How to best censor your DVDs for content (1 Viewer)

[Barry S]

Allow me to quote South Park:

"What's the big deal? It's just a word. It doesn't hurt anybody. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck!!"

 

[Rod Martin]

Well, hey, if they replaced the swords in Princess Bride with lightsabers, what will they replace the lightsabers in Phantom Menace with?

I believe the lightsabres will be replaced with balloon swords.

I agree that most of the movies on that list are not suitable for masking, but some movies are. Most of them are movies that are mostly family-oriented, but have one or two out-of-place scenes that make them inappropriate for my children in my eyes. Beetlejuice is one (that I hadn't even realized). Another is Ghostbusters and the music sequence part (about 10 seconds) where the ghost unzips Dan Ackroyd's pants. As mentioned before, otherwise perfectly acceptable family films are ruined by a small scene or two.

 

[Bob McLaughlin]

Man, ya just gotta love the progressive mind-set of Salt Lake City.

I'd hate to see what they do to biblical movies...maybe instead of crucifixion, the Romans just give Jesus a good talking-to.

 

[MikeB]

I for one am very interested in this. I agree that there are several movies on the list that really have no place in being edited for family viewing. There are some on the list that have just 1 or 2 non-essentials scenes that I would rather my kids not watch.

One of the big criticisms I've read is that "This is reality. This is life. Don't shelter your kids from it." I know that my kids are going to hear R-rated language in school and that you don't have to look far to see real-life violence. But when I pop in a movie and sit my kids down to watch it with me, I am in a sense telling them that I agree with what is being shown. It won't do me any good to discuss what is or isn't appropriate behavior then sit them down and show them inappropriate behavior for the sake of entertainment. Sure they're going to see it, but it won't be me feeding it to them.

As for "director's intent", much of that is phony. I read an interview with one TV drama director whose goal is to use the "6 forbidden TV words" this season. He said that he doesn't care which character says them or if there is any real motivation for them to be said, he just wants the words to be spoken. There are some obvious exceptions to this, where depicted violence serves a purpose, but these are the exception to the rule.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

MikeB,

I do agree that using this kind of language on regular TV, when it serves no purpose whatsoever to the storyline or doesn't fit with the character, but instead is used for shock value--to say this show is hip and a trend setter only--the director in question is going too far.

However, the software under discussion is ludicrous.

Where have parent's brains gone that they need someone else to do the parenting for them?

Dan

 

[DarrenA]

Have you ever watched "Saving Private Ryan" with your kids, only to squirm in the midst of so much violence and bad language?

This is the first sentence of the article in question, and yet it is the most ironic. Afterall, Saving Private Ryan was shown on ABC (owned by Disney) network television on Sunday November 11th at 8:00pm, and it was aired uncut with zero censorship.

 

[DaveF]

Where have parent's brains gone that they need someone else to do the parenting for them?

Having just read and responded to MikeB's comment, How can you say that? Clearly, MikeB is trying to be the best parent possible, and believes that this sort of device might be useful.
IMO, irresponsible parents are the ones who let their kids watch anything -- those who do *not* pay attention to the material or consider the impact it could have on their children. Responsible parents try to control and limit what their kids experience (that's what people keep saying, isn't it?).
Like MikeB, some parents are interested in such a device precisely because they are concerned about their kids and are trying to raise them as best they can.
What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Better get my 2c in before this thread is closed...

Two things. First,

Have you ever watched "Saving Private Ryan" with your kids, only to squirm in the midst of so much violence and bad language?

That statement shows that the product is geared toward those parents who are either too lazy to take the time ahead to screen the material themselves, or are too weak-minded to say "no" to their kids. In either case, the parent is not acting in the best interest of their children, and no product out there is going to make that job easier.

Second,

The product's censorship is dictated not by the parent, but instead by a third party. Those that are of the mindset that this product is geared toward ("squirm in the midst of so much violence") are precisely those that will not take the time ahead to ensure that the censorship is done "properly" (according to the parent's tastes). Who is to say that the "right" words will be adjusted? The "right" amount of violence is toned down? The "right" ethnic interaction is adjusted?

