• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

Sony releasing clean versions of movies

This quote from the article:

"However, some users think it's a good idea because it could widen the audience for some films."

Obviously the director of the film new exactly the audience he/she wanted when the movie was made by the rating assigned to the film, and knew that the audience would be "restricted" somewhat by virtue of that rating. What next, special edition edited versions of porn films so the kiddies can be accommodated? The movie studios would probably be all for that so that they could extract a few bucks more from the "wider audience".

Man, shouldn't all these people be trying to do something useful for mankind like curing diseases instead of this crap?
 
Not sure who will write the manual / instructions that will define "clean" but in principle, if Sony really wanted to ensure that a movie offended nobody, an awful lot of movies would run but a few minutes in length.

Violence, language and nudity are the usual suspects, but what if you throw in cultural (mis)appropriation as well (to mention but one out of dozens, if not hundreds, of "unclean" possibilities)? While little Johnny might be saved from catching a glimpse of butt cheek in one film, he might find Disney's Pocahontas reduced to its opening and closing credits only!

This is just another version of what has been tried many times before, and will likely fail for the same old reason: initial perceived demand not really being there in the first place - coupled, of course with the usual backlash.

Region to region, country to country, and culture to culture differences also make such a scheme ripe for failure.

Jeff
 
They make "clean" versions of [PG13] and sometimes [R] rated movies for broadcast on TV and in Airplanes. Those edits are almost always made by the studio. Now those edits can be streamed or viewed on the edited version of a disc.

I agree, by the way, that this is generally a bad idea.
 
Yeah, MPAA guidelines are workable for this. They can just edit stuff down to PG or PG-13. As for the director's vision, I'm still not buying it. It's the property of the studio and not the director (unless the director kept the rights, which they usually don't), and it's hardly unheard of to re-cut movies to get the rating they wanted from the get-go (NC-17 to R, R to PG-13). They'll sell more copies of the movies for a minimal investment. It's a good business decision.
 
They had to stop this. Vudu for about two weeks had clean versions for a few Sony movies but then recently had to pull them. It seems the directors guild put a cease and desist order on this real quick. I'm not a fan of clean version of movies. I feel if you have to manipulate a movie so it doesn't offend somebody than maybe you shouldn't be watching this movie. Stick with the rated G movies and live your sheltered lives. Personally if I'm a director and I make a movie with sex and violence and drug use and curse words that's how I wanted the movie to be made and not have other people adjust my work of art so their snowflake feelings don't get hurt and they have to go to a happy room because somebody said Shit. Heck if given the choice between a rated movie or a unrated directors cut I'll take the unrated directors cut knowing I'll get the violence and language that the studios forced the director to remove to appeal to a larger audience. The rules are ridiculous do you realize that a film to get a PG-13 rating instead of an R rating can only use the work Fuck only one time. Seriously what difference does that make the word is still used and heard but can only be used once to get a PG-13 rating. Religious idiots are always trying to get studios to clean up great movies by wanting changes made. Pisses me off. So I should have to suffer changes to a great movie because some religious group doesn't want nudity or sex scene or language used. Don't force an artist to change their work to cater to those easily offended I say. Glad Sony was forced to remove clean versions.
 
But these movies get shown on airplanes in edited versions often in the same month as the theatrical release. The same goes for broadcast channels which choose not to have foul language, nudity or extreme violence (though violence appears to okay these days). If the edits are already being made and there is a market for them, why now allow people to rent or buy them? If the union has an issue with releasing an edited version for people who want to watch one while still being fine with the airplane and TV edits, that seems contradictory.

Personally, I agree with Matt - this is art and shouldn't be fucked with unless the director wants to do it himself.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the issues of esthetics and moral rights of copyright creators...

Is this a world-wide issue, or limited only to countries controlled by wacky religious zealots, and other do-gooders?

While air travel is international, and having multiple versions to suit every given route a plane might fly (or every passenger on board) would likely be either very expensive or not do-able, it should be less of a problem, or none at all, to offer different streaming programming to different countries / markets.

But otherwise, most European countries will continue to lead the way when it comes to uncensored, permissive, artistic rights in commercial film - as they have for decades.

Jeff
 
Flint said:
this is art and shouldn't be fucked with unless the director wants to do it himself.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this.

1) The "art" can often be adulterated one way or the other. The studio declares the rating they want and the director may have to cut or otherwise edit things to hit that rating. This sacred nature of art doesn't seem to factor in when this is an issue. On top of this, as stated, there are edits already made for regular TV network broadcast. That such editing is OK and it is not OK when the studio decides to do it for sale makes no sense.

