Film editing?

[UnschoolnMa]

We watched a show tonight about companies that edit objectionable scenes out of movies.
http://www.cleanfilms.com/
http://www.cleanflicks.com/
http://www.familytv.com/index_usa.asp

Things like sex, nudity, violence, bloody gore, and language even down to someone saying "Jesus Christ" or "god damn it" etc. It's caused some huge controversy between the people who edit and producers/film makers. My initial thought was that the editing companies were on some mission to edit every scene they didn't like out of every movie. That would be something I would not be happy with at all. (I am very big on personal freedoms etc)

Basically they purchase a film for every one they edit, and then the ones they edit get sold or rented out. By buying a copy for every copy they edit the editing companies claim they are not hurting hollywood. Hollywood disagrees and law suits have been filed. They say that by editing the films (movies such as Gladiator, Traffic, Mean Girls, Saving Private Ryan, Matrix, etc) the editing companies are ruining their vision and disrespecting thier hard work.

Anyway, I have more thoughts on this but I am just wondering what others think about this. Discuss if you will!

[Dragonfly]

That's really interesting. I agree that such editing ruins the vision of the artists who worked on the film, not to mention it can really ruin the story. Really, what's Troy or Gladiator without the violence? Sure, it was a lot of violence and gore, but it was the reality of war.

I don't imagine this argument would hold much water in court. I'm guessing they must be basing the lawsuits on copyright infringement. I wonder if they're obtaining proper license before selling/renting out the films?

[ShannonCC]

I don't see the problem with this. I think it's pretty stupid and will have a good laugh about it with dh tonight :LOL but if someone wants to watch a movie that's had half the content wiped out then why not? I do agree it ruins the "vision" and all that, but I also think that once you sell a product, you have to give up control over what happens to it. I mean, if I painted a nude and sold it to someone and they then painted a bathing suit over it, it would be ruining my art and rather upsetting, but it wouldn't be under my control anymore. If they weren't buying one for every one edited that would be different (IMO at least) but since they are, I don't see the problem.

I agree with personal freedom but I also think that extends to the people who don't want the "bad" parts to be able to do what they want to do to avoid them. Though honestly, if you have to edit a movie to watch it, why watch it in the first place?

And basically, as long as the violent, potty mouthed, sex filled versions are still there for those of us who want them, I'm good

[UnschoolnMa]

Dragonfly wrote:
That's really interesting. I agree that such editing ruins the vision of the artists who worked on the film, not to mention it can really ruin the story. Really, what's Troy or Gladiator without the violence? Sure, it was a lot of violence and gore, but it was the reality of war.

I agree, and I think someone made the point on the program. The companies position is that some families do not wish to see really harsh violence, and that you still know that someone is dead without seeing their head chopped of or beaten in. I suppose so, but I keep wondering why someone would even rent/buy Gladiator if violence was such a hot button issue for them because the whole movie (well basically..) is about fighting.

I don't imagine this argument would hold much water in court. I'm guessing they must be basing the lawsuits on copyright infringement. I wonder if they're obtaining proper license before selling/renting out the films?

Well that's the thing, the editing companies are claiming that their services fall legally under the "fair use act" in copyright law, something I admittedly don't know much about. Here's some stuff I found that is asking the "is this legal" question too.
http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/sslinks/links.php?cat=162
http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/...mcensor21.html

[UnschoolnMa]

ShannonCC wrote: I mean, if I painted a nude and sold it to someone and they then painted a bathing suit over it, it would be ruining my art and rather upsetting, but it wouldn't be under my control anymore.

Yes, this is explaining what the fair use act is I think. That once you buy something you can do what you wish with it. The question I (and others) are asking is how legal is it really. One movie maker on the program talked about it by saying that he could buy the Star Wars Trilogy and edit it to watch how he wanted in his own living room, and that would be legal. What he said wouldn't be legal is if he started renting or selling the edited Star Wars Trilogy to other people. I honestly don't know... but I find it all very interesting.

