In short a mormon in Utah is editing movies by himself, removing some questionable and then renting them to others. I´m linking to one of the articles (there are several out there). http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20010212.shtml .

That's pretty sad...

Well I think that's OK, if a particular community finds certain things offensive and someone is editing films to serve that community then it's fine by me, as long as those renting them are aware that they are edited versions I don't see a problem.

Arnabas, the girl in your sig is gonna end up with black eyes and a bad back, she could use some underwired support ;)

<font color="silver">
To be honset, I did not even know mormons had televisions and VCRs.

Anyway, who was time for watching flicks when one has 18 kids, 5 wives (and god forbid 5 mothers-in-law)
</font>

And I´m not against the idea at all. But shuoldn´t the company owning the movie be responsible for the editing? It´s obvious they can make some money of the idea ;)

[ 11-20-2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

I know that video stores can buy edited version of movies to rent. Guess even the edited version show too much.

http://www.attrition.org/gallery/com...m/assclown.jpg

[ 11-20-2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

LOL Caleb! I love it when you do that, your timing was perfect!

Before anyone else says anything that may offend anyone, my gran was a Mormon, and there are several Mormons here at IW too, so think before you post folks.

Actually as far as I understand it, it will most likely be considered illegal eventually. Mormons are meant to obey the law acording to their religion but the polygamy issue of religion above state shouldn't hold here.

If they don't like watching some of the movie - then don't watch all of it! Aren't they supporting the industry that produces the 'filth' they have to edit out?

The issue here legally, is about Adaption and Arrangement. In music, works shall not be adapted or arranged without the writer's permission. This obviously is limited in home use (ie: you can do what you want with as long as you don't lease or sell it)

What he is doing is altering the work, making money off it and missrepresenting the creator. Three laws broken at least. Why bother? Just don't watch it...

[ 11-20-2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

<font color=skyblue>You are thinking of Quakers, not Mormons</font>
<font color=skyblue>You are thinking of a church that used to call themselvs the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS)...which are a break-off sect that believe in plural marriages. I believe thier home-base is in Missouri. I do not know what they are calling themselves these days, but they do not share the beliefs of the Mormons.(LDS) Mormons do not practice plural marriages. </font>

<font color=skyblue>You are thinking of a church that used to call themselvs the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS)...which are a break-off sect that believe in plural marriages. I believe thier home-base is in Missouri. I do not know what they are calling themselves these days, but they do not share the beliefs of the Mormons.(LDS) Mormons do not practice plural marriages. </font></font>[/QUOTE]Then I am sorry for my missrepresentation of their practices too. There is obviously a lot of missinformation dispersed about the Mormons because I did have a strong idea that some of them do practice plural marriages.

Again I appologise if I have caused any offence.

[ 11-20-2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

Larry, I know some Quakers who have TV sets. They are pacifists, not technophobes. Maybe the Amish?
And wasn't there an edited version of The Phantom Menace circulating around on the net about a year ago wwith all of the annoying things, like Jar Jar, edited out, called, appropriately enough, The Phantom Edit? And didn't Lucasfilms get them to stop, citing breach of copyright? They weren't even selling it!

[ 11-20-2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Attalus ]

Larry, I know some Quakers who have TV sets. They are pacifists, not technophobes. Maybe the Amish?</font>[/QUOTE]No I think it's the people of Adelaide. ;)

Caleb, as much as your graphic may be 'amusing' it is also flaming another member and I'll ask you not to use it again in that manner. Warhammer may not know every detail about Mormons but you have certainly been around long enough to know the rules.

Not knowing about the Mormons is understandable and acceptable, flaming someone is neither.

<font color=skyblue>Leonis... Don't worry about it. It's cool with me.
Attalus... Now that you mention it, I think you are right! I sometimes get the Amnish mixed up with the Quakers. If I offended any Quakers on this forum, then I apologize for my ignorance.

It is true, that Mormon church leaders have asked that R rated movies be avoided. But it is not just the Mormons that feel this way. Many people here where I work feel the same way. They are not Mormon...they have standards that do not allow them to watch things that make R rated movies rated R. Non-mormons are also part of this franchise of edited movies. </font>

It´s clear I didn´t think this through enough before posting this topic. It was not directed at mormons, or any other religion/belief, at all but as a story on copyrights, since this has been a topic here lately. If this gets out of hand then you mods please lock and loa..., ermm delete ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-20-2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Im sure it wont be a problem since he will makes sure he has his facts straight before he insults another religion ;)

[ 11-20-2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

Regarding the various sects mentioned,

Quakers live and work in the world with all the rest of us. The Amish do keep to their own communities and avoid technology. Mormons (the main branch) outlawed polygamy many years ago, but as I understand it there are break-away groups who (illegaly) practice polygamy, although the government would only recognize the first marriage as legitimate.

