Selling movies with Riff Trax?

[Argo-Puppy]

I searched! I promise! Will Riff Trax ever sell the movie with the riff as a sub title? We have ordered movies that have been altered for violence, nudity, etc. and it's all legal.

Would this ever be possible?

[Tarantulas]

Actualy the studios sued the pants off those guys who were editing the content of DVDs (even though it was just software doing it and the original disc was untouched) and won.

Mike talks in one of his recent interviews about "could we do this as parody and be protected?" by including the original video w/ a Rifftrax audio track tacked on.

And its maybe possible, but the sheer tonage of lawyers needed to pull it off is simply not feasible.

So unless Legend partners with some studio for an upcoming DVD release to do a parody track (like Kevin Smith on the Roadhouse DVD), its likely not going to happen any time soon.

[gammer]

I heard through the grape vine that RiffTrax would like to work with movie companies one day so that they can have an official "RiffTrax" edition DVD.

I would hate to have rifftrax limited to one movie company, but maybe they're thinking that they can sell the rights of the rifftrax for a particular movie to its respectfull movie company to have it released to DVD???

To be honest, I'm happy with the way they are going right now, but I can see how they'll want to get a bigger peice of the pie.

[Argo-Puppy]

T, really? They still sell them and it's still a good business. It's called Hollygood. From what I read on their website, they are allowed to do this because their DVD contains the original version, as well as the edited version, but you can't access the original.

[MrTorso]

I notice how they don't edit Passion of the Christ.

http://hollygood.com/showproduct.php?id=1040

[Argo-Puppy]

Meh, go figure. We don't have it because of all the violence. I guess it's kind of sad they didn't do it with this movie.

[Sharktopus]

Wow. Is anyone else really offended by this Hollygood?

[ScottotD]

Me.

As previously discussed in all the swearing threads, I don't understand censorship at all.

[MrTorso]

Wow. Is anyone else really offended by this Hollygood?

I don't have a problem with this kind of stuff. At least the parents are actually watching what their kids and families do. The problem I have is when they are hypocrites about it. Like this Hollygood. If they really stood by their convictions EVERY movie they would rent would be the edited version. Passion of the Christ is full of violence but they don't edit it. I guess it is ok for the violence when it happens to Jesus. So right there you see where they are coming from.

[SmilinJackRoss]

Wow. Is anyone else really offended by this Hollygood?

I recently saw a tv special about this issue, and they had a lot of interviews with the hollygood people, the customers, and the filmmakers themselves.  The filmmakers (especially Steven Soderberg) were really pissed about a third party altering their artistic vision without permission, essentially changing their artwork.  The filmmakers sweat and fret about every frame they include/don't include in their movie, and then some hack comes along with their scissors and chops it up.

I have to side with the filmmakers on this one, it's not right that they edit this stuff out.  The MPAA ratings are there for a reason, and the internet is there if you want to know more detail about the content of a movie.  If nudity, language, or violence upsets you, then don't watch movies that have those things in them.  Don't support these people who are messing with the filmmaker's vision, and subsequently turning a profit.

I'm not sure how this "hollygood" is still in business after this ruling:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003114894_sanitize09.html

[Tarantulas]

T, really? They still sell them and it's still a good business. It's called Hollygood. From what I read on their website, they are allowed to do this because their DVD contains the original version, as well as the edited version, but you can't access the original.

Well they got sued and put out of business.  The official word was that the studios no longer had control of the content of the movie, throwing the MPAA rating out the window.  Also. the company then was trying to advertise its product using the copyrights without permisson of the original copyright holder..  so they got nuked.

Bottom line.. if you are too "pure" to watch a R rated movie, then you shouldn't watch an R rated movie.  Wait for it to be sanitised for TV and call it done.  Many older R rated movied would likely be PG today...  on TV look at things like CSI... that would have been rated X in the 70's.

In a related topic:

There could never be a point where Legend/Rifftrax just released their own version of a DVD of something like "Top Gun" without getting the permission of the original rights holders.

You could argue to say that it is parody, and that its protected.  When the studios finish nuking you into the stone age with there 30 megaton lawyering, let me know how it worked out.

On top of that, why would Legend/Rifftrax want to change their business model to try and grab a market that would mean LESS money in their pockets?  Right now, the overhead is low, so profit is high.  Why fix something that isn't broke.  You don't think that Hollywood is going to be interested in raising the price of DVDs by $3 to ensure that the Rifftrax gang gets a cut now do you?

All fanboying aside of course...

[leeving]

Bottom line.. if you are too "pure" to watch a R rated movie, then you shouldn't watch an R rated movie.  Wait for it to be sanitised for TV and call it done.

For once I agree with Tarantulas.   We can't edit movies and then sell them, so just because they are making  "wholesome , Sunday School versions", they think they can get away with it?

[Hank]

Bottom line.. if you are too "pure" to watch a R rated movie, then you shouldn't watch an R rated movie.  Wait for it to be sanitised for TV and call it done.

That a fairly elitist attitude to take. I've seen many movies which had "R" material which was gratuitous and very unnecessary to the plot. Sometimes film makers have to alter their dream to appeal to the lowest common denominator. By the same token, you shouldn't be allowed to remove the Disembaudio sync lines from your Riffs.

On the other hand, those types of sanitizing companies should simply get permission. More than likely they wouldn't due to the simple fact that many studios produce their own sanitized versions of the films. That's what they sell to airlines and other "family friendly" organizations.

The main problem is not the actual censoring (for which there obviously is a market), but for procuring the rights to create those versions.

[BlackbeardonGuitar]

Hollygood sounds creepy.  I don't see RIfftrax being put on many movies as it would be hard for them to make more money then they already are.  Unless Rifftrax gained enough populatirty that a studio thought it could sell an extra 100,000 dvds just by Mike being a bonus feature it probably wouldnt happen, at least not on big movies like he's doing.  It seems like this model is as profitable as it could be at this juncture because it requires little input from them other then mike's talent and a studio to record in.

[Sharktopus]

I'm almost tempted to rent some of these just to see how they "Make great movies greater." *snort*

What was so offensive about Chicken Little that they had to censor it? I hope they make harsh, obvious cuts so the kids watching know they've been cheated of some of the movie.