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 comments176 - gonzo marx
/sigh...
for John in #175...
i'll not quote what's right above, but i feel compelled to Ask
do you actually believe that Position, ar are you merely being Argumentative?
the "Hollywood-is-evil position"
you....have...got....to...be.....fucking ...kidding .....me
and you should be listened to over actuarians and the desires of the Content's owners....why?
oh yes, cuz of the "Holywood-is-evil position"
there isa very magic MOment sometimes, when you observe yourself and someone else's Thoughts exposed, and open
and you say to yourself "one of us is fucking crazy"
the weird part, is that for one of the few times ever...
it ain't me
Excelsior?
177 - John Bambenek
Gonzo-
I don't watch Hollywood's crap, not because of smut, but because I see no redeeming quality in any of it even if no nudity were involved. I have no dog in this fight. I'm simply characterizing AFA's position, not my own.
Further, I'm not saying AFA should rule what movies get made, but they certainly advocate people not buying stuff... i.e. exercising their rights as consumers.
I'm not sure what message you are divining here.
I'm not in the AFA's camp either.
178 - Dave Nalle
JB, just stick to Mel Gibson films. He's a foaming at the mouth lunatic christian and he substitutes over-the-top violence for sex. Sounds just right for kids.
Dave
179 - John Bambenek
Fine, you guys win.
I'm tired of trying to prove to you I don't fit into your preordained stereotypes.
I'm once again reminded why I filtered BC comments into my email trash.
180 - gonzo marx
ok....so it seems yer being Argumentative..that's ok, was just trying to Understand why you took up this particular Argument if you, as you say, "have no dog in the hunt"....
as for your take on Content itself... if you don't see much of it, how are you making your Judgements? i mean, it's your Choice after all...but by what Criteria do you make your value judgements here?
an old movie fan? still...how can you compare or make the assertation that...
*I don't watch Hollywood's crap, not because of smut, but because I see no redeeming quality in any of it even if no nudity were involved.*
it's the "any of it" part that is a bit weird...such a totalitarian statement made from admitted ignorance of the subject matter...
so, it appears therefore, that you indeed DO "have a dog in the hunt"...your adherance to the "Holywood-is-evil position"...again, your Right ...but you should be straight with your Positions
Excelsior?
181 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, JB does kind of raise a good point with his boycott of Hollywood. Can we name any good Hollywood pictures which are relatively smutless from the last decade? Clearly JB wouldn't know if they existed because he hasn't been watching movies. But maybe there are some out there which he missed and shouldn't have. Can we list some - and keep it to relatively mainstream hollywood fare?
I'd start out with the two Pirates of the Carribean films. Pretty well suited to grown ups and kids as well, with not a bit of sex, no swearing, no nudity and the violence is cartoony. Plus they're damned entertaining filmmaking. Same thing for Lord of the Rings and those films are arguably even better. Here are some more - all good or even great films, all from hollywood, with no nudity, no excessive swearing and no sexually suggestive stuff:
School of Rock
King Kong
Superman Returns
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
The Sixth Sense
Unbreakable
Nightmare Before Christmas
Spiderman
Sleepy Hollow
Big Fish
Corpse Bride
Oh never mind, this is a silly exercise. Unless your definition of 'decent' is restricted to having mostly christian content, films with ratings of PG-13 or less abound from hollywood with excellent entertainment value. In fact, most of the top grossing films offer little or nothing that's offensive to a general audience.
Only someone profoundly ignorant could condemn Lord of the Rings, School of Rock and The Sixth Sense as 'crap' without having seen them.
Dave
182 - Nicholas Stix
This is a protest post. I just tried half a dozen times to post an essay-length response, that in contrast to some other posts contained no foul language, only to get the same message each time: "banned word."
What gives?!
183 - Andy Marsh
I think the "editors" around here need to supply us with the 7 dirty words you can't say on BC!!!
184 - Christopher Rose
Nicholas, there is an automatic anti-spam stoplist but it is not stopping foul language at all. When you try to post the comment you will see a message telling you the reference number of the offending word. If you email that number to me via editoratlarge [at] gmail [dot] com, I'll tell you what you need to remove.
Andy, BC doesn't censor language usage so you can use any "dirty" words you like.
185 - Andy Marsh
CR - ok, how about a list of those words that we can't use...I know the CH word wasn't allowed for a short while...it seems to have been able to pass lately...I know there MUST be a list of unacceptable words...no?
I never realized until now how close the initials of the word chicken hawk are to MCH...things that make you go hmmm....
186 - Arch Conservative
I think youmust have used the word "strategery" in your post Mr. Stix. That is one of the seven dirty words on BC and you probably will never know it as my post will be removed as soon as the editors see I have used the word "strategery."
187 - John Bambenek
Yes, I'm being argumentative. My only belief here is that it was abad economic decision that I believe was intended to march into the culture war and a hard-heated attack against the desires of a certain group of consumers who would be sympathetic to Hollywood's stuff, they just don't want the fluff.
As far as how I would know if there was a good film? I don't have my head under a rock. I do talk to people, and heck, I post on BC. I know the basic premise of movies. For instance, I saw LOTR. Sure there was violence, but it wasn't gratiutious, it was in context. I've seen Braveheart, and as a recall there was a mooning scene that I think was damn funny.
My general rule is that if the movie isn't news enough for me to know about it, I might watch it at Blockbuster...
But then again, I don't really have time, and that's my main driver. Doesn't matter if there's an outstanding film out there if you don't have time to watch.
I'm too busy responding to comments on BC.
188 - lori
My only belief here is that it was abad economic decision that I believe was intended to march into the culture war and a hard-heated attack against the desires of a certain group of consumers who would be sympathetic to Hollywood's stuff, they just don't want the fluff.
You keep saying that Hollywood is esentially anti-Christian even though the entertainment industry has a long history of litigating challenges to their complete control of their products. The industry as a whole -- not just movies -- doesn't like even for individual consumers to alter their content for personal use. Remember the RIAA lawsuits against teenagers, their future customers for the next 50+ years? The entertainment industry is culture-agnostic when it comes to fighting for complete control of their products.
As I said earlier, it may be that most movie copyright owners will never permit wholesale "sanitizing" of their films. Why? Because the changes are just too much. Here's what Cleanflicks says it does to the movies they rent out:
What content do you edit out?
We edit out:
Profanity
This includes the B-words, H-word when not referring to the place, D-word, S-word, F-word, etc. It also includes references to deity (G-word and JC-words etc.), only when these words are used in a non-religious context.
Graphic Violence
This does not mean all violence, only the graphic depictions of decapitation, impalements, dismemberment, excessive blood, gore etc.
Nudity
This refers to male and female front and back nudity.
Sexual Content
This includes language which refers to sexual activity or has sexual connotation. It also includes visual content of a graphic or stimulating nature.
This means that they remove, say, nudity, even when it's NOT gratuitous. I can see why the Director's Guild in particular would oppose giving another company permission to remove so much content from their films. I can only imagine what these sanitized movie versions are like from a coherence perspective, and I completely understand why someone who spent a couple of years working on something wouldn't want someone else hacking it apart and changing the tone and meaning of scenes throughout the film.
That's not being hostile toward customers or engaging in a culture war. That's just someone who made something not wanting someone else messing with it in a way that doesn't fit with their vision of the movie.
Again, if Cleanflicks is catering to adults who can't bear to hear the word "damn" or to hear a conversation about sex, then the solution isn't to hack apart existing movies, it's to make new movies expressly or this audience.
189 - Lisa McKay
When you actually look at the laundry list of what Cleanflicks edits out (the H-word??? -- seriously, do people really say that?), my guess is that the audience for that extreme level of bowdlerization is actually much smaller than John thinks it is.
190 - John Bambenek
Maybe, but they have the cash on hand to fight this lawsuit. That isn't a small amount of money to throw around.
Since they don't release their number of customers they have, we'll have to speculate.
However, considering millions of people went apeshit over the Janet Jackson superbowl stunt, I wouldn't think we're talking about a small number here.
