Convert Movies From R to PG13 to PG On The Fly 499
uchi writes "Trilogy Studios announced the launch of its "Movie Mask" web site - www.moviemask.com , which will eventually lead up to the release of its "Movie Mask DVD Player" and "Movie Mask Director" software. The Director software will allow users to selectively add/edit a video adding graphics and special effects, which is nothing special in my opinion. The Movie Mask DVD Player, on the other hand, will allow its users to download a movie config file(for lack of a better term) which will have various portions of the movies to bleep/cut out depending on the rating which the person set. It can be changed on the fly while watching the video. This seems like a good idea - it would allow many people who don't wish to be subjected to violence/nudity/language a chance to watch any movie they want without waiting months for it to be released on network television, already PG-13ized."
How about the other way? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about the other way? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about the other way? (Score:2)
Re:How about the other way? (Score:2)
Re:How about the other way? (Score:2)
You're joking, but I think that's almost the point. Instead of cutting bits out of the film to acheive a certain rating, you leave everything in. Then if you want to focus on the nudity you're able to do that, while somebody else can still watch the PG13 version
With the current system the movie distributor has to find a compromise that will maximize sales. With this system that's not needed.
Excellent idea but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Fight (Score:2, Funny)
This is good - the copyright control freaks and the "think of the children" advocates can fight it out in the corner while we get on with our lives with "real" DVD players and films.
What about the JJ -- NJJ Editing? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about the JJ -- NJJ Editing? (Score:5, Insightful)
A new generation of homegrown-editors will spring up on the net. You'll get the web sites devoted to erasing annoying characters from otherwise watchable movies. But you'll get so much more.
You'll get "family-friendly" web sites devoted to removing only the sexual references, but leave in John Wayne killing natives with a dagger. Other editors will run web sites that remove the violence but leave the sex.
You'll also end up with violence-prone editors. They'll give you the "Good parts" edition of Dirty Harry, featuring just the gun battles and punk shakedowns. Playboy will probably run versions of popular movies just skipping to the sex scenes.
You'll get the Short Attention Span Theatre's version of Waterworld. It'll be three minutes long, and people will still complain that it's too long! The site'll probably be run by the Cliff's Notes people, and will probably give the Cliff's Notes edition of all sorts of old classics.
Certain editors will probably become wildly popular because they trim all sorts of bad and long popular movies down to their viewable components. Before long, the RIAA will get involved because someone will come up with a "Commercial Product Placement Skipping" version.
This could be the Next Big Thing!
John
Re:What about the JJ -- NJJ Editing? (Score:2, Funny)
Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:4, Troll)
Well well, i guess it may be useful in some cases atleast, and it sounds like its quite simple to implement, just tag each "scene" in the movie with a "recommendated age tag" and skip those which are improper.
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you really want to keep your kids from watching those kinds of movies, then try to give them values. Even if they watch those movies then, they at least won't share them with you, and you'll feel better... Who knows, they actually might even listen! Don't play censorship cop, be a parent...
Concepts on Parenting (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, sometimes being a parent is playing censorship cop. Giving them values is a matter of course, but that takes time, and in the interim it's sometimes necessary to censor. I take the view that it's better to preview a movie myself to decide if it's appropriate for my kids, but sometimes there's a movie of much value that has inappropriate parts, and (like the original story said) I don't necessarily want to wait for the sanitized version to appear on network TV. In this case, my goal isn't to prevent them from watching the movie, but to let them watch the movie but cut out the few parts that are not appropriate for them. The best example is "The Name of the Rose", which is a really good murder mystery, but has one rather graphic sex scene. I'd let a thirteen year-old watch the movie, as it's a good film, but that one scene throws the whole thing, and IMHO removing it is a better approach than simply forbidding the whole movie.
Virg
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really pretty simple, aside from getting parents to actually 1) keep parental access away from their kids and 2) play an active role in their child's life. After all, if the kid's renting his own movies, it's quite possible that the parents have left the child-raising to the TV anyway, and are not going to want to have to "work" to protect the kids from "bad pictures".
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:2)
Yes, kids will find a way around if they feel some need to. Kids with a good upbringing, however, will likely not feel compelled to suvert their parents' authority in such a manner. Kids with parents that care will also have parents that keep track of what they're doing, instead of letting them run off and do whatever they want unsupervised. That's what parenting is, despite what the "my job/my life comes before my family" worthless parents in this country think.
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm 23 and have been waiting for this feature for a long time. I prefer my movies without sex and without language. Most of my family feels the same way, and we are all adults.
Strangely, I didn't even think of kids when I read this item.
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. Even before the 'talkies' appeared on the scene, they'd put the essential dialogue into the movie as a sort of 'slide'. Offhand, I can't think of any movies with no language at all, though I expect there are some animated ones with language only in the titles and credits.
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:3, Informative)
Because it might be one 10-second scene out of a 2 hour movie that I don't want my kids to see just yet. (Age 11, Movie: Blade, Scene: Opening where the guy who keeps losing his hand as getting a blow job at the rave -- everything else is cool).
Because you won't know that is in there until you see it the first time -- which means I can set a file for the DVDs I own that allows the kids to watch certain R-rated DVDs (like Highlander) but not others, like John Carpenter's Vampires, or clip parts of others.
Re:Fine feature, but for who ? (Score:2)
No, the MPAA (oops, sorry, I meant their puppets, the politicians) will just tack some more language on their next DMCA that makes circumvention of an age restriction device punishable by law.
What does that give ya? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, any PG-aged kid I know would either STILL know what's going on, or if not, would be curious enough to ask WHY they are smkoking. What is it we're trying to prevent here? The actual knowledge of the subject, or an example of it?
Re:What does that give ya? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does that give ya? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually a good thing for parents who want to rent videos for the whole family to watch. It's incredibly embarrassing for a parent when there are graphic depictions of sexuality in what would otherwise be a very entertaining film. Take Jerry McGuire... you rent it for the family and the scene pops up where Kelly Preston is bouncing on Tom Cruise's lap and screaming, "Don't you ever stop fucking me!" Even though you never see her full body, the scene is way too intense for kids.
Yeah, I know where the fast forward button is on my VCR, but the movie isn't entertaining for me if I have to sit on the edge of my seat with remote in hand, waiting for questionable material.
Compounding the problem is the "Director's Cut" that comes out on the DVD's. There are probably a lot of examples where a movie that had a mild amount of adult content turned it up to 11 on the Director's Cut DVD.
I applaud any technology that aids me as a parent.
-----
Re:What does that give ya? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you live in a world where all directors are ascetic celibates. However, in my world, directors often add nude scenes because they like to see live nude girls doing what they tell them to do. About Basic Instinct, the American writer gave some song and dance about the artistic necessity of the nudity and sexual situations in the film...the Dutch director was much more straightforward. He liked looking at naked women. I doubt that you disapprove of his opinions. Why then do you disapprove of the opinions of people who DON'T want to look at naked women?
What this thing produces are censored versions of movies.
The word is "expurgated." You apparently live in a world where if a person denies anything to themself, then Big Brother won't let them watch it. (Censorship is editing by others). If someone else wants to avoid hearing profanity, or vulgarity, or obscenity, why not let them? If you have the right to hear those words in a movie, why should someone else not have the right to NOT hear those words?
It's great that directors can do anything they want to with their films. Fair use lets other people do anything they want with those films, as long as it's for their own use. What do you have against fair use? What do you have against people deciding for themselves what to see and what to hear?
Most importantly, what do you have against a device that COMPLETELY takes the wind out of the sails of anyone who wants to censor movies "for the children"? Don't want your kids to see Pocahontas's cleavage? Download the anti-cleavage config file and pop the DVD in. Want to share Star Wars with your kids but don't like the word "damn"? Download the anti-swearing config file and have at it. The only people who'll be able to complain about the content of movies now will be demonstrably bad parents - ie, ones who refuse to manage the content their children are exposed to.
P.S. If you don't think parents should manage what their kids are exposed to, then I encourage you to take your two- and three-year old to a slasher flick. Several sleepless nights will ensue and you'll learn the hard way.
What about the reverse? (Score:2, Informative)
What I want to know is... (Score:2)
Scary FAQ (Score:2)
Anyway, it says on their website FAQ [moviemask.com] that this will be included in "Next Generation" DVD players. What is a NG player? Apparently "A next generation DVD player is a DVD player that has a hard drive and internet capability. They are 25 companies currently that plan to release these type of players within the next 12 months."
Ah joy. I love the thought of needing a DVD player that can store stuff and dialup companies for me. Maybe I will be able to get streaming advertising or something when I press the pause button.
Why oh why do we need a new generation of DVD players?
Re:Scary FAQ (Score:2)
This is exactly what we need. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:2)
And it will still contain more meaningful content and better music than a Spice Girls concert.
This is great... (Score:5, Funny)
I really like this idea. Personally I have no problem with sex, nudity, etc., but I'm really squeamish about certain types of violence. It would be really cool if I could set my personal viewing preferences to "maximum sex, minimum torture", while still allowing other people to watch "no sex please, but lots of violence". It's a brilliant idea.
Re:This is great... (Score:2)
Re:This is great... (Score:2)
I know exactly what you mean. The first time I saw Clerks [imdb.com] was with friends and I thought it was brilliant. So when I was spending the week with my girlfriend's family and we wanted to rent a movie I mentioned how much I liked it and us "young folk" rented it. Somehow I forgot just how crude the movie is - or I guess I just didn't notice the first time around.
