LoTR and "Censorship" Software

[Susan Pitcher]

Last week I saw a segment of ABC's World News Tonight that showcased a new service for parents to control the content of movies they want their children to see. If you go to MovieMask.com and click on the demo (I recommend enlarging it), you'll see blood replaced by green smoke in The Matrix , Leonardo DiCapprio and Kate Winslet in three toned-down versions of Titanic 's nude drawing scene (in one, Leo draws the Little Mermaid instead of Kate!) and Mel Gibson in a scene that obliterates another actor from a death scene altogether.

The tv segment showed how the company, Trilogy Studios, turned the infamous opening Normandy Beach scene from Saving Private Ryan into what looked like a few dozen men walking on a beach. What angers me is how false it makes the visions of the directors and detracts from parental responsibility to not show their children violent movies until they're of age to see them intact.

Why do I mention it here? Because LoTR is one of the movies in the MovieMask library of films that have been censored by them, and I'm wondering if anybody here, after seeing this (or who saw the televised article), feels disturbed by the product. There are organizations planning to protest it already. Comments?

[nobby.c]

Isn't this like censoring works of art in a museum to prevent a child getting upset/influenced by the nudity.
Imagine Venus De Milo with a bra and panties on or othe famous nudes covered up !!
I don't understand why we have film classifications if they then go ahead and just edit them for viewing by children.
Its as bad as the edits performed for showing on TV.
Isn't the whole point of the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan to show how horrific War really is!
When a bomb explodes it causes severe damage not like the scenes from the A-Team or other sanitised scenes of violence.

[Jurious]

I have to agree with you, Nobby - if a child is too young to see a film or programme because of their age - and their parents will not show them it without any censorship - then they'll just have to wait until they are old enough.

Films like LotR and Saving Private Ryan need all what is included in them to get the desired effect, as you mention, KayEwer - the effect is ruined by certain censorship.

[David Vasser]

Film is art. I agree with Nobby. It is what it is. When one alters a piece of art, it is no longer art but rather an imitation of art at best.

Be warned, I feel another rant coming on because this topic gets me hotter than Martha Stewart's fondue pot. I'm all tense just reading what has already been posted.

For me, this all started with Ted Turner colorizing many of the classic black and white film treasures. Some of which would have been made in color in the first place if they had wanted them that way.

Restoring an old Technicolor film like SHOWBOAT is one thing, and is an effort to be commended, encouraged and supported by your donations and mine to the American Film Preservation Institute.

But, colorizing CASABLANCA was something else entirely and had me seeing red...and blue...and green. Even though I only watch the original version, every single time I see Casablanca I get distracted at some point wondering how they had the nerve to tamper with such perfection. So even though I'm not watching the altered version, the mere fact that someone dared to alter this film interferes with my enjoyment of it.

It was reported that as one of his last requests, a near death Orson Welles urged his closest associates to "Keep Ted Turner and his crayons away from my films!"

What is being done here by this MovieMask outfit is just taking us another click down the road to ruin for potentially every film which has ever been made or ever will be made from now until the sun explodes.

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was an excellent example of exactly when graphic violence contributes to the intended artistic image in the mind of the viewer. BONNIE AND CLYDE was another.

I submit that to tamper with these scenes is not merely clothing Venus in a bra and panties, but rather more akin to taking a sledge hammer and smashing the statue into chunks and then gluing it back together with bubble gum and duct tape. It never will look right. Or I could compare it to slashing a Ruebens with a razor to cut out only the objectionable parts. My point is, the art is DESTROYED.

If a young viewer wants to watch military movies, John Wayne made excellent military films including one of my favorites, THEY WERE EXPENDABLE. His military films are perfect for a young teenager who needs a military film fix. They are exciting and action packed without the graphic violence and profanity a parent finds objectionable for their children. And they play up typically admirable virtues. If my son grew up to be just like John Wayne, I'd be a very happy old geezer.

If they edited all the objectionable material out of GOODFELLAS it would be about 15 minutes long. What are they going to do with the scene where the man gets stomped to death in the bar? Show them all playing soccer? ("Goal!!!!")

Just because the technology exists to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. I suspect that the youngsters will know immediately that they are not getting the "real thing" and lose interest very quickly. They will know it is a "ripoff".
Kids want "THE REAL DEAL" and can spot a phony pretty quick.
Just hire a bad magician to entertain at your 7 year old's birthday party and you'll see what I mean.

What is next? What could they possibly do to mess up films even more? Digitally change spoken lines and actor movements due to fluctuating political situations? Change ACTORS completely? Think it can't happen? I believe it is very likely to someday.

Here is just one scenario for that. Let us say you have a well known actor convicted of committing a horrible crime with all the negative publicity that would entail, yet he has appeared as the star of several very successful and well received films that are still making the studios money in cable premium channel exhibition. Would it be possible for them to replace the convicted actor completely in these films with another less controversial actor? YES it would be possible. Would the studios do it? These people would sell their own sister to the highest bidder.

We just have to ask ourselves, where is this going to end?

Someone has to say "ENOUGH ALREADY. YOU'VE CROSSED THE LINE." And, then force them to take about TWO STEPS BACK.

Once the creator no longer has creative control it is no longer art. It becomes merchandising. If the merchandise doesn't sell, they will stop turning good films into poor imitations.

MovieMask is a certain loser. I don't think they will be around long enough to matter. While I regret that they are getting their paws on LOTR I'm not worried about them in the long run. Because really, do you think in 25 years that anyone will actually be ordering the MovieMask Edition Silver-Anniversary Commemorative Issue LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY from Amazon? I think not. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. What do you think world?

