« Peerflix Adds USPS Tracking & Google Maps Mashup | Main | New Releases for July 11th, 2006 »



obviously this judge has never seen the version of Phantom Menace that has all the Jar-Jar Binks scenes clipped. He'd rethink protecting the public from Jar-Jar.

C Nyze

I see both sides of this issue as making sense.


what should be done is the studios letting these groups be able to sell the "safe" versions of the films - the ones they run on network and airplanes.

Account Deleted

How exactly are the studios being hurt? If anything, these services help the studios because a certain demographic which would not normally watch these movies due to content is now willing to see them *because* they no longer contain the objectional content. If the studios were smart, they would make their own edited version and market that to the conservative family values market themselves.

Or here's a great idea: Make more movies that are family friendly. Maybe people would start going back to theaters if they could see a movie that the whole family enjoys and that parents can feel comfortable taking their kids to see.

Interesting factoid-
Of the all-time top 100 movies by USA box office (according to IMDB - http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross):

10 were rated R
53 were rated PG-13
28 were rated PG
9 were rated G


Movies won't make sense without the sex and violence, unless they are totally irrelevant to the plot. Why don't these puritans stick to movies that don't have sex and violence, instead of putting Hollywood's films into a procrustean bed? There are lots of movies to watch that don't have sex, violence, or bad language. This strikes me as idiotic, like a person insisting their movies be panned and scanned to fit a 4x3 TV, instead of watching in the original or intended aspect ratio.

I generally dislike movies below R. The MPAA does enough damage, forcing films to conform to their silly "R" standards, like censoring Eyes Wide Shut, cutting Kill Bill, and using B&W footage during the House of Blue Leaves. (The movie is full color and uncut in the R2 DVD from Japan.) Old movies could do pretty well with the restrictive standards of their time, but I'd be happy if we got rid of all ratings and gave more artistic freedom. It's not the government's job (or Hollywood's) to tell us what we can and can't see. They need to give us what we want and that is unrated, uncensored, uncut (as shown by DVD sales).

As I understand it, Clean Flicks gives you a sanitized copy, PLUS the original disc. You pay a premium for these DVDs, because you're paying the studio's full price and giving a little profit to Clean Flicks. It isn't like they were selling pirated works. Each copy's linked to an original disc. They just offer a second copy with some stuff you don't want removed. The studios don't lose any money to this, since they sell you the uncut version, too.


If you want a movie without sex and violence then make one. Don't take someone else's creative vision and sell it as your own. Look at PAX TV, it was supposed have this vision of 'wholesomeness' and it is usually showing infomercials.

Looks like sex, violence and infomercials are more profitable than the alternative.


"Interesting factoid-
Of the all-time top 100 movies by USA box office (according to IMDB):
10 were rated R
53 were rated PG-13
28 were rated PG
9 were rated G"

1. You must have a LOT of time on your hands to find that out, unless you're quoting from someone else. In which case, you should name your source.

2. USA Box Office isn't the same as Non-USA, nor is it as large as World Box Office. You would get a different picture if you looked at World-Wide, since very few countries are as prudish as USA (except for Japan, Korea, and a few others).

3. Box Office isn't the best measure of what movies are good. Try looking at the Top 250 (by ratings) and see how many are Rated R. I would estimate 1/3 are rated R, based on the movies I know off-hand.

4. Even ratings are not that great a measure for individual viewers. Many would hate most of the top rated movies and commercial hits.


What if I do this, Dustin L. wrote:

"How exactly are the studios being cornholed? If anything, these narrow minded clucks help the boneheads because a certain democracy which would not normally watch this crap, due to content, is now willing to see them *because* they no longer contain the objectional penises?"

Do you mind my minor modifications to your post? Certain demographics might find it more appealing this way.

The key I thought was in the written decision, which was a win for the plantiff, the Directors Guild of America and various studios:

"Their business is illegitimate," the judge wrote in his 16-page ruling. "The right to control the content of the copyrighted work ... is the essence of the law of copyright."

Steven Soderberg makes his point quite well by example on the AMC special dealing with this issue ( excerpt at http://www.amctv.com/article?CID=2101-1--0-5-EST
), he shows the edited version of his ironic remake of Traffic, where the degradation of Julie Stiles having sex for drugs is completely omitted.

You don't have to look far to see the impact of the loss of integrity to a director's vision given these folk's criteria:

Remove the gratious violence from films like
Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Godfather, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, Paths of Glory or even Jaws.

Remove Profanity from any movie by David Mamet or Martin Scorsese

Remove sexual references from the Graduate, Chinatown, Clockwork Orange.

Remove cohabitation and sexual references from Sunset Blvd, Annie Hall, Raging Bull, Sophies Choice.

Remove "Perversion" from Midnight Cowboy, Chinatown, Lawrence of Arabia, or Philadelphia.

...not to mention removing Nudity from any film with Nastassja Kinski, Jennifer Connelly, Heather Graham...would be a crime in and of itself. :)


he shows the edited version of his ironic remake of Traffic, where the degradation of Julie Stiles having sex for drugs is completely omitted.

That wasn't her in the film.



You are right, it was Erika Christensen - I shot from hip and missed, though given their obvious physical similarities, and how it isn't significant to the point, I don't feel that bad.

Thinking about it, that whole aside is riddled with mistakes and errors, it is Julia not Julie, though it wasn't even Julia it was Erika, and it reads like the entire movie is used, instead of just a clip. And the edit is done by one of the bastardizers, not by him.

Additionally, I should have said that the offensiveness of the whole sex scene was the point of the scene explicitedly, instead of just implying it.

I think there was at least one spelling error also ( earlier in the post )

Boy, do I feel better ( is bastardizer a real word? )

Account Deleted


1. I named my souce. It was IMDB. It took me all of about 15 minutes to copy the top hundred into a spreadsheet, find out the ratings and create the formulas to get the numbers

2. No one said USA box office was the same as non-USA, but I figured USA was more relevant since this was a USA court decision against USA-based companies.

3. Once again, the purpose was not to illustrate what is goof or not good. The point is what people pay for.

4. Granted, ratings are not that great of a measure of the true content of a movie, but MPAA rating was the quickest way to get a metric. It's not like I have a LOT of time on my hands.

Account Deleted


I can see how your rewording of my post would appeal to the lowest common denominator filth junkie. If that's what you wanna do, go for it.

As long as the filthy gutter mouthed punks know that you've slimed it up to prevent their sewer-spawned sensibilities from being offended and they are fully aware that the original source is out there.

Much like the end-consumers who trust these companies to edit what they believe to be objectionable content, if you've got a gaggle of potty mouthed freaks of nature who won't read anything unless it's got the requisite amount of potty humor, more power to ya!

Account Deleted


I also took a look at the IMDB top 250 (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top) as you suggested. You are correct that approximately 1/3 are rated R. What's your point? Isn't 2/3 still bigger than 1/3? Based on the data, IMDB members who rate movies still prefer non-R rated movies 2 to 1.

I don't believe that this top 250 list is a good indicator of what the public wants to see any more than box office gross. According to IMDB, "for the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered." What is the demographic of a regular IMDB voter? Do they represent a statistical cross section of the public?

Here is the breakdown of the top 250 if you are interested:

90 were rated R
24 were rated PG-13
42 were rated PG
15 were rated G
79 have not been rated according to the current MPAA rating system. They were all made in 1967 or before and would likely be rated PG or PG-13 at the most


Movies can be good without the nudity and sexual content. Kids enjoy movies, christian people enjoy movies, why is it that because the majority of people with apparent low morals, standards, and values get the first choice?


As a movie studio, I would think it would make business sense to provide both camps a choice...Clean vs Dirty version. At the end of a business day, it's the bottom line that matters.

Steve W.

Here is a piece of interesting info for you lovers of Rated R films

FACT: The highest grossing Rated R of all time is.......THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST


It made slightly more the the highest grossing Rated G film.... FINDING NEMO

By the way, how is it any different what regular TV (like abc, nbc) does to movies compared to what clean flicks does - seems the same thing to me.... and the studio still makes it money no matter what

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites