As if the Warner debacle wasn't enough!! (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Coleman]

Can you believe this:
Link Removed

 

[Michael Boyd]

A video store up there in Utah tried this with Titanic back when it was the hot VHS rental and sale. At that time the studio was pretty angry and threatened a lawsuit if I recall correctly.
Sort of ironic they have these hang ups on sex in Utah when their religion was advocating bigamy a 100 years ago.
------------------
Michael Boyd

 

[Tom-G]

I remember reading about this back when Titanic was released on VHS. Although said movie wasn't given an "R" rating, the brief topless scene was edited to make it more family friendly.
I have no qualms with people who wish to censor inappropriate material for their kids and choose this method. I do have a problem when that desire encroaches on my freedom to choose to watch a movie with adult content.
I don't need anyone telling me what I should and should not watch. I'll be the judge of that.
------------------

 

[HalS]

Hollywood does not like this policy. As someone else noted, when it first started with Titanic, there was a big controversy. Now nobody makes a big deal over it. Pretty obvious reason why I think....there's just no benefit on the PR front to fighting this battle. If 200 Mormons in Utah want to buy a VHS tape and chop it up, that's their business. To go in there and fight a lawsuit over it, I don't see how the industry would benefit from that.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Oh, that's Utah! I heard the other day that you can be arrested for possessing any of the Harry Potter books.

 

[David Lambert]

"We're going to have no comment on that," said Cheryl Glenn, a spokeswoman for DreamWorks studio which made "Gladiator."

How much do you want to bet that it's "no comment" because their legal departments are working on this issue?

------------------
DAVE/Memphis
My 3-year-old enjoying Superman - The Movie in widescreen:

(Some of my DVD's are to the left side of the picture)

 

[John_McKittrick]

Typical mormon crap.
John

 

[Justin Lane]

If someone wants to watch a movie in an edited manner that is their perogative. Who am I or anyone else on this to tell another indivdual how they should or should not view a film? I myself would not watch a film in this manner, but that once again is my "own" decision.
"Typical mormon crap."
This comment made by John is particularly discouraging, not to mention against forum rules. I am not a mormmon, but there could be members here who take such a comment to be a major insult. Why such hostility against others who do not have the same exact beliefs as you? Sheesh.
J
------------------
Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf! Don't be a jabbernowl!

 

[cafink]

I myself would not watch a film in this manner, but that once again is my "own" decision.

That's exactly the problem — it should NOT be your decision. The manner in which I watch a film should not be my decision, nor should it be the decision of Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, or the market research guys at Warner Bros. It should be up to the filmmakers, and no one else.
To suggest otherwise is insulting; a slap in the face to those who invested months or years of their lives into making the film what it is.

 

[Kevin Coleman]

IMO they are not even watching films. It is my opinion that once the movies have been molested they are no longer a film they are just worthless pieces of shit. I can't imagine trying to watch a film that some no hack yahoo has hacked all to hell.
Kevin C.

 

[Mark Lee]

Hippocrates???

(or did you mean "hypocrites"?) -- from someone who once took the Hippocratic oath....
------------------
Mark K. Lee
"Life is like a sewer -- what you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Tom Lehrer
[Edited last by Mark Lee on August 17, 2001 at 10:11 PM]

 

[CharlesD]

The manner in which I watch a film should not be my decision, nor should it be the decision of Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, or the market research guys at Warner Bros. It should be up to the filmmakers, and no one else.

Absolutely. If they don't like part or all of a given movie, then they shouldn't watch it! There's plenty of "family friendly" movies without nudity (I've never understood the objection to casual nudity in non-sexual contexts) or profanity.
If they feel that even those movies don't reflect their "values" then they are free to make movies that do.
Why butcher a movie because you don't approve of what's in it? If you don't like a movie just don't watch it!
------------------
-- Will Work for Five Million Dollars

 

[Scott Weinberg]

The guys who run the store OWN those videos. If a bunch of easily-offended people wanna mangle movies and pretend they're still watching the real thing, let 'em.
They're not hurting me. As a matter of fact, this story gave me a nice laugh. So thanks, Mormon movie butcher guys!
------------------
Scott
Check out my Movie Reviews at Epinions. Help support my debilitating DVD addiction!
AOL IM: TheAngryJew29

 

[Ben Tallen]

This article left me speechless for a full ten seconds before it left me howling and gibbering in impotent rage for a full ten minutes. This is theft, censorship, and the rape of our celluloid resources!

