By the way, the first time I saw Schindler’s list was in Switzerland. At least they subtitle instead of dub movies over there…

A couple months later I saw Schindler’s List again, this time in London and was stunned to find out that they cut a whole hour in the Swiss version, which rendered the movie into a light comedy.

Well, elwed, wasn’t WWII just a “light comedy” for the Swiss?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. The Swiss are a bit closed-mouthed about that time, so even living there doesn’t help, other than noticing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” bit.

I’m not sure how this differs from hitting the fast-forward button, except you’re paying someone to hit the button for you.  Retarded, yes; but so what?

Personally, I don’t like it when the studio beauracracy chops a film, or tv edits for “time and content”, but if somebody wants to slash it up so they can live in their fairytale land, well, I think they have a right to.  As long as they make notice that they’ve butchered the film.  I sure as shit would NOT watch a heavily censored version. 

I don’t have a problem with radio edits in music, as long as I can get the uncensored version, and they’re clearly marked. 

Maybe that’s the long term goal of the far right.  Censor the scary, bad stuff out of war movies, so death in battle looks cool.  That way you have plenty of volunteers for the military down the line.

This kind of censorship wades the murky line between the horrible edits I have seen on network television and video style book burning.  It seems to be for parents that are to selfish to wait to watch the real version when the kids are in bed.

but many Hollywood Directors (at least 15 named in a lawsuit including Stephen Soderberg and other Academy Award Winners) still strongly object about their intellectual property being battered in this manner - they see this as an intellectual property and artistic integrity issue - I agree.

Yes.  If these people don’t want to see the movies as the directors crafted it, they should make their own goddamned movies or continue to watch such utter excrement as “Veggie Tales” and the god-awful “Left Behind.”

The airline and TV (cleaned up) versions of films are made WITH the assistance of the films’ directors, precisely so their artistic vision isn’t butchered in the editing.  For some religious HACKS to take it upon themselves to sanitize someone else’s art is reprehensible and offensive.  Fucksticks.

Aesthetically, I’m outraged—but, damn, aesthetically I’m outraged by some directors/writers/producers’ visions, anyway, and nobody consults me about that, either. 

(For that matter, why should the directors get the final canonical “say” in the version that shows up, vs. the writers? Or the writers of the source material?)

*If* they are buying one original copy per, then, as DOF notes above, it’s just like hiring someone to say, “Hey, this part is too scary for you kids, lets fast-forward over it.”

It seems to be for parents that are to selfish to wait to watch the real version when the kids are in bed.

While there may be some of that, some of it may be simply that they *themselves* don’t want to see what they consider to be excessive gore, foul language, etc.

Maybe that’s the long term goal of the far right.  Censor the scary, bad stuff out of war movies, so death in battle looks cool.  That way you have plenty of volunteers for the military down the line.

Do you really think that the bowdlerized version of “Saving Private Ryan” comes out as a light comedy or an army recruitment film?  I strongly suspect not.

For some religious HACKS to take it upon themselves to sanitize someone else’s art is reprehensible and offensive.

If they are doing it just for themselves, then that’s their call.  If they are doing it so that *I* can’t see the version I choose, then let me find a brick to throw at them.

Perhaps the test should be to turn this around—have someone make a sanitized version of Gibson’s
“Passion of the Christ” (which was critized by many for its excessive gore and being “unnecessarily violent”—and not just by the fundies) and see what the reaction is (from either side of the debate).

((Hmmm.  I need to remember the difference between the B tag and the QUOTE tag ...))

Personally my opinion is that if you are not willing to accept a director’s vision - sex, violence and bad language included - then you should not receive the gift of that movie at all.

Art is art.

Agreed. If you don’t like something, fine, but you have no right under the sun to ruin it for everybody else!

If it’s just for their own viewing, well, then that’s their right. But from an artistic standpoint, I still personally find it pretty repugnant.

These people have had a vendetta against art for centuries. Personally, I think it’s high time the art world takes a vendetta against them. Then again, they don’t deserve that kind of attention. Oh, well.

