Sony's "Clean" versions are bad and they should feel bad (1 Viewer)

[jcroy]

One interesting fact... 90% of the parenting advice on the internet is offered by people who don't even have children.

Are these advice writers professionals or university professors?

 

[Jason_V]

One interesting fact... 90% of the parenting advice on the internet is offered by people who don't even have children.

Not arguing that point. All I can use is my experience and how my parents and family raised me. And, frankly, I didn't turn out to be a little hellion with my nose stuck in my phone or being rude and disrespectful.

That counts for something, right?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

While I do not support censorship in any form, calling this a "victory" is a little myopic. Certainly there are titles where offering this type of service is pointless, but it seems to me that by crying CENSORSHIP!!!!! where that clearly isn't the case is cutting off the director's nose to spite his face.

Here's the thing: regardless of which version is rented/sold/streamed, residuals are still being paid. The original version is largely still available [with some exceptions, and if that's the case, it's usually a case of the studio not looking hard enough for elements]. There is no permanent alteration of the original film. Sometimes, I think we forget how lucky we are to live in an age where a large portion of the film record of society is now available in versions that look and sound better than theatrical prints from when the films were first made. Criterion is releasing a version of Hopscotch with the edited for TV audio. Is anyone calling for Criterion to be put out of business? No!

As a lawyer, I'm always wary of "slippery slope" reasoning, especially where there is no evidence to suggest that this will be the tactic of studios if they engage in offering "clean" versions. For the Family Home Movie Act to have any "teeth", there has to be a mechanism whereby viewers can see a "clean" version. I understand that VidAngel is relaunching as an adjunct to Netflix and Amazon Prime Video, which, if it succeeds, may render this discussion moot: http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/vidangel-netflix-amazon-filtering-launch-1202464295/. In any event, the raving of Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen and the like strikes me as tilting at windmills.

 

[Ruz-El]

One interesting fact... 90% of the parenting advice on the internet is offered by people who don't even have children.

Another interesting fact... 100% of the parenting advice on the internet is offered by people who were once children and had parents of varying quality.

 

[ScottHM]

That's the real story here. If you can't have a conversation with your kid about nudity or language in a mainstream film...

You guys all seem to be missing the fact that there are plenty of adults who don't appreciate a lot of what makes it into films these days. I don't have kids to worry about, but I still pass on 99% of the stuff released as "entertainment" nowadays. The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK.
---------------

 

[Jason_V]

You guys all seem to be missing the fact that there are plenty of adults who don't appreciate a lot of what makes it into films these days. I don't have kids to worry about, but I still pass on 99% of the stuff released as "entertainment" nowadays. The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK.
---------------

I don't think anyone is missing that fact. We are recognizing the fact different people have different sensibilities and that is okay. However, I somehow doubt there will be an outcry of "save the adults" if you accidentally saw a violent scene or heard a curse word like there are if a child hears them.

I don't have interest in a lot of what is on TV or in the theater nowadays...but I certainly don't expect anyone to cater to me. I'll watch what appeals to me and leave everything else alone. But I'm not asking for a different version of, say, the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills to appease my sensibilities. It is your decision not to watch those forms of entertainment and you should be able to live with the consequences of that decision.

 

[Ruz-El]

You guys all seem to be missing the fact that there are plenty of adults who don't appreciate a lot of what makes it into films these days. I don't have kids to worry about, but I still pass on 99% of the stuff released as "entertainment" nowadays. The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK.
---------------

I have a similar viewpoint, but it's more due to taste than content.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

Another interesting fact: 90% of the people on the internet are actually cats.

 

[bigshot]

Haha! I nailed that demographic!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You guys all seem to be missing the fact that there are plenty of adults who don't appreciate a lot of what makes it into films these days. I don't have kids to worry about, but I still pass on 99% of the stuff released as "entertainment" nowadays. The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK.
---------------

With respect, I'm not missing that fact.

To me, the question is, who gets to decide what's in the films we watch? And I think those decisions need to be made by the filmmakers. Not all movies will appeal to all tastes, and I don't believe we should be trying to make them that way. We used to have a system where all movies had to meet the same standards of content; fortunately, we moved on from that nearly fifty years ago.

You conclude by writing "The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK" -- and that's really the point of the thing. If the movie they made didn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean that they should then make a version you would like. At a certain point, shouldn't the film be allowed to be the film it is?

For me, my blind spot is gruesome injury and graphic surgery. I don't mind cursing, I don't mind nudity, but I have a difficult time watching gory injuries and seeing surgery performed onscreen. Thanks to the movie rating guidelines, the movie's rating will tell me in advance if the movie contains these things, I usually get the warning in advance and then can decide whether to skip the movie entirely, wait to see it on home video so I can fast forward through the parts I don't want to see, or watch in the theaters with the option of closing my eyes during those scenes. But those scenes are part of those movies, and I don't believe in remove them just to make the movie more appropriate for a wider audience.

