facebook group: stop censoring movies for profit

inspired by the live free or die hard and T4 debackles

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68825470086

It's about money, and it's likely always going to be, though. The directors usually get a cut of the box office take, so they're making more money when the film does. The alternative to this is government funded filmmaking, and I don't think we want to see that, do we?

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

*debacles.

Addendum: you can't stop people from changing movies for profit without stopping them from making them in the first place. And frankly, as much as it might irk us sometimes when something gets changed, or toned down...do we really have a right to gripe? People put up millions of dollars to make movies. If that were your money, how would you feel about someone telling you how much control you should have over the process?

If producers couldn't insist on changes to films, or were demonized every time they did, you wouldn't get the same films, but truer to the director's vision. You'd get far, far cheaper films with far lower production values. Which is a greater impediment to the director's vision, I wonder: having to compromise to make something more palpable for a broader audience, or not having enough money to shoot the thing the way they want in the first place?

Besides; with DVDs, Director's Cuts, and re-releases, there are lots of ways to give the producer the kind of security they want, and get the film out the way the director wants, too.

I thought of another alternative: You Tube, and living in your parents' basement. Not being sarcastic here, I'm just trying to think of any alternative to the current system. Indies get money from investors that they have to answer to. No one would "invest" in a movie if they didn't hope to make some money for it; no one is out there paying directors to just be non-profitably awesome. It's too bad that the people running the studios aim for the LCD, especially since their idea of the lowest common denominator seems to be well below the average viewer's taste. But in terms of changing the funding for art, we seem to have the best workable system already. Would love to hear other ideas.

so u wouldnt care if say a scene of a woman topless was cut out just to obtain a lower rating

Ugh, please stop posting these things in both The Shoutbox AND here. Let's stick to the thread. Here's how I replied in the other place:

You're trying to take one slice of the moviemaker process that bothers you, and refusing to consider (or even address, apparently) everything that leads to it. You can't just tell producers what they can and cannot care about, and effect only that one decision. If producers felt they were going to come under substantial fire every time they wanted a change made to a film, they wouldn't just cave...they'd stop funding the movies in the first place. So you'd have your precious topless scene, but the effects and stuntwork and sets and costumes would be significantly crappier, too.

Saying that it bugs you is reasonable. Saying that you wish it didn't happen is understandable. But calling it censorship, or pretending we have a right to tell off the people who put up huge sums of money to make these movies in the first place, just won't do.

Yaaaaaay!!!

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

Is that Frankenhooker?

"wanna date?"

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Yup...supercrack

I'm really more interested in whether the story was told, and I don't personally need to see boobs to find out what the story is.

Just saw Watchmen; perhaps this post should go into that thread, but there was a sex scene I felt was purely gratuitous. It neither improved or lessened the movie for me. I will say it was a little over the top and probably did not need to be. I'm purely basing this on the movie because I have not read the comic. Perhaps the director put it in there for you fanboys as a thank you.

I don't think they should have cut it out, but on the other hand had it not been there I wouldn't have missed it, a less gratuitous plot ploy maybe--I wouldn't have known the difference though.

When it comes to both sex and violence in Watchmen, where Moore says "yellow", Snyder says "electric blazing golden eye-popping dandelions!!!" if you follow me. I dunno if it's him or the studio encouraging him to sex/punch it up because they consider that his reputation now, but it was a bit over the top in a lot of scenes, to the extent that it skewed the original author's focus a bit. I found it rather jarring, too.

Hate to tell you...even the unrated version of Live Free or Die Hard was crap. Can you believe that? The "uncensored" version, as you would so put it, was crap. There...I just disproved your argument.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

You usually don't have to worry about this when your planning on seeing a good film , pure commercial flicks like Die Hard 4 , Terminator 4 - want to be in the PG-13 category because it does tend to make the most.

__________________

That goes for a lot of movies that are released onto DVD under the moniker "Unrated" or "The version you couldn't see in theaters." In the end, there is MAYBE one or two scenes that get changed and most of the time, it's just to add a more vulgar word in place of what was in the theatrical release.

To which, you get what John mentioned above...the movie is still crap and having the censor removed doesn't change a thing.

Do I agree with censoring? Well it depends. When it comes to film and the question posed by the "thug of messengers," I say so what if there's an explicit scene removed where a woman removes her top. Did she have some 17th century tapestry tattooed on her chest and we're supposed to see it? If there's no reason for the woman to remove her top, why have it in the movie when you can keep a totally different scene that actually keeps the film on the right track.

Do I agree with the sex scene in Watchmen. Not totally, no. It didn't add anything nor did it take away, it was just there. I'm sure there's a reason Snyder wanted it in there, as director, it was his call, ultimately.

When you make a movie, you can have all the topless women scenes you want.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Haven't we kinda beat this to death a few times already in a few other threads?

I liked Sam's point up thread about the money and that's all it ever really boils down to for the most part.

I hated myself a little bit for clicking that facebook link. I made a promise to myself to never go there. I came through it unscathed, so I'm sure you'll all be relieved to hear that...

So is messangerthug the one who learned the big word (Communism) in school today and decided to post it on facebook? I'd ask him myself but he appears to be another one of these kids today that can't actually communicate through normal channels.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Aye, good points, Spudly/Sammy.

Someone really needs to put this in their signature.

I think he probably overheard someone talking about it (or saw it on another board) and thought that he would be cool if he sparked the conversation here.

On it.

He might have been paraphrasing Futurama, though. Which is a positive.

from the Facebook Page
Messengerthug, I disapprove of your use of the term "Communism" in the facebook page.

Firstly, communism hasn't really fallen, as many countries and places still actively support communism, or atleast their ideas of communism. Even here in Canada there is the Communist party of Canada or some-such as well as the socialist party (although they are both small parties) that tries to get elected, but never does well
Secondly, even though you say communism, what you probably mean is Bolshevism from Russia's Bolshevik party, or Maoism, or basically any corrupted form of communism found throughout the world.

Communism itself isn't a bad thing, in theory, it can be the basis for the perfect society... but ill leave it at that for now because I'm sure it's a hot-button issue

Consider the producer's PoV. A movie is an investment of sorts, and the producers want to make the most out of their money. Lowering the rating, making the movie viewable to a wider audience could increase net profit. If you invest in something, you want to make it available to as many people as possible to make money. It's a very Capitalist thing, quite the opposite of what it would be like in a communist state actually.

__________________
One day you will ask me, what's more important...me or your life. I will answer my life and you will walk away not knowing that you are my life