today’s rant is on…

… double edited movies.

Just saw a story on GMA about how now there’s a booming industry to “sanitize” movies by editing them further, such as removing the nude scene in Titanic and all that sort of innuendo, etc. Seems that the directors are quite upset that someone’s hacking their babies to pieces and then reselling the movie, albeit labeled as being edited AGAIN and not as the original product. The surveys show that 44% of the population are for this.

Now maybe it’s just ME, but that’s a heck of a lot of audience members out there who are wanting their films to be recut to take out the profanity and violence. That’s a LOT of disgruntled viewers who are taking their DVD’s to these companies and asking them to clean them up. You’d think that Hollywood would be sitting back and scratching their chins, saying to themselves something like “Hey, what’s with all this demand? Can it be that maybe we’re making our films too violent or sexual in the first place? Or maybe the rating system is off? Or…”.

Instead we got a shot of some famous director whining about how it’s got HIS name on it and it should be what HE directed, not a hack job by some unknown editor. It’d be a valid point to me if it were happening on films that were being advertised as the same product as what he sold in the theaters, but it’s not being labelled as anything other than a re-edited version on DEMAND from the public. Instead of whining about how his professional integrity is at stake and all that, why isn’t he wondering why there’s even a demand for this and what he can do to meet that demand. Instead he’s going to be posturing along with all the Hollywood flakes who figure that if you toss in a sex scene it’s art and by having buckets of blood it’s better art and demanding that these places shut down.

Of course, it won’t happen. Whether it’s under free speech or just underground, these companies will continue to re-edit movies for those parents or adults (and yes, I’m one of those who might just buy a DVD if I see it with that disclaimer) who want the product. It would behoove Hollywood to stop stroking their egos and whining about their creativity and start wondering when their audiences began to walk down the street, fresh DVD’s in hand, and turn them over to another company to do the editing.

article reference: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=692068

rant off.

otoh, got a form letter rejection from Pomada yesterday – although since they had asked for the partial of “Second Line” in February, I figured it was dead already – too long for them to hold onto a few pages and not decide.

still hoping on Mundania, if not I’ll be going to LBF next, maybe… so it goes…

oh, Kim Possible RULES!

πŸ˜€

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “today’s rant is on…

  1. I’m undecided about all that because I do believe in freedom of speech..but there are many good movies out there that minus one stupid scene of a woman’s boob or one ultra gross scene of gore could have been pulled and my son could have enjoyed it with us. I do think the ratings are whack. But it is in demand…people want a little less here and there…I could do without the boring 20 minute scene in Matrix 2(I think) where the two are getting it on. I have an imagination..I can figure out what 2 people in bed are doing, lol.
    Fingers crossed for you with Mundania Press πŸ™‚
    And I think you’re kIM POSSIBLE, lol.

    • thanks for the good vibes…
      I’m not sure what bothers me more – the fact that it’s being done and does, technically, invade the creative space of the moviemakers or the fact that they want to IGNORE this growing market. It wouldn’t be growing and expanding if no one wanted it. And, logically, if people are demanding it then it’s because they’re not getting what they want from Hollywood.
      example: I’ve begun watching Project Greenlight on Bravo – it’s about making a horror movie with a script and director picked from a contest and all that – Ben Affleck is behind it and all that.
      I’m no horror fan, but I see the director sitting there saying “Oh, we have to have her running around in panties for the entire movie because that’s what sells!” and “Can you get naked for this sex scene?” and being upset ’cause the actress is saying that she’ll wear a gstring, thank you very much. This is a NEW director and he’s just carrying on the old stereotypes and blissfully encouraging more sexuality and just stupid additions to a movie that should, if it were any good, stand on it’s own merits.
      That’s what I think Hollywood is afraid of – that a movie may have to stand on what it’s GOT instead of what it SHOWS as far as plot and writing goes. Better to toss in the exploding heads and gore along with some nudity than put any more work into a good storyline. Citizen Kane wouldn’t get made today; it’s too nice.
      πŸ˜›
      I preacheth to the choir again.
      heh, heh…

  2. I’m undecided about all that because I do believe in freedom of speech..but there are many good movies out there that minus one stupid scene of a woman’s boob or one ultra gross scene of gore could have been pulled and my son could have enjoyed it with us. I do think the ratings are whack. But it is in demand…people want a little less here and there…I could do without the boring 20 minute scene in Matrix 2(I think) where the two are getting it on. I have an imagination..I can figure out what 2 people in bed are doing, lol.
    Fingers crossed for you with Mundania Press πŸ™‚
    And I think you’re kIM POSSIBLE, lol.

