Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Playback Devices' started by derek, May 12, 2004.
If they really wanted to test the limits of this hardware, they would of used the South Park movie.
Why not Caligula?
Could you list all the choices for filtering (Violence, Sex/Nudity, Language, and Other)?
Here's the filtering choice list:
- moderate violence
- graphic violence
- disturbing images
Sex and Nudity
- sensual content
- crude sexual content
- explicit sexual situation
- vain reference to Deity
- crude language & humor
- ethnic and social slurs
- strong profanity
- graphic vulgarity
- explict drug use
Is it called the CensoraVision player (as opposed to SelectaVision?)
That's just kind of silly. Really, how prudish can you get?
What's the difference between "cursing", "strong profanity", and "graphic vulgarity"?
Does the player not filter out "implicit drug use"?
Let me guess, the "explicit drug use" filter leaves cigarette smoking & drinking alcohol INTACT.
Rob great ROTFLMAO but they forgot to have a list of Alice B. Toklas 1954 recipes on Marijuana Brownies, and Hasish(Hash Hish) Fudge found in her book, not to eaten. Did you really think you have to smoke it to get high?
Naming this tech 'ClearPlay' is a nice piece of doublespeak that would make Orwell proud.
Just think, somewhere out there, there is probably somebody who has every filter enabled except for 'ethnic slurs'. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?
Although I will not be purchasing one of these devices, I have no problem with them being available. If parents would like the option for their kids, then that's fine with me.
This is easy. If you don't want the dvd player don't buy it. Quit bitching about it. If someone wants this option, why do you have to piss all over them? What's wrong with choice?
I couldn't agree more. Movies are edited for content on TV and have been for decades, so having the option to do this on your own DVD player is hardly an "Orwellian" invention. You still have the option of watching the movies uncensored (even on this machine), and last I checked, nobody is forcing you to buy this player, either. Why piss all over someone who might be interested in such a thing.
Crude language and humor: Would Shrek still get to say, "I have to save my ass..."?
Does crude sexual content mean only Diane Keaton or Kathy Bates?
Ethnic slurs: Can the machine tell the difference between a white person and a black person saying the n-word?
And I think it goes without saying that both Requiem for a Dream and Showgirls would be reduced to less than the sum of their theatrical trailers!
The machine can't do anything. There are humans who program filters for each movie.
I wonder how well the machine deals with subtle innuendo. How would it deal with Kubrick's LOLITA for example? Such as Peter Sellers' line that Lolita paid a visit to the dentist "to have a cavity filled".
This arguement could be applied to either side of the debate, however. No one is forcing anyone to watch any movies, the parents or adults or whomever have every right to avoid content they would find displeasing or offensive. The movie producers and MPAA already go to (imho) nauseating lengths to outline exactly what potentially-offensive content exists, and anyone with a computer could find one of a number of websites that will outline in graphic detail the questionable content of films. You then have a choice to NOT WATCH that film.
If you offer even one iota of credit to film storytelling as an "artform" you ahve to grant a bit of license to the artist to create using the canvas they deem fit. When artists start thinking more in terms of the audience and their expectations, they cease to be artists and start being strictly entertainers.
The idea of edited for Television is sort of an inconsistant parallel as the owners of the film have given permission for the changes that needed to be made-- and some films are never shown on television due to the wishes of the people who created or owned the film. With a device like this, the decision on what is altered is not the same as edited for TV.
Bottom line, for me, is that you get the choice to watch or not watch a given piece: to read or not read, to view or not view--- I think you overstep what is a valid decision when you seek to alter all input to fit your definitions.
Once again, the machine doesn't do anything. There is an actual person who determines which scenes fall into which categories. Therefore, this machine will not filter all movies, so clearplay must prioritize which movies they think families would like to watch with some minor edits. I think that Shrek 2 would be high on their list, whereas Lolita is probably very low on their list. This is the third thread debating this device, so I assumed that people would actually know how it worked before bashing it.
This device is not for everybody, and clearplay knows it. I will not buy this device, but I have no issue with others buying it. Of course, others seem to think that the fast forward and skip buttons on the remote are the work of the devil.
I quite agree. However, a lot of others don't. I often hear people say "Oh, movie XYZZY would be great if it didn't have so much profanity/nudity/sex/romantic sentimental slop". (Ok, that last one is from me...) I think it's a lot better to let those who easily find offense have a device that only alters the way a movie is seen in their own home than to have them pressure studios for less offensive movies.
I would have a problem with companies producing edited DVDs or with studios themselves releasing multiple edits of the same movie (beyond the R and unrated versions, that is.) But neither applies here where the original disc, the original vision of art is untouched. If Clearplay mangles an artistic vision then so does repeating a scene, skipping a scene, demo-ing a scene, and stopping the disc to go to the bathroom. (On a side note, I would argue that for most movies the artistic visions are more mangled by the studios and business aspects than anything a home viewer could do.)