2) Hiding behind that idea of art is a pretty thin veneer. Take a good look at the films in the theater- are we really making the argument that War for Planet of the Apes, Spider Man Homecoming, Despicable Me 3, and Baby Driver (this weekend's four top grossing movies) are making deep statements as they explore the human condition? Ha. Nowadays the movies that really are works of art are greatly outnumbered by mediocre fan service, transparent money grabs, and other types of movies that nobody is going to mistake for something on the order of Casablanca. Yes, art is subjective, but the notion that it's sacred and should not be fiddled with a pretty thin argument for me. It's entirely a matter of opinion. Art is constantly taken, fiddled with, and reinterpreted by others. Which leads me to...

3) Nothing is affecting the original. We're not talking about painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. We're not chiseling boxer shorts of Michelangelo's David. Nobody is gathering up every copy of the White Album in existence and replacing it with something else. It's a copy. The original stands alone and can be distributed right alongside the edited one. Cutting the dangling blue schlong from one edition of The Watchmen would do absolutely nothing to those who still want to see cobalt colored man meat and choose to purchase the original. There's no actual harm suffered.

IMO, this is a matter for the holder of the rights to the media to decide. If a studio holds the rights and wants to do it, fine. If a director wants to be a stickler and negotiates the ability to refuse such things from ever happening, fine. But I don't think there's any legitimate reason to bar anyone from editing a film or anything else up or down in rating for a commercial release so long as they hold the appropriate rights to the material.
 
My issue is when any one group wants the world CDO them on their beliefs and ideals. I've mentioned many times living in Mesa AZ many years ago that had a strong Mormon population that theaters wee editing movies on their own without permission from the studios or directors to cut out any nudity as they didn't want to offend their Mormon patrons. My thinking is then maybe they shouldn't be watching rated R movies so now I have to suffer these edits due to religious whack a doos. I paid my money and want to watch the rated R movie I paid for and not some cut and spliced PG-13 version Because a Mormon got offended. Here's my thought. If you want to worship some all riotous mystical cloud God then by all means knock yourself out but realize your beliefs are not shared by everyone else and this means that there are movies, music and TV shows that may offend you but don't expect the rest of the world cater to you and realize that these things exist and just don't buy, listen or watch them and sit your happy ass at home praying for us sinners.
 
Franklin your right there are edits made for TV and airlines but usually these edits are made with the directors permission in post production with the understanding that the version shown is strictly for that purpose. What Sony did was make their own edits without the directors permission then try to market these clean versions for purchase. As an artist I'm sure you'd be pissed if you worked hard playing your drums in a song and the studio said you know what we need is more cowbell and a lot less snare drum and edited out your performance and replace it without your permission then the studio sells that altered version. If you agreed to the changes then sure no problem but if you didn't and had no idea they were doing this I'm sure you'd be pissed.
 
MatthewB said:
Here's my thought. If you want to worship some all riotous mystical cloud God then by all means knock yourself out but realize your beliefs are not shared by everyone else and this means that there are movies, music and TV shows that may offend you but don't expect the rest of the world cater to you and realize that these things exist and just don't buy, listen or watch them and sit your happy ass at home praying for us sinners.
Click to expand...

But why can't this be applied in reverse? This particular instance did not appear to have anything to do with Mormons forcing editing on everybody. It was a studio thinking about offering edited versions for sale alongside the "full sin" :p versions. You could buy the one with all the cursing and everything else you can handle. Somebody else could buy the edited version. Their purchase would have zero effect on you. This "just change the channel and STFU" that is often pointed at those who prefer less adult content is rarely practiced on the part of those who might want more adult content.

MatthewB said:
What Sony did was make their own edits without the directors permission then try to market these clean versions for purchase. As an artist I'm sure you'd be pissed if you worked hard playing your drums in a song and the studio said you know what we need is more cowbell and a lot less snare drum and edited out your performance and replace it without your permission then the studio sells that altered version. If you agreed to the changes then sure no problem but if you didn't and had no idea they were doing this I'm sure you'd be pissed.
Click to expand...

I wonder who holds the rights. If it's the studio, it's their choice. Directors often change their vision depending on what is required at the time. If the original cut is NC-17 and the studio will only put out an R version (or R and PG-13, or whatever), then suddenly the director's vision changes to accommodate the needed edits. Heck, sometimes even the director changes things and people yearn for the original... can anybody really say we wouldn't be running to the store, cash in hand, if Disney would put out an HD and cleaned up version of the original versions of the Star Wars original trilogy? Yet Lucas said the Special Editions are "what he always intended" and the fans gripe because Greedo never shot first I don't care what Lucas says. Like I said, putting out these versions would not change the fact that the original exists. My understanding is that the originals aren't being thrown (as Disney puts it) "back into the vault" to never see the light of day again. The original "vision" (or whatever one wants to call it) still is a thing. It would still be available.

Now, if it's the director who holds the rights and not the studio, there is a legal issue there. But I have yet to be convinced why there's any other issue than who holds the rights.
 
Akula my issue with the Mormons in Mesa is the theaters were altering the movies without permission from anybody. You pay to see a rated R movie but once inside the theater and watching the movies anything deemed offensive by the Mormons was cut out without the studio or directors knowing. I confronted a theater manager about this and asked him what gave him the right to alter the movies in any way and especially without permission from the studios or directors. He just said if they didn't then the Mormons would complain about any nudity. I'd be like its a rated R movie of course it's going to have nudity and the Mormons should know this. I had no choice unless I wanted to drive to the next town to see the actual rated R movie. So a religious cult (as I call them) was infringing on my rights to see a rated R movie in a theater and I was given no choice unless I wanted to travel further to see the movie. What's sad is the people who live in Mesa could care less. There is also no strip clubs or anything of the sort in Mesa due to the Mormons.

The Studios actual own the rights and will tell the directors what cuts need to happen to make a movie run for a certain time or garner a certain rating. The directors will film everything and the studios will dictate the cuts. So even though a movie had a PG -13 rating like when Wolverine came out they did release a NR directors cut that ran 15 minutes longer with more violence and curse words. The directors are aware of this and will make the needed cuts themselves. Sony though decided to make cuts on their own without directors permission and once the directors guild found out they were doing this without the directors permission they put a stop to it and had them stop selling clean versions. So even though the studios own the movie to make any changes they need approval from the directors for any change to occur.
 
MatthewB said:
Akula my issue with the Mormons in Mesa is the theaters were altering the movies without permission from anybody.
Click to expand...

And that's irrelevant here. We're talking about the studio doing it.

As for having the directors do the cuts, did Fox REALLY have McTiernan come in just to bleep out everything after "Yippee ki-yay"? Are these edits after the fact something they always have the director do, and is it by courtesy or contractually obligated?

I understand there's director's cuts released pretty often... usually for flicks where people might get to thinking "hey, bet there's more good stuff in here" when it's really just one or two added scenes with nothing going on. They may have chosen to stop doing this lest the directors be harder to work with in the future, but honestly, I still don't see why the directors throw such a fit- so it may not be their "vision" for the film. But if they cut it for broadcast or other uses, why not make a few extra bucks selling the edited version?
 
I guess I just hate hypocrisy especially from religious zealots. They chose to live a "cleaner" lifestyle but then hear great things about a rated R movie but then demand the studios make edits to clean up pictures of violence, sex and language (pretty much all the things that made the movie great to begin with. I'm like hey nitwit you chose to live that clean lifestyle and by doing so you have to make sacrifices like seeing rated R movies so live with that. It would be like religious zealots wanting to see The Wolf of Wall Street but want any mention of drugs, prostitutes, booze, language and nudity gone. Then wonder why the movie is horrible and can't understand what everyone was raving about. I recall working with this religious nut job of a lady who would not allow her teenagers to see Titanic because oh my gosh they have premarital sex in a car and Kate shows her tits. I've met her teenagers that daughter I swear has been tossed around the football team a time or two herself and the son was a boozer if I ever saw one but heaven forbid they see boobs in a movie. I remember this same woman telling us all about how she came downstairs late at night and her husband was looking at porn. He tells her with a straight face that his friend sent him this link which infected his computer with porn viruses and automatically signed him up for dozens of porn sites without his permission and he had to sneak downstairs to secretly delete these horrible sites so his wife wouldn't get mad. I'm literally mouth half open about to spill what the husband was really doing when a feel a sharp jab to my side and it's a fellow co worker giving me a glare that said "don't you dare say anything that will expose the truth and ruin her marriage". I was like this religious bitch is living a clean life and those closest to her are the biggest liars and hypocrites but I'm going to Hell because I'm honest and speak my mind. So yeah I'm not a fan of hypocrites who try to get studios to change their product when they are to blind themselves to see the sinners they love and live with.
 
^ C'mon man, I think you've taken ample opportunity to shit on religion multiple times in this thread and as Akula pointed out, this is on the Studio. I think we're getting a little off topic if the last post is any indication of where this thread is headed.
 
Batman said:
^ C'mon man, I think you've taken ample opportunity to shit on religion multiple times in this thread and as Akula pointed out, this is on the Studio. I think we're getting a little off topic if the last post is any indication of where this thread is headed.
Click to expand...

Plus ... idunno... a million
 
Great. Just great! You guys are gonna get MattB all riled up and I'm the one picking him up at the airport next week that gets to hear him complain and vent about it the whole 45 minute ride back to the GTG!

Thanks!

:)

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top