Additionally to the second concern: If a parent is willing to let a third-party dictate the alteration of the movie that they found either "cool" or "important enough" (or, as is most likely the case, their children whined enough to want to see it and they just didn't have the backbone to say no), then whatever it was that made that movie "cool" or "important enough" the first time around would most likely be diminished or destroyed. It won't be the same movie...and how then does a parent explain the altered version to the kid? Oops, I forgot...the type of parent who uses this tool doesn't have the courage to talk interactively with their kids in the first place about those things that the parent deems "inappropriate".

 

[Scott Page]

Look, I think many of your are missing the point and scope of this product. Many of the films listed are their website are NOT family films, and MOST parents with any sense would not be showing them to their kids even masked. My kids would not be seeing SPR no matter what until they are old enough, say at least 16 or more.

I also think that changing swords to light-sabers is stupid. However, I see this product as a good thing. Especially the company's Director's version of the software where you can set the masks to as little or as much as you want.

This product is also aimed at adults that for what ever reason (which isn't really your business), they have certain sensitivities to language, violence, nudity, sex, or whatever, and would enjoy the movie more without some of those things. Watching nudity with my wife makes her and me uncomfortable. I'd like to watch Titanic without Ms. Winslet's breasts, thank-you-very-much. I've seem them once, and once was enough. I'm sorry that you have a problem with that. But if I bought the movie, then I should be free to fast-forward, look away, or use a third-party software to skip-it, cover-it, or whatever. Movies might be "art", but they are also entertainment. You folks should all be picketing the TV stations for "daring" to show edited movies on TV. You can bet that the studio's and directors that make nice profits from TV rights will tell you to mind your own business.

I can't believe someone hasn't mentioned Schindler's List yet. So I will. No I wouldn't remove the nudity, violance, language, etc. when watching it. No, my kids wouldn't watch it in any form till plenty old enough to see the full-uncut version. But that's my choice and I wouldn't begrudge another person that wants to watch it but also wants to cut some of that out. It's a historical film and should be seen uncut. The nudity does not bother me in it, while it does in other films where it is just there to titilate the audience. But I'm not going to freak out and call someone an art butcher because they want to watch that film or any other film without something censored out of it.

Censorship occurs all the time in life. People self-censor all the time by their choices. If I choose not to see some artsy NC-17 movie, then I have used self-censorship and used my movie-going $$ elsewhere. This product provides a flexable means of self-censorship that in no way impedes upon the rights of others. All of you should view this as a positive thing. It may allow the studios to make greater profits from increased DVD sales, thereby allowing for higher movie budgets and potentially an increase in movie quantity and quality for everyone. Anything that may increase DVD sales and income for the studios is ultimatly good for the movie industry and movie-going/buying public.

The stance of many of you would be simular to a studio or director producing an ad that says to the movie going public, "This movie contains graphic violence. In order to respect the artistic intent of the director, no one will be allowed to cover their eyes, or look away during the movie. If you do so you will be asked to leave the theater. Only those patrons that are willing to subject themselves to every scene without flinching, should attend this movie." Utter rubish! The director can do what he likes. But I can do what I like with his film if he sells it to me. If the director doesn't like it then he can keep the film to himself and only show it to his close friends. When the director agrees to sell the film to the public, then he is saying watch it where, when, and how you want. Watch it on a little screen, watch it on a big screen. Invite your friends over, watch it by yourself. Look away if offended, fast-forward, or heaven forbid - use a product that does that for you.

Look guys, I won't keep you from watching what you want, how you want. I won't censor YOUR movie. So quit trying to dictate how I watch a movie. And you don't need to call me (or others in favor of this product) a prude. You really don't know me (us) enough to say whether I (we) am or not.

 

[Robert A]

I think there is a misunderstanding about this software. Living in Utah I've read a few articles in the paper about this product. It is designed to cover up or "mask" content but it is also supposed to be an entertainment thing. The lightsabers in princess bride is a joke. You can turn the light sabers on for a good laugh. It is the same thing with starwars. They didn't make this software to only change allegedly questionable material, but to have a little fun with it as well. The using this program for more than just censorship. In one of the articles I read they talked about some other movies (can't remeber which because it was a few months ago) they made masks for that you can just play around with. I thought it sounded kind of fun.

 

[Scott Page]

None of you must watch network TV at all. It would offend you too much to sit through a program knowing that someone censored something out of it. Practically everthing on the tube has either followed network guidelines (a form of censorship), or has been directly censored for content. I suppose you don't allow your kids to watch anything either. "No Johnny, you can't watch that, it has been censored. You must respect the director and watch the uncensored Director's cut version."

