Will you edit your own movies? (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

Then there are multiple cuts of films like T2. We all pick a version to watch. That's a form of self-editing.

AFAIK, there is a difference between you taking it upon yourself to edit a movie and purchasing a different version that the studio has made available to you.

 

[John_Berger]

It may be in the public domain, but should classical music fans be angry that Strauss's full vision of his work was butchered?

In that context, it was not edited because "someone didn't like the rest of it." It was edited to fit a certain context. I have no problems with that.

 

[Ken Chan]

Both of them are indeed identical because they are edits that are made that do not reflect the will of the filmmakers.

Sure, they are identical in that way, but they are also clearly different in a more important way. When a producer/distributor distributes pan&scan only, that affects how everyone can see it. When a consumer does it themself, it only affects that consumer, and maybe any poor schmuck they invite over to see "the movie".

//Ken

 

[MickeS]

It would be fun watching chronologically edited versions of "Memento", "Pulp Fiction" and "True Romance" (TR had the PF-style back-and-forth-in-time storytelling in the screenplay). But I wouldn't edit out anything in a movie, it's easier to fastforward scenes I don't like.

 

[Aaron Croft]

"On the former, I disagree. The content is still there and you are given the choice to skip over it if you wish. You are not modifying the work itself. The latter, however, most certainly is re-eiting and again is second-guessing the filmmakers. "

What is the difference between skipping a scene by hitting fast-forward, and skipping the scene by editing it for your own personal use?

I'm going to try to avoid flaming anyone here, but I just have to say that I think statements like this:

"If the filmmakers didn't want that scene in, they would have taken it out themselves. "

.... are really outlandish considering the topic in discussion here. If you are editing it for your OWN personal enjoyment it is NO different than fast forwarding. It is so vastly different than a studio altering a release and putting it on sale I can't even comprehend how anyone could see it that way.

Give me a break.

Edit: After all that I would like to say that I would never take the time to do this myself, but I certainly wouldn't put down anyone, or claim that they are doing something wrong by doing so.

Aaron

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

You're talking apples and oranges here. If the studio does it, then one can assume that the filmmakers approved of the modifications or at least authorized them. Only then are the edits "viable" changes. Doing it on your own just because you don't like a scene is nothing more than second-guessing the filmmakers and the unauthorized editing of someone else's work WHETHER IT'S FOR YOUR OWN USE OR NOT.

 

[John_Berger]

When a producer/distributor distributes pan&scan only, that affects how everyone can see it. When a consumer does it themself, it only affects that consumer, and maybe any poor schmuck they invite over to see "the movie".

That's like saying "I'm only going to rob one person's house, not everybody's houses." Just because it's only being done by one person for one person doesn't make it right.

 

[Aaron Croft]

"You're talking apples and oranges here."
I was refering to your comment about Pan&Scan... is it not the studios that do this?
"Doing it on your own just because you don't like a scene is nothing more than second-guessing the filmmakers and the unauthorized editing of someone else's work WHETHER IT'S FOR YOUR OWN USE OR NOT. "
Is it really unauthorized? I would seriously doubt that claim, maybe I should go back and read some FBI warnings, but I'm pretty sure that anything is legal as long as its for your own personal use.
"That's like saying "I'm only going to rob one person's house, not everybody's houses." Just because it's only being done by one person for one person doesn't make it right."
No.. it's more like robbing YOUR OWN house, not everybody's house.
Again, not to flame I just like arguing, but I think your argument is so completely ridiculous I have trouble comprehending your state of mind There is a point where you can take "art" too seriously.. and if you think that "art" is so precious that someone doesn't have the right to purchase that art and edited for their own personal use, I think you are taking it WAY too far. I think I'll paint a mustache on my print of mona-lisa just to protest your ideas
Aaron

 

[EricW]

well, i might get flamed here, but i once editted a copy of Robocop with an LD player into video tape. i took out all of Weller's scenes before he gets killed. that way the 'movie' starts off with the newscast, goes to the OCP boardroom meeting, then straight to the Weller-POV transformation. it was interesting to see the movie as Robocop in that you have to find out about his past along with him.

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

I'll be sure to visit you in jail when you're convicted of vandalism. Well, okay, maybe not.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'll be sure to visit you in jail when you're convited of vandalism.

He's not talking about painting THE Mona Lisa, but his art print of it. That's not vandalism, just like editting your personal copy isn't vandalism. Personally, I agree... movies should be seen the way the artists intended them, and I therefore wouldn't edit MY copy. I couldn't give a rat's ass what John/Jane Q. Public does with his/her copy.

 

[Derek Williams]

My question is what art can and cannot be modified. I lowered my car, changed the rims, and have a custom paint job. Is a car a piece of art? I bet if you ask an auto-designer it is. How about literature, is fan-fiction not allowable when a fan takes the authors charters to create their own story. I used remixed music in an earlier post this is the best apple-to-apple example.

 

[george kaplan]

John, I have to say, that I think you are way off base here. Please think about this carefully. If someone purchases a dvd, they have in essence purchased a copy of a film. They have not purchased the original negative, or a dvd master, nor are they in a position to force the public to watch the dvd in any way, regardless of what they do with their dvd.
Hell, they could burn the dvd or use it as a frisbee and it wouldn't affect anyone else's viewing of the film, nor the 'film' itself.
You seem to think it's OK to hit chapter skip to skip over something, but not to change the content of the dvd in order to save me from having to press the button. I just don't understand this. It seems like you think I've somehow altered the content of the original film. I haven't. I've modified my own personal copy of the film. It does no harm to anyone else.
I have to agree with others on the Mona Lisa thing. If I buy a print of the Mona Lisa and draw a mustache on her, I haven't harmed the real Mona Lisa one bit.
So, what it boils down to, is that, yes, altering the work of art, the original film itself (be that the negatives, work prints, dvd masters or what not), is something that shouldn't be done (except for restoration), but something that studios do unfortunately. It's wrong. But, when you have your own personal copy of a film, frankly, you could dub your own voice over Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, and it's fine as long as I can still buy the original Citizen Kane without your alterations. What we do to our copies in the privacy of our own homes should be our own business.

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

I don't recall saying that I planned on barging into anyone home who claimed that they were editing movies.
Once again, you're trying to hide behind the veil of "what is done in the privacy of our own home..." which is a complete sham. Try making cocaine in your home for your own use and use that line (no pun intended) with the police when they come to arrest you. It won't fly there either.

 

[MickeS]

I agree with John. We need more corporate control over what people do in the privacy of their homes, with a legally purchased product that nobody else but they will even know the existance of. Where is this world heading if we'll let any schmuck do what he wants just because nobody else in the world will ever find out?

/Mike

 

[george kaplan]

John,

I'm going to address one of your specific points and then back out of this debate. You seem to take this kind of personally, and I don't want to contribute to this debate getting overheated and shutting down the thread.

I know you won't appreciate (or agree with this), but your arguments are just filled with a lot of poor logic. And my pointing that out to you is a) not doing any good, since you don't see the points I'm trying to make and b) getting you upset.



Even the possession of cocaine is AGAINST THE LAW. If and when (and I frankly am doubtful about this actually existing anytime in the near future) the capability exists for people to easily create their own version of films on their dvds, unless that is then made illegal, the comparison with cocaine is completely irrelevant and does not further your point.

I honestly feel you've taken a good ideal (protecting the artistic integrity of films) and carried that far too extreme (sort of like insisting the free speech has no limits, and you can yell fire in a crowded theater).

Please do not take my backing out of this debate the wrong way. I think it's an interesting debate, I just don't see the point of continuing and I think tempers are starting to get frayed, which is a real shame.

 

[John_Berger]

Quote:

George, you were saying something about ME carrying my argument to an extreme? :rolleyes

 

[MickeS]

John, your chainsaw example has a direct effect on someone else. Please enlighten me what effect me purchasing "Pulp Fiction" on DVD, copying half of it to a videotape, putting it back on the shelf, and then watching the videotape has on anyone else. Did the producer lose money? Did the DVD-manufacturer lose money? Did my neighbor suffer economic loss?

Everything you've said so far indicates that you are more than happy to let corporations dictate exactly what and what we can't do with products in our own home, even if it has no effect whatsoever in any way ever anywhere on anyone else. What's next? Do you propose I should no longer be allowed to make copies of some paragraphs in newspaper articles and put them on the fridge?

/Mike

 

[John_Berger]

Do you propose I should no longer be allowed to make copies of some paragraphs in newspaper articles and put them on the fridge?

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who can be categorized as "going to extremes".

 

[MickeS]

Explain the principal difference you see between my newspaper article example and copying parts of a DVD for private vieweing.

/Mike