Willow- interesting info. I am torn on this one, as I do feel a work like a film is someone's 'art' and as such I don't feel great about seeing it chopped up, but on the other hand, I suppose it's ok if the audience KNOWS it's been edited and accepts that. I imagine some things would be suitable for kids, then, but on the other hand, it might be better to wait til you feel they are old enough to see the 'real' thing without the cuts. Tough decision!

Im sure it wont be a problem since he will makes sure he has his facts straight before he insults another religion ;) </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure it won't be a problem because you will learn to be more gracious in accepting that sometimes people don't know as much as you think you do. ;)

I think he should be prosecuted for copyright-infringements.

You can't sit and edit other peoples work just because you don't agree with the contents [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Ah touche ;)

Ar Cunin- that point also worries me. I wonder how the copyright laws see something like that? I mean on American TV we 'bleep' words so is THAT considered 'infringement' on the copyright? It IS editing, but is it damaging to the work as a whole? Should we just not show it on public or publicly accessible stations? Whew, Willow, BIG topic you have here! :D

Caleb- I have an overwhelming urge to hug you....refraining mightily....but ....aaaaaaaaaaack.....*HUGS CALEB* :D :D :D

Cloudy I think the bleeping is different because it's momentary and most people know what was said anyway.
With a whole segment cut out, if you haven't seen it before youmay not even be aware there was anything missing in the first place.
Also the artist knows their work will be bleeped when they sell it - if they don't want to allow it to be bleeped they would withhold it.

This is a different case because in buying the movie - you agree not to do what this person has done.

I didn´t even consider that part! But it is a VERYgood point! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] If I were to retort immediately I´d say it´s not quite the same thing. Editing out a bad word from an interview (documentaries don´t tend to have bleeps, at least not up here) is not the same as editing out scenes from a piece of art (a movie ;) ). If I were to make a comparison. Hmm perhaps it´s like covering up certain body parts on a painting? And I´m glad the mood changed in here! [img]smile.gif[/img] YAY IW! ;)

<font color="#ff6666">The editng of works of art has always disturbed me, while what I consider art may differ greatly from others, I think Americans in particular are warping our kids by covering up the David or parts of Venus Demilo, while allowing them to see people being shot on tv on a regular basis. I really do not understand why we allow violence but deny healthy sexuality and the beauty of the human form.

Edit: And don't even get me started about the schools declaring The works of Mark Twain and Ol Bill Shakespere as being innappropriate for children. Heaven forbid we allow our children to see how the world really used to be. :( </font>

[ 11-20-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Couldn't agree more, MagiK. I have never understood why you can depict a hundred grisly homicides in an hour on TV (or elsewhere!) and one uncovered female breast would make nationwide headlines. ;)

Continuing to go [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] but I just thought this might be of interest:

Mormons have not practiced polygamy since the Supreme Court disbanded the church for doing so, and took its assets (those that weren't hidden). Years later, the church was reinstated, and property was returned - on the notion that the church had reformed its view of polygamy. There were 4 in total Supreme Court cases on it. It's been a while since I've read them, but http://candst.tripod.com/caselist.htm says they were:


1878 P U.S. Reynolds v U S, 98 U.S. 145 First of the Mormon cases and was decided under civil law, First mention of Jefferson's metaphor (Wall of Separation)
1885 B U.S. Murphey v Ramsey, 144 U.S. 15 Another of the Mormon cases (cited 3 times in The Myth of Separation)
1890 P / B U.S. Davis v Beason, 133 U.S. 333 Basically part of the overall Mormon cases Bigamy polygamy cases followed the Reynolds reasoning i.e., civil law. (cited 5 times in The Myth of Separation)
1890 P U.S. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v US, 136 U.S. 1 Last of the Mormon cases

This was an issue when I was working at legislative counsel in VT, which was drafting VT's civil union. A big question legislators has was "if we open the door to other types of marriages, how do we say NO when people come looking to legalize other things, like polygamy."

Sorry to be offtopic, just an FYI.

[ 11-20-2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

It's a slanted approach for sure. Can't be doing too much good for society. "Killing's ok, sex is bad..."
Personally I think depictions of sex and violence in current medias and arts are largely gratuitous any unneccessary anyway. But that's the lure of the $$$ for you...

Couldn't agree more, MagiK. I have never understood why you can depict a hundred grisly homicides in an hour on TV (or elsewhere!) and one uncovered female breast would make nationwide headlines. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed guys. Moreover, it's ridiculous considering the new trends among the tummy-bared body-shaven multi-pierced teens of today. Younger singers and actors are doing more risque things, and MTV is happy to show a 15-year-old in an ass-high skirt dancing seductively. Yet, we have to edit Looney Toons. Is there no end to the silliness?

Leonis, you made a good point in your first post, I have to admit I wasn't thinking of it in those terms. I was thinking more about allowing a wider audience to enjoy the film!