It's not nearly as funny if your girlfriend's mother is sitting in the room when one of characters discovers she's just had sex with a corpse.
I'm not sure this rating system would have saved me though. The movie really wouldn't be the same without the crude jokes.
Re:This is great... (Score:4, Funny)
A friend of mine is the daughter of an actress who appeared years ago in a TV series that has been repeated. Try watching your mom's sex scene with your mom....
Re:This is great... (Score:2)
I guess the difference between you and a reasonable human being is that a reasonable human being WOULD feel embarassed. Watching "Real Life Cop Shootouts XXIV" ranks right up there with belching contests, empty gunracks in your pickup truck, and owning 14 hound dogs
More Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Course I would rather PG-PG-13-R :) (Score:2, Funny)
Jar JAR less phantom menace (Score:2)
We could make a more "official" jar jar-less Episode I without scouring (no pun intended) for phantom edit copies/files. Because, jar-jar is truly offensive to me. =P
E.
Re:Jar JAR less phantom menace (Score:2)
You think that's bad? Not only did someone beat me to mentioning the Jar Jar-less Phantom Menace cut, but someone beat me to mentioning that they were beaten to mentioning the Jar Jar-less Phantom Menance cut.
(To clarify for everyone else, since it wasn't fully explained: There's a recut version of The Phantom Menance floating around that makes Jar Jar's role almost insignificant. It was alleged to have been done by Kevin Smith, though he denied it. If the recut version were to be translated into a set of editting commands to be applied to a legitimate copy of The Phantom Menace, it would obviously circumvent copyright issues.)
Also, it would be nice to see this technology used to insert cut scenes back into the movie for DVDs that don't automatically support it. For example, on the X-Men DVD, there's a "branching version" option that automatically includes the alternate versions of the scenes on the DVD into the movie in a somewhat seamless fashion (except for a small delay). On the Goonies DVD, however, it features a number of cut scenes (such as the kids fighting an octopus by the pirate ship), but no way to watch the entire movie with those scenes put back in.
Doesn't standard DVD already offer this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't standard DVD already offer this? (Score:3, Informative)
Although all DVD-authoring systems (okay, not iDVD), have the ability to read the parental guidence registry very few DVDs have ever used this feature. It seriously would take two lines of script to implement this feature. Somthing like:
Jump To SexScene if SPRM13 < X
Jump To NextScene if SPRM13 >=X
Most studios stand by their "film as an art", so it never gets done. This product is a third party coming in, whether one agrees with it or not, and adding a feature which a good portion of the consumers want.
How many want it? Enough that SPRM13 was a register set aside in the DVD spec just for parental control.
Limiting ratings (Score:2)
Come'ere you mutha*censored**censored**censored**censored*!! I'll bust your *censored**censored**censored**censored**censored
You'd have to remove Joe Pesci all together!
Re:Limiting ratings (Score:2)
Implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way to actually implement it is with a password system that allows parents to set the rating, and automatically downloads the correct config file. It would still be a pain, though.
As an alternative, we might see different ratings become a standard feature on DVDs, with password protection built into the player. That way, you wouldn't need a computer to get the protection.
Still, within a few weeks after the release of the player, we'll probably see hacks posted everywhere that mess up the config file so 12-year-old script kiddies can see the nudity. Never underestimate kids in search of pr0n.
Re:Implementation (Score:2)
hilarious, but excellent insight: "In order to use it, the system "will allow its users to download a movie config file". Why would kids go through the trouble of downloading a config file to avoid seeing nudity and cursing?!"
Ratings are silly (Score:2)
Oh sure, everybody wants content labeling so they know what they're getting, and god forbid some little kid should see guts splashed on the walls, but there are things about the rating system that seem to ooze enforcement of a moral standard nobody voted on.
For example, most scenes of full-frontal nudity or drug use automatically get you an R, regardless of the context. You probably couldn't film Michaelangelo sculpting "David" without getting an R. If you do a movie about drug use and how it will lead you down the path of destruction, you're going to get an R if you show anybody smoking a cigarette that is *insinuated* as being a joint. Better not show a person taking allergy shots, because that heroine abuse will get you an R!
And then there's the all-feared NC-17. The rating that knocks things out of theaters, makes studio execs cower in fear, and little babies all over the nation cry. Mostly sexual content lands you an NC-17. And not "pornography". Anything that has sexual content outside of what you see in "morally wholesome" movies will get you an NC-17. Since NC-17 is such a financial death sentence, no movie wants one and consequentially no content that would get you an NC-17 is ever released to the general public.
Now I'm not saying that I like all of my movies to have porn, violence, and drug use, but we're adults here. (Well, maybe I shouldn't say that on slashdot, but you know what I mean) Ratings seem appropriate *MAYBE* to protect little kids, (we'll ignore the fact that the parents should be doing that instead of the MPAA, but anyway) but I'm an adult and I don't want to be protected from anything.
