plastic?EnricoE said:the changes made here don't have the impact like the change of the plastic in "the devil's advocate". that change has a bigger impact.
The sculpture was changed, is that what you mean by plastic?
plastic?EnricoE said:the changes made here don't have the impact like the change of the plastic in "the devil's advocate". that change has a bigger impact.
Which of these took place in the United States, where freedom of speech is constitutionally protected?cafink said:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested-burning-poppy-facebook
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/16/entertainment-us-greece-blasphemy-idUSBRE8AF0MU20121116
http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/12/secular-blasphemy/
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/57824/Egypt/Politics-/-Islamists-file-lawsuit-accusing-ElBaradei-of-insu.aspx
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-29/entertainment/sns-rt-us-poland-blasphemybre89s19g-20121029_1_court-rules-parts-of-polish-society-polish-television
"Freedom of Speech" does not mean freedom from accountability for saying stupid or offensive things. The U.S. Constitution protects its citizens from being imprisoned for something they said. It does not shield them from any other repurcussions for their actions.Will*B said:This rational, reasonable sense of free speech also has an ugly sister who is just as important: the freedom to offend, within the law. This fundamental right has been just as maligned and abused in recent times.
As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said in an increasingly relevant quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Agree 100%.Douglas_H said:I like lots films that offend people.
If I find myself viewing a film that offends me I turn it off, send it back etc.,
What's more offensive, showing Muslim terrorists using the Koran as their justification or a film like JFK a story about a nutcase, directed by a nutcase.
How about we take the word "darkies" out of Gone With Wind or digitally replace the "Step and Fetchit" dialog? I'm postive that many people are offended by it.
On the surface this is no big deal but imo it is a big deal because it denies the obvious reality that Muslim terrorists DO use the Koran as justification for their slaughter and no amount of "sensitivity" by anyone is going to change that.
Which is a good way to end this discussion slant about politics which is forbidden in our posting guidelines.Originally Posted by Will*B /t/325358/a-few-words-about-executive-decision-in-blu-ray#post_4004963
Thank you to Douglas and Charles above. They completely understand what this argument is all about.
Executive Decision is a great action movie. I won't be buying the BD due to the cuts. I don't agree with the reasons for this censorship. I'll stick with the uncut DVD.
I have no desire to get into political arguments with people who share my interest in movies.
And with that, I withdraw from this thread.
Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/325358/a-few-words-about-executive-decision-in-blu-ray#post_4004779
Executive Decision contained a scene that many viewers deemed offensive. The studio that owns the film decided that this scene hurt the film's profitability, and cut it. They were well within their legal right to do so, and the First Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on this matter.
You know what, I don't even disagree with you about wishing that the disc contained the original theatrical version. I'm just tired of people ignorantly tossing out the "Freedom of Speech" argument as if a movie were Constitutionally guaranteed to be released without any edits. That's just pure nonsense.FoxyMulder said:I'm not going to argue with you, i'm just going to say three words to you Josh, YOU ARE WRONG, the film played to cinemas in a different version and it's made it's money back over the years, the cinema version should be on this blu ray, political correctness be damned, legal right or not it's wrong and defending it is also wrong, when you go down this road of cutting older films where does it all end, what is next to be cut because it "may offend" someone. Put a warning on the cover, hell you can put a large disclaimer on the disc about its content, just don't censor based on the idea it may offend someone.
No. The post you responded to, when you wrongly suggested that no one's freedom of speech was under assault, was about freedom of speech generally, not about the U.S.-specific First Amendment. It also said nothing about Warner themselves infringing upon anyone's freedom of speech directly, but rather warned about the consequences of pandering to those who take offense at speech.JoshZ said:Which of these took place in the United States, where freedom of speech is constitutionally protected?
Oh, right, none of them.
We were talking about an American movie in this thread, weren't we?
No one in this thread has actually said anything close to either of these statements. You're arguing against a straw man.You know what, I don't even disagree with you about wishing that the disc contained the original theatrical version. I'm just tired of people ignorantly tossing out the "Freedom of Speech" argument as if a movie were Constitutionally guaranteed to be released without any edits. That's just pure nonsense.
"Freedom of Speech" has nothing to do with anything here. The First Amendment protects U.S. citizens from being imprisoned for what they say. That's all it does. No one was ever in danger of being imprisoned for making this movie.
Have to disagree with you on this one. Really, how often does an International version of an American film become the sole option for release in the US? Yes, I know they do release international versions of films in the US, but that's usually when that version contains extra/uncensored footage not seen in the US release. Think "Eyes Wide Shut" for example. Many times an international cut is included alongside a US theatrical cut.FanboyZ said:It actually isn't newly censored to make the villains "less muslim", this is actually the original international version of the movie.
Since the WB disc is the same worldwide, they simply opted to use the international version instead of the American Theatrical version.
Kind of like the reverse of how WB handled "The Shining".
Originally Posted by WillG /t/325358/a-few-words-about-executive-decision-in-blu-ray/30#post_4008664
I'll challenge with this, would you be ok, if the day ever comes when we get an anamorphic, Blu-Ray release of "The Abyss" but Fox decides to use the British version where the scenes of the demonstration of the rat breathing in the oxygen liquid were censored because it was deemed "cruel" to animals (even though the rat they used was not harmed). How about the censored "international" versions of "Temple of Doom" or "Lethal Weapon 2." Don't tell me fans wouldn't be going ape shit if that were the case.
Maybe he should replace the rat with a CGI rat so that when we watch it we know we're not watching a real rat being traumatized.FoxyMulder said:I fully get your point but there is no anamorphic when it comes to blu ray, that's strictly DVD, also i would say that even though the rat used in The Abyss survived that it would have been a very traumatic thing to go through and it was cruel, that doesn't mean i want the film to be censored, i'd rather Cameron hadn't shot the scene at all, Temple Of Doom is now uncut in many international locations including the UK, same with Lethal Weapon 2.
Originally Posted by Mark-P /t/325358/a-few-words-about-executive-decision-in-blu-ray/30#post_4008699
Maybe he should replace the rat with a CGI rat so that when we watch it we know we're not watching a real rat being traumatized.