That attitude is even sillier than those that would change swords to light-sabers.

By the way, I don't mean to offend anyone by this or my previous post. Just my opinion. I sometimes get a little upset because often those that cry the loudest about "rights", want to squash the rights of others.

 

[Nate Anderson]

Another is Ghostbusters and the music sequence part (about 10 seconds) where the ghost unzips Dan Ackroyd's pants. As mentioned before, otherwise perfectly acceptable family films are ruined by a small scene or two.

Com'n! When I was a little kid, I had Ghostbusters memorized (I'm a little sketchy anymore...). I had no idea what the ghost was doing. (I do now. Boy oh boy do I...) When I bought the DVD (I bought it when it first came out), I hadn't seen the film in years and suddenly got so many more of the jokes.

What the kids don't understand will go over their heads. Then when they're older, it'll all make sense.

Now, I'm not saying this applies to everything, but simply my experiences with Ghostbusters.

 

[DarrenA]

Why is it that some family groups have taken it upon themselves to sue ABC television for airing the Victoria's Secret fashion show on ABC last week, and yet no one complained at all about the profanity and violence in the uncut and uncensored ABC airing of Saving Private Ryan?
And what was so wrong about the fashion show? I mean anyone who takes their child to the beach for a vacation is going to see women more scantly clad there than on the VS fashion show.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to protect your child from watching adult programming. But why is it that we live in a society that always wants to show "watered down" versions of adult programming to children. Why can't children watch programming designed for children?
Who in their right mind is going to buy this software so their child can watch...
Aliens
American Beauty
Braveheart
Fight Club
Matrix
Memento
Saving Private Ryan
Scary Movie
Traffic
The Usual Suspects
I really feel the most sorry for the parents in this situation that have to sit through a movie altered by MovieMask. I can only imagine that most of the film American Beauty must be digitally altered by MovieMask. I mean you have nudity, violence, homosexuality, narcotics and drug usage, infidelity, masturbation...is this truly a movie that is going to even make sense after MovieMask get's a hold of it?

 

[Ryan Spaight]

None of you must watch network TV at all. It would offend you too much to sit through a program knowing that someone censored something out of it. Practically everthing on the tube has either followed network guidelines (a form of censorship), or has been directly censored for content.

Well, material that was created from the start to follow network Standards and Practices doesn't really count, because in the vast majority of cases it's not shown in a butchered version -- what you see is what was intended by the creators. That doesn't bother me at all. By the same token, if someone wants to make a high quality G-rated theatrical feature, I'll happily enjoy it.

Why there are so very few non-"kiddie" G-rated movies is a topic for another thread, but the very fact that the content conforms to a set of standards isn't objectionable, it's taking a completed work and mangling it to fit a set of standards the creators didn't have in mind originally that rubs me the wrong way.

And no, I don't watch "edited for television" material. Why should I when I can easily see the real thing?

Ryan

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Last night my wife told me that we could not buy ET when it comes out because she was talking with her mom (who ran a daycare for 30 years) and she said that showing ET at her daycare was a huge mistake. The reason was because early in the movie one kid calls another "penis breath" and apparently every kid in the daycare took to calling each other that for the next month. So the bottom line is that my wife doesn't want our children (3 and 6 by the time the movie comes out) to be calling each other that or for them to be calling other kids that, and hence they cannot watch the movie.

Now I'm not saying that this movie should be censored (although knowing Spielberg he may plan on changing this), nor am I arguing that I as a parent have the right to play a censored movie in my home, but I can definately see where some parents would like the opportunity to introduce their children to ET without having them call each other penis breath.

Many parents will simply skip to the next chapter or mute the soundtrack when that part comes up, but isn't that censorship in and of itself? I agree that the movies in the list above are not appropriate for children (even in their censored form), but other movies could benefit from technology like this.

Also, knowing that some parents are vocally calling for censorship, this might appease them to some degree. One of the fears was if two versions of a movie existed (one censored and the other un-cut), that Walmart would only carry the censored version and it would be hard to get the correct version (ala Pan and Scan). Such a technology (while I certainly don't plan on using it) could alleviate the problem.

