Sept. 16, 2002, 8:27 a.m. CST
According to Yahoo Movies, it's been picked up by 20th Century Fox and is scheduled to start filming in September for a release sometime in 2003. There's a preview page for it here: http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808430098&intl=us The script sounds hilarious. I am always cautious whenever I get too excited about the prospects of a comedy movie, because a lot of times they come out and they've been watered down a lot from their original vision (like Louis CK's "Pootie Tang") But with Ferrell and Adam McKay working together it could really be something great. The short films that McKay directed for SNL starring Ferrell were incredibly bizarre and funny ("The H is O", "The Doberman", and "The German Baby and the Intellectual") With McKay directing, hopefully they will make the transition from a funny script to a funny movie. I'm looking forward to "Club Dread" too. Thanks for all the new information, Mori.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:34 a.m. CST
So not all families don't want to see Titanic with profanity, sex, and nudity. Is that the only way they should see it? They could have expected this, I'm not saying Clean Flicks is right, but Cameron's dumb writing alienates a few people. I'd love a film without JarJar. Clean Flicks are doing something illegal and cruel to the filmmaker, but filmmakers make retarded decisions, Lucas says the original cut of STAR WARS will never be released again. And Mori, if you are against the original cut of STAR WARS being released (against the director's wishes, just like Clean Flicks) then you aren't thinking clearly, because not having the original SW trilogy on DVD is wrong and should be fought, with wars, if necessary.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:47 a.m. CST
I disagree with what they are doing to keep your hands off those films you damned dirty religious right fundamentalist, and stop pushing your ideas on me! Here's hoping the DGA and the WGA kick some ass and take some names for the sake of everything that is free.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:49 a.m. CST
Supporting roles is a good plan for Sly. Taking the spotlight off himself, and realising that he will never again be a massive box office draw as sole leading man. He's had that, and exploited it too much, (from 1986 onwards). Apart from 1993 and 1997 he hasn't had a good year both financially and critically. Although I though Get Carter is underrated, and even have a soft spot for Lock up and Over the Top. Stop laughing. I said stop laughing. The guy CAN act, so he should do that rather than try to reclaim his unsuited role as a movie-star.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:55 a.m. CST
Nice work M. I admit it. I love this shit. I bought Super Troopers and Wet Hot American Summer recently on dvd. And they're mad little films, because to most people they're not terribly funny, but I loved them. They're kind of like throwbacks to Savage Steve Holland movies. Any film taking the piss out of HedoPorn is a good thing too.
Sept. 16, 2002, 9:06 a.m. CST
But is it good enough to join Mike Myers' "Dieter" as one of the funniest movies never made? Also, thanks for the info of CLUB DREAD. There's been precious little out there, so every morsel is appreciated! I want to see this movie Meow!
Sept. 16, 2002, 10:08 a.m. CST
by Smilin'Jack Ruby
Hahahahaha. You're right, this does sound pretty fucking hilarious.
Sept. 16, 2002, 10:16 a.m. CST
I feel there's a fine line difference between what the Phantom Editor did with Episode I and what Clean Flicks does with all movies. The Phantom Edit was like painting a mostache on the Mona Lisa -- it was done out of creativity and love for the source material, but also to thumb his nose at the mainstream that worships the material as sacred. Clean Flicks is like putting a pair of swim trunks on Michelangelo's David. It's totally disrespectful to the source material. Also, the Phantom Editor didn't sell his cut of Episode I. Clean Flicks is a company purely about making profit from ruining these films. And while I'm on this note, the DGA should sue Blockbuster as well as Clean Flicks. Both of them censor films to make them more "Family friendly". At least Clean Flicks has the balls to do it openly. Rent Last Tango in Paris at your local Blockbuster and look for the poorly-superimposed lamp. Also, make sure to see where it says ANYWHERE that the film was modified from its original cut. Frankly, if you don't like the sex, violence, language, or any other content of a film, THEN DON'T FUCKING WATCH IT!!!! Don't go around chopping up movies and making money off of it. If you don't want to see a half-vampire killing other vampires in very graphic ways, then don't rent Blade 2. It's a pretty simple concept. George Carlin put it best when refering to a similar situation with radio. "Your radio has TWO KNOBS on it. One of them will turn it off, and the other one CHANGES THE FUCKING STATION!" The Abstruse One Darryl Mott Jr.
