|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: "FilthyFlicks" vs. "Clean-Flicks"
|
James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-26-2002 10:39 PM
On the subject of "bad words", I don't believe there is such a thing.
There are only words that we have been brought up to think are bad.
Seriously, why are words like shit, piss, and fuck considered "bad"?
I was once told that it all started with the Anglo-Saxons and the Norms, but Im not sure if it is true.
I do, however, dislike the overuse of these "bad" words or any words for that matter.
Darn it, just imagine how darn stupid I would sound if I used the word darn every darn time I wanted to say something, darn it?
Get my point?
I don't think anyone considers darn a "bad" word, but it sounds pretty stupid if used over and over again.
But I don't mind a little fuck and shit thrown in here and there, as long as its not thrown for shock value as was mentioned earlier.I wonder what the "Clean-Flick" version of Freddy Got Fingered would look like.
I probably still wouldnt want to see it. ------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell "It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-27-2002 12:12 PM
<<White people don't talk like that, but that's part of what made it funny and I don't know of any black people who were offended by it.>>There are some white people who talk like that, although Ill admit that Ive only known a few, and they may not have used it as much as they did in Pilp Fiction.
I think Spike Lee was the only one who got offended by that if i remember correctly. ------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell "It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 09-28-2002 10:03 AM
My problem with this whole thing is that the studios want to have it both ways. Some small time video store owner edits some content out of a movie, and they scream foul claiming that it is a violation of their artistic integrity (moral argument) and copyright (legal argument). Yet these same studios have no problem cutting out pretty much the same scenes and editing language so they can make money off the airlines. The simple solution, for the studios anyway, would be for them to release the airline versions, either on video or DVD, to the general public because there obviously is a market for it. But it will never happen. All the creative types are scared to death as to what would happen if the public actually had a choice. For instance, what would have happen if they would have released (on video) two versions of Titanic? The original version and an edited PG version. What would have happen if said PG version had outsold the PG-13 version? Hollywood is afraid of the slippery slope that such an event might cause. Many Hollywood types are already upset that the studios are forcing them to tone things down to get a more public friendly PG-13 rating on a lot of films (How dare the studios actually want to make a profit). What would they do when it is finally realized that the public wants more movies that they can take their families too or even feel comfortable dropping their kids off at a megaplex? Who cares if the majority of the public stays away from theaters and theater chains go bankrupt? So long as they can continue making pictures that they want to make. This is why you can go to Best Buy and buy the original cut, the director's cut, the special edition cut, the Key Grip's cut, but you will never see the clean airline public friendly version.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 09-28-2002 11:36 AM
It's illegal and they should be stopped. So what if the studios pick up the idea and run with it? It's their product, their rights and their prerogative.The airline version is just that -- a version for the airlines. That should be the only place you can see that. Same for the TV edition...it should be seen only on TV (if at all). If I make a movie and I agree that a couple of "soft" versions will be made for specific applications, it shouldn't automatically be presumed that other versions are going to be okay, too. Especially if the editing was not supervised by me or one of my agents. Frankly, if I make an R rated film then I'm already accepting the fact that some people (possibly a lot of people) won't patronize it. I must not want their money that badly. Screw 'em. Rent something else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 09-28-2002 06:38 PM
But Manny it is not illegal, at least until a court of law rules that it is. I am not 100% sure that they will. If I was arguing on behalf of Clean Flicks, I would argue that if people were not allowed to watch the movie, that they have already purchase, the way that they choose, than it would be the same as if the studios were to sue someone for say watching the first hour of a movie than going to bed before finishing it. Because hey, if I didn't watch it from start to finish without interruption, than I didn't watch it as the director intended. So if someone were to say use the restroom while they are at the movie theater, can the studio than sue them for not seeing the film as the studio intended? What if someone were to cover their eyes during a scary part?I just want to reiterate, this is not my persional belief. I am just presenting a valid legal position. The legal world dosn't always exist in the same plain as the real world as I am sure that everyone here has read court decisions that have defied any sense of logic and common sense. Now as far as what I really think. I don't know if I really have a position on this. I can see both sides of the issue and I could make a case for both sides. I have always been a property rights advocate so I guess it would depend on who really owns the movie that is on that video tape or DVD once it is purchased by the consumer. And that is another legal argument for another day.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic