Selling movies with Riff Trax?

[leeving]

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

I think you are missing the point... the filmmakers have the right to do whatever they want to their own films...and i can edit out DA's sync lines, cause I'm not re-selling the edited version.

[ScottotD]

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.

Surely the director themselves should decide what's necessary and what isn't not some religious nuts out to make some cash.

[Tarantulas]

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.

My venom is aimed at the idiots who take their 10 year old sons to the latest R rated "Titty Bloodfest 15: The Cooters Revenge" and then walk away not understanding why it was so violent/sexualy charged/gory.

And if you have a moral (or other) obligation to not watch those sort of things, then you shouldn't be watching those things regardless of how its been processed, modified, or sanitised.

It's like when LDS folks say they can't drink coffee or tea (because of the caffeene content), yet swill soda since their teachings don't strictly outlaw it

Rant:

Parents, if you are waiting for a squeeky clean version of "Devils Rejects" to apear on ABC, you're likely in for a long wait.

Does that mean that an outside company should be albe to modify the copyrighted work of a studio to try and make a G rated movie out of "Caligula?"  No, it dosen't.  The company that got sued into oblivion did not own the property that they were modifing (again without the studios permission) so they were clearly in the wrong.

The airlines don't get a DVD of whatever movie and make their own version, so why should this other compay be able to?

For better or worse, it's doubtful that in the fall out over this current situation is going to leave to a friendlier climate for others wanting to do the same thing, licensed or not.  The studios could simply price them out of business.

Here's the best example I can think of:

Watch "Showgirls" on TBS (or your next favorite super-station) and watch the scenes where they digitaly painted bras on the nude dancers, yet include short clips of the brutal rape scene and subsuquent revenge scene.

Terribleness of the movie asside, how is that better for kids to have access to watch?  It's not, so avoid it.

Now watch Halloween's "TV Cut".  It adds backstory in the place of what violence it has and transforms the story quite a bit into more about the story BEHIND the violence. As scary at the theatrical cut?  No, but I wouldn't have a problem watching it with a 10 year old.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

most lds people i have met dont drink soda at all.  which is annoying when i am at their house but eh. 

This whole thing is weird to me.  how can anyone be offended that someone else was offended at something and then changed it.  the only people who MIGHT have a potential to bitch about this is people who were shorted out of money.  No one else should have a complaint at all.  censorship should only irk you if its forced on you, why would be offensive that people you dont know are watching a different version of a movie you arent watching at that moment? I think that question should be atiquately (?) answered before the question of censorship being right is even on the table. 

weird. 

[ScottotD]

because that's not the movie, cutting out 'objectionable' parts is censorship and could totally change the message or impact of the film.  I really don't see why people who don't want films to be cut up should have to justify it though.

[Hank]

And if you have a moral (or other) obligation to not watch those sort of things, then you shouldn't be watching those things regardless of how its been processed, modified, or sanitised.

But with the objectionable things taken out, the movie is no longer objectionable.

It's like when LDS folks say they can't drink coffee or tea (because of the caffeene content), yet swill soda since their teachings don't strictly outlaw it

Not quite a fair comparison. The modified film is "decaffeinated", so there's no real hypocrisy.

... "Devils Rejects"...

..."Caligula?"...

..."Showgirls"...

Of course, those are some of the worst examples. You can have a PG-13 movie which allows one f-bomb and probably unlimited "lesser" words. Will taking out that one swear word ruin the film? Even in an R movie, the answer is No.
So it's not necessarily about making pornos viewable by the whole family, but maybe fixing a movie that barely crosses the line.

how can anyone be offended that someone else was offended at something and then changed it.  the only people who MIGHT have a potential to bitch about this is people who were shorted out of money.  No one else should have a complaint at all.  censorship should only irk you if its forced on you, why would be offensive that people you dont know are watching a different version of a movie you arent watching at that moment? I think that question should be (adequately) answered before the question of censorship being right is even on the table.

That was basically my take on it, too.

because that's not the movie, cutting out 'objectionable' parts is censorship and could totally change the message or impact of the film.  I really don't see why people who don't want films to be cut up should have to justify it though.

But they weren't selling them as original versions. They fully disclosed that they had been "cleaned", which is exactly what the buyers wanted. It's no different than if someone skipped over the sex scene or muted the swear words, it's just added convenience. Quite frankly, it's no one else's business how someone wants to view a film. If they want to view the chapters in random order, so be it.
Again, the only legal standing the studios had was of copyright and permission. Neither was given, so the company altering the films was legally wrong by that account, no other.

[ScottotD]

It's the film maker's business if people are cutting up their creation.

Besides the censorship issue I just find the idea of "cleaning" movies fairly ridiculous, if an adult can't handle swearing, sex or violence in a movie it's pretty sad. 

But this conversations already been had about 17 times. 

[DarkFlounder]

monkey wrench mode on..

So, how is Rifftrax any different than Hollygood?  They're both affecting the presentation of the original product to the preference of the viewer.  I'm pretty sure Star Trek V was not made with the intention of jokes about Shatner's ass and hair.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

heres another concept, name a movie that has something SO important to say that it cant be riffed or altered.  i cant.  this includes a huge list of "influencial" movies.  reality is its just a friggen movie. 

i take the lewis carol view on this.   people often askeed him what the meaning of this or that was.  especially the hunting of the snark.  His answer was usually something along the lines what did u want it to mean.  (kinda, that is the REALLY short version)  i used to care a great deal about the whole artist/author opinion.  then it occured to me that more often than not what they have to say is pretty irrelevant or impossible to decipher as the audience isnt in fact the actual author/artist and cant see things precisely the exact same way.  Its now more relevant for the audience to find their own meanings and stick to that. 

On a side note did you know that jrr tolkien intentionally left any specific sort of metaphor out of the lord of the rings.  His thinking was that it would have more meaning if people could draw their own ideas from it. 

[leeving]

monkey wrench mode on..

So, how is Rifftrax any different than Hollygood?  They're both affecting the presentation of the original product to the preference of the viewer.  I'm pretty sure Star Trek V was not made with the intention of jokes about Shatner's ass and hair.

Is Rifftrax selling the movies they are riffing with their own edited audio mixed in?.....hmmm.

selling some audio files to be played along with a movie is very different than selling an edited movie so some pre-teens can watch an "R" rated movie for family fun night.

[Pak-Man]

Censorship is an odd beast. I always liked the TV version of Back To the Future where they used the exact same soundbyte over and over to censor it.

HOly Jeez!

[Sharktopus]

Here's a hypothetical example of how HollyGood could grievously alter the intention of a film:

Movie X is the girl power tale of Jane Doe, her abusive realtionship with John Smith, and how she triumphs over adversity. Jane takes verbal and psychological abuse for months because she believes John truly loves her and is worth the abuse. It comes to a head when John brutally rapes her. Jane comes to terms with self-worth issues and kicks John to the curb and then further exerts her independence by getting him fired or somesuch "I have power too" thing. HollyGood edits out every chauvinistic slander and bitch slap, and of course the brutal rape scene, making John come off as not much more than your average jerkhole boyfriend.

[Tarantulas]

Regardless of how anyone feels on the subject, the courts have sided with the studios.

The bottom line is that only the people who own the property have the rights to edit content from it.

The other side issue is that the company that was editing out the content was using the names of the movies in question to advertise their service, another big no-no.

[SmilinJackRoss]

The other side issue is that the company that was editing out the content was using the names of the movies in question to advertise their service, another big no-no.

As well as the keeping the filmmaker's name attached as "directed by" when in actuality isn't anymore after they chopped it up.

As to

Again, the only legal standing the studios had was of copyright and permission. Neither was given, so the company altering the films was legally wrong by that account, no other.

Well, you say no other.  But I think it's wrong to change the filmmakers vision without his permission....morally.

[King Rygar]

If you cut out all the nude pictures, you're still looking at a porno mag, right? 

No, I have no idea what I'm trying to say either