>Has anyone attempted this? Any suggestions on process or applications to use?

Do a google search on "Utah" and "DVD :-) Its been a heated battle for some time. I know there was one video rental guy who was doing the editting himself, simply removing certain scenes. The following article (first thing my search popped up) looks like a higher-tech editing trick.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/local/chi-contentcleaning-story,0,5112386.story

You're likely to get some less than charitable responses to this question in this forum. Quite a few people here are pretty adamant about defending copyright rights, etc. You will definitely find a more responsive audience over in the Afterdawn, Doom9, or DVDrhelp forums.

That said, I have done similar things myself with MP3s. The kids download some really offensive stuff, most of which I just delete from their computers. However, some of it is actually pretty good music. A great example is Fiona Apple's "Mistake." Great song, great lyrics, but one ugly word right in the middle. You really can't play it with anyone over 30 around without offending someone. My solution was to convert it to WAV, and then use SoundForge to mix the words from a later refrain that was musically the same tempo and note. The result sounds like she says "foul it up again," instead of what she really says.

For commercial movie DVDs, you would have to RIP to your hard drive using Smartripper, DVD Decrypter, or DVD Shrink. This is the part that folks here don't want you to do. At that point, you have to edit the VOB file, but to do this you have to strip out the audio track you want to use. You then put the VOB file on the video track and the stripped audio file on the audio track, and then do whatever editing you want. When you are finished, render back out and create a DVD. Of course all of the subtitles, chapter stops, etc. of the original will be lost.

I think the situation with movies is quite different than with music, and this suggests a different approach to the problem. Most pop music is about five minutes long. It can be played anywhere, in the background. By contrast, most commercial movies are two hours long and you have to sit down and watch them. Thus, my kids can listen to the music anywhere, but they can only watch the movie in our family room. I've set it up so that we always watch movies together. If something is offensive (our 11 year old boy doesn't like sex scenes -- boy is that going to change), I just fast forward. Other stuff, like the language, we just turn down the volume, or we make some comment.

Unfortunately, you can't shield them from it -- not here in the U.S. of A. The best you can do is avoid offending others (hence my Fiona Apple edit), and try to give your kids some sense of why you believe some of the stuff is garbage.

You are welcome to try to edit the movie using the outline of the technique I just described, but I think you'll find that it takes hours of effort for each movie and is just plain not worth it.

Having rambled on for too long (again), let me give you two far better solutions. Two resources you definitely need to look at:

FamilyFlix

This group provides movies that have been edited for content, exactly as you are planning to do yourself. I think they are only available for purchase. There may be other groups doing this as well.

Reviews for Parents at Screenit.com

This site provides unbelievably detailed reviews of movies, detailing every offensive word, and how it is used; drug/alcohol use; sex scenes, with complete descriptions of what is or is not shown; descriptions of violence, imitative behavior, and much, much more. It is amazing how thorough the people that run this site are with each and every movie they review (and they review most of them).

Here's a suggestion: don't. If you find anything about a film offensive or inappropriate for you or your family, don't watch it. Period. Not only would you be violating the law, changes you'd make violate the artists' rights and as a writer and actor I find that highly offensive.

The thought police is alive and well and living in the Sony Vegas forum. Yikes!

At the risk of offending a certain 'mother hen' poster, what would Edison* think if alive today? He invented the movie camara and phonograph for people's enjoyment. Not for the grossly obscene enrichment of certain fat cat types running multi-national billion dollar corporations hiding behind antiquated copyright laws raking in tens of millions from each hit then having the nerve to sue kids and Joe six pack because they're tired of of getting ripped off paying for 15 songs when 14 on the CD are crap and only one or two are any good.

I'm all for small performing artiists. The emphasis on SMALL. They of course get f.... on both ends. Its the greedy M..... F....... record companies that are the villains.

*yes, I'm aware Edison used some technology from the Eidoloscope and Mutoscope and lastly the Phantoscope. The developers of that went to Edison and it became the Vitascope, the foreruner of the mordern phonograph. I guess Edison was the Bill Gates of his time. Grab a bunch of little companies, slap your name on it and sell it as yours.

The thought police is alive and well and living in the Sony Vegas forum. Yikes!

Hey, I've got young kids. I'm hardly a prude, and am not part of any religious or political organization that would be considered fringe. I'm certainly not part of the "thought police." Give me a break.

And your out of the blue vicious and unprovoked attack on the memory of Edison and feeble attempts to rewrite history the other day was?

Class or lack of it... is all in the eyes of the beholder.

The questions is if you always disagree with what I say (seems like it) then why do you keep reading what I write?

We're right in the middle of it. Clear Play's owners live in my brother's neighborhood. We've had some very heated debates over it. I am incensed that someone would do this to a film. Or any other work of art.
BYU, here in Utah, would not allow Rodin's "The Kiss" to be displayed in a traveling art show because the statue shows a woman's breast. I think that's dumb, but fine.....DON'T SHOW IT because it's your community's values. But don't damage or modify or censor a director, artist's, actor's vision because you don't agree with it. Then it's not art. Niel Simon is incredible about this. He REFUSES to license any education or art theatre to perform his works unless it is word for word. Because that's how he wants his characters to be portrayed. That's a playwright's right, a director's right, an artist's right. If you don't like it, find it offensive, or disagree, then leave it alone and don't watch it. Gets right back to the heart of my most hearty belief: Holders of copyright should always be allowed to maintain that right, and have recourse for when others damage the integrity of their works.
Can you imagine someone cutting the sex organs off the statue of David in Florence, Italy because they thought it obscene? It's no different.
I find Robert Mapplethorpe's art to be totally disgusting and offensive. But I'll defend to my dying day his right to express it in his own way. Because the moment we start allowing people to modify works of art, whether THEY see them as works of art or not, we've lost all the beauty in this world, and lost the right to free speech. THAT is a dangerous thing.

John, with all due respect, don't let the kids see or hear this in your home if you find it offensive. that's what parenting is all about, isn't it? I don't allow my 16 year old daughter to listen to most of the crap out there because of the messages contained, and I'm no prude either. She's also not allowed to drive into certain parts of the city, and she's not permitted to have certain 'women's' magazines that talk about 'how to please your partner' etc. If she sees it in the real world, or hears other kids talking about it, I can't censor that. But in my home, I simply don't permit her to see or hear it. I can't control the world, but I control my home.

What I found hilarious is our current Attorney General ran around the Justice Department draping nude busts because he found artwork done by famous artists personally and morally objectionable, then spent a good chuck of taxpayers money to buy curtains to hide the "naught" art.

I hope John Ashcroft doesn't take a good like at Michelangelo's David, it may cause him to stroke out.

Of course SPOT is right on target... setting rules in YOUR house is not only proper but I think a requirement of good parenting. Funny how morals or lack of change in a short time fame. I can remember when Evlis first arrived on the scene and the outrage he caused by swinging his hips. Now the "F" word is common in lyics, the current crop of rock "artists" can't sing worth a crap let alone carry a tune or even have a clue what a "melody" is. At least Evis could sing.

File under looney tunes

http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/29/nation-402789.htm

Remember, the Brady Bunch wasn't even allowed to show a toilet. And Lucy and Ricky didn't sleep in the same bed? Not that I agree with that level of prudence either, but yeah, things have gone too far. It's ironic that the AG drapes classic nude statues, but won't spend money killing spam that enters my home with pictures of drenched women, bare silicone filled body parts, etc. Now, they're even sending flash with small porn flicks embedded.

Yes and how about TV's "I Dream of Jeannie" where the STAR of the show (70's) couldn't show her bellybutton, even though her midriff was bared in her harem outfit. You can go further back where it was sometimes practiced airbrushing out a bellybutton in some ad shots.

Times change. I was just watching a Ripley's Believe it or not and the rage in Europe is a new hip hugging pair of jeans that's designed to be worn extra low. Low enough to show a little butt crack. FATHERS watch out! Teen age boys take a cold shower.

I thought the AG's decision had to do with his not wanting the American public to see TWO boobs at the same time.

Not for nothing but isn’t this what network TV does all the time? They cut out the sex scenes to show an otherwise good movie on national TV. It’s all about playing to a particular audience.

I’m all for defending an artists rights (I’m a musician and songwriter myself) but every artist knows that the first rule of performing is to “know your audience”. You don’t want to be a “rock band in a red-neck bar” (I know... I've been there). I think the right approach is to ask the producers to create an “age appropriate” version of their movies. If they refuse, then simply don’t by it. The last thing you want to do is buy the DVD and edit it. That only makes them produce more of the same because you bought it and that was their original intent. Instead, leave it on the shelf and write a letter to the producers explaining why you think their movie might have been good and why you won’t buy it. Perhaps they will get the message. Vote with your wallet.

I agree with Spot and BillyBoy; it’s all about good parenting. I don’t allow my 11-year-old son to watch professional wrestling because I think its senseless violence and demeaning to woman. His friends play WWF video games but he does not. I explain that these are not our family values. You have to instill your values in your children and not allow the world to instill their values. It would have been easy for me to edit the kissing scenes out of the Spiderman or Dare Devil movie but instead I chose to leave them in and explain that this is something people do when they get older. (he said, “yuk” and I was relieved) ;-)

~jr

There is a difference with broadcast media; the director *usually* is allowed to make the TV cut. Moreover, he's given money for doing so, and given royalty for the show airing. So he's/she's in control, gets paid, and makes the majority of the decisions. Lucas went through kittens when it came time to air Star Wars. There is quite a discussion with him on Larry King Live about it, I wish they'd stream that stuff. I've got a copy of it on 'best of king'
So in the end, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Broadcasters leave control with the director. Home-viewers that edit media out of a film are simply the modern day version of the book burners of the past.
Twist of irony here, the first movie you'll ever see me appear in is "Footloose" which is more or less a story about censorship.

what would Edison* think if alive today? He invented the movie camara and phonograph for people's enjoyment. Not for the grossly obscene enrichment of certain fat cat types running multi-national billion dollar corporations hiding behind antiquated copyright laws raking in tens of millions

Um, I'm pretty sure Edison would be using the courts to the fullest of his ability and hiring lobbyists to rewrite the copywright laws and using any other practice of modern business, just like he did when he was alive. He may have created those inventions for people's enjoyment, but he also sought to maximize his profit from them. (He did give away at least one medical invention because it would help people.) He was as much a business man as a scientist. He was not a solitary inventor, but a founder of industries and corporations. He founded the Edison General Electric Company, for Pete's sakes. When Edison sold his shares to JP Morgan he was paid $2 million.

A more apt question is not about the technology, but the content. In additon to being an inventor, Edison was also a "content producer," to use a modern phrase. What would Edison think if he created a film or a record and then found that as soon as he released it, copies were available all over the country?

Hey, what do you know I just found this website discussing these issues. Thomas Edison, Intellectual Property and the Recording Industry Interesting stuff.
Chapter 1-- The Dawn of Recorded Music and the First Pirates
Chapter 2 -- Music, Movies and Monopoly
Chapter 3 -- The Industry Evolves
Chapter 4 -- Copyright and the Grand Illusion
Chapter 5 -- Bringing the Past Into the Present

If you go back further in history though you discover that at other times the pendulum swung the other way. Much of the early cinema was quite erotic. In Victroian times popular pornography oftenly featured children. I gather at the time it was considered quite acceptable, then again they were also sent to work in coal mines and factories.

I agree with BillyBoy and SPOTs right to not have anything in their home that they don't wish to be there. With that should go others' right to have whatever they want.

The only thing that worries me with children is that as SPOT has said we cannot control what they see and hear outside the home. Later on of course they will leave the home and your protection. They need to be equiped to deal with what they will see, hear and be offered. This I think is the hardest part of all.

I only mention this as I once worked with someone who was enraged that his children were to received education about the dangers of drugs at a private school. He seemed to think he had paid for a private school so they wouldn't have to know about such things. Needless to say they already knew an aweful lot more than he realised about drugs, unfortunately it wasn't from those who were going to warn them of the dangers.

I agree with both BillyBOy and Spot. How far can you expand a copyright or patent without infringement of the masses? I don't know and by the way I may have invented the "butt crack" years ago as I am a maintenance man who carried a lot of tools. I wonder if that qualifies for a copyright or patent?

JJK

Being a graduate of BYU myself and having lived in Utah I feel pretty strongly about the editing issue on the side of the fence that is pro-editing. Many people see our values very similar to the orthodox jews in that we are very pro family and traditional. As such I feel a strong desire to limit negative influences that degrade the family and traditional values that we have. With that in mind I do "edit" the original work of art by lowering the volume when someone drops the F-bomb on a song that I like - Gasp! I also do the same thing permantly by doing editing as johnmeyer does.

How would you feel about somebody dropping the F-bomb into something you created? Not many people say, "Ah, fudge" anymore, so the "co-creator" could claim that as a defense. Would you not feel violated? Of course. Removal of language/visuals that YOU don't personally agree with is a violation of the artists' rights.