Talk:Re-edited film

Editing film isn't censorship if the consumer chooses it

Overall this article gives a rather negative opinion on editing film for content. The article is even listed as part of a series on censorship. However, true censorship occurs when a government or some other powerful organization edits media without the approval or express desire of the consumer. When a person deliberately purchases a film that has been edited for content they are simply making a choice about the type of media they choose to consume.

Studios who own the rights to distribute films complain that companies who edit their films and then sell them at a profit are illegally making money off of the studio/writer's content. However, when a studio sells a case of DVDs to a department store like Walmart they typically give that store the permission to sell the films with some amount of markup. Companies that edit films are doing the same thing--when they purchase copies of films they are taking over the right of distribution for those copies. This type of editing is standard in the music and radio industry, since profanity is not allowed on most public airwaves.

(Comment: There is an issue of copyright as pertaining to intellectual property that is not addressed by the mark-up argument made here. Further, comparing the form of censorship described in the article to the censorship described in this discussion point is imbalanced. The latter is conducted by state (or state-authorised) bodies, or standards bodies sanctioned by broadcasters, or broadcasters given permission by studios/publishers to disseminate intellectual property. The former is a case of retailers breaching copyright law without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holders – and, as the article notes, has been ruled by US courts as illegal behaviour. Any bias in the article is thus supported (and shared) by a United States copyright law ruling and prior copyright legislation; any bias in this criticism of the article is based solely in personal bias.)

When studios refuse to allow edited copies of films on the market, they are the entities that are truly participating in censorship since they, without any direct request from the consumer, choose to keep a certain version of their film from the market. In a free market society, such as the US, the consumer should have the right to choose what type of media they consume.

(Comment: By the same argument, it should be legal – and encouraged – to breach patent rights for the sake of a free market economy? In case someone likes most of a particular patented discovery but is unhappy with that nagging 1%? No free market is *that* free.)

“There is a certain irony in the fact that these companies will break the law in the name of family values, and also that people interested in protecting their families from offensive content will participate in the same.”

This is a direct quote from the current article, and I would like to point out that at the time these companies and families were editing/purchasing the films it was not illegal to do so—that was the point of the lawsuits. Also intellectual property rights are still anything but clear and concrete and so individuals may still be unclear about this.

(Comment: A subsequent addition to the article observed that this comment is opinionative. However, it also took the piss out of the comment and cheapened the tone it purported to embody, so I have removed both remarks. Regarding the point made here, the lawsuit led to a specific ruling; prior to that, the behaviour at the heart of the lawsuit was *at least* as questionable legality as it was in breach of broader copyright laws. Not every law is formed out of precedent: much of it emerges directly from legislation.)

Finally, the article cites an ABC News poll that is no longer available on line. In the absence of question wording and the complete data about the survey, as well as the fact that the poll was taken over two years ago, it should not be used as evidence as the total and current view of the American public on purchasing films edited for content.

(Comment: Rephrasing is probably in order to clarify that this is not a blanket opinion – though anyone who needs to be explicitly told that a single opinion poll is *not* a blanket representation of an entire nation's opinion evidently has no real idea how an opinion poll functions. Should there then be a link on the word "survey" to an article on that topic? Or is it sufficient for readers to get a sense of that from reading the linked article itself, which is quite clear in its content on where its statistics came from – and which *is* still available online.)

Removed unsourced statement

I removed this oddity from the "Future of the industry" section: "At this point in time, the studio effort to stop this movement has mostly eliminated the availability of edited movies; a tragedy to some, a victory to others." Unsourced and POV. As a matter of fact, the whole article is unsourced. Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Points in Regards to This Article

Here are some points:

• Doesn't discuss films edited for TV too well at all.
• Seems slanted to a "conservative" side, and for these "clear" programs and services.
• Doesn't elaborate the techniques and such used since the 1940s for movies on TV.
• Grammar and overall composition is confusing and poorly written.
• Not really anything about notable TV edits:

Godfather I & II was re-edited into The Godfather Saga

Showgirls had poorly-rendered bras and panties inserted in the film.

Die Hard 2 featured the line, "Yippy-ki-aye, Mister Falcon."

The recent edit that is Snakes On a Plane.

Superman I & II had extra scenes, making both movies individually 3:16 when commercials removed.

What is the corrolation between sandlot edits and the 9/11 attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.140.15 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Coffee5binky (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading this article over I think that it needs more detail in order to be included as censorship. Movies get re-edited all the time by their directors, look at all the re-releases of the Star Wars franchise. I think what this article needs to make clear is that it is censorship if it is done against the director's wishes or something like that. Also, I don't think technical edits, like changing the aspect ratio to fit modern TVs for home releases count as censorship. Jsonitsac (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to add Contents list. Centrepull (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Contents

Trying to add Contents list to page. Centrepull (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Film modification be merged into Re-edited film. I think that the content in the Film modification article can easily be explained in the context of Re-edited film, and the Re-edited film article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Film modification will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Revamp The Content Section (And The Whole Article)

• Bulleted list item The content section was extremely long, examples could maybe be put in a sub section?
• Bulleted list item The Marry Poppins part doesn't really make sense in the context of content
• Bulleted list item Need more resources for some of the sections. How do we establish credibility?
• Bulleted list item History of manual re-editing doesn't make sense. Also needs sources
• Bulleted list item Sentence structure and grammar is decent, but content is difficult to understand without prior knowledge

I'd say the whole thing just needs to be weeded through and either organized better, have information added, or just delete parts that aren't really relevant JClanton12 (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)