nazz

Why is it that they feel a need to display a prominent disclaimer of any commentary at the beginning of DVDs?

If they are so paranoid about the potential consequences of something that may be said during a commentary track why can't they at least have an audio disclaimer at the start of it if you choose to listen to it?

Cameron

or they could just edit it....it has been done

cinephan

As far as editing them go, who actually owns the commentaries? Cause I remember when WB wanted Matt and Trey to edit the one for South Park season one, they took the commentary back and sold it separately themselves. And Mike Judge held his hostage til he got more money for Office Space. We all heard about the commentary that Linklater recorded for the Dazed and Confused DVD and that never showed up on the disc. Rumor has it he's holding it back for a Criterion edition of the film. And from what I've read on here, Cronenberg is holding the commentary for the Fly hostage til they make a better transfer of the movie. Do the directors own the commentaries or do the studios own them?

mikewendt

In short, to the original question, it's a simple covering their ass method. If somebody takes offence due to language, political statments, personal or proffesional shots taken, etc. Don't blame the studio releasing. That's it.

Matt & Trey did the same, as SP:S1, with the new Orgazmo DVD. If you listen to the "Drunken Commentary" there's a bunch of spots with dead air. Those are Universal's edits. The unedited commentary is available through their CrapTV website. It's titled "God Bless Us, Everyone!"

calhoun07

So why put the disclaimer on there at all if they reserve the right to edit out what they don't like anyway?

rexinnih

CYA about sums it up.

Brent L

Do you WANT them to edit it?

I don't think so.

They put the disclaimer there so those doing the commentary can speak their mind about whatever they want, and then those releasing the DVD can sit back and not take any of the blame. I'd rather have a disclaimer over having the commentary track edited.

Why do TV shows have disclaimers where "the views expressed may not reflect...blah blah blah"? It's nothing different.

ThatGuamGuy

Generally, whoever produces the commentary owns it. Criterion produces their own, but usually, it's just the person that records it. [I remember P.T. Anderson produced his own 'Boogie Nights' commentary for the Criterion LD, so he was able to port it over to the DVD which wasn't Criterion.]

However, the studios are under no obligation to release the commentary as given; they can edit whatever they want out, unless you get it contractually protected.

No, they gave them away for free (other than shipping costs).

Kinda; the studio had certain extras they weren't going to put on it, so Linklater refused to let them use the commentary and is trying to get them to allow Criterion to release it.

In some of those cases, the directors had not yet recorded a commentary and were saying "If you don't do X, I won't record it." In other cases, they recorded it themselves.

ThatGuamGuy

One doesn't preclude the other; the disclaimer is one thing, but edits are generally for legal reasons, which is a whole other thing. For instance, just putting an "opinion" disclaimer on the head doesn't mean that a distributor isn't liable for libel and slander on the tracks.

rdclark

The disclaimer is your friend.

The studio puts the disclaimer there, and then they don't even have to *listen* to the commentary if they don't want to. Their ass is covered. If somebody is offended and wants to sue, they can sue the director or the cinematographer or the actor or the script girl or the caterer or whoever it was that did the commentery.

It's all good.

RichC