Sept. 16, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
by Rayanne Graff
Thank you. I haven't laughed that hard since 1997.
Sept. 16, 2002, 11:07 a.m. CST
I agree. That is the funniest quote I've read in some time. Mori, you got any more funny quotes from the script? Put them up!!! In fact, you should make photocopies of the script and send it to all of us. I want to read it!
Sept. 16, 2002, 12:28 p.m. CST
He's not funny! Just wanted to be the first to use that quip. sk
Sept. 16, 2002, 12:37 p.m. CST
Some folks just can't get enough of talking about Hell. It's been that way for two-thousand years or more, from scary Inquisitors to Jack Chick comics, to the last Alice Cooper album, to these Hell House people. I wonder what psychological undercurrent lies beneath this morbid fascination? sk
Sept. 16, 2002, 12:49 p.m. CST
I say if u've got the means to do it then fucking do it man, the Phantom Edit needed to be done because Lucas was so far up his own ass to realise that he fucked up. I'd also like to pick up on a point made by another poster, every god damn movie is cut and edited dude so go vent your feeble fury at people like the censor board and TV bosses like when Axel Foley says 'Forget you' instead of fuck you, but dont you go on about Phantom Menace, Moriarty because that piece of shit needed to be edited.
Sept. 16, 2002, 12:51 p.m. CST
Of all the people to be opposed to clean flicks, it surprises me to see Moriarty among them. Surely you must realize what Clean flicks really means for the industry, and that's what matters most these days, right? You see, for those unaware, when ever someone buys a movie from Clean flicks they pay first for the copy of the dvd or movie from some retail outlet and then pay extra for the editing. So, the industry loses no money from these transactions, in fact they gain. Mainly because of the fact that you suddenly have a large portion of the market that doesn't watch rated R movies, suddenly buying/renting them. Hmm, this really hurts, eh? And get off the artsy high horse. You don't care what our complaints our as audience members? Well, then maybe you should get out of mainstream art and stick to making films for festivals or whatnot. If you want to be in the public eye, then you're going to have to deal with the publics opinions. G & PG rated films out-profit rated r movies by more than 1000%. And honestly, you can't tell me that Hollywood just wants to make art and not money, very few of the films that are released these days are considered anywhere near to being art. In the end it comes down to a case of intolerance, why are the general public forced to take filmmakers belief systems down their throat without the ability to spit out what they want. This can be a win-win situation if the intolerance can be overcome. pf
Sept. 16, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
Clearplay and Moviemask are two other services to keep an eye on in the future. Instead of actually editing the movie, they just do a little digital filtering. Currently it only works when you watch on your computer's dvd player, but in the near future some dvd players will have them built. ultimately, all these do is tell the disc when to skip certain parts. Another alternative though and it never actually alters the actual disc. pf
Sept. 16, 2002, 1:20 p.m. CST
and still nada on Superman. This site really jealous of CA or what?
Sept. 16, 2002, 1:25 p.m. CST
nice one junior mcbride, i laughed out loud at that posting. seriously though, what a bunch of assholes... censorship rules! i'm afraid of real life, of something that doesn't fit exactly with my system of beliefs! aside from legal issues, can't people take it upon themselves to utilize some of their "morality" and not edit other peoples work?! THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. actually the idea of some idiot watching an edited version of "E.T." their whole life and then catching the real version in a hotel room someday, hearing the words "penis breath," and having it destroy all their warmfuzzymemories might almost be worth letting this "service" continue. go watch fucking american gladiators and enjoy your hair.
Sept. 16, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST
they want to make M-O-N-E-Y. If you were in charge of Blockbuster what would you decide? "Well, I feel within my heart of hearts that the double-headed dildo fuck-fuck scene is neccessary to the story, Tom. I'll lose my own money on that...to preserve the art for all the people who won't see it." And like the other guy said, Clean Flicks is extra $ for the industry.
Sept. 16, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST
1. Moriarty, thanks for the great information on Action Newsman! I cracked up when I read it, then found myself cracking up all over again half an hour later while remembering the "monkeys with dynamite" line. Great job! 2. On a serious note, regarding Clean Flicks: it seems their mistake is in not consulting with the studios from the get-go to release TV-Friendly -type versions of the movies. I know the studios would have no problem with that, as long as they're getting paid. 3. And finally, on a somber note: ladies and gentlemen, I give you intolerance. It has many names, but two of them seem to be Castaway & Junior McBride.
