*sputter*

[fox]

okay, it's probably not much of a mystery how i feel about "sanitized versions" of films on DVD.  (cleverclever people buy a DVD, edit out [what they consider to be] objectionable content, and sell it at a markup.)  i hear what they're saying about just wanting to be able to see a film without sex and violence, and my response is (a) there are plenty of films that legitimately don't have sex or violence; or (b) so become a producer.  you don't get to screw around with existing work and sell it at a profit.  worst case scenario, these guys could end up hurting us, by which i mean fans, who are so careful not to make a profit with our screwing-around-with-existing-work.  we do what we do because we like the original, man.  we add; we don't subtract.

but anyway.  this paragraph made me choke:

Some films are beyond editing.  Family Flix didn't even try to sanitize the ultra-violent "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" because it would have been reduced to almost nothing.  For the same reason, it won't touch movies in which a character appears "immodestly dressed" in too many scenes.  It also has not tackled Mel Gibson's violent but reverential "Passion of the Christ," because, [Sandra] Teraci [of Family Flix] says, "everyone has already seen it."

aslkasjalkjh'a;;lkad;ldf

GRAR.

Comments

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

This is one of my pet peeves, but I am on the opposite side of the argument. My dissent is on my lj here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ccr1138/15929.html

[darthfox.livejournal.com]

it's the profit-making that pisses me off the most. all the rest is frustrating, but meh. i don't, for example, have a problem with the DVD player mentioned in the Post article that allows people to mute, skip, whatever without harming the DVD -- i think it's redundant as the remote already comes with buttons for that, but whatever. but you don't get to re-do someone else's work and then make a profit from it. i say again: grar.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

Depends on what you mean by profit. A charge over and above the cost of the DVD in order to pay for the editor's time is perfectly okay. He is providing a service, and he deserves to get paid for it. Even if he were simply buying the DVDs at wholesale prices and selling them for a profit WITHOUT EDITING, there's nothing wrong with that.

Profit is not a bad thing. It is a very good thing. It is what drives our whole economy. If the DVD editing service is making too much profit, other people will enter the field, driving down the price and profit and providing competition. This benefits the consumer. The consume in turn will choose the service that best meets their needs, and the ones that don't get enough business will fail. This all works because of profit.

I agree people should not be able to steal (violate copyright) and profit from it. These services do not do that. They buy legitimate copies of the DVDs, edit them, and give the new version plus the disabled original to the consumer. The movie studios are getting paid for each and every DVD sold. In fact, the studios are BENEFITTING financially from the service, because most of the customers simply would not buy the DVDs at all if they could not have edited versions.

I wish the studios would wise up and make the edited (TV/airplane) versions of movies available for purchase.

[juice817.livejournal.com]

exactly. the really really stupid thing is that those edited versions are already created by the studio/director, and there are even (usually) multiple edited versions, but the studios essentially hide them away, and won't sell them even after they've aired on networks. it makes no sense to me, because the fact that these companies (family flix, cleanflicks) get so much business should show the studios that there IS a market out there for family-friendly entertainment.