*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

[wholenother.livejournal.com]

(a) I haven't see Passion of the Christ -- and I don't intend to.

(b) It is precisely this sort of action that I fear will end up being the excuse/reason for a crack-down on derivative works of the sort you produce. While I have no personal interest in slash per se, the derivative works thing drives me crazy. Vaidhyanathan and his observation that not everything that is produced by someone other than the original author(s), is derivative, and is worthy of being permissible can be a parody, but only parodies are allowed . . .