I would never watch a "sanitized" movie, because I have brains enough to determine if its content is appropriate for me or my children without some "big brother" company doing it for me. That being said, network TV has been doing it for years. Why the outcry now? The only thing I think should be MANDATORY is a clear label that the movie has been altered...so that the rest of us don't mistakenly buy it.

Would you watch a movie that has been "sanitized"? Do you watch movies on TV? On airplanes? Do you watch the "director's cut" that comes out of DVD with an R rating, yet what you saw in the theater had 3.2 seconds less footage? Then you have watched a "sanitized" film.

To me, this is yet another example of the film industry taking itself WAY too seriously. How would it have "ruined" Titanic if the world didn't get to see the Kate Winslet's boobs? Would we just not have understood the love her character had for Jack? Did it somehow take away from the film that all we saw of the "love scene" were steamed up windows and Roses stretched out fingers, disappearing into the darkness of the car, in a "surrender" gesture, instead of the camera sharing the back seat with them?

I admit that some films would become basically a farce if they were "sanitized", let's face it, Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down are two movies that flow with the violence of the events, but even Schindler's list had a scene or two of gratuitous nudity that had nothing to do with the purpose of the film.

Did you ever see the movie "Ice Castles"? It was a little too sappy for my taste, but the most compliments the star (Lynn-Holly Johnson) recieved was how great a family movie it was. How much of a family movie would it have been, if she hadn't have threatened to walk away from the whole project if the makers kept pushing her to do a nude scene?

The most preposterous thing about this whole "controversy" is the statement made by one producer, when asked about this concept a few years ago, when it first hit the news shows. (mind you, this isn't an exact quote, since I heard it a few years ago, but here goes) "The people who would alter a film remind me of a man, who takes a lovely woman out on a date. The whole evening he compliments her on her beauty, her style, and how much fun they are having together. Then, at the end of the evening, he rapes her!"

How pompous do you have to be to equate cutting a few scenes out of a movie with raping a woman!!!

The laughable part of it all is how those who are supposed to be the champions of "freedom of choice" now somehow have found where they are willing to draw the line. At the video store!! ROFL!!!!!!

What a joke!

Might I also remind you that, the "sanitized" version is not being forced on anyone. The original, uncut version is still completely available to anyone who wants it. So how is this denying anyone anything? It is merely another choice.

In the die hard movies, Bruce Willis likes to say Yippee Chi Yea, MF.  And it leant itself to the movie.  In the TV version, they replace the MF with Mr. Falcon, and that is so lame!

But even beyond that, my sons would never stand for a sanitized version.  Yes, I do have to correct them at times when their language starts imitating the art, but that is my job (I could always forbid them from seeing any of these movies, but I know they would just sneak behind my back, and besides, I feel they are mature enough to understand the difference between entertainment and real life).

I agree with Ted.  It seems that Hollywood is just full of itself.

clear label that the movie has been altered...so that the rest of us don't mistakenly buy it.

Yes, this is good and I think the firm that is doing it will be putting lables on films that have been altered.

Do you watch movies on TV? On airplanes? Do you watch the "director's cut" that comes out of DVD with an R rating,

Yes I have Ted. And when I'm watching something on television, the film will still have something in it, kissing , nudity etc. unless it's a family film. All the scenes or if there's any cursing is not taken out.

Did you ever see the movie "Ice Castles"? It was a little too sappy for my taste,

I don't remember. But I may have heard of it. The love scene in the Titanic wasn't necessary I think too, but honestly, that scene does not come to my mind when I think about the movie because it was irrelevant. They just did it to show the development of the relationship between the two characters.

How pompous do you have to be to equate cutting a few scenes out of a movie with raping a woman!!!

He definately was going overboard here! But I understand his sentiments because it's what he equates what is being done to his work.

Might I also remind you that, the "sanitized" version is not being forced on anyone. The original, uncut version is still completely available to anyone who wants it. So how is this denying anyone anything? It is merely another choice.

Ted, I'm aware it's not being forced on anyone. I'm also aware it's an individuals choice. I don't think I said that it is (being forced on anyone) or that it wasn't (a choice). Personally I think it's a bit extreme since there are already systems set up where this is concerned. Like I said, it's a bit extreme, but this is my opinion. And people will do what they want to do, it's their right.

I feel they are mature enough to understand the difference between entertainment and real life).

That's right Dr. Guy, you as the parent will know when your child is mature enough. And your parenting them will teach them to know the difference between what's for entertainment and what's real life and also help them to make choices. They're learning the reality of what life is, not sanitizing everything so they see it only through rose-colored lenses all the time.

This way they do know the difference. That's all I'm saying.

I agree with Ted. It seems that Hollywood is just full of itself.

I agree too that they are full of themselves at times. But when you see your life's work being altered, wouldn't that make you think differently? After all, it would be your work, your ideas, would you feel good that someone else is taking away your thought process and your freedom to present your work the way you want it to be presented?

Cleanflicks is a Utah based company who are predominately LDS folks. They company originates from Utah County (the epicenter of LDS conservatism) and they have been doing this for years. I think that their primary motivation here is not providing family friendly movies. But to make a buttload of cash doing it. Greed is not a sin in these here parts. They're just wrapping themselves in the family friendly flag for the sake of filling their pockets.

Movies (even bad ones) are a work of art. Do you put a loincloth on Michaelangelo's David?

These folks probably would.

