Purified films- This must be stopped [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 03:13 AM

Well, unless they're doing this to every film released, then I don’t see a problem with it at all.

You don't see a problem with altering someone else's copyrighted material without permission then repackaging and reselling it for a profit?

The problem isn't the content they are editing out, but that they are violating copyright laws to do so and making money off of it.

h, and BTY, in movies, dead people are normally living people acting a part, or its a dummy (either an object or CGI), but boobies are real, you really can't fake it unless its CGI or something, so saying its hypocritical IN A WAY doesn’t necessarily hold any water.

I don't necessarily think it's hypocritical. Misquided and stupid, maybe, but not hypocritical. This isn't just about protecting children from "boobies". They also cut out the scene in Spongebob Squarepants where Patrick dresses in high heels and stockings and sings. Family Flix cuts out any "suggestions or depictions" of homosexuality. They also cut out references to Oskar Schindler's marital affairs in Schindler's List.

Again, it's their right to protect themselves (oh, and their children of course, we mustn't forget the children) from all them Godless homosexual librels, but it's not their right to make unauthorized copies of movies and resell them at a profit.

EDIT: I would not however be opposed to what they were doing if they didn't charge for it. I would still think what they were doing was stupid, but I wouldn't see anything really wrong with it.

Criminal Rock

04-27-2005, 04:50 AM

You don't see a problem with altering someone else's copyrighted material without permission then repackaging and reselling it for a profit?

I didn’t realize it was for profit, I thought he made the DVD so his friend could see it, and I didn’t realize that he did this illegally and sold it to him. and It wasn't explaind very well in the first place.

The way Critic explains it makes it seems like a man created a business of some sort that edits films for the people who don’t want to see the "bad" shit that’s in it, and he got the idea from an experience he had with a friend. i didnt read any illegal shit going down, but i'm sure thats what happened anyways so it doesnt matter.

I don't necessarily think it's hypocritical. Misquided and stupid, maybe, but not hypocritical. This isn't just about protecting children from "boobies". They also cut out the scene in Spongebob Squarepants where Patrick dresses in high heels and stockings and sings. Family Flix cuts out any "suggestions or depictions" of homosexuality. They also cut out references to Oskar Schindler's marital affairs in Schindler's List.

I dont know if you realize, but I don't think that it's hypocritical either, I was merely explaining that it wasn't. So if you're refurring to what I said, well then BLA!!!!!!

Again, it's their right to protect themselves (oh, and their children of course, we mustn't forget the children) from all them Godless homosexual librels, but it's not their right to make unauthorized copies of movies and resell them at a profit.

I have absolutley no clue where this is going.:) but its fun

*thumbs up*

But the problem is KIDS are so stupid that they don't know the difference between a real dead person and a fake dead person, or for that matter a real, tangible, three-dimensional object and a two-dimensional projection on a giant screen. So they will get the idea that it is just OK to die on the Titanic. Although I haven't really heard of this movie "Titanic," if thats what its really called, but I predict thousands of juvenile deaths in the coming months. Whereas a titty never hurt nobody... at least nobody who wasn't asking for it.

I really do think they know the difference, but if you're correct, and they're too stupid to know the difference between falsities and realisms, they're probebly too stupid to know whats going on anyways so it doesnt matter what they see, we can show them all the tits and ass they want to, and they wont know WHAT the hell is going on! Howard Dean says "YEAH!!!"

*thumbs up*

C'mon, lets get realistic.

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
The way Critic explains it makes it seems like a man created a business of some sort that edits films for the people who don’t want to see the "bad" shit that’s in it, and he got the idea from an experience he had with a friend. i didnt read any illegal shit going down, but i'm sure thats what happened anyways so it doesnt matter.

What you just described IS the illegal part, ie making a business out of altering copyrighted films and reselling them.

I dont know if you realize, but I don't think that it's hypocritical either, I was merely explaining that it wasn't.

No, I was agreeing with you that it wasn't necessarily hypocritical, although I guess it could be argued that it's somewhat hypocritical to break the law to protect your kids from so-called immoral depictions on screen.

I was just adding that while it wasn't hypocritical (necessarily) it was misguided and stupid, particularly the part about Spongebob Squarepants promoting or depicting homosexuality and the need to protect children from a male cartoon starfish dancing and singing while wearing fishnet stockings.

I have absolutley no clue where this is going. but its fun

My point is that while I agree that parents have a right to control what their children see and protect them from perceived harm, I'm lamenting what exactly these people are protecting their children from. Ignorant adults in this case are begatting ignorant children.

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Savage Henry
[B]But the problem is KIDS are so stupid that they don't know the difference between a real dead person and a fake dead person, or for that matter a real, tangible, three-dimensional object and a two-dimensional projection on a giant scree

I think the question really is whether or not a child is more likely to be affected/traumatized by a graphic depiction of violence or a graphic depiction of sex.

Clearly, the demographic we're talking about here (these businesses are all, oddly, based in Utah and have a predominantly conservative customer base) regard sex and homosexuality as the far greater threat.

Nachokoolaid

04-27-2005, 11:46 AM

Is this even an issue? It shouldn't be. It's the most retarded idea I've ever heard. "Hey, lets fuck with someone else's film. That's way, I can feel like an important director/editor, because I know better than them what should go in this film and what shouldnt." I'm sorry to break it to this prick, but he's not the director, and he has no right to tamper with copyrighted material, so he should...SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND LEAVE FILMS ALONE, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

The Postmaster General

04-27-2005, 01:04 PM

I used to edit movies down so I could show them at the "Movie Night"s we would have at the mental health home I worked at. Nothing major, but I would cut graphic sex and anything that seemed too brutal. A lot of the people were pretty sensitive to that sort of thing, so I didn't want to ruin the movie experience for them, or others. Besides, I wasn't allowed to show R movies, so I'd get approval for some that I edited down. This was all for private use, and nothing was sold or anything. These were usually movies that were requested by the patients, and I'd tell them what I had to do and stuff. They didn't seem to mind, and were just happy they got to see the movie.

Is that bad in you alls eyes? I have actually seen these places before, and have considered buying from them to save myself time, but the way you all make it sound, I'd be supporting a bad enterprise. I see the reasons why I shouldn't, especially the copyright issue - I'm not cool with ripping off.

So what I really want to know is if anyone has a problem with editing movies in the context I described above.

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So what I really want to know is if anyone has a problem with editing movies in the context I described above.

If you don't charge money, I don't personally see anything wrong with it. It should fall under fair use. Or you could do like the airlines or TV networks and get permission, but that's probably a lot more hassle than it's worth.

cocksmokinclerk

04-27-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Nachokoolaid
Is this even an issue? It shouldn't be. It's the most retarded idea I've ever heard. "Hey, lets fuck with someone else's film. That's way, I can feel like an important director/editor, because I know better than them what should go in this film and what shouldnt." I'm sorry to break it to this prick, but he's not the director, and he has no right to tamper with copyrighted material, so he should...SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND LEAVE FILMS ALONE, YOU SON OF A BITCH!!!

my sentiments exacltly

Criminal Rock

04-27-2005, 03:12 PM

What you just described IS the illegal part, ie making a business out of altering copyrighted films and reselling them.

There’s a LEGAL movie editing business down my street that edits the "bad" stuff out of films, RESELLS them, and rents them out to people who want to see it. It’s legal if you have the right license to do it, which was what I was trying to say. Sorry to confuse. When I said business if was referring to legitimate businesses and not the underground illegal ones.

The Postmaster General

04-27-2005, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
If you don't charge money, I don't personally see anything wrong with it. It should fall under fair use. Or you could do like the airlines or TV networks and get permission, but that's probably a lot more hassle than it's worth.

Yeah, fair use is tricky, but i think as long as you can show that the service is being provided on a private basis (ie. Not selling MH services promising edited movies, or trying to resell them) that it was legit. However, I've seen some copyright notices that say reproduction of any sort is prohibited. (???)

combat_rock81

04-27-2005, 03:54 PM

Personally, I think that no one should alter someone elses artistic vision for their own personal profit. If it isn't outlawed, it should at least be considered immoral, unless they've gotten permission from the filmmakers to do so.

The Postmaster General

04-27-2005, 04:39 PM

Do we know if any of the guy above is getting permission?

Criminal Rock

04-27-2005, 04:48 PM

If you're referring to the very first post, yeah I’m wondering the same thing.

Tony_Montana

04-27-2005, 06:35 PM

I guess it's OK given the mental health context, provided you're not charging money for it.

