Shifting views on morality are amusing. I can remember way back in the 60's a show called I dream of Jeannie. The censors didn't allow them to show Barba Eden's belly button, yet she mostly wore a skimpy custom with some shots showing a hint of cleavage, but no belly button. Worse, Jeannie lived in a house with a single man. Oh my God! That the censors didn't seem to notice, it was necessary to the plot line.

News Flash... politicans pander to any group they think will vote for them. Now we have the wacky far right religious kooks that have Bush's ear. There was a time when temperance movement was another nasty asault on freedoms. For the kiddies, yes it was once was illegal to manufacture, transport or sell alcoholic beverages. This is what gave organized crime a huge boost. Be very afraid of a government that kisses up to any special interest. Your could be the next target. BTW, my grandfather and a couple uncles during proabition made wine and beer in their bathtubs.

Glad I could bring something of substance to the forum today. I needed a break from the V6 threads.

Ultimately, I think this will lead to redefining the Miller Test (porn) and its grasp will reach even further to the mainstream producers. There is a reason all these conservative judges are being appointed.

Rights of the indie filmmaker? What rights? Where is the law that says that indie filmmakers have access to mainstream distribution?

Would it be nice if they did? Yes.
Is it feasable? Definately not.

The distribution channel is in it to make money too. So, let's say that a theater chain has the choice between showing "The Incredibles" on saturday evening or showing an indie piece that no one in a three-county area has ever heard of. Which do you think they will chose?

Should the indies have the right to alter that free choice? Of course not. However, let the indies make a film with the appeal of the big studios and they may get there. In order to do that they'll probably need the budget of the big studios so that they can get script writers, actors, msucians, sets, make up, costumes, lighting, equipment, post production, promotion, and a host of other things that the big studios make use of. By this time the indie producer is now a Hollywood-class studio and is competing in the free market, and that is a right that he/she does have.

Is this fair? Probably not. I don't recall a right to fairness either. It's merely a priviledge that a polite society should enjoy.

It amazes me how so many of these limited government conservatives are so quick to control what we can see or do in privacy.

How does this affect what you "can see or do in privacy"? You want the original version? Go ahead and watch the original version.

You want to watch the "edited for TV" version? We have that too!

I don't see this as censorship, just another choice.

I'd be very interested to know what the US government plans to do with books. Yes, you know, the things you read in college....like Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, Balzac, Lorca ....ooohhh so many examples (hope they don't burn them publicly....)...Oh, and what on earth are they going to do with Nature docs and Biology books...cut out reproduction and hunting down prey??

Seriously worrying...

IDOJ is my favorite series... :) Agree that censorship is bad, agree that it's likely supported by the studios who can now have a quasi "reason" to release "sanitized" versions.

Think of tv shows like 3's company, love boat, fantasy island.. all of those would be "politically incorrect" in today's ultra conservative environment.

The US is feeling more and more like the middle east /china re censorship.

I miss the Clinton years, things were much more easy going.

Back to filmmaking, I'm sure the directors etc are going to be plenty mad over this, I know I would be.

Every word, every scene, in the final version has a REASON for being there, it conveys the "feel" of the movie. To arbitrarily cut out parts destroys the "edginess" and strength of many films.

Bad stuff, censorship.

Next thing you know, they'll be watching over your shoulder. Oh they already are. It's Orwellian now, the current times. Looking forward to a new political "feel" to the US. Now is bad.


ken

Let me explain further.

Lets say Theatre XYZ has converted to a digital cinema. Now, Universal signs a deal to allow the digital cinema to shows their films in their digital cinema with the condition that a film that wasnt made by a big Hollywood studio can not be shown there. This is what is happening.

Check out HDforIndies.com . I read an article there how the big studios are positioning to keep indie films out of digital cinemas altogether. Hollywood doesnt want the competition cutting into their bottom line, regardless of how small it is.

"Will somebody please think about the childeren in all of this" - The biggest political phrase that used for governmental and special interest gain.

Sorry Patrick,

That's not censorship; that's exerting a position of market dominance (monopoly anyone?)...aka known as bullying...also illegal...at least over here in Europe....

"On the other hand, i think all the sex, profanity, and violence are the worst things that have happened to movies ever. I look forward to seeing more "clean" family friendly movies. This should in fact widen the market for many filmmakers. " By Chienworks

I could'nt agree more! It's about time.

ZION

Hey cool, I see the ultimate opportunity to rebuild the "Britsh Film Industry tm" and make loads of money out of Americans craving for the latest uncensored cool film! Bring on the law I say! mwuahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa.......

Nope, I disagree - I like all the action and sex/violence in movies, it's great stuff!

nobody's trying to tell You to just go watch family cartoons, so people should'nt tell US what we can or cannot watch.

sounds like china or iran or saudi arabia or russia, controlling the media

ken

Re: the "no indie films" deal with theaters:

As I understand the deal as it now stands, the studios are providing the financing for the digital equipment in theaters. A certain percentage of the cost to the theater for or the revenue from the film is held back or in some other way applied so that the studio is eventually repaid for its investment in the theater's equipment.

The studio get a return on its investment only when the theater shows one of the studio's films. If I had $80,000 (the most recent figure that I have seen) invested in a theater, I would want to make sure that "my" equipment was showing my movies.

My two cents...

Kevin

Uh, did you read the article you linked?

"Interestingly, Smith's legislation appears tailored to accommodate ClearPlay alone. The bill will protect from copyright liability, 'a manufacturer, licensee, or licensor of technology that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible...' It says nothing about making separate editions on DVDs, although the courts have begun taking up that issue."

Presuming the reporting is accurate, your commentary is rather hyperbolic.

According to the article, this allows for special technology to skip certain spots of a DVD per the request of the viewer. Is that such a bad thing?

Oh...children...(have two btw)...interesting argument...they censoring the News too now? (you know, violent things like wars, street violence, murder, rape victims etc...HUSH!!!!)

"It says nothing about making separate editions on DVDs, although the courts have begun taking up that issue."

This article covers ClearPlay. However, my commentary is about the other things that are currently ongoing. You can only keep your head in the sand for so long before you suffocate.

Marketing 101, markets cycle, what's old become new. The film industry is just about at the edge of what it can bring to the audiences to get them back into the theaters for $10 tickets without dropping +150 million on. What was on the edge 10 years ago, is old news. Sex and violence has been a winner, but everyone is producing S&V entertainment. The industry wants to lower the cost bar and expectation bar, old begins new again, audience pays $10 tickets for the new "hot, on the edge" movie. Since the market memory is somewhat short-termed, profits are quick to return to the lower cost production movies.

The interesting factor is the impact the internet and P2P networks have. More IDF makers are using P2P to get to the masses. Sony have develop a mass marketing program to address P2P networks to battle the theater decline in general ticket sales.

Ken, "Clinton years?" though, Clinton had a director living at the White house, todays TV shows are more edgey than the 90's. Check ABC, cable.

true re media and clinton years, I guess I just mean the overall 'feeling of the country' w/bush and post 9/11.. miss the old times, felt more comfortable... now feels like there's secret police and suppression, more troubled times nowadays.. ah well.

i liked shows like hill st blues, miami vice, def jam, in living color, that stuff...

writing for tv nowadays is awful, i havent' watched commercial tv (much!) in over 10 years.. almost all watching dvds and old tv reruns on dvds..

ken

Here's one lawyer's take on this. As to the content of movies, until now the consensus was that the market dictated what sold and what didn't sell, and the government measured out its interference in First Amendment rights by using a rating system. This puts the onus on parents of minors, where it arguably belongs, to police their kids from R-rated movies, for instance.

You don't have to get into a church and state argument. Morality has its place in legislation, mainly in the criminal laws--but so does fair play and free speech.

As to the big studios, they were once held in violation of the antitrust laws in their outright ownership of movie theaters--and the attempt to repeat that restraint of trade by owning or financing the equipment that shows the movies, will be tested in court, believe me.

Also expect the ACLU (regardless of all the bad press given on them in recent years) to go to court and test the "Family" laws which allow the alteration of someone else's intellectual property without the protection of government oversight or due process. As a filmmaker, I will not tolerate for one second, someone altering a movie I put out, without my consent. They'll be hearing from MY lawyer.

Isn't it strange that by merely reciting legal and constitutional principles, I sound like a liberal?

Reread the novel 1984, especially the passages about "doublethink." Say the opposite of what you intend to do, so that people won't suspect you....

I wonder how religious groups would respond if book sellers demanded the ability to edit the Tora, Bible, Koran, and other religious documents....

It's the same, right?

John, it's two-way street. Can we get government OUT of religion?

The "same right"? One fella put it something like this: Meanwhile, men remain free to choose between the things of the moment and the things of eternity. Given the choices made by some, we'd all end up with more protected pornography than protected children (and we already have more protected criminals than protected victims). Of course self-restraint would be better than censorship, but urging self-restraint on hedonists is like discouraging Dracula from hanging around the blood bank!