But then on TV here in the UK, films are often edited - not to edit out any parts considered unsuitable viewing, but to fit it in to a particular time slot. And viewers aren't told, it's only if you have seen it before that you realise there is something missing. In my opinion that is worse, even if permission has been sought from the copyright holder to do so (and I assume it has, perhaps films are sold to TV on the basis that editing is allowed?) - it seems deceitful somehow.

I can see that a director may well be unhappy with his artwork being tampered with, it would indeed be only right to gain permission before any such edits are taken place, in some cases it could well change the director's intention when he shot a scene.

ack! I actually agree with you on this Magik. Will wonders never cease! ;)

Correct my if my understanging of this is wrong Epona. [img]smile.gif[/img] TV cuts certain scenes to shorten the movie so it will fit in a 1½ hour gap even though the movie is 2 hours long? I take it they must have certain contracts with the provider for that? Or?

'Twas ever thus. There is a word for this sort activity - Bowdlerisation.

This has been a Public Service Announcement from the Society for the Promotion and Promulgation of Obscure Phraseology [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Very good points. Any director/studio with any insight should see the market here and employ this guy to do it for them, not prosecute him - keep your enemies closer so to speak.

I do get very annoyed when I realised an edit's just gone past me in a movie I've seen before. Here we have all those letters after the rating - eg

MA15+
SVLD

(sex scenes, violence, language, drug use etc...)

They should have E - edited!

*EDIT* Mouse! Too funny! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ 11-20-2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Leonis ]

Yes.

I don't know for sure, I would assume that the right to edit a film is included as part of the contract of broadcasting rights from a distributor to the TV company, it would be too expensive for most TV companies to arrange such things on a film by film basis.

Epona, good points! I was also thinking of the 'edited for television' stuff we see here in the US. Sometimes it's for the reasons you mentioned, gotta have that commercial time [img]tongue.gif[/img] , but sometimes it's also to edit violent or sex scenes or just the language. However, most of those, to my knowledge, do note at the beginning of the movie that they have edited and more often than not it tells you for what- like edited to fit the screen (originally shot in wide format) or edited for adult/mature/violent content (language and sex/violence).

I do object to seeing a few minutes shaved off a scene to add a soap advertisement or one more shaving gel commercial...*mutters and sputters* but I don't necessarily get all bent out of shape if it says they edited it for violence or sex and it's being shown during hours when kids might be watching it.

This is very interesting...Jim and I watched a show on 'censorship' of tv a week or two ago and for the most part, I just laughed at most of it and considered some of it silly or outdated(it was a semi-humorous show), but when they got to one film (and I cannot recall the name...grrr) that had a scene of teen girls raping another girl in the shower of a reform school, a scene with a broom handle made me physically ill. It wasn't 'graphic' in the sense we think of for 'porn' movies, but it was bad enough and the scenes of the girls face stuck with me for a long time afterwards. Now I know some people wouldn't bat an eye at things like that, but I have to say it really upset me. Spoiled my mood and gave me bad dreams. I can't imagine how a young person, especially girls, would feel seeing it. This was some time ago (at least 10-15 yrs) and the station got so many complaints they never aired the film with that scene in it again. After seeing that, I remembered some other similar things I've seen more recently on tv/movies that didn't get edited and frankly, some of them made me ill too, so I can't outright say "nope I'd never agree to watch an edited film!" because in those cases I'd opt to not see it or only see the edited versions.

It's not as black and white issue as I was thinking at first. Films not made for tv, which are rated would be different, since one knows or can guess from the ratings and reviews what the content might be like and avoid things you'd as soon not see.

edit: forgot to add about that disturbing rape scene/movie- the actress (by then much older than when she shot the movie) was interviewed in the censorship show and said she "didn't know what rape was before doing that scene but afterwards"...she "felt raped". Also, they reported that there were several incidents of teens doing things just like that to young girls after the film aired. At the time several of the incidents were attributed to film having been shown in prime time and the commentator pointed out that adults were complaining and saying they shut it off, but teens were 'fascinated' and watched it all.

[ 11-20-2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

<font color=skyblue>Interesting that some states allow gay marriages, then!

Even the Law of Moses (first five books of the O.T.), has a reference to not allowing same-sex partnerships...yet the plural marriage concept brought to pass the birth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and other important events. </font>

Yeah, editing art sucks. It should always be shown as the artist intended. Covering David? Something like that would never happen here, and to prove it...

http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/...mileydavid.gif

Um....

Oh well, smilies are artsy, too. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff6666">It's not like the David is hung like a horse even, it is just a great piece of art. I don' get it. heaven forbid some child sees a male or female form in its natural state..they will be traumatized for life!

Edit: This isn't nearly as fun now that I have the Never ending turd of happiness in my corner :( </font>

[ 11-20-2002, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Never ending turd of happiness...lol. :D