As for graphic sex vs. graphic violence. Well I don't really consider either of them to be harmfull, provided said child watching them is sane and has been told that's it's wrong to kill people, etc. But if I had to choose, I would rather my (non-existant) five year old watched Were The Boys Aren't rather than Dawn of the Dead.
Anyway, there has been no proven link between watching violent movies and playing violent video games and actually going out and harming someone. It could scare the kiddies, sure, but not realy have any long-term effects unless the said kiddies are especially sensetive in which case they probably won't be watching such a movie in this first place.
Se and nudity can't do anyone any harm. We see nudity every day when we get changed, have a bath, etc. As for sex, what harm can that possibly do. It might be "innapropriate" but definetely not harmfull. IMO it's actually educational (I mean, how are we going to learn on how to get started, LOL)

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Do we know if any of the guy above is getting permission?

Of the four main companies (the ones based in Utah) none of them have authorization to alter the movies. In fact, all four of them are in court right now with the studios arguing the legality of what they're doing.

pyscho dude

04-27-2005, 07:48 PM

Purifyng movies is just fucking stupid. You know there's a little thing called a Rating . Why even edit the films? If they're that concerned then why not just rent some PG-13 or below flick? Besides some of the movies they edit down are hard Rs and shouldn't even be shown to kids in the first place. I've always been grateful that my parents let me watch R rated stuff when I was young like Die Hard. I watched violent stuff all the time but I've never went crazy and killed someone(not yet atleast ;) ) . Personally I think we should send some strippers to their homes with drugs and cuss up a storm.:D

jackson13

04-27-2005, 08:18 PM

What if a bunch of people were to ask for films that were edited so that its nothing BUT offensive material?

Do you think the guy's head would explode and he would stop doing it then?

I say we try it.

Everyone, go to this guys website and request movies that are nothing but T&A and Gore & Violence.

Beeblebrox

04-27-2005, 09:01 PM

EXTRA EXTRA!

Hot off the presses, Bush has just signed a new law that crimalizes copyright violation to the tune of 3-6 years in prison...

UNLESS...

...you happen to be a conservative group editing movies for content and reselling them for profit, which the new law conveniently excludes.

April 28, 2005

President Bush signs Family Entertainment and Copyright Act

By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON -- After President Bush affixed his signature to the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Tuesday morning in an Oval Office ceremony, it became a federal crime to camcord a movie.

Bush's signature marked the last act in a legislative drama that spanned two congresses and saw Hollywood's pet bill married to one that gives companies that make video players which edit out purportedly offensive content in motion pictures protection from lawsuits.

While the studios would rather have bottled up the legislation that effectively ends the legal action surrounding Utah-based ClearPlay, they ultimately decided to abandon their action because it gave them the camcorder bill and legislation that makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after counterfeiters who make works available before their public release.

"Members of the public might think that camcording is funny because they once saw it on an episode of the Jerry Seinfeld Show, but camcording is no laughing matter," said MPAA president and CEO Dan Glickman. "In fact, more than 90% of illicit, recently released movies on DVDs come from an unauthorized recording in a movie theater. There is increasing evidence that criminal gangs are using this method to steal movies, burn them into DVDs and then sell them on the black-market in order to supplement their other illegal activities."

Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the bill's primary author in the House, said the new law is necessary to protect families and a vital American industry.

"Parents have a right to protect their children from sex, violence, and profanity in movies," Smith said.

He added: "The protection of intellectual property rights is vital to the movie industry. This bill is necessary to ensure that all those involved in the production of a film, from the director to the set carpenter, are not cheated out of their just compensation. It is vital to protect creative works."

Under the law people who camcord a movie face from three to six years in jail.

Tayzlor

04-27-2005, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox

"Members of the public might think that camcording is funny because they once saw it on an episode of the Jerry Seinfeld Show, but camcording is no laughing matter," said MPAA president and CEO Dan Glickman. [/i]

There's someone out of touch with pop culture.

This whole ordeal reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where Abe Simpson and the old folks at the retirement castle are watching the 'edited for seniors' version of Gone With The Wind.

"Frankly me dear--I love you, lets remarry."

END

Nachokoolaid

04-28-2005, 12:37 AM

So this legislation, while outlawing video recording of films, pretty much legalizes the act of tampering with someone's intellectual property, as long as they are pussying it down for conservatives like Granma and the kiddies? FUCK THAT SHIT!

This law sucks. They concede one evil to take care of another. It's like painting a car with a busted engine. It might look shiny and new on the exterior, but it still run like shit.

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 12:53 AM

I don’t think people get it, YOu DONT HAVE TO SEE THE EDITED FILM IF YOU DONT WANT TO! It’s only for people who'd rather see a cleaner film. And its not tampering if the get consent from the owners of the movie, they [THE OWNERS] get their fair share of the money each time one is rented/sold or whatever.

Beeblebrox

04-28-2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
[B]I don’t think people get it, YOu DONT HAVE TO SEE THE EDITED FILM IF YOU DONT WANT TO! It’s only for people who'd rather see a cleaner film. And its not tampering if the get consent from the owners of the movie

Since it's now legal, whether they get permission or not, it's a moot point unless you just want to talk about how bone-headed it is for them to cut out a dancing starfish because they're afeard it might turn their yung'ns queer.

But there's no question it is (now) their legal right.

The legality of it and how this specific group got complete immunity while others face over-zealous criminality is a whole other discussion that we'd probably best let rest.

Misanthrope

04-28-2005, 08:03 AM

Half of your country needs to be fucking exterminated from the face of the earth for reelecting Bush, and i sincerely hope someone does nukes the shit out of the states, there is just no excuse for people to remain in their country when they slowly lose all their freedom in the name of religion.

The Postmaster General

04-28-2005, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
Half of your country needs to be fucking exterminated from the face of the earth for reelecting Bush, and i sincerely hope someone does nukes the shit out of the states, there is just no excuse for people to remain in their country when they slowly lose all their freedom in the name of religion.

Hey, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Especially when it's off-topic. I know lots of people from Mexico, and I am very glad they all don't share your same "kill stupid americans" attitude.

Winston Wolfe

04-28-2005, 03:12 PM

Please stick to MOVIE talk in this thread, otherwise it will have to be moved into our POLITICS forum or closed altogether (if folks continue to go OFF-TOPIC, etc...)

Thanks for understanding.

Misanthrope

04-28-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Hey, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Especially when it's off-topic. I know lots of people from Mexico, and I am very glad they all don't share your same "kill stupid americans" attitude.

I didnt say all americans, for now the Bush supporters will sufice. Anyway last off topic comment, promise.

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 04:33 PM

Since it's now legal, whether they get permission or not, it's a moot point unless you just want to talk about how bone-headed it is for them to cut out a dancing starfish because they're afeard it might turn their yung'ns queer.

(Beeble, the store I’m talking about has been on the corner of Southern and Gilbert for the past 3 to 4 years here in Mesa AZ. That’s if you even care. I think its called Clean Flicks or something like that)

This new law was created to define more clearly the punishment one receives when they record movies illegally in the theater, or sell bootlegs… hence the very first, and very last, sentences. It has little tie-ins with editing films but this part of the law isn’t about that. There’s a series of connecting laws that relate, but they’re separate

I really don’t get how it irritates you so much that people would rather see the edited version of a movie, might as well get mad at people for skipping or fast forwarding through questionable material on a DVD. Though I do understand the whole “Spongbob” thing, it is kind of ridicules, though I do hope you really don’t believe that the parents think that their kids will become fags from watching a fucking movie… please, it’s their problem so I don’t see how we can get mad at them for, simply, wanting to see the film “cleaner.” And I emphasize my quotation marks.

And may I add that people think that Equestrian is the gayest sport imaginable, and some don’t even consider it a sprot, and its in the fucking Olympics for Christ’s sake.

Just read this:
“TITLE II--EXEMPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR SKIPPING AUDIO AND VIDEO CONTENT IN MOTION PICTURES”
On this (http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/legislation/s167) link
Its located about lower-middle.

Oh, and Misanthrope, you sound LIKE Hitler… might want to watch it their.

combat_rock81

04-28-2005, 04:59 PM

I'm not irratated that people would rather see an edited version of a film, I'm irratated that someone can chop up someone else's art and sell it for a profit without their consent.

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 05:04 PM

See, that’s what you’re not getting, they DO have consent. I don’t understand why people wont read... if they have a license to take out audiovisual footage (mind you they aren’t aloud to ADD anything) it’s perfectly legal, and the owners of that specific film get paid their money earned.

Tayzlor

04-28-2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by combat_rock81
I'm not irratated that people would rather see an edited version of a film, I'm irratated that someone can chop up someone else's art and sell it for a profit without their consent.

To be fair, probably most of what will be edited down isn't someone's art but rather a studio's summer tentpole.

But still, someone intended for whatever to be there at that time.

Nachokoolaid

04-28-2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
See, that’s what you’re not getting, they DO have consent. I don’t understand why people wont read... if they have a license to take out audiovisual footage (mind you they aren’t aloud to ADD anything) it’s perfectly legal, and the owners of that specific film get paid their money earned.

This is BULLSHIT.

They may have "consent" from lawmakers, but they don't have consent from the director/owner of said film. And that's wrong.

If the government came out with a law that said it was legal for anyone and everyone to fuck Tai Mai Jew in the ass whenever they wanted, does that make it okay? The government said it was. I'm sure you'd have some objections about it though.

MacReady

04-28-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
See, that’s what you’re not getting, they DO have consent. I don’t understand why people wont read... if they have a license to take out audiovisual footage (mind you they aren’t aloud to ADD anything) it’s perfectly legal, and the owners of that specific film get paid their money earned.

It's just that it's such a stupid idea. It's almost as if somebody said (and I got this from another forum):"Hey, if we get rid of all violence and swearing in film, TV and music, all bad elements of society will vanish, just like it was before film existed!"

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 07:58 PM

This is BULLSHIT.

They may have "consent" from lawmakers, but they don't have consent from the director/owner of said film. And that's wrong.

If the government came out with a law that said it was legal for anyone and everyone to fuck Tai Mai Jew in the ass whenever they wanted, does that make it okay? The government said it was. I'm sure you'd have some objections about it though.

If I make a movie, in the future, with some type of “offensive” material, and people want to see the film without it, I’d say go right ahead, that means MY movie is getting MORE publicity, which inevitably makes more money since my audience grows to a wider scale.

So, if you’re arguing that its gay that their tweaking the film, and you think it shouldn’t be altered no matter what, then all right, I wont argue because I agree… because I don’t want to see an edited film. However, if some other person would rather see it edited, it’s not my problem, so I have no right to get mad at them for having a preference.

Although your analogy is funny, it doesn’t work because no one really is getting fucked in the ass in the movie biz. No one is steeling money/product from them, the people who’d rather see edited film can, and the others don’t have to. Although the creators might object to edited films, their still going to be very happy when they get their big juicy check, they’ll forget about it.

it might have been a better analagy if you compared this subject to the Kids Bop music CD's.

those CD's suck so bad....

Beeblebrox

04-28-2005, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
It has little tie-ins with editing films but this part of the law isn’t about that. There’s a series of connecting laws that relate, but they’re separate

The law is called the FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT and Copyright Act. Making it okay for conservative groups to cut out objectional content without consent from movie studios is as much a part of that law as making camcording a movie in a theatre a worse crime than manslaughter.

In fact, the harsher jail time on one form of copyright violation was a compromise to appease the studios in order to protect the conservative groups from the other form of copyright violation.

I really don’t get how it irritates you so much that people would rather see the edited version of a movie, might as well get mad at people for skipping or fast forwarding through questionable material on a DVD.

Beyond the legal sense, it's not the editing itself that bothers me. It's what they're cutting out. For example, it wouldn't bother me if someone discriminated against an employee who refused to follow the dress code. It WOULD bother me if someone discriminated against an employee because they were gay or black. It's not the act of discriminating that's the problem. It's what they are discriminating against.

. Though I do understand the whole “Spongbob” thing, it is kind of ridicules, though I do hope you really don’t believe that the parents think that their kids will become fags from watching a fucking movie…

Of COURSE they do. These are the people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. These are the people who believe that exposure to homosexuality (and to secular humanism in general) turns you into a Christ-hating, gay-loving, librul hippie.

And the only reason they got a whole entire law protecting them from our otherwise absurdly over-criminalizing current copyright system is because the current leaders of our govt owe their elections to these people (or at least they feel like they do).

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 08:38 PM

Beyond the legal sense, it's not the editing itself that bothers me. It's what they're cutting out. For example, it wouldn't bother me if someone discriminated against an employee who refused to follow the dress code. It WOULD bother me if someone discriminated against an employee because they were gay or black. It's not the act of discriminating that's the problem. It's what they are discriminating against.

You’re presuming that they’re discriminating gays because they don’t agree with your politics? All they want is not to see the “offensive” material (what ever it is).

If I see two gay men kissing in public and I turn my back so I cant see them, its not discrimination, not at all, but if I go up to them and start yelling towards them for kissing in public, then I’d allow you to kick my ass… get the point.

What their doing is not discrimination, its not wanting to see the objectionable entertainment.

Of COURSE they do. These are the people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. These are the people who believe that exposure to homosexuality (and to secular humanism in general) turns you into a Christ-hating, gay-loving, librul hippie.

I highly doubt your right. You’re assuming they think that, you have no clue what their intentions are (like me)… but you’re generalizing a political party [group?] and associating it to the subject only to prove your point, and I’m simply trying NOT to do that. And lets try not to make it political in here…

MacReady

04-28-2005, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Although your analogy is funny, it doesn’t work because no one really is getting fucked in the ass in the movie biz.

I think I've found the most untrue thing ever uttered on this website.

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 08:47 PM

I was referring to this situation, so don’t take it out of context please.

MacReady

04-28-2005, 08:50 PM

I was kidding, of course.

Beeblebrox

04-28-2005, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
[B]You’re presuming that they’re discriminating gays because they don’t agree with your politics? All they want is not to see the “offensive” material (what ever it is).

They're discriminating against gays because they advocate legal discrimination against gays and even Constitutional amendments singling out gays for discrimination, they oppose any and all legal rights for gays including marriage and adoption and serving in the military. They repeatedly refer to gays as sinners and supporters of gay rights as God-haters.

Cutting a dancing starfish out of the Spongebob Squarepants movie is just one manifestation out of a platform of anti-gay bigotry.

And the groups that created and support that agenda are the ones whom this law was specifically written to protect.

What their doing is not discrimination, its not wanting to see the objectionable entertainment.

The content is "objectionable" to them because they don't like gays. Do you not understand the disctinction? It's like wanting to cut out any and all references to black people because you find black people objectionable. Yeah, it's your right to do that, but it doesn't mean you're not a racist.

but you’re generalizing a political party [group?] and associating it to the subject only to prove your point, and I’m simply trying NOT to do that.

The political party in question is the one that has associated itself with these religious right groups. I'm not doing anything but pointing out what has become a front and center issue right now. Cutting homosexuals out of a cartoon is just one part of it. Banning books by homosexual authors from Alabama school libraries is another. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/eveningnews/main691106.shtml) The Senate Majority Leader calling Democrats Christ-haters for supporting the filibuster is yet another.

MidniteCritic

04-28-2005, 10:09 PM

Well, this topic may have taken us into interesting territories. I'm still quite surprised that some people on a movie fansite have no problem with editing films. The directors have not sanctioned any of this. Whether it is for profit or not doesn't seem to be the issue to me. This is somebody's work, done the way they wanted it and some self-righteous edit happy homogeniser comes along to make a different viison of the film.

Every scene should be important, we aren't talking about hack films here. The character interactions, dialogue even to the point of how a scene is shot makes the whole. Change any of it and the whole thing becomes different.

Imagine The Works of Hitchcock being edited to lose the violence and sexual innuendo. Kubrick films without nudity. The great directors are dealing with a world that may not always be pleasant.

It's not a G-rated world. If someone wants this then they should be forced to admit to themselves that this is their personal view. One of the films that has been edited is Traffic. TRAFFIC! For god's sake, did they think it was a live-action Frogger?

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 10:34 PM

They're discriminating against gays because they advocate legal discrimination against gays and even Constitutional amendments singling out gays for discrimination, they oppose any and all legal rights for gays including marriage and adoption and serving in the military. They repeatedly refer to gays as sinners and supporters of gay rights as God-haters.

Your making it SEEM like this is what its all about, you keep bringing up that one situation as if its all that happens, and I believe your blowing things way out of proportion.

The content is "objectionable" to them because they don't like gays. Do you not understand the disctinction? It's like wanting to cut out any and all references to black people because you find black people objectionable. Yeah, it's your right to do that, but it doesn't mean you're not a racist.

The content is objectionable to them because they don’t like the content, not the person. If the joke is about gays, cocks, boobs, tits, shit, sex, drugs, rape, whatever... they're going to object to it because they don’t want to hear or see it. I think your looking in WAY too deep into the issue.

I’m going to try to end this out of respect because this really isn’t going anywhere and its not the forum to argue in, no hard feelings.

And I do understand your points, you make excellent ones at that.

Criminal Rock

04-28-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
I was kidding, of course.

Sorry, i thought you were being condescending, my bad.:D

The Postmaster General

04-29-2005, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by MidniteCritic
Well, this topic may have taken us into interesting territories. I'm still quite surprised that some people on a movie fansite have no problem with editing films. The directors have not sanctioned any of this. Whether it is for profit or not doesn't seem to be the issue to me. This is somebody's work, done the way they wanted it and some self-righteous edit happy homogeniser comes along to make a different viison of the film.

Okay, as one of the "self-righteous edit happy homogenisers" I feel that I should chime in...

And let me note that I've been laughing along all along in I mentioned I happen to edit content from movies, and yet no one on this movie discussion board found that to be of interest.

So, forthmost I keep hearing somethign that's nonsense to me - A movie does not belong to a director. The movie isn't the directors. The director had about a left nuts of input put into the entire orgy that's the movie. Yes, they are important, and considered the auteurs, but by no means do they own the film. Try telling that to a writer. Better yet, tell that to the producer. Just because there are people like Quentin Tarantino does that mean every single movie is like Alex Zamm's Chairman of the Board, or Dennis Dugan's Happy Gilmore.

You call me less of a movie fan because I edit movies, and I call you less of a movie fan for failing to see that I like movies and want them accessible to people who probably won't get to see them otherwise. Of course I'm not a softy like that Australian guy who does this for profit, but yeah, I've cut some scenes to avoid issues. This wasn't with kids, no - this was with the criminally insane who have committed acts like setting fires, masturbating in public, and murder, but you don't seem to think there is a difference. Then again, it would be hard not to considering how kids are nowadays.

So, I don't really have much of a point other than to say I see a huge fucking difference, and I think there are bigger travasties in the world.

If these people doing this editing are "wannabe directors" to you, then you all are "wannabe social analysists" to me. :D

Beeblebrox

04-29-2005, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I’m going to try to end this out of respect because this really isn’t going anywhere and its not the forum to argue in, no hard feelings.

I think it's certainly relevant to discuss the reasons why a conservative religious group gets an entire law written just for them to protect them from the otherwise increasingly strict and draconian copyright laws, laws that have now made it a worse crime to camcord a movie than to kill someone out of negligence. Aren't the people in charge of this govt supposed to be the ones for smaller, less intrusive govt? What a joke.

What you have here basically is a Congress monkeying around with and over-criminalizing our intellectual property laws in order to cater to one group of their supporters (huge corporations) while at the same time creating narrow protections in order to cater to another group of their supporters (religious conservatives).

I think it's very important to discuss this in a group about movies in a thread about just this kind of copyright issue.

Beeblebrox

04-29-2005, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by MidniteCritic
[B]Well, this topic may have taken us into interesting territories. I'm still quite surprised that some people on a movie fansite have no problem with editing films.

I don't have a problem with editing movies in and of itself, certainly not for artistic integrity reasons. I appreciate your view on the subject but I don't personally object to it under certain circumstances.

My objection earlier was simply that the editors in question were profiting on someone else's work and that they were prudish homophobes. My objection to them NOW is that in a country with increasingly harsher and harsher penalties for copyright violation, including jail time, that these editors have been excluded from that BECAUSE they are prudish homophobes.

Otherwise, I think editing a film for content can be considered a derivative work in certain contexts and I think that's an important part of artistic freedom. For example, should the guy who created The Phantom Edit go to jail or should he be applauded for doing what Lucas couldn't, which is to make most of Jar Jar out of Episode I.

Misanthrope

04-29-2005, 09:23 AM

So, forthmost I keep hearing somethign that's nonsense to me - A movie does not belong to a director. The movie isn't the directors.

For movies that are worth it yes it is. In a perfect world all directors who were serious about their job would finance they work out of their own pockets, leaving the rest of the mindless worthless flicks produced for mass consumption as they are. Unfortunately, alot of directors have to play ball in order to ever see enough funding, that does not means they are happy about douchebags eiditing "the evil sex and violence" out of their movies, it just means that they have to put up with it in order to make their vision available at all to the world.

If you cannot understand that then im sorry but you're not a movie fan, you just want to be entretained no matter where it comes from.

The Postmaster General

04-29-2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
For movies that are worth it yes it is. In a perfect world all directors who were serious about their job would finance they work out of their own pockets, leaving the rest of the mindless worthless flicks produced for mass consumption as they are. Unfortunately, alot of directors have to play ball in order to ever see enough funding, that does not means they are happy about douchebags eiditing "the evil sex and violence" out of their movies, it just means that they have to put up with it in order to make their vision available at all to the world.

If you cannot understand that then im sorry but you're not a movie fan, you just want to be entretained no matter where it comes from.

Well, first most, I think you are the one who wants to be entertained no matter wherte it comes from consdering your first post in this movie discussion was off-topic and political in nature, but that is neither here nor there. I think you are getting "movie fan" confused with "admirer of directors" or as some ruder people term it "director fanboys"

Some of what you are saying above is right on the mark, but your conclusion is a bunch of bullshit (not the movie fan part, that's just you being childish and attempting to look good). The reason what you say isn't true, well first of all it's your opinion, however, one I don't totally disagree with, but over all your applying something that holds true for some movies, but not all movies.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, IMO, was Charlie Kaufman's movie, not the directors, whereas, I consider BEING JOHN MALKOVICH as belonging to Spike Jones, and not Kaufman. Most people agree with this, but apparently you don't. That's cool for you, that's cool for me.

My personal appreciation of movie is to consider who has given the film is most worth, and that being the person the film belongs to.

If you don't understand that, then you disagree, and have a different appreciations for movies than I do.

Your non-movie fan definiation is utter nonsense based on one-sidedness on your part. Because you disagree with me, I'm not a movie fan? You are totally talking out of your ass, confusing personal preference for reality.

Differnt movies have different strengths, and different focuses. I anitipate movies by the writer Larry Cohen. Most of his movies aren't very good, but I always appreciate his stories. I'd rather see them on film instead of reading the screenplays because, well, I'm a movie fan, not a screenplay buff.

Say what you will. All you are doing is taking one aspect of the entire film industry and trying to apply it to all aspects. On top of it, you are attempting to make yourself sound ellated above others because you have an opinion. You can sell your misanthropist attitude to the squares in turtle necks down at the late-night coffe shop where everyone thinks it's particularly cool that they show movies on an overhead projector screen, but I've been there, and didn't buy it, nor am I subscribing to your ellitist view of what makes a movie fans. I wouldn't buy that. Not even for a dollar.

thedudeman69

04-29-2005, 03:32 PM

my opinon is that it is copyright infringement no matter what you do, if you sell the dvds for money, and you got them off the net, then you are doing the bad thing. But editing down the movies or having techonolgy so that Moms and Dads with a 1 year old can watch Showgirls, and have a clear mind that their 1 year old son isn't going to have any girl problems when he grows up. When a movie is edited, it takes away the movie experience, the enjoyment of the movie. We know that how ridiculus when you try and edit a movie, the flow comes out wrong, and makes the movie crappy.

The conservitives(which I am shameingly part of), are just a bunch of reliqous freaks that were not raised on bad movies. They were raised in their own little world of happiness and lollipops. They need to get their fuckin' head straight and relieze that movies are fake. That they are rehearsed and thought through. They probably think that the people that make those movies are like that in real life, they aren't.

The company that has the technology is fighting a ridiculus battle, that they will not win. The Fanboys won't let anything happen to their precious and wonderful movies. We need to be able show our kids movies at certian ages, so they can fully appricated the beauty of it. The fucking government is bascially taking away our right to watch a movie. The moms and dads are at it again, They did it with music, now they are doing it with movies.

I say FUCK THEM!

Beeblebrox

04-29-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by thedudeman69
The company that has the technology is fighting a ridiculus battle, that they will not win.

Thanks to Congress, they already have. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act made sure of that. It helps to have like-minded "religious freaks" in high places.

They can now slice and dice away all the evil gayness out of Spongebob Squarepants to their heart's content.

The Postmaster General

04-29-2005, 04:36 PM

Do you see any difference in the case where I've done it thedudeman, Beeble, anyone....

I think a lot of you are missing something in my situation -- I wasn't doing to keep someone from getting warped. These people wer already disturbed. Showing them stuff in that sort of environment would have made it worse -- and beside, I couldn't have shown RAIN MAN without cutting out the tit shot, so I figure Berry Levison would forgive me for snipping that in lieu of showing it to people who would appreciate the theme of the movie.

Some of these people I worked with masturbate in public. You say cutting a tit shot, or a brutal death ruins the movie, I say having someone whip out their dick during MOVIE NIGHT ruins the experience even more. (This is an actual example of something that happened during an outing to the movies -- the last outing if I recall correctly)

I just don't get it. Everyone keeps making this into a "real movie fan" deal, and I don't see how someone could be seen as less of a movie fan because they found a way to make Rain Man accessable to people who wouldn't see it other wise. If everyone hated the movie because of the bad editing, you all may have a point, but on the comment cards, everyone said they liked the movie. (And the guy who I was "shielding" commented something to the effect that he'd like to screw that "mexican girl", which pretty much cememented my reasoning for thinking he'd masturbate during her brief nude scene -- Keep in mind, this is a guy who was arrested on a public bus looking at a magazine ad with his pants down.)

Of course, no one has attempted to directly validate or invalidate my reasoning for doing this. I just think it's a lot different than the family editing that you guys are on about, and I'm trying to make you all see the difference between being conservative and using good judgement.

Than again who is familiar with my posting thinks that I'm conservative, they probably aren't capable of resonding.

I don't know - sorry to keep chiming in, but you guys aren't really discussing anything more than just agreeing something sucks and ganging up. I'm trying to direct some of that hate over to me, since I can actually respond to the topic from a 'learned" view-point and not just an emotional one.

This is kind of bothersome to me, because it seems like my appreciation for movies is being questioned. I was the person in my company to start the MOVIE NIGHTS. I wrote up a project request, complete with ways for me to find the funding for a big screen TV, DVD player, VCR, the works. Everyone really liked it, and the people got a lot out of it (I used to make up Q & As about the movie) I did all this because I thought people enjoyed movies, and it was a good way to incorperate movies with group therapy.

I don't know, if that doesn't make me a movie fan, I don't know what does.

Beeblebrox

04-29-2005, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[B]Do you see any difference in the case where I've done it thedudeman, Beeble, anyone....

I've stated repeatedly that I don't have a problem in principle with editing movies, particularly if you're not reselling the edited copies for a profit.

thedudeman69

04-29-2005, 05:18 PM

Bubba, I am not saying what you do with the mental imparied people and movie nights is bad. I am just say that I think the movie, if it was, edited, then it would ruin the experience for some people and heighten it for others. What I don't like either is that people make money off of unedited and edited films, I do not download movies, because I feel that it is too risky and that it is a waste of hard drive. People shouldn't be able to download movies, The bill that they passed is not helping, it is just making the copyright war go on even further because people are going to probably edit the movies and sell them on the black market. They could make a profit no matter what. The Government needs to leave the Music alone but convict Movie piraters. What is scary though, I was going to see Hitchhicker's Guide To The Galaxy(but couldn't), and i saw this guy ahead of me with what this looked like a camera case, I didn't know if it was or wasn't, but the tickettaker didn't even bother asking what was in the case. :eek: Now that is the scariest thing I have ever seen.

Savage Henry

04-29-2005, 05:34 PM

I at first I thought I should be opposed to any and all outside editing of films, but this thread really got me thinking. I’ll throw in an analogy: last semester for my final project in drawing class I copied verbatim Da Vinci’s “Virgin and Child with St. Anne and John the Baptist,” except I made the Virgin and St. Anne make out. That is a form of editing that I found to be acceptable, and although it may not have added to the value of the piece it did get me an A in the class. However, the ‘impact’ of this ‘edit’ would have been entirely lost on anyone who had not seen the piece or known anything about Da Vinci/the Renaissance.

To appreciate an edited work , I think one would have to been exposed to the original. For instance one could not fully appreciate The Phantom Edit without seeing the original. Sure it may be a better film but you wouldn’t know that unless you sat through the torture that is Jar Jar. Likewise some films may be better without gratuitous amounts of sex, but without seeing the original it is impossible to know. The reason I am giving so much credit to the original is because it is a piece of art that was created a specific way for a specific purpose. These edits are not art in and of themselves because art is something that is ‘created’ whereas these edits are something that merely deletes or rearranges. Only when paired with the original can an edit have value.

I have no problem with what BubbaStrangelove does, though. I understand that sometimes material needs to be taken out to accommodate for the mentally unstable. This is different than taking out material simply because someone assumes that the material will worsen the film. I often times assume one element might not work in a film but upon viewing find that it enhances the film greatly. Only after a viewing should one come to a conclusion on what would make a film better. Or if the material is so objectionable that they cannot bear sitting through it, then they should safely assume (its ok to assume now) that a film including such a terrible subject may not be intended for them.

The entire legal matter is laughably hypocritical. It is ridiculous that hardcore conservative pussies have free will to butcher films for profit, but if someone alters a film for fun (not even for profit) they can suffer severe jail time.

I also found this to be one of the funniest things I’ve read:

"Members of the public might think that camcording is funny because they once saw it on an episode of the Jerry Seinfeld Show, but camcording is no laughing matter…There is increasing evidence that criminal gangs are using this method to steal movies, burn them into DVDs and then sell them on the black-market in order to supplement their other illegal activities."

The Postmaster General

04-29-2005, 06:41 PM

Cool, y'all - I was just feeling in the line of fire for a bit.

Real quick, I gotta second the humor of that Seinfeld comment. It's like.... Yeah, just funny. Like piracy is an evil smear on the Seinfeld legacy, or something. The way they worded that is great.

You mentioned The Phatom Edit. To me, that's the sort of editing that should be shunned.

Has anyone seen The WBs edit of Pulp Fiction? THAT is bad editing. Wow. It's like a whole 'nother film. The gimp scene doesn't even make sense. It's like a 10 minute scene condensed to 5 seconds.

For the record, I kept my edits pretty seemless -- not like what is made fun of in sketches like on Mr. Show when they did the Goodfellas parody and every word was like "You mother-" "FATHER" then some on stands up with a gun and aims it at another person then it cuts to a third person screaming "Noooo!' Althought I was tempted to several times just to fuck around and edit scenes from independence Day into Weekend at Bernies. (And yes, even Weekend at Bernies brought up interesting discussions if you can imagine talking at length to someone about how it's a movie and such and such person is really alive, because we would know if they were dead....) Yeah..... :o

Misanthrope

04-30-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Well, first most, I think you are the one who wants to be entertained no matter wherte it comes from consdering your first post in this movie discussion was off-topic and political in nature, but that is neither here nor there. I think you are getting "movie fan" confused with "admirer of directors" or as some ruder people term it "director fanboys"

Some of what you are saying above is right on the mark, but your conclusion is a bunch of bullshit (not the movie fan part, that's just you being childish and attempting to look good). The reason what you say isn't true, well first of all it's your opinion, however, one I don't totally disagree with, but over all your applying something that holds true for some movies, but not all movies.

ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, IMO, was Charlie Kaufman's movie, not the directors, whereas, I consider BEING JOHN MALKOVICH as belonging to Spike Jones, and not Kaufman. Most people agree with this, but apparently you don't. That's cool for you, that's cool for me.

My personal appreciation of movie is to consider who has given the film is most worth, and that being the person the film belongs to.

If you don't understand that, then you disagree, and have a different appreciations for movies than I do.

Your non-movie fan definiation is utter nonsense based on one-sidedness on your part. Because you disagree with me, I'm not a movie fan? You are totally talking out of your ass, confusing personal preference for reality.

Differnt movies have different strengths, and different focuses. I anitipate movies by the writer Larry Cohen. Most of his movies aren't very good, but I always appreciate his stories. I'd rather see them on film instead of reading the screenplays because, well, I'm a movie fan, not a screenplay buff.

Say what you will. All you are doing is taking one aspect of the entire film industry and trying to apply it to all aspects. On top of it, you are attempting to make yourself sound ellated above others because you have an opinion. You can sell your misanthropist attitude to the squares in turtle necks down at the late-night coffe shop where everyone thinks it's particularly cool that they show movies on an overhead projector screen, but I've been there, and didn't buy it, nor am I subscribing to your ellitist view of what makes a movie fans. I wouldn't buy that. Not even for a dollar.

Thats ridiculous. First tune it down, i did not throw childish personal insults because is besides the point, you're making me regret thinking people can just read opinions wihout getting into stupid childish freudian internet wars. Second, someone needs not to be nominally called director to "direct" a movie or give it its creative direction. If a writer is very specific or has a very specific script and the director is mainly there to follow the script to the best of his ability instead of contributing then he's hardly a director.

In the end somebody's vision is followed primarily for most movies that are worth it, where as typical hollywood flicks sometimes mix and match different views that come from any number of places and it feels more like a manufactured product. I simply say that no i dont think you're a movie fan if you think the later can be equally effective ( save extremely rare situations ) or that the former is hardly ever true.

Misanthrope

04-30-2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by thedudeman69
People shouldn't be able to download movies,

That cant be done without rendering millions of legitimate uses for the internet worthless. The industry must move into making the internet a viable medium of distribution even if its just alternative. It will not stop piracy ( honestly nothing ever will ) but it would reduce the losses from the internet piracy since too many people would just pay the fee to legitimately download to avoid the hazzle just like the people like you who would rather buy the movies to avoid the hazzle.

B1rd_Po0p

04-30-2005, 11:31 AM

My fear is that this is just the beginning... It started with Janet's boob... Now nothing is safe: not even Shrek 2 (re: The cross dressing bartender.) It is going to get way out of hand, and it's not going to stop with 'sanitzing' films for those good hearted christians who just want to protect their kids from the sex and violence coming from Hollywood... (Never mind that most schools are far more violent than Hollywood anyway - and more teenagers are having sex now than ever before.)... Oh yeah, I forgot. That's being blamed on movies, video games, and death metal....

Misanthrope

04-30-2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Savage Henry

I have no problem with what BubbaStrangelove does, though. I understand that sometimes material needs to be taken out to accommodate for the mentally unstable.

Have you considered that the material simply should NOT be accesible for mentally unstable people? Seems to me that everyone here acts like its your duty to watch something and that if you cant bring yourself to watch it you must edit it and thats legitimate: watch something else, do not watch something you think you shouldnt watch.

There is plenty of other movies to see, people should watch em instead of inventing excuses to screw other people's work just because its legal to do so.

Savage Henry

04-30-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
Have you considered that the material simply should NOT be accesible for mentally unstable people? Seems to me that everyone here acts like its your duty to watch something and that if you cant bring yourself to watch it you must edit it and thats legitimate: watch something else, do not watch something you think you shouldnt watch.

There is plenty of other movies to see, people should watch em instead of inventing excuses to screw other people's work just because its legal to do so.

For those who are mentally unstable the problem is there possibly aren't a whole lot of decent movies they can watch without something being adjusted. Sometimes this only means cutting out a scene of brief nudity that is not integral to the plot, other times it may be necessary to edit it down to nothing, in the latter case I wouldn't agree. If I were a director/writer/producer I wouldn't mind if someone edited out some non-integral nudity or violence so that a retarded person could watch it instead of being forced to only watch G rated slop.

Just because something is in a film does not automatically give it as much worth as the film itself and I don't think any director/writer/producer would be so pretentious to claim every frame of their film is as worthy a component as the whole. If this means giving a retarded person some enjoyment in what otherwise may be an unenjoyable existence then I say go ahead... as long as I get paid and you don't.

The problem comes when a perfectly 'stable' person automatically assumes that something I put in my film will worsen the movie. I put it in there and whether or not it should be in there is a decision they can only make after seeing it.

Maybe I'm too forgiving towards retarded people.

Misanthrope

04-30-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Savage Henry
Just because something is in a film does not automatically give it as much worth as the film itself and I don't think any director/writer/producer would be so pretentious to claim every frame of their film is as worthy a component as the whole. If this means giving a retarded person some enjoyment in what otherwise may be an unenjoyable existence then I say go ahead... as long as I get paid and you don't.

No matter how pretencious you think said director/writer/producer is it is not for YOU to decide what stays on the movie and what does not. Its called copyright, no matter how many legal loopholes you find around it is still something you shouldnt do. You dont try to open your tv and remove pieces because you decide you dont need em because it voids warranty, and if the MPAA was more concerned with protecting the persons doing films as opposed to getting richer and fighting a pointless war against piracy they would be concerned about legislations as the ones mentioned here.

If you think you should decide what stays on a movie and what doesnt stays go make your own movies instead of fucking around with other people's hard work.

Misanthrope

04-30-2005, 04:16 PM

Savage Henry

04-30-2005, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
No matter how pretencious you think said director/writer/producer is it is not for YOU to decide what stays on the movie and what does not. Its called copyright, no matter how many legal loopholes you find around it is still something you shouldnt do. You dont try to open your tv and remove pieces because you decide you dont need em because it voids warranty, and if the MPAA was more concerned with protecting the persons doing films as opposed to getting richer and fighting a pointless war against piracy they would be concerned about legislations as the ones mentioned here.

If you think you should decide what stays on a movie and what doesnt stays go make your own movies instead of fucking around with other people's hard work.
I actually agree with you entirely on the legal issue, however I was trying to give my opinion on the principle of editing. I think editing a work is a completely legitamate form of expression, provided that the original creator is given due credit (ie not physically destroying the original or claiming the edit as the definitive incarnation). I understand that I nor anyone else should be able to grant permission for someone elses material to be edited. The creator should have final say in that matter (no matter how pretentious it may be), and I'm sorry if I was unclear on that.

Iacon5

04-30-2005, 10:46 PM

this just further adds to my growing belief that parents are just becoming more and more lazy and worthless and not willing to put forth the effort to raising their own children and teaching them right from wrong.
if they dont want kids to see things in the movie they dont like then heres a thought, DONT RENT THE FUCKIN MOVIE, or shit, at the very least be there to fast forward through it.
and yet another thought occurs, why even watch a movie that has large parts missing from it? i mean what the hell is the edited version of The Passion like?

lets look at it for what it is here, idiotic, ignorant, and utterly worthless conservative extreamists who are literally butchering art. granted due to hollywood nowadays there are few movies that one can honestly call art but there are still meny that are which are being filtered and censored and butcherd. i mean would these people try to make a new "srt" museam with only family friendly art? no michelangelo's david?, no great mideval and earlier sculptures and paintings that show some boobies? i weep for the future of art

The Postmaster General

05-01-2005, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Misanthrope
Thats ridiculous. First tune it down, i did not throw childish personal insults because is besides the point, you're making me regret thinking people can just read opinions wihout getting into stupid childish freudian internet wars.

If you don't think calling people "non-movie fans" on an internet movie discussion board is not a childish insult -- Well, that just doesn't strike me as the actions of a very nice movie fan. Well, nice job in trying to turn it around after I called you on it though. Didn't I actually use the word "childish" too? Interesting. And for the record, Freud, based on his theories, would have cited the person asserting a non-movie-related-psychoanalytical view point on a movie discussion board as being the person starting the "internet war" But again, you're trying to make a movie-related topic into being about something other than movies.

Second, someone needs not to be nominally called director to "direct" a movie or give it its creative direction. If a writer is very specific or has a very specific script and the director is mainly there to follow the script to the best of his ability instead of contributing then he's hardly a director.

That summarizes what I said in regards to movies like Eternal Sunshine. It's good to know I don't have to repeat or further expand on this much. Strange that you agree with something you would describe as "ridiculous"

In the end somebody's vision is followed primarily for most movies that are worth it, where as typical hollywood flicks sometimes mix and match different views that come from any number of places and it feels more like a manufactured product. I simply say that no i dont think you're a movie fan if you think the later can be equally effective ( save extremely rare situations ) or that the former is hardly ever true.

Sorry, but you half-right, and wrong in your conclusion via blanket statements.... again. If what you are saying is true, movie like Little Nicky are masterpieces because Adam Sandlers vision was carried through. Wheeras a movie like Happy Gilmore fails because Sandler had less overall creative input into the project.

BOTTLE ROCKET, RUSHMORE, THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, and THE LIFE AQUATIC:

Those are all movie directed by Wes Anderson. However, it is without saying that the later two movie are more "Hollywood" (as you put it) than his first attempts, seeing as he ended up being produced through Disney, and going from a hundred-thousand dollar budget to a fifty million dollar budget.

What you are saying is in all contradicted as Wes Anderson's last two movies, he was given more creative control. Whereas, his first movies. BOTTLE ROCKET and RUSHMORE featured heavily on Owen Wilson's co-writing, and James Brooks production. (Big time assistance from Brooks) Starting with The Royal Tenenbaums, Anderson nearly took full control of production. The Life Aquatic, pretty much everything was already written into the script.

So what you are saying doesn't hold true with the above examples.

I'll repeat it -- You are taking one aspect, or one view of the movie industry and applying it to all aspects. On top of it, you are trying to make yourself out to be a bigger movie fan because of your opinion, and that's just not respectul to yourself, or to others. This is particularly comical to me, as making these unarguably pretentious statements, you are exposing at least a partial ignorance of several influencial writers and directors of recent years. Wes Anderson and Charlie Kaufman are just a few examples that contradict your blanket statement. There are TONS more. For instance, wasn't DANCER IN THE DARK a Bjork movie in all fairness? Fans of Trier would probably hang my song and dance self for saying that. This is all opinions, and this is where the opportunity for discussion lies, not in blanket statements that equate personal opinions toward labeling who the movie fans are and aren't.

Anyway - all of that aside, maybe you could provide some actual examples to back up what you are saying, as I've done in my last two responses. I like that you have an opinion and all, but to judge others on such an opinion (especially when it's been twice shown to not be totally correct) is really unbecoming for someone with such a clever user name, and for someone who is obviously a David Lych fan. (And yes, Lynch is a great example of the sorts of directors who would fit into the mold you are prescribing.) Another good example would be Richard Linklater.

But for every Linklater and Lynch, there are Wes Andersons and --- Well, why is it that you think PT Anderson considers PUNCH DRUNK LOVE to be an "Adam Sandler film" (his words!)? By your definition (if you can call it that) the director PT Anderson isn't a real movie fan.

Sorry, you have a very weak arguement with no basis in anything other than opinion. But like I said twice before, in what you described as an attempt to start a "childish freudian internet war": I said, "That's cool for you, that's cool for me."

Have you considered that the material simply should NOT be accesible for mentally unstable people?

Oh yeah, we have to keep Rain Man out of the hands of those mentally unstable people. God forbid they learn that people such as themselves can overcome greed, selfishness, and form meaningful relationships with non-mentally unstable people!
/END SARCASM

Have you been using "movie fan" interchangable with "movie snob" this whole time? That would explain quite a bit!

The Postmaster General

05-01-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by B1rd_Po0p
My fear is that this is just the beginning... It started with Janet's boob... Now nothing is safe: not even Shrek 2 (re: The cross dressing bartender.) It is going to get way out of hand, and it's not going to stop with 'sanitzing' films for those good hearted christians who just want to protect their kids from the sex and violence coming from Hollywood... (Never mind that most schools are far more violent than Hollywood anyway - and more teenagers are having sex now than ever before.)... Oh yeah, I forgot. That's being blamed on movies, video games, and death metal....

Agreed. In my day, our humanties teacher played 2 Live Crew As Nasty As They Want To Be in a class (with parental approval) followed by an intensive discussion afterward. It was amazing seeing everyone, how we were laughing during the songs, and stuff, how when everyone had to form a discussion about it, they took it more seriously and saw it for what it was. I think parents should follow that line teaching instead of just masking things. Growing up, I had a friend who's mom would black-out dresses onto the bikinni girls in the guy's car magazines. Even as a teen and as of now, I assume that would do more harm than good. All of our major serial killers in America had backstories similar to that.

Misanthrope

05-01-2005, 02:29 PM

No point in replying since you apparently think i did not acknowledged the fact that there are exceptions to what i said even if you disagree about the actual amount of exceptions.

The Postmaster General

05-02-2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
No point in replying since you apparently think i did not acknowledged the fact that there are exceptions to what i said even if you disagree about the actual amount of exceptions.

If you want to talk about something more worth-while than your definition of what makes a movie fan, then I think there'd be good point to replying considering I've left plenty of room for you to expand upon your movie-related points.

Anything such as illustrating some films that agree with your statements such as I have done. The point would be to form an intelligent, mature discussion about where different films succeed in capturing a vision, and where other films succeed in sharing a visions -- Then even MORE fun, we can talk about the films that don't succeed. Both of us have made comments suggesting we look for different aspects in filmmaking. I also think interesting comments have been touched on regarding how Hollywood distills filmmakers visions, and that those comments could be further discussed. In addition there is still the main subject of film purification. Overall, there is a lot of intersting "non-judgmental" topics that both of us have addressed, and things that would make an interesting movie-based discussion.

If you don't see the point in that, I hardly see how you could call yourself a movie fan.

rilocay

05-02-2005, 07:22 AM

Im sick and tired of this.
I just want to poitn out many of the people who hate seeing this kind of stuff in film are perfectly fien to seeing it ont he news. The news is real, film is fictional. Think of it, whos really fucked up, a guy having his dinner, watching someone being killed or bashed on the news and not give 2 shits, or somehone who wtahces this done unrealisticaly and stylisticly in a film?

I find this wrong, legal or illegal, its like what used to happen to art ages ago. So hopefulyl these ignorant fuckers will be stamped out in the future, but id like to have a discussion with someone that does this and their reasons as to why.

And the kids that get most fucked up from this shit, ones from strong religous backgrounds....sure its a generlaisation but im not entirely wrong.

I say leave the juicy soft tits, leave the drug addcit that looks like your uncle bob,leave the zombie having its head lbown into a hundred peices before our very eyes, leave the fuck you's and the fuck me's, It reflects how we have evloved and the real world is much worse then a film coudl ever show.

Take the Red pill.

:D :p

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
If you want to talk about something more worth-while than your definition of what makes a movie fan, then I think there'd be good point to replying considering I've left plenty of room for you to expand upon your movie-related points.

Anything such as illustrating some films that agree with your statements such as I have done. The point would be to form an intelligent, mature discussion about where different films succeed in capturing a vision, and where other films succeed in sharing a visions -- Then even MORE fun, we can talk about the films that don't succeed. Both of us have made comments suggesting we look for different aspects in filmmaking. I also think interesting comments have been touched on regarding how Hollywood distills filmmakers visions, and that those comments could be further discussed. In addition there is still the main subject of film purification. Overall, there is a lot of intersting "non-judgmental" topics that both of us have addressed, and things that would make an interesting movie-based discussion.

If you don't see the point in that, I hardly see how you could call yourself a movie fan.

I lost interest in all that. I see that by your standarts im the lesser movie fan and by my standarts you are, simply because of taste which is entirely subjective.

Or if you want, you will not be capable of mentioning enough "shared vision" kind of films to me that match any of the many "single vision" films i like ( the only possible exception being Godfather II but dont quote me on that ). I look for very specific films and directors and go trough great lenghts to find said work, but you just think of me as a movie snob because of it.

As you see everything that could be said has been said.

The Postmaster General

05-02-2005, 12:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Misanthrope
I lost interest in all that. I see that by your standarts im the lesser movie fan and by my standarts you are, simply because of taste which is entirely subjective.

No, I think you are less of a movie fan, because this is like the 5th post where you've talked about people more than talked about movies. I don't see what the hell our standards for movie fans has to do with discussion the shared vision/single vision difference. (Nice way to put it, BTW)

Or if you want, you will not be capable of mentioning enough "shared vision" kind of films to me that match any of the many "single vision" films i like

Remember this. We'll call it "statement B"

I look for very specific films and directors and go trough great lenghts to find said work, but you just think of me as a movie snob because of it.

No, I think your a snob because of things like statement "B'. There's no point in telling me I'm incapable of something. Especially since I've listed more "shared vision" films than these ellusive "single vision" films you are talking about, which I know exist, but it's not really interesting to keep talking about them in theory.

Actually I found your interest in only single vision films to be the most interesting thing to come out of these replies. You keep talking about things in the definitive when regarding your opinions, and when I ask you for some definitives, you act like you're above it. Come on man, puh-leeze. Like I said earlier, I'm not buying that you are really this hung up on yourself.

As you see everything that could be said has been said.

All I've heard you say is what kind of movies you like, and even still that took 3 posts of telling you there's something better to talk about than what makes a real movie fan and why Freud would laugh at someone on an internet movie discussion twice telling people they weren't real movie fans, because it would imply a Superego to actually go on to bring up someone else starting a war (well, we didn't talk about that as much).... Come on, for someone with such a strong opinion on what makes a movie fan, your movie-related responses have been strongly lacking.

And for the record, I don't like the shared vision over the single vision or vice-versa. Bottle Rocket, a shared vision film by Wes Anderson, to me is better than his single vision Life Aquatic. On the contrary, a more singular vision film like Scorcese's Raging Bull is better than the shared vision of The Aviator.

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 12:09 PM

Well go ahead and mention shared vision films ( other than the examples you already mentioned ) then. Seeing that you're not happy about simply having opposite opinions or that you have to show me im pretencious by mentioning shared vision films to me give it your best shot.

The Postmaster General

05-02-2005, 12:34 PM

oops

The Postmaster General

05-02-2005, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
Well go ahead and mention shared vision films ( other than the examples you already mentioned ) then. Seeing that you're not happy about simply having opposite opinions or that you have to show me im pretencious by mentioning shared vision films to me give it your best shot.

As I said, we don't have opposite opinions. I like both types of movies.

