Content Censoring DVD players (1 Viewer)

[Chris_Morris]

If you consider that ironic, then you clearly do not have a grasp on the situation. There is a difference between forced edits that effect everyone, and edits that the user can define for themselves.


Chris

 

[MarkHastings]

Ok, now I get it. You are totally confused as to how this machine works. I suggest you re-read the information.

People with Clearplay devices are skipping over parts of the movie they wish to skip over, but the CRUTIAL aspect that you aren't understanding is, THOSE PARTS STILL EXITST ON THE DVD'S THEY BUY. This is the key to my (and others) non objection with this device.

Again, with a Clearplay device, the DVD is still "UNEDITED". (Key point). So why should I have any problem with a product that edits movies when the DVD, itself, is unedited. It's the edited DVD's from the get go (as Chris's signature denotes) that is where we are angry. As long as I can buy it unedited, why should I care if someone edits it after the fact?

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

So I'm confused. Should I (as a parent) try to limit what my kids watch in our home, or should I just decide that anything goes? It's obvious that whichever I chose, there will be people lining up to call me lazy and unfit (and I thought that my 13 month old was unreasonable ).

 

[Malcolm R]

At least in the Asian movies situation, the edits are sanctioned by the copyright holders, either by approving the edits directly or signing away the rights to approve/reject such changes.

Copyright owners are the only ones with the right to modify/edit their own properties. If the Asian owners don't approve of the Miramax versions, they don't have to license them. Apparently they're OK with it regardless of what the consumers think.


Yes you should, through active participation in their decision-making processes and viewing choices. Not by simply depending on some machine or software to sanitize everything whether it's intended for kids or not.

 

[Jaxon's Dad]

Just wait until that 13-month old grows up to become a member of HTF...

 

[Albert_M]

realistically, if a movie has something that might be objectionable for kids (or to some adults) why watch it?

Regarding ET - Why would this player even catch the word penis? It's not a "bad" word. and I'm sure that it will skip many others. Again context plays a role as well. Notice that Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan were shown uncut on network tv (appropriately I believe). It's too bad that our culture has made that the exception and not the rule.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, I can't actively support it. It strikes me as more-than-vaguely insulting for people outside the film's production to make decisions about what is and is not necessary or proper for a film, especially if the people who made the film feel strongly enough to object. James Cameron showed Kate Winslet's character nude for a reason in Titanic, to represent that DiCaprio's was seeing her as she really was, and that someone is not comfortable with his kids knowing that fully-grown women have nipples is not sufficient reason to remove that scene and weaken the movie, if you ask me.

I'm likely never going to use this thing, but from a pragmatic point of view I hope that it allow the studios to give artists more freedom, since instead of compromising their work they can just let the more timid members of the audience do it for them from the source material. It is, I suppose, mostly harmless to me.

But, even if I don't actively oppose it and say it shouldn't exist, I do think the use of such a technology is hypocritical and wrong. As wrongs go, it's probably a minor one, but it just rubs me the wrong way that, in the name of "morality", these people are quietly trampling filmmakers' freedom of expression, and it's more than a little insidious that the filmmaker never knows about it.

 

[Malcolm R]

That's totally up to the morality and discretion of the person creating/programming the censor flags for the film. How s/he would know whether "penis" is not OK for one household or another is perplexing.

I'd assume that for those delicate enough to be involved in this system in the first place, that their programmers would be instructed that "penis" = BAD!

 

[Jason Seaver]

You're under the impression that this is a completely automated process. It's not; there's a human being who watches the movie, notes that there's a level-3 naughty word spoken from time code 1:02:38.45 to time code 1:02:39.04, and marks that down in E.T.'s file. This data is uploaded to the player, and if the concerned parent has chosen to censor level-3 naughty words, the player jumps over that half-second. It's dependant on owners subscribing to a service as well as having the proper equipment, much like a ReplayTV and its program guides.

 

[MarkHastings]

Why? Because it is somehow compromising the intent of the Director? I will agree that it compromises the intent, but we (as DVD lovers) need to back off on the "directors intent" issue because I fear it will do us harm.

If I were a director listening to these complaints (about this product) and the support for "directors intent", then I would excercise the ability to have the remote control buttons disabled in my movies. Why would I want anyone to have the ability to slow down, fast forward, skip, or even pause a scene? That would go against my inetent as a director of a movie.

What I hear as hypocritical is those who enjoy the ability to use the remote control buttons (to navigate a DVD movie), yet bash a technlogy that does (for all intensive purposes) the same exact thing.

