add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Back when I first thought of this, I didn't know about the existence of CleanFlicks or ClearPlay. These companies let you rent one of the movies on their list, not originally a "G" movie, but view it as a "G" movie. They skip over the "rough" bits, and mute any bad language. The studios have sued them
to try to prevent the practice.
While not for everyone, there's obviously a market out there (hence, the business opportunity). Rather than sue them, I'd like the studios to offer a version with a Family Friendly label, as an alternative, much as they do the "unrated director's cut", or special edition (or sometimes the widescreen and "edited to fit on this screen" versions are separate). The point being, the studios already do this kind of "G" edit themselves when making the movie, for later television release, bringing the actors back for "looping" (where they overdub the bad language with substitutes), trim graphic violence, etc. to bring the movie to a G rating (I presume). The studios could do a much better, and seamless job, plus retain control of the result.
It would take very little space, less than entire alternate language tracks do now. Basically, just a series of tags for start and stop "skip" points (for video) and start and stop substitution points (for audio) and the small set of alternate audio clips.
This Family Friendly version would still contain the original, it would just DEFAULT to playing the "G" version. You could still navigate to the "SET UP" screen and choose the theatrical version ("R" or whatever), if desired. I'd think I'd enjoy comparing the two to see "exactly" what was taken out.
No, it couldn't be done with every movie. For some movies, there wouldn't be anything left. But the director knows those movies aren't going to be shown on the major networks, going in. Same with this.
why not just install Apocolypse Now viewer
Apocalypse_20Now_20Redux_20Redux
another way of achieving the same thing. [neilp, Dec 20 2004]
Fireworks [Hana-Bi]
http://www.kfccinem...orks/fireworks.html
Edited from 2 hours to 2 minutes. [contracts, Dec 20 2004]
[link]
|
| |
In some sense this is a WIBNI, though you might add a few more details about specific implementations (though I'm not sure whether you have any original ideas on that subject, it's hardly impossible).<p> |
|
| |
One thing which would probably help a lot would be if the DVD format could allow different "rating" codes for the different "angle" and audio tracks. In this way, a player which was set to only allow PG or equivalent content could play R rated movies, but only in the "PG" form. At present, I don't think the ratings facility on disks allows that resolution, though if it allows resolution to the "title" level it may be possible to achieve the desired effect. |
|
| |
You know, I think it's a decent idea, so instead of following my extremely strong compulsion to fishbone it for this jackass statement: //First, let me say I'm not a member of the religious right.// I'll just remain neutral. <edit> [~C] </e> |
|
| |
Perhaps, to be fair, they could add a track with R rated dialog to cartoons. |
|
| |
I don't think it's entirely fair to call this censorship, if both versions are provided. I'd probably rather watch the "director's cut" or whatever, if it's closer to the director's (or the screenwriter's) intent, but plently of people like the "theatrical release". |
|
| |
I mean, I like plenty of things that are, honestly, really shitty. I appreciate when other people's good taste doesn't interfere with that. |
|
| |
contracts: I don't think letting people know that I don't feel they can't/shouldn't watch what they want (based on religious grounds), but have my preference of what I'd like to see, is jackass. Especially in an internet setting where you don't know anything about me. I suppose you'd be offended by a remark that began "I'm not a smoker, but my opinion on anti-smoking laws is ..." |
|
| |
UnaBubba: yes, self-censorship is the easiest and most practical way to control my viewing, and I use it regularly. That's why I don't watch TV, I find "reality" shows puerile, and most of what passes for "entertainment" these days decidedly un-entertaining. If the movie companies and TV advertisers don't want my money, that's fine with me. If I'm not part of a large enough segment of society for them to worry about, that's OK too, I'd just as soon be under their radar anyway. |
|
| |
But I bet there are plenty of people, who'd like to rent a good movie, and not send the kids to the other room to watch a "kid" movie. The existence of companies catering to that market would suggest there are. What I'm really suggesting, I suppose, is that rather than the movie studios censoring these companies (by suing them), they recognize it as a marketing opportunity, and something they could provide much better, seamlessly, and ultimately, still under their control. For myself, I'd even be willing to pay extra for it. |