Ratings make me uncomfortable because I know for a fact that there's content I don't see due to them, (like some things getting NC-17s) because it's a system built upon a "moral foundation" that I don't share. (Guns & death are better than sex and drugs) and because they're shoved down the throats of all age groups despite the fact that they only really pertain to a small subsection of the population.
Let's not figure out methods of moving from one rating to another, let's figure out how to fix or eliminate them.
Re:Ratings are silly (Score:2)
Ratings exist for a purpose. (Score:2)
All of the things that we watch and listen to shape us, even if that shaping is in a very very minor way. They affect the way that we perceive the world around us, and the way that we make decisions. This is the origin of the idea of the "important film."
I choose not to be shaped by violence, drugs and rampant sexual permissiveness. This is part of my freedom. The movie makers are free to make whatever films they want, and we are free to patronize them or not. I respect your right in the US to make and watch films which are focused on ideas and world views that are in conflict with my world view. I'm glad you have that right.
WRT to the issue of movies being edited so that they meet some criteria in a raings system, I believe that the digitization of movies will allow much greater freedom in the area of "director's releases." This should do a great deal to alleviate your concerns about having someone else's world view shape your choices.
On the topic of the financial death sentence of the NC-17 rating - it boils down to what the customer wants.
Interestingly, the American public is apparently less interested in movies with "R" content than those with "G" content. This [dove.org] report shows that "G" rated movies make a 78% better ROI than "R" movies.
Hollywood is more interested in doing a poor job of telling a story and livening up the movie with explosions, guns, and of course, bare breasts in sexual settings, than it is in making money. These things lead to pats on the back from their "artistic peers" and statistically this must be more important than making $$
After using the ratings system to assist with the triage process, I then choose to refer to information-based websites like Screenit [screenit.com] which give me a tremendous amount of information about the movie's contents and lets me make an informed decision about whether I want to see what the director wanted to say.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS - God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
Re:Ratings Suck. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for saying it.
Most mindboggling thing about 9/11 - a moment where the censors just popped in raw video footage from a guy who had a handicam pointed in the right/wrong place when the second plane went in.
The reaction of the camera holder was predictable: A scream of "Holy fucking Christ!"
The news guy apologized profusely for the language. I blurted out in shock and laughter at the patent absurdity of that ("What the fuck?"), and a person next to me said, in a concerned voice, "Well, you know there might be children watching"
Yeah, lady, your crotchfruit have just spent the past three hours watching 6000 people get incinerated, crushed, and splattering on the ground like sacks of wet cement, over and over again, live and on replay on National TV, and you're worried about them being emotionally damaged by hearing naughty words?!?!
Holy fucking Christ indeed. Holy fucking Christ.
Good, but dangerous (Score:2)
Yes, directors voluntarily choose to destroy their movies for the sake of the censors, but there still is pressure put on them from the studios. While I don't have a particular problem with this technology (it's technology, therefore it's morally neutral), I do see this as a negative for the film industry. This is especially true for films where the director (or some other single visionary) doesn't have the final say on post-production. I think of "Eyes Wide Shut", a film which was bastardized in large part by Blockbuster and the major movie theatres which refuse to show NC-17 films.
Again, it's technology, it's voluntary, so there's not much you can do about it, but it's by no means a positive thing.
It ain't art, it's business (Score:2, Troll)
Anybody is free to make NC-17 films, they just shouldn't be surprised that major theatres don't consider them worthwhile. Let them send their films to the art houses and indie theaters instead, if they want them shown that badly. If they prove to be a hit, the major theaters will follow.
The way I see it, this technology will allow films to be seen that otherwise would not have been, with the only cost being the snipping of some "naughty bits." Who cares?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Useful in schools (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a real use in this. My wife is a highschool history teacher. There are many movies that she would like to be able to show, but because of some bad language, nudity, or violence, she is not able to use the films. Community standards are a bitch. If she could pop a DVD in, hit the PG rating and let it roll, that would be great.
Beyond that, there are some movies that I think my nieces and nephews would enjoy that I have seen, that have bits in them that are just not appropriate at their age. This would help with that too.
I'll probably get flamed all to hell from the slashdot (everything must be free!) zealots now...
Re:Useful in schools (Score:2)
Re:Useful in schools (Score:4, Insightful)
Btw, I'm not an everything must be free zealot.
Re:Useful in schools (Score:2)
Yes. And if you think violence is bad, you should convince all the violent people not to hurt each other. And if you think war is bad, you should get all the warmongers in the world to hold hands and sing "Give peace a chance." And if you think Microsoft is bad, you should convince everyone not to buy Microsoft products.