I agree with personal freedom but I also think that extends to the people who don't want the "bad" parts to be able to do what they want to do to avoid them.

I agree, and what a terrific discussion starter this was for my family lastnight!

Though honestly, if you have to edit a movie to watch it, why watch it in the first place?

Good question. I mean I don't personally feel comfortable with movies that are very very violent or show extended scenes of torture/suffering. As such I try to avoid movies that are likely to be about that. If it pops up on a DVD we've rented I leave the room, cover my eyes (lol), or skip the scene on the DVD. If so much of the movie is the kind of stuff I don't want to see I just wouldn't bother.

And basically, as long as the violent, potty mouthed, sex filled versions are still there for those of us who want them, I'm good

Yes! At first I was thinking that the editing people were out to "sanitize" movies for the whole world. That would be a big in my book.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by ShannonCC

I mean, if I painted a nude and sold it to someone and they then painted a bathing suit over it, it would be ruining my art and rather upsetting, but it wouldn't be under my control anymore.

Definitely true. But if someone bought the nude, reproduced it and sold copies, they'd be violating the copyright (assuming you had one). Even if they changed it to some degree before selling copies, if it was substantially similar and the heart of the work was retained, they probably wouldn't fall under fair use.

Your first link was really interesting on the latter issue, UnschoolnMa. The question is whether the argument being made by those who created the films that such editing destroys their artistic vision would help push the supposed violators more firmly into fair use territory. It certainly seems so, doesn't it? It seems like a pretty lousy argument to make if they want to win. :LOL

Personally, it does seem like a violation to me because, really, the primary purpose that the edited versions are serving is a commercial one. There's no artistic vision being put forth. They're simply taking away components of the work. It's like creating a reproduction of a copyrighted nude painting, blurring out the naughty bits, and selling it as the "morally acceptable" version of the original.

Maybe a question to be asked is whether the heart of the work is identified by quantity or artistic vision. Though I don't even see the answer to that question as being dispositive. There's something just inherently violative about doing nothing to someone else's work except removing pieces of it and then passing it off as your own (which is essentially what they're doing when they're selling and renting it without proper licensing).

Veddy interestink.

And basically, as long as the violent, potty mouthed, sex filled versions are still there for those of us who want them, I'm good

:LOL

[ShannonCC]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Definitely true. But if someone bought the nude, reproduced it and sold copies,

But if I'm understanding UnschoolingMa right, that's not what they're doing. They're buying a movie (DVD? VHS?) and editing that one copy. They're not buying a copy, editing it and then making more copies off of that. It's like a Netflix thing right? Where people borrow them and give them back? So they need lots of copies and are buying and editing them one at a time.

So it's like if someone bought my nude painting, painted the bathing suit over that and then sold that one painting to someone else (all theoretical of course since my talent ends at stick figures :LOL) I feel that's very different from changing the painting and then making prints and selling those.

I have no idea what the *law* says on this of course so for all I know it may turn out to be illegal. I don't have a problem with it though. I think it's funny.

I just finished watching Tom Hanks version of The Lady Killers (I know not everyone liked this movie but I think it's hilarious!). I'm guessing they don't try to edit movies like this one. You would lose 1/4 of the dialogue and most of the scenes at the end of the movie :LOL

[ShannonCC]

Ok, now I'm REALLY curious! I clicked on one of the sites and saw they are offering Blade Trinity! I haven't seen that one yet but saw the first two Blade movies. How on earth do you edit violence out of a Vampire movie and not completely screw up the plot? :LOL

OMG they have the Matrix movies! Man, that's a HUGE chunk out of movie three that's for sure :LOL

Whoa. And they have Ladykillers.

I wish I could somehow rent one of these without joining. I want to see one now

[UnschoolnMa]

Holy cow, Blade movies? That would be interesting lol.