One movie with a shared visions would be Dr. Strangelove. Stanley Kubrick and Peter Sellers both played equal parts in getting a specific vision onto the screen IMO.

An example of a single vision movie that is my favorite film would be Barton Fink, well if you could The Coens as one entitiy.

Another example of a favorite film of mine with the shared is Back to the Future, but I don't know how much worth you place on that film.

Star Wars; Empire Strikes Back is the shared vision of George Lucas and Irvin KErshner.

I don't know how far you are taking it either since you aren't providing any examples. Do you consider every James Bond movie shared since they are all based on the vision of Fleming, but each movie has a different vision from the directors, and person playing Bond. What about A Clockwork Orange, which is based on Burgess' vision that was shared by Stanley Kubrick? Pretty much every Kubrick film is a shared vision driven by his OCD style of directing, bar Eyes Wide Shut

jediknight

05-02-2005, 04:22 PM

What is the difference in recording an edited movie off of television or simply editing out an offending part yourself? Personally, I do not like movies to be edited, even for television. I feel that if you can't handle the material the way it is presented then move on to something you can handle. That said, if you want to watch it edited, hey knock yourself out. I don't like it, but people are going to do it...life goes on. As long as I can still get the unedited version, I'm happy...

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 04:32 PM

On some kubric movies, i agree with you. On the clockwork orange he made a point to leave out the book's last chapter which changed the focus completly. On The shinning he also did so much changes he practically made the story his own on the film. Some of the films i like

Le Charme discret de la bourgeoisie
Cet obscur objet du désir
Le Fantôme de la liberté
Mulholland Drive
Eraserhead
Naked Lunch*
Videodrome
Persona
Smultronstället
Det Sjunde inseglet

( *While it could be argued that most elements are directly taken from Burroughs life and work Cronenberg took those bits and pieces and made a whole new work of his own with the screenplay and direction. )

Those are my top 10 movies ( in no particular order ) and while i do appreciate colaborative works from those same directors ( Un Chien Andalou, Lost Hihgway or Spider for example ) my absolute favorites follow a definitive trend.

To avoid more conflict ill refrase: i just have a very different approach to movies, while i enjoy many of them im more interested in the work of a director and his vision as opposed to colaborative team work. I do not see films as just entretainment, i think of it as Art, and more often that not it involves one main vision that is carried through any number of means.

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by jediknight
What is the difference in recording an edited movie off of television or simply editing out an offending part yourself? Personally, I do not like movies to be edited, even for television. I feel that if you can't handle the material the way it is presented then move on to something you can handle. That said, if you want to watch it edited, hey knock yourself out. I don't like it, but people are going to do it...life goes on. As long as I can still get the unedited version, I'm happy...

The key word here is profit: people doing it for a profit and protecting themselves from rightfull punishment because of they religious belief which are slowly becoming a get out of jail free card in modern american society.

The Postmaster General

05-02-2005, 05:16 PM

Wow, that's a tight list. You weren't kidding about being specific in what you watch. Kudos, man. It seems like even more so than being from writer/directors, you are really into surrealist films. Do you like Alejandro Jodorowsky? I figure you do, but can't assume. I give that when a director has lots of control over a film they vision is always more defined in bringing out the things we like about that director. Like both of us agree though, it all comes down to what you are looking for. I like Adam Sandler movies, so I hope you are still reading this post.... You're right that when one single vision is done, it really makes something great, but in addition to that, I feel that sometimes collaborations have to occur to make a vision work on screen - in all honesty, I've seen many visions carried out and not turn out well at all. Waterworld is one such movie that comes to mind. So I think being able to make a vision work on an entertaining level is also an art unto itself.

Recently, i've gotten comments and private messages askign why I changed my favorite movie from Barton Fink to Back the the Future. Everytime I say that Back to the Future has always been my favorite movie, but Barton Fink is another favortie of mine, but I figured it'd be fun to change them out. Often I'm told that this is a big jump, and I reply that it isn't -- I like both of these movies for the two different reasons you mentioned above. I see one like Movie As Art, and the other as Movie As Entertainment. To me they're different sorts of movies with different strengths. I wouldn't want to sit down with my little kid and throw in a copy of The Holy Mountain, for instance, but if I wanted to sit back and collect myself in deep thought, i probably would. Some movies can do both, like 2001, which IMO still works as a G-rated film, as I've watched it from a young age, learning more as I grow older.

Thanks for the feedback

Beeblebrox

05-02-2005, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Misanthrope
To avoid more conflict ill refrase: i just have a very different approach to movies, while i enjoy many of them im more interested in the work of a director and his vision as opposed to colaborative team work.

First up, I don't think that makes you any more of a movie fan. It means you subscribe to the auteur theory or appreciate auteur films a lot. But it by no means makes you a bigger movie fan than anyone else.

Also, there is no such thing as a "single vision" film unless the director has done every key part himself, including acting, directing, writing, scoring, photographing, and editing. And even then, film is still a collaborative process. The single-vision would have to measured in degrees of lesser and lesser collaboration. But that would mean that you would have to put Robert Rodriguez at the top of your list of filmmakers IF you're saying you like those films BECAUSE they are so-called "single vision."

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Wow, that's a tight list. You weren't kidding about being specific in what you watch. Kudos, man. It seems like even more so than being from writer/directors, you are really into surrealist films. Do you like Alejandro Jodorowsky? I figure you do, but can't assume. I give that when a director has lots of control over a film they vision is always more defined in bringing out the things we like about that director. Like both of us agree though, it all comes down to what you are looking for. I like Adam Sandler movies, so I hope you are still reading this post.... You're right that when one single vision is done, it really makes something great, but in addition to that, I feel that sometimes collaborations have to occur to make a vision work on screen - in all honesty, I've seen many visions carried out and not turn out well at all. Waterworld is one such movie that comes to mind. So I think being able to make a vision work on an entertaining level is also an art unto itself.

Recently, i've gotten comments and private messages askign why I changed my favorite movie from Barton Fink to Back the the Future. Everytime I say that Back to the Future has always been my favorite movie, but Barton Fink is another favortie of mine, but I figured it'd be fun to change them out. Often I'm told that this is a big jump, and I reply that it isn't -- I like both of these movies for the two different reasons you mentioned above. I see one like Movie As Art, and the other as Movie As Entertainment. To me they're different sorts of movies with different strengths. I wouldn't want to sit down with my little kid and throw in a copy of The Holy Mountain, for instance, but if I wanted to sit back and collect myself in deep thought, i probably would. Some movies can do both, like 2001, which IMO still works as a G-rated film, as I've watched it from a young age, learning more as I grow older.

Thanks for the feedback

I still havent got my hands on Holy Mountain but i am a big fan of El Topo and Santa Sangre. I recently saw another movie called Little Otik which was good but dragged out alot half way through, which is understandeable given the fact that the director is known for his short films.

And for the record i do like movies as entretainment ( Pulp Fiction, Kill bill saga, The godfather, Goodfellas, Casino, Million Dollar Baby to mention a non crime film, etc ) but i happen to have alot more interest in surrealism and other similar means of expression.

And thanks for reminding me of 2001 which is as i understand a more colaborative approach with Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark.

Misanthrope

05-02-2005, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
First up, I don't think that makes you any more of a movie fan. It means you subscribe to the auteur theory or appreciate auteur films a lot. But it by no means makes you a bigger movie fan than anyone else.

Well in itself, no, but in context i think movie fans go to greater lenghts about the movies as opposed to someone who watches alot of movies but always watches whatever is on premiere or brand new on blockbuster. I hope i explained myself better this time.

Also, there is no such thing as a "single vision" film unless the director has done every key part himself, including acting, directing, writing, scoring, photographing, and editing. And even then, film is still a collaborative process. The single-vision would have to measured in degrees of lesser and lesser collaboration. But that would mean that you would have to put Robert Rodriguez at the top of your list of filmmakers IF you're saying you like those films BECAUSE they are so-called "single vision."

There are films like Eraserhead where the director ( Lynch ) was just so incredible specific about what he wanted he was even credited in the sound deparment. Of Buffalo 66 when Vincent Gallo makes the story, cowrites screenplay, directs, takes the main lead role, composes all music and even performs some the music.

Im sure the actors do bring in something to the movie when they do they roles, i agree, but in a film like eraserhead its different since acting, no matter how good, kinda takes a second place.

You wouldnt expect the same level of great acting on a surrealistic film with pretty "out there" ideas as you would expect it from a straightfoward hearthbreaking drama.

Also i never tried to imply that all main vision ( as opposed to single to not get technical about it ) films are good or worth it, but honeslty most of my favorites have only one person who brings the most to the film and basically builds it.