Slashdot Mirror
Convert Movies From R to PG13 to PG On The Fly
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."
Does it have a "reverse" option so I can add more meaningless nudity and cussing?
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
trance-port
This is a fantastic idea but just like other things it means that parents and people sensitive to things have to use it. Most likely, instead of using these tools they will just complain about the content in the programs instead...
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
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.
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
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.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Ummm... Why........ Hrmmm..... I guess I could see...... WHAT THE HELL? WHO WOULD REMOVE NUDITY FROM A MOVIE?? And for that matter, If a movie had that much violence/nudity I doubt very much that the rest of the movie would be worth removing it. Imagine Enemy at the Gates sans Violence? :P No thanks..
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?
What we really need is a system that will automatically skip to the "good parts..."
a way for the ignorant to protect their precious naivite! huzzah!
next there will be special version of eBooks, which will be available in modes of :
- regular
- idiot
- imbecile
- nimrod
- cretin
- buffoon
- troll
what a wonderful innovation..
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Can it go the other way, as the dual headed arrows suggest?
Well, that seemed an OK idea, but I was thinking "Why can't you already do this within the current DVD framework?" I mean, the editing bit is really simple. If you can stick different camera angles and stuff on DVD's, why not this?
Anyway, it says on their website FAQ 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?
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
But alas, the simplest solution that is staring you in the face is quite often the hardest to realize, especially when there is money and legal issues involved.
If you want people to grow and to get some confidence in their future, you then oughta stop hiding them stuff because you find it offensive.
Info that make you react could be good even if there are limits to <QUIZZ>toleranse</QUIZZ>...
Now, what about actually discussing such issues in order to have censorship sound like advisory instead of authority?
By The Way, would you believe such censoring *tool* when Cybernanny has censored the Bible's text as "violent", "erotic" and "shoking" ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Now, my 4 year old children can benefit from watching my XXX movies tuned down to a G rating. And a 2 minute movie of random people talking and closing credits is perfect for their attention span.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
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.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I think this would be a much better product if they allowed you to set levels for each of language, sex, violence, etc. Although, it does seem that you can make your own "masks", so I guess a third party could do that.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
It's an interesting idea, and I support self censorship over mandated censorship any day. Let ME control what I want. The player seems to be priced reasonably too, for the current market and everything. ;)
I wouldn't be to surprised if some people have issues with this in Hollywood though, having their content and ip messed with by some company... There could be a DMCA case looming for them on the horizon
All in all, it's a nice idea, but with some movies, one has to wonder what would be left? It makes me think about the video/DVD for the movie 'Freddy Got Fingered' and how they had that little 3 minute movie at the end that was the 'pg-rated' version.
I guess it's a good idea for some people, but I wonder if it'll actually be able to change the movie enough, without changing the movie to much... If you don't want your kids to watch a movie, just tell them. If it's an R-rated movie, and they're only 8, they probably don't need to see a PG rated version anyway... If your an adult, and have problems, just fast forward, or ask other people who have seen the movie what it was like before you see it, so you know whether to expect content that you don't like... Remember, no one is MAKING you watch the movie...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
Perhaps one could use this device to 'mask' all the Jar Jar Binks (sp?) scenes from the new Star Wars movies.
Then maybe we'd finally get to see Princess Leia out of the gold bikini...
Also, doesn't Linux kinda have something like this already? I hear Video4Linux is an excellent open source package that does about the same thing.
Is your company running tools written by ma
If anybody thinks that this will be enough to drag the Amish kicking and screaming into the 21st century, that person is sorely mistaken.
Next up, a horse-drawn buggy with a TV/VCR combo to keep the kids in the back seat quiet.
Oh, hello, doctor. Is it time for my medication already? Keyboard? What keyboard?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Couldn't the MPAA object to this technology since it modifies their intellectual property without their permission?
Maybe we could use this technology for good instead of evil...
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.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
I thought that DVD could already do this? Most DVD players have a parental lock feature which can result in by-passing scenes in the movie, e.g. the pie scene in American Pie. What's this offering that we don't already have?
Some movies should have limits. Like "Goodfellas" should not be able to go to a PG13 rating, it should stay 'R'. Cause, quite honestly, you wouldn't have a clue what the story was if they bleeped all the words out!
* *censored*!!! *censored*!!
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!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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?!
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.
Ceci n'est pas une sig
I guess to ensure that no children are harmed during the distribution of a movie, all movies will default to a Rated-G version. Films like Robocop would consist primarily of opening and closing credits. Soundtracks would be similarly altered so that the music is altered to appropriately tilted tracks from "KidTunes".
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Fantasia -> Minnie Does Orlando
Shrek -> Scrog
Little Mermaid -> Deep Inside Little Mermaid
Just wondering...
I've been hoping for a while now that somebody would impliment at least a portion of my fantasy DVD player. This is a start.
Ratings are a really weird moral artifact - I sometimes wonder why they still exist.
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.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
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.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Especially if these config files aren't made by him. If it isn't what the director intends, it isn't the real film.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
More exciting is the posibility of having director's cuts and the normal version of a movie on the one DVD or being able to download fan re-edits ala 'The Phantom Edit' for movies.
Damn, are slashdot readers sarcastic and pessimistic or what? I think the first 25 comments I read thought this was a laughable product.
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...
Casca
That doesn't mean I'm going to have my kids watch an R rated movie with this thing. Sure you can take out cussing, violence and nudity - but what about mature themes? Kids aren't immune to those.
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.
As with so many other neat things, this is in the DVD spec; you can assign a rating to a section of audio/video, and tell the player to play only a certain level or below. Or, use seamless branching. Or, buy your movies at Wal-Mart or Blockbuster where they're pre-censered for your convenience and safety.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Not everybody hunkers down on the family couch for a shared evening of goat sex and snuff films.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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.
:)
Imagina using this option on the south park movie. You'd be watching a black screen for 90 minutes
I intend to live forever, so far so good.
I saw Natural Born *******. It is a nice love story between a bald man and a girl. But it seems to me a very short movie. Only 5 minutes long.
Now I'm going to see A Clockwork Orange and Pulp Fiction
MOD THE CHILD UP!
I think that's a great idea. It allows you to watch the movie at whichever rating makes you comfortable, but doesn't remove the other stuff for people that want more.
It gives the best of both worlds. Now here's a question, what happens to a porn if your crank it down to PG? Does the acting suddenly become better and a plot suddenly developes?
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Where their are so many cuts to the movie that the viewer does not have a clue what is going on..
I wonder how the Directors Guild will react?
Another Wild-Eyed CANADIAN.
You're saying that these movies will be generated by a cadre of configured config files? On the fly? Heh.
Check out http://www.familytv.org/
Is there a difference between having a religious angle for filtering and a sectarian angle? Might we be going down the same path as the peacefire.org about what makes "the cut" and what doesn't?
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I don't think it's really 'on the fly'. Someone has to write to 'movie config files' on advance. So it doesn't work for live programs like the news. It would be really cool if this could be don't by the movieplayer it self.
Movie making is an art form that very few people can do well. What about the impact of deleting out violent scenes has on the overall impact of the movie? Doesn't this device impact on screenwriter/director's rights?
Could we also rip out pages of a book to eliminate the offensive materials without the author's permission?
Suddenly Star Trek Generations would be worth watching :)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
There are movies every now and then that I would like to watch with my under-8-year-old kids, but the few spots with fu*k type words and/or scenes with excessive gore nix that option.
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.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
We can finally see Jar Jar binks getting sodomized, killed, and his body fed to a band of Ewoks? I really like this idea of increasing the rating of a movie.
I think a bad aspect of this is that it allows viewers to muck with the director's vision at will. (And yes, the MPAA does it all the time.)
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.
I thought that cinema was form of art. In the future, will museums provide glasses to selectively block genitals and breasts on certain paintings? Will e-book readers have settings too? Must everything be compromised and converted into interactive fiction?
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
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
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?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It doesn't look like the same company, but there is a company that makes this kind of device for TV watching. What it does is it monitors the closed caption signal and bleeps out words that could be considered offensive. I think you can set it to display replacement words on screen, like darn instead of damn.
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..
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 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!
I just hate it to see those 'home-videos' that just last forever because the owner hasn't got the equipment (or time) to make a nice edit.
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
Does this mean we can make G - rated movies a little more exciting?
Jessica Rabbit...Snow White...Smurfette..Betty Boop
I can't imagine how this is going to work well. If the player automatically strips out violence/sex/offensive language, what will this do to movies where certain such scenes are integral ?
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.
Complaining that nobody voted on our moral standard is a clear indication that you're very young. Some form of moral standard is necessary for any society to function. And I'll tip you to a little secret: The entire thing is a give-and-take situation.
There are very few people happy with 100% of any society's unvoted moral code. That's why people push the edge. That's why other people complain about edge-pushers. There are reasons for being more liberal in some aspects and there are very good reasons for being more conservative in others. The moral code of a society is constantly in motion. And if it moves too slow for you, too bad. Rapid changes in societies cause instability and chaos.
