys]

I think they should allow the sale of them. The boundaries of movies are being pushed all the time, even in the PG movies.
My 15 yr old does not care to sit around and watch G rates movies and I would love to be able to let him watch movies I dont have to worry about all the gratuitous breast shots or people having sex.
Lots of movies that he would be interested in seeing are now starting to be sold unrated so when you buy they movie they show even more on that one than they do in the movie theater.

 

[Twinkles6892]

I meant the trailer. It just freaked me out. I always had to turn the channel for the Saw commercials, and I didn't know what this one was, I thought it was one of those joke commercials until I saw the icky stuff.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

The problem is, if a parent wants to shield their children from sex, profanity and unnuendo, the choice of films narrows considerably. It seems that every filmmaker these days just *has* to include cuss words and at least sexual innuendo.

Not true, blowinbubbles. Have you been into a Blockbuster's lately and seen the sheer enormity of the volume of films they have that are appropriate for children?

And whose to say you have to rent the latest thing that 'just' came out on DVD? What's wrong with renting older films that are considerably 'safer' for kids and teaching them to enjoy classic movies (National Velvet, The Wizard of Oz, Meet Me In St. Louis, Carousel, The Little Princess, Good Ship Lollypop, and Bright Eyes all come to mind at the moment)???

TOV

 

[bicker]

Maybe Hollywood should take the hint!

Don't believe for a minute that they haven't: They hint, however, that the general public is giving, is that they want the sex, profanity and innuendo.

 

[Geoff_M]

Copyright issues aside, I find it interesting that for decades directors have allowed their films to be similarly edited for content for display aboard airliners and network television, but get bent all out of shape over something like this.

But I agree that, if it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation.

Don't believe for a minute that they haven't: They hint, however, that the general public is giving, is that they want the sex, profanity and innuendo.

But only to a point. There's clear evidence that flicks carrying less than an "R" rating offer a better ROI. From TheHollywoodReporter.com:

June 07, 2005

Study: G-rated fare more profitable

By Brian Fuson
Family-friendly movies are more profitable than R-rated films, according to a new study released Tuesday.

In a follow-up to a 10-year study commissioned by the nonprofit Dove Foundation in 1999 -- which found that between 1988-97 the average G-rated film made eight times the profit of an R-rated picture -- an extension of that study found that trend continuing and expanding.

The new, expanded study examines the revenue and negative costs for 3,000 MPAA-rated theatrical films released between Jan. 1, 1989, and Dec. 31, 2003, using the 200 most widely distributed films each year based on the number of theaters.

The 15-year study throws more fuel onto the fire of the long-running debate over sex and violence in entertainment -- and whether it sells. To encourage the production and distribution of more wholesome family entertainment, the Dove Foundation commissioned the study to examine the profitability of movies broken down by their MPAA ratings to compare family-friendly movies vs. R-rated films.

"While the movie industry produced nearly 12 times more R-rated films than G-rated films from 1989-2003, the average G-rated film produced 11 times greater profit than its R-rated counterpart," said Dick Rolfe, founder and chairman of the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based media advocacy group.

The new study found that in the years after the first study was released in 1999, from 2000-03, that trend has continued. The average profit for films rated G went from $74.2 million to $92.3 million, PG vaulted from $9.9 million to $78.8 million, PG-13 rose from $15.4 million to $45.6 million, and R-rated films increased from $3 million to $17.9 million. The study notes that those increases are probably due in part to increased ticket prices, coupled with a decrease in manufacturing costs associated with videos and DVDs.

At the same time, on average more G and PG-13 films are being made and released. Since the first study was released in 1999, Rolfe noted that there has been a slight production shift toward more family-friendly films: "The production of R-rated films has dropped by 12%, while G-rated fare has increased by 38%." The average number of R-rated films released each year dropped from 105 to 93, G-rated films increased from seven to 10, PG-rated films decreased from 36 to 21, and PG-13 rated films went from 50 to 75.

Rolfe points out that the goal of the foundation and the report is not to eradicate R-rated films. "Dove is not suggesting that Hollywood produce only G and PG movies," he said. "We just think the proportionality is out of balance, given the relatively few, highly profitable family-friendly movies released each year. Our study reveals that Hollywood is not serving the most prolific audience segment in the entertainment marketplace: the family."

The study defined "profit" as estimated worldwide theatrical rentals, TV and video grosses, minus estimated negative costs, P&A and video/DVD manufacturing costs. To produce an accurate rate of return, all costs and revenue used were limited to the first 24 months from the date of each release.

"Profit" in this study does not include revenue derived from merchandising, licensing or fast-food tie-ins. If those revenue streams were included, the average profit for G, PG and PG-13 films would rise dramatically, while the average profit for R-rated films would not, because sales of toys and other licensed products are rarely associated with R-rated films.

The well-known research firm Kagan Media Appraisals assembled the data (though some results are based on Kagan's estimates of proprietary corporate information), which was analyzed by the finance department of Grand Rapids' Seidman College of Business at Grand Valley State University.