Sept. 16, 2002, 2:01 p.m. CST
Don't trust whitey!
Sept. 16, 2002, 2:07 p.m. CST
(and Blockbuster edits), the fact is that those edits are done with the owners' consent. They might not like doing them (and maybe they shouldn't), but they made the choice to take the money and make the edits. "Clean Flicks" is stealing the work and releasing their edits without the permission of the owners.
Sept. 16, 2002, 2:22 p.m. CST
just a reminder to castaway and junior mcbride: the true test of tolerance is still to tolerate the intolerant...or at least those you feel are intolerant. Castaway, let me ask you this: if you are able to view a film in its original form, as the director intended it, and halfway across the world in backwards ass utah, some mormon gets to show the film to his kids without hearing "fuck" 90-times per minute, how is this "the religious right forcing their views down your throat?" I agree that cleanflicks needs to get the permission from the individual studios and filmmakers before they proceed on an edit, but if that permission is obtained, wherein lies the problem? Are twisted fucks like Junior mcbride so insecure and threatened by the idea that someone, somewhere out there beliefs in god and has a view morals and values that they will lash out with blind abrasiveness at anyone that doesn't want to show a requiem, caligula, 8mm triple feature to a kindergarden class. and not all christians are the same junior. No doubt you condemn the christian right's "closed mindedness" and then proceed to make statements insinuating that anyone on earth who believes in jesus has the exact same views on everything. some people may find sex and swearing offensive and then still not find the violence in "patriotic" movies such as black hawh down appealing either. yeah, heaven forbid someone should actually believe in god or be patriotic and still profess to know anything about film.
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:26 p.m. CST
by Nathan Huffheinz
I don't understand why Clean Flicks and those who support their tactics on this board can't tell the difference between approved editing and copyright infringement. You can alter a person's copyrighted work to your heart's content, as long as you get their APPROVAL. That is, if you intend to RESELL such works. If a consumer wants to buy an approved version of a film and edit it into an acceptable version for their whole family, there's nothing wrong with that. However, if they sell that edit to other consumers, they are dead in the water. That's the difference between Clean Flicks and the creators of the Phantom Edit; one tries to sell their creation, the other was for private use (or should have been). I would argue just as strongly against the resale of the Phantom Edit, so don't even try to compare the two. Perhaps you can understand the problem with Clean Flicks with this hypothetical situation: I decide to start a new company called Smudged Flicks, which is intended to sell filthy versions of family films. I hire lookalike actors and film sex scenes with them, and I then insert said scenes into the family versions. For example, I use Dennis Quaid and Rachel Griffiths lookalikes for a sex scene and then add it to the end of The Rookie (and then title it The Rookie Gets Nookie). If I sell that on my Smudged Flicks website, do you think Touchstone would be cool with that? How about a version of Air Bud where the Mom gets it on with the dog? The same people who argue for Clean Flicks right to alter their films would denounce me as a sick bastard and would cite the same copyright laws they are violating in order to shut me down. If Clean Flicks gets an OK from the studios (like Blockbuster does), then I don't give a damn if they cut out every H-E-double hockeysticks from The Godfather or every Phuc from Scarface (it'd be a silent movie, but oh well). If they choose to ignore the law, then their sorry Mormon asses should be shut down. And for those who say it's the studios' fault for not making nice movies, tough shite! If the studios decide to alienate the prudish segment of our society by showing tits in Titanic, it's their right. Make your own damned movies if you want G-rated fare.
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:38 p.m. CST
Close, but no cigar. The people who own CleanFlicks and their ilk certainly have a right to buy copies of a movie and edit them in the comfort of their own home FOR THEIR USE. However, they are turning around and selling or renting these altered versions for money without the consent of the original "authors" of the work (i.e., the filmmakers and the studios) and that is what makes it copyright infringement. Fair use doesn't even come into play here. Like Mori, I found it odd that they filed a law suit against the DGA first. To me that's like calling and asking for a polic escort for when you plan on robbing a gun owner's home...
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:44 p.m. CST
by Three Quarks
"Tis better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." This was Abe Lincoln's advice to dipshits such as yourself.
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:49 p.m. CST
Unfortunately, our good editorialist isn't very well informed. Clean Flicks is NOT suing anyone. There are a few rogue video stores which rent out Clean Flicks product, that have banded together to sue the DGA. Clean Flicks does not support this faction, but is rather in discussions with the DGA right now.