|
| |
No, like I said, the idea is decent, but stereotyping against both religious people AND conservatives seems a bit broad. In your example, if you said something like "Now, I'm not some godless smoker, but my opinion of . . . " that would be different, wouldn't it? The two are unrelated and your statement was disrespectful of religious liberals and nontheistic conservatives. Oh, and the statement provides no support to your idea - - at all. //in an internet setting where you don't know anything about me// I know you're not a member of the "Religious Right," and you enjoy stereotyping and long walks on the beach. |
|
| |
Perhaps if you didn't have that rhetoric in your idea, people wouldn't confuse it with censorship. Perhaps they would just say "Oh - - an 'edited for TV version' right on the disc! I can finally watch The Goodfellas with my kids without scarring them for life!" |
|
| |
Doing this to a lot of films would result in making the plot very disjointed. If the violence is edited out, some characters might just vanish from the story for no apparent reason. |
|
| |
[oneoffdave], I think that as an added feature to the DVD, it would generally work. Films like Takeshi Kitano's "Hana-Bi" wouldn't make much sense as it was "A MASTERPIECE IN VIOLENCE!!" according to one critic. |
|
| |
Then again, "Donald Deep-Throat's Leather Rump" wouldn't make much sense either. Some films are designed to be gratuitous and as such would never be shown on TV - - editing or no. |
|
| |
//And I find gratuitous language distracting, takes me right out of the movie. (I almost walked out of "The Lady Killers"...// |
|
| |
That must have been when Alec Guinness said "Oh bother!". |
|
| |
contracts: I think you're mistaken, "smoker" for some people, *is* a loaded term, indicating moral turpitude, much like "heroin addict". My last comment on this... I thought it was worth mentioning that I'm not a member of a strongly religious group nor the political right that thinks legislation the answer to societies ills, because my screen name might mislead some people. Of course these are stereotypes! Almost every label is .. isn't it? I guess I just can't keep up with this "PC" stuff. When did "religious right" become a politically incorrect term like "crippled"? I thought there were people who were proud to be part of the religious right. Are you saying that no such group really exists? Or relgious people who are left-leaning are offended by the existence of the religious right? Or that the non-religious politically right-leaning are offended by religious people among their ranks? I find all that, if it's the case, very odd. |
|
| |
Perhaps you have a stereotype of the sort of people who use the term "religious right". I'll take mountains over beach any day, and New York or London over either of those. |
|
| |
I think that the political remark has no bearing on the idea, and that leading with it puts a stink - - the stink of fish, which I think you can smell - - on an otherwise fine idea. Further, as regards (//Are you saying// et cetera,) if you don't know what I'm saying then you can scroll up and read it again. |
|
| |
All of the preceding notwithstanding, not only does it not relate to the idea, it's just not an accurate generalization! Did you see the Passion of the Christ, for christ's sake? (I didn't, but from what I understand, the protagonist dies horribly in the end.) |
|
| |
That being said, and all of this nonsense rhetoric aside, Welcome to the Halfbakery! I think this is a high quality first idea . . . and I do mean those statements, exactly as written. |
|
| |
Also install a kaypad on the wall of your TV room so that family members can "sign in" before they enter the room. |
|
| |
This way when little Timmy wakes up at 2:00 in the morning and comes downstairs to where mommy and daddy are watching mature videos, he simply pushes the "Little Timmy" button and instantly the violence and harsh language on the DVD become censored. |
|
| |
contracts: Well, the edit made it a little better... |
|
| |
I'm not a icecream-licking homicidal maniac either. And if icecream lovers, or maniacs, or perfectly rational killers, or even icecream-loving homicidal manics take offense, more power to 'em. |
|
| |
phundug: While they're at it, they can remove those stupid G-rated previews from the front of the movie and DVD, too. What, are they worried some kid is going to sneak into the theatre or rent the DVD? Such outlandish censorship needs to stop ... |
|
| |
I guess what we really need to do is get the networks to stop showing the edited version on TV, since it makes the plot so disjointed, and it implies parents aren't aware what their kids are watching, how dare they? If the network can't handle the director's artistic vision, they don't need to show it on TV, right? Why are the networks showing movies anyway, that's what pay-per-view and rentals are for. Getting rid of the movies would make more room for reality shows. Oh, boy! |
|
| |
Well, I did indeed edit my hastily written annotation - - I put some more thought into it, to finalize where I was coming from, and also to try to get back on track on the idea. |
|
| |
Anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt. Keep spewing forth gibbering sarcasm and asking asinine rhetorical questions. |
|
| |
contracts: I keep thinking I'm done, but then another jib...I get it. I really do. This is an emotional issue for you, and you consider my remark inappropriate, like telling a death joke at a funeral. It just doesn't carry that kind of weight for me. |
|
| |
I may disagree with you, but I don't consider you gibbering or asinine, even if you feel like you must resort to insults to make your point. |
|
| |
Can't guarantee any fishbones, I tend to judge ideas on their merits, not who comes up with it. |
|
| |
I didn't say you were asinine or gibbering. |
|
| |
Yeah you did [contracts]. For sarcasm to be "gibbering" someone ([godnine]) must be doing the gibbering. Similarly, whilst you might say that you only intended to label the rhetoric asinine this necessarily implies that you consider the person producing the rhetoric to have behaved in an asinine manner, at least in this particular instance. It's not the same as labelling [godnine] "asinine" or "gibbering" in general but the statement: "I didn't say you were asinine or gibbering" can't hold any water, it's too broad.
As to the idea it's good but [contracts] is right - the stereotyping should have been kept out of it, if only to allow people to make up their minds about the content of the idea without having [godnine]'s preconceptions of what people would think of him/her muddying the waters - people in here are smart enough to make up their own minds. I'd suggest you accord them that privilege. |
|
| |
For a good family friendly movie, why didn't you just rent the original version of "The Ladykillers"? |
|
| |
DocBrown: Now that argument makes sense. |
|
| |
Must have been a blip then [godnine] :). Welcome to the bakery! |
|
| |
Ok, I like the idea as rewritten, [godnine] and I had often wanted something like this when my children were small. Remember the "Goonies" a Spielberg film. (thanks calum)Fabulous story! I allowed my kids to watch it in spite of the language. I told them I'd better not hear them saying "those words". It worked ok, but I would have prefered a censored version. |
|
| |
The Goonies is by Richard Donner, though the story is by Spielberg. It is the awesomest film ever. |
|
| |
Do the Truffle Shuffle [calum]. |
|
| |
Yea, my wife teaches and took "the Shawshank Redemption" to her high school. (What a great movie.) And was already showing it in class before she remembered the homosexual bits. It was a big deal. She had to stop the movie, telling them anyone that was uncomfortable could leave the room, etc., because she hadn't gotten parental permission first. Worked out O.K., because everyone pretty much agreed it was a great movie. But all it would have taken was one irate parent... |
|
| |
I wouldn't mind having a feature in the set up that allowed you to change the rating (skip scenes). |
|
| |
I don't know how sophisticated DVD players are, though, so they may not be able to follow a script like:
Play 0:00 to 13:41.
Play 14:26 to 36:36
Play 38:04 to 41:12....etc.
|
|
| |
(It may be also possible to script a beep over certain words using timing - but again, I am just speculating) |
|
| |
I sometimes forget that a movie has a scene in it that is culturally unacceptable for a kid to be looking at.(i.e. topless actresses)
I usually remember as the scene is about to happen and I am able to fast forward through it, but it would be nicer to select this feature from a menu and just roll the movie. (I think it was one of the Bruce Lee movies where this happened to me.) |
|
| |
//I don't know how sophisticated DVD players are, though, so they may not be able to follow a script... // |
|
| |
They're not terribly sophisticated, but they have ways of handling precisely that sort of thing. If you watch Terminator 2 on DVD, you can choose either the "Director's Cut" or the theatrical release. The former is longer and includes some more expository material than the original, and also includes some plot wrinkles that were taken out because they didn't add enough to the overal picture to justify the time they took. |
|
| |
Both versions of the film use the same portions of the DVD for most of the parts where they are identical. When they diverge, however, they use different data. I don't know exactly how it works technically, but it runs quite smoothly. |
|
| |