 

[Scott Page]

Darren,

You are right! Any parent that would buy the software to allow their kids to watch the movies you list, would not be very good parents. I certainly wouldn't let my kids watch those movies. I have seen most of them and don't have much of a problem with them for my own viewing, but I wouldn't show them to kids even with a mask.

What I think this software is for, is for the specific movie that would be Ok for kids but has a couple of things that I don't approve of. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water, I'd like an option, which this software appears to provide. And like I said previously, there are some movies that are great movies but have a scene or two that really don't need to be in the movie in order to preserve a certain artistic vision, that I would rather avoid when I watch it.

There are those here who would say, "If your not going to view the whole movie, then you don't deserve to watch the movie". Let's say that a studio had some way of encripting a DVD to prevent use of this masking software. So that it would not play. That is just another form of censorship that you all are so upset about. Preventing people from seeing a movie UNLESS they are willing to watch it all.

This product does not mess with the original movie; it is still there on the DVD. The "art" is preserved for any and all to see. But it gives more viewing options. Just like the multi language options, and multi-viewing angle options that DVD already have. Am a committing a mortal sin by watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in Engish? I prefer it in the original language, but I'm glad that the studio gives me a choice. Sometimes I'm too tired to watch subtitles but still want to see the movie.

This product seems to provide many more choices, without steping on anyones rights.

 

[wally]

We should be cheering “Movie Mask”. Would you rather the people buying this technology bury studios with letter writing campaigns demanding the elimination of sex, violence, and naughty words, or buy their little black box and demand a “Mask” for Pulp Fiction leaving studios to produce all the “smut” they want for folks like us?
I think it's great. Everyone gets what they want

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Whats with the "Saving Private Ryan" bashing? This film should be shown to kids (at an appropriate age). It wasn't until I saw it that I appreciated the sacrifices made by the WWII generation. They should show it in schools.

Also, my daughter went around saying JACKASS after watching Pinocchio. Big deal. Get over it. Kids say stuff like "Penis Breath" all the time whether they see it in a movie or not. You can convince ourself that your kids don't or won't but then you'd be fooling yourself. I 'm more concerned with my child's mental development than what BAD BAD words she's exposed to.

 

[Ross Williams]

I really could care less either way about this product. If people want to use it, that's their own prerogative. I do think it's pretty ridiculous that they try to censor movies like Saving Private Ryan, what's the point? A film like Beetlejuice, I can at least understand why some would want to use it. But I can think of about 1000 more important things that parents do wrong to their children, so I'm not going to worry about this in the least.

A few of my first cinematic memories include movies like Aliens, The Terminator, Revenge of the Nerds, and Return of the Living Dead. Now some of you may be shocked that a kid of 9 or 10 was allowed to watch these films, you may think that I had horrible, uncaring parents. It's the complete opposite. My parents felt that they had taught me well enough about right and wrong, about how films are just entertainment, that they could trust me to watch these types of films without harming me. Around 11 or 12 I asked my dad if I could take a look at his Playboy, he handed me one like it was completely natural. He sat with me and asked me what I thought of it. He knew it was normal for a boy of my age to be interested in that type stuff, so he didn't try to withhold it from me. I turned out to be quite a normal person, maybe even a little more level-headed than most. It's all in the parenting on how kids are going to take the world.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

I don't think that this thread should be about what constitutes a good or a bad parent. I agree with both sentiments that "parents should not allow their kids to watch the wrong kind of films" and also that "there are about 1000 things more important to being a good parent that this."

I do believe, however, that each child is different and a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't always work. There are reasons why we currenly don't want our children to call each other penis breath. For example, my son is at the age where he will repeat anything over and over again. You should see the effect that Spy Kids has had on him. My wife doesn't want to answer to all of the parents in our playgroups. As for my daughter, I don't think she will repeat it much, but being a very curious and intelligent child, she will ask what it means, and I'd like to put off explaining oral sex to a 6 year old. Now I am very aware that my children will hear these types of words all of the time from older kids, but my children differentiate somehow between kids in movies and those in real life and will tend to immitate the former rather than the later (at least at this age).

Really the reason I joined this thread was to bemoan the wife-mandate that we will not be buying ET when it comes out, and I can totally understand how many parents would opt for for some sort of mask. The list of movies that could beneift from such a device is much larger than the list provided above.