Rolfe makes the case that films can be entertaining and profitable without the sometimes gratuitous trappings that go along with an R rating. "Movies such as 'Shrek 2,' 'Finding Neverland,' 'National Treasure,' 'The Incredibles' and 'Miracle' -- all rated PG -- are action-adventure films, comedies, dramas and mysteries -- but without the explicit language and gory special effects that are rampant in R-rated movies," Rolfe said.

While an R-rated film has never been given the Dove Seal of Approval, Rolfe said the foundation has given endorsements to select R-rated films that have a redemptive message, including "Saving Private Ryan," "Schindler's List," "Amistad" and "The Passion of the Christ." "The portrayals were too explicit to meet our standards," he said in regard to the violence in those films, "but they did have a strong redemptive message."

Over the 15-year period, Hollywood produced 123 G-rated films, which accounted for approximately 4% of the top 3,000 films and had an average profit per film of $79 million. At the same time, R-rated films comprised 1,533 of the total, or 52% of the 3,000 films in the study, and averaged $7 million each. The second most widely distributed film rating was PG-13, with 847 films averaging $23.5 million in profit, while 479 PG-rated films averaged $28.3 million.

While studio executives have long known that films with less restrictive ratings have a potentially bigger audience, the rating is not the sole driving force of the business.

"There is no question in my mind that Hollywood has been making more PG-13-, PG- and G-rated movies. Movies make huge sums of money when they work and have those ratings, since they have a much broader audience to draw from," said Tom Sherak, a partner at Sony-based Revolution Studios, who said he had not seen the report.

"But the key to the entertainment business is that movies are made for different things and different reasons," Sherak added. "Our industry tells stories, and not all of those stories are G or PG stories. There are movies that are rated R, which should be rated R, which need to be made as well."

Regarding the profitability of G-rated fare, Sherak said, "G-rated movies will always have a place in society -- films that you can take everybody to and not worry. The thing about G-rated films is they have to appeal to the parents and the kids to be really successful."

Weighing in on the ratings-profitability study, a leading entertainment investment banker said the conclusion was not unexpected. "The results are not that surprising but are in fact quite intuitive," said Lloyd Greif, president and CEO of Greif & Co., a Los Angeles-based investment banking firm. "The reason for that is G-, PG- and PG-13 rated films are widely accessible to nearly all age groups -- both in the theaters and in the aftermarkets. By its very definition, a more restricted film is accessible by a more limited audience."

Greif added: "An adult will watch once, twice if you're lucky, but a child or adolescent or a teenager will go back to the movie or video and watch it multiple times and will not tire of the experience. If Hollywood is chasing the older teens and early 20s age demographic with R-rated product, they are missing a much greater opportunity to attract all age groups with more accessible product -- product you don't need a driver's license in order to see."

Commenting on the new study and the move away from R-rated films in recent years, Greif said, "While the shift isn't dramatic, it looks like Hollywood has gotten the message and is producing proportionally fewer R-rated films today."

While the "profit" used in the report is not the actual profit earned by a studio, the comparisons cited in the study are viable because the same factors were applied to all films. Hence, the results reflect a relative, though not absolute, assessment of return on investment.

With these qualifiers in place, for films released from 2000-03, the study maintains that the average rate of return on investment for a G-rated picture was 94.5%; PG-rated films, 72.6%; PG-13-rated films, 43.6%; and R-rated, 28.7%.

The dominance of less restricted fare also can be seen in the top 10-grossing films in the international boxoffice: Five are rated PG-13, four are rated PG and one is rated G. "The Matrix: Reloaded" is ranked 18th and is the highest-grossing R-rated film among the worldwide boxoffice champs, and "The Passion of the Christ" is ranked 27th and is the only other R-rated film in addition to "Reloaded" in the top 30.

Between 1988 and 2004, Buena Vista was the largest purveyor by far of G- and PG-rated films. And while it cannot be attributed solely to family-friendly ratings, the Disney distribution arm has collected more than $1 billion in annual domestic film gross nine times in the past 11 years -- more than any other distributor.

The foundation also will attempt to make an impact on the suppliers and producers of entertainment by appealing to the investment community. Rolfe noted that in addition to the major studios, the study also will be sent to 200 mutual and pension fund administrators.

"Clearly, if Hollywood is worried about a recent decline in attendance and the resulting loss of profits, they should be producing more G- and PG-rated films," Rolfe said. "The general public is voting with their feet, heading to movies that the whole family can enjoy without having to worry about exposing themselves or their youngsters to inappropriate language or behavior,"

A complete copy of the report and all supporting documentation is available on the Dove Foundation's Web site.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

Geoff--as one director stated in the documentary, they know going into production it will be cut/edited for TV and airliners. That's part of their contract.

zagafi--I don't have any use for Tarantino's work either. Never really saw the appeal in it, but apparently some people do. If he wants to make violent movies with lots of the stabbity and bangbangshootemup and kickitykickitykillkillkill, let him.