I agree that the current ratings system (G ... NC-17) is broken. But abolishing it is not an answer. Some reviewers have been adding content
based ratings to their movie reviews. This is informal, but a step in the right direction.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
How about players that autoskip/mask:
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
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
Well since we're talking about DVDs here, why not have it available in separate (off-disc, available on the net) config files which are made by the objecting parties? They won't be that large (unless you're supporting alternate scenes and language), you could download them in large batches and load them automatically. You'd just need a specially configured player with maybe a compact flash or small hard drive to hold them. Just distribute advance copies to certain groups so that they can make their modification files in time for the DVD release, and let the right-wingers deprive themselves of their movies instead of doing it to the rest of us.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I personally can't stand any form of censorship. Partially because it doesn't work in the way it should, i.e. young people sees what they shouldn't see, because the adults, especially the parents, doesn't take any responsibility at all for their kids these days. A parent who would get one of these devices is not in the category who REALLY needs to take care of their kids, and quite possibly is trying very hard to control their children instead of teaching them about taking responsibilty for their own life.
And then we have the nutcases, who thinks the moral decline in today's youth is because of the word "FUCK!" being said on TV or on the Radio. Get real, please.
Bottom line, this product isn't the solution to the problem.
Most DVD players have a parental control feature that can be set between 1 and 7 and then password locked.
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.
[)amien
I know I'd like my kids to be able to watch Forrest Gump without the sex scene. While I'm fine with them knowing about sex, and knowing that characters in the film are "doing it" - I don't think they need to watch it (and this is a much better solution than fast-forward).
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).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
While the fact that Wal-Mart is of the opinon that I should not hear bad language and therefore only sells clean versions of CD's it does not appear that they care about the content of the DVD's that they put on their shelves. The other day I was in the Wal-Mart electronics department and noticed a copy of the R rated movie American Pie, in which a kid gets his grove on with baked goods, sitting next to a copy of Shreck, the squeeky clean animated movie.
Ironic that Wal-Mart wont let me hear dirty words but I can see baked goods being humped...
This is a very powerful tool for parents wishing to take responsibility for what their children see and hear, rather than making big brother do it for them, this appears to be a completely configurable option for exposing children to wanton, gratuitous sex and violence in otherwise great films, which in my opinion, sometimes spoils the entire experience. I am in no way a prudish censorist, as anyone who knows me will attest, but I rather like movies that don't resort to sex and violence as a shock value, because it becomes more and more difficult as time goes on to top yourself, just let the plot and the story do the talking, then it will be decided whether your movie is worthy of being viewed.
I hate sigs.
Slashdot pages however are well worth a penny - maybe even two.
This isnt a troll, its a joke. +1 Funny not -1 Troll.
In the case of decency standards, take the words "screw" and "fuck" -- which mean the same thing, but one of them is considered so harmful that films and CD's containing the word actually carry warning labels. "Fuck" is just a syllable -- the notion of what is considered a dirty word is completely arbitrary. When I was ten, I had an idea for solving the problem of "foul language" in movies: just declare that at midnight on the next January 1st, all swear words are reclassified as "slang" so they're not swear words any more.
The entire "Why we do this" page [rant :)] is quite interesting; well worth a read. Not like any of it would ever happen. :)
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
My toddler daughter absolutely loved the South Park movie. With the songs and animation, it's a perfect kids movie -- well, except for the violence and profanity.
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.
sack my dirk, muddy funster.
Thanks to technology we can insulate ourselves from ideas and thoughts without lighting a bonfire.
Does this mean I will be able to see sex scenes in the Little Mermaid if I switch the rating system to X, or whatever the highest is?
The top 1,000 Web sites agree that everyone will switch over to a penny per page on a specific date under a unified system.
The sites need to work together. If some sites switch and others don't, you will get the same problem that happens now when a site decides to unilaterally charge for its content. If there is not a uniform and super-simple billing model (so that users get one simple, easy-to-understand bill), the thing just won't work.
This sounds like collusion to me. Afaik, only major league baseball is allow to do this due to an ancient law that they still operate under that should be repealed.
The community charters a new, non-profit corporation that will handle the flow of cash from the audience to the Web sites. This is the same sort of corporate model that today allows users to register domain names at a standard price. That corporation will be able to charge a handling fee on the penny that each page receives. That handling fee should be capped at something like five percent.
There's no doubt that this piece of it would be fairly simple, but what about when disputes occur? Also, since the web is the most international, unregulated medium in the world, who's going to police & enforce it? In the US we have laws like the Fair Credit Billing Act, Fair Debt Collections Act and many other law to protect consumers. I think it would be a virtual (no pun intended) impossibility to ever regulate the web.
Either that corporation handles billing, or billing flows through the customer's ISP, with the ISPs keeping a small handling fee to handle their costs. Personally, I can't imagine an ISP wanting this responsibility. Do you have any idea what kind of system and infrastructure are necessary to handle fund dispersal such as these? Take a look at any of you major credit card company and you'll get an idea of the size and score of the organization required to handle such a task.
Could this work? Maybe. Do I think I'll ever see it? Nope. If a website owner needs to make money in order to run their site, then they need to do the same thing that every small business man does. Offer a product or service that's in demand. Manage cost. Attract and retain customers and get the hell outta that business if they can't make a go of it! I think the more likely answer to the web commerce issue is subscriptions. A number of site already have them and they are work...Consumer Reports and the WSJ come to mind. Paying websites per visit would be like a store charging you to walk in the door. You should feel lucky if I walk in the door of your store because that's your opportunity. If you fail to get me to buy something while I'm there it's your problem, not mine. Ruger
...when they come out with a Jar-Jar Binks mask.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
Somehow I just don't think that an episode of The Soprano's would convey the same weight as Soprano's "lite".
But for those folks with kids, this would be a great way to expose the kids to great movies/TV without the need to lock away every tape or disk you own. As it stands now, for me at least, I have to keep two sets. A mommy and daddy group kept locked away (The Soprano's, any movie with a high bullet or body count) and the "G" rated stuff for the kids.
The only trouble is explaining to the wife why I need a "new toy."
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
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) 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.
Often a movie gets a PG-13 rating due to bad language - which is got to be a far lesser sin.
Also, watch for sex & violence combined - in our house sex is normal, but violent, brutal sexual acts (e.g., rape or worse) is abnormal - and why show a 7 year old abnormalilties that will cause him/her nightmares for weeks?
A good example is "Unbreakable", which was PG until the scene with the bloody dead mother tied up in her bedroom, and the two teenage daughters tied up in the bathroom. The obvious implication was rape and torture. One scene ruined the movie for me.
At least, you can find normal books in regular, "for dummies" and "idiot-proof" versions, for instance.
I guess that's prior art.
Of course, me and my wife are making bets on how much shorter the movie will be. I'm guessing minimum 15 of the 81 minutes are going to be bleeped or cut.
Does anyone else find the blatant censorship in movies today somewhat offensive? Like, when you're watching some movie and you hear Samuel L. Jackson say "Heck man, I'll shoot you in the behind." It totally ruins the art of the movie and makes something that might have been serious utterly comical. Or something artfully comical into something really stupid. All for the sake of some right wing people who can't stand to see the reality of life in a show. At least it used to be just network, but alot of college campuses censor their movies, and even some rereleased movies are wiping out parts of a movie deemed offensive.
you don't read fucking Marquis de Sade to your children, and you don't watch Blue Velvet with them either.
if a movie has unfit content, then it probably isn't fit for them period. cutting out shit is not a solution, watching something else is.
you stupid useless waste of space.
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Why not do the opposite and make G/PG movies R? I'm sure there's a handful of deleted scenes in movies that were excluded due to ratings. Hell, even computer animated movies (Final Fantasy, Shrek, Toy Story) could be easily appended to just for fun.
So you've got a puritanical bug up your ass, and you cut out the nudity. But wait! There's some essential dialog in that bedroom scene that ties the whole plot together! What do you do?
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.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Take the guns argument for example...
You can choose to own a gun, or not.
But people still want to prohibit anyone from owning a gun.
Now, you can watch a dirty movie, or not.
But people will still want to prohibit anyone from watching dirty movies.
The short and long of it is that some hoohah will still want to limit your freedoms claiming it is for his protection, or for the children, or for general safety or some other equally stupid argument.
There will always exist a group of vocal morons who will oppose allowing people choices to make decisions for themselves and claim it is for the good of the whole.
These people should be round up and beaten soundly with a bull whip and then forced to watch 1950's safety videos until their eyes bleed and their rectums lose the ability to retain feces.
Will we be able to add nudity to crappy PG-13 movies that desparately need it, like Coyote Ugly and every other PG-13 movie that came out in the last 2 years?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This should sell real good here in Ewtahh!
Try reading Alice in Wonderland with all the drug references redacted. Not only is it less interesting, it doesn't make any sense. This is going to be about as popular as non-alcoholic beer, and for the same reason.
My
Limekiller
It's no more illegal than a pen to modify a book. Or a paintbrush to modify a painting.
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.
We can cut out the parts that Speilberg screwed up. Stupid Speilberg...
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
INTERIOR - Roman Polanski's house
Roman Polanski sits in an oversized leather armchair in a wifebeater and boxers, nursing a Laphroaig and water and watching television.
An advertisement for on-the-fly movie-censoring software comes on.
CLOSE UP
Roman's eyes narrow
MEDIUM SHOT
Roman stands up, legs weak and shaking. Never removing his eyes from the TV, he fumbles in a chair-side drawer, eventually producing an improbably large revolver.
ROMAN POLANSKI
"Why you... you goddamn... PIGS!"
CLOSE UP
Muzzle flare
CLOSE UP
Exploding television
MEDIUM SHOT
Roman collapses back into the chair, drops the revolver to the floor and falls asleep.
A 14-year-old girl enters: Roman's illegitimate daughter
CLOSE UP
The girl rubs her nether regions against the destroyed television while a black bar dances over her eyes.
Ah, the long awaited PG->R conversion. Finally a chance to see the darker side of Jim Henson's Muppets, as well as the lost Princess Leah bedroom scenes. Never again will we have to suffer through non-explitives and cameras panning from the bed to a spinning clock.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No violence or foul language...I guess every Sylvester Stallone / Bruce Willis / Ahhnold Schwarzenegger movie you try and watch will consist of 3 minutes of scenes where they pick up a telephone and say, "Hello?". Hell, "Predator" will probably come out looking like a nature documentary.
Sounds wacky to me. I'll pass.
Bowie J. Poag
The rating system is a way of describing a film's contend, not a way of defining a film's content. "I want to see 'Pulp Fiction' in PG" is as pointless as saying "I want to read 'Hamlet' as science fiction". If you want to see a PG movie, rent out a PG movie. Duh.
I am a Karma Library.
This scene selection scheme opens a world of possibilities.
Imagine student directors or even other reknown directors releasing alternate versions to the same movie. Mood dependant versions of a film; Play the happy scenes, skip the sad parts.
Perhaps even shoot extra footage for dvd users and allow for special versions of the film such as seeing the movie only from one character's perspective; in this mode you can see what happened to the charcter at times where it left the original movie's timeline.
This could greatly increase the time before a DVD became boring and was stored on a shelf waiting for the occasional nostalgia bout.
I am not young enough to know everything. --Sir J.M. Barrie
... what is so special about Basic Instict?
It doesn't have that many sex scenes in it, and those that are there are nothing particularly exciting.
Or am I supposed to censor pubic hair and breasts from kids that have seen it all before on beaches?
There was a French film on national show over here in the UK recently featuring a blow job [it got an 18 rating, just like many recent decent films. I'm still trying to figure out why Magnolia deserved an 18 rating]. How would that play in the US?
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
...to watch any movie they want without waiting months for it to be released on network television, already PG-13ized...
Mod me offtopic, fine. But did anyone happen to catch Saving Private Ryan this past Sunday on ABC? I was wondering how it would be edited, but there didn't seem to be much. The f-bomb got some frequent flyer miles on network TV.
Well, actually it was a buddy's idea, but I've been working on it. I have hacked Xine 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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Will this software melt down on pr0n?
Is there anyone else who thinks that this has the possibility of killing the intended story? Or at least, killing how it was intended to be told?
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.
For years MTV has been editing videos, selectively removing content it deemed inappropriate. Racism pervades MTV's editorial policy. Consider a couple of examples where one standard was applied to a video by a white artist, and another standard was applied to a video by a black artist. Coolio's"Gangster's Paradise" has the lyric "Got my ten in my hand and a gleam in my eye" MTV presented the video with this content unmodified. The song "Santeria" features the lyric "Daddy's got a new 45," the word 45 was bleeped out. These songs came out at the same time, but were subjected to different editorial review. The other example is Tom Petty can't sing about rolling a joint , but Snoop Doggy Dog can sing about drinking and driving
Ultimately, the solution is this, if you determine that a film has offensive content in it, don't watch the film.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Finally years later when it came out on TV, I was surprised to see how they 'fit it in'. There were obviously some scene crops, but the party across the ravine was topless in the movie, but they were wearing bikinis on TV. They must have shot the TV scenes at the same time as the theatricals. Obvious, but it's the first time I'd seen it that glaringly.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
One of the things I remember hearing about DVDs before they came out was that discs would have this capbility built in. Most (all?) players have parental controls that you can set to not allow the player to play movies over the preset limit. The original feature was to allow parents to set their player for PG13 and it would follow the "PG13 track" that would skip around the nudity/violence/etc. The studio (and presumably the director in most cases) would define what would be on the "PG13 Track" and what would be on the "R Track". A R rated disc with no seperate tracks wouldn't be played at all on a player with a PG13 limit. I don't know if this feature never made it into real DVD players once production started or what but I know it was going to be originally.
Would you also be in favor of the MPAA suing people who a) fast forward or b) closed their eyes during a particularly decapitastic scene? After all, both are using available user controls in order to modify their viewing experience in a way that the original artists never intended.
The canonical opinion among slashdotters (insomuch as one exists) is that people have a right to use their DVDs in any way they wish. If that means modifying their viewing experience to avoid being subjected to Satanic(TM) images of people making love, or disparaging references to Richard Nixon, or whatever, I say more power to them.
Besides, this is a far better option than forcing everyone into the same straightjacket. A producer could make the NC-17 movie he intended, release an R version to the theaters, and let people watch whatever version they are most comfortable with on DVD. It liberates movie makers and movie watchers alike. So I do hope this idea isn't subject to Raging Lawyer Hordes. Too many good ideas fall under their onslaught.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
As an adult, who is competent to choose what things I want to put in my head, I appreciate a ratings system which helps me make an informed decision about what movies are possibles, which ones are likely viewable, and which ones are completely off the radar screen.
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 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 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.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I bet they could add an option to *just* view the R portion of the movie. Skip that boring stuff, bring me the violence and gratuitous sex!
Adequate editing is more than chopping. While you might get away cutting out certain scenes, in general you are going to lose flow and context. Plus, anyone who is offended by a particular scene that a director included is likely to not want to watch the movie as a whole. Very few films are "ruined for the squeamish" by a single scene. The larger context of plotline, setting, character development etc. set the whole mood for a film. You aren't going to get a "family friendly" version of "Pulp Fiction" by chopping it up. Even if you tried, in the process you will lose the power behind the movie as envisioned by the director. Can you imagine "The Crying Game" with THE SCENE removed? People will walk away going, "What's the big deal?"
Sure, it might be fun to turn movie watching into an interactive effort, but I shudder at the "cleansing" of art. If something disturbs you, walk away and watch PAX, or learn to deal with being a little disturbed; it can be an enlightening experience.
It said , in big letters 'FUCK'.
Then, underneath, in smaller letters,
'If this shirt said 'murder', you wouldn't have a problem with it, would you...'
Moral code? I thought we were talking about movie ratings here. I suggest you read the parent post again, especially the part about the NC-17.
Despite the fact that NC-17 was created to separate porn movies (X) from movies with narrative, it is most commonly used to punish movies that have subject matter that the MPAA finds distasteful, especially low-budget and independent movies. Case in point: Orgazmo, a low-budget movie made by South Park creators Parker and Stone, received an NC-17 despite having no nudity (besides a few backsides that would have made the PG-13 cut). It dealt with a Mormon Pornstar Superhero, so it got the NC-17. MPAA would not return their phonecalls about how to cut it to get an "R".
Meanwhile, Saving Private Ryan, an "important" movie with Hollywood names and money, gets an R, despite being the most grotesque and violent movie I've ever seen. Since it's about war and sacrifice (Go America!), they play this movie uncut on network TV, FOR YOUR KIDS TO SEE. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather my kid saw Orgazmo than Saving Private Ryan.
Ratings are a tool for pretentious assholes to make sweeping cultural judgements. They are a convenient way for America to say, "Oh! I can let my child see this movie, because it doesn't say 'fuck'!"
If any ratings are necessary, they should be contextual-language, content, drug use. Normally movies shown on movie channels have these listed anyway? Why do we need the MPAA telling us what's good and what's bad? I have an idea, some people don't want to take responsibility for what heir children are exposed to...
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
"hen, we watched Mel Brook's "Spaceballs". I found that I wasn't nearly as quick on the "mute" button as I needed to be...same thing with "Blazing Saddles", by the way. "
So what's the problem? Don't you think your kid will hear those words anyway?
What are you, a taliban or something?
Bottom line: what is the problem with bad words? Why is it such a big deal?
Hey you know what: I don't swear as much in any language I speak as in English. You know why? 'Cuz I learnt english by watching USian movies.
THEY SWEAR ALL THE TIME IN THOSE.
All the damn fucking time.
Go anywhere in the world -- nowhere do people swear that much. And nowhere do you see people complaining about "bad" words. Except maybe in southern Afghanistan, Iran and the USA.
So answer this question: what the FUCK is wrong with saying bad words? Why can't I say "bitch" (even to refer to a female dog), "cunt", "shit", "dick", and stuff like that? What's wrong with it?
It's just as stupid as Talibans banning kytes and rasors.
I'd love to see them turn a movie like Goodfellas or Hellraiser (both R-rated movies) get turned into a PG :-/
R to XXX?
So yes, I like this. The movies that I could watch with my kids would be an extra. I'd use it myself.
hawk
Converting from R to PG-13 results in the loss of nudity and language, but you'd probably keep all the same levels of violence. Roger Ebert rants about this all the time.
From his Movie Answer-Man column on November 4th:
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.
Man, I'm late getting into this thread. Oh well...
While I think the technology behind this is a fine idea, it leaves me wondering as to the overall effectiveness and, more importantly, the point.
I can see this being used in schools, I suppose, like when I was in high school and my Literature teacher fast-forwarded past a somewhat steamy love scene in a film version of Romeo and Juliet. And I suppose one could use it to throw out types of scenes one finds distasteful (foul language, for instance). A parent could, indeed, filter an R movie down to a PG movie this way.
The question it leaves me with is: why view the movie in the first place? If foul language or sex scenes offend you, you're going to miss the delivery of the story by cutting them out. You'd probably have a more enjoyable movie-watching experience by simply watching something that is already rated at the level you wish to watch.
As a parent, I can't think of one good reason I'd want to bother with snipping out pieces of an r-rated film so my kids could watch it. Chances are, the R-rated movie has adult themes on purpose and if removing the R-rated content actually affected the adult overtones of the story at all, it could only make less sense. I'd be much better off by allowing my children to watch something that is already made with the intention of children watching it.
As always, there are plenty of exceptions (I'm sure kids get a hoot out of Shrek, but I'd cut out some of Donkey's language for my kids), but for the most part this seems like a technology that might be nice to have, but IMHO seems silly to even bother using.
My sigs always suck.
This is the horrific result of what happens when :)
a society becomes so inhibited that it develops
specific tools to allow people to remain naive.
An entire family of people who have automatic
reactions to certain language. They're just words!
They're just combinations of sounds that, for some
odd historical reason, some religious freaks and
other prudes have somehow decided to focus on..
I'd bet that if there were a language without them,
these kind of people would be the ones to make them
up in order to be able to whine about people using
them
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
This sort of crap is inevitable, but *man* do I hate this. It's on the same page as the V chip - it buys into a philosophy that children that watch cartoons with more than 3 "violent acts per minute" will grow up to be John Gacey.
Look, parents and teachers, if your child is going to watch a show on history that contains moments of violence, then let them watch it or not, based on it's quality. I remember seeing sexual and violent stuff as a kid, and because I was provided with a *context*, I was appropriately tittilated or terrified, and I learned from that. When I watch "Die Hard" with the particularly brutal sequences edited out for broadcast TV, it sickens me more than anything you could show me on the screen. If you think your kid should be watching a fantasy story about a constantly swearing cop blowing away terrorists, then let it be. Otherwise, don't let them watch it! Don't pass the responsibility of parenting to execs and censors.
Disgusted in TO
Source: ACLU Texas in file report.doc (Word doc)
=========
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".
If you feel the need to censor a work of art before you partake in it... may I suggest you dig your brain out with a spoon.
What moron thinks this is useful? What fool believes this needs to exist? It's for sale??? I find I often come to Slashdot just to see what silly new technological pile of baloney the industry will come up with next.
Is a lobotomy a requirement to be an IT CEO??? Shock therapy? Long needles inserted into the ears?
Excuse me, I've another corporation to make fun of on another web forum.
Some films rated PG or PG-13 are still unacceptable by PTA types. Just think if everyone in the room is over 13, thus able to view PG-13 movies, and your wife pops in 'Titanic.' That movie is already rated PG-13, despite Kate Winslet's nudity.
As it has said before, parents need to chill out and realize that the way to teach kids the difference between fantasy and reality is to spend time with them in reality, instead of parking them in day care watching Pokemon or sticking the remote in their hand at the end of the day.
When the majority of a child's life is spent in the fantasy of TV and movies, of course they're gonna get a little mixed up. The solution is not to sanitize fantasy to make it like reality, the solution is to go to the park, or to a musuem, or play soccer. If I ever decide to be a parent, my kid is not going to be raised by DragonballZ. </rant>
wasn't redundant when I posted it grumble grumble grumble...
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
Wow, yay, who cares?
Why do we even need this, when we have quality public service such as this!
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Slachdotters are so nicely predictable.
3/4 of the posts are either "why would anyone use this?" or "how dare they try to edit content."
Yeah, content is SOOOO precious.
This won't replace parenting; nothing I've seen about this product claims that it will. If you object to the modification of the "director's vision" (as if it was impossible that it was flawed in the first place?) DON'T USE IT.
But, let's say for example you wanted to watch Dr. Doolittle 2 with your 5-8 year old kids. Or Liar Liar. For some reason, Hollywood feels compelled (or perhaps, just has entirely different cultural mores than my midwestern upbringing grants me) to put words like "bitch", "ass", "dick" and such semi-swear words in (ostensibly) kids films. I don't necessarily find that appropriate content for preteen kids. Yes, they hear it on the bus, yes, they hear it in the schoolyard, but I don't feel it ok for our home. Same with James Bond movies.
Personally I think it's a great tool.
-Styopa
Now I'll be able to quickly find out the answer to that question that has been bugging me since I firs tsaw porn - Did she get the job or not?
- If This Peace Is Fictious, I Shall Destroy It
Quite a while back I was with a group of people and they rented Ferris Beuller's Day off. They were a quite touchy about language and I made the mistake of saying I had seen the movie before. They actually gave me the remote control and I was to hit mute whenever someone was to say a profanity. Of course this was impossible since I neglected to memorize the movie word for word. They got really mad at me each time I missed one.
They were a bunch of idiots and I was stupid for being there in the first place.
Anyway this device would have solved that problem, but I would never want to watch an edited movie. I hate watching one on network TV anymore.
The city is being overrun by a herd of Lucy Liu's.
My problem with this isn't the concept, it's the fact that it's a 1-way street. It only gives a benefit to people who are offended by nudity/language violence.
I personally want to see digital radio and broadcast TV have the same kind of automatical filters. Thus, a radio station could broadcast a song *uncut* and then allow each individual receiver (and listener) to choose what to cut off. This wouldn't even require the broadcaster to send two whole songs, they could send a song that's encoded in places that the radio station or record company chooses.
Granted, this is pretty unfeasible with broadcast radio, at least while it's still just sent over radio waves. However, this has other application. This could be used on CDs so that Walmart and K-mart wouldn't need to edit music (and I woulnd't try to firebomb them as much).
The best place I see this happening is with TV, as it moves to high-definition and digital, this becomes infinitely easier. With this, you could broadcast the movie uncut, with markers as to where changes are "normally" made to make it PG-13, PG, etc. This way, adults could make full choices on what they see, and the tv stations don't need to worry about offending people. It would be the job of censors (as it is now) to decide which parts of the shows are inappropriate for certain ratings and assigning the appropriate encoding.
This is already in effect in some computer games. Parents can set a rating lower than the game's rating, and a lot of the gore is removed, and violent or sexual cut scenes are automatically edited or removed.
Granted, this is pretty unfeasable
when they convert a G-rated movie to XXX, i'll be impressed. disney's been making subtle attempts for a while now (with the little mermaid dildo on the box, aladdin's "hey kids take off your clothes", and the lion king's 'smoking' sex scene.) bambi and thumper are porno names if i ever heard one...not that i subscribe to any publications :)
I really, really want to see a product like this make it to market, but I see a few hurtles.
Will the movie industry support this? What if directors and movie studios don't like the idea of someone editing their movie? What if someone creates an "edit file" that makes your movie into something you never intended, like making "Battlefield Earth" into a 30 minute slapstick comedy? Movie Mask's FAQ says:
"What copyright issues are involved here?
A: This really isnt a question of copyright, it is just a new idea on an old concept-- that is, if I buy something I own it. Just because I use a product perhaps in a way not intended by the originator doesnt mean I dont have my own individual rights. For instance, I have the right to mark in or rip out pages of a book that I purchase."
Well, sort of. To use the same analogy, a third party can't mark up a book, rip pages out of it, and sell it to you, because that constitutes creation of a "derived work". But what if the third party doesn't actually sell you the book, what if you buy the book, give it to the third party, they rip it up for you for a fee, and then hand it back to you? That's a bit fuzzier. Actually that's exactly what several companies in Utah are doing, they will (physically) edit your video tapes for you to cut out the nude scenes, but you have to own the tape first. So far they have not been dragged into court, but they are not a huge operation. I believe that an "edit file" player IS legal, but I can't see the software making it into the market without a court battle to establish its legality.
Does Movie Mask plan on being a licensed DVD player? Would other companies that oppose the edit file idea try to block them? If they don't license the player, are they a circumvention device?
What happens if the player does make it to market, all legal issues are resolved, and then someone reverse engineers the edit file format and starts a web site providing unapproved edit files? It looks like MovieMask is planning on using product placement as a source of income, so if other people are creating edit files with no annoying product links, it cuts down on their revenue. I'd be surprised if Movie Mask didn't see this problem coming, and try to incorporate some sort of authentication or encryption mechanism into their edit files.
The ratings system was designed to allow us Americans the chance to see something besides the Sound of Music. The old system we had amounted to censorship. Now if you just want to see tits and ass get the Playboy or Spice channels. If you want to see artsy tits and ass watch sundance and the Independant Film Channel.
I'm going to get flamed big time for this but hell...
Okay, I don't have a problem with swear words in general, just the over use of them.
I feel that swear words limit our ability to adequately describe situations and circumstances. I think try opening up a dictionary and expanding your vocabulary as opposed to just resorting to "fuck" "shit" and the like.
Don't get me wrong, when I'm pissed off I resort to them, but I do try to use other ways of describing my frustrations and the such.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
Well from a teenage boy's perspective (I was at the time I saw), the inexplicably PG-13 rated Logan's Run, which is chock full of nudity and sex, was a godsend. I guess the philosophical themes and 70s sensibilities won over the ratings board...
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Despite what a bunch of idealistic teenaged know it all's think, this is a decent product. There are all manner of people who don't want to see certian things. That is their right. I have the right not to see read or listen to whatever I choose not to see read or listen too. You have no right to force me to see it.
/. crowd is pissed because someone wants to not watch it in the privacy of their own home.
This product gives people to see and enjoy movies that they otherwise wouldn't want to see because they object to things in the movie. It isn't censorship. It gives people a few more options. That's all.
There have been a lot of stupid arguments. "Kid's won't use it", "What happens if one of the objectional scenes has a critical piece of dialog"... My response is so what if it does? If someone wants to watch a movie and is willing to make that trade, what right do you have to say they can't? You get pissed when they say you can't watch it in your own home, but suddenly the
"The artistic vision of the creator of the movie shouldn't be altered." Anyone that can use the word artistic in relation to nearly any American movie without negation and hold a straight face is either insane or someone I wouldn't want to play poker with. American movies are made to get maximum ratings. Most of the time sex and violence scenes have no 'artistic' value to the movie. They're there to get the R rating, because R rated movies make more money.
Now if someone were trying to say that these scenes shouldn't be allowed in movies, I'd be pissed at censorship, but that isn't the case here. No one is telling you that you can't do something, they are just saying that they don't want to participate in a particular activity. This in no way violates your rights.
If someone wants to buy and use a product, so what? Why should you care?
There is a civil war coming in the United States. Remember which side has most of the guns
I can't say I don't have some misgivings about this. Generally speaking, I think technology is making life just a tad too customizable, and that has some disadvantages.
It used to be that we only got our news from three or four major sources. This was bad, but the advantage was that everyone was on basically the same page.
Now we have a wide variety of different news sources, of widely varying competence. Does this help keep everyone honest? Or does it offer recipients the ability to ignore just about everything they don't always agree with?
The answer, of course, is both. It's up to you whether you get all your news from a Rush Limbaugh/James Carville*, or select from a wide variety of sources to get a full picture of events.
So what happens when you get to decide precisely what you see and what you don't? Imagine being able to alter the CNN feed to bleep out any stories about errant bombs or atrocities by the Northern Alliance. Or filtering so that all you got was stories about Open source, school shootings, and the Microsoft/DOJ settlement. How skewed could your worldview get if you're only subjected to things which confirm it.
So inasfar as this allows people to see only that which they are comfortable with, I'm not comfortable with it. Most people, myself included, generally only seek out information which supports whatever memes are already lodged in their brains.
For example, if you liked what I've written so far, you could filter out the final paragraph which might change your opinion:
This is an evil weapon of intolerance, and it must be wiped off the face of the Earth! Death to all fanatics! Make me your king and bootlegged DVDs will flow through the streets!
*I almost said "George Carlin." Weird.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
> Don't play censorship cop, be a parent...
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
"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."
Look, if there is some part of the movie you don't like, just don't watch the movie. A movie (well, a good movie, at least) is an artwork and it probably meant to be seen as a while. In the case of good movies, sex and/or violence is rarely free. Take, say, Clockwork Orange. It is extremely violent, but the whole point of this violence is to make people react to the movie and think...
In some movies, there are some scenes that I literaly hated, but I would have been even more pissed if I wouldn't have been given the chance to see them.
I guess the kind of people who are going to use these features are the same as the one who don't mind watching a dubbed movie...
'nuff said.
While this may not apply to a lot of B-grade movies, isn't there something to be said about artistic vision? Many directors are appalled by the changes their movies go through to be shown on television. In recent times, movies like Schindler's List have been shown on TV completely unedited (and witohut commercials) because of the strong messages they express in their unedited forms.
While many other films may not have such morally redeeming qualities, I remember when many Kubrick fans were upset when changes were made to his last film after his death. Not to mention the fact that Darren Aranofsky refused to edit Requiem for a Dream, and because of this it was not shown in the majority of theaters.
If I were a director, I would be appalled to think that a group of people were selectively removing parts of my film to make it appealing to a different group than I made the movie for, especially if I felt that the so-called "objectionable" content figured greatly into the film's message.
This is horrible. You can rationalize various aspects of it until it seems like a good idea, but it isn't.
It's bad enough that when someone tells a story, they already have to be aware of lines they may cross that change the demographics they'll be able to hit. Violent movies become more violent, tame movies become more tame, and everything becomes compartmentalized into it's own little segment. Stories gravitate towards the cookie-cutters that they seem closest to, and adapt to their form.
But now, if writers/directors/editors have to be aware of editing of their films, they'll have to make sure that stories have a continuity even without key scenes. Even more "explaining of the plot" will happen, to make sure everything is clear for those who didn't want to see the naked woman in scene 29.
Ugh.. Not good.
..Jeff Keegan
seven syllables explain TiVo: kee gan dot org slash ti vo
Right! Anyone who had seen only Blazing Saddles on network TV has never seen Blazing Saddles, just some chopped up parts of it.
The saddest case I've ever seen was Die Hard With A Vengeance. In an early sequence, a terrorist forces Bruce Willis to go into the middle of Harlem wearing only his underpants and a signboard that says "I hate niggers!". In an attempt not to offend anyone, the TV censors changed Willis' sign to "I hate everyone". So when the group of black men attacked him, in the movie they were responding to a deliberate provocation; in the TV movie, they were attacking an obvious mental case for no apparent reason. So, by removing the offensive word, the censors ended up removing the humanity from the black men and turned them into stereotypical gang bangers. In other words, removing a reacist word created a racist depiction of blacks!
...but one that would require much more work on the director's/producer's part, would be to have the director/producer create the versions that are more appropriate to children. That way, if the director/producer has a problem with their art being tampered with, they have control over what it's changed to...and give 'em an option to have the PG version be "you can't watch this DVD."
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
Yes, the majority of Hollywood blockbusters are group-targetting business ventures. But isn't it insulting to assume all movies are? I would like to think artistic vision should only be limited by practical constraints, not necessarily who will find the movie objectionable.
Where do you draw the line on what is objectionable? At the point where your backers start to pull back their money?
Chock full? I was chock-full o' hormones when Logan's Run was released. I nearly exploded when the lead actress suggested, "Let's get out of these wet clothes". But I think that was the only nude scene in the entire movie. (The skimpy costumes don't count.)
"if you don't watch the violence then you'll never get desensitised to it"
- bart simpson
update comments set karma=-1, reason='offtopic' where sid=26315
Glad to see that a lot of people here can appreciate the value of something like this.
I'd have thought that more people would "thumbs-up" something that:
1. Isn't imposed by the government
2. Doesn't restrict the original film
3. Could point the way to MORE freedom in films.
Face it, films are commercial enterprises. There is a lot of pressure to make money and DVD sales are a growing source of revenue.
Think of a movie like "From Hell," the Jack the Ripper flick.
That may be exactly the movie that it's makers wanted. Or, it may have been toned down so that more people could stand to see it.
Imagine a "less gore" configuration that would let those with strong stomachs view the original while those who get queasy would get just enough hints and quick cuts to understand what was done.
A voluntary technology ADDS freedom. It doesn't take freedom away.
What about a player that lets you re-cut a movie with the footage on the DVD? Say so that you could make a version of SW:TPM without JAR-JAR.
Or how about a cut-sheet for Memento that shows the movie in the correct order? (Something they didn't do in the DVD)
Or a hundred other movies that you could show in different orders for dramatic/comedic effect. You could re-cut the simpsons dvd and make a whole new episode. mmmmmm Simpsons.
I personally only care about the directors with a strong artistic vision who create movies where the actions in the movie MEAN something. Would a version of A Clockwork Orange without violence make a point? Would Requiem For A Dream make sense if you don't see the consequences of the characters' actions? There are many cases where directors have fought to keep their works intact because of the message it conveys.
If you need to edit a movie, why watch it at all? You're most likely (though not always) conveying the message that you want more movies with gratuitous sex and violence. Why not just watch good movies, instead of editing bad ones to the point you don't feel offended by viewing them?
reduntant my ass, I was the 3rd post on this story, everyone else copied me, but your lazy ass didn't get around to moderating until way after the fact.
How can you be subjected to nudity? How would you handle having a bath??
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is great. Now I can credibly rent R and PG-13 movies while insisting to my friends and neighbors that I am only seeing G-rated content. Who is to know what settings I really use for playback? I maintain the outward appearance of the moral high ground while still getting all the good stuff I need to be a man.
Once again, technology saves the day!
... Memento that shows the movie in the correct order
That would be such boring film. And probably less understandable than the original.
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
One of the most disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed in a film was the scene in American History X, when Ed Norton curb stomps one of the black guys who broke into his home.
I still get chills thinking about that, and I literally broke down at the end of that movie. I certainly *never* want to see that movie again, but I can also say without a doubt that had I *not* seen that brutal scene, the movie would not have affected me as deeply.
If someone *chooses* to edit content, so be it, but there are some things that must be seen in order to gain perspective.
Ehm...was there that much nudity in that movie? Frankly, we watched it recently with the whole family and I did not feel uncomfortable one second...nor did my mom. There is worse stuff on cable TV, I think.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Don't tell me you've forgotten the tunnel of love orgy? And there was some other stuff as well... The best part of the movie is since it's rated PG people often don't bother to edit it before it ends up on TV!
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Most DVD players have a parental lock feature which can result in by-passing scenes in the movie, e.g. the pie scene in American Pie.
That's like taking the gigolo out of American Gigolo, the Werewolf out of American Werewolf in London, the beauty out of American Beauty, and the Grafitti out of American Grafitti.
Come to think of it, I don't recall any actual grafitti in American Grafitti, but the movie was already 20ish years old by the time I saw it- damn, they must have censored it out already!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
If I put in "showgirls", do I get out just the credits?
at least they can't claim that it glamorizes drug addiction ;-)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
You know, like when there's an anonymous informant on TV they put that gray bubble over his face and disguise his voice?
;-)
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
Imagine you have set your DVD to no violence, and you pop in 1984, you miss the last scene and the entire point of the movie. I'd be pretty angry if my children watched this sanitized version over another childs house, I would rather my kids wait until they are old enough to handle the violence than to screen it out.
Children have been raised for generations without this shit, there's no reason for it now.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
See Dick. Indeed!
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
Now all the kiddies will be able to watch Episode II without the gratuitous pr0n. In this version, Luke and Leia are delivered in a basket by an annoying talking stork.
Speaking as a film-maker, I can't be more underwhelmed by this product. Editing is not easy. Trust me, I've learned this the hard way. It's an art in and of itself. As a writer and a producer, I put a huge amount of time and effort into my film, and the idea that my audience can mix and mangle it to their heart's content is a bit disturbing.
Then again, films have been chopped/edited/colorized/censored for years and years. It's why I buy the director's cuts when I can.
Just remember, Jo Rowling has a consulting role for the film. At least for the first one, we'll have to see about the others. She's also apparently being very particular about the kinds of merchandising she'll allow with the Harry Potter theme: for example, she wouldn't allow Totes to make a candy-cane umbrella with the HP logo because, "the candy-cane theme wouldn't exist in Harry Potter's world" (whatever *that* means) (This was from an article back in the WSJ)
Note: 'Harry Potter' is a registered tradmark of J K. Rowling, Warner Brothers, or whoever the hell owns the rights.
While the original poster is out in left field (hey, it's /. :) there's an interesting issue that's brought up here.
Under European continental copyright law, especially French law, the original creator has a set of rights that can't be waived. One of them is the right to control how the work is presented. This technology could be used to override that.
Odds are, to be legal in France/Germany, and maybe Canada (we've got a wimpier form of moral rights in our copyright legislation), any edits like this would have to be done with the consent of the director.
Interesting. Any European copyright lawyers here?
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
You know, I am not sure how I feel about this. I think it's great that someone is trying to do something (other then the folks who SHOULD know better, namely hollywood), but I am not sure if this is the right idea. You see, I was allowed to watch things like Star Wars, and other similar movies when I was a kid and if we did swear or use terminology from the movie, we were punished or talked to or both. I think it can hurt a child to shelter them from things that are considered bad.
One example is the World Trade Center thing. There are so many people out there now who cannot function because of this. They are depressed, afraid to work in their building because it's a high rise or much worse. Could all of these people been sheltered from violence and then when confronted a real situation like the WTC attack, they can't handle it? I don't know.
I DO agree that as a parent, I should be the one in contol of the situation. I should be there the first time my son sees a boob on a video. I should be there with him so I can explain what is happening.
ANY history teacher should never show a movie to help teach the class unless it's pretty much historically accurate. How many movies are there that are accurate from a historical standpoint? Not many. One only needs tolook at all of the inaccuracies in the movie Apollo 13. The rocket was not even painted correctly for that mission (If memory serves). Not to mention the fact that the anachronisms of trying to emulate a time in recent history were rampant. I don't understand why this would be a teaching tool in school. Don't get me wrong, the outcomes were the same, but if you actually have read the book it's screenplay came from, it wasn't even close. Hollywood has to embellish history because, let's face it, sometimes stuff that happens during it is quite boring. Imagine what a movie about George Washington's Valley Forge encampment would be about. It would be a bunch of guys with bloodied feet huddling in a bunch of tents and just hanging around camp with the occasional emergency. It would be pretty boring, as well as graphic for being shown in anything but a R rating.
This thing still won't quite those that are trying to get Hollywood to make all movies family movies. Why? They require action and you know as well as I the default will be to show everything, or people will complain when things are cut (hey there's supposed to be a boob there....ahh this thing doesn't work!). Also, people will be too lazy to turn it on or won't want it. It's easier for them to bitch and complain abut every movie soming out the it is for them to go out and MAKE their own movies.
This option will fail to appease the right wingers as much as the V-chip failed. It's doing real well ain't it?
There are so many PARENTS that DON'T want to do their job and only want kids as a posession instead of having kids so they can LOVE them. They also want machines to do their job like machines can cook food for you. You get the things such as Columbine because of this selfish reason to have kids. I mean, yeah, I take pride in things my kid does and I well show him off as much as I would show off my new computer, but I love him more then any computer I have owned and would really be heartbroken if he was gone. I love him as much as I love my wife and more then anything else. That's the truth and I will raise him as I want to and not as the powers that be want him raised.
Gorkman
Please do us all a favor and release your code now. I totally don't care what state it's in, what we need is the prior art so that nobody else can patent this stuff later and hit you with a suit when/if this takes off.
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!
South Park: Done in 3 1/2 minutes.
Pulp Fiction: Incomprehensible. Now equivalent to a French art film.
Wild Things: Suddenly not worth watching.
The Net: Still not worth watching.
Any Jean-Claude Van Damme movie: No changes. His pathetic fight scenes don't count as violence, but rather humor.
"Can I say you're my lovepuppy?" Founding member of SODAMNHOTT
To those who refer to the "director's vision" and "movies as art," I hope you were excluding Hollywood. There's no more art in a John Travolta movie that there is in a Big Mac. And if I want to hold the pickles, then I oughta be able to hold the d%mn pickles.
Thanks a lot, big brain. (K. Vonnegut, "Galapagos")
Be careful what you do with your final product. According to their FAQ they have patented this process.
However, since they don't list the patent number, I'm wondering if it's merely patent pending. What would it be under "Patent for automated mute button"? I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up by someone already.
Of course, before you go and rail on MovieMask for frivolous patents, consider that they are planning to release this program for "any Linux based system" (from the same FAQ). I'm also surprise no one has mentioned that! Now, do the two things cancel each other out?
Regarding the idea itself...I would like to see a third option beside mute and fast-forward: zoom. This is what a lot of TV releases do to allow a scene with important content but hide objectionable content. If the woman talking is topless, zoom in to cut off everything below the neck. If I guy is going to be shot to a bloody stump, zoom to focus on the look of horror and not the blood gushing from the squibs. Many, many objectionable scenes can be fixed in this manner.
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Can anyone explain to me why it's inappropriate for people of any age to see/hear graphic sex/violence/language? Most people act as though the reasons for this are crystal clear. I just don't get it. These things are part of our lives. Chances are these are all things you can and will see/hear in your own household as a child.
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
...Thanks to the wonders of technology.
becuase irresponsible parents like to lay blame on their children's misfortions on violent tv shows, video games, and pretty much anything that will get them out of parenting.
i mean, if my child was to shoot up a school, i would blame myself, not nintendo, or idsoftware.
Runnin' On Empty
A video store called Clean Flicks near Salt Lake City Utah has been doing this with tapes for a while now. Salon wrote up an article here back in January.
Wait until the Hollywood lawyers get ahold of this
The legal issues on this from Salon:
Hollywood studios are looking into the legality of such editing, but have not yet taken any legal action, perhaps because the phenomenon is confined to Utah, and because any extra publicity might encourage others to follow Lines in his unique crusade.
Clean Flicks says in their FAQ:
Is this legal?
Yes, as long as you own the video tape, you can do whatever you want to with that particular tape. We do not copy movies onto blank tapes. We only edit movies that you own or give us permission to buy for you.
I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
It's really funny to see a product like this
come out, because I've seen movie studios get
VERY upset when individuals and organizations try
editing a movie to their liking.
I live in the Provo/Orem area of Utah. Because of the religious nature of the community, lots of people/institutions here prefer films with less cursing, nudity, sex, violence, etc (and please, for the sake of discussion here, suspend any reverse propensities you may have and just realize that for whatever reason, some people prefer this).
So several businesses sprang up to meet the demand. Brigham Young University, for example,
had the "Varsity Theatre" which edited movies down to a PGish/PG13ish... and it did really well.
A couple of video rental stores also sprung up,
where they'd offer edited versions of popular
rentals.
But about 4-5 years back, the movie studios suddenly became aware people were doing this. They issued BYU, BYU's distributor, and the video stores an ultimatum: stop showing edited films or face lawsuits, plus you'll never get a chance to show anything we license again. BYU complied, and tried to get by showing classics and various other "safe" films for a while. The stores stood up to the idea for a bit, but eventually caved in. Now they edit videos that people have already purchased -- which is apparently still on solid
legal footing.
I think I understand the desire of an artist/creator to see their work distributed w/o being pressed/chopped/smoked beyond recognition (anyone remember that part in "Reality Bites" where whatshername watches her documentary hopelessly mainstreamed?). But it's also rather scary how insistent the movie studios really are about having total control over the way their content is delivered/presented.
So I'm surprised to see a device like the one in the article in existence... and I'll be even more surprised if non-MPAA edits ever make it to market.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
This reminds me of an idea I had when the V-Chip was first introduced.... add a 'Not' gate. By inverting the output of the V-Chip, you would never again be subjected to Barney...
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Isn't this part of what the DMCA was desinged to prevent. If a movie is show with edited scenes (from a non offical source)wouldn't the movie possibly be taken out of context.
Assume for a second that it was a biography, is that not slander?
This technology should also be applied to a Tivo-like device for TV shows to cut out offensive material.
It would have been put to great use during the first couple minutes of the 200th episode of "Frasier" last night.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
It would seem to me that by changing a movie in any format (R -> PG13, etc) that the director's vision would be compromised to the point that the movie would not be, well, the director's movie anymore.
When The Sci-Fi Channel apparently re-cut Dune to a four-hour version, David Lynch had his name pulled from it as director. His reasoning was (correctly) that the new movie was not what he created. Did I still watch it? Hell yeah! But I didn't consider it "his" movie anymore.
The biggest problem is that while paintings or photographs are by their nature unchangeable (single image), cinema does. And with that versatility we get "director's cuts", which brought about "fan cuts" and now this.
I believe a decision like this should be left up to the director, not just applicable to anyone. Maybe have something on the DVD that says if the movie can be "recut" or not? I don't think James Cameron would mind a recut of "Titanic" to cover Kate Winslet's boobies for parents (and possibly sell a million more DVD copies). A movie like "Requiem for a Dream" however, would lose its effectiveness if re-edited (and don't get me started on "Eyes Wide Shut" and the MPAA!)
Yes they can delete image content but beyond the very trite movies it will change the very meaning of the movie. Who really wants to see the PG version of Pulp Fiction?
95% of movies being produced are utter garbage who's plot couldn't be hurt if you forced the producer at gunpoint to edit in 2 aliens, a flamboyant gay roomate, and a cheerleading squad into the movie after filming was complete... and the other 5% won't sacrifice vision for clarity.
but then again, i've almost completely limited myself to watching independent films for quite a while...
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
But nobody does it.
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...
I just want a box that edits Jar Jar Binks out of the film.
we want porn! porn for kids!
(tv funhouse reference)
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Several years ago when I was attending BYU, there was a theater on campus that showed censored versions of movies (Yes, it was because it's a church-sponsored school). They had been doing so for years. I saw several movies there myself.
Then they showed a censored version of Titanic, and the movie studio (or was it James Cameron? I forget) got mad and told them to show it unedited or not at all. I heard that part of the problem was that local video stores were renting censored versions of the movie as well, although that might just be a rumor.
Regardless of your view of censorship, the end result was that the theater no longer censors the movies that it shows. Instead, they choose not to show certain movies. For example, nothing with an R rating. And no Titanic. Which is unfortunate, because there are a lot of movies out there that are very good but because of a few scenes or bad words, will never be shown in that theater. Everyone loses.
This is a specific case, but it illustrates a more general point. Some people will not watch a particular movie because one or two scenes ruin it for them.
The reverse, I believe, is also true. If there is a method for a person to censor scene from a movie rather than avoiding the movie altogether, I believe it opens it up to a larger audience.
And now there is such a method.
We can argue about the implementation of the idea, but I believe the idea itself is a good one.
Two other reasons I favor this idea:
1) The end user gets to decide whether to censor the movie. No one's forcing you to download that config file.
2) This removes the burden from the movie studies of editing the movie twice in order to get both a censored and uncensored version. They do no extra work, and the movie is seen by a larger audience.
There are two problems with this implementation, though.
1) There's no easy way to get the config file for a certain movie. If I download it, how do I get the config file from my computer to my DVD player? And no, I'm not going to hook up my DVD player to the Internet. Besides, when I rent a movie I want to watch it as soon as I get home, not have to spend the time to download the config file first. Now, if they started distributing the config file on the DVD itself, that might work. But they've had the ability to do something similar for years, and haven't used it very much at all.
2) You still have to rely on someone else's idea of what is appropriate for G, PG, PG-13, and R rated movies. Of course, you do this any time you watch an EDITED FOR TELEVISION movie.
I personally have been waiting for this for years. I hope the idea catches on.
<soap box>
There is a reason that the courts use "community standards" as the yardstick for obscenity.
The standards of the /. community tend to be different from the community at large. As slashdotters, we are typically geeks and as such have typically been outcasts for much of our lives. It becomes an us and them kind of thing. We consider ourselves their intellectual superiors. Perhaps we even consider them to be slobbering idiots--a view not helped by the collections of tech support calls that find their way into geek legend.
The courts base their decisions on the standards of the community at large and not of the self-annointed intellectual elite. The idea is that if most of the student body were to be uncomfortable attending class because of the material being presented, there would be a problem. A teacher has a right, even a responsibility to stretch student's minds, but should strengthen not conflict with any moral principles taught at home.
Personally, I agree with the "community standards" on this one. I thought it was more artistic in the "old days" when they showed a man on his knees cowering in front of a man with a gun, who pulled the trigger and cut to black and another scene. I don't need to see the bullet enter his head in slow motion. I don't need to see his brains explode out the back and splatter across the floor.
I thought the love scene in A Knight's Tale was one of the best I've seen in a long time--it got the point across quite powerfully without wasting time to show bodies thumping that could be better spent on plot development.
Am I an uneducated fool? Have I no appreciation for art?
In elementary school, I stayed after school every Wednesday for an hour for an Art and Music enrichment class. We studied art, architecture and music from Greek Classical through Baroque over a period of three years. My mother, who agonized over whether to allow me to attend sex ed (she did finally sign the permission slip) in junior high had no qualms about my studying the medieval nudes.
I was a drama geek in high school and started college as a film major before graduating in Communications.
So many folks in Hollywood tell of an epic battle to push the envelope and explore more of their art as they fight the network censors and the MPAA ratings, but the ones that are truly exploring the art are not the ones trying to put more skin, swear words or blood on the screen. They're shows like "Ed"--a show full of quirky oddballs who somehow manage to restore your faith in humanity every week. Or a show like "The West Wing" that is so bold as to suggest that there may actually be some good, principled people working in Washington DC.
Yes, this new DVD player would be useful for schools and other places where restrictions limit what you are allowed to show, but you're forgetting how many people actually want to limit what they see--not to be ostriches with their heads in the sand, but because they know that looking at the sun hurts their eyes.
</soap box>
Call me a prude if you want, but there are a lot of good movies that I would love to watch except for the one or two scenes that I know are in there. I prefer not to watch R-rated movies. To have my DVD player automatically adjust the scenes to my preferences would be fantastic.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
Hell, at 2pm on a Sunday a local station showed predator, including Carl Weather's character's severed arm flying off, still firing an automatic weapon. Yeah, *that's* good family fare...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
If you have been working on a project like this then you might have read the dvd faq. It mentions some similar projects that died from patent disputes.
The two most common things in the Universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
This could get interesting because every time you examine another country, religion, or organization, the standards change. Don't confuse "religious" for "Christian." If you have one edit for Christians, then you should have another for Muslims, another for Jews, another for Hindus, and so on. (Yea, I know that's a little extreme, but follow me here, I'm serious.) Rating systems in the US and in Europe are already different. We'd end up with edits for different regions around the world. Now, I know most musicians quite dislike having their music edited (and I'm not talking hardcore rappers, I'm saying something even like Tom Petty's "You Don't Know How it Feels" which MTV had the phrase "roll another joint" changed). I don't see why it should be different for movies. I personally don't understand any religion (or interpretation thereof) that encourages individuals to deprive themselves of enjoyable things. But for the sake of argument, I'll pretend I do. If I can't watch a movie because of what it contains, does the meaning truly change if I remove some violence, sex, and bad language? If the movie is "anti-religious" in a way such that I can't watch it initially, does "toning it down" really change the meaning of the movie? Or mayhap it does. But then again, it is no longer the same movie. However, if you've changed the movie, you're no longer sharing the same experience with everyone else. My points: 1) equality means everyone and religion doesn't mean only "Christian" 2) we'll end up with even more "regional" settings... 3) either you're not watching the same movie, or removing the scenes isn't changing the movie, in which case it still should be "objectionable" I can understand "edited" as compared to "censored." Most "edited" versions have some sort of input from the creators, but this sounds like some proprietary group making those decisions.
"If God's on our side, he'll stop the next war." -- Bob Dylan
Just bear with me and imagine a PG rated "Braveheart",or perhaps "Gladiator" . They would be, what, 3-5 minutes long with all the violence taken out? This seems a good idea for those films which are good films but which are unfortuately cheapened by gratuitous foul language or nudity which is thrown in for no purpose. The ablility to omit objectionable content in a film I would find extrememly useful. There are many films I would really enjoy, if I didn't have to sift through an ocean of trash to be able to appreciate their good cinematography, plot, or acting. However, there are those films (like Braveheart) which would be absolutely ruined if objectionable scenes were cut out. There are many great films which use violence, sex, or language, to great purpose and with a definate intent or message, where the usage of said vices is absolutely critical to the film. To edit a film like Braveheart, Gladiator, or Amistad would absoulutely cripple it. So If you're worried about your child's exposure to objectionable content, this is a useful means of allowing them to watch good films without the garbage. But for those great films: don't even think about giving your kids the "Lite" version. Wait until they're old enough to handle a bit of violence and then let them watch the film in it's intirety, as the director intended.
What's in a Sig?
Okay, I don't happen to like mushrooms, so when I order a pizza, I order it without mushrooms. If someone offers me a slice of pizza with mushrooms, I politely turn it down.
Same thing with movies...if you don't like violence, don't watch Fight Club, if you don't like nudity, don't watch Showgirls, if you don't like profanity, don't watch anything but G-rated flicks. My point is that these movies are produced for a mass audience. I don't care for censorship in any form. I don't watch movies on broadcast TV because they have been butchered by a censor. I pay the extra $$ to subscribe to HBO/Cinemax. But that's my choice.
If you don't like nudity/violence/profanity, too bad. Through your personal choices, you have limited the entertainment options available to you. That's not a bad thing - it's YOUR choice. But do not try to force your personal belief of what is acceptable to you on anyone else. Simply put: If you object to it, don't watch it!!!
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
There's a fellow on the Xine-devel mailing list who'se already got a working prototype of an app that does exactly this - easily scriptable modified playback, with he ability to cut or subsititute audio and video.
The main use for it is airlines - ever watched an in flisht version of Pulp Fiction and noticed how it didn't offend anyone? That's what he's automating.
Jump on the mailing list and have a chat if you're interested.
A DVD player which allows you to edit out the "bad parts"...
Imagine that.
Maybe one day VCRs will be blessed with this miracle feature...
The fast forward button.
Brave new world.
Does this DVD player also allow one to raise and the lower the volume by allowing the user to access and configure the audio files?
-- Spudnuts
Unregistered Anonymous Coward
Oh man, you're right! How could I forget that mass of writhing bodies? I must've been blinded by the nipples in the ice cave scene. :)
Bare with me a second. Imagine a device that converts a G movie to a R movie. How nice would that be. It would be the ultimate porn product. Imagine watching a chick flick with R rating.. ah..nice! Remember..the porn industry is the industry that takes advantage of and adopts all the latest technologies.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
The edit list for a good Phantom Menace release wouldn't fit on a DVD.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
What a vague, pointless statement. Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh made undeniable 'contributions' to our culture and are 'American icons'. Nothing they did in those acts positively contributed to our country or culture. I hope they burn in Hell.
I'm rather impartial to the idea of "censoring" yourself, rather than letting the government or the ultra-consveratives do it for me.
I see this as one of the small benefits that technology allows where we, as viewers and our own private citizens, make choices about what is shown in our own homes. I'm am absolutely opposed to the idea that the feds or anyone else can reach down and tell me how to raise my kids, or run my family, or what I can see or not see in my own home. If my morals allow extra nudity, then so be it, but if not then great I get the option of turning it off and still enjoying the film with my family.
Everyone (well A LOT of people and groups) have been complaining for years that our childrens' problems with violence, sex, and crime are a direct result of our society and what we watch. Well what a better way to start than to let the family control what they watch instead of imposing the beliefs of the conservative few?
-s
personal choice is horrific?
they're just combinations of sounds? No, they're sounds in the context of language, and consequently carry a meaning. Your post makes about as much sense as saying that people shouldn't freak out about violent scenes or sexual scenes. They're just pixels... If someone doesn't want to listen to that meaning, you should stay out of it.
Your freedom of expression does not mean that you have the right to make everyone listen to you. Nor does it negate someones freedom to ignore certain "expressions", or to remove any "expression" they want from their living room.
man, the stupidity of some people these days...
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Seriously, kids are smarter than people get them credit for. The world around us is not edited.
You might not find something tasteful and not want it around. I can understand that fully.
But the idea that is portayed is that children aren't capable of understanding reality and need to be shielded from it, that's another thing.
Come on! Doesn't ANYONE remember being a kid? Didn't you laugh privately at the attempts to 'protect your mind'?
Don't automatically assume your children are idiots. That's the shortest route to blowing any possible respect they might have for you, and ensures they'll never listen to anything you have to say, wise or not.
Just think - Apocalypse now without Marlon Brando!
Selective edits could improve a lot of movies.
The way I see it, instead of adulterating In the Name of the Rose, why not show your kid a non-R-rated movie that expresses similar values? There is really no shortage of movies out there.
Fact is, sex and violence are parts of life, and while many movies exploit them for purely viceral benefit, many other movies deal with them seriously and thus manage to feel more pertinent to the real world than old classic cleaned up movies.
Grandparents (and people of similar age w/o kids) don't have much to do. Sure some are old enough they like to read, but most of those can't see well enough to read anything but large print books. They like watching TV and want to feel "in" by watching the movies everyone else (esp. their grand kids) watches and talks about. But they're appauled by the disrespect, cursing, sex, violence, etc.. Wouldn't it be great if next time I visited I could set their DVD player to "over 70" mode, which would remove anything remotely objectionable? Then they could rent DVDs from Blockbuster like everyone else, understand what their grandkids are talking about, and pass some time to prevent getting bored. All without feeling sinful.
This one comes awefully close.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Hey, people can still watch the original if they want. If you have faith in the pros, you can always Just Say No to this feature. But it's neat that you don't have to. Selection itself is a potential medium for creativity.
Hmm.. this isn't any different than "smart tags", ad filterers, over-riding stylesheets, etc on web pages. The viewer gets to decide what they see, not the content creator.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'd like it if Hollywood would provide alternative scenes, so that people who would prefer not to have cursing, sex, violence, etc., could watch scenes that make sense with the movie and don't include those. Hollywood could also make versions with extended sex scenes or particularly graphic violent scenes for people who are into that kind of thing. Seems to me like it could be an easy way to make more people really like a film.
It seems like they might be interested in going along with it, since that would increase the potential market for their film. For example a children's film could have a version with nothing remotely objectionalable for very little kids, a little implicit violence and/or sexual inuendo for older kids and adults who would prefer to avoid more objectionable material, and a another version with cursing and explicit violence and sex that teenagers wouldn't be embarassed to watch with their friends.
Another type of films that it might be particularly good for would be classics and "educational" films that parents and/or schools would like to share with kids.
But I would guess that the films that would gain the most extra profits from making multiple versions are you the "normal" films. I'd guess there are a lot of people who wouldn't want to go to an "adult theater", but would like to rent a normal DVD from Blockbuster- just like they'd rent the normal version- and from the privacy of their own home enjoy the "lots of extra graphic sex scenes" version. And people like me who are disturbed by violent scenes would be less likely to object when friends want to watch a movie, if we could compromise on watching the movie with the the "no explicit violence" option.
I'd guess Hollywood would choose do this on their own. It could simultaneously placate complaints about their content and sell even more copies to the masses.
Why would I pre-order this, when I can already download a working copy from clearplay at www.familyentertainment.org
I thought a company in Utah or something has been attempting to put a system like this together -- or outright sell otherwise R movies as a lower rating, but they were getting sued based on some lousy freedom of speech argument. I think the directors and other moguls in Hollywood just want to force their fantasies and worldviews on us. I'd pay extra $ for an adjusted money, or good $ for a movie-adjusting DVD player for my family.
What "format"--you mean a standard DVD? All of them agree to release DVDs because they all sign over the rights to some studio for home video (or if they fund the movie themselves they usually want home video sales).
Copyright holders (and apparently some in the Slashdot crowd) need to understand that nobody is talking about reproducing the copyrighted material here. All of this is essentially an edit list letting you programmatically determine what you see in what order off a standard DVD. You could (and probably do) the same thing at home manually when you're trying to catch a glimpse of some woman's breasts or capture some nudity or big explosion for your GUI's background. Jumping around the scenes to see what you want is what home video has allowed for as long as there has been home video. This is not about reproduction, it's about letting people see what they want with their legally obtained DVDs. After all the hoopla about deCSS I'd think the Slashdot crowd would get that.
I think that since this is "prior art," that he's safe from legal entanglements.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Patent this idea quick! If it isn't already...
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
This isn't rocket-science, you can do this stuff already if you have the proper DVD authoring software. No need for strange authoring software or dedicated players.
Depending on the player's parental content lock (can be checked within the title), force a subtitle display that you can't turn off by remote (part of the spec, easy to do), but make it a solid graphic "block" to obscure the naughty bits of whatever is on screen.
Likewise force a seperate audio track with the words bleeped out, silenced, or a "PG" audio track. Also easy.
Requires no additional software, compatible with every player out there, and anyone with decent authoring software could whip this up in no-time.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Can it get a movie past this guy? This man has a sick, sick mind. He manages to read filth and blasphemy into everything.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
will the kiddies hear Bruce Willis say "Yipi kiyay Mr. Falcon"?
All you have to do is watch the movie on TBS. So what if the plot doesn't make sense anymore, the cuts confuse you, and the 2 hour movie is now 43 minutes long.
Reading this post, I can't help but be reminded of Transformers: The Movie, and how it's all really cheesy and standard kiddie cartoon stuff except at this one point where for no really good reason someone yells "SHIT!" :)
It's really hilarious because it's so out of place in the movie, but it'd almost be even funnier to have a big *BEEP* there.
Oh wait, am I allowed to say that word on /.? Hehe it just occured to me that I actually typed and posted it.