Hollywood decides that it wants to alienate Christians who buy sanitized versions of their films instead of taking their money.
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
And don't forget, you have a responsibility to keep the careers of Caspar Van Dien and Kirk Cameron alive. Support Christian moviemaking.
Dave
27 - John Bambenek
I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer.
Gonzo - They weren't sued for piracy, you bringing it up means you don't understand the facts at hand. They were legitimate resellers, what they got in trouble for was the editing service specifically. If they sold unedited films, there would be no lawsuit. There is a reason this is taking place in the civil system and not the criminal system, and that's because your analysis is simply wrong. Cleanflicks would be in jail right now if that were the case.
And the idea that Kate Winslet's boob scene adds anything to the movie is simply stupid. It's like saying Ron Jeremy produces art. I suppose you could have that position that there is some artistic merit to his "work", but I'd disagree.
Sure, Christians don't have the buy the films, and now they won't. And next week you'll be complaining about censorship because Christians aren't supporting Hollywood anymore (like you complained about censorship of the Dixie Chicks).
You can't have it both ways. Allowing the editing was a compromise that let everyone be relatively happy, Christians could watch the movies without having their values offended, Hollywood could continue making their trash and get paid.
Filmmakers haven't been suing the networks for sanitizing films for TV. They haven't sued VCR/DVD makers for including fast forward buttons. Is it really their "artistic merit" they are trying to preserve? I'm skeptical, as I'm skeptical of even applying the label of art here.
28 - Bliffle
Unfortunately, simply removing the 'smut' doesn't improve a movie. Nor, actually, does adding 'smut'. If one removes all the crap from movies not much is left. Stop watching them.
29 - John Bambenek
Dave-
If you took away that I implied Hollywood doesn't have the legal right to pursue their course of action, that is a misunderstanding. They do.
It doesn't make it stupid.
No one is trying to FORCE Hollywood to change their moviemaking with Cleanflicks. In fact, much the opposite. Instead of AFA having boycotts, people can simply go to Cleanflicks instead. By not granting permission to Cleanflicks they are ensuring that Christians either have to suck it up (which many won't), fight back, or boycott. Their course of action isn't mitigating the culture war, it's inflaming it.
It isn't a matter of persecution, it's a matter of conflict.
30 - John Bambenek
Bliffle-
To be strictly honest, I'm not arguing "for Cleanflicks" for the sake of my own tastes, I'm more or less an indifferent bystander here. I don't watch movies because like another commenter said 97% is crap and I have better things to do with $20. I don't buy movies now, and I don't buy them via Cleanflicks either. I wouldn't know the company existed if they weren't sued.
However, that doesn't mean I don't think the laws of supply and demand don't make sense here. I find it telling that those who would general support the consumer over big business are siding with big business on this one.
Are we all Republicans now?
31 - Ray Ellis
I love that term "culture war"--it's funny.
32 - John Bambenek
Culture War, Culture Conflict, Clash of Cultures, whatever.
We have groups of people who don't share the same values who share the same nation, and since everything is a national issue now, we have to fight these issues out nationally where only one group can win. The Left wants domination, the Right wants domination, someone somewhere loses.
We can't have compromise solutions like Cleanflicks, federalism, or anything like that. It's winner-take-all... and we all are going to lose some day.
33 - Ray Ellis
We lose when we fail to protect the rights of the artist. Period. Or would you prefer your words be chopped away to erode your original intent? "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." By the same token, if I find you repugnant, I'll simply ignore you. Why is that concept so difficult to grasp?
34 - Les Slater
John #27
"Christians could watch the movies without having their values offended ..."
Christians? You are talking a small subset here.
It is interesting that some have bought into the self serving, definition by a sect, as to who is, and who isn't, a Christian.
35 - John Bambenek
At what point did you get the idea that I don't think filmmakers have the right to insist that their trash be on display in full?
They do.
That's not the point.
By failing to allow an organization to sanitize their films based on the desires of their customers, they are alienating their customer base and actually harming their bottom line. Instead of those viewers being able to view the filmmaker's ability (minus trash) he'll be ignored.
Of course consumers can ignore Hollywood.
That's not the point.
They point is by giving the finger to supply and demand, Hollywood is bringing more economic harm to themselves than could ever happen with Cleanflicks.
Nothing is preventing them from giving approval to Cleanflicks to do their editing.
Yes, they have the right to do what they are doing.
As I have the right to say what they are doing is stupid.
At what point do you get the idea I'm suggesting we should change something here?
36 - John Bambenek
Christians a small subset? I'm not sure you have your demographics straight here.
AFA and the like (and for the record I am not a part of such organizations, or for that matter, their religious denominations) hail millions of members, that's hardly a small subset.
37 - Les Slater
John #35
"At what point do you get the idea I'm suggesting we should change something here?"
The first paragraph of you original post.
38 - Les Slater
John #36
"Christians a small subset? I'm not sure you have your demographics straight here."
No, the ones that you are referring to, those that prudish, are a`small subset of Chistianity.
39 - gonzo marx
John in #27 sez...
*Gonzo - They weren't sued for piracy, you bringing it up means you don't understand the facts at hand. They were legitimate resellers, what they got in trouble for was the editing service specifically. If they sold unedited films, there would be no lawsuit. There is a reason this is taking place in the civil system and not the criminal system, and that's because your analysis is simply wrong. Cleanflicks would be in jail right now if that were the case.*
John, my apologies if i was nto making myself clear here...
what i was trying to say, was that yes...they are a legitimate re-seller...as such they have to abide by certain rules covered under Intellectual Property and copywrite Laws... by changing or editing the Content in ANY way outside of properly contracted and agreed upon Terms (such as the ones television uses for broadcast Rights)...Cleanflicks steps OUTSIDE of the agreed upon terms they have as an authorized re-seller without negotiations or approval of those who OWN the Rights to the Content, the moment they re-sell the unauthorized, re-edited, Content.
convolouted, i know...but it is NOT a simple Thing here...it's the real world legal conception and enforcement of Intellectual Property rights for those who own said Rights for the Content
aren't Property Rights and their proper enforcement a mainstay of "conservative" Values?
as far as your "supply and demand" points...there is a lot to be Considered here...like, the Market forces are working...
wait a moment, and hear me out for a second...
if there were more than a 10-15% market share for such "clean" Content, there would definately be a proportionate increase in the creation and production of such material... they ARE Marketers and Capitalists who run those Studios ( a different Faction within the Industry than the "creative" Faction...not to be confused between)
John in #27 sez...
*And next week you'll be complaining about censorship because Christians aren't supporting Hollywood anymore (like you complained about censorship of the Dixie Chicks).*
you have me confused with someone else..i applaud and support ANYONE's right to NOT buy what they don't want to...to vote with their wallets, THAT is hwo the Market works...one of my main Complaints about "supply side economics" is that it fails miserably to account for all the Variables involved, most egregiously concerning Demand... it is NOT consorship when you choose to turn the dial, or not buy that CD...it IS censorship( which i totally fucking Oppose!) when you alter or prohibit the Content by anything OTHER than Market Forces and Owner's consent
again in the same comment, John sez...
*You can't have it both ways.*
correct, you cannot...the ONLY way to "have it", is to obey the Law, and respect and enforce the Property Rights of the Owner's Content...
as i said earlier, don't like it..vote with your wallet and don't buy it...
the best Answer would be the Independant route...make their own Content targetted for their Audience.... works for Porn, and other Independant filmmakers...this Option is completely open if their is money to be made, so where's the Problem?
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
40 - Ray Ellis
I'm still trying to figure out you could sanitize The Godfather or The Searchers without destroying the premise of the story. Not that I ever expected an answer...
41 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
To JP's comment #9:
Also--how would you react to a Jewish film-editing company removing the scenes of "Passion" that are perceived as offensive to Jews?
I suspect that if this movie were edited for scenes offensive to Jews there might not be much movie left to watch.
42 - Les Slater
Ruvy,
I saw Da Vinci Code. Most of the Christians that I know who saw it did not find it offenseive.
There are those who proclaim to speak for Christians that would ban it.
Les
43 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I love that term "culture war"--it's funny.
This may be funny to you in America. Here, there is nothing funny about it at all. It is deadly serious and divides the population bitterly.
44 - Ray Ellis
I have never seen Passion of the Christ, nor do I intend to ever see it, for the reasons Ruvy points out, among others. Christian or not, to focus on the last 12 hours of Christ's life,and ignoring all he accomplished, is crass exploitation.
Even Hoffa offered an explanation as to the events that led up to his death.
45 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Les,
Most of the movies and most of the problems spoken of here relate to Christianity - the majority religion and culture in the United States. Most of you are taking the angle of religion here, and for Americans, that almost always means Christianity.
But many movies have pornography in them tossed in to "keep the audience" of a certain class of viewers. This same pornography offends a different segment of viewers.
The Passion, in my own opinion, is a snuff film with torture scenes - well not strictly a snuff film - a real person is not killed in the film. To the degree that it is offensive, leaving all issues of anti-Jewish sentiment that may or may not be in the film aside, it is because it is about the torture death of a man.
But if it turns Christians on, so long as it does not result in anti-Jewish riots, I don't really care. It's their religion and their problem.
Many movies cannot be edited easily because the offensive scenes are part and parcel of the plot idea. "The Godfather" is one such movie. But the sex scene in "Daredevil," for example, could easily be edited out without damaging the movie.
46 - John Bambenek
Gonzo-
I'm not railing against "activist judges" here. Sure, Hollywood has the right to demand that their smut is shown in all its inglory under copyright law.
I'm just commenting that their actions aren't in their financial best interest, that they inflame the culture war, and show a commitment to demanding irrelevant trash be considered "art" in their movies.
That's it. I'm not saying the court was wrong, I'm not saying law should be changed, I'm just saying Hollywood is stupid for this.
47 - Amanda
I'm confused - who was suing who for what purpose? If it was a filmmaker suing a company for making changes to their film and then reselling the result, I don't see any way to justify that under current copyright law (unless the film was produced under a creative commons license, which, if the example here is Titanic, I highly doubt was the case).
48 - Baronius
The funny thing is, Hollywood sells out its artistic vision every day. The editing process is a negotiation between the director and the studio. The studio tries to ensure that the film will get the desired rating for its target market. The film has to be the right length: ideally, 87 minutes, which is two hours with commercials when it makes its network premiere. Directors understand that scenes must be cut, so that the DVD can feature previously unseen material. Since the new material has never been MPAA rated, the DVD will be unrated, so the director can get away with anything in the cut scenes.
49 - Ray Ellis
Ruvy, my comment in #40 was meant as satire. Here, the way the term is used is just a throwaway that right wingers toss out to make everybody else sound like nut jobs.
50 - Dave Nalle
John, I'm all for Cleanflicks. Seems like a great idea. But it has to work in concert with protection for the rights of the artists who create the films. Just like the TV networks who get their cuts approved by the people who own the rights to films they broadcast, Cleanflicks or Blockbuster or any others who want to sell or rent censored versions should have to get them approved by the director's representatives. That's just the way copyright law works and ought to work.
Dave
51 - Foywonder
"I'm just commenting that their actions aren't in their financial best interest, that they inflame the culture war, and show a commitment to demanding irrelevant trash be considered "art" in their movies."
You keep using the word "trash" over and over and over and never bother to explain why if it is such irrelevant trash would one want to watch it even in a cleaned up version. But I do love your misguided notion that Cleanflicks is a compromise to this particular aspect of the culture war. No, it isn't. If you want to watch Goodfellas but you don't want to see it with the vulgarity, violence, or sex then you don't really want to watch Goodfellas.
52 - Virginia Dare
I think there are two different arguments going on here. I think that re-editing a film is wrong, because it has the author's name on it. People will see it and think that it the vision of author X....I'm a writer I have a big problem with that. However I think that the solution you (kind of) suggest, of producing more Christian films seems a good one to me. I think rather than trying to sanitize anything, its a much more agreeable notion to provide an alternative. Because God ulitmately wants people to have a choice to follow Christ or not. So yes, the right to choose is inherent to recruiting true Christians. You don't want people turning to God because they have to, God designed it to work exactly the other way around.
53 - Ray Ellis
Well said, Virginia and Foy. The "Christian Right" is neither.
54 - gonzo marx
i get yer Point, John...
i'm merely disAgreeing that the Content creators, who are excercising their Right to the integrity of their product, are being "stupid"
for all the Reasons i stipulated earlier...
to me, this is a classic "red herring" that serves NO purpose other than to try and inflame certain political Factions over "smoke and thunder, signifying Nothing"...
Excelsior?
55 - Chris Evans
...I'm nearly at a loss for words. Thanks for pointing me to this article, Ty--even though I think I'm about to lose my lunch over it.
First of all, in the article you point out that there ARE successful films that are "family friendly" that are very good films. These films continue to be made everyday? How many movies have you seen this summer? What exactly is un-friendly about "Superman", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Over The Hedge", etc. All family films--all big budget--all financially successful.
You make it seem as if everything that comes out is some low down and dirty film with cussing, sex, gays, and adultery--and that every film that comes out that doesn't have those things is shunned. Bullshit.
Second, as Ty pointed out...how the hell is Passion of the Christ "family friendly"? Why is it you Christians think that "Christian" and "Family" are synonomous? What if I have a family but we aren't Christian? Where do our interest in films lie, then? Would I then rush out to buy them The Chronicles of Narnia because they NEED Christian imagery to survive in this cruel, cruel depraved world? (By the way, another film that made A LOT of money).
I love how you try to say that pornography is harmful to our society. That makes perfect sense. Yes, sexual pleasure is SO wrong! Damn you libido! Sex is only for making babies! That's why it feels so great! More of your bullshit.
And what film have you EVER seen where it was even SUGGESTED that the gay characters in it CHOSE their sexuality? An even better question, what film have you ever seen that HAS gay characters in it?
Problem is, I'm sure nothing that anyone says is gonna get through to you--nothing ever does on these kinds of things. But I just can't read this crap and not say anything about it.
Cursed forever---fighting the good fight. -sigh-
Thank you, and have a g'day. :)
56 - Ray Ellis
Damn, Chris--could you just cut to the chase and tell us how you really feel?
Seriously, though, I think there's hope for America after all...
57 - Dave Nalle
What exactly is un-friendly about "Superman",
Extramarital sex.
"Pirates of the Caribbean",
Witchcraft, paganistic rituals, cannibalism, undead spirits, etc.
"Over The Hedge",
Anthropomorphized animals are counter to god's creation. Plus there's something vaguely gay about that squirrel.
etc. All family films--all big budget--all financially successful.
Point being that people can find something objectionable in almost anything. Remember the furor over the Lion King and hidden subliminal messages?
Dave
58 - Ray Ellis
Once again, you nailed it, Dave. And let's not forget the suggestive scenes in "The Little Mermaid"--"Girls Gone Wild" indeed!
59 - John Bambenek
Viriginia Dare-
People buying films from Cleanflicks know exactly what they are getting. They are very public about what service they provide. People know they are getting edited version.
Dave-
I'm not saying the filmmaker doesn't have the right to demand no changes, I'm saying that it's stupid to deny Cleanflicks and the like permissions (which they have done).
Gonzo-
If I were trying to inflame political factions, I'd make this into an activist judge ruling. I can see both sides of the legal argument here. If you can fast forward films yourself, or edit films yourself, why can't you pay someone to do it for you? I'm not saying it'd prevail, I see both sides here. Me personally? I don't buy Hollywood's crap anyway. Not necessarily because of objectionable content, but mostly because they can't produce decent films anymore, boob or no boob.
Chris Evans-
I'm not going to deal with your rant in its entirety except to say one thing. Saying certain expressions of sexuality are wrong and harmful is not the same as saying all sexuality is wrong and harmful. Also, if gay people don't choose their sexual partners, they are not human. Being human is fundamentally about being able to make free choices. They might not be able to choose their nature (open question), however that's largely irrelevant. They can certainly choose what they do with it. To suggest otherwise is to dehumanize homosexuals and I won't stand for it.
All-
I'm not opposed to Christians who don't like movies to not buy them, or to set up competiting firms. Or for that matter, any other group. That's the marvel of the free market, you don't have to drink the Koolaid.
However, by refusing to allow Cleanflicks to cater to needs of customers who don't want to reject Hollywood wholesale, they've forced them to do exactly that. At some point it'd be nice to actually have some sort of unified community in this country, this action directly attacks that. It's their right, but it doesn't might it wise.
Lastly, many of the comments in this post show that quite a few people intend to attack Christiainity as an illegitmate lifestyle. Not because of anything intellectual, but simply out of whatever popular demonology they subscribe to. Once again, we're faced with a situation where perhaps we could "all just get along", but vocal groups are suggesting getting along should be cast aside for overt conflict.
That's bad for society, and that's my point.
60 - gonzo marx
John sez...
*At some point it'd be nice to actually have some sort of unified community in this country,*
and this axiom of your Resoning is where i find a fundaMental flaw...
it would be a Travesty and a Horror is the U.S. ever devolved into any kind of "unified community"...
cuz then the Stepford People are all that's left
and yer gonzo sez.... any Organism, from micro to macro, must Grow, when that stops...you get Stagnation, from there it is a matter of Time until Entropy wins
homogenization = stagnation
nuff said...
Excelsior?
61 - Ray Ellis
Hold on a sec there, partner! Nobody has attacked Christianity as "an illegitimate lifestyle" (which it isn't, it's a belief system).
"At some point it'd be nice to actually have some sort of unified community in this country, this action directly attacks that. It's their right, but it doesn't might it wise."
That smites of a "Twilight Zone" episode at best, and totalitarian rhetoric at worst. Americans instinctively rebel at anybody dictating their morality to them.
Upholding the rights to defend your property is about as an American as you can get. Having an outside organization paint my house without my permission is just wrong.
62 - John Bambenek
At what point does a unified community mean we homogenize ourselves?
It simply means we live in a diverse society where we respect our legitimate differences and live in peace.
Isn't that what progressives want?
63 - Ray Ellis
I love the way you back-pedal.
64 - gonzo marx
how the fuck should i Know what "progressives want"?
but that is besides the Point
the "at what point" part is where we get Sticky, ain't it?
the very Forces that work against homogenaity, ensure continued reflection and Growth...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
65 - John Bambenek
Ray-
When you impose meaning on my words and I correct you as to what I mean, it isn't a back-pedal.
That stems from the fact that I am the first, best, and only authority as to what I mean.
If you wish to play childish games, don't complain when we leave you to play in the sandbox.
Gonzo-
There is a difference between growing and continued reflection and active hostility and division. They don't follow hand-in-hand necessarily. Not when there can be legitimate disagreements at least.
66 - Ray Ellis
You made your original intent clear with your headline. If you are indeed the only authority as to what you actually mean when you set yourself up, I suggest you get a new editor.
67 - gonzo marx
hey..i'm all for Legitimate disagreements...
the Title of this Article, is not one of those, it's fallacious....and the "divisiveness" you are speaking of is miniscule at best
just a Thought...
Excelsior?
68 - Dave Nalle
I'm not saying the filmmaker doesn't have the right to demand no changes, I'm saying that it's stupid to deny Cleanflicks and the like permissions (which they have done).
Now that's an entirely different issue. But everyone has the right to make stupid business decisions. In most cases this won''t happen because studios and production companies control the movies and they're inherently sensible. I imagine that trouble comes up most often with independent films where the director has a lot more of a say in what happens with it after release.
Dave
69 - John Bambenek
Dave-
Exactly my point, and what opinion journalists take pride in is pointing out people doing stupid things.
Ray-
I'm not even going to bother.
Gonzo-
There's nothing fallicious about it. Hollywood says you must watch their unadulterated crap or not at all. I suppose I could have made a paragraph of a title, but it's a catchy headline. Got a few people commenting, didn't it?
70 - Dave Nalle
There's nothing fallicious about it. Hollywood says you must watch their unadulterated crap or not at all.
But JB, this statement and the title aren't true. You can not watch at all, you can pick what you watch, or you can watch bowdlerized versions on TV.
Dave
71 - Foywonder
"Hollywood says you must watch their unadulterated crap or not at all."
Do they? Do they really? Is there a gun to your head forcing you to watch?
72 - lori
If you can fast forward films yourself, or edit films yourself, why can't you pay someone to do it for you?
You can. You can pay someone to edit the copy you purchased for your own personal use. What's illegal is when someone buys a copy, edits it once, and sells that single edited version to multiple people. That's where the copyright infringement comes in: someone other than the copyright holder is altering the content and distributing the altered version without permission. You simply can't do that. You can't take out all the "bad" words in a young adult novel and republish it, either. There's really no gray area here at all.
73 - SteveS
I could have made a paragraph of a title, but it's a catchy headline.
It's called a lie.
74 - RogerMDillon
I knew the title was inaccurate, but more than likely purposeful just to get readers, but I thought you would get past the first sentence without needing a correction.
"A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them..."
What is illegal is to do that without permission a point you fail to miss in the piece and your comments. Broadcast television does it all the time.
"consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or..."
Absolutley wrong! They can wait six months to a year until broadcast television makes it available. By the way, after having watched Passion of the Christ, using the fast forward button doesn't seem like much of a cross to bear.
"This is a free country"
Yup, and the easily offended have every right not to watch these items they find offensive.
"However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation."
Please show where in the court ruling that statement or idea was made or is where your spiral of foolish political rhetoric begins by bringing in abortion and homosexuality?
"Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit,"
It does not benefit Hollywood to have people arbitrarily altering their films. If you created anything that people paid money to get, you might have an understanding of copyright law.
"However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash."
So then save the belly-aching. You can't stand what Hollywood does but you are concerned that they aren't squeezing out every last dollar? If they were losing a large portion of revenue, they would act on it.
Christians and other groups have to make a choice: either have little to talk about at cocktail parties when current pop culture is the topic, buy the equipmemt to make your own edited material, or else suck it up.
What's stupid is Christians who are supposed to be offended by elements in these films encourging their creation because that's what buying "clean" versions does. There's no incentive for Hollywood to clean up it's act if their "trash" keeps selling.
75 - Clark Westfield
How come Hollywood allows airlines, broadcast TV, WalMart, etc. to edit their content and resell it, but don't want to allow CleanFlicks to do the same thing? Nobody buys a CleanFlicks version by mistake and thinks they're getting anything other than an edited version, a claim that cannot be made for WalMart. If directors' artistic visions were so pure, they wouldn't allow anybody to broadcast edited versions of their films. And what about all the DVD movies that are the so-called "Director's Cut". If that's the case, what was the version in movie theaters? It seems to me that Hollywood doesn't have any specific problem with movies being edited, just not by this specific company.