But it's ultimately up to the parents and the individual to decide what they should/should not see or allow their kids to see. I know that CleanPlay accomplishes that. You can also tell your kid that certain movies aren't acceptable and will be taken away if they show up in the house. Or, you can do what my parents did and just tell them God will KILL them for watching certain movies. I remember my parents telling me that when I asked to watch The Graduate when I was a sr. in HS. I just saw it for the first time the other night when it was on TV. It didn't shock me as much as I thought it would, but I realize why my parents thought it was inappropriate at the time.

TOV

 

[cardaway]

A director makes a work of art. Like it or not, the art sometimes includes things you would not like to see. The people who make movies should have the right to say how their product is shown. They shouldn't have to accept these companies chopping up their movie and still keeping their name on it.

The companies that so this should have no audience. If the people who want these edits were to support films that already met their criteria, there would be more of them made and less made that doesn't meet their standards.

And the edits made for TV and Airlines are done by contract, and don't remove everything that these "cleanplay" companies edit out.

It's also a pretty sad message that in most cases the violence in these movies stays put while many other things are taken out.

 

[PlaneJoy1]

[/QUOTE]
I know that's the way it was when I was growing up. We weren't allowed to see/rent anything that was PG-13 or R until I was in HS and even then my parents weren't really thrilled about us watching them Even when I was engaged to DH, certain movies were still taboo. One, The Breakfast Club (which isn't exactly tame, but fairly tame by today's teen flick standards), was forbidden because of a split-second scene where one male character (Bender)ends up looking up the skirt of a female character (Claire) and sees her virginal white panties.

Why is it now all of a sudden H ollywood's responsability to make movies that are clean enough (even if they are rated R) for young children to watch?

People are always clamoring for this show or that show to be taken off of television because it's too violent, too sexual, etc. HELLO! Why else did they invent the V-Chip if not to allow parents greater control over what comes into their living rooms?

TOV[/QUOTE]

To me, you've answered your own question. You can't even turn on the TV during prime time and find something that I would let my 8 year old watch, much less go to 90% of the movies out there. Shows are filled with sexual enuido, encounters, obsentities, etc. That wasn't the case not too long ago. What occurs at 8 p.m. now on TV, would have had to wait until the wee hours of the morning, in years gone by. It's sad really.

While I don't agree with them breaking copyright laws, I do wish they would work with Hollywood to develop these "more appropriate" films for distribution. They aren't telling you, "You have to watch this version", they are giving parents and adults alike an option of something better for the family. Removing what might be consider offensive to those of us who try to guard our children's purity for as long as we can.

The movie rating have gotten more and more relaxed over the years. There are things in PG movies that I think shouldn't be there. Scenes get approved simply because they are scaled down from something that made it an "R". The arguement becomes "it wasn't as bad as the orignal version".

 

[cardaway]

But only to a point. There's clear evidence that flicks carrying less than an "R" rating offer a better ROI.

Only because most of the PG13 movies would have been an R at a different time.

It's pretty simple. Even PG13 and PG movies are getting things edited out by these folks. Rather than watch a movie that meets their standards, these folks look to others to make other movies acceptable.

IMO it's pretty clear who is in the wrong here.

 

[marybet]

The one that amazed me was "Titanic", they removed all the sex scenes but left the ones of the people drowning and dying. If the child was to young for the sex they were to young for the dying. I just don't understand people who think this is okay. Let your child wait until he is old enough to see the movie. They certainly make enough of those stupid teen movies, leave the adult movies alone. Or better yet explain talk to your child about the content of the movie, use it as a teaching experience.

Just as bad is being at the movies and people bring in young children that shouldn't be seeing "R" rated movies. There are some movies that are just not suitable for children.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

That's why they have the V-Chip,as I have stated over and over again,PlaneJoy.

And if you have cable (like most people do)you can FIND something acceptable for your kids to watch in the evenings. If you have a TiVo (like I do)you can record children's programming from the daytime hours for them to watch at night. It's not that hard to find SOMETHING your child can watch between the hours of 7 and 10 pm as you're making it out to be.

TOV

 

[cardaway]

You can't even turn on the TV during prime time and find something that I would let my 8 year old watch, much less go to 90% of the movies out there. Shows are filled with sexual enuido, encounters, obsentities, etc. That wasn't the case not too long ago. What occurs at 8 p.m. now on TV, would have had to wait until the wee hours of the morning, in years gone by. It's sad really.

There is more than enough content out there that fits your criteria. It's your responsibility to find it.

 

[TheOtherVillainess]

ITAWTC.

*ETA--just to prove it, I went to MeeVee.com and looked to see what's on tonight during 'prime time'. I found the following 'kid-friendly' programs:

Full House
The Planet's Funniest Animals
W.I.T.C. H.
Zixx
Andy Griffith
The Lizzie Maguire Movie (which actually started at like 6 or something)
Emeril Live (Bam baby!)
This Old House Hour
Jack Frost (a PG movie)
Little House on the Prarie

Don't tell ME there's nothing on in prime time your child can watch.

TOV