I must stop typing now or this will turn into one giant flame of the state of Utah.
Ben Tallen
------------------
"The Mob is run by murdering, thieving, lying, cheating psychopaths. We work for the President of the United States of America."

 

[Tom-G]

Why butcher a movie because you don't approve of what's in it? If you don't like a movie just don't watch it!

I concur! Like Scott said, if someone wishes to watch the mangled version of a movie, let them. I wish that parents would just trust the MPAA ratings on movies (as fallible as can sometimes be) and either restrict their kids from seeing the film, or simply accompany the kiddies to explain what is right and what is wrong.
You want hypocrisy? When I used to work at Blockbuster Video, I would regularly get drilled as to the content of a film in regards to sex, violence and foul language. As long as the movie didn't contain sex, the parents were always ok with letting their kids view the film.
If parents wish to have their movies censored by a third party, that's fine with me. Do what you like. I would suggest using the rating to ascertain the appropriateness of the movie. I absolutely do not want people forcing me to watch the movie in the way that they deem acceptable.
------------------

[Edited last by Tom_G on August 17, 2001 at 10:39 PM]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And "Saving Private Ryan." Its 90 profanities are silenced, but the powerful portrayal of World War II combat remains.

I'd disagree. Spielberg was going for a REALISTIC portrayal of WWII life. And believe it or not, people said the "Seven Dirty Words" back then. This is a true slap in the face to the filmmakers. Who are these people to second guess those who have invested years into the craft? To think you can edit a film and preserve it's meaning and intent is narrow-minded and arrogant. I mean, nothing you see or hear in movies is something new. You watch graphic (real life) violence on CNN. That kid on the bus in elementary school introduced you to all the major profanity. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it go away. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Yet the evil's still there. Deal with issues instead of bitching until someone protects you from them.
This seriously reminds me of 1984. Next thing you know we'll have these guys running the Ministry of Truth.
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[Lannie Lorence]

If a group of people want to watch a movie altered in some way, as long as their not forcing it on the rest of us, let them watch it. If they're deeply offended by certain words to the point it disrupts their enjoyment of a movie, it isn't hurting me to let them view it in a way that doesn't disturb them every five minutes.
Would you want a lawsuit put upon anyone who satirizes a work of art? Who takes a picture of the Mona Lisa and draws a mustache on it. What about the Phantom Menace re-edit? No one was calling for their blood.
Let them be. Lighten up. There are more important things to worry about.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

What about the Phantom Menace re-edit? No one was calling for their blood.

Go to Link Removed . Enter The Phantom Menace forum. There is/was a several page rant condemning the Phantom Editor for desecrating George Lucas' work. I know. I was one of them. Think if you will. You've spent six months working on a painting. It is your master work. Somebody makes a print of it, and then puts mustaches on all the women, and starts circulating it around. Sure, your original painting is still there, but the work than was the product of months of sweat, blood and tears has been tainted because some people will always remember it as "the funny picture with bearded women."

 

[Chris Bardon]

Look, how is this any different from editing a movie for television. Personally, I think that this is an something that studios should be seriously looking at. The "multi rating" feature could finally be given a workout... I'm sure that there are parents out there who would be extatic with this feature. There are a lot of films that can be taken to a PG or PG13 rating quite easily with minimal edits (done on TV all the time)-why not on disc. As long as the original version is there, I'm happy. Go choice!

 

[SteveMc]

Great, good for them. I don't like it ,but if they want it that way that's ok and they have a right to I guess. But somehow to me, censoring and telling people what they can and can't read, watch, or listen to is a lot more dangerous than hearing a bad word. The mormons wouldn't want people to start thinking on their own now would they? UGH! End of rant before I go to far...
------------------
Crash
"I don't even own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack."
Help us get the Friday the 13th films-UNCUT. Click Here or here