Censoring Hollywood

Is anyone else sickened by the movement to create censored versions of DVDs?

just askin'...

read more here

-Z

hasn't WalMart been selling edited versions of movies for quite awhile now? or is that just an urban legend?

On 2005-04-27 08:30, seamus wrote:
hasn't WalMart been selling edited versions of movies for quite awhile now? or is that just an urban legend?

I don't know about movies, but they've been doing it for years with CDs. There were CDs that I owned before I met my wife, and coincidentaly she had some simmilar ones she bought at Walmart. The Walmart ones clearly had shorter set lists. Entire songs were just left off.

On 2005-04-27 08:30, seamus wrote:
hasn't WalMart been selling edited versions of movies for quite awhile now? or is that just an urban legend?

To my knowledge, walmart is selling edited movies that were re-cut by the studio... much like Blockbuster. What's happening now is self-righteous mom & pop companies violating copyrights by doing the editing themselves and selling them. Some companies edit out sex & gore, others go further by taking out references to gays or things that would ruin their sheltered little world.

-Z

yes this sickens me too--on several fronts. First that the super richtwing evangelicle conservatives are feeling their oats by trying to chip away at our freedoms that they don't consider virtuous.

The second problem is that people not associated with the production are editing another person's work. TO me it is like putting clothes on Michael Angelo's David (altough I'm sure there are some conservs out there who really want to do that). Granted, most movies are not what I would call "works of art" but they are and product of someone's vision.

The third, and most important thing that bugs me is that shouldn't the parents be keeping their children from watching "adult" subject matter and not the state or corporations? What ever happened to good old fashioned parenting? Have parents become so disenfranchised in their own families that they leave descretion to companies and the gonernement?

It bugs me

Wal Mart on Best Buy sell more CDs than all other record stores combined.

Fact.

They have a LOT of pull with the big labels.

Most major label artists these days who have material on their recordings that may be seen as objectionable are required in their contracts to spend some studio time assembling 'clean' versions of their records for sale at Wal Mart and Best Buy.

This practice is scary and loathsome for all the reasons stated in above posts, but at least the artist, in many cases, is given the latitude to make the cuts themselves - whether this means obscuring objectionable words with sound effects, or cutting a section out of a song entirely, or leaving the whole song off of the CD.

Now, if the objectionable song is the 'hit', their options are more limited - they have to include it, so they must alter it. Filler songs may be lost altogether, however.

Artist, producer, and record label will make these choices together... if the artist is lucky.

Now, movies... yup, it's happening there too.

Freakin miserable.

Whatever happened to Parents saying "NO, you are 10 years old and you don't NEED to see an R rated movie??"

The group of people who are responsible for this getting patent protection are the same ones who preach about personal responsibility and small government, this seems a little counter intuitive.

Waaaaah!!! The real world is ugly, won't someone edit out all the unpleasantness?

Waaaahhhh!!! I can't figure outhow to operate the on/off switch! Why can't Government make the television manufacturers spend extra money to install Vchips? I don't care if it makes T.V.s more expensive for everyone.

Waaahhhh. I don't have cable, but I don't want other people to watch things that I don't pay for, but I find offensive. (this by the way is the modern version of Mencken's definition of Puritanism; "Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.")

Waaaaah!!! I don't want to read books by gay authors, so instead of not reading them, I'm going to pass a law forbiding public libraries to stock such books. ( Think it can't happen? Just look to Talabama. They author of the bill even wanted to ban Shakespeare. )

Wahhhh!?! Who is this Orwell you speak of? Was he a communist?

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

When will they uncover the statue of justice? Since they covered her up becuase of her "offending" bare breast, things have been getting weird.

Yes, this sickens me as well. Only the artist/writer etc. should be allowed to do that.

having said that, I've felt for a long time that movie producers should release different versions of the same movies in the theatre for different audiences. For example, I am a big Star Wars fan. However, I hate when Lucas puts characters like Ewoks or Jar Jar Binks in his movies so that he can 1) appeal to kids and 2) sell merchandise. I think that they should produce different cuts of movies like that... one for kids (like the ones released), and a more darker, graphic and less sanitized version for adults. I think this would actually make the studios more money because there would be people who would see the movie more than once (both versions) to see how they were different.

