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
226 - Bliffle
Upon reflection, inspired by this topic, I am trying to raise my smut consumption and thus improve my position with the American Consumption Gods. Not having any of that good Hollywood smut handy, I'm watching PBS. Yes, PBS! This may seem strange to those who think PBS a smut-free medium, but I must point out that the first nude woman on American TV was Valerie Perrine in a PBS broadcast of "Steambath" many years ago when she danced onto stage in Full Noodle Frontity (as Archie Bunker would put it). Now that's what I call good smut!
So, the research begins...
227 - John Bambenek
Dave-
Gee, we freed slaves for moral reasons. Gave women the right to vote for moral reasons. Gave civil rights for moral reasons. In fact, most of our legal system is nothing but codified morality. The idea that morality is somehow BY DEFINITION opposed to the general welfare of the population is absurd on its face.
Why have a minimum wage if not for moral reasons? Why have universal health care if not for moral reasons? You get the point.
What you object to is that some brand of Christians are using their free rights to speak on what they want their government regulations to be.
The question I want to know is why you and your ilk want to disenfranchise millions of Americans from being represented in this Democratic society?
MCH-
Would you prefer me to drink the Koolaid instead?
228 - Nancy
I'm no Christian, but I don't like gratuitous smut (nudity, sex, bad language, violence) in movies, either. IF it's intrinsic to the plot or characterization, well, OK, but to have it in there for the sake of pandering is intolerable: so if they do it, I don't tolerate it, & I neither buy nor go to those movies. In the end, while I might deprive myself of a modicum of entertainment, the moviemaker is the one who loses one more customer...and as mentioned in discussion above, Hollywood is already on somewhat shakey ground as the number of theatregoers drops steadily. You'd think they'd do what they could to avoid alienating people; but I think the larger problem is that Hollywood types Just Don't Get It. They think everyone thinks like them: that every movie has to be loaded with smut & extreme violence or it isn't "exciting". So they reach lower and lower and lower, and seem to be turning off more & more people (except of course for the pre- and adolescent male crowd who loves that crap, and who increasingly seem to be the target audience for most of Hollywood's output these days). Maybe the problem is that Hollywood needs to put away some of its out of control hormones and grow up a little.
I do have deep respect for those filmmakers like Tim Burton who can create movies that appeal to all ages, which are imaginative & interesting, yet which don't need to depend on sex or violence to sell them.
229 - Michael J. West
What you object to is that some brand of Christians are using their free rights to speak on what they want their government regulations to be.
I don't know about Dave Nalle, but I don't object to them speaking whatever they want. I do object to the fact that some of the things they speak about--enforcing their own beliefs upon everyone, whether they share those beliefs or not--are taken seriously and acted upon in the government.
The "free rights" of these particular Christians (and everyone else, for that matter) end at the point where they infringe on the free rights of others.
The question I want to know is why you and your ilk want to disenfranchise millions of Americans from being represented in this Democratic society?
One might ask the same of the "brands of Christians" at issue here.
230 - John Bambenek
Considering I've been gratuitious lobbed into those brands of Christians (despite what should seem as fairly obvious reasons why I'm not), I have a little stake in this matter.
At least as far as Cleanflicks is concerned, no one is enforcing anything on anyone (well except the DGA in saying you can't have Cleanflicks). If you want smut, you can get smut.
As far as Janet Jackson is concerned, the federal government writes the standards. Because those standards are universally applied, someone wins and someone loses, it's just a matter of who. Compromise is all great, but someone is going to lose. You can call it X group imposing on Y group or Z group imposing on X and Y. But the fact of the matter is, the federal government is going to impose something on someone, it's just a matter of what.
Dave appears to want to a priori disenfranchise certain Christian groups from the discussion because their values are stricter than his.
If you want my honest opinion on how we should so construct society, is to let local communities decide their own values and stop subsuming every little issue into a federal question. Towns like Ave Maria for instance (the Catholic town). Let it be built, let them live how they want, and stop insisting that the values of San Francisco gay men be reflected by the people who live in a swamp town in Florida.
Abortion is another great issue, let it be decided by the states. Do you realize how much BS in our national politics would end overnight if it became solely a matter of the states? We'd actually have political races again instead of a huge chunk of people just voting pro-choice/pro-life regardless of any other policy.
Federalism is a wonderful thing. There should be limits, yes, but the more we let communities decide their own values, the less we have to fight this out on the national stage and most people end up very happy, instead of just 51%.