191 - lori
DID millions of people go apeshit over the Super Bowl nipple? Or did a much smaller number of people make a LOT of noise?
192 - MCH
"CR - ok, how about a list of those words that we can't use...I know the CH word wasn't allowed for a short while...it seems to have been able to pass lately...I know there MUST be a list of unacceptable words...no?
I never realized until now how close the initials of the word chicken hawk are to MCH...things that make you go hmmm...."
- Andy Marsh
Is "chickenhawk" worse than "the hate America crowd" or "bleeding heart liberal"...
...just asking...
BTW, the "H" stands for hammer, in requiem of one of my favorite baseball players, "Hammerin" Hank Aaron...
193 - Dave Nalle
My general rule is that if the movie isn't news enough for me to know about it, I might watch it at Blockbuster...
Which brings up an interesting related issue, since as far as I know, the DGA is still lettting blockbuster get away with a small amount of content editing on the films they carry.
Dave
194 - Lisa McKay
Maybe, but they have the cash on hand to fight this lawsuit. That isn't a small amount of money to throw around.
Do we know for a fact that they aren't being bankrolled by a larger organization in pursuit of an agenda? I have no idea what the answer to that is, John, but it's a legitimate question, I think.
195 - lori
Dave, is Blockbuster doing the editing, or are getting the studios to edit them? Also, I know that Blockbuster has refused in the past to carry NC-17 films, but I don't know if that's still true.
196 - John Bambenek
Lori-
As I recall the FCC got hundreds of thousands (if not 1M+) complaints.
Dave-
I don't think the DGA has a problem with content editing as a concept. They allow it all the time and work it out with Blockbuster or the networks, or whomever. I think they explicitly deny editing because it is being edited to suit Christian tastes. That's speculation, but I think it's a theory that is the most probably.
Lisa-
I suppose someone in the background could be slipping the money to Cleanflicks, that wouldn't be public knowledge. From every indication, they have a not trivial amount of customers.
197 - Michael J. West
I understand your points, John, and how they different from the comments that I have been following for several days...although I must say that the headline of the article does create a certain prejudice about the intent of the article itself.
However, call it a detail, but there is one point you've not addressed or rebutted in your own comments, one which I would like to see addressed: how does one imagine that The Passion of the Christ, a film whose lovingly detailed violence outdoes a good number of the goriest films in the mainstream market, is a "family friendly film"?
198 - John Bambenek
It doesn't, I meant Christian-friendly and I couldn't go back and fix the error once it was posted.
199 - Michael J. West
I think they explicitly deny editing because it is being edited to suit Christian tastes
Well, it's actually being edited to suit the tastes of a particular subset of Christians. Considering the number of Christians in this country, any film that's successful very likey already suited Christian tastes. (And for that matter, Blockbuster's CEO is a very prominent member of the Christian right, and that's the reason for their editing too.) But I'm nitpicking.
I don't think the problem is an anti-Christian bias. The difference between Cleanflicks' editing and TV/Blockbuster editing is that the studio and, usually, the director has one measure or another of approval over those edits. My understanding is that Cleanflicks has provided no such approval to the studios.
200 - Michael J. West
As a matter of fact, most sources say that Blockbuster does NOT edit films themselves, but instead influences the actual studios to provide in-house edits of the film for video release; if they are editing their own film there's no copyright violation. Cleanflicks does its own editing, which DOES violate copyright. So the comparison is not valid.
201 - Dave Nalle
Well Michael, if the studios are willing to do it for Blockbuster why can't CleanFlix make a similar arrangement with them? That seems to be the big logical gap in this whole discussion.
Dave
202 - lori
Because Hollywood hates Christians as much as God hates fags.
203 - Clavos
Hollyweird makes the kind of films they do because...
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."*
*H.L. Mencken
204 - Nancy
Yeah, what Clavos said.
Good quote! Wish I'd remembered that one.
205 - Michael J. West
Well Michael, if the studios are willing to do it for Blockbuster why can't CleanFlix make a similar arrangement with them? That seems to be the big logical gap in this whole discussion.
A fair question, David. And one that I don't have the answer to. But I've read a little bit about this case, aside from the article that JB linked to...and the crux of this case is that Cleanflicks has been doing so without asking.
And yes, I agree that it woulda/shoulda/coulda been settled in pretrial and during-trial negotiations. If I were to wager a guess as to what happened, I'd bet that the studios demanded, as a non-negotiable part of the settlement, back royalties on ALL of Cleanflicks's previous earnings for their edited films. And that that was simply beyond Cleanflicks's ability to pay.
Plausible, don'tcha think?
206 - Dave Nalle
If Cleanflicks was essentially pirating the movies and passing it off as 'fair use' that's ridiculous - wouldn't stand up for a second in cout - and they should get their asses fined off and maybe get some jail time as well. Every cent they've earned ought to go to the people who made the films.
On the other hand, if they were in a Napster-like situation they ought to have been able to do what Napster did and cut a deal to go legit. That's what any reasonable business would do. I've got a feeling that somewhere on one or both sides of this issue there's some ideologue trying to make a self-righteous point and refusing to be reasonable just on some stupid principle - either hatred of secularist hollywood or hatred of christians.
Dave
207 - Michael J. West
Possible, Dave--even plausible--but I'm just not sure. I don't put that nastiness past either side, but remember that the people we're talking about on the plaintiff's side are Hollywood film executives. People whose very job descriptions are to to leech every last dime of profit out of the movies they bankroll.
Some would say that they had more money to make by making a deal with Cleanflicks, but I'm suggesting they want to have their cake and eat it too: "Yes, we can talk about signing a contract for clean edits to sell to you, but we're not going to spend one second on that until you pony up x percentage of all past rentals."
208 - gonzo marx
lori in #191 sez...
*DID millions of people go apeshit over the Super Bowl nipple? Or did a much smaller number of people make a LOT of noise?*
answer is yes...less people, big noise...
John in #196 sez...
*As I recall the FCC got hundreds of thousands (if not 1M+) complaints.*
false...in actuality the FCC got somewhere just over 250,000 complaints in total...less than 1% of the worldwide viewership...you read that right, less than 1% of the viewers called in to complain, and all that noise was from that...
there have been reports that the actual number is less, but that some people called more than once...this cannot be adequately proven or disproven at this time...so we will just go with the rounded up figure of less than 1%
hope that clarifies...
Excelsior?
209 - John Bambenek
And some people were pissed and didn't call.
210 - gonzo marx
John sez...
*And some people were pissed and didn't call.*
Quoted for Truth
my point was the number of actual calls (far less than a million) and that number as a percentage of viewers (less than 1%)
now...we also don't know how many Viewers..
a)didn't care in the least
b)were not offended
c) thought it was "cool" in some way, shape, or form
d)any combination of the above
you want to make an Argument, that's fine by me...even if i don't gree, i can still Respect a position...
but get the Facts straight
Excelsior?
211 - John Bambenek
The polls taken seem to indicate that the number who were pissed was much higher than 1%.
212 - Dave Nalle
JB, those polls were mostly taken after it had become a cause celebre and people had been told for some days that they ought to be outraged. That changes the whole complexion of the issue.
Dave
213 - Michael J. West
I genuinely don't understand the Janet Jackson-Superbowl hubbub. I really don't. Maybe one second of broadcast time that was quickly cut off, and two and a half years later we still can't stop talking about it. Meantime not a single expert has spoken out, not a single study has been published, to show that even the most impressionable young child would have been damaged or even significantly affected by seeing Janet's boob.
214 - Bliffle
"Hollywood to America: You Must Watch Our Smut"
In spite of the stated imperative I'm NOT watching their smut. Not that I have anything against smut. One might guess that I prefer non-Hollywood foreign imported smut, but upon reflection that doesn't seem to be true either. It just seems like my consumption of smut has declined greatly in recent years. Smut can be rather fun, like a little salt and pepper on ones potatoes, but in moderation.
215 - John Bambenek
Bliffle-
Just because someone says you must do something doesn't mean you HAVE to do something.
Dave-
Maybe, but I really don't think that people get outraged because someone tells them to be. I really don't buy into the Theory of the Stupid Citizen.
Michael-
To be honest, neither do I. I can understand people wanting to watch the Superbowl without it turning into a pornographic experience, but the song lyrics to the very song this took place in are "I'm going to get you naked by the end of this song". That's not to mention the performance of P.I.M.P.
I don't see why talking and fantasizing about stripping people on national television is wholesome entertainment but actually doing it is not. I think there's something that borders on hipocritical in there to be listening to this crap and then getting upset when it happens.
216 - Michael J. West
It was a pornographic experience?I thought it was rather PG-13...
217 - Nancy
I checked out the videos of the wardrobe malfunction over & over & never saw a thing, until THEY focussed on her chest & did a slo-mo. I mean, f'gosh sakes, if that's what it took - I doubt anyone watching it in real time got to actually see anything unless they reran it & slowed it down over & over. Much ado about nothing, IMO.
218 - John Bambenek
I was being facetious.
My opinion, take a look at our culture and music... are we really that surprised when it gets enacted on stage?
I didn't watch the game at all, not for any particular reason, I'm just not much of a sports fan.
I can see some point of wanting to have some sense of sexual modesty in our culture, but why the line was drawn at the SB stunt, I have no idea.
219 - Michael J. West
The problem I have is not with our culture and music. Nor is it with wanting to have some sense of sexual modesty in our culture. My problem is with, as you said, drawing the line with something frankly not very offensive, and even more with the inordinate legal issues that came out of it. For example, there 96 violations found to have been present in the Sago Mine--you know, the one that collapsed in West Virginia in January--and its owners were fined $24,000 each. Meanwhile, after the Superbowl, obscenity violations are $500,000 each. And nobody dies from obscenity violations.
220 - gonzo marx
ok , a Moment ta put a Nail into it...
Michael beats me to the punch, sort of when he sez...
*For example, there 96 violations found to have been present in the Sago Mine--you know, the one that collapsed in West Virginia in January--and its owners were fined $24,000 each. Meanwhile, after the Superbowl, obscenity violations are $500,000 each. And nobody dies from obscenity violations.*
Quoted for Truth
now, exactly what shoudl have happened at the Superbowl incident, did happen...folks complained...and the networks were fined, for basicly "false advertising"...they had said they were giving "G" rated concent that turned out to be PG-13 (she was wearing a jewelled nipple shield)...so, the fines were jsutified in Principle and the Systwem worked...what's the Problem here?
but much more intersting is Michael's comparison of the Fines for "obsceneity" and the mining disaster...allow me to add that the fine for broadcast Obscenity is now well over 10 times that(closer to 20) of the maximum the EPA can fine for an incident of dumping toxic waste into our water or air
THAT is the real Obscenity here...fucking Priorities
Excelsior?
221 - John Bambenek
You will find little support in our government's priorities from me. That's why I don't generally trust governmental solutions.
222 - Dave Nalle
The government's priorities are based on what gets them the most positive press. The breast exposure was big news with a lot of manufactured outrage, so it gets more done than some toxic dump that impacts a small town off in west texas. Blame people like JB who make an issue of silly things like this for the screwed up priorities.
Dave
223 - John Bambenek
Have you not read my comments on the matter?
i.e. I didn't think it was a big deal either...
Can we at least try to deal with what I'm saying except default to ignorant demonization?
224 - Dave Nalle
I didn't say you, JB - I said people 'like' you, who put a personal moral agenda ahead of reason and common sense and the general welfare of the population. Those who think in moral absolutes and believe that gives them some special right to impose their morality on others, when the truth is that the universality of their moral agenda is debatable and highly subjective.
Dave
225 - MCH
"You will find little support in our government's priorities from me. That's why I don't generally trust governmental solutions."
- Bambi
Hhmmm...quite an odd and puzzling statement, actually, from someone who claims to be in the military...(scratching head)...
But what do I know?