skar0913

Hello
I know that they don't carry NC-17 and X rated DVD's.
I recall reading somewhere that BlockBuster would sometimes edit out sections of DVD. I was wondering if they still do that?
Reason being is I wonder should I restart my netflix subscription?
Or would you think it would be better to do a google or yahoo search to see if they edited a DVD before I rented it.

thx
john

DrGerbil

Edit DVDs? No... now, VHS was another matter entirely!

Crocker Jarmen

This was something I often relegated to Urban Legend. Is there credible confirmation that Blockbuster would, in-house, edit movies they had for rental? I don't see how this would be possible, either legally or practicaly.

Since the informatin isn't placed on video tape in visible installments like film frames, how could they produce videos that didn't have ugly, garbled cuts where ever they chopped out questionable material?

BigDan

If Blockbuster was getting movies with parts cut out, I assume the cutting was done by the studio. Sort-of like when they make the TV version and the airplane version, they just cut together a Blockbuster version.

I don't know that they ever did this, but if they did, that's how I would assume it was done, rather than someone at Blockbuster re-editing their thousands of copies of the movie. And certainly Blockbuster was a big enough customer that the studios might well accede to such a demand.

fumanstan

False.

Mr. Salty

Funny, my Blockbuster carries NC-17 movies.

But no, Blockbuster never edited movies. Studios often push filmmakers for R-rated versions of films, both for Blockbuster and for wider theatrical release. Some Blockbusters will only carry the R-rated version, or not carry the film at all if there is no R-rated version. But Blockbuster doesn't edit movies.

Dazed

I doubt they would have the resources to edit and then duplicate all the copies they would need. This would also be very expensive and probably illegal if the studio didnt agree with it.

I also cant see a studio making a Blockbusters only version. Then they'd need to do a Walmart version etc etc.

FinkPish

There were a couple of companies that tried to do this while ago, CleanFlicks and ClearPlay, that got their asses sued to high heaven by all the major studios because it violates trademark and copyright laws. I think the DGA also stepped in and said that it violates the creative vision of the films. So any rumor that you've heard about Blockbuster or Walmart doing this is completely false. They may stock only R-rated versions, but that is something released by the studios, not by the retailer.

Gizmo

Yeah, Blockbuster edits DVDs! Its true! We have a device in the back called "Crazy ass customers who think we edit DVDs because we have tons of free time and we always give them late fees" and it edits the DVD's.

Jah-Wren Ryel

No. They got sued and the plantif's claimed those things. But, even to a layman, the plantifs are clearly in the wrong with their charges. The right of first sale trumps them 100% here. Just as I can buy a book, tear out half the pages and sell that as a book with half the pages missing, so can anyone buy a movie and cut out whatever they want and then resell it as a modified version.

I went looking for the results of those lawsuits, could not find them in 2 minutes of googling. But what I did find is that the suits were filed in 2002 and cleanflicks.com is still in business doing exactly the same thing and so are a whole bunch of other outfits.

As usual, it was just Hollywood throwing a hissy fit because they want 100% control and (fortunately) they have not been able to buy enough of congress to achieve that. Yet.

ThatGuamGuy

Well, you're semi-right. The DGA has won at least one of the major cases, because the companies were selling modified versions of the movies. This is *not* legal for various reasons associated with intellectual property. Regardless of how *you* feel about it, they were misrepresenting the product they were selling. [To use an extreme example which makes the point obvious, their PG version of 'Requiem For A Dream' would be demonstrably different than Aronofsky's intentions yet would still be (falsely) associated with his name. This means that the movie is not what they would be advertising it as.]

However, the DGA has yet to be able to successfully sue to stop people from selling the technology to allow the players to (basically) edit the movies themselves. Nor should they be able to, IMO.

Groucho

ThatGuamGuy is right.

Offering a service where people can bring in a videotape and have it edited is okay.

Selling an pre-edited videotape without the permission of the studio is not.

This pretty much started here in Utah with a company that edited the VHS tape of Titanic for customers. Cut out the nudity, but not the dead babies. At any rate, it's harder to do now that DVD is the standard and you can't just "cut" parts out.

Green Jello

It is also because of the Requiem for a Dream issue that Lynch made his blurred version of Mullholland Drive. Rather than make two versions of the DVD, they only made the one that would meet Blockbuster standards.

Also, the Requiem for a Dream version at Blockbuster is still far from a PG cut. They only removed some of the more graphic images in the final scene. If submitted to the MPAA, the film would still be an R.

moviezzz

The Blockbuster editing R rated movies for content issue is an Urban Legend. The stories were all the same "My brother's friend rented CASINO and this scene was cut out". It spread pretty widely, places like Film Threat and filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson believed it (he complained to Ebert in an interview about it). But, it was never true.

They do carry edited cuts of NC-17 movies (or did, some stores now carry NC-17) but those were all created for them by the studios.

And you should go with Netflix. They have a much wider selection than BB does.

Groucho

I thought that was at the request of the actress?

moviezzz

That isn't the reason Lynch blurred it. Lynch added the blur, not for Blockbuster or the MPAA, but because he knew that on the DVD, people would freeze frame it and post it on the internet so he didn't want the actress to be embarassed. The scene could have stayed unblurred and be in Blockbuster, but Lynch was afraid of what would happen.

DealMan

The blurring in Mulholland Drive WAS at the request of the actress, it had nothing to do with earning an R rating, since the unblurred theaterical cut was rated R.

Blockbuster never has edited movies before, just an unfortunate urban myth.

Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17, but they do carry "unrated and NC-17 equivalents". Almost all the new releases from the past few years that have had an unrated DVD released have had that version stocked at Blockbuster stores.

Green Jello

I think that was his bullshit cover story so as to not appear to be folding under the pressure of the world's largest video retailer. There was an article in Variety back when this happened and they didn't believe that story at all.

skar0913

Thank You for the help

john

Jah-Wren Ryel

Got a link for that ruling? I'd like to read the details. Like I said, cleanflicks.com is still selling modified versions of the DVDs, just go to the site and see. So, at a minimum, whatever the ruling was, it apparently has set no precedent.

Green Jello

I'm not sure, but I think Cleanflicks has to get permission from the studios for every movie they edit.

Cornholio

my bb has a few nc-17

The Monkees

I've never heard that, and yes no NC-17 or X rated movies or AO rated games. But they due carrying soft core porn like "Red Shoe Diaries", "The Sex Substitute" and "The Seventh Sense" .....no seriously!

ThatGuamGuy

Ah, you misread what I wrote; I was using it as an extreme example, not using the actual R-rated cut. Aronofsky did, to my knowledge, prepare the R-rated cut, so that wouldn't apply to what I was saying. My point was that, in theory, a PG-cut of 'Requiem' could be prepared, but it would, by neccessity, include little of the original footage other than the "directed by" credit that it invalidated.

Green Jello

OIC