Welcome to this 1 day late installment of The Audio Edition Monday Round Table. We recorded this last night… but due to the fact that we then had to go directly into recording the Conan The Barbarian Commentary, and therefore didn’t have time to edit and post it until this morning. But better late than never!
On today’s show, Doug, Darren Bruxy and I discuss:
1) The big issue of censorship is back again
2) A September opportunity
3) Walmart holding back REAL digital movie downloading?
4) We want creativity! But… we all went to see Jackass 2
5) Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man!
6) Stallone vs. Predator (older characters in action roles)
7) David Hasslehoff NOT in Knight Rider movie
8) Keith Richards getting hammered
9) Fox boss talks X-Men 4, Woverine, AVP2, FF2 and more
All this an a few things more.
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.
Bruxy Cavey’s Site
Darren Conley’s Site
Doug Nagy’s Site
A vous de nous donner votre avis ! Allez voir le site performance-publique.gouv.fr pour vous familiariser avec les concepts essentiels. Vous y trouverez une information complete sur le cout des politiques publiques, sur leurs performances, sur la LOLF ou sur les bonnes pratiques a l
Power to the people is, is not a good idea
People are less moral than 30 years ago
One last comment on the movie editing stuff – They sell edited CD’s and none of the artists bitch about a lack of thier artistic integirty so what really makes movies so different?
Mr. Cavey, you are such a welcome addition to the audio edition show! Its great to have you hear.
Mr. Nagy should rule the universe and underworld.
Darren is a lot funnier than a lot of people give him credit for.
Mr. Campea rules. That all, just rules.
Censorship is evil
Stallone rules
Iron Man will rock
Screw Hasselhoff
I think that’s all. Great show guys!
Ahh man what a great audio edition.
Hey, I noticed someone (Larry?) posted a question for me – if I am considering recording an audio edition of my book. Thanks for the vote of confidence. The answer is YES – we are booked to record in a studio in two weeks! It will take a couple of months for it to be released, but when it is, you will be able to order it at http://www.theendofreligion.org, just like the print version.
Thanks for asking.
Peace,
Bruxy
(a.k.a., The End of Religion Guy)
For Sean who was trying to think of a movie that might be appropriate for his daughter, I’d mention Shakespeare in Love again. In a few years that may be a perfect movie that you could enjoy with your daughter. But I don’t think you’d enjoy it with the two, one-minute, doggy style sex scenes. In that one evening, you’d probably like to see the TV version with her. When she’s older you might feel comfortable watching the regular version with her in the room.
I don’t want to censor directors. I just would have liked the option of the TV version on certain occasions.
I agree with Allen in that implied violence and sexuality is SOMETIMES better. Since I’m an old fart, I grew up with the excitement of Sean Connery as James Bond. I have to admit that the implied sexuality in that was more exciting that the explicit wrestling in Never Say Never Again.
I’m not a prude. I like the overt steam and sensuality of Unfaithful. I like the violence in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and the stylized violence in Kill Bill 2.
Overt is good. But sometimes implied is even better…
“See, I told you we wouldn’t agree! I get where you’re coming from, but you make one small statement that gives you away. Desires are not rights, John. The more we indulge that fallacy the worse off the human race is going to be.”
Black Steven,
Actually, we do already have the right to skip scenes that we don’t want to see. John wasn’t wrong. If they won’t edit it off the disc, we have the right to skip over it with fast forward, or if it were 10 years ago and on VHS, we could edit it right off the tape. Most people would also have the right to not see it by not getting the movie. This final choice results directly in less sales (please don’t try and claim that is somehow incorrect.)
It is a right. The movie companies could financially benefit by giving us better access to that right by making clean versions or including clean options on the discs. Another company noticed that sales could be made this way and was doing so, and the movie companies still profited off of it, as far as I am aware, because it was a legit organization and not a black market copy.
The movie companies can’t decide what I will watch. I can close my eyes whenever I want. To prevent piracy, it’s become harder to edit or copy movies on dvds. It used to be quite easy with VHS. But this is not piracy.
The movie companies DO have the right to put whatever they want on the disc, but we still have final say over whether we will see it. And they don’t get money if we don’t buy it. All this arguement amounts to is that the movie companies have a market of people who want clean versions on dvd, and not just on tv’s or airlines. It’s a market, like making a movie for women. They can make better sales by tapping into the market. Hasn’t Walmart been selling edited CD’s for years, which are normally only heard on the radio?
But if you think we have too many rights, your example seems to have gone too far. Color? You think we should all have the same color car too?
-Calviin
It’s interesting that the editing issue has come up.
If I could edit a film for my personal viewing pleasure, it would be Alien Ressurection- I’d keep the guts, theslime, f bombs…all that. I’d cut out Joss Whedon’s stupid draggy one liners…and the Home Shopping Newtwork.
[I’d actually also like to have Whedon’s original ending, but that was never filmed]
Hey, John …
Famke is pronounced “FOM-cuh.”
I’m a little torn on the whole editing movies issue. I know I saw movies with my parents at home that, by the ratings system I wouldn’t have been allowed to see otherwise (Blues Brothers and Alien come to mind) and I know I snuck in to see Highlander with a friend of mine when we were 12 or 13. I’m PRETTY sure I wasn’t damaged by seeing those movies, but of course I don’t know how many movies my parents rented and watched after I went to bed.
With my daughter being only 4 right now I can’t think of any movies that I would sit an watch with her that would be for me and her vs. her and me.
I will say that I like the one or two dvd’s I have where you can watch the theatrical release of the movie, or have a selection to watch the directors cut on the same disc.
In theory I would like to be able to make the same selection to watch a movie with a sex scene cut out, or maybe a part with a lot of blood removed.
And maybe it’s just that I’m tired, but right now I can’t think of a movie I’ve seen lately where taking those things out would make me want to sit and watch them with my girl, even if she was 10, 11, 12, etc. and could sit through 90 minutes or more of a movie. I think I’m being unclear, let me ramble a moment . . . I’ve seen movies recently that could have sex or violence cut out to make them viewable to a PG or PG-13 level, but I don’t think I would want to spend the money to rent those movies, edited or not.
Several people have used Swordfish as an example of a movie where there are obvious things you might cut from the movie to make it open to a wider audience.
I’m curious, for those who aren’t completely opposed to this idea, what movies do you think would be worth watching edited ?
I’m asking becasue when I think of some of the ones from my younger days (Blues Brothers, Alien, Highlander, RoboCop, Poltergeist) that I have seen in both edited and original, I hate watching the edited copies. Maybe it’s just that the type of movies I like sort of require the blood&guts; comments ?
See, I told you we wouldn’t agree! I get where you’re coming from, but you make one small statement that gives you away. Desires are not rights, John. The more we indulge that fallacy the worse off the human race is going to be.
Man, I’m taking this crap FAR too seriously.
Um… San Dimas High School football rules!!
Hey there Black Steven,
Well said, however it still dosen’t address the basic idea here. NO ONE is trying to tell the film makers what to make. That is totally up to them. HOWEVER, since it’s already perfectly accepted that certain material in the films is edited or deleted for airline, Grey Hound busses and obviously television… then what’s the problem with an individual making a choice to not watch it.
The individual is not dictating the director or studio alter HOW they make their films, nor are they didctating what they put into the film… only that they have the right and the chocie to decide what they choose not to look at that is in the film already.
This is freedom of choice. The studio are free to make the films however they want… and the indivdual is free to watch, not watch, or only watch certain portions of that film.
Personally, I prefer to see a full film as the director intended. BUt that’s just me. That’s my right and my freedom. If Eddie next door chooses to watch swordfish and blank out the needless Berry Tit shot, so be it. It doesn’t effect me, you, the studio, the director, or anyone else for that matter.
