« Axis of Willow | Main | Congrats to Italy »
July 09, 2006
Hollywood Is Greedy and Stupid
Over two years ago I blogged about the impending fight for companies (like CleanFlicks, CleanFilms, and Play It Clean Video) to edit and sell/rent edited versions of Hollywood movies. Back then I wrote (and still believe):
I think it's ridiculous for filmmakers to argue that a DVD player that edits out offensive content (in my personal viewing of a movie I've purchased or rented) "produces an unauthorized and illegal version of their artistic work." These artistes need to get over themselves ... Art schmart. It's entertainment—and I want to be in control!So today's ruling against these companies, which effectively shuts them down and "protects" Hollywood filmmakers, is a major bummer. The judge who decided the case wrote, "Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies. ... There is a public interest in providing such protection." What?! There's also a huge "public interest" in letting me (the consumer) do what I damn well please with a DVD after I purchase it!
And "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression"? We're talking about somebody editing one copy of a particular film, which they've rented and/or purchased, for their personal use. Go buy a copy of the unedited version at any store in the known world if you want to!
And by "unedited" of course I mean the "uncensored" version that Hollywood is forcing down our throats these days. It's becoming impossible to find a DVD to rent now that doesn't come with the porno version burned onto it. Case in point: I recently rented Anchorman from my local Blockbuster video store, and the only version they had available was the "unrated" version—and the "unrated" version didn't even have the original theatrical version on it as an option! That's just ludicrous. Thanks a lot, Hollywood!
But this quote takes the cake: In a statement issued Friday, Michael Apted, director of "Coal Miner's Daughter" and president of the Director's Guild of America, said, "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor." Who is this guy spinning? As if there was some threat to the national security of R-rated movies. Nobody has been deceived into renting/purchasing edited versions of these movies. The public was crying out for these services, and they got them. Now we're losing them (for how long?).
The stupid irony in all this is that this afternoon I was watching a highly edited version of The Usual Suspects on a network television channel. I guess since the Hollywood studios are making money on the syndication of these flicks on TV then they're suddenly OK with the "irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression." What the idiots in Hollywood need to wake up and realize is that by having these services offering "clean" versions of their movies they have actually been selling more copies of their movies—to an audience they would've never sold to before, namely conservative Christians and Mormons. Don't be messing with this crowd, fools! These are the same people who made The Passion of the Christ a freakin' blockbuster.
The "good" news is: I predict we'll be seeing "clean" versions of our favorite Hollywood movies available on DVD again in the near future. It's just going to have to be the studios themselves who do it—so that they're the ones who make all the damn money. Typical of greedy corporations now, isn't it?
Posted by Steve K. at July 9, 2006 05:30 PM
Comments
Well, I certainly agree with the title of your post. I have mixed feelings about some of what you wrote, though.
I try to put myself in the position of the filmmaker. If I make Dude, Where's My Car, I probably wouldn't care if you censored the snot out of it. It's a stupid movie with little merit, and no big aspirations beyond making you laugh and making money (I hated it, btw).
By comparison, Amelie, which does have brief nudity (I can't remember if it has any swearing), is a movie that I'd consider to be art, and if I made that movie, I'd be pissed if people were messing around with it. I realize that argument forces us into the gray area of what is/isn't art, but I think it's unavoidable.
Beyond that, though, I'm not sure what the market is for these devices, anyway. Using your Anchorman example, there's a movie that I certainly wouldn't categorize as art, but I wonder how on earth you get that movie, even the theatrical version of it, to the point where it's considered "clean". I would think the same people who are offended by a swear word or two are going to be offended by the movie's thematically objectional elements?
Posted by: dave ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.knightopia.com/journal//nav-commenters.gif)
at July 10, 2006 01:51 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)