You didn't like the Ewoks?
What if they were bare-breasted, malevolent Ewoks?

They already do cut versions for TV & airplanes. It's just bizarre to me that someone would think it's appropriate to edit, say, 'Rosemary's Baby' of all the violence, so a 12 year could watch it? I mean, why not just tell your kid, that movie is NOT appropriate for you to watch, forget it. Then they can do what we did as kids, sneak watching it at a friends house, and suffer through the nightmares for 3 weeks!

A few years ago we took my nephews to see Jaws at the Paramount in Oakland, Jaws is one of my all time favorite movies, but it's kind of scary, and we told my nephew, who was 10 at the time, if he got scared, we'd leave. Towards the end after Quint got chomped, he wanted to go, so I took him to the lobby and we hung out until the movie ended. (I saw Jaws at the Drive In in Cape May when I was 9, and I didn't go into the water for a year!) What's the point of seeing a 'Jaws' if you edit out all the shark attacks? Why can't parents just pay attention?

If a movie has gratuitous violence and language, maybe you should reconsider letting your 12 year old watch it on another set of principles? I really think this is a case of 'controlling Hollywood'

The ironic part is the amount of sex and violence on TV every day, unflitered! And who is behind this, making assloads of money! (FOX, GE, Viacom)
Anyway - yes, this pisses me of!

Last Saturday I watched Lord of the Rings, Return of the King with two of my cousin's kids, 4 & 8. They both loved it!(it was the older one's first choice from my collection) The scariest part was the kissing to the 8 year old. He had to leave the room.

I know my brothers let me watch very scary movies when I was little, I'd seen all the classic horrors by the time I was about 7. I get wayyy more scared now than I did at that age. I can remember our parents not letting us watch "Summer Rental" with John Candy. It had bare breasts in it. They actually screened a rental. We watched it anyway.

Movies shouldn't be altered for the renting public. That's a load of baloney.

The mom-and-pop companies don't bother me too much, as long as it is kept on a small scale and the films are watched in a private setting. I'm concerned though that the audience for such films could become larger and more powerful, and the presence of such altered films more acceptable, and it could reach a point where local communities could then force various stores to sell only the altered films - just like K-Mart does on a national scale with music.

Several science museums around the country are already refusing to show an IMAX film on volcanos, because the film mentions 'evolution,' and that upsets a certain portion of their audience, and the museums wish to avoid controversey and protests. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_censorship_050331.html
If they don't like volcanos, they probably won't like tikis either!

We may need to form a counter-attack soon. If they are allowed to go against the director's intent by removing what they feel is objectionable, then we should be allowed to similarly alter their own films. We could take the various G-rated films, and then add in various scenes that do include extra sex, violence, or perhaps only altered dialogue, to 'enhance' the subject matter of the film - not necessarily to the X level, but perhaps only to a PG-13 rating. If they can alter, then we should be able to alter too.

Vern

Proceed with caution, not sure if this rant makes any sense...

Watching television the other day there was a show on that had an image of a drawing of a nude woman, the show had blackened out her nipples to protect me, the viewer from the illicit horrors of a...a...a nipple.
It struck me as odd when my husband changed the channel and stopped on one of the many CSI shows you can see at any given moment on TV. There was this gruesome plastic dead person that had every horrible thing done to it described in agonizing detail, with their plastic bloody organs thrown about the room.
Huh? Whaa?
Nothing was edited for my safety?
No one was thinking for me? Yea Riiight!
If I'm not mistaken everything is edited. Everyyyything! The Bible, newspapers, yes, even our Tiki Central. It's hopeless.
I will even edit this post several times.
It doesn't matter, we will screw our kids up regardless, if they watch the nightly news, Friday the 13th or Mary Poppins, thats the way it goes.
Personally, I'm saving Old Yeller to show my son for when he does something really bad. Muuahahah!
Everyone is some kinda crazy.
We all end up with some hang up, phobia or disorder.
Your life suck?
Lucky for you, you can blame it on someone or something else.
The media, the government, our parents, our religion, the other guys religion, heck we can even blame nature.
People, just turn the TV off, get your ass outside touch the sky, talk to a bum, kick a rock, play with your kid.
Thats my kinda crazy.
Oh! And don't EVER shop at Wal-Mart!

[ Edited by: DawnTiki on 2005-04-27 20:22 ]

I tuned into "BLEEP" thinking it was going to be a documentary about the Hayes commission and censorship back in the early days of motion pictures and television. After five minutes of viewing I began to get this uncomfortable feeling of fear, nausea and abandonment (like you get when you're sitting in court waiting for your case to be called). I immediately caught myself and changed the channel to something more spiritually uplifting (I think it was the Surreal Life). I thought back on a John Water's movie I saw on late night cable last weekend and chuckled to myself..."I wonder what Cecil B. Demented would say about these guys hackin' up his movies?"

So what I think I hear most of you say is, if Hollywood wants to create smut, sex, immorality, gore and trash, who are these people who want to remove crap from movies for their own viewing or for thoses who are like minded. Are you any different for being offended by their actions, They are offended by Hollywood, your offend by them.

Digitiki said;
shouldn't the parents be keeping their children from watching "adult" subject matter and not the state or corporations? What ever happened to good old fashioned parenting?

I think that most right wing untra conservative, evangelicals, do just that.
I do.

On 2005-04-27 21:11, bananabobs wrote:
So what I think I hear most of you say is, if Hollywood wants to create smut, sex, immorality, gore and trash, who are these people who want to remove crap from movies for their own viewing or for thoses who are like minded. Are you any different for being offended by their actions, They are offended by Hollywood, your offend by them.

Digitiki said;
shouldn't the parents be keeping their children from watching "adult" subject matter and not the state or corporations? What ever happened to good old fashioned parenting?

I think that most right wing untra conservative, evangelicals, do just that.
I do.

Why watch something if you have to gut it of things you find offensive, thereby reducing the artistic merit and content?

Leave my smut,sex, immorality ( according to you ) gore and trash ALONE.

If you want happy bunny land, don't rent Kill Bill.

And I wonder if they will edit that gorefest that was The Passion of The Christ.

And the problem is that the Ultra Conservatives seem to be the ones who want to rob me of my Ultra-Violence.

By the by, porn is as big if not bigger in terms of making money than hollywood. Wheres the support for the "free market"?

On 2005-04-27 21:11, bananabobs wrote:
Are you any different for being offended by their actions, They are offended by Hollywood, your offend by them.

Yes I am different than them. I have not attempted to have "christian movies" edited of content I find offending.

I haven't treid to get laws passed to remove certain religious tomes removed becuase of content that is offending to me. Try passages about people should be stoned to death for picking up sticks on sunday. Or if you conquer a people, kill all the men, but keep the women for yourselves.

So when they remove Kapote from the public libraries in Talabama, will that book with stories of rape,murder, incest and a plethora of other "objectionable" acts be removed also?

Books are burning
In the main square, and I saw there
The first eating the text
Books are burning
In the still air
And you know where they burn books
People are next
I believe the printed word should be forgiven
Doesn't matter what it said
Wisdom hotline from the dead back to the living
Key to the larder for your heart and head
Books are burning
In our own town, watch us turn 'round
And cast our glances elsewhere
Books are burning
In the playground
Smell of burnt book is not unlike human hair
I believe the printed word is more than sacred
Beyond the gauge of good or bad
The human right to let your soul fly free and naked
Above the violence of the fearful and sad
The church of matches
Anoints in ignorance with gasoline
The church of matches
Grows fat by breathing in the smoke of dreams
It's quite obscene
Books are burning
More each day now, and I pray now
You boys will tire of these games
Books are burning
I hope somehow, this will allow
A phoenix up from the flames
XTC

On 2005-04-27 18:24, DawnTiki wrote:
Proceed with caution, not sure if this rant makes any sense...

Watching television the other day there was a show on that had an image of a drawing of a nude woman, the show had blackened out her nipples to protect me, the viewer from the illicit horrors of a...a...a nipple.

The Black Bar, the Pixelated blur, the bleep, they all offend me. Wheres my uncensored imagery. I want reality, not "reality" t.v. It offends me that someone else has made the decision of what I can or can not see. So wheres the chip on my t.v. set that makes the censors editing chicanery go away? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Lets call it the "Hardcore Chip" and it will be an optional upgrade like a/c was on automobiles.

So when will congress convene and support my right to see what I want to see?

Just thinking out loud here....ah forget it.

This is a great discussion but I think folks are getting worked up over the mixing of two topics in one here. Topic one, the alteration of an artist's work, and topic two, the compulsion, by government, to view the altered work instead of the original (i.e. censorship).

Since topic one is so much less inflammatory than topic two, the creators of the TV Show titled it "Censoring Hollywood" when it's really about who has the right, if any, to change the content of a videotape or DVD.

My opinion is that commercial ventures to alter the videos for resale are illegal. Do I really care though, if John Doe takes his previouisly purchased DVD to someone who takes out the parts he doesn't like? No where in that article or TV show is there mention of the government forcing the altered videos on the rest of us. Just the specter of it, I guess, because it gets people like TikiGardener (and me) fired up.

Remember when the person tried selling a self-painted Gecko mug on eBay? That was wrong. But, do I care if she painted it herself and then put it on her own shelf? Not really. What if she knew she was a lousy painter and decided to pay the local artist do it for her? Do I care then? Do you?

JTD

My opinion is that commercial ventures to alter the videos for resale are illegal. Do I really care though, if John Doe takes his previouisly purchased DVD to someone who takes out the parts he doesn't like? No where in that article or TV show is there mention of the government forcing the altered videos on the rest of us. Just the specter of it, I guess, because it gets people like TikiGardener (and me) fired up.
JTD

I agree, its absurd for these folks to remove offensive material and then watch the movie, in my mind it’s the same as having a peanut butter and dog turd sandwich, remove the dog poop and then eat the sandwich.

I believe that censorship is wrong. (3 daughters, 3 artists, Graphic Illustrator, Professional Photographer, and a Fashion Designer) What I agree with is “appropriateness.” For example, Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic and sadomasochistic images should not be censored, but are they appropriate for all? Should they be shielded from some audiences? Who should be certain that the Rights of some are not trampled by others, on both spectrums. Is shielding Mapplethorpe from Grandmothers and Kiddies censorship or responsible?

What galls me though is when these issues come up, how quickly some are to start attacking the Conservative and the Christian Communities. When some fringe lunatic in any community does something wacko, the News is especially quick to gather all the rest of a community into the mess. When responsibility for shielding innocents from “Art” is discussed, the far left begins a goose-step burn-book mantra which is as silly as removing turds from a poop sandwich.

1. I'm extremely suprised Hanford hasn't locked this thread yet. When you think about it, that's exactly what this thread is about isn't it? (I wonder if any members that are on the anti-censoring viewpoint have previously complained about Bong's "offensive" posts?)

2. When 'artists' use sex and foul language etc in their 'art', they are really only showing that they're not talented enough to do something really creative that doesn't require such short-cuts; most everyone on this board are alleged retro-philes and romantically dream of past generations. If that is so, why don't they also love the beautiful artistic work of those periods that didn't rely on shock-short cuts? It takes a higher level of cognition to appreciate art you really have to think about.

3. What angers many people is that Hollywood hides offensive material in Trojan horses; they seem to always sneak something in that isn't always labled as containing such material.

4. That's why I, for the majority of films and shows, lost interest in TV and films.

5. Get OFF your asses and create something of your OWN for entertainment; you have a brain, USE it!

******* PLEASE NOTE *******
Please don't freakin' unload on me because I've stated my opinion; if you do, you're only doing what you say you hate - censoring others opinions!

[ Edited by: Tiki_Bong on 2005-04-28 10:57 ]

**Please leave religion and politics out of this discussion. It shouldn't be that hard. **

If it gets out of hand, I'll lock this topic down, and I'll short-term-ban people who I think are purposely crossing the line.

I think discussions like this are important and we should be able to discuss stuff like this, but as we've established a long time ago, Religion and Politics are not to be discussed on TC. There's plenty of other forums for that.

To me,the best solution for dealing with censorship,be you for or against,is voting with your feet.

Sorry Hanford,
It’s hard not to let religious or political beliefs flavor one's opinion. It would be like discussing Big Mac's and not being able to mention the bun, The TiKi but not the Palm, The Mai Tai but not the juice.
It’s all good.

On 2005-04-28 16:36, bananabobs wrote:
Sorry Hanford,
It’s hard not to let religious or political beliefs flavor one's opinion. It would be like discussing Big Mac's and not being able to mention the bun,

In this case I disagree. The topic can continue, but please leave references to religion or politics out. Thanks.

I agree with Bananabob.

I have been admonished as "single handedly killing this thread" and "crossing the line", because I first mentioned a religio-political group that I'm not supposed to mention. Which isn't actually accurate. All I can say is if this thread is Caesar's corpse, I may have done my share of stabbing, but I'm not Brutus.

[ Edited by: TikiGardener on 2005-04-28 19:03 ]

Can the apolitical atheists appreciate film, art and music or not?

**** PLEASE NOTE ****
This was only a rhetorical question. It was meant to show that this topic IN FACT does NOT need any of the forbidden topics in order to be discussed.

[ Edited by: Tiki_Bong on 2005-04-28 20:58 ]

Make that into a t-shirt, and I'd wear it.

If you can't discuss a topic without mentioning politics or religion, I would appreciate you simply not discussing that topic on TC, as opposed to bringing it up anyway, or continuing it once someone else brought it up. Because doing so often gets otherwise-valid topics locked.

This is not a religion & politics debate board. Period. If you need to discuss this so badly, go find one.

Here's a thought, if you don't want to see it, don't watch it, read it or participate.
We live in a time where we can have most anything we want, when we want it, however we want it. Isn't it really all about money anyway? No one cares about the writers or directors artistic, creative vision. I mean chances are its gonna be crap anyway so what do I care what kind of crap you prefer, the cleaned up version or dirty virsion, it makes no difference to me...crap is crap. All "they" care about it whats it gonna take for you to give "them" (whoever that is) your 20 bucks? How do you want it? Good and clean or good and dirty.
I've got an idea, how about just good!

[ Edited by: DawnTiki on 2005-04-28 21:30 ]

Societies have a tendency to produce certain unified views of looking at the world - a group mindthink that is common to most people. There is nothing wrong with this - it can represent our informal national identity, and perhaps even our culture.

A danger exists when this worldview is presented as the only acceptable and proper way of looking at things, and anything that strays from this view is listed as deviant or perverse and something to immediately be squashed.

Cultures do need artists who are willing to take a critical look at this mainstream groupview, and raise questions about the norms that exist, and be able to shout out 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' or "try looking at things this way!' The crowds may recognize the truth of the shouted warning or statement, or they might choose to simply ignore it, as they often do.

If a culture is to grow and be vibrant, its attitudes and opinions must be open to change. In what direction does a culture move? - it moves towards a view or expression that was formally not in the mainstream. Often the seeds of these views were first presented by an artist, or perhaps some other visionary not even associated with the art world. As cultures evolve, what may have been formerly taboo might now become common - an example being the level of nudity that Playboy Magazine helped introduce.

I do recognize that many people may not want to be constantly exposed to these differing views. The older generation may want to live nostalgically in the world of their youth, where movies did not show such graphic images. And those with children may worry about their ability to choose when and where their children will be allowed to view such images. There are other legitimate reasons for why certain groups of people might prefer to live in the mainstream world.

What is the proper amount of violence and nudity in our movies, our music, on the sidewalks in front of our streets? It will vary depending on whatever subculture - mainstream or subversive - that you are associated with. Your identity with subcultures may change according to whatever situation you relate to - whether it be geographical, professional, family, religous, political, recreational, age group, or whatever else you determine to be imporatnt at that moment. Some may identify with only one key identity, while others might like to swap them as often as they change their shirts.

There is a difference between recognizing the validity of a different subculture, while still allowing it to exist somewhere else where others can still discover it when the time is right, versus feeling the need to permanently squash that subculture for fear of it contaminating your own view of the world.

Is the editing out of sex and violence in DVDs a danger? If it is seen as an effort to help create and define your own subculture, then it can be a good thing. But if it is seen as the first steps to squash something that they feel should not exist in the world at all, then there is much potential for it to become a dangerous thing.

Having Wal-Mart sell only censored versions of music CDs may not be a problem when you live in a city and have the option of visiting other nearby stores. But if you live in a rural area, where there might be only one store (a Wal-Mart ) that sells music CDs - then you are in a sense being forced to live in a restricted world.

This is a fascinating topic, and I am enjoying reading the views of the others here.

Vern

ikitnrev wrote:

But if you live in a rural area, where there might be only one store (a Wal-Mart ) that sells music CDs - then you are in a sense being forced to live in a restricted world.

Rural? With the internet rural doesn't really exist the same way it used to. If someone wants something bad enough, like music, a book or movie, you can get it within 24 hours just by typing in your credit card number. Heck! You can even buy a wife over the internet!

It's funny (not hah hah, but you know what i mean), that you don't really notice censorship in many movies.
Ok lets take E.T. Speilberg changed the fact that the feds had guns in their hands (the famous group flying scene) and had walkie-talkies digitaly placed in their hands. I didn't agree with the move because in all actuallity, it didn't bother me that they had guns in their hands. Speilberg did, so he changed it. It's his movie he can do what he wants. But atleast I get the choice if i want to watch it "enhanced" or not.
Another movie I know had more scenes, that where edited for my wittle head was "The Lawnmower Man". The scenes that whee cut where most of the "Cybo-Man" scenes. One in particular was when the monkey was shot. I know it probably upset some people, but the realism about it is.. it wasn't a real monkey and something like that could never happen.

..Just a few thoughts on my experience.

On 2005-04-27 05:56, Feelin' Zombified wrote:
Is anyone else sickened by the movement to create censored versions of DVDs?

just askin'...

-Z

Back to the question, no. Thats all I can say.

I am very disturbed by such censorship. In past generations it seemed more fueled by morality, but today (with the whole Wal-Mart issue) it seems to be fueled more by money and greed. Entertainment companies are so greedy that they will gladly butcher a film or CD in order to sell more to a giant chain. And while the internet has opened up a lot of options for people in rural areas, the physical stores are their immediate environment and may still influence what the locals buy. In that sense, it's almost like capitalism (on that large of a level) is becoming the new communism. Forcing the masses to comply with one mainstream way of thinking (or shopping) by making the almighty dollar more important than anything else. Only offer people what will make the companies the most money regardless of whether there's any quality to it whether it's film and CDs or clothing, food and housing. Sorry, I will not comply.

In fact, I was once censored for an art piece I collaborated on at a gallery. The title of the (rather innocent) piece was changed by the gallery because a so-called fellow artist who was also in the show perceived it as offensive and complained. Actually, the piece was a simple exercise in visual randomness. The fact that the "fellow artist" read something more into it spoke volumes about how she viewed the world.

On 2005-04-28 23:36, bananabobs wrote:

On 2005-04-27 05:56, Feelin' Zombified wrote:
Is anyone else sickened by the movement to create censored versions of DVDs?

just askin'...

-Z

Back to the question, no. Thats all I can say.

So violation of Copyright Law doesn't bother you? Piracy doesn't offend you?

-Z

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

The internet does allow a person in a rural area to seek out items they truly desire, that might not be available in their home area. But there is a type of impulse buy that happens when one is just wandering through your local store, and discover a new title or CD cover and decide to purchase it on the spot. In those cases, your choices are limited to what is on display at the store, and often the consumer is unaware that the version that is being purchased may be the edited version.

One of my peeves is when you see the statement 'This film has been edited from its original content' and then they never tell you what scenes were removed. I think they should add a statement that say something like '3 minutes and 17 seconds of excess violence and 5 minutes of nudity have been removed in this version of the film.' That would alert the consumer that what they are watching is not the original, but an altered version of the film, and they can then choose to search for the unaltered version if they wish.

Vern

Heck! You can even buy a wife over the internet!

"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

Who knows, maybe some day we will be able to buy children over the internet. We would then probably have to check to assure that they were not altered in any way.

Vern

Fun topic!

Hey, remember, even the film that is originally released is edited for commercial purposes.

Studios may demand a certain rating or the avoidance of a certain rating, so every artist faces supervision by non-artists with fiscal oversight.

Myself, I'm more sick of seeing "Director's Cut" or "Unrated Version" plastered on DVD's as a selling point. Shouldn't every cut be the "Director's Cut?" That message says that the director didn't get to make the film he or she wanted in the first place.

Pisses me off - now they use the fact that the director apparently thinks the DVD is the true version of his film and wants to let us all know that we wasted our time in the theater. Either that, or, like the bowdlerized versions, it is a ploy to grub more sheckels from the citizenry.

These "clean" store edits are not based on what the store believes, either. They are based on the store being able to make more money than if they didn't offer that edited cut - to me, that's exactly what the studio did in the first place.

Calling the cut of a film that hits the theaters "definitive" and considering any further editing to be sacrilege ignores all the other things that are part of the commercial film indutry.

Think about how many director's kvetch about the studio not releasing their films a certain way because the studio needed to avoid an NC-17 rating.

Or, consider: Isn't it an amazing coincidence that 99% of all film are between 90 and 120 minutes long? Wouldn't you think there'd be more variation in length? Isn't telling a director that a 90 minute or 2 hour film is required to keep customer flow going a serious case of artistic coersion just to keep ticket sales at a certain level?

Think back to the last "Director's Cut" version of a flick you saw with "20 more exciting minutes" or extra boob shots that never made the theater. Which version is the "true version" of the film?

Which version of "What's Up, Tiger Lilly?" or "Blade Runner" is the true version? :wink:

Same goes for music. Is it the album cut or the singles version of a cut that is "true."

Artists release "radio cuts" and "extended dance mixes" all the time to satisfy purely commercial demands. I sure hope they don't start relesasing "Artist's Cuts" of songs.

If the artist releases several takes, or a DJ remixes it, isn't that a crime as well?

Bottom line: Follow the money. If something that is done can be explained in terms of trying maximize profit, odds are that is the real reason behind why it was done.

Of course it is all about the money. It all boils down to who owns or has control of the ("intellectual property") rights. A movie, album, song, book article etc. cannot legally, re-edited or otherwise, be offered for sale or for free, by anyone other than those with the legal (copy)right to do so. Those edited WalMart versions are made with the signed consent of the artists whether they now like it or not. Many musicians are becoming dissatisfied with music publishing companies policies and profits and are using cheap, available technology to publish their own CD's etc. If you do not support a companies practices, then do not support the companies.

ikitnrev wrote:

Who knows, maybe some day we will be able to buy children over the internet. We would then probably have to check to assure that they were not altered in any way.

Wal-Mart babies on aisle 9...

Remember: quality sells itself, no reassembly required; Hitchcock, Hemmingway, Happy Kine...

On 2005-04-28 09:09, Tiki_Bong wrote:

[ Edited by: Tiki_Bong on 2005-04-28 10:57 ]

Bong, you never disappoint!

On 2005-04-29 23:22, ZebraTiki wrote:

On 2005-04-28 09:09, Tiki_Bong wrote:

[ Edited by: Tiki_Bong on 2005-04-28 10:57 ]

      Bong, you never disappoint!  

(I wish Mdm Bong said that...)

So...after all this discussion....did WALMART or this other company censor Mel Gibson's "Passion of the..." when it hit DVD / video ?? Just curious......