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
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
Of my two parents, one (my mother) had no problem with nudity in films but didn't like violence, while the other (my father) has no problem with violence in films, but didn't like nudity. My tastes are closer to my mother's: it's a screwed up world that deems it okay for a youngster to watch someone getting their brains blown out, but not someone taking their clothes off.
The point is, creating a branched film which incorporated various versions of scenes could be a great idea, as long as they allow you to select *what* you do or don't see at a fine grained level.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
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
A new generation of homegrown-editors will spring up on the net. You'll get the web sites devoted to erasing annoying characters from otherwise watchable movies. But you'll get so much more.
You'll get "family-friendly" web sites devoted to removing only the sexual references, but leave in John Wayne killing natives with a dagger. Other editors will run web sites that remove the violence but leave the sex.
You'll also end up with violence-prone editors. They'll give you the "Good parts" edition of Dirty Harry, featuring just the gun battles and punk shakedowns. Playboy will probably run versions of popular movies just skipping to the sex scenes.
You'll get the Short Attention Span Theatre's version of Waterworld. It'll be three minutes long, and people will still complain that it's too long! The site'll probably be run by the Cliff's Notes people, and will probably give the Cliff's Notes edition of all sorts of old classics.
Certain editors will probably become wildly popular because they trim all sorts of bad and long popular movies down to their viewable components. Before long, the RIAA will get involved because someone will come up with a "Commercial Product Placement Skipping" version.
This could be the Next Big Thing!
John
John
the bit that was removed is not needed to understand the movie (then why did the director put it in?)
Apparently you live in a world where all directors are ascetic celibates. However, in my world, directors often add nude scenes because they like to see live nude girls doing what they tell them to do. About Basic Instinct, the American writer gave some song and dance about the artistic necessity of the nudity and sexual situations in the film...the Dutch director was much more straightforward. He liked looking at naked women. I doubt that you disapprove of his opinions. Why then do you disapprove of the opinions of people who DON'T want to look at naked women?
What this thing produces are censored versions of movies.
The word is "expurgated." You apparently live in a world where if a person denies anything to themself, then Big Brother won't let them watch it. (Censorship is editing by others). If someone else wants to avoid hearing profanity, or vulgarity, or obscenity, why not let them? If you have the right to hear those words in a movie, why should someone else not have the right to NOT hear those words?
It's great that directors can do anything they want to with their films. Fair use lets other people do anything they want with those films, as long as it's for their own use. What do you have against fair use? What do you have against people deciding for themselves what to see and what to hear?
Most importantly, what do you have against a device that COMPLETELY takes the wind out of the sails of anyone who wants to censor movies "for the children"? Don't want your kids to see Pocahontas's cleavage? Download the anti-cleavage config file and pop the DVD in. Want to share Star Wars with your kids but don't like the word "damn"? Download the anti-swearing config file and have at it. The only people who'll be able to complain about the content of movies now will be demonstrably bad parents - ie, ones who refuse to manage the content their children are exposed to.
P.S. If you don't think parents should manage what their kids are exposed to, then I encourage you to take your two- and three-year old to a slasher flick. Several sleepless nights will ensue and you'll learn the hard way.
I prefer my movies without sex and without language.
Wow. Even before the 'talkies' appeared on the scene, they'd put the essential dialogue into the movie as a sort of 'slide'. Offhand, I can't think of any movies with no language at all, though I expect there are some animated ones with language only in the titles and credits.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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.
It gives plenty. Watch on old movie sometime and you may notice that people can be killed or be passionate without ever seeing blood or frontal nudity. How did they do it? They used imagination and good acting and (correctly in my opinion) concluded that the graphic details were subordinate to the story.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
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.
> 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
I would presume that the softwarewould just remove the questionable scene altogether.
This is actually a good thing for parents who want to rent videos for the whole family to watch. It's incredibly embarrassing for a parent when there are graphic depictions of sexuality in what would otherwise be a very entertaining film. Take Jerry McGuire... you rent it for the family and the scene pops up where Kelly Preston is bouncing on Tom Cruise's lap and screaming, "Don't you ever stop fucking me!" Even though you never see her full body, the scene is way too intense for kids.
Yeah, I know where the fast forward button is on my VCR, but the movie isn't entertaining for me if I have to sit on the edge of my seat with remote in hand, waiting for questionable material.
Compounding the problem is the "Director's Cut" that comes out on the DVD's. There are probably a lot of examples where a movie that had a mild amount of adult content turned it up to 11 on the Director's Cut DVD.
I applaud any technology that aids me as a parent.
-----