We can debate if someone SHOULD WANT to see edited films. But I strongly believe that they should have that RIGHT to do so if that’s their desire.
Just my thouhts.
Cheers!
~John
Walmart:
No matter what the issue, one company should not have that amount of leverage over an entire industry.
Self-Edited Movies:
I currently have the choice on several DVDs to ‘add’ deleted scenes into the flow of the movie via an option menu. I’d love to have the ability to adjust the movie to the ‘airplane’ version via the same mechanism. A movie that comes to mind is Jackson’s King Kong. My 6 year old loves the movie, but I had to skip the scene with the natives because of the realistic gore and violence. Just make the ‘airplane’ or ‘broadcast’ version available for purchase. I’m sure Walmart would jump at that chance to sell it ;-)
Censorship is Bad…Self-Censorship is an inalienable right.
Iron Man:
I loved Iron Man as a kid ( remember the cartoon?). I still think that the decision to not start him off as a raging alcholholic was a good one. One thing that comic book movies usually lack is character development. I want to see him evolve into an alcholic, show us where his demons come from.
Older Action Heroes:
Sean Connery can still pull of the ‘action hero’ role (he did “The Rock” in his mid-sixties. Though Stallone is not the same caliber actor, it would be interesting to see.
Question for Bruxy:
I’m interested in reading your book, but have you considered doing an audio book podcast of it? Your speaking voice seems perfect for an an audio book adaptation.
Thanks for the comments, John. I think we discussed this a few months back and didn’t agree, so I guess we won’t agree this time either!
My problem with this thing isn’t about censorship. My problem is the growing trend toward massive egotistical self-indulgence in the developed world. Now, obviously, I accept that’s a very large issue we aren’t going to deal with on the movie blog (or are we? ;)), but this clean flix thing is just another symptom of our culture of, ‘You, THE CONSUMER, are the centre of your own little universe, and you, THE CONSUMER, must be given exactly what you want in whatever shape or colour you desire.’
The larger issue is that it’s turning us all into obese, debt-ridden, arrested adolescents. The issue as it relates to films is that film-watching is supposed to be a passive experience, not one where you get to decide whether you want ketchup or a pickle. It’s about sitting back and taking in what the film-makers are offering. If said film-makers think what you need are boobs and ridiculous blow job hacking scenes, then you’re just going to have to take them. If you’ve chosen to take a moral stance against that kind of thing, which is fair enough, it’s your responsibility to avoid anything that might cause offence (it’s called Swordfish, easily offended types, and a better reason to avoid it is that it’s a piece of shit), not to impose your will on someone else’s creation. You have no more right to do that than paedophiles have a right to insert sex scenes into Toy Story because that’s what gets them off.
I hope all is well in Canada. Take care.
Yo John, I just looked on boxofficemojo. It said production budget for Jackass Number Two was 11.5 Million. Seems like alot. They have been wrong before. So I really dont know if thats correct. Good audio edition.
Oh, don’t look too shocked. You knew I was going to pop in sooner or later.
No essays this time; I have a nasty cold and it’s been kicking my ass all day.
Still…
I have a strong disagreement with John on two areas:
1: I don’t think September is a month when studios dump all the trash. January/Febuary…maybe. But not September. I think the studios had high hopes for a number of films that didn’t do well as expected. One film got raves for a perfoormance by Den Affleck and Adrian Brody (Hollywoodland) and no one shows up to see it. I think it’s possible that that film may turn up briefly again in the next few months…but only if the studio is going to push Oscar consideration for Affleck, Brody and Diane Lane. But two big studio films that studios hoped would kick start the Oscar buzz -DePalma’s Dehila and the Sean Penn film All The King’s Men- tanked. Also, “Invincible” had two weeks #1 at the start of the month..and then ‘Gridiron Gang”** followed…maybe studios are safe releasing true story formula Football themed films around pigskin season…I don’t know…
But, what a dismissal, John. What a dismissal! I cannot strongly disagree more.
2: I also have a serious bone to pick with you…you said “all” of the people who praised ‘Jackass 2’ or went to see ‘Jackass 2’ are the same people who complain about the lack of originality in Hollywood films. I have trouble buying that “everyone” is in this same boat.
I know I’m not on that boat- and I’m usually one of the first to question why there are so many remakes (sequels I’m not opposed to except for one film, but then, you tend to put ‘everything’ into one lump sum anyway) In fact, look at my responses regarding ‘Jackass’- what two films I mention show that creativity isn’t dead AND how I strongly disagree that ‘Jackass’ success proves that people support this film over quality films.
If it were not the case John, “Sunshine” and “Illusionist” would not hold on in the top ten as long as they have on the limited screens that they play on. Both films have opened on more screens, notably ‘Illusionist’, and its box office take climbs UP.
It sounds great if a film goes #1 on an opening weekend. It sounds more better if you have films that steadily gain an audience and have staying power…and I also think that “Sunshine” and “Illusionist” …we have not seen the last of those two pix yet. In fact, I’m crossing my fingers that ‘Sunshine’ will lock the Golden Globes comedy section early next year.
*********
Now, let’s talk about directors filming different scenes for cover. Allen mentioned this.
I personally cannot see why someone would have to shoot a scene that many times, when the TV cover version says enough. It can change the meaning of a scene, [why is a character acting odd about a woman in a bikini? Answer: the orginal take was hyped as Berry topless] but in most cases I find that cover scenes retain the same meaning or even a better, deeper meaning. If film and production costs so much, why is so much spent on nonsense? Why not have the clean (or clean-er) version instead? Is it censorship if it is filmed by the director intentionally as cover?
Here’s something funny: the MB fellas are doing the Conan thing. Recently I watched this film again, in the 2:35 format. When it aired on TV, the scene with the witch Conan encountered was excised and he just ‘stumbled’ onto Sabotai. Yet, when I first saw the uncut Conan, I was bored out of my skull. I could not figure out what was so great about the film…and the TV edit was better and moved at a brisker pace.
After years of dismissal, I elected to watch the “restored cut” on DVD, not knowing what to expect. First, there was the widescreen format [which, when a film airs on airlines or TV can be, most of the time, ‘modified to fit the screen at 1:33, so that alone makes a huge difference] next was the things put back in, like the full ‘newly restored’ ending, which made a lot more sense and gave the film a bit more meaning.
I also re-discovered why I thought Sandhal Bergman got me through puberty, but that’s another discussion, and I will not go into too much detail here…
I’m tired.
Good night.
Hey guys,
it’s IESB.NET
not “.com”
Just an FYI.
~Drewbacca
MoviePatron.com
It is the Bloggie Award winning Podcast of the Year.
Who cares that its not #1, but feel free to tell your friends and then it might be!
First time listener gentlemen. I have a question for everyone in here. HOW ON EARTH IS THIS NOT THE #1 SHOW ON iTUNES?
My friend told me about you guys over a month ago and I just got around to listening today. What have I been missing! I’m going to start going through your archives and listening to all the shows.
Who thought I’d find a movie podcast with a Preacher and a foul mouthed comic laughing with each other? Great stuff gentelmen. Count me as a new regular.
I’m not defending the movie, I’m just defending the artists right to create whatever he wants. If he creates shit, at least we can hold him responsible.
My statements were directed more towards John than you, since you posted so shortly before me, I didn’t get to see your comment untill after I had posted mine.
I don’t think anyone is saying that. I’m personally saying that movies were/are better when sex/violence is implied and not shoved down our throat for shock value. I realize it might not be the wisest thing to say on this page but to quote Hitchcock – “There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.” There’s nothing artistic in watching jackman get head while hacking a computer system. it’s creative, sure, but honestly I think it might of been funnier/better if there was no explanation for what was distracting him and then after he was done she crawled out from under the desk.
