Welcome to this installment of The Audio Edition Mail Bag! Today’s topics include:
1) The censorship of “Death of a President”
2) Peter Jackson and Ian McKellen MUST be on The Hobbit?
3) Evan Almighty Budget inasnity
4) Google buying YouTube
4) X-Men 3 DVD breaking records
5) Should George Lucas be allowed to change moives he didn’t direct (Empire and Jedi)?
6) Who will take Nov 17 th box office? Casino Royale or Happy Feet?
7) What are the Hardest things about starting and running a movie website?
8) Prince Of Peace – God Of War – What did I use to shoot and edit it, what was the budget, and how to you get it to the screen?
Subscribe to The Audio Edition on iTunes! iTunes will automatically download each new episode for you as soon as they go online! Just click this button. iTunes will open to the Audio Edition page. When it does, just click “subscribe”. It’s that easy!
Or you can manually download this installment of The Audio Edition here.
We’ve beaten this topic to a pulp.
But I’d like to see the exact quote from the rep that said “it is not a business decision.”
And if that’s the case, everyone should give Mr. Campea the victory.
But if the quote does not admit to not being a business decision, then everyone who is looking at this as a censorship issue is taking the statement at face value and should look beyond what is said.
Hey Shane,
Ok, that’s a pretty huge thing to say…. care to back it up with any… you know… proof? Or are you just speculating and assume your guess is fact?
The regal rep admitted it wasn’t a business decision. So I’m not quite sure what you’re basing your “naive” accusation on.
As far as Regal, if you don’t think this is a business decision, then I’d say your a bit naive.
addendum: i’d really like to read or hear your stance now that i’ve clarified,John. or maybe you could bring it up with the other Audio Edition Crew as it’d be fun to get their take on it all.
thanks for the reply,John. i think you may have misunderstood my question a bit,though. so let me elaborate a little more using a similar example to the onre you used on the audio edition:
if Nagy financed Prince Of Peace which you directed & it was a whopping success critically,artistically & commercially & it went on to be ragarded as a classic.
okay now jump say 15 years ahead. Doug decides that he’s not happy with your film after all & feels he could make a better revamped version even though it already has classic status.
he totally changes your great editing for some that throws off the film’s pacing & feel. also his changes add nothing at all to improve your artistic vision. also the scoring & key plot elements have been wiped and/or changed.
now honestly,Campea: tell me that you would not be pissed off that your artistic intergrity was compromised?
now do not get the wrong idea, i’m all for slight changes to a film as long as:
1)it adds to the story for the better. the only 2 examples that could have improved the original Star Wars trilogy are the Han/Jabba meeting in Ep IV & getting a clearer glimpse of the snow beast that attacked Luke on Hoth.
2)the changes do not interfere with the editing/pacing/ or alter the plot significantly.
or
3)the film sucked balls in every way that i mentioned above (commercially etc) & could be rejigged to have a chance at cuccess.
Lucas claims that the trilogy as originally theatrically released are only 20-25% of what his vision was. especially Empire & Jedi.
damn if the percentage was truly that low for your “vision”& you have the money & the technology, why not just REMAKE THEM COMPLETELY? direct all 3 like you did the lousy prequels & get 100% of of your vision. leave Kirsh & Marquand’s films alone. it’s not like either of them were duds at the box office or with the critics /fans..
Darth-T,
Regal is NOT “PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM SEEING A MOVIE.” They just choose not to show it on their screens. Because I don’t sell Camel Ultra-Lights at my tobacco store mean that I’m preventing people from smoking them?
No! No one is banning or taking away your right to see something. One particular business just chooses not to sell it themselves.
And yes, I think J’s comparison is a good one. If George Lucas came into the studio one day and said, “You know what? I don’t like AT-ATs. I think they are stupid.” Then he proceeds to remove the entire Hoth battle from Empire Strikes Back, that would be disgraceful, disrespectful and yes, censoring them from any future video release. But if Blockbuster chooses not to carry the videos, is that censorship?
Think before spouting your sarcastic comments.
~Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
Wait. Hold on. You’re breathing too hard into that helmet Darth T.
I did listen to the audio edition and it was a very good one.
Here’s the deal. Perhaps the matter of Regal not showing the film is a business decision after all. Maybe the executives don’t want to take the heat that its bound to get if they have the film playing in their theaters.
Remember The Passion of the Christ? No studio wanted to take on that film because they were too scared.
Or better yet, how about The Last Temptation of Christ? Remember that movie? Protesters were surrounding theaters when that thing hit.
Regal is just protecting their reputation.
By the way, Darth wipe your mask. I think it’s fogged up from breathing so hard that you can’t read what I’m writing.
Holy shit, is “j” really comapring a guy making changes to his own movie to a Theater chain preventing people from seeing a movie? How on earth are those 2 things comparable?
And did you even listen to the show? Campea already said Regal had the right to do it. No one said they didn’t. Maybe you should listen to something before commenting on it.