[nobby.c]

BrotherDave has certainly highlighted areas of concern not only with the censoring but the fiddling with classics.
I think in your very eloquent tirade :) you made a good point about, how just because there is technology that allows you to do certain things doesnt mean you should go ahead and actually do it.
Its just like the ethical questions surrounding certain medical technologies, ie. the mad professor. He's so busy thinking if he can make the experiment work, he forgets to ask himself if he should.
Its the same for the movies, and really is epitomised in the two movies that Mr Lee has appeared in. FOTR and AOTC.
Special Effects are great but sometimes the digital wizardry is just over used and abused. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should !!!
Its like the dawn of the Music Video, all those special effects in Bohemian Rhapsody were there purely because it was a new toy and the engineer was "playing around".
Now we have movies which put an emphasis on what is happening in the background (i.e the Green/blue screen images) than what is happening in the scene in the foreground. I am Attacking a certain movie here and it aint FOTR.
I love FOTR for its use of location and gritty authenticity. It does use a lot of special effects but for me as a regular movie goer/dvd watcher I cannot see the joins, and that is the trick not being able to notice when it is blue screen and when it is a set/location.
We are in a new age of cinema where anything is possible and that includes reworking masterpieces to be something different or creating new pieces of work that are intended as masterpieces because it uses all the latest gadgets and gizmos a budget can buy.
This is definately not a good thing for cinema goers if the emphasis turns away from the story and focuses on all the pretty images you can do.
Sorry didnt mean this to turn into a rant as well but brotherDave just opened a flood gate for me there....
:)

[Alfonso Casal]

This is just another excuse for some parents to not take responsibility for the raising of their children. Speaking strictly as a non-parent myself (I just thought I'd get that out of the way right off the bat), I think way too many parents nowadays find it impossible to say "no" to their children. The absolute nadir of this, as far as my own personal experience goes, occurred when an acquaintance of mine allowed her 14 year old daughter to attend, unaccompanied, the Michigan Wimyn's Music Fest (note spelling). To those not in the know, the Michigan Wimyn's Music Fest is something along the lines of a lesbian 'Woodstock;' with public nudity and open sexuality quite common. Leaving aside any ethical, moral, or political issues this Festival may raise, I believe most people would think it inappropriate for an unaccompanied minor to attend such an event. So did the mother. But when asked, "Well, then, why did you let her go?" the response was "Because I don't want to say 'no' to her and inhibit her."

I'm afraid this kind of mentality is all too common; and Movie Mask is another refelction of the same. Parents unable to say "no" to their children and relying on others, ie. the State or, in this case, technology, to do their job for them.

Movie Mask is doubley insidious in that it allows parents to say "yes" AND "no" at the same time. Parents can still be buddies (instead of parents) to their children, while at the same time controlling what they see. In other words, Movie Mask permits parents to avoid the unpopular "no" by sidestepping the issue. Don't control and guide your kids, just censor the movie!

What cowardice! And cowardice in the face of a child, no less!

Just say "no!" (as someon once said). If you don't want your kids to see or do or participate in something, just say "no." Of course, be prepared for possible resistance. Or put another way: If you're going to be a parent be prepared to be a parent!

Anyway, that's my view. I'm a bachelor, I could be wrong.

See! BrotherDave isn't the only "Miller-ite" on these boards.:1devil:

[Alfonso Casal]

If they edited all the objectionable material out of GOODFELLAS it would be about 15 minutes long.  What are they going to do with the scene where the man gets stomped to death in the bar?  Show them all playing soccer?  ("Goal!!!!")

No, Dave. You mean
Goal!
:1devil:

[David Vasser]

Alfonso, I suppose I did mean that, however the post was already too long as it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas.
lol

I think nudity in some films go great together.
In others however it doesn't fit at all.
Older movies or some horror films ruin it for me when there is too much sex involved.
I think it takes aways a lot of meaning at times..But if the movie was made that way I don't like it changed.

[Domenick Fraumeni]

What Moviemask, and Cleanflicks(?) another company based in Colorado, is doing is illegally altering and reselling copyrighted material and is a clear violation of the law.

The Directors Guild Of America is currently filing lawsuits against both companies. These people will be shut down.

And yes, it IS another pathetic attempt to get undeserving, ignorant parents into PAYING someone else to babysit your children, instead of sitting down and commiting some time.I constantly screen films for my son and have had to sometimes sit through something twice. Goes with being a parent.

This is an incredibly irresponsible use of software and confirms many industry people's worst suspicions of what CGI can do, or undo, to cinema.

These people will be gone in time, but for anyone out there who's serious about cinema, I would make my opnions known to both the people who run these companies, and to your local representatives. There laws to deal with this foolishness, and they are the people who can enforce them.

[Alfonso Casal]

What Moviemask, and Cleanflicks(?) another company based in Colorado, is doing is illegally altering and reselling copyrighted material and is a clear violation of the law.

The Directors Guild Of America is currently filing lawsuits against both companies. These people will be shut down.

That's good to hear. Now, if someone will only take Ted Turner's crayons away from him -- to paraphrase Orson Welles.

[Solarum]

We should also be able to set some legal requirements on redoing old films. Some of the new ones come out great, and other turn into a complete embaressments. We, as movie go'ers, deserve some say so. What I don't understand is you see some of these films make money, yet I don't know anyone who ever viewed them ( or will not admit to it).

I see remaking a great film and screwing it up to be just as bad as editing it.

:1devil: