clean flicks

xerxes · January 24, 2003, 12:25:50 AM

i just read an article that said that "director's have no moral rights to their movies."

"Cutting sex, violence, and profanity from movies is normally considered censorship. But if studios and directors like Steven Spielberg and Steven Soderbergh win a copyright suit against 11 small companies that permit consumers to avoid such scenes, free speech will be the loser, not the victor."

that seems like some weird logic to me, i personally think it's cenorship, plain and simple.

"If I do it myself, it's a matter of choice, but if you do it, you're a censor and a parasite, living off someone else's work.''
--roger ebert, when talking to bill aho, ceo of ClearPlay.

so what do you guys think??? anyone actually seen one of these things???

©brad · January 24, 2003, 04:50:23 AM

I really don't understand this, what is going on? Explain more?

RegularKarate · January 24, 2003, 10:16:26 AM

Quote from: cbrad4dI really don't understand this, what is going on? Explain more?

Some jackasses are cutting movies to shit then renting and/or selling them as "clean" versions. Now there's a lawsuit about it and the companies are bitching that they have the right to do this.

Xixax · January 24, 2003, 10:20:38 AM

Oh, yeah. The third-party editing stuff is downright wrong. I hope they get sued into the ground for that.

Initially in scanning the original post (not reading, but skimming), I thought it might have been about filmmakers decreasing the amount of skin in their movies because of public pressure. I know I've seen a number of movies that would have been just as good without certain elements (very strong language or graphic sex scenes)... Certainly there are times when this sort of thing is called for in a movie to move the story and characters along, but sometimes it is simply gratuitous. That's when I really dislike it. If it's not needed, leave it out so I can watch it with my parents, yo...

Jeremy Blackman · January 24, 2003, 11:07:36 AM

Amen, my brothers.

You know that Blockbuster would latch onto this censorship thing as soon as it becomes legal.

:x

polkablues · January 24, 2003, 02:14:04 PM

"Free Speech", in this case, means if you don't want to see the naughty bits, you don't have to watch the damn movie. Free speech has nothing to do with altering and/or distorting another person's copyrighted material.

RegularKarate · January 24, 2003, 03:05:34 PM

Quote from: polkablues"Free Speech", in this case, means if you don't want to see the naughty bits, you don't have to watch the damn movie. Free speech has nothing to do with altering and/or distorting another person's copyrighted material.

Or even "if you don't want to see the naughty bits, wait until it runs on network t.v. it doesn't take that long for it to get there and the director occasionally at least gets to supervise the altering"

Jeremy Blackman · January 24, 2003, 03:34:52 PM

Quote from: polkabluesFree speech has nothing to do with altering and/or distorting another person's copyrighted material.

... and redistributing it, and makey money off it. It would be illegal if they added something to a movie and resold as their own, so how could it not be illegal to cut up a movie and sell it as your own?

xerxes · January 24, 2003, 03:45:57 PM

sorry i was away, i was painting a few more trees on my monet. you know, didn't think there were enough. now i have to go sell it and make a profit.

RegularKarate · January 24, 2003, 03:54:56 PM

Yeah, I was just covering the Lady Justice statue's hot tit with a robe.

This shit's been going on forever. People can just be so fucking retarded.

xerxes · January 24, 2003, 03:57:09 PM

yeah i hate people

ReelHotGames · February 21, 2003, 01:52:36 PM

The simple fact of the matter is that clean flicks is selling edited versions of property they don't own.

I have no problem with Mom & Dad purchasing a film and going home and editing for their children's viewing pleasure, it's their right to defame and deface their purchased property, but for a thrid party to edit films then redistribute them.

They're not taking VHS tapes they bought, using the splicer to cut the tape and put it back together, they're pressing discs and duping copies of things they have no legal right to do.

Michael

Jeremy Blackman · February 21, 2003, 01:56:22 PM

This is what they really should do, if they want to stay in business: Instead of selling the product, sell the service. Have people buy the movie on their own, bring it to you, and then you can edit it. That would be legitimate (though still immoral).

ReelHotGames · February 21, 2003, 03:15:34 PM

Jeremy - that's exactly the right idea. As a service ther e can be no qualm, if I wanted an edited version of "Goldmember" and I go out and buy it, I have the right to go home, dub in my voice saying "do I make you happy" and get on with my life, but to edit out sequences and make those moral decisions for everyone who wants a Prime Time TV friendly family cut of Boogie Nights, it's damnable I say!

As a PS - catch Boogie Nights on TNT sometime, they have a great sequence when the split screens happen and it's part of an early review of Dirk Diggler as it's read by Amber etc... There's a BJ shot of MarkyMark getting it on with Melora Walters and they put a little floating star over her head and it sort of bobs up and down, it's beautiful !!! Now that's comedy, a film about porn on edited TV...

BonBon85 · February 21, 2003, 08:16:01 PM

The funniest edited for TV moment was when I was watching Cruel Intentions (a friend made me) and at the kissing scene in the park instead of saying "haven't you ever practiced on your girlfriends" Sara Michelle Gellar said "haven't you ever practiced on your pillow-friends?" Why would they chage it to pillow friends if they can still show the actual kiss?