-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ Executive Decision -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 of 46 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?

  • 16,143 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted November 22 2012 - 02:14 PM

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.

plastic? The sculpture was changed, is that what you mean by plastic?
facebook.com/whotony

#22 of 46 OFFLINE   EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted November 22 2012 - 02:30 PM

yeah... sorry about using that word. it's a german word. but re-checking it i'm wrong... a plastic is different kind of art. so sculpture is the correct word for this matter.

#23 of 46 OFFLINE   TonyD

TonyD

    Who do we think I am?

  • 16,143 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 01 1999
  • Real Name:Tony D.
  • LocationDisney World and Universal Florida

Posted November 22 2012 - 02:33 PM

Figured that's what you meant but wasn't sure.
facebook.com/whotony

#24 of 46 OFFLINE   JoshZ

JoshZ

    Second Unit

  • 419 posts
  • Join Date: May 26 2012
  • LocationBoston

Posted November 23 2012 - 02:56 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/12/teenager-arrested-burning-poppy-facebook http://www.reuters.c...E8AF0MU20121116 http://www.volokh.co...ular-blasphemy/ http://english.ahram...ei-of-insu.aspx http://articles.chic...lish-television

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?

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".

"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. 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.

Writer / Blogmaster

High-Def Digest


#25 of 46 OFFLINE   Stephen_J_H

Stephen_J_H

    All Things Film Junkie

  • 3,997 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 30 2003
  • Real Name:Stephen J. Hill
  • LocationNorth of the 49th

Posted November 23 2012 - 04:45 AM

^This.


"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert

#26 of 46 OFFLINE   Douglas_H

Douglas_H

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 97 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 29 2000

Posted November 23 2012 - 05:54 AM

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.

#27 of 46 OFFLINE   Charles Maesschalck

Charles Maesschalck

    Agent

  • 33 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2001

Posted November 23 2012 - 05:57 AM

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.

Agree 100%.
"The Night Was Sultry"

#28 of 46 OFFLINE   Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit

  • 469 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted November 23 2012 - 02:03 PM

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.


 

 


#29 of 46 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,623 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted November 23 2012 - 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Will*B 

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.

Which is a good way to end this discussion slant about politics which is forbidden in our posting guidelines.


For 3.99, I bought the BD and will play it despite the cuts.







Crawdaddy


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#30 of 46 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted November 23 2012 - 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by JoshZ 

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.


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.


If you really must do this sort of thing then i'd go so far as to say use seamless branching and give people the choice of watching the censored version or original version and that way the people who might be offended can be told fair and square they had the choice of watching a version with the scenes cut out that had offended them.


Many viewers deemed offensive. ?   I don't think so, a vocal minority, i deem very offensive that this type of censorship takes place in 2012.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#31 of 46 OFFLINE   JoshZ

JoshZ

    Second Unit

  • 419 posts
  • Join Date: May 26 2012
  • LocationBoston

Posted November 24 2012 - 05:04 AM

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.

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. Whether the film is released edited or not edited is solely at the discretion of the studio that owns it. We may not like what they choose to do with the movie, but there's no legal recourse we can take to prevent them from editing it other than complaining or boycotting the product.

Writer / Blogmaster

High-Def Digest


#32 of 46 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer

  • 3,036 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted November 25 2012 - 03:46 PM

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. 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.

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.

No one in this thread has actually said anything close to either of these statements. You're arguing against a straw man. The issue isn't that Warner Bros. is violating anyone's freedom of speech by editing their own movie. The issue is that they're pandering to a group of people who *are* trying to curtail other people's freedom of speech. Like Will, I don't like that. Like Douglas, I think it's okay to be offensive sometimes.
 

 


#33 of 46 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,488 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted November 25 2012 - 06:11 PM

Like many situations in life, my read on this one, is that balance is a virtue. Personally, I'd prefer to be working than waiting on a line to get through corporate gates, while every vehicle is searched for devices that may be attached to a vehicle's undercarriage. Just an unfortunate fact of life. RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#34 of 46 OFFLINE   FanboyZ

FanboyZ

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 227 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2009
  • Real Name:Zolly Shoah Ben-Becker

Posted December 02 2012 - 01:38 PM

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".

#35 of 46 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer

  • 5,219 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted December 02 2012 - 04:23 PM

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".

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. I agree with Josh that this movie is property of WB and it's their decision on how to release it. It's not a First Amendment issue. But at the same time, I find it wishy-washy (and let's not pretend we don't know the "why" behind the version that was chosen for release). 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.
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#36 of 46 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted December 02 2012 - 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by WillG 

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.


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.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#37 of 46 OFFLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,311 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted December 02 2012 - 07:56 PM

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.

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. :)

#38 of 46 OFFLINE   JoshZ

JoshZ

    Second Unit

  • 419 posts
  • Join Date: May 26 2012
  • LocationBoston

Posted December 03 2012 - 03:02 AM

Small point: It was a mouse, not a rat. :)

Writer / Blogmaster

High-Def Digest


#39 of 46 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted December 03 2012 - 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Mark-P 


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. Posted Image


Pointless, they already filmed it, i just don't go along with people who treat living creatures this way, i don't care if it's the smallest insect or the largest mammal, to me there is right and wrong and you treat other species as you yourself would like to be treated, we aren't cavemen anymore, we are supposedly an intelligent species and yet we can inflict such horrendous cruelty on so called "lower species" and i disagree with it, especially for entertainment purposes.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#40 of 46 OFFLINE   JoHud

JoHud

    Screenwriter

  • 2,651 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2007
  • Real Name:Joe Hudak

Posted December 03 2012 - 06:41 AM

There was a discussion about this a while back. It turns out the reason the edited version was released was more out of laziness and penny-pinching than censorship as this version of Executive Decision was what was considered the "International Cut" -- the international version later released outside of North America. It looks like rather than remaster both the original cut and the International cut, for their respective regions, WHV decided to just release the International cut globally.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users