I can’t belive I am argueing the artistic merits of Swordfish.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done. I don’t care. I just take offense with people saying “if they took out this or that it would be better”. Well that’s not your decision to make. You can do it if you want, but don’t tell other people that it would be better for your kids without this or that. That’s so disrespectful.
When I listened to the Swordfish commentary Dominic Sena actually mentioned a big controversy about the blowjob scene. He had to cover it multiple ways because for the TV version, which he says he hopes nobody will ever see, they couldn’t show the blonde in his lap. So he had to cover it differently. That disgusts me. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I’m just saying it shouldn’t. I don’t think you would make an argument that movies would be better if the director did not have control of the way it’s made?
Personally, I’ve grown to the point in my movie watching where I am tired of pointless nudity/sex/language/violence that doesn’t pertain to the actual story and it’s nice to see companies are out there making it so you can still watch the movie, get the message (if it has one), be entertained, and not get pulled out of the story because you are a giant movie nerd who hated a movie like the Bourne Supremecy becuase the camera jumped around too damned much because the direcotro was a moron who thought every single shot needed to look like documentary footage of a race riot shot from the perspective of the vitim in order for you to feel like you are “in the action”. Now granted some of the movies that they decide to edit are retarded (taking all the action out of the matrix triolgy and you have maybe 20 minutes of movie) but for the most part what’s the point of hearing Lebowski say fuck 9 billion times? Why did we need Halle’s tits in Swordfish? And, were most of those 90 minute fight scenes in the matrix Reloaded REALLY needed? Like john said, if they are editing these films for TV, then what’s the big deal about releasing it clean on DVD?
Sensorship. Let them do the movie the way they want. Then offer an optional audio track that will remove the cussing. Easy. They do it all the time. The only reason the studios are throwing this “artistic integrity” bullshit out there is because they didnt think of it first, it wont make them that much more money (arguably a clean option might sell more) and if they offer the editted version as part of their cut, these companies who are wanting to edit them will go out of business.
Iron Man. Who cares about the chronological Iron Man story. In Superman they told his origin then skipped ahead to the suit in Metropolis. They skipped over his entire upbringing. Why? It wasnt the best place to tell the story. Tell his origin (suit to fix his heart) and then skip ahead to the part where the now indestructable man is being beat by something that he cant blow up. Its just good storytelling.
Hey Nick!
But that’s NOT a weakness… cause once he’s in the suit… no problem. It doesn’t add any new dimension to the character at all.
Now, if his heart was still weak and caused him big problems even while in the suit… then that could be cool… but even then it’s just a physical weakness… not a character weakness.
Just a thought.
Cheers!
~John
John, Iron Man’s weakness is his heart and the suit technology has kept his heart going
hey Henrik,
The problem with your argument (in my limited opinion anyway) is that it ignores the fact that they’ve been doing this for years. They ALREADY and FOR YEARS been showing edited flims on airlplaines and on Television. This isn’t anything new.
Your arguement of “The director will have to do multiple shots” is just wild specualtion isn’t it? They don’t shoot multiple shots for TV or airlines… they just edit it. It’s a non-issue.
Also, once again I ask… why should anyone care? If Joe Blow decides to watch a movie with certain edits, why should that bother you at all??? It’s doesn’t effect you or me or anyone else on the planet. So what’s the problem?
1) It’s already done
2) It’s been done for decades
3) It doesn’t effect anyone who doesn’t want to see the edits at all
I fail to see the problem.
Cheers!
~john
No. It would not have been a good choice. Because you wouldn’t be watching the movie.
That’s like saying “If the teams scored 80 points each the SuperBowl would have rocked!” It’s true, but it’s not reality. Stop messing with this stuff.
I can only imagine sitting there as a director and being told, oh yeah by the way, because of these new shit places making money, we have decided to jump on the bandwagon. That means in the 1 day you have to shoot this scene instead of covering like you normally would, you also have to cover it in a way so that we can show this shit for bullshit kids, who don’t what the hell the movie is about anyway.
Bottom line is, if you’re kids aren’t old enough to watch some titty-action, they probably aren’t old enough to watch the movie with the titty-action in it. There are plenty of clean family movies out there for you bullshit parents worried that movies affect childhoods.
As a parent, I have an exception to the censorship issue. When our kids were younger, there were movies we would have liked to have watched with our kids in the TV/airline version. We ran into this with Shakespeare in Love. If two scenes (of doggy-style sex) had not been included, this would have been a perfect movie to watch as a family for our kids at that age. As a parent and consumer, I would have loved to have had the option of the studio TV/airline version. At another stage, I would have been happy to buy the regular version for my wife and me. There have always been multiple versions (Director’s cut; Widescreen) of movies. The snobbery of directors who sniff at anyone modifying their movie doesn’t ring true with me. They’ve been releasing these versions for years on TV and on airlines. Our kids are grown now but I believe the studios lost a ton of money not offering the version we all saw on TV and airlines.
I know you are saying that it was the only thing that made the character interesting to you but chronologically for the character it is inappropiate to have it in the first movie.
Tony Stark was not an alcoholic when he built and first donned the suit. This is an origin movie and as such should not include the “Demon in a Bottle” storyline.
And Doug,
Downey Jr grew a goatee and worked out to convince them that he was right for the role.
You guys rule!!! So good to have my audio edition back.
1) Any censorship sucks. If you don’t like a movie for what it is, then don’t watch it.
2) Release 1 big movie in september and it’ll clean up
3)I don’t believe in conspiriacy theories, but if this is true, I’ll never buy a DVD from Walmart again
4) Jackass FOREVER!
5) Love the Downey pick, still not sure I like the Janssen idea. She’ll now always be Jean to me in comic movies.
6) Leave the old dudes to the political dramas
7) If it ain’t got the Hass, then it ain’t Knight Rider
8) Hilarious
9) Fantastic Four 2 is going to suck, Galactus or no Galactus.
Best show in a long time gents. Bruxy adds such a great new dynamic to you guys. Keep it up!
Thanks John…We’re getting massages here at work today, now I have something to listen to while I get rubbed down.
1.Iron Man has had 2 cartoon shows. 60s & 90s.
2.Rutger Hauer as Magneto. and give the guy the proper helmet.
3.Better the Galactus cuisinart helmet than some crappy adaptation ala Green Goblin. i’m still bummed about that when i watch the original Spider-Man flick. when i first heard Dafoe was cast,i lost my mind cos not only was he a great actor,he had the same facial shape as Norman Osborn and was hanging to see him in the latex mask. i’ve seen better Goblin masks at costume parties than that fucked up hemet. ok done now.
Hey there Black Steven,
Regarding your comments on the censorship issue…
I’ve got to ask… why does it bother you what a person watches on his or her own? It doesn’t effect your or me or anyone else in the least. Why would we want to tell someone what they can and can’t do with a movie or tv show they choose to watch?
It’s almost like reverse censorship… because ultimatly we’re telling people what they can or can’t choose to watch and how to watch it.
Just a thought.
Thanks for the comments man!
Cheers!
~John
Finally!
– Never mind censorship or artistic integrity. What bothers me about the clean flix thing is the arrogant, self-indulgent insistance on editing things so they suit YOUR sensibility rather than that of the creator. Bollocks to that, that’s not what the film-watching experience is about. You should take it as you find it, and if you don’t want to watch ‘immoral content’ then all films that contain such are off limits to you.
– Hooray for Iron Man, who might actually have a decent film to be in!
– Hooray for Doug, who seems to think Unforgiven was an action film!
– Hooray for me, because I’m off home now!
Thanks for this Audio Edition.