Sanitizing Hollywood, one DVD at a time

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,303
Reaction score
62
Utah-based CleanFlicks rents DVD's that have been "altered", taking out content that they deem "inappropriate"


"Lines compares film sanitizing to buying a new sports car, repainting it or restoring the interior, then reselling it. "Spielberg says no one has the right to impose their truth on top of his," he says. "My response to that is, he's the god of truth? We just want to watch a movie without sex and nudity."

But critics say sanitizers sometimes alter a film so much that its original themes are muted or even turned upside down. Robert Rosen, dean of UCLA's film, theater and television school, points to a sanitized version of "The Hurricane," about African American boxer Rubin Carter, that eliminated racial epithets uttered by police officials investigating Carter. That, according to Rosen, undercut two of the movie's central themes, racism and police corruption. "This has very little to do with protecting children," Rosen says. "There are all kinds of religious, political and ideological biases at work."


"Fans of such movies can, for example, find copies of "Titanic" with Kate Winslet's nude scene snipped out, or versions of "Traffic" without a sequence in which a prominent politician's teenage daughter prostitutes herself for drug money. Scrubbed copies of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" delete depictions of the title character's extramarital affairs."


"Filmmakers see sanitizing as both a violation of their copyright protections and, worse, a desecration of their artistic vision. "When you change or delete a scene, you change the very nature of a film," says Marshall Herskovitz, the producer of such movies as "Traffic" and "The Last Samurai." He adds, "It's such a simple concept: The original work of the artist should be protected. An unauthorized third party shouldn't profit from it."

source


I think this is another attempt from the christian right to censor what is not theirs to censor ...I mean if you dont want to watch a movie that has offensive material ...dont watch it!
 
CptStern said:
I think this is another attempt from the christian right to censor what is not theirs to censor ...I mean if you dont want to watch a movie that has offensive material ...dont watch it!
Cute, he's blaming the "Christian right". I imagine only a small amount of people would actually be interested in these movies... what harm is it causing you for them to want to watch clean movies? Personally I like sex and violence in movies, it adds character, but I dont mind it if others dont. How does it affect you? I only ask because its often asked about gay marriage.
 
it doesnt affect me ..at least not directly as of yet ...the moralification of america by the christian right is slowly taking over media ...I watched a program the other day where they blotted out a babies ass ...a babies ass! for god's sake


oh and it is the work of the christian right: Ray Lines is a Mormon, who hails from Utah ...a state who's population is 70% mormon ...but Lines goal is to provide "safe" movies for all of america.... and he had this to say:

"We're tired of waiting for Hollywood to fix itself. Maybe we can do it ourselves."
 
The point is that the filmmaker's original vision is altered without their consent, which is not ok, especially when these folks hide behind their made-up crusade of cleanliness.
 
There are two ways to look at this, 1) does a religious group have the right to alter copyrighted material for their own religious beliefs, and 2) Should Hollywood themselves be responsible for creating toned down versions of their movies, instead of allowing others to do it illegally.
 
CptStern said:
it doesnt affect me ..at least not directly as of yet ...the moralification of america by the christian right is slowly taking over media ...I watched a program the other day where they blotted out a babies ass ...a babies ass! for god's sake


oh and it is the work of the christian right: Ray Lines is a Mormon, who hails from Utah ...a state who's population is 70% mormon ...but Lines goal is to provide "safe" movies for all of america.... and he had this to say:

"We're tired of waiting for Hollywood to fix itself. Maybe we can do it ourselves."
I doubt he actually means that. Stern, they probably knew of your infatuation with babies nether regions. I think the alternative should exist for people, but I certainly dont see this becoming mainstream, not with psychotic liberals labeling it as nazi and regressive. If anything our media is becoming more liberal. I wouldnt trouble yourself over it stern.
 
Razor said:
There are two ways to look at this, 1) does a religious group have the right to alter copyrighted material for their own religious beliefs, and 2) Should Hollywood themselves be responsible for creating toned down versions of their movies, instead of allowing others to do it illegally.

Not really. First, nobody has the right to alter copyrighted material without permission, religious affiliation or not. Secondly, Hollywood is in no way responsible to create altered media at all. That's all there is to it.
 
gh0st said:
I doubt he actually means that. Stern, they probably knew of your infatuation with babies nether regions. I think the alternative should exist for people, but I certainly dont see this becoming mainstream, not with psychotic liberals labeling it as nazi and regressive. If anything our media is becoming more liberal. I wouldnt trouble yourself over it stern.

no I dont think an alternative should exist, if they want something clean watch "Who's the boss" re-runs or "Touched by an angel". I dont want people who dont represent me in the least curtailing what hollywood (or anyone for the matter) they can or cant do ..if this movement gets big enough they'll definately influence hollywood in a negative way ..they'll be able to remove "questionable content" before the movie is made
 
CptStern said:
no I dont think an alternative should exist, if they want something clean watch "Who's the boss" re-runs or "Touched by an angel". I dont want people who dont represent me in the least curtailing what hollywood (or anyone for the matter) they can or cant do ..if this movement gets big enough they'll definately influence hollywood in a negative way ..they'll be able to remove "questionable content" before the movie is made

as long as the real movie producers get credit that is good, though they should be allowed to DENY people rights to edit their artistic visions if they so choose.
 
As long as thy state that the video is alterd, and what scenes have been removed(I doubt they state the last one), it´s ok by me. Because then people know what they are renting,buying and what content has been removed.
 
Movies should be unedited though, unless it is done for reasons of quality by the director/editor/etc. I have to agree that if someone doesn't want to see the gritty parts of a movie as it goes against their religion, they shouldn't watch it, but then...if there is a demand for these highly cut down versions, then Hollywood should look into creating them...as long as it doesn't ruin the original movie for me, i don't mind.
 
a work of art should never be tailor made to suit the audience ...granted most of the crap hollywood pushes out isnt exactly "high art". Read into Orson Wells problems with the studio while making citizen kane ...I have to admire him ...he nearly lost his mind filming that movie
 
CptStern said:
a work of art should never be tailor made to suit the audience ...granted most of the crap hollywood pushes out isnt exactly "high art". Read into Orson Wells problems with the studio while making citizen kane ...I have to admire him ...he nearly lost his mind filming that movie


You could also the say the same thing about any sort of censorship, especially the censorship of world war 2 games in Germany. Some people could say that ww2 games is art, yet the German government demands a game developer to butcher their game as the German government doesn't like the content.
 
ya but I dont agree with re-inventing history to suit their needs ..it's part of their history ..as long as it doesnt glorify it I dont see what the problem is ...although I do understand why they're so sensitive
 
FictiousWill said:
The point is that the filmmaker's original vision is altered without their consent, which is not ok, especially when these folks hide behind their made-up crusade of cleanliness.
Altering a filmmaker's artistic vision is WRONG, even in the name of cleanliness.

Seriously, people, imagine a movie like American History X censored to that extreme? Other than being ten minutes long, it would completely miss the point.

Even war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers would lose their gravity because with gore taken out it makes it feel a lot less serious, distressing, and real, which undermines the anti-war message of these movies.
 
Ennui said:
Altering a filmmaker's artistic vision is WRONG, even in the name of cleanliness.

Seriously, people, imagine a movie like American History X censored to that extreme? Other than being ten minutes long, it would completely miss the point.

Even war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or We Were Soldiers would lose their gravity because with gore taken out it makes it feel a lot less serious, distressing, and real, which undermines the anti-war message of these movies.


Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers didn't have an anti war message.
 
those catholics are beginning to think they have too much rights, if they don't like a scene they can fast forward it or skip it just like everybody else.

no but doesn't it sound faggish. removing content in movies made to be seen by adults. some people really skipped the physical and mental enforcement part of puberty.
 
sorry, there's just absolutely no difference between religions in my eyes, all the same propagandist bullshit.

besides what the hell is the boundary between a mormon and a catholic.
 
I don't understand why someone would want to rent a movie with the good parts edited out of it. I don't even think that editing the "offensive" scenes is really necessary. Blockbuster Video as an example, has descriptions on the back of the rental covers to indicate why the movie got its rating. It tells the customer that "such-in-such" is rated "R for strong language, violence, nudity and sexuality." If someone is offended by any of these, then they shouldn't rent it.
 
CptStern said:
no I dont think an alternative should exist
So why don't gay people move to a country where they can marry?
 
trizzm said:
sorry, there's just absolutely no difference between religions in my eyes, all the same propagandist bullshit.

besides what the hell is the boundary between a mormon and a catholic.


mormons live a very strict lifestyle ..some sects dont allow men and women to swim or dance together (which in my opinion leads to homersexuality :E )
 
CptStern said:
huh? what are you getting at?
Why should we have to make an alternate marriage system, which many people consider immoral? I am just comparing it to your statement about clean entertainment. I don't think it is bad that people want movies to be cleaner, and Hollywood is really not giving them an option so they can just edit them until they think they are clean. It is just like in school when we watch edited versions of movies.
 
trizzm said:
sorry, there's just absolutely no difference between religions in my eyes, all the same propagandist bullshit.

besides what the hell is the boundary between a mormon and a catholic.
The KKK is like a form of religion, can you draw differences from that?

god damnit, I did it again...hit reply instead of edit.
 
you cant compare basic human rights and editing someone elses work
 
CptStern said:
you cant compare basic human rights and editing someone elses work
Basic human rights? Since when is getting a tax break a basic human right? Or having the two or three letters infront of your name a basic human right?
 
it's called "equality" ..and YES equality is a basic human right


"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
 
It's bizarre how much more sensitive people are to sex than they are to violence. You can have a casual murder in a film, and no one, NO ONE, not even the censors will bat an eyelid as long as it's not TOO grisly.

But if a woman gets a boob out - out come the scissors and film reel starts hitting the floor. Doesn't it strike some people as weird that at 16 you're able to legally have sex (in UK, younger in some other places) but you can't watch hardcore porn until you're 2 years older? Are you expected to close your eyes while having sex at this age?

People's sensitivities are ****ed, world over.
 
It's a private company doing this, so it's fine. I don't see at all why people would want to attack them.. it's a business- you see a market of people who will rent movies from you that have been cleaned, you take advantage of it.

No logical reason to go after them unless they MADE you rent it or something- it's not the government.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
It's a private company doing this, so it's fine. I don't see at all why people would want to attack them.. it's a business- you see a market of people who will rent movies from you that have been cleaned, you take advantage of it.

No logical reason to go after them unless they MADE you rent it or something- it's not the government.

it does matter if it a private or publically owned company, it's not their property
 
CptStern said:
it does matter if it a private or publically owned company, it's not their property
I don't know the laws for renting and stuff but are they doing it without having gone through the required agreements with the MPAA and such? If they haven't then the filmmakers could just bring suit upon them. but if they have and it's all legal, I don't see a problem.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I don't know the laws for renting and stuff but are they doing it without having gone through the required agreements with the MPAA and such? If they haven't then the filmmakers could just bring suit upon them. but if they have and it's all legal, I don't see a problem.

yup, im sure that the people who make the movies are getting their dues, or they would sue the crap out of them.

I dont know why people think this is so negative, if you want to show a child (or a classroom ) Saving Private Ryan and convey WWII but tone down the gore so it is a bit more appropriate, so be it.
 
CptStern said:
mormons live a very strict lifestyle ..some sects dont allow men and women to swim or dance together (which in my opinion leads to homersexuality :E )

Wow, Horray for stereotyping my area. I live in Utah, and people are not that strict here. hell, the "edited" saving private Ryan, they just took out the curse words. The gore and violence was still there. For christ sakes, we have barber shops here in Salt Lake City and soon in Orem/Provo area that all the female hair stylist are wearing bikinis.

The people here that are "omg sex and violence" are the damn soccermoms and heavy religous people which is 15% of the population. Everyone else is all mellow and enjoy some violent movies and whatever, what sect are you talking about men and women not dancing together? There is no sect around here that you think, unless its a gaybar or something.. You should think of the FLDS church, Fundmentalist Latter Day Saints, those guys are more strict, and fit your description.. hell they practice pologamy and claimed the end of the world happend last week.. well it didn't and they all ran away to texas.

But, edited films here are scarce, you'll find more porno and strip joints here in Utah rather then edited film stores.
 
Its ok Edgar, stern is actually pretty ignorant about America... let him live in his fantasy land.

I agree with you kmack. Theres no reason this shouldnt be allowed, if I want to see a movie at the risk of it "losing" its value, I should be perfectly able to without being prevented by conspiracy theorists (OH GOD LOOK AT WHAT THIS WILL DO TO SOCIETY) saying I cant.
 
I don't understand the legal issues here.

If I bought a copy of Microsoft XP off a shelf, then "sanitised" it by removing the gaping security holes in IE, and then rebranded it, and made copies to sell to people; I'd be in jail faster than you could say "IP law!!"

How is this any different?
 
bliink said:
I don't understand the legal issues here.

If I bought a copy of Microsoft XP off a shelf, then "sanitised" it by removing the gaping security holes in IE, and then rebranded it, and made copies to sell to people; I'd be in jail faster than you could say "IP law!!"

How is this any different?
I assume that they are licensed to do so, and that they probably pay the film studios royalty on each rental.
 
because they're renting not selling


gh0st, rakurai it's illegal:


"Plenty of people in Hollywood would dispute that claim. Filmmakers see sanitizing as both a violation of their copyright protections and, worse, a desecration of their artistic vision. "When you change or delete a scene, you change the very nature of a film," says Marshall Herskovitz, the producer of such movies as "Traffic" and "The Last Samurai." He adds, "It's such a simple concept: The original work of the artist should be protected. An unauthorized third party shouldn't profit from it."

Herskovitz compares film sanitizing to buying a book, removing a few objectionable pages or chapters, then reselling it. "If I did that," he says, "I'd be hauled into court."

As it happens, the Directors Guild of America and a group of movie sanitizing companies have traded lawsuits over the issue. An affiliate of Lines's CleanFlicks Media started the legal crossfire in late 2002 when it went to court seeking a declaration that its practices were legal; for maximum publicity it sued 16 prominent directors, including Robert Altman, Robert Redford, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh and Spielberg. The DGA shot back, charging CleanFlicks and several other film sanitizers with copyright violations."


read the article page 1
 
Wasn't it Titanic that started this whole thing? The studio released a boobless version of the film or something?

Realistically, it seems like they must be violating copyright law in this situation, unless they are getting permission from the studio. Though I don't understand how this legal issue is connected to the christian right. If the studio wanted to release edited versions they'd have every right to. Just because it's being done illegally doesn't mean it is a plot by mormons to influence society.
 
did any of you read the link on page one? judging from responses you didnt
 
Back
Top