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:50 p.m. CST
1. CleanFlicks makes more money for the industry. If I buy a DVD, I have every right to mess with it, edit it however I want. It's the same thing as buying a program and adding modifications. 2. It's hypocritical for the "artistes" of Hollywood to protest this practice. TV and airlines have been doing it for decades. Blockbuster is sneaky about its edits. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the US and abroad that love this service. 3. Back off the religious hatred. Mormon filmmakers are making their own movies (God's Army, The Other Side of Heaven), as are Christians (Left behind, The Omega Code), as are Greek Orthodoxes (My Big Fat Greek Wedding). No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat with a clean edit. it's another option out there. 5. You can't compare this to a Picasso or a Michelangelo or anything like that. There are millions oc opies of movies. If someone takes one copy in a million and cuts out some dirty words and nudie shots and gore shots, that's their right as a consumer. Bottom line: You are completely wrong about this, Moriarty. it is censorship to demand that any viewer can only see any copy of a movie with all the vulgar stuff left in. If that's the stance the DGA is going to take, they'd better remove all moves from TV, airlines and they should revoke some of the tapes from blockbuzter. They won't because the movie business is supposed to make money. it is a suppression of freedom to ban consumers from removing what they don't want. Consider it a custom install of software. i see to my right that hate speech is banned from this board. Does that apply to Christians too?
Sept. 16, 2002, 3:53 p.m. CST
Jesus was MARRIED to Mary of Magdalena, she was not a prostitute, she was his INITIATOR, the one who first introduced him to his mentor, John the Baptist. They had several sons and daughters, he was a vegetarian, and he believed in REINCARNATION. He was not of Nazareth (a small town established only in the THIRD century), he was a Nazarene, a brother of a jewish mystical sect. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Sept. 16, 2002, 4:30 p.m. CST
you're missing the point... these films ARE NOT being re-edited by private consumers for their own use, but someone who IS making money off of someone else's product. (please tell me to open my ears if these organizations are all non-profit) i'm surprised all the folks who post on this site that are so rabid about the "injustices of filesharing" aren't all over this topic! regardless of this issue, can't people just accept that certain art might just not be for them? go back to creating more lame b-movies about the end of the world and how jesuschristourlordandsavior will save those that believe in him. (all the rest of us will be in hell no doubt - that's where all the good bands will be anyway, right? according to bill hicks...) by the way, modern achilles, got any links to information relating to your last post? curious.
Sept. 16, 2002, 4:32 p.m. CST
Now don't go and confuse anybody with facts...
Sept. 16, 2002, 4:47 p.m. CST
Great that it's not (as all remakes must die). Besides, nobody can play a character in over-the-top fashion the way that Roddy McDowell can.
Sept. 16, 2002, 5:43 p.m. CST
by The Garbage Man
"Helloeverybodyniceseeingyouagain," indeed. If you've never seen Portland news, thank your favorite deity.
Sept. 16, 2002, 6:06 p.m. CST
Sept. 16, 2002, 6:07 p.m. CST
If you want to talk about funny un-produced scripts then what about Tony Clifton? If only Jim Carrey and Milos Forman were smart enough to make it instead of Man On The Moon. There are rumbles that a certain imitator with some higer-ups are interested. Read it here: http://www.subcin.com/tony.html
Sept. 16, 2002, 7:03 p.m. CST
Portland, OR news teams are infamous. Do a Google search for the exploding whale live news coverage in Oregon. Cleanflicks. As much as I hate censorship/edited movies, blah blah... I feel Cleanflicks has the right to sell edited flicks. They don't have the right to edit these flicks for resell. Hollywood regularly edits films airlines, broadcast, markets like Malayasia, Indonesia, India, Saudi Arbia, etc... Cleanflicks should request those edited versions, if they wish to carry such product. As for Lucas, I have no sympathy over The Phantom Edit. He showed complete contempt for his work when he made Greedo fire first, destroying most of the character development of Han Solo. He proved he has no respect for his films, so why should we respect his movies? He treats them as adverts to market toys. He should be happy, The Phantom Edit helps sell more toys.
