View Full Version : Pious hypocrite arrested
Lunarobverse
01-29-2008, 02:59 PM
To a certain extent, yes. If all the characters in Goodfellas were saying "oh fiddle-dee-dee" instead of fuck, and giving hugs instead of shooting each other, I would definitely say that the director's artistic integrity has been compromised. If you took everything objectionable out of Happiness, you would essentially be gagging the director. A movie (like any other artwork) comes about because someone has something to say, a vision he wants to share. For someone else to gut that vision and change his message is to put false words in his mouth, and it violates all the work and personal sacrifice that everyone involved put into the picture. I find that reprehensible.
See my previous post for the basis on which I disagree. But after hitting "Post" and reading your post, Yekhefah, I would agree with you that it's reprehensible to so modify a work of art, and then selling or presenting it as the original artist's work.
I don't see the problem if someone takes responsibility for the re-mix/mash-up/edits themselves and makes it clear that it's been changed from the original artist's vision or intention.
I don't think I made that clear in my original post, but the idea was lurking in the back of my mind while I wrote it.
DJ Machismo
01-29-2008, 03:17 PM
On a side note I think the Phantom Menace was just fine with the original amount of Jar Jar.
No need to edit him out to make it a "better movie".
Lunarobverse
01-29-2008, 03:27 PM
On a side note I think the Phantom Menace was just fine with the original amount of Jar Jar.
No need to edit him out to make it a "better movie".
First, I was trying to make my point in a light-hearted way, or at least to diplomatically choose an example that might make people smile. A lot of fans don't view Jar Jar as particularly necessary to the story, at the very least, or irritating in many ways.
Second, I'm sure that many folks might view a popcorn movie like "The Phantom Menace" as trash, and not as art.
Third, choosing a George Lucas flick as my example of remixing was meant ironically, considering how Mr. Lucas has re-mixed his own flicks in order to resell them to old fans.
Fourth, the whole point of art in general is that it doesn't "need" to be anything, or even "need" to be made at all. So arguing against remixing/editing on the basis of need is an interesting perspective but not one I find convincing.
Fifth, I just realized I'm being overly picky and should probably have responded to your post with a smiley, instead.... Ummm... yeah.
Thanks for sharing.
rippyd
01-29-2008, 03:44 PM
Per a federal district court decision in 2006, a business operating on the same model as CleanFlix is in violation of federal copyright law. There are legal ways, however, for individuals who wish to view edited versions of films to do so. The Family Movie Act of 2004 legalized the sale of movie filtering technologies (such as DVD players sold by ClearPlay) that skip over content the user deems offensive but do not create a copy of the movie. In essence, these technologies allow the user to create personalized filters. For instance, a user can establish strict settings (e.g., no strong profanity, no strong violence, no nudity) or lax settings (e.g., permit everything except "f-bombs" or graphic sexuality). They're actually fairly sophisticated devices.
Anyways--for whatever it's worth ....
DJ Machismo
01-29-2008, 03:49 PM
Fifth, I just realized I'm being overly picky and should probably have responded to your post with a smiley, instead.... Ummm... yeah.
Thanks for sharing.
Just like I was merely sharing an opinion.
You can still put in the smiley if you like.
Lunarobverse
01-29-2008, 03:55 PM
Just like I was merely sharing an opinion.
You can still put in the smiley if you like.
OK! ;D
Deogol
01-29-2008, 04:07 PM
To a certain extent, yes. If all the characters in Goodfellas were saying "oh fiddle-dee-dee" instead of fuck, and giving hugs instead of shooting each other, I would definitely say that the director's artistic integrity has been compromised. If you took everything objectionable out of Happiness, you would essentially be gagging the director. A movie (like any other artwork) comes about because someone has something to say, a vision he wants to share. For someone else to gut that vision and change his message is to put false words in his mouth, and it violates all the work and personal sacrifice that everyone involved put into the picture. I find that reprehensible.
So they should sue CBS, NBC, etc.?
Come on, both you and I know what was going down - a bunch of "artists" who found someone to beat up on because they thought differently than them about what should be in the home.
doc-catfish
01-29-2008, 04:54 PM
And I still maintain that people get upset about censorship like this, and instead of saying they don't like that, they say they're upset about "copyright infringement". If the guy had gotten permission to change the films beforehand, I think most of you would still be pissed about it, you just wouldn't have as much to stand on.
I think you're beating this into the ground and then some, but if we gave you this point then well...so what!!
Everyone here has an opinion, and nobody here is obliged to be objective and impartial in giving theirs.
It shouldn't be that much of a surprise that people on a message board dedicated to an industry that the establishment class wishes to stamp out are going to take an overwhelmingly unfavorable view to seeing something artistic being censored, no matter how altruistic a justification there is for it.
Go play "devils advocate" on a MB full of evangelical Christians sometime and tell them what wonderful people strippers are. See how well that goes over.
Yekhefah
01-29-2008, 05:46 PM
I would agree with you that it's reprehensible to so modify a work of art, and then selling or presenting it as the original artist's work.
Exactly. And I'm annoyed with people just making "minor little changes" like taking out the f-word. Where does it stop? And what difference does it make? What is it about that particular word that makes a person swoon into a faint when another word conveying the exact same sentiment is supposedly fine?
My short film has nudity, sex (well, a blowjob), drug use, alcoholism, and a lot of foul language. Why? Because it's about an alcoholic actor roaming Los Angeles in the middle of the night. My dad threw a fit about the bad language, but was I supposed to have a drug dealer screaming "G-d bless you, mister"? If I the director feel that a particular line of dialogue, act of violence, whatever, adds authenticity or serves to make my overall point, then I deserve to have my decision to include it respected. If you don't like to hear someone saying fuck, then you need to rent movies where no one says fuck. Period.
So they should sue CBS, NBC, etc.?
No, because those companies have the legal right to edit and redistribute, they negotiate the edits with the producers, and the artists are paid for their work and compensated for distribution. I think it's stupid and irritating that movies are edited for TV, but they have a right to do it. This asshole does not have the right to profit off of violating someone else's work without even paying the artist.
Come on, both you and I know what was going down - a bunch of "artists" who found someone to beat up on because they thought differently than them about what should be in the home.
I don't think so. I don't hear anyone bitching about people who don't show their kids R-rated movies at all. Personally I don't believe that a home with children should have a TV in the first place (at least not where the kids can watch it) and I've expressed that view to industry people very often. They tend not to agree with me but they respect my position. I don't think any of them would have a problem with my keeping TV out of my own home as long as I wasn't screwing with their work.
Jenny
01-29-2008, 07:43 PM
No, because those companies have the legal right to edit and redistribute, they negotiate the edits with the producers, and the artists are paid for their work and compensated for distribution. I think it's stupid and irritating that movies are edited for TV, but they have a right to do it. This asshole does not have the right to profit off of violating someone else's work without even paying the artist.
I was actually thinking - if those companies showed the movies without permission, much less edited the content without permission - hell yes! There is Yek's dream right there. For NBC to edit and show her film without colour of right. Of course, NBC won't do that, exactly for that reason...
Yekhefah
01-29-2008, 07:46 PM
Oh hell yeah. NBC wouldn't touch my movie with a seven-foot cattle prod but if they did show it without my permission, I wouldn't be worried about making rent for awhile.
doc-catfish
01-29-2008, 08:20 PM
May I also point out that if the networks didn't edit these movies, that due to FCC regulations they likely couldn't air them. Remember some of the static that was raised when NBC showed Schindler's List unedited? This side of "nipplegate" at the Superbowl four years ago, I highly doubt you'll ever see that again on network TV.
Under particular circumstances, artistic integrity often gives way to the bottom line. It sucks, but thats the way it is.
jester214
01-29-2008, 09:25 PM
I think you're beating this into the ground and then some, but if we gave you this point then well...so what!!
Everyone here has an opinion, and nobody here is obliged to be objective and impartial in giving theirs.
It shouldn't be that much of a surprise that people on a message board dedicated to an industry that the establishment class wishes to stamp out are going to take an overwhelmingly unfavorable view to seeing something artistic being censored, no matter how altruistic a justification there is for it.
Go play "devils advocate" on a MB full of evangelical Christians sometime and tell them what wonderful people strippers are. See how well that goes over.
If you give me that point then several of my points have a lot more validity. I'm not asking anyone to be objective and impartial, but if you have a problem with something I think you should say what your real problem is, and not attack it for something else.
If I ever start posting on a MB for evangelical Christians, you can guarantee that I will be doing that.
UtahMike
03-12-2008, 02:08 PM
Follow-up: Wow, this was in Orem. This really might fall to my mom. I'll have to call her about it later.)
Just curious--did your mom draw this case?
Budai
03-12-2008, 02:25 PM
The article made no mention of him being a cheapass, either. Seriously...$20? WTF!
Men will pay for sex, no matter what their occupations are.
I know! $20? Are they effing serious? /:O
Perhaps it was over quickly? :-\
Obviously, Daniel Thompson is no Eliot Spitzer...::)
He may actually have paid the "pimp" more:
Orem police say the teenagers wanted to earn money to move out of their homes and offered sexual favors to men. According to booking documents, the girls asked a 16-year-old friend to put them in touch with anyone who would pay for sex. The 16-year-old sent out text messages to several friends with the solicitation and Lifferth responded. He arranged to meet both girls on Jan. 19 in Orem, then traveled to an apartment where he paid each girl $20 for oral sex, documents state. The 14-year-olds contacted Lifferth again on Jan. 22 for additional work. Lifferth asked the girls to go with him to the Flix Club and perform oral sex on Thompson, the company's co-owner...