I think we've solved all the problems now.
By the way, I'm being sarcastic.
Re:Useful in schools (Score:2)
Warning - this is not a flame from a FREE FREE FREE guy. This is just a thought!
At school, aged... 13, we were watching movies in English class with Tits and Bums in them. It was most amusing for us young chaps! Generally they were Shakespeare works, one Lady McBeth stands out in my mind.. mmmm... naked literary babes. ANYWAY Didn't harm us a bit. Within 5 minutes we just got used to it and took it as read that mad Miss Smith let us watch ladie films.
A HISTORY teacher should be teaching the following through examples:
Censorship is bad.
Prohibition is bad.
Democracy is good.
Don't mess with the kids.
We are all cleverer than our parents, our kids are cleverer than us - they can handle more than we could.
And if they can't - just lock em up for life - plenty more where they came from!
Re:Useful in schools (Score:3)
Exactly. This is why, we have to worry about nukes in the hands of any semi-technological nation, while our parents only had to worry about nukes from two nations, and their parents only had to worry about aerially dropped conventional explosives, and their parents only had to worry about machine guns, and their parents only had to worry about repeating shotguns...
You are not significantly smarter than the human beings who preceeded you. It only appears that way because you haven't yet stumbled onto the fact that the world is much more complex than it seems to a child.
Don't mess with the kids.
Good point, that one. In any battle between the aged and the young, side with the young. Time is on their side, and Time is an unbeatable ally.
Re:Useful in schools (Score:2)
As an aside, we also watched The Little Buddha in the same class - please tell your wife never to show this movie as it will undoubtedly lead to her students mocking Keanu Reeves portrayal of Sadartha Buddhartha (sorry for my spelling and or mangling of this name) by saying, in Bill and Ted fashion, "Woah, I'm, like, totally enlightened dude!"
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, why would I want to ruin a director's vision of what s/he would like the audience to see?
None for me, thanks.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Gee, what a great attitude! Let's apply it to software.
"Why would I want to ruin a developer's vision of what s/he would like the user to see?"
Possibly because the developer is not omniscient and can't decide what all users will want to see. Possibly because the developer's vision is flawed. (Phantom Menace 1.1, anyone?) Possibly for reasons I can't begin to imagine but which will become obvious once the device is on the market.
This is already in the DVD spec (Score:2)
No foul language?? (Score:2)
Imagina using this option on the south park movie. You'd be watching a black screen for 90 minutes
What about the Writer/Director (Score:2, Interesting)
Could we also rip out pages of a book to eliminate the offensive materials without the author's permission?
A better idea ... (Score:2)
Suddenly Star Trek Generations would be worth watching :)
Great Idea (Score:2)
In my opinion, you can pull these things out many times without affecting the plot in any way. I'll buy this box as soon as it shows up at Walmart.
This is illegal (Score:2)
D
No it's not (Score:4, Insightful)
They are selling technology that _allows_ the user (who already has the mmovies) to make small (?) modifications to the film. It's nothing that I caouldn't do with the mute button and fast forward, just a lot more convient.
If they were reselling films they've edited, that would be. But that's not what they are doing.
The director's vision (Score:2, Interesting)
Movies are made from a script with certain events and dialogue, and the director has the unifying vision that drives how it's all shot and put together. When the viewer can select what is in the movie and what is cut, it's no longer the movie the director made, unless the movie was made with this in mind.
Just like viewing a pan-and-scanned movie (you don't see the movie that was shot), this changes the movie you watch. Should we extend this technology so in an art museum we can wear special glasses that allow us to put clothes on the nudes?
(I recently saw an exhibit that happened to feature some nude paintings and there was a big warning out front - "Might be offensive!")
OK, here's a very debatable point: movies are art. Not necessarily good art, but art nonetheless. Even if you don't agree, they are very complex creations requiring the effort of many people over long periods - surely so much effort is worth something.
I don't know -- certainly people have the right to choose not to see/watch things that offend them, but do they have the right to change works of art? To screw with the artist's vision? Even to change very complex creations that may not be "art" but took a helluva lot of effort...?
Hmmm.
What happened to movies as art? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt any claims that violence and sex in various mediums are the root causes of any ills of society. But I think that the lack of any concept of artistic integrity points to where humanity's problems DO come from.
LS
Re:What happened to movies as art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Closed caption TV filtering (Score:2)
It's made by a Christian company so in addition to curses, you can filter stuff like using God's name in vain. Personally I think it's a decent idea. If it's a choice between devices like this, and lobbying congress to censor our music, tv, and movies I'll take the devices. Of course you still run into the same problems with internet censorware - some parents will inevitably see this as a replacement for actual supervision, and they won't be aware of what their children are viewing.
In my opinion, it's a lot worse to not supervise your kids, than to have them hear a curse or two..