Perhaps the test should be to turn this around—have someone make a sanitized version of Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ� (which was critized by many for its excessive gore and being “unnecessarily violent�—and not just by the fundies) and see what the reaction is

Oh, they’re perfectly OK with Christian splatter flicks… my guess is they’d be outraged at a sanitized Passion.

Oh, they’re perfectly OK with Christian splatter flicks… my guess is they’d be outraged at a sanitized Passion.

That’d be my guess as well, since I’ve seen that one advertised in the windows at Christian children’s stores (no shit).

Do you really think that the bowdlerized version of “Saving Private Ryanâ€? comes out as a light comedy or an army recruitment film?  I strongly suspect not.

No, not THAT far.

I see it as sanitizing the reality of war, so you don’t really think about just how ugly/horrifying combat can be.  Makes it easier to commit troops to something if the people aren’t thinking about how the troops may die.  The war films I’ve seen in my childhood tended to have the “ooff, uuuhh...go on without me...” death scenes.  Makes death in battle look like a discomfort, not a big, screaming for mama, blood shooting everywhere, painful ordeal. 

If you don’t like something, fine, but you have no right under the sun to ruin it for everybody else!

As long as I can get the original, I really don’t care if they sanitize it for themselves.  I have no beef with a CleanFlicks store, as long as they don’t try to stop me from watching an unedited version.

I lived in Utah for four years, so I’m used to this.

In any case, I agree that if people want to live in a fantasy land without excessive gore or what have you, let them edit for themselves. It’s when it becomes outright censorship that I start sharpening my pitchfork.

I wonder what the right would say to a censored version of Passion?

I wonder what the right would say to a censored version of Passion?

blah blah blah anti-Christian bigotry! blah blah blah we’re being persecuted by liberals/the mainstream/ rationalists/ Europeans/ Muslisms/ West Coast-ers/ basically anyone and everyone who’s not us, again! blah blah blah blasphemy! blah blah blah politically correctness! blah blah blah anti-family! blah blah blah the Left is downplowing Jesus’ message again! blah blah blah

Basically the same crap they throw at us all the time, I’d wager.

Yeah, you’re probably right.

Deoxy: Personally my opinion is that if you are not willing to accept a director’s vision - sex, violence and bad language included - then you should not receive the gift of that movie at all.

Gift?  Gift???

*slaps forhead* I’ve been PAYING for movies all these years like an idiot.  Where do I sign up to receive them as gifts?

I note, for the record, that CleanFlicks has a version of the Passion of the Christ.  As does Flick’s Club.

In any case, I agree that if people want to live in a fantasy land without excessive gore or what have you, let them edit for themselves.

I’m not sure that wanting to avoid “excessive gore” in one’s life is emblematic of wanting to live “in a fantasy land.” I haven’t seen Gibson’s Passion largely because I didn’t feel the need, didn’t want to deal with the “excessive gore,” and didn’t think I would be entertained (which is usually why I watch a movie).

I’m not sure that wanting to avoid “excessive gore� in one’s life is emblematic of wanting to live “in a fantasy land.

I think it’s more that, along with excessive gore, these people also like their “entertainment” free of sex, drugs, pleasure, fun, “blasphemy,” and other realities of life. I was actually under the impression that a lot of them aren’t particularly offended by violence itself.

It’s like the South Park movie satirized the cultural conservatives and their war on entertainment: “You can have all the violence you want as long as there are no naughty words!” Somewhat simplified, sure, but still it seemed a fairly accurate appraisal to me, if you also add “sex” and “drugs” to “no naughty words.”

Gift?  Gift???

*slaps forhead* I’ve been PAYING for movies all these years like an idiot.  Where do I sign up to receive them as gifts?

I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “gifts”.

Maybe being an atheist I have this humility about me because I’m not arrogant enough to believe in some bizarrely vain and selfish doctrine that teaches people that some magic man in the sky who created everything really gives a crap about my problems.
Maybe because I believe that when I die I just frickin die - dead - nothing else - I don’t believe that when I die if I’m fawning enough towards said “magic man” I’ll end up in a magic happy land forever.
That just seems awfully arrogant, selfish and vain to me.  That’s what happens with atheists I think.

In my opinion, some movies you almost can’t ask too much money for.

Schindlers List changed my life - I would have almost been willing to get a mortgage to see that film if I’d known how profoundly it would have affected me.

Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” film trilogy was a rendering of the book that I had dreamt and hoped for since I was 8 years old.

I spent a total of $250 to see the movies in the theatre and to buy all the collectors sets and stuff that they put out afterwards, the accompanying books and even video games that were based upon Jackson’s vision.

Those movies took immense creative visionary genius, artistic talent, hard work, technical knowhow, making use of the extraordinary skills of literally hundreds of people.

I payed $250 to get to see all of that and all I had to do was show up to a theatre and place a few on-line orders.

You call that “paying”? 

No Daryl, I call that a gift from some extremely talented people. There is no other way I could have experienced some of the great movies I’ve seen in my life had those people not been willing to put in the hard work and take the financial risk in making the movies in the first place.

Humility. It rocks.

Regards,

Deoxy.

Oh, Zilch, thanks for cracking me up with the remark about the swiss.

Must confess I loved that one. Maybe because I’m a born and bred Brit.

Dunno.

To Decrepitoldfool

I’m not sure how this differs from hitting the fast-forward button, except you’re paying someone to hit the button for you.  Retarded, yes; but so what?

I think it’s very different.

They are changing someones creative vision and presenting it with the directors name on it to other people as a fair representation of their work to their families.

They aren’t fair representations of shizzle - they are pale imitations of movies that might have been great or at the very least wonderfully creative and entertaining.

How would Christians feel if we changed the bible - take all the bits out of it that we don’t like - You know like Revelations perhaps? How about 1 Timothy, Chapter 2 (and in fact all of the Gnostic gospels) for the misogyny?
How about the bits the speak ill of homosexuality?
How’s about we remove the stories that involve slavery, incest, people selling their own children to god or to other people?

How’s about we cut it down to the stuff that makes sense? (it would be more of a pamphlet if we did that) - translate it into modern language too? Remove the whole concept of “The Devil/Beast” and “Hell”.

How about we take our edited version and present that as a valid representation of what Christians believe to other people?

To SexySadie Your point was probably the best one… I had to laugh because you’re so right.

To TalkingSoup, I just wanted to express my sympathies for your time spent in Utah.  I know I had nothing to do with it but I’m still sorry to hear you went through that.  If I wasn’t an atheist I might pray for you or something.

Regards,
Deoxy.

I don’t know what you call $9.50 (or <$20 for a DVD ) to witness a what may be a lifechanging piece of artistic genius but I call them “giftsâ€?.

Or maybe...wait for it...somebody else gave the movies to you!! That would make it a gift, would not it, Darrell?

Anyway, I agree with you, Deoxy, about great art being a gift to the world. Just because some very unenlightened individuals can’t and don’t appreciate it does not make it any less of a gift for those of us who do appreciate it.

To SexySadie Your point was probably the best one… I had to laugh because you’re so right.

Thanks, man. Just doing what I can to spread some merriment in this sad world.

How would Christians feel if we changed the bible - take all the bits out of it that we don’t like

You refer to the Jefferson Bible? His contemporaries were like petulant children - “but, but, but, he excised the best parts! Mommy!”

Deoxy,
Thanks. It was a pretty traumatizing experience.

***Dave,
I was pretty much just making a point. I don’t care if people censor what they watch, so long as they’re not trying to censor what I watch too. I have the same thoughts on religion--"don’t shove it down my throat.”

I’m a writer (or I pretend to be), so I can understand the issue of destroying creative vision. I figure if you’re going to censor something, censor whatever really, really doesn’t need to be there. Mostly for the sake of children--if you’re an adult, either don’t watch the movie or hit the fast forward.