I enjoy the edited version of these films for various reasons. It may seem like just a few sware words that could be heard on tv, but it’s really not! I like that they take out the cussing… all of it. I hate hearing it on television and promptly change the chanel if I hear it. I love that these edited versions have less gore. You can’t watch a war movie without seeing battles take place and certain events occuring. You can, however, watch it and see that a missile is headed directly at the abdomen of a loved character WITHOUT seeing that it went straight through him, his guts all fell out and he was still alive for 10 minutes longer feeling all the pain and seeing his own intestines all over the ground. Do you see my point?

If anyone has ever seen an edited version, you’d see that the integrity of the film in not in question. They allow you to see what is happening without having to see all the gorey details. You can tell that a couple had sex without watching soft pornography with your kids in the room.

I think it’s wonderful that someone decided they wanted to be able to watch the same movies as everyone else but without having to watch all the garbage involved. I love that they made these edited versions available for those willing to search for them. I sincerly hope that it shows Hollywood that people don’t want to see these things and then maybe they’ll either quit making things so gruesome to begin with, or maybe they’ll make an edited version available on the dvd, like a special edition.

I meant “withOUT losing the implication of it.”

I’ve seen Ghostbusters on television a few times and I noticed in order to get around the frequent profanity in that movie, they simply replace the line in question with an alternate, more TV-friendly take. This is a great idea, becuase then you’re not tied down by this whole character maying one line and mouthing another, or really bad voice-over work. Plus, it implies studio involvement. The studio made those takes available because they felt they were still effective in their excecution, but they were the less vulgar versions the networks needed.

Disney does this with some of their mid-90s live-action movies, back when Disney’s PG-rated movies had a rough edge to them. I remember seeing Honey, I Shrunk The Kids on the Disney Channel once and the line “We’re all the size of boogers” was replaced with the same actor saying “What does it look like? We’re all the size of bugs!” The line about the “trail of dog pee that looks like a river” was cut completely, with losing the implication of it.

New Line was releasing videos a while back of edited versions of some of their PG13-rated movies. I remember seeing videos of The Mask and Blast From The Past that were “edited for family viewing.”

As far as someone else cutting these movies and selling/renting them, I can see where the studios would be upset about this. Aside from the content side, basically what people are doing is buying a copy from the studio, and then reselling the movie with no benefit to the studio. Granted, store sell used DVDs all the time now, but they’re still selling them unaltered. I think the studio has a right to battle these edited copies, but should take it as a sign that there may be a market for studio- and filmmaker-approved edited versions of some of their movies.

I’m not sure we are allowed to make even personal copies, many things we buy, software, movies, music we don’t actually own at all. If you read the small print they are actually licensed to us, although we have the physical disc we do not own the content in anyway and actually have no right to alter, transfe, copy or anything else other than is stated in the licence.

With all due respect, I counter.

While these films are the property of the studios, when you purchase a film, you are allowed to make a single copy, are you not?

Keep in mind, please- these stores are not selling copied movies. They have a 1:1 ratio, the original and it’s edited copy. If people would like the business to edit a movie they can own in their own private library, the individual is required to purchase the original film, whereupon the business makes the edit. I’m not sure where that’s illegal or immoral?

Is it illegal or imooral for me to turn away from the screen? If not, then why is it immoral for me to permanently take that out of the film I view? It’s still out there in it’s original glory to be seen unedited.

As for rights: You just argued it’s the studio property- so how do film makers rights play into it? I suppose on an artistic level you’re correct- it is their right. But why not let that be decided (or, since it’s the property of the studio, letting the studio decide), instead of this kneejerk “It’s all wrong”. And that’s what is perplexing. The studios are capital driven organizations. While shrouded in copyright, this is cash driven. It’s all bottom line.

Lastly, we’re not talking about allowing small animals to be killed by stilleto here. Studios can make this easy and simply see the need and fill it- just like the music industry and Apple did with iTunes in the wake of MP3 copyright issues. Take advantage of the demand, don’t squash it (let me also add that not all films can be edited and retain impact. Saving Private Ryan, Unbreakable, etc. are films designed to shock by design).

Anyway. Good discussion.