Sept. 16, 2002, 7:23 p.m. CST
"1)Usually,the T.V. and Blockbuster edits are done with the STUDIO'S consent, not the director or producer." True, but the studio has purchased those rights from the director or producer - they're theirs. "2) CleanFlicks is stealing nothing. If I buy a video, it's mine. I own it." Uh, no. You've purchased the right to view "the software", not to alter it. You can alter it for your own use and no one will catch you at it, but that's not the same thing as having the right to. "Does Armani bitch and moan when I have one of his suits altered to fit me the way I'm most comfortable with? No." Ridiculous "example" - the suit is sold to you with the expectation you will alter it. Also, it's not intellectual property. "The artist has presented their vision to the public in the form of a product. The public is free to do whatever they like with it." Uh, no - that's what copyright protection is all about. The artist retains his rights to his material; he releases it to the public to be viewed in the form he set it into.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:21 p.m. CST
I'd love to see their fking mormon heads explode. Damn mormons can suck my hairy ass.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:24 p.m. CST
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:32 p.m. CST
Yur opinons of brumfeield are funy. I wish you hade a spelchekker tho. And please, let the guy make more than a couple of movies before declaring him the greatest anything of all time.
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:35 p.m. CST
by Three Quarks
If Lucas doesn't care about his films, why did he bother to make Greedo fire first? He did it because he saw something he wanted to change and changed it though he knew it would piss us off. He did it anyway, which shows he has some integrity. Which doesn't change the fact that he's gone insane, of course. As for the Phantom Edit... Moriarty, the guy who made it made it because he wanted to see it edited that way, so why should he restrain himself? It's clearly labeled as a re-edit done by someone other than the creator, and if we want to see how someone else fucked around with the film, why not? Lucas fucked with films he did when he was a different man. Just look at the subject of this comment!
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:39 p.m. CST
by Three Quarks
...speaking of fucking with movies, I'm also a big Mystery Science Theater 3000 fan. Ever try to watch "Alien from LA" without them goofing on it? *shudder* Fuck the director's vision, especially if he sucks!
Sept. 16, 2002, 8:45 p.m. CST
There is a Clean Flicks knockoff called Clean Hits in the Seattle area, I guess, and I heard the two owners on the radio. One of them defended what they do with the analogy "If I bought a Monet painting and I painted a mustache on it, that would be my right, because I own it." I think that pretty much sums it all up. What they're doing may or may not be legal, but it definitely is stupid. Why would you paint a mustache on a painting of flowers, anyway? p.s. I agree with all the talkbackers who have said that the studios should pull the clean versions from airplanes and tv. what in fuck is wrong with our culture, we can't even watch a fuckin movie correctly
Sept. 16, 2002, 9:18 p.m. CST
I'd never heard of that Salo mentioned in the article and I found that it was on Amazon, theres a criterion dvd, used it appears, and it goes for over $100!! what kind of bullshit is that? -------------------- Someone know where theres a friggin copy of this movie that isnt so ridiculously expensive? Obviously it isnt rentable anywhere, or is it?? Most disgusting and disturbing movie ever made? I demand to see it! Also, there should always be a cheap alternative to the 'spiffy' collectors edition for those of us who want to see a movie but of course dont want to spend that much and would never be able to see it locally or rent it locally. -------------Also, editing things out is bullshit. Plain and simple. If a scene is a problem, every player has fast forward and every parent has a hand to put over their kid's eyes. The poorly trained monkeys with dynamite need to show up at that place and teach'em a lesson aggressive pyro chimp style!
Sept. 16, 2002, 9:27 p.m. CST
What these people are doing is profiteering by doing someone else's parenting for them. There are no short cuts to raising children, unless what you want is a zombie who is unprepared to live in the real world. I'm not talking about sitting a six-year-old down to watch Hellraiser, but there is plenty of entertainment out there with legitimate, cross-generational themes. Seek it out -- don't whitewash something until it fits your moral worldview.
Sept. 16, 2002, 9:27 p.m. CST
Clean flicks is a buisness, and like all American buisnesses they ARE IN THIS FOR MONEY!! You can tell me all you want that they are trying to make more films available to the people who are interested in plot lines and not in sex, violence, and language, but I do not buy it. If they only had films like TITANIC, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SCHINDLERS LIST, etc. that are historical, somewhat educational movies I MIGHT think differently. BUT they also have films like STARSHIP TROOPERS, BLOW, TOTAL RECALL etc. I like these movie but there is only like a half hour left if you remove all the violence, nudity, and language. THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY. I hope after all is said and done concerning the lawsuits they have to clean shit off of toilets to make thier money. As far as having them make "Mormon films" There are Mormon films, They just don't make it out of UTAH or if they do it is on video playing in the local Ward house! I do not know how good they are because I CHOOSE not to see them becuase of thier content but you know what, even if all mormon propaganda was edited from these films I would still have no desire to see them.
Sept. 17, 2002, 12:19 a.m. CST
...is that they represent the put your head in the sand culture. Legally, what they did is wrong. Period, end of story. Morally...well, I guess I don't have a problem with people editing for their own amusement, but it annoys the living shit out of me that we as a culture are so furiously anal and didactic about content...it's fiction, you morons. One of the definitions of insanity is an inability to distinguish between fact and fiction, and I truly believe a form of that is at play here. Editing TITANIC? Good God, it's not like they were whipping out a can of Crisco and a Great Dane! Do these same people not allow their kids to go to art museums? 'Cause the scene was laid out like an awful lot of classic paintings. Legally: they blew it. As Americans, they have the right to "cleaned" entertainment. But Karmically? They desperately need a gigantic kick in the ass. This is beyond pathetic. One thing I firmly assert is that if you genuinely think the world's gone to Hell, you have a responsibility to take yourself out of the situation. If it's that bad, join the damned Amish. At least they have the integrity to put their money where their mouth is, and not bastardize a finished product to tailor to their whiny half-assed, narrow-as-Elvis-Costello's-tie-in-1982 world view. This is the ultimate wimp out: soiling your diapers about how bad the game is, but still demanding to play. Legally, they have the right to exist, but these are weak, pig-ignorant, pathetic people. Yeah, they have the right to exist, but it's like listening to the whiny kid on the playground bitch about how he wants to play football, but he's too much of a pussy to play it the way every other kid has decided to play. Eventually, in one form or another, that kid gets his way, to the detriment of every other kid on the ground. Bitch all you want about Freddie Prinze Jr, but Clean Flicks are the real lowest common denominator.
Sept. 17, 2002, 2:04 a.m. CST
It appears that message boards are the last bastion for haters to spew their venom. People, can't we debate something without calling for the rape of thousands of people, demanding the death of millions? Enbd the hate. Stop the road rage ont he information superhighway. Grow up. Breathe. Reading some of the stuff still up here, I'd love to know what AICN's definition of hate speech is.
Sept. 17, 2002, 2:53 a.m. CST
by Wild At Heart
In CASINO when the Irish hoodlum gets his head crushed in the vice, the scene can be transformed by a little clever digital editing. Now, the offending torture implement can be replaced by a bunch of wriggly, fuzzywuzzy baby kittens. The kids will think that when the guy's eye gets popped across the room it was because of lotsa happy snuggles. Works for me.
Sept. 17, 2002, 11:13 a.m. CST
A while ago there used to be a place that would take movies people had already bought and edit them. The networks and cable tv chop things up to bits, both to excise sex and violence and to fit within running time. And to fit in commercials. It's all about money folks. Ever seen a great old popcorn flick on USA/WGN where they insert a commercial right the guy is jumping across the buildings? Do directors do these tv edits themselves? I don't know. I sort of doubt it. If you've bought a copy of the movie my opinion is it's just like a book. You can highlight books, you can skip chapters or pages. You can blackout curse words. If you want. As long as you are not keeper of the original master. Yes you are changing the experience of the work, maybe to it's core. That's your decision. And maybe there should be a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie: "Edited for content by Cleanflicks". As for Phantom Menace- I'd be wary of buying a copy. That would seem like buying a bootleg and allow others to profit off a work they were not authorized to. But once all the Star Wars are out on DVD and I've bought them, I can't wait to cut together my own personal saga. p.s. For the IMAX of episode two, I hope that the pastoral cow riding scene is gone and the video game plug factory conveyor belt sequence is edited down. It'd be nice to see him get his hand cut for symbolism's sake.
Sept. 17, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST
Just thought you should know; while I agree it's no good thing fer the kids to see Goodfellas, if all that hypothetical Hoo-Haa really HAPPENED? Maybe ya should finally Il-egalize guns, y'know, finally obey the 'No Guns' signs in alla yore cowboy movies? John Wayne said to me "If'n ya don't want anither Columbine, get ridda all them dang guns!" (assholes) sorry, that last part was to any gun owners out there. Yeah, don't want columbine? Fine, blame guns then (and the availability of) not movies.
Sept. 17, 2002, 1:27 p.m. CST
Will Ferrell as a christmas elf? Could be funny...
Sept. 17, 2002, 1:45 p.m. CST
by the jaseman
It seems to me that the #1 problem with CleanFlicks is that the filmmakers/studios don't feel like they are getting their cut. Sure, they can filibuster about "viewing an artistic vision in its entirety," but that only lasts until an airline or a broadcast channel wants to air the movie. Then the movies get edited like crazy. Have you heard some of the TV edits lately? "Suck my dick" becomes "suck my toe"!? Hell, even the majority of trailers are edited for general audiences and the dialogue is toned down sometimes. I agree with Krillian that the industry still makes plenty of money on CleanFlicks sales, because someone has to buy a copy of the movie and then edit it. It's the rentals part where the studios lose money, and therefore care. But the studios always have the option of making those "sanctioned" edited movies available to the public and removing the middleman altogether. This just might happen once they start losing enough money. And to all the dicks getting pissy about Mormons (this includes you, MORIARTY), they need to realize that there is a family market out there (and not just in Utah) demanding edited, or at least family-friendly product. I didn't grow up in Utah, but I live there now and I've seen CleanFlicks-type stores in Utah, Idaho, Arizona, and California. The fact is that of the highest grossing movies of all time, the majority of them are not R-rated. I, personally, don't rent at CleanFlicks, but I'm not opposed to people going there. Especially if it means they get exposed to movies and directors they otherwise wouldn't see. I don't care if someone sees a largely bloodless "Panic Room" if it means they get exposed to Fincher. I don't see you jerkwads complain when they release a DVD with the theatrical version and the uncut version. Oh, so it's somehow okay if we get MORE of the lewdness, but if they cut some out, that's not being true to the original version. Which original version? The uncut one that the director edited down to get the rating they wanted? Or the theatrical version? There will always be plenty of uncut violent, offensive, distasteful films to satisfy the filmgeeks on this message board. But don't complain because others don't have the same tastes as you, which is good. It allows you to continue that (ironically so) higher-than-thou attitude about movies. If anything, you might think that a web-based message board about movies might be more positive about getting more people to watch more movies.
Sept. 17, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST
...don`t get me wrong. i`m a discussion geek...but what these dudes want is just insane. and btw: violence (i`m not a war-supporter) just belongs to us humans. so because art is a mirror of the society it has the duty to show also violence!!! ###################do you wanna see some KILLBILL stills?? http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020916-349193,00.html#
Sept. 17, 2002, 4:19 p.m. CST
I just wanted to clear up a few things. First, everyone who has compared Cleanflix to cable and netweork televsion is simply wrong. Cleanflix has not paid for a license to edit the films. I'm certain there is no agreement between the studios (or the respective copyright owner) and Cleanflix regarding their edits. Second, Cleanflix is infringing on more than just the filmmakers copyright interests. If they edit a portion out of a scene with a music bed, they have infringed the rights of the musician. If they edit a portion out of a scene depicting someone's artwork, they infringe that artists work. And of course, all of this done without any agreement. Without any discussion of rights. Without any exchange of money. As far as I'm concerned Cleanflix should be one of the rooms in Hell House. Didn't anyone ever remind these nuts that "though shalt not steel." I guess not. Mori. . . Promise me that the DGA has filed a cross-complaint, and tell me where to send my money to support it.
Sept. 17, 2002, 5:19 p.m. CST
Whoa, I can't help but feel that some of you guys are kinda missing the point - this isn't necessarily about taste - its not a matter of some people liking more violence and sex and some not - I think its about people trying to alter those things in life that bother them so that they no longer do. It's the idea of it. People not consuming products they find offensive is a great thing, its called choice, but changing film and media so that what is actually explicit or uncompromising is rendered palateable is changing the message - no learning is accomplished and the intention of the "art" is lost. How can we expect to have anyone come to any new conclusions if they have means of insuring that they are never challenged? It seems to me that we are approaching a state of self-sponsored propoganda if we agree that the only things wrong with this are copyright infringement and money. The idea to me is completely abhorent. While you can say that a movie edited for TV does this anyway, I would put to you that there isn't the same level of intent - most people aren't fooled by the "suck my toe", and are aware of the editing - But also, I have to admit that by coddling and avoiding challenging your own repressions or values, or that of your children, you aren't doing yourself any favors, and you're sure not growing as an intelligent person. BTW, if the movie is too graphic for kids - then get another one, or read to them. Just one man's opinion.