231 - Margaret Romao Toigo
It is individuals who decide what their values are, not governments, be they federal, state or local.
In a free society, governments of the people, by the people, and for the people are limited to protecting and defending the rights of the people.
The notion that a free society can be "constructed" via legislative carrots and sticks that are intended to dictate values and morals (to regulate some aspect of human behavior that might be objectionable to some but does not actually violate the rights of the people) is a form of tyranny.
232 - John Bambenek
Some values get codified into law... that's pretty much criminal law defined.
The statement that the government is limited to protecting and defending the rights of people, for instance, is a value.
But all communities, in some sense, live according to certain sets of values. Be they codified into law or not.
233 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The most important and essential values, which have been codified into law, are those laws that protect and defend our rights to truth, honor, property, and life.
(In other words, the only truly universal morals, the most significant Commandments of the Ten Holy Commandments, and the very foundation of secular law: Don't lie, cheat, steal, or murder.)
Indeed, all communities, in some sense, live according to certain sets of values. But communities are not simply defined by geography alone as they were in the days before the telegraph and the aeroplane made the world smaller, yet more diverse.
The localization of objective standards and values codified into law is discriminatory in the modern age, even if this was not so before.
Certainly, those folks who'd rather live by their own rules, isolated from the greater influences of our multi-dimensional larger society, have the right to do so, as long as they do not violate the rights of others while doing so because there can be no freedom without freedom of conscience.
234 - Dave Nalle
Gee, we freed slaves for moral reasons. Gave women the right to vote for moral reasons. Gave civil rights for moral reasons.
We did? I thought we did those things for ethical reasons because basic natural rights suggest that everyone should be free and have the right to vote. Morality is a bit more subjective, because there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
In fact, most of our legal system is nothing but codified morality. The idea that morality is somehow BY DEFINITION opposed to the general welfare of the population is absurd on its face.
Most of the parts of our legal code which define morality ought to be struck down as unnecessary. The general welfare of the population has nothing to do with morality.
Why have a minimum wage if not for moral reasons? Why have universal health care if not for moral reasons? You get the point.
Yes, we do (or would) have these things for moral reasons, which demonstrates EXACTLY why we shouldn't be setting policy based primarily on morality.
What you object to is that some brand of Christians are using their free rights to speak on what they want their government regulations to be.
I do? When? I have no problem at all with them speaking out, so long as they don't use the heavy hand of government to infringe on the right of others, which is what you're suggesting. You want the government to force businesses to sell product to customers they don't want to deal with. That's an incredibly abuse of power and violation of rights. Would you like it if the government said you had to sell your house to someone because they asked the government for it?
The question I want to know is why you and your ilk want to disenfranchise millions of Americans from being represented in this Democratic society?
What on EARTH are you talking about. First off, this is not a democratic society - thankfully. And second, there's no absolute right to edit and resell movies. It just doesn't exist. And allowing businesses and artists to determine who they sell their products to an under what terms has nothing at all to do with how people are represented in government. Every christian has as much right as anyone else to influence the government, but government still operates under the rule of law and on ethical standards and the rule of the mob, no matter how democratic, can't override that to abuse the rights of a select portion of the population - even if it's Hollywood.
Dave
235 - John Bambenek
Margaret-
Then it's just this simple, expect that all values and fights will be nationalized and the culture war will continue. Is having the 10 Commandments up discriminatory? I'm sure reasonable people can come down on both sides, yet it's a national issue. ID vs evolution? Abortion? Boobs during the Super Bowl.
Having ever community across the nation conform to some default set of national values means that you are going to have the loudest groups brawl it out on the national stage and not only will all but one group lose, the moderates will lose by default.
Allowing states and cities to decide on their own most issues and their values at least allows people to live in communities that reflect their own. Some states can have government health care, others don't. Some states can have X minimum wage to reflect the cost of living in that state, others can choose a more appropriate one. (I live in a town where the federal minimum wage is probably enough to live on if you work full time. You'd need 4 times the minimum wage to subsist in Chicago... even more in you are in LA or New York).
There is absolutely no reason that rural communities in Florida should cater to the values of San Francisco liberals who will never step foot anywhere within hundreds (if not thousands) of miles of that town.
236 - Clavos
Dave,
Would you like it if the government said you had to sell your house to someone because they asked the government for it?
Come on, Dave, that could never happen in the USA, now?...hmmm...or could it?
Oh wait, it IS happening!
237 - John Bambenek
Dave-
You're splitting hairs Dave. If you want to break out ethics from morality, then fine, but ethics is INCLUDED in morality. They simply aren't two entirely different groups of values.
Not murdering or raping people is as much morality as it is ethics.
If all issues are nationalized (and for the most part they are) then some group is going to be using the heavy hand of government to infringe on the rights of another group. Your libertarian leanings on Kelo aside (ones which I agree with, for the record).
Last I checked we stopped talking about editing movies about 20 comments ago, last set of comments was about the SB, in which you complained about Christians bitching about boobs. At which you accused me of having a personal moral agenda which I wanted codified into federal law to ram down your throat, presumably so you'd go to Church on Sunday, or other such crap.
The fact is, the FCC decides what classes of content airs when over the airwaves. You bitching about people with a moral agenda is irrelevant, they have a right to be heard just as much as the people with an immoral agenda who want to broadcast their trash to the world.
My thoughts on the SB. I could care less about the boob flash, I think it's a sad testament that our "artists" need to revitalize their fallen careers with prostitution.
238 - gonzo marx
well, here i had Thought that much of the "states rights" red herrings on this Topic had been shot down after slavery, Jim Crowe and other civil Rights Issues had been decided
the Fed is needed to set the universal guidelines of minimal accepted Standards that do NOT infringe on the Roghts of others...because there are times when the parochial Views conflict with the legal Ethics of all Citizens...
point to Note: you have 3 widely differing Individuals arguing many of the same points here...myself, Margaret and Mr. Nalle...all appear to be in basic Agreement while coming from differing points of View...
and none of us appear to be trying to wage any kind of "culture war"...only the John, the original Poster appears to be coming from that Viewpoint
aren't there enough real "Wars" going on right now without having to make fake ones up?
Excelsior?
239 - Margaret Romao Toigo
John Bambenek writes, "Then it's just this simple, expect that all values and fights will be nationalized and the culture war will continue."
I have studied the history of the so-called "culture war" and, some time ago, came to the conclusion that it is a one-sided joke being played upon intolerant folks who have been fooled into feeling nostalgia for some past "golden age" that never actually happened.
Over the past 230 years, we have become increasingly enlightened with regard to freedom and rights. That progress was fought every step of the way, but the cause of expanding freedom and rights has always prevailed.
We're not quite there yet, but we're getting to the point where laws that were intended to control certain human behaviors that may be objectionable to some, but do not actually violate anybody else's rights, are seen more as a form of tyranny over freedom of conscience than as necessary "social engineering" measures intended to homogenize the nation's "moral fabric."
"Is having the 10 Commandments up discriminatory?"
On private property, no. On government property, yes. The test is in the question of rights of the people, not individual morals and values.
Whose rights are violated if the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed alone, not as one part of a multicultural display, in or on a government building?
Nobody's.
Whose rights are violated if the 10 Commandments are displayed alone, not as one part of a multicultural display, in or on a government building?
The rights of everyone who does not subscribe to any of the numerous Judeo-Christian faiths.
Indeed, America is 70% Christian, but we're 30% non-Christian and it’s not fair to suggest that the majority religion is somehow more valid than minority religions.
"ID vs. evolution?"
That is a false dichotomy as one is science and the other is philosophy, although no study of the theory of evolution is complete without the lessons regarding the aspects of it that have yet to be scientifically proven.
The people have rights to truth and knowledge, which includes study of the theory of evolution as well as the questions it has yet to answer, such as the one about whether life on Earth is the result of cosmic accident(s), the "intelligent design" of one or more omnipotent forces, extraterrestrial beings, or something else entirely that we have yet to fully contemplate.
"Abortion?"
Freedom isn't free, and it isn't always pretty either. We have the right to do all sorts of vile and awful things if they do not violate the rights of others.
"Boobs during the Super Bowl."
Some people have gotten so tied up in the prurient aspects of that event that they fail to see how it was a violation of the people's right to truth.
The people have a right to remedy when the content of television programs falls outside of the set standards of their content ratings (the people's rights to truth and knowledge). The Super Bowl was not rated TV-M and the audience received no prior warning that the program would contain brief, partial nudity.
That a two-second flash of "boob" really wasn't all that big of a deal to most of the people who saw it is irrelevant to the fact that the people have a right to expect the content of a program to fall within the limits of its content rating and deviations from those standards are a violation of that right.
Some see content ratings as a form of censorship, but, if you look closely at their history, they have actually served to prevent censorship by serving the people's right to know what to expect from movies, television programs, and video games.
"Having ever community across the nation conform to some default set of national values means that you are going to have the loudest groups brawl it out on the national stage and not only will all but one group lose, the moderates will lose by default."
Which is why our laws are supposed to be written to protect and defend the rights of the people, not to regulate their morals, values, and behavior.
While stealing, for instance, is indeed a matter of morals, values, and even behavior, it is first and foremost a crime because it is a violation of property rights.
Using this approach of protecting and defending rights makes the issues surrounding all those "culture war" skirmishes moot while, at the same time, providing society with law and order that protects and defends the rights of the people without violating the rights of the people in the process.
"Allowing states and cities to decide on their own most issues and their values at least allows people to live in communities that reflect their own."
But what about the people who live inside those geographic boundaries, but hold a different set of values? After all, there are Christian fundamentalists living in San Francisco and there are gay and lesbian people living in rural Florida.
Modern technology has pretty much obliterated the notion of tribalism based upon geography. With the possible exception of isolated communes, communities are now defined by their demographics, not their locations.
"Some states can have government health care, others don't. Some states can have X minimum wage to reflect the cost of living in that state..."
States' rights have more to do with economics than social or cultural issues, but they are still limited to protecting and defending the rights of the people.
Minimum wage laws should be localized because of the variances in cost of living and taxation among the 50 states ($2000 per month gets you a pretty nice apartment in a safe neighborhood in Tampa, Florida, but in New York, New York, it gets you a one-room dump in a high crime area).
Now, the question of whether or not health care is a right hasn't really been answered yet, but if that right is recognized (I think it will be eventually, but not anytime soon), it will have to be nationally recognized, even if it will likely be implemented, for practical purposes, at the state level.
240 - Dave Nalle
Not murdering or raping people is as much morality as it is ethics.
Except that it is ALWAYS an ethics issue and not always a morality issue. In Islam under some circumstances the proper moral thing is to commit rape, or so many believe. Ethics are more objective and universal.
Dave
241 - gonzo marx
comment #240 sez...
*Ethics are more objective and universal.*
Quoted for Truth
nuff said...
Excelsior?
242 - Nicholas Stix
John Bambenek argues that sex, violence, etc. are irrelevant to the stories he wants to see in edited form. How does he know that? It could be that the story is a mere prop to kill time between flashing b---s and killing people. In any event, the drawing of a nude Kate Winslet is certainly central to the story line in Titanic.
A few years ago, I saw a news story which was probably about CleanFlicks, though the reporter didn’t mention the Christian angle (which leapt out, between the lines, anyway). A fortyish, devoted family man was talking about how he could show his kids a cleaned-up version of The Matrix, with all of the violence cut out, leaving the “spiritual” core of the movie intact.
Without violence, there is no Matrix. If you don’t like The Matrix, don’t buy it. Buy a nice spiritual movie. (I think anyone who thinks The Matrix is a spiritual movie has been played for a sucker. The Matrix is one of the greatest melanges of movement, imagery, and music ever made, but its spiritual pretensions are laughable.)
Or else, buy two VCR/DVD machines, buy The Matrix (or whatever), and edit it yourself for your family. Play it on one machine, while recording it on the other. Each time a naughty scene begins, stop playing, and make sure to rewind the item you’re recording to before the naughty scene, and record over any naughty bits.
One poster, Jim C., pointed out the parallel between Hollywood permitting TV stations to edit out naughty bits, but not CleanFlicks. Of course, Hollywood is pushing sex and violence. And in a virtuouso bit of sophistry, Japhet joins in the hypocrisy by claiming that it is parents’ job to raise their kids, before contradicting herself in the same sentence, and demanding that Christians show their children material the parents consider immoral, and “explain” it to them. Very tolerant. She would probably also deny that sex ed has the purpose of encouraging kids to engage in premarital sex.
“The parents should be taking charge and actually raising their kids, sensibly and rationally; not by hiding them from the various realities of the world but presenting and explaining them in a mature, reasonable fashion that is neither explicit or patronizing.”
Defenders (and some critics) of Hollywood claim that all Tinseltown cares about is money; Bambenek shows that is obviously not the case. Of course, Mel Gibson proved did it even more dramatically. Were Hollywood only concerned with the bottom line, it would have filmed The Passion of the Christ years before Gibson did, and would made a billion or so on it. A truly money-crazed Hollywood would also produce much more G-rated fare. I hate to tell you, Paul, but John Bambenek does not represent some “fringe group that really doesn't matter.” If that were the case, The Passion of the Christ would have made a fraction of the money it took in. And I’ll bet you consider yourself an open-minded person.
When I ordered up cable two years ago, the original point was so that my wife and I could watch The Sopranos, about which we’d heard so much. (In our new place, it turned out we couldn’t get any TV reception without cable. Go figure.) Well, she stopped watching after a while, anyway, and I learned pretty quickly that HBO was a channel that I simply could not watch with my then-four-year-old son. The folks who run that network are obsessed with sex and obscenity. They seem to think it makes them morally and intellectually superior. Don’t ask me how that works. HBO’s biggest “intellectual” advocate is the New York Times’ Frank Rich, and he can’t explain it, either.
(Why did I watch? I’m a critic; a blog critic. Dealing with pornography " the artistic and the non-artistic alike " is all in a day’s work.)
Early on, I tried watching a movie on HBO with my son. The Cooler is about a guy (William Macy) who is so unlucky that he’s contagious. He’s hired to work in a ca$ino. Anytime someone is running the table, the bosses call him over to stand next to the guy, and cool him off. Get it? But since the movie is set in Vegas, it’s also brutal, in the person of the “cooler’s” boss (Alec Baldwin).
I’m watching the movie for an enjoyable few minutes, when my son wakes up, pads into the living room, and asks if he can watch with me. Mom’s at work pulling the graveyard shift, and it’s against the rules, but we fellows love to hang out.
A few minutes later, the bombs start to drop: “F--k you!”
I hit the remote as quickly as I can, but my reflexes aren’t what they once were. My son immediately lets loose with “F--k you!”
So much for HBO.
But cable is so much bigger than HBO. My favorite channel, notwithstanding its founder’s communism, is Turner Classic Movies. I haven’t watched it in at least six months, because once I start with an 8 p.m. feature, the next thing you know, it’s 6 a.m.
Even the 1940s B-pictures TCM shows are better than most of today’s $50-million pics. And the A-pictures … today, only a few directors (Clint Eastwood, Tim Burton) can approach them, and then only occasionally.
Another favorite channel is American Life, which shows old episodes of Combat!, which contains considerably less violence than The Passion, and was a brilliant, righteous, spiritual show.
TVLand broadcasts programs like The Andy Griffith Show - what beats Andy Griffith?
Meanwhile, you’re welcome to write to the likes of Mel Gibson and other Christian-oriented producers and preachers to plead your case to them to film popular works you favor. Start an Internet campaign with other, like-minded folks.
Best of luck.
243 - DriveBy
You is what you see and are what you think you is. If fer instance you watch a movie and what you perceive knowing its trash. Should then we conclude that trash be in the eye of the beholding? Of course not. Did you think viewing a movie would hold you less prior to your entrance at the movie. Dont think so. As you can see this is not one of choice but of morals. To enter or not to enter. If I choose drinking with me buds at our local bar wouldn't it be my choice should I enter. Well as you can see their aint much difference it you desire to seperate them. That my take. Thanks for listing.
244 - Scott Butki
OK I have a solution to all of this - pay me a fee and I will go to a house and show people how to use the fast forward button - is it really that hard?
-----
I think Dave states my position perfectly in #50.
So what about other art mediums - should there be versions of Harry Potter that remove
all the references to witches and magic?
Does a company have the right to do that?
How about we remove from poetries all poems that are not grammatically correct?
245 - John Bambenek
Hey, fine. Just don't start complaining when people start boycotting hollywood and complain about a culture war.
If you guys wants to justify giving a Cleavland steamer to millions, don't complain about a divisive society.
You can't have it both ways.
246 - gonzo marx
oh John...as for #245
you must really stop with the bulllshit strawmen bits, yer embarrassing yerself...really...
nobody on this entire Thread has argued that folks can't boycott what they don't like...as a matter of fact, you can see many excamples of people who disagree with your position, who actually SUGGEST that folks boycott and vote with their wallets (myself included)
so that is one straw man burnt down
as for the "divisive society" bullshit....where's the division?
the very people you claim are trying to "divide" are encouraging the folks you claim are both "persecuted" and "the majority" at the same time, to go ahead and make their own movies and vote with their wallets as is their Right as american consumers..
so why don't you deal with real problems rather than trying to make them up where they don't exist in your poorly thought out crusade for the "Hollywood-is-evil" crowd?
if this is an example of the biggist divide you can come up with, then yer "culture war" ain't even a water pistol fight between siblings in the back yard on a summer day...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
247 - zingzing
the cleveland steamer... to millions of people...
as a metaphor, of course not; on an individual basis, there are a few i would like to present upon the chests of the deserving. depends on how kinky i feel.
248 - DriveBy
Maybe best said #358. Fer sure that comment would make one pause to think with conteplation if a choice of viewing be desirable.
249 - Scott Butki
John, interesting that you mention the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan as being brutal but neccessary.
My guess is some of these family-friendly editing firms you seem to be endorsing would want to cut it out.
You go on to mention scenes with nudity - like Mel Gibson mooning in a movie - that you
think appropriate in context. But isn't that the whole issue? What's in context for
you might not be be in context for another?
The director decided what is and isnt in context - do you really want someone else to decide that for you?
You speak of the "rights" of consumers but I don't think such rights exist. Can you point me to them?
Is there also a right for me to, say, have a film edited to remove any references to
Christianity?
Or if I'm a vegitarian can I have all references to meat removed since I'm a consumer with
rights?
250 - Margaret Romao Toigo
From Wikipedia (yes, I had to go look it up):
Gross!
But, if other consenting adults enjoy such activities in private, who am I to judge?
Besides, it really isn't all that shocking, except when the term is used by someone who asks such questions as, "Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic... well, besides masturbatory material?"
Boycotts and other practices that involve consumers voting with their wallets -- for example, I will not pay to see films that contain scenes of "Cleveland steamers," whether they add to the storylines or not -- are how the people of a free nation use the free market to their advantage.
Did you ever notice how only one "side" of the "culture war" seriously calls the promotion of cultural homogeneity by that name?
251 - Jared
There seems to be a lot of offense from people who apparently care what kind of movies I watch in my home with movies I bought. Since when did companies get to dictate what I do with their product (short of making copies and selling them)? (Hey buddy, that's a butter knife, not a screwdriver. Say, what the heck are you doing with ...) For all you who think it's wrong for me to have a 3rd party technology to clean up movies in my home, or can't imagine having to watch movie X without the sex, its frankly none of your business. You weren't invited into my bedroom/family room. You can still get the same movie in the format you want, "as the directors intended", and I can choose to alter it, as perverse as that may seem to you. Once the studio has sold the copy to me (aside from copyright infringement) the studio has lost its legal control of its use (or more correctly, should have lost). Macros or software that alters the way I watch a movie don't infringe on a copyright, which deals with illegal copying or stealing ideas for a "new movie" deparately distributed. The editing is done by software completely independent of the artisitic works of the studio (at least in the case of ClearPlay and the now extinct MovieMask). Again, what's all the fuss about? You choose to watch the movie the way you want, and I'll watch it the way I want! Hmmm, but that sounds a little too complicated? Sounds like some conservative values bashers have control issues. I personally, and many like me have no intention to change nor could care any less what you watch. I think if anything, those who don't want their movies censorsed/choice eliminated should 100% support those of us who also want our choice (aside from, well just don't watch...pretty much anything!) I know the court has ruled against Movie Mask already. The only thing that's accomplished is insisted Hollywood has a right to my actions within my home, when it has no adverse affect on them or anyone else. I thought we'd already gotten past the point of trying to decide you has a right to intrude on the privacy of my home.
252 - Matt Paprocki
"The only thing that's accomplished is insisted Hollywood has a right to my actions within my home"
Then don't bring Hollywood into your home if you're offended by a nipple or some words. Do you have some right not to bring questionable (in your opinon of course) material into your home? Oh wait, you do, so how in the hell are you blaming the movie studios?
And to say it has no effect on the movie studio is ridiculous. What if you watch a movie, miss a key sequence because it contained something you might have found offensive, and then post a few comments around the net about the plot not making sense. Maybe you tell a few friends the movie was bad. Likewise, they don't pick it up either.
Is that a stretch? Sure it is. Possible? Of course, and that's on top of the copyright and artistic rights of the filmmaker that have been discussed at length in this thread already.
253 - John Peter
You speak of the bottom line in terms of finance regarding losing the sale of a film to a party not interested in undesirable content.
You are so close to your realization. Perhaps you are just afraid to go the extra mile.
What you fail to mention is that the prize these producer / director / financiers are seeking is the destruction of the Christian soul which is a bounty worth far more than earthly money.
This clearly concerted effort has existed far longer than a single human life thus hinting of its identity. It is indeed alive. It is real, inhuman, eternal, and evil; and it has existed since the beginning of time.
It is encouraging to see growing enlightenment on this issue.