There are tons of threads where members are complaining about their "Freedom" to be able to watch the movie the way they want. They don't want forced trailers, they don't want buttons disabled, etc.

So why the need to argue someone elses freedom to watch a movie the way they want?

For the record, I am not supporting edited movies, but I AM supporting the freedom to watch a DVD the way you want to (in your own home). If someone wants to use this ability to have their movies edited, then that's fine with me, as long as they have that freedom to do it. Not allowing them this freedom is scarier than what the machines are being used for.

Let me watch movies the way I WANT TO! and let others do the same.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

First of all, regarding the issue of the copyright holder, that's not necessary since nothing in the film is being changed. If I put a DVD in this clear play thing, it may skip over a few scenes or mute a few words but if I take it out and put it in a different player than it is still the same DVD as anyone elses, in fact even in the clear play device it is still the same, all one has to do is adjust the filters.

Regarding active parenting, keep in mind that I have no kids, but this is what I don't understand.

A parent that makes a determination of what is and is not appropriate for their children to view, and then takes steps to ensure that their children do not view those things is considered lazy? Sounds like that parent is taking an active concern in what their children watch.

What would you say about a parent that sets ground rules for what their children watch, but then takes no action to enforce said rules? What about a parent that just doesn't care enough to set those standards and lets their children watch anything without regard?

The point is that it is unrealistic to expect parents to screen every movie, as has been mentioned hundreds to thousands are released every year, how could a parent find the time to sit down with each movie and screen them for content. Even then so what, they've been screened, but if a parent decides that they want a scene muted or fast forwarded through they would then also have to be present when the child wants to watch said film.

I don't think its fair to just assume that every parent that buys one of these will just plop their children down in front of it, and walk away. In fact I suspect that the opposite will be true. A parent that buys one of these things might be more apt to sit down with their child and explain just why the DVD player is muting parts and skipping parts of a movie.

 

[Richard Kim]

Exactly. It's called PARENTAL DISCRETION, and parents are well within their rights to do this. Of course, that doesn't stop kids from going to their friend's house to sneak a look at Kate Winslet's boobs.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

What about 4- Explain that although this was said in the movie, it's not appropriate for normal conversation (the original script was "dog breath"- I heard ET would have gotten a G rating and they were afraid that would have it unfairly labeled as a 'kids movie' so some profanity was added to get a PG- just another reason why I think the rating system is a joke.) If he keeps saying it anyway, THEN tell him if he's going to keep repeating everything he hears in movies, then you'll have to start censoring them.
BTW I'll buy something that can replace the dogs in movies with cats

 

[Malcolm R]

There are thousands of available titles. Simply select those that are age and/or content appropriate for the desired viewer.

 

[Andre Bijelic]

So, according to some of you, it's wrong for a parent to allow a child to watch an edited version of "Titanic" using the Clearplay machine, but it's alright if that child sees an identically-edited version of "Titanic" on network television. Is that right? Your logic escapes me.

I'm certainly not in favour of editing movies, but if someone chooses to filter out certain material in their own home, I fail to see the harm. I also fail to see how this affects me or anyone else, as long as said films continue to be available uncut.

I really don't see how this is any different than DVD players with zoom buttons. Personally, I would never use my player's zoom function to get rid of letterbox bars, but many people do just that. And I don't see any hotly debated threads about the morality of the zoom function or how using it to crop out part of the picture somehow undermines the director's artistic intent.

 

[MarkHastings]

That sounds more evil than Clearplay's methods.

 

[Kain_C]

I still think this technology is unnecessary. I think if a film contains questionable material, move on to the hundreds of thousands of other movies and pick something else. Someone doesn't HAVE to watch something so much it becomes a life or death issue. Wait until they are old enough and then let them watch it, ya know, the way things are now?


...in response to the guy who said he shouldn't have to pay for other people calling 911, what happens when you have to? And if only those that use 911 pay, maybe there wouldn't be a 911? I have a friend who works at a 911 facility and he can't stand people that complain about that. It's small change that helps ALOT of people, and it is selfish ask 'why should I have to pay that'...

 

[Brandon Conway]

Kain - I think you just re-emphasized the point that the quote was making; i.e., it was a rhetorical question.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Thank you.

 

[RobertR]

If you've ever done any of the things I listed in post #38 of this thread, you are as guilty of violating that right as Clearplay is. Are you guilty, Malcolm?