I think Drewbacca beat me to my statement.
John, you are right that it is censorship and it is hypocracy.
Yet Regal has the right to manage their company any way they see fit. That’s why its a free market.
It’s funny how you think that Lucas can alter the Star Wars movies because he owns them, but you slam Regal for doing what they want to their movie theaters.
Have a good day and keep up the good work.
J.
John,
I am a fairly new reader, and have enjoyed the movie blog quite a bit. Regarding the censorship issue, I think your stance is pretty reasonable, but I can think of another way to look at Regal’s position and would be interested in your response.
You feel that Regal has the right to not show a film that it feels is not financially viable. Is it possible that Regal management feels that showing this film in their theatres would have a long term financial impact on their company? Maybe they feel that while Death of a President would itself do well, showing the film could lead some fanatics to boycott their chain of theatres. Or, if I am being even more cynical, maybe they feel that if they do not show the film and then take some moral high ground over the issue and publicize their position, they will endear themselves to those same fanatics leading to more increased revenue over the long run than they would have earned from the film itself. In either case, censorship is a business decision. Mind you, I am not saying this is the case, just offering another perspective.
Chip Chief
servewithchips.blogspot.com
I’m convinced. I think there was a nationwide conspiracy to censor the comedy “Slap Her, She’s French” a year or so ago…theatre chains refused to screen the film because they thought the film was crass and idiotic. It may very well have been.
hahahahaaa
Hey, anybody remember “Silent Night, Deadly Night” (1984)? The one with the serial killer Santa Claus?
“Death of a President” was on C4 a couple of days ago in the UK…
As far as George Lucas goes, I understand the star wars movie belong to him, but I still think there is a respect issue of leaving the work of another director alone.
The censorship stuff, well believe it or not I actually 100% agree with you on this. I can’t believe some people don’t.
Casino Royale will kick the ass of those animated penguins
X-Men The Last Stand selling so many copies just proves 1 thing, how stupid humanity is.
Good show again, can’t wait for Monday!
It’s your site, John, so I suppose you’re entitled to get on your soapbox if you want, but I wish you’d get off it a little more quickly. Jesus Harold Christ, you went on and on and on (and on) about censorship for what felt like several months. It dragged on for so long, I felt like I was back watching Lord Of The Rings again, and I can’t forgive you for that. In fact, I think I may turn PRO censorship just to spite you.
See what you’ve done?
John,
I’m a little confused about your definitions of censorship. Maybe this discussion has already been had and you don’t want to return to it too much but I’m just wondering if you could clear some things up for me:
1) I don’t know the exact details of this Harry Potter ban at this school. Are the students prevented from bringing their own copies of these books to school? Were the books originally available in the school library, then removed? On the other hand, I don’t see how a book can be “banned” or “censored” if a school simply feels that it doesn’t want to a) teach the book in English class or b) buy it for their library. If those are the criteria for “banning” or “censorship” then 99% of the books in the world are in effect banned in most schools and libraries. Lack of availability doesn’t really equal censorship. Not every product is available in every store, that doesn’t mean those unavailable products are “banned” in those stores, does it?
2) I can see how charges of “banning” or “censoring” can legitimately arise if an authority of the controlling organization (school or movie chain) comes out and says “We’re not providing access to this film/book in spite of mass desire for it”. But at the same time, are you saying, BECAUSE there’s a market for it, that it’s WRONG for a movie chain, for example, not to show any given movie? Look, maybe it’s censorship and maybe it isn’t (it depends on your definition), but still there’s nothing WRONG that I can see with the controlling body of a private enterprise not showing anything they don’t want to. By your logic (or the logic I see you moving toward), EVERY PRIVATE CAPITALIST ENTERPRISE *MUST* SHOW *EVERY* POTENTIALLY PROFITABLE MOVIE POSSIBLE. In effect, you’re wanting to FORCE private companies to take on every movie that’s profitable (if not every movie period). That’s just ridiculous. If I own a company and I don’t to buy a product, even if that product (by some or even ALL accounts) is profitable, then maybe that’s poor business, but no outsider has NO right to force me to buy that product! Even if it’s as petty as “I don’t like the people who make the product for purely selfish, private reasons”, then I simply don’t have to buy their product.
On the other hand, if in the two examples you’ve given, the people in charge of the school and the movie chain have come out and basically said, “Yes, we’ve made a conscious decision not to stock these products BECAUSE WE PURPOSELY WANT TO *PREVENT* ACCESS TO THEM” then yeah, I would say that’s censorship. But I think there’s a shade of meaning about how “lack of availability” doesn’t equal “censorship”. (In the case of a school, if the school thinks the presence of Harry Potter books are distracting to learning and mental development and encourage lack of variety and lack of imagination (I’m not a fan), much like the presence of video games in a school library would, then that’s another issue…)
If this discussion has already been had, feel free to ignore this.