It's one thing to decide you're going to make a G rated movie; it's another thing for someone else to decide that your PG-13 or R rated film needs to somehow be appropriate after the fact for a G audience.

 

[Richard V]

I agree with some of the other posters about what offends me and what doesn't. For me, it is what I call "Torture porn".. Examples are Eli Roth and his Hostel movies. That being said, I'm not asking or expecting some "decency league" to demand an end to exhibiting his movies, or to censor/edit them to something I find acceptable. Movies are rated ahead of time for a reason. Everyone should know ahead of time what a movie is rated, and make their own decision about whether or not it is acceptable to him/her. He is going to keep making stuff like that because there is obviously a market for it, I'm just not a part of it, and won't watch stuff like that.

 

[Sam Posten]

You guys all seem to be missing the fact that there are plenty of adults who don't appreciate a lot of what makes it into films these days. I don't have kids to worry about, but I still pass on 99% of the stuff released as "entertainment" nowadays. The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK.
---------------

Righto, it's simple. If you object to portions of a movie...
Then
Don't
Watch
Them.

These works are not built to cater to whims and popularity (tho there are obviously those that do, blech!). They are art that expresses an opinion. Watering it down does nobody any good. Take it as a whole and debate it as a whole.

 

[ScottHM]

To me, the question is, who gets to decide what's in the films we watch? And I think those decisions need to be made by the filmmakers.

Who gets to decide what films I watch? I do.

You conclude by writing "The studios have decided they don't want my money and that's OK" -- and that's really the point of the thing. If the movie they made didn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean that they should then make a version you would like. At a certain point, shouldn't the film be allowed to be the film it is?

You notice that I said "that's OK"?
---------------

 

[Stephen_J_H]

With respect, I'm not missing that fact.

To me, the question is, who gets to decide what's in the films we watch? And I think those decisions need to be made by the filmmakers. Not all movies will appeal to all tastes, and I don't believe we should be trying to make them that way. We used to have a system where all movies had to meet the same standards of content; fortunately, we moved on from that nearly fifty years ago.

That's not the question being raised by the offering of "clean" movies; the originals are still available. This is precisely what I mean when I talk about "slippery slope" arguments. I'm reasonably certain that directors have significantly more power when it comes to saying no to an edited for TV or airline version of a movie. If it isn't available, the studios can't offer it. The Family Home Movies Act, however, is a different beast, as it allows home viewers to filter a movie to their own tastes and predilections, provided they have the tools necessary. I agree that edited for TV movies are pointless for some films (can you imagine The Human Centipede, A Serbian Film, or even Pulp Fiction edited for TV?), but it's a cottage industry that refuses to go away. "Don't watch the movie" is a platitudinous response. I don't like the idea of making everything family-friendly, but I have friends who do, and who feel that they are being pushed out of the ability to watch movies because of what they see as far too lax content rules. If it gets to the point that they can only watch faith-based films (I doubt it ever will get to that point, but some think it will), that will be a sad state indeed.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm reasonably certain that directors have significantly more power when it comes to saying no to an edited for TV or airline version of a movie.

That's part of the problem with these releases - according to the director's guild, Sony did not have the contractual right to release edited versions of some of the titles, and some have been pulled. I'm glad that they are now respecting the original contracts in the cases where the contracts prohibited this kind of editing.

"Don't watch the movie" is a platitudinous response.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Not every movie is meant for everyone. I don't think it's anything shocking or controversial to point that out.

I don't like the idea of making everything family-friendly, but I have friends who do, and who feel that they are being pushed out of the ability to watch movies because of what they see as far too lax content rules.

But that's my point - we don't have forced rules. We used to. Before 1968, all films had to be appropriate for all audiences. We now have a rating system where films are made and released with restrictions on what audiences can be admitted based on appropriateness. They don't always get it right, but on the whole, it's a positive development. I'm just concerned, not with anyone specifically but with the general concept of, this entitlement to have things on your own terms. I'm worried about what it means when it's not enough that someone wants to make an "R" rated movie, has an idea for an "R" rated movie, gets hired to do, and then is told, "You must make a version that's appropriate for all audiences too".

I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument. I'm not concerned that Sony making edited versions of movies will lead to the First Amendment being repealed. Sony is a private company, and to the extent that their contracts with filmmakers allow these kinds of edits and releases (and by and large, the Director's Guild contracts do not allow this - they can be released for television and airlines and such but to be commercially marketed usually goes against the contract), they can do what they want. But what about the entitlement of someone who says, "I don't care what the filmmakers intended, I don't care about art, I don't care about boundaries or things being meant for different audiences, I want to see it and since I don't like half of what's in it, somebody better change it for me."

This is sort of like someone claiming to be a fan of a particular band, and then only actually liking one of their songs and disliking the rest, and then being furious that the band played more than that one song when they went to the concert. You liked the song but you weren't really a fan; you shouldn't have gone to the show.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

This whole thing is yet another example of why I don't like the concept of "digital" movies replacing physical media- ALL the control goes into the hands of the content providers.

Now, I don't like the idea of cutting movies for those easily offended, but when those versions are out there I sometimes check them out for my own amusement, to see how they handle certain things. I had a number of these Sony movies in my UV collection (I don't buy movies this way, but I do redeem the codes that come with discs or trade them for other movies) when this thing started, and they all had the clean versions added as an OPTION in my library- the uncut versions were still the main choice, so I figured the cut versions would be fun bonuses. I checked parts of Ghostbusters, skipping to the part where Bill Murray says "This man has no dick." The cut version had that replaced with "This man is some kind of rodent"- the clean version still had a 5.1 mix but I noticed the censored dialogue was in the front left and right channels rather than the center, making it even easier to spot. I also checked Ghostbusters II and saw that the entire exchange where Jason Reitman says "My dad says you're full of crap" was cut completely.

Anyways, a positive of digital would be to have extra stuff added like this. However, this "victory" news had me scrambling to check these movies again, as there's now the chance that the clean versions might be removed! They're still there now, but I'm not going to be too happy with the system if it turns out I can watch them now but possibly not later. Whether or not it's wrong to have censored versions of movies, the fact is that they're currently there as OPTIONS and I don't like the possibility of them being removed after having them. Vudu already did this in the past, as they used to have porn but all of that was removed after Wal-Mart bought the company. Those who purchased any of those titles had them REMOVED from their libraries, but were refunded- but that still didn't give me much confidence in the system if that were possible. If I bought a porn DVD from a store and that store decided later not to sell porn anymore, they weren't going to come take that DVD off my shelf and leave me cash for it.

By the way I find it interesting that Sam Posten started this thread, as he once posted a mind-boggling response to one of my complaints- On some versions of the Amazon Video interface, a menu automatically pops up on screen when the ending credits of a movie start, even on ones that you "own". I was absolutely FURIOUS when I saw that and I no longer spend any money with Amazon Video (purchases or rentals) because of that (I've dropped Netflix for the same reason, although they don't "sell" you movies on their system). However Mr. Posten commented that ruining the end credits was "no big deal" or words to that effect- basically he doesn't care about the end credits, so he doesn't mind if a streaming service automatically breaks into them. I didn't have time to reply at the time, but my thoughts were "Just wait until they break into part of the movie you DO care about." Looks like he does care about this. But it just goes to show what problems come up with digital- bottom line is the consumer is NOT in control.

 

[Jason_V]

"Don't watch the movie" is a platitudinous response. I don't like the idea of making everything family-friendly, but I have friends who do, and who feel that they are being pushed out of the ability to watch movies because of what they see as far too lax content rules. If it gets to the point that they can only watch faith-based films (I doubt it ever will get to that point, but some think it will), that will be a sad state indeed.

But it's not, really. We all have choices to make in our lives and we have to live with the consequences of those actions.

I understand violence, sex or profanity may not be your cup of tea. I really do and I respect that. However, just because you don't like something doesn't mean a company (or someone else) has to change their practice to suit your tastes.

Yes, there is a business reason for this and Sony stands to profit from these new versions. But they could easily have said...nope, not doing it and not letting anyone else do it. And the people that don't want to be exposed to those things would need to deal. I don't like any reality television because of the way they treat each other, talk to one another and the kind of example they set for our society. However, I don't ask for a "clean" version...I simply don't watch and go about my day. Am I out of the conversation with some friends? Sure...and if I cared, I'd have to ask myself what is more important: being plugged into the conversation or watching vapid, useless, talentless and generally obscene people on television.

I'll take my morals in every case.

 

[ScottHM]

Yes, there is a business reason for this and Sony stands to profit from these new versions. But they could easily have said...nope, not doing it and not letting anyone else do it. And the people that don't want to be exposed to those things would need to deal.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't "need to deal." Sony's need for the added revenue is many orders of magnitude greater than my need to see their films. Sony (and other studios) are the ones who "need to deal."

You can go to the theater and watch the latest Sony film (whatever that is) and I'll enjoy another viewing of City Lights.

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

 

[Jason_V]

I respect your opinion, Scott. VidAngel broke the law and had to amend their business. The Family Home Movie Act, from what I understand, allowed private use of the technology in the home to filter. VidAngel wasn't in the home and, thus, broke the law.

I doubt Sony's fiscal year will be made or broken by the extra money they'll get from the clean versions of their films. It'll be nice to have and they are protecting their property by going after VidAngel.

Enjoy City of Lights. I took myself to Cars 3 yesterday morning.

 

[Malcolm R]

- On some versions of the Amazon Video interface, a menu automatically pops up on screen when the ending credits of a movie start, even on ones that you "own". I was absolutely FURIOUS when I saw that and I no longer spend any money with Amazon Video (purchases or rentals) because of that (I've dropped Netflix for the same reason

Not sure about Amazon, but on Netflix you just select the box with the credits and it will return to full screen, if you want to see them.