Movies (even bad ones) are a work of art. Do you put a loincloth on Michaelangelo's David?

Of course!  Dont want him to catch cold, now do we?

Interesting article, foreverserenity.

They've had VCRs for a while now that alter coarse language, which I suppose is just a small step on the way to what they're doing now.

I personally wouldn't want to watch an altered film (if I think it's something that I'm going to have a problem with, I just won't watch it) because I think you lose some of the flow and emotion and realism of a film. I recently watched Hotel Rwanda (wow) and were this powerful film (based on real events) to be sanitized, my understanding of what took place there and the emotional impact the film had on me would have been greatly diminished.

And as you've mentioned, our jobs as parents are to prepare our children for adulthood...life in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be...and I think that parents that try to shelter their children so that they don't encounter anything unsavory or negative are doing their children a disservice.

I may be wrong, my kids are still small, so I certainly don't know much about parenting, but from what I've studied and read and observed and experienced, that's the way it looks to me.

I think you're right when you say that sanitizing of films is altering someone's life work, but in the same turn, the actors, directors, etc. work for us, the consumers, sooooooo....

If it makes someone feel more safe and more clean to watch an altered film, let them have at it. I personally won't be supporting the film sanitation industry with my money.

Screenit.com is an excellent website for judging movie content, btw. It breaks the questionable content down into several categories (including things like jump scenes, sex/nudity, bad attitudes, language, etc.) and rates it (moderate, heavy, extreme, etc.). Beyond that, it also provides a detailed list of the content for each category ("Mr. Badass then uses a chainsaw to cut off Penelope's head, with bloody results"). There are extra features available to people who subscribe (it used to be a free service) but I've been able to make use of all the features I need without having to become a customer.

When there's a movie that I'm not sure about for the kids, I check that website. Recently Adrian has been wanting to take Xavier (almost 8) to see Kung-Fu Hustle, which is rated R, so we looked it up on screenit.com to find out where the R rating came from and whether or not it would be appropriate for him to watch with his daddy.

It's been a great resource for me.

The whole "changing someone's life's work" doesn't really wash with me either. There are very few directors who have enough clout to make a film and have it released without dozens of people changing it. Everyone from film editors to producers, and even sponsors and even "sample audiences" all have a say in the finished product.

It doesn't stop there either, the books we read, the music we listen to, the magazine articles we flip through, all have been changed dramatically from the original "art" of the artist.

Cleanflicks is a Utah based company who are predominately LDS folks. They company originates from Utah County (the epicenter of LDS conservatism) and they have been doing this for years

Actually, that is the case that where the "rape" analogy was drawn. Actually, I liked the Cleanflicks concept a lot better than the latest one. With them (as I understood it), people who already bought the video or DVD would bring it in and they would take out whatever the customer asked them to.

I think that their primary motivation here is not providing family friendly movies. But to make a buttload of cash doing it. Greed is not a sin in these here parts.

Why couldn't it be both? What is more American than seeing a market and capitalizing on it? If the movie industry is so shortsighted that is would actually consider their stuff "art", they deserve to miss out.

Get over yourselves Hollywood, You aren't artist, you are trained monkeys, entertaining us with mundane formulas and hackneyed catch phrases!!!

But to make a buttload of cash doing it. Greed is not a sin in these here parts. They're just wrapping themselves in the family friendly flag for the sake of filling their pockets.

I guess if the need is there for them to do this, and it obviously is, they will make a "buttload" of cash! And how!!

because I think you lose some of the flow and emotion and realism of a film. I recently watched Hotel Rwanda (wow) and were this powerful film (based on real events) to be sanitized, my understanding of what took place there and the emotional impact the film had on me would have been greatly diminished.

This is what I'm talking about. You hit the nail on the head of the point I'm trying to make Tex -".the emotional impact the film had on me would have been greatly diminished"

Thanks for the info on Screenit.com. I'll definately use it too. My son wants to go see the movie, "the hitchhikers ride around the universe" - I might have botched the title. I'll definately check it out on this website.

There are very few directors who have enough clout to make a film and have it released without dozens of people changing it. Everyone from film editors to producers, and even sponsors and even "sample audiences" all have a say in the finished product.It doesn't stop there either, the books we read, the music we listen to, the magazine articles we flip through, all have been changed dramatically from the original "art" of the artist.

Oh yes, this is quite so. But at the end of all the revising and edits, the people involved usually view the end product and agree with it. It's after it goes out to the mass market that they object to the alterations. So, it's not just the directors, it's also the movie companies.

entertaining us with mundane formulas and hackneyed catch phrases!!!

And so they should! What fun would the world be without them!

I dunno, Pulp Fiction would never be the same...

Oh yes, this is quite so. But at the end of all the revising and edits, the people involved usually view the end product and agree with it. It's after it goes out to the mass market that they object to the alterations. So, it's not just the directors, it's also the movie companies.

Everyone, except the original screenwriter. They rarely get a say. Like I said, so much for the whole "changing someone's life's work" malarky!!

"the hitchhikers ride around the universe"

Ouch, You hurt my eyes reading this, it is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (shameless plug for the movie industry, while trashing it). 2 Days and a Wake Up until it's Release!! I have waited over over 20 years for the 5 book trilogy to finally hit the Silver Screen!!!

Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but I'm taking my kids out of school to see the matinee!! ;~D

Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone, but I'm taking my kids out of school to see the matinee!! ;~D

OMG! you are one of those! 43.