    • thanks for the good vibes…
      I’m not sure what bothers me more – the fact that it’s being done and does, technically, invade the creative space of the moviemakers or the fact that they want to IGNORE this growing market. It wouldn’t be growing and expanding if no one wanted it. And, logically, if people are demanding it then it’s because they’re not getting what they want from Hollywood.
      example: I’ve begun watching Project Greenlight on Bravo – it’s about making a horror movie with a script and director picked from a contest and all that – Ben Affleck is behind it and all that.
      I’m no horror fan, but I see the director sitting there saying “Oh, we have to have her running around in panties for the entire movie because that’s what sells!” and “Can you get naked for this sex scene?” and being upset ’cause the actress is saying that she’ll wear a gstring, thank you very much. This is a NEW director and he’s just carrying on the old stereotypes and blissfully encouraging more sexuality and just stupid additions to a movie that should, if it were any good, stand on it’s own merits.
      That’s what I think Hollywood is afraid of – that a movie may have to stand on what it’s GOT instead of what it SHOWS as far as plot and writing goes. Better to toss in the exploding heads and gore along with some nudity than put any more work into a good storyline. Citizen Kane wouldn’t get made today; it’s too nice.
      πŸ˜›
      I preacheth to the choir again.
      heh, heh…

  3. Much love for the KP icon πŸ™‚ It got the theme song in my head.
    As for edited movies, I’ve bought one at WalMart. Hubby and I liked the movie, but I don’t think I would have paid for the unedited version. I’ve seen both versions, and I don’t think anything at all is lost, and now it’s a movie that I won’t mind having in the library when we have kiddos. Unlike the second Matrix movie, which we never did buy simply because of that scary scene in the middle.
    There is a website that has documented that a lot of what is rated PG-13 now would have been rated R several years ago. Hollywood is trying to desensitize us to it, but the public continues to flock to G rated movies which consistantly sell more tickets than R rated ones.
    And if the movie studios want the most money, then they should offer the edited versions themselves if they refuse to take it out altogether.

  4. Much love for the KP icon πŸ™‚ It got the theme song in my head.
    As for edited movies, I’ve bought one at WalMart. Hubby and I liked the movie, but I don’t think I would have paid for the unedited version. I’ve seen both versions, and I don’t think anything at all is lost, and now it’s a movie that I won’t mind having in the library when we have kiddos. Unlike the second Matrix movie, which we never did buy simply because of that scary scene in the middle.
    There is a website that has documented that a lot of what is rated PG-13 now would have been rated R several years ago. Hollywood is trying to desensitize us to it, but the public continues to flock to G rated movies which consistantly sell more tickets than R rated ones.
    And if the movie studios want the most money, then they should offer the edited versions themselves if they refuse to take it out altogether.

  5. Bowdlerization
    Meh. Personally, I prefer my movies as issued, but I don’t have little kiddies around. If I did, I think I’d either figure the original movie would have too much mature content of all sorts and not show it until the little nipper was old enough for a discussion of said content. That’s assuming that the sex, violence, or language are necessary in the context of a mature, well-directed film and not gratuitously tossed in for a higher rating. (I can only presume the higher rating makes the film more “cool” in the eyes of older kids with more discretionary income. Sigh.) Sometimes you do need the language or whatever to make the film’s point, and I’m sure we’ve all seen santized-for-TV versions of classic films that make us laugh at obviously inappropriately substituted language or that seem jerky or confusing due to oddly clipped scenes.
    I suppose it comes down to creative control. If the directors are against this sort of editing, then they probably need to start spelling it out in their contracts, if they can. I’m guessing that they still get their royalties on the re-edited versions, so they’d be suffering a small loss of income for their ideals.

  6. Bowdlerization
    Meh. Personally, I prefer my movies as issued, but I don’t have little kiddies around. If I did, I think I’d either figure the original movie would have too much mature content of all sorts and not show it until the little nipper was old enough for a discussion of said content. That’s assuming that the sex, violence, or language are necessary in the context of a mature, well-directed film and not gratuitously tossed in for a higher rating. (I can only presume the higher rating makes the film more “cool” in the eyes of older kids with more discretionary income. Sigh.) Sometimes you do need the language or whatever to make the film’s point, and I’m sure we’ve all seen santized-for-TV versions of classic films that make us laugh at obviously inappropriately substituted language or that seem jerky or confusing due to oddly clipped scenes.
    I suppose it comes down to creative control. If the directors are against this sort of editing, then they probably need to start spelling it out in their contracts, if they can. I’m guessing that they still get their royalties on the re-edited versions, so they’d be suffering a small loss of income for their ideals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s