Sept. 17, 2002, 8:49 p.m. CST
Every story I've seen say they have purchased no rights to edit these movies in any way at all. Like someone else said, have them just make an agreement with the studio to resell the TV version, which the studio, with perhaps some input from the director recut. Personally I think this whole idea of recutting for the family market seems like censorship. Honestly, these parents or mormons or what not should just not watch these movies. They don't go to art museums and put post it notes over the junk on nudes do they? If you want to maintain a clean life, you shouldn't be watching the cut ones anyway. This whole moral majority bullshit is fking up america, i wonder when were are gonna reach the Escape from LA point. Just remember, its all "FOR THE CHILDREN"
Sept. 17, 2002, 10:12 p.m. CST
"2) I still say if I buy a product, I'm free to do whatever I want with it short of making a profit". Technically, the "product" you have purchased is not the contents of the copy of the movie/song/book/whatever, but a "license" to view/listen/read those contents. You may think the concept of "intellectual property" is peculiar, but without these protections there is no incentive for anyone to create anything truly new because it'll immediately be stolen and/or altered and distributed by others. Copyright and patent law provide a climate that fosters innovation - and the US in particular has done very well over the past couple of centuries due to that policy.
Sept. 18, 2002, 8:18 a.m. CST
Sept. 18, 2002, 12:24 p.m. CST
I gather i actually have the right to 'buy' or 'license' a recording. I'm also gathering i have the right to edit such a recording, should i have the materials to do so. But what i'm hearing here is i don't have the right to pay someone else to edit said recording. Now, i hate the edited for tv version of well, anything, just as much as most of the people here, but i'm not sure i see the problem with this. I've lived with a mormon, i know how picky the devout ones can be about film/tv/music. If there is something they don't want to/can't see, they won't. What's that mean for the industry? Just another lost sale. in a simple form, yes, this is censorship, but its a requested censorship. You don't walk into cleanflicks looking for sex and violence, it'd be like looking for playboy in a christian book store. These people know what they are buying, and as long as i still can buy the real or, as was posted earlier, extended cut versions, why should i care what other people do?
Sept. 18, 2002, 10:16 p.m. CST
by Bababooey Fett
Most biblical scholars & historians date the 54 or so 'secret' gospels found at Nag Hammadi in 1945 at the third or fourth century AD. This is about 100 years AFTER the NT gospels. Most of the texts are translations & excerpts from earlier works that have been edited to fit the Gnostic form of Christianity that was competing with the form that became the core of the 'catholic' church. Gnostic christianity is a more spiritial, almost Zen Buddhist, style, that de-emphesizes the crucified & resurrected Christ & substitutes him with a new-age guru.
Sept. 19, 2002, 6:30 a.m. CST
by Bababooey Fett
The Dead Sea Scrolls are known as the Qumran. They are different from the Nag Hammadi or Apocrypha. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a more ancient text than many gospels, since they predate the existence of christ. The book of Enoch is NOT identical to the gospel of St. Thomas. Enoch is a Qumran text,dating 200 years Before Christ. Thomas is a gospel (teachings of JC) with a date of 200-400 AD. An aside: Far eastern philosophy does not justify the teachings of Jesus, it somewhat undermines the meaning of it.
Sept. 19, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST
by Bababooey Fett
New-age garbage was fueled by Gnostic teachings as evident in the Nag Hammadi. Those texts (including Thomas) focused on christ as spiritial mentor - salvation through the individual achievement of existential knowledge. This is quite similiar to the teachings of the Zen Buddhists. Whether or not Gnostism was influenced by Buddhism or other eastern religious traditions, I cannot say. My best recollection about Thomas (not being a religious scholar, myself) is that it was a collection of Jesus sayings, out of context, that drew heavily on the gospel of Mark. What distinguishes it, besides its contraversial notions of JC's heterosexual relations with Mary Magdelene) is that it is almost certainly editorialized to emphesize the spiritual (like new-ageism).
Sept. 19, 2002, 7:34 p.m. CST
Moriarty, you of all people should realize the door this opens to the kiddies out there. They are greatly deprived of great films because of 'uncuitable images'. I remember how Harry was saying in his Your Mother review how kids should steer away from the movie blockbuster of the week and into Y Tu Mama Tambien. Now they can watch it any ol time. Granted a LOT of stuff won't be there that there was originally, but that's better than nothing.