Predictably... (Score:2, Interesting)
Quite a few Hollywood movies are otherwise excellent productions that have been ruined by the addition of gratuitous sex, nudity, violence, coarse language, and so on. Why? Hollywood believes that it sells. But the truth is that most people don't appreciate the garbage, and would go see movies without it, and would be just as entertained. That's why edited movies [familysafemedia.com] are so popular.
There are plenty of adults who prefer not to be exposed to unnecessary filth. Call us old-fashioned, uptight, naive. But the fact is that we're the ones holding the country together by raising good strong families.
And don't excuse the garbage that Hollywood pushes by saying that movies just mirror reality. If anything, they present a selective view of reality -- there is much more to life than sex and violence!
DVD recordables anyone? (Score:2)
Now that we'll be having DVD recorders it is quite easy to jam your home video from the camera onto the DVD
and use software like this to cut out the boring pieces. Not as good as the professional solution but you would also
not need 2 VCRs, editing equipment and 4 weeks holiday
What kind of movies do you get at the end ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinking of movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "Apocalypse Now", "The Matrix", "Terminator", "The Wild Bunch", "Rocky", "Scarface", - heck, even "Star Wars", where the movies turn crucially on scenes that would be deleted. In the above movies, for instance, if you delete the violence you end up with something that is incomprehensible.
Right Idea, wrong direction. (Score:2)
1) FBI warning (Film Buisness Investigations?)
2) Those annoying commercials at the beginning
of the movie.
3) The "Feature presentation" crap...let me watch the fricking movie already!
Pardon me for pointing out the blatantly obvious, but did anyone notice that saving private ryan was on the front of the page?
Kind of silly as it have to simply eject the disk once it was put in. Good movie, but deeply distrubing.
cheers
This is already possible with DVD (Score:3, Informative)
Current discs are capable of not being played at all if the disc level is higher than the rating allowed HOWEVER using the "branching" function within the DVD spec it is IIRC possible to branch based on the parental control level.
This way the director can just put alternate chapters both on the disc and setup the branch points and there you go!
No special DVD player, no special software.
I gather however that this raises all sorts of complications with ratings classification.
Good idea. Really (Score:2, Insightful)
Being able to control and choose what you watch seems like "freedom" not "censorship".
Implementation might not be done perfectly here, but it's got the right idea (ie, we should be able to choose our editor and not be stuck with the one the studio provides).
Re:Good idea. Really (Score:2)
Roger Ebert [suntimes.com] is going to be thrilled by this, and it's always good to keep him happy, lest he eat the Earth
Great (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Changing movies from R to PG (Score:2)
Note that all these words have taken on the connotation of their referent. Calling a thing by a different name does not change the thing. The associations that people have with the thing will be associated with the new name.
I would love this (Score:2)
I absolutely love this movie too, and for adults, the extreme violence and profanity help make the movie's point very well. It would have been the most socially relevant movie of the year had it not been for American Beauty.
But since before she started to speak, we cut her off because we didn't want her patterning her speech after the movie or wondering about the toys in Saddam's bedroom, etc. I am now in the process of ripping the DVD, pulling it into an editor, and bleeping, masking and cutting what I don't want her to see to produce a kids movie she loves and I approve of.
This might just make it easier for those without the editing resources.
Re:I would love this -- addition (Score:2)
"Censorship" should be included on the DVD... (Score:2, Insightful)
What I would like to see are multiple datapaths through the DVD of varying "appropriateness" levels that would make more "family-rated" entertainment available. Multiple datapaths are the DVD spec now, and should be supported by every player...all it would take is for the producers of the DVD to include the "mangled for TV" video datapath, dubbed audi and an appropriate menu selection, and we could have family movie night without need for parental preview and fast-forward. Plus, the original theatrical release could be included along with the director's cut, as well as the now-common commentary audio track.
Aside: I do not know if the DVD rating system supports different ratings for different datapaths...anyone have an idea? That may still limit the use of DVDs that those who lock down the rating ceiling on our DVD players. I don't really have any experience, as the version of (Xine [sourceforge.net]) that I run doesn't do ratings. At any rate, I'm still a believer in participating in my child's activities, so that won't slow me down any--but it would be more convenient as a whole. Your kid want to watch "Top Gun?" at his slumber party? Fine...it's just 5 minutes shorter, and the story is just as compelling.
The only obstacles to this, AFAIK, are the additional work requirements of adding the extra dubs, and (perhaps) the objections of the directors/producers/artists involved. It might not be of monumental import...but I do believe that it would help sell more DVDs to parents with young children.
Too indiscriminate to work (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure we can all do without Jar-Jar, no matter what he says, but in general, I can't see this working. Just who are these talented editors, who will cut and snip the patient so well that no one will even know surgery took place?
I told my mother to watch the movie "Brazil" when it was on television some years back. You know what they did? They chepped the ending, to make it a happy one!
How many copyright holders are going to agree to publishing their art in this bastardized format? The opportunistic greedy ones, like Sony et al, will be delighted, I'm sure. And an ugly mess it will be.
From "Brazil":
Dr Jaffe: "Can you believe it?! Just me and my little knife! Snip - snip - slice - slice - Can you believe it?"
and elsewhere:
Mrs Terrain: "My complication had a complication, but Dr. Chapman says I'll soon be up and bouncing about like a young gazelle."
Yeah, right.
Re:Too indiscriminate to work (Score:2)
So...when it's software, then the rights of the user of copyrighted material are at least as important as the rights of the copyright holder. But when it's Art, that's different. I don't buy that. Either MY rights, my enshrined FAIR USE rights are as important as those of the creator...or they're not. Don't like what I do to great art? Fine...don't watch it. Do my edits offend you? You don't have to even know they exist.
Hey! That was *my* idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, actually it was a buddy's idea, but I've been working on it. I have hacked Xine [sourceforge.net] to do on-the-fly edits of DVDs. My code can do various edits now, but I'm just beginning to work on the "edit script" stuff that tells it what to do. My approach is to use a pair of XML files, one that documents the content of a DVD movie, along with links to files with replacement video, audio and subtitles, and one that is a sort of a movie-watching "stylesheet", that specifies how you want the player to handle various kinds of content. Rather than just allowing you to select an MPAA rating level, I'd like to allow you to specify what kinds of things you don't like, what degree you'll accept, and how to deal with it when the movie exceeds those bounds. For example, should the player just fuzz out the boobs, or skip the scene entirely? Or should it go into slow motion so you can watch every jiggle? The content script will also have to have some sort of a "relevance to plot" rating for each section, so that the stylesheet can specify different actions for stuff that matters.
I'm also making the script engine pluggable because I see value in other kinds of scripts. For example, with a more procedural type of script you could string together snippets of video from one or more DVDs, interspersing other bits of video, splashing words or other images over the top, etc., to make collages, artwork, etc.
There seem to be a lot of people questioning whether or not any of this is useful, and I've run into a suprising amount of opposition when I talk to people about it. Here are some uses:
To me, this is about freedom of choice. I like to watch movies, but I may or may not want to watch them in exactly the way Hollywood makes them. This is really going to piss off directors who will feel that the "artistic integrity" of their movies is damaged, but I'm interested in my own entertainment, not in their "artistic integrity", and since I'm paying them, I think it's my choice that matters. Others may be more interested in the message the director is trying to convey, and they're welcome to watch the thing in its entirety. Others may be interested in an easy way to create derivative artworks (until Fair Use is abolished, of course).
I guess I'll abandon my vague ideas of productizing my work (I was quite enjoying the idea of people buying a DVD player and recieving a CD-ROM full of source to all of the GPL code that rus it, "Martha, what in hell is this crap" ;)), but if anyone is interested in helping me work on this, send me an e-mail.
Re:Hey! That was *my* idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just tarball it and post it somewhere with a good timestamp on it. Please! Release a good version later, or not at all, but the sooner prior art simply exists, the better!
Destroy the story?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Movie directors and editors spend thousands of hours in the editing room, cutting a scene here, splicing one back in there, all in hopes of achieving the best story.
Fast foward about a year, with this technology in place in all DVD players and VCRs. People are able to add and delete scenes at will. Yes, you've given choice to the people. Yes, you've made videos that were previously unwatchable in schools available for educational purposes.
But there's a large chance that you may have destroyed the story as it was intended to be presented.
I know this sounds like a fine hair to split. But we the Public pay these guys a heckuva lotta money precisely because they know how to tell a good story. Second guessing them is probably a bad idea.
Just my two cents.
viewing just the "R" portions? (Score:2)
R -> PG-13 (Score:5, Interesting)
From his Movie Answer-Man column on November 4th [suntimes.com]:
The fundamental problem with the MPAA is that it avoids making any kind of common-sense evaluation of a film, and simply counts f-words and evaluates nudity. ''Waking Life,'' one of the most affirmative and challenging films I can imagine for smart teenagers, gets the R rating, while the thriller ''Domestic Disturbance,'' which shows a small child exposed to a murder, an incineration, the beating of his mother (leading to a miscarriage) and the beating of his father, after which the kid himself causes an electrocution, gets the PG-13--presumably because there is no nudity and the language stays below the cut-off point. What sane parent would prefer their teenager to see ''Domestic Disturbance'' rather than "Waking Life''?
To me, this is absurdity. Parents cannot rely on these crap ratings. If you are truly concerned about your children/family, you need to watch the movie yourself beforehand and then make an honest judgement.
Convert all libraries to PG13! (Score:3, Informative)
=========
Banned and Challenged Books
In Texas Public Schools
Title: Puppies (Baby Animals)
Author: Petty, Kate
Synopsis: The book discusses how puppies are born and fed, and how they grow and communicate. Photographs are used to enhance the descriptions.
School District: Columbia-Brazoria ISD, West Columbia
Use: Library, Curriculumn, Wild Peach Elem.
Reason: Profanity/Inappropriate language
Result: Alternative book allowed
Notes: Parent said text referred to female dog as "bitch"
======
We need some kind of device to insert before the eyes of those vulnerable children, that would remove all curse words so that they are not exposed to the abomination of referring to a female dog as a "bitch".
AOTC (Score:3, Funny)
DVD-Spec Already Supports This! (Score:3, Informative)
This was one of the big "cool features" promised way back when DVD was still being introduced. You'd be able to select different "versions" of a film, from a normal DVD player menu, and the player would pick-and-choose specific scenes automatically, and seamlessly (or just about so). The promise was to be able to have a single disc, with a single "super-duper-extra-beyond-director's-cut" version that you'd never, in practice, see. Then you select the "Theatrical Release" and see what you saw in the theater. Select the "Director's Cut" and see what the movie house didn't think would sell but all the rabid fans prefer. Select "TV" and see a cleaned-up version for TV. Select "Morman" and -- oh, nevermind.
Of course, I've never seen this happen, except on one movie (Crash), which allowed you to pick an R or NC-17 version of the same film.
I can think of MANY movies where I wish this feature was used. A good example is Blade Runner. There was the US theatrical release, there was a foreign release (with some additional, gorier footage), a later US release (basically the foreign release), a "Director's Cut" (with the unicorn in and the voice-over out), etc. Wouldn't it be great if you could get all those on a single disc? Or could mix-and-match? Gimme the director's cut, but WITH the narration. I won't even go into what you could do with Brazil (what, didn't the Criterion LD include three separate, complete, full-length cuts?)
Personally, I'd like to see this for many "normal" movies, too. For example, I'd love to recommend "Wild Things" to my mom -- it's a great mindfuck movie. But the sex scenes would probably make her want to stop watching. So she's missing out on a terrific movie.
And the worst of it is that all this capability already exists. The studios just don't want to do it.
So, something like this project seems really cool, especially for people using their own DVD player software to drive their home theater screen. Someone else talked about "Fan Edits." This might even make a good argument for an additional "Fair Use" for DeCSS technology -- providing a value-added service for DVD owners that the studios don't feel like doing.
DVD had such great promise, but very rarely do the studios actually deliver on those promises. How many movies nowadays come with alternate language tracks? With OBSCURE alternate languages? With decent subtitle selection? Now, how many come with "making of" featurettes, stupid storyboard-to-final "worksthops", or animated menus? Which delivers better value to the end user? Which is cheaper to produce?
gah. I gotta find something useful to do...
Re:Removing....Nudity.....Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, creating a branched film which incorporated various versions of scenes could be a great idea, as long as they allow you to select *what* you do or don't see at a fine grained level.
Re:Removing....Nudity.....Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now granted, I doubt it will do much for some films, like the Southpark movie or such great "classic" films like Strip to Kill. Seeing as those films would probably be about 8 minutes long and have nothing even resembling plot if they were cut down a rating... But there are THOUSANDS of films out there that only have content that people find objectionable for their children to watch in a couple scenes which can be cut without significantly dammaging the plot. Take one of my favorite films for example, Top Gun. Most people would probably think that the violence is the worst part of the film, but there is lots of language that I never even realized would have to be cut for TV. I just never thought of it when enjoying the film. Everything form "Mother Goose, you Pussy!" to "You'll be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong" Most parrents don't mind their kids seeing violence as long as it's not overly graphic. But lots of parrents DO mind swearing in movies because their children tend to emmulate it. They tend to emulate some of the violence too (through play, etc) but for whatever reason, this is more acceptable, but that's another discussion entirly...
Another example, Starship Troopers I think, probably a better example... there are about a dozen scenes in that film that add to the atmosphere of the film, but take nothing important away by being cut. The nude scenes (shower and sex scene), for instance, and some of the more graphic scenes of soilders being literally torn apart. You can have a war movie without these scenes. I personally would rather see the movie as it was intended to be seen, but I can understand the choice of parents that want to control what their kids see. In many ways it's not censorship at all, think of it as browsing the films at 4 or 5 rather than ar -1.
The old Blake Edwards movie, "10" (Score:2)
Oh, the arrogance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everybody hunkers down on the family couch for a shared evening of goat sex and snuff films.
Re:An easier solution (Score:2)
Why not both religious and sectarian? (Score:3, Informative)