John, very good audio edition. I liked it. Quite a bit. Also, you said something about Bruce Almighty costing around 20 million. And I’ve read it cost around 81 million dollars. Indeed. You were a bit off there ;).
Hi John,
Although I’ve already stated my comment in the original post you put up, I must reiterate. You are wrong about the Googly/YouTube deal.
In years to come, we may look back at the release of the iPod & iTunes as a point where the distribution of digital content (music, films and anything else) changed everything.
Apple Comp. has gone in partnership with the distributors of the content, and made it easily & cheaply to everyone with a computer. The possibilities are wide-open in regards to the future of this (with stuff such as iTv coming out next year).
YouTube is a ‘free’ novelty that’s insanely popular at the moment, but they own absolutely no content (which anyone would be willing to pay for anyway).
If Google ends up buying a big media giant, then I might agree with you, but this deal reminds me of the internet bubble over 10 years ago. Companies were willing to invest million/billions of dollars in absolute worthless shit. Remember Pets.com?
Now I’ll admit YouTube is very popular (I’m on it quite often myself), and has become a true phenomenon, but it’s free! I can tell you right now, there’s no way in hell I’m gonna pay for anything on YouTube, as it is now.
John, you made this grand statement, without even qualifying it. Just because they have a shitload of lawyers doesn’t mean they know what they’re doing.
You’ve bought into the media-hype of all this, hook, line & sinker. When I was watching the news this past week and everyone mentioned this sale, all I could think of saying was “so what?”
YouTube is popular for what it is ‘now’, a free quick-access video free-fo-all for the masses, at a mediocre quality.
Whatever future Google has in store with this, I know one thing, it’s not revolutionary. It may be profitable for them, but it’s not revolutionary.
Yes, that’s what I got out of it. By your definition of censorship, anything a store decides to not allow the public to see is censorship. It shouldn’t really matter what the reason is. By not showing it, they’re not “preventing” anyone from seeing it. They’re just choosing not to be the mouthpiece for the people who created something. Just like a lot of theaters chose not to show “The Passion.”
I guess my problem is why you are so up in arms about it. I agree it’s maybe a bit hypocritical on their part, when they show certain tasteless things, then won’t show “Death of a President.” They won’t show “Cum Gobbling Super Sluts 6” either. But I guess what’s bugging me is, why do you care that they don’t want to show it? How does it affect you or anyone you know?
I’ll use my example I used before: would it make you angry if Target chose not to carry “Natural Born Killers” on DVD?
Your Harry Potter example is a good one too. Although I think it’s a bit silly, I understand and have no problem with a school library not carrying it on thier shelves. It’s not a book that is useful in a learning environment. And sure, it’s techniaclly censorship.
So it comes down to this: Yes, Regal is censoring a movie that people might normally come to their theater to see. My point is… so what?
On a lighter note, I fixed my iPod today. YES!
~Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
P.S. – NO ONE can steal my porno name I mentioned above. I’m copyrighting the idea right now.
Hey Drewbacca,
“So you’re saying it’s okay to censor something if it won’t make money”
Is that what you really got out of it? To not play something because it’s not finacially viable is NOT censorship because it doesn’t meet the definition.
It’s not an exertion of influcne for the PURPOSE of keeping people from seeing something.
And keep in mind…. every act of censorship from Stalin to Hitler is motivated by someone “holding to their ideals”. It just becomes a problem when they enforce their ideals on someone else with whatever scope of power or influence they have.
BUSINESS DECISION: “I could care less if someone watches this or doesn’t watch this, but carrying this will cause us to lose money, while another option will make us money, therefore we will go with the other option for that reason alone”
HOLDING TO YOUR IDEALS = “I don’t like this, therefore I will not watch or listen to it.
CENSORSHIP = “I don’t like this, therefore I will take action using my limited scope of power and influence to try to prevent others from watching or seeing it”.
There is a universe of difference between those three things. And what Regal did, fell into the thrid category. In my opinion anyway.
So you’re saying it’s okay to censor something if it won’t make money, but it’s not okay to censor something because they don’t like it?
They should be ripped on by blogs for holding to their ideals (no offense), but it’s perfectly okay if they ban it because it’s an independent film or it has bad special effects and won’t make money?
~Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
all I can say is I would do anything to see pauly shore as gandalf…you’ve sold me.
john, it’s dumbledore not dumbledorf.
here’s the problem with changing characters in LOTR
look at these characters:
when they change dumbledore.
when they changed batman in the 90’s series.
when they changed bond.
when they changed harry dunn and lloyd christmas.
when they changed the oracle from the matrix (unfortunate).
when they change clarice in hannibal.
heck even when they changed the mom from the fresh prince.
i find when they make these “changes” the characters do suffer.
if they’re going to make character actor changes, maybe they should wait a decade until a new franchise begins.
granted bale was much better for example, but that was a new franchise.