Oliver Stone censors Alexander to please American prudes
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oliver Stone censors Alexander to please American prudes
I can't believe that the once fearless Oliver Stone has cut out about 8 minutes from Alexander in the upcoming DVD release. The bits he has removed are the ones that relate to the gay relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion. This has apparently been done so as not to offend homophobic prudes all over America.
Last edited by art; 05-28-05 at 01:44 AM. Reason: typographical error
#2
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's not censorship if you cut it out on your own free will. He had a choice. He decided to do what he did depending on the acceptance of the target audiance.
#4
Or it has been done to try and re-coup some sales. Homophobic prudes? Personally, I don't like seeing 2 men touch or kiss each other. Guys can do whatever they want to, but I won't pay to watch it. That doesn't make me a prude nor ignorant nor whatever insulting title you choose to give me. I like what I like and it's not about being progressive or more open-minded.
#6
Hahaha. Hah. Hah. Unrated Rainbow Edition coming later this year.
#7
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
Or it has been done to try and re-coup some sales. Homophobic prudes? Personally, I don't like seeing 2 men touch or kiss each other. Guys can do whatever they want to, but I won't pay to watch it. That doesn't make me a prude nor ignorant nor whatever insulting title you choose to give me. I like what I like and it's not about being progressive or more open-minded.
How about two girls?
#8
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it's censorship when the original is altered so as not to offend. And the demographics excuse is just a form of pandering. Oh well, looks like American prudes all over the land will get their wish when Oliver and Warner Bros make the chop.
#9
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone really should tell Stone that the homosexuality in the film was the least of its problems. (Although, if anything, he should've been more open about it and not so cautiously suggestive.) Didn't he read the reviews?!
#10
PopcornTreeCt,
Art and I are making out while reading your post.
Art and I are making out while reading your post.
#11
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by art
Of course it's censorship when the original is altered so as not to offend. And the demographics excuse is just a form of pandering. Oh well, looks like American prudes all over the land will get their wish when Oliver and Warner Bros make the chop.
Funny, I don't see any government office coming in and forcing the change. Hell, even WB isn't forcing the change. Oliver Stone is doing it himself so that he can appeal to a larger audiance in order to make money. This is not censorship. It's creative control.
I'm pretty sure that I can make a film with a monkey flinging poo at the screen for a good 20 minutes. Does that mean that I can call you animal phobes / Poop phobes when it doesn't attract a decent size audiance? No, it's my creative choice to edit that out since it clearly didn't work, and infact, distracted from the film and caused others to not feel the need to watch it.
#12
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are cases when a director may chop out a mistake or add a scene that wasn't present in the original movie. But to chop out scenes that were integral to Alexander's personal life is like flicking turpentine onto the Mona Lisa. It's also surrendering to the Jerry Falwells of this world and the liberal hypocrites who pretend to be open-minded but actually aren't.
Maybe the director should henceforth be referred to as Oliver Phony.
Maybe the director should henceforth be referred to as Oliver Phony.
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Red-States-Edition:
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
#14
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kingston, TN
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SvenL
The Red-States-Edition:
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
Last edited by speedyray; 05-28-05 at 05:06 AM.
#15
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Kinda makes me wish I'd have seen the theatrical version, just for my own sake (I'd hate to think that, no matter how critically unexalted, I skipped an opportunity to see a film that will be forever altered. Kinda gives it that "one time only" effect). Of course, given the market, there's a damn good chance that it'll get an "uncut release" on DVD a few months after the initial release.
Ah well.
As for all of the politics in this thread...
1) It's silly to get into a left bashing the right (or vice versa) pissing contest. This isn't the politics forum, and don't flatter yourself by thinking that anybody here cares about your personal political stances. Joe Schmoe hates George Bush? John Doe likes him? Wonderful...glad those two fellas could get that out there on a DVD forum, but frankly, nobody here gives a fuck.
2) Technically, the new cut will be a "censored" version. The definition of "censor," per the folks at Merriam-Webster, is: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." The newest version has deleted material that was "considered objectionable." Who it is that made the decision to cut those things is irrelevant. The definition is quite clear, but in the end it's just a matter of semantics.
3) Personally, I think it's ludicrous to cut a film that's based on historical events. The object of the film was to tell a story based on the facts that we know. To cut (by all accounts) truthful bits of the character's life in an effort to please audiences...that represents everything I hate about big-budget Hollywood: sacrificing artistic merit (and the overall intent of the film, to tell the story of this period in the man's life) for audience approval. Whatever, though..
-JP
Ah well.
As for all of the politics in this thread...
1) It's silly to get into a left bashing the right (or vice versa) pissing contest. This isn't the politics forum, and don't flatter yourself by thinking that anybody here cares about your personal political stances. Joe Schmoe hates George Bush? John Doe likes him? Wonderful...glad those two fellas could get that out there on a DVD forum, but frankly, nobody here gives a fuck.
2) Technically, the new cut will be a "censored" version. The definition of "censor," per the folks at Merriam-Webster, is: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." The newest version has deleted material that was "considered objectionable." Who it is that made the decision to cut those things is irrelevant. The definition is quite clear, but in the end it's just a matter of semantics.
3) Personally, I think it's ludicrous to cut a film that's based on historical events. The object of the film was to tell a story based on the facts that we know. To cut (by all accounts) truthful bits of the character's life in an effort to please audiences...that represents everything I hate about big-budget Hollywood: sacrificing artistic merit (and the overall intent of the film, to tell the story of this period in the man's life) for audience approval. Whatever, though..
-JP
#16
Originally Posted by art
I can't believe that the once fearless Oliver Stone has cut out about 8 minutes from Alexander in the upcoming DVD release. The bits he has removed are the ones that relate to the gay relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion. This has apparently been done so as not to offend homophobic prudes all over America.
2 girls making out, yes. 2 guys making out, hell nooooooooooooooooo.
#17
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by NatrlBornThrllr
3) Personally, I think it's ludicrous to cut a film that's based on historical events. The object of the film was to tell a story based on the facts that we know. To cut (by all accounts) truthful bits of the character's life in an effort to please audiences...that represents everything I hate about big-budget Hollywood: sacrificing artistic merit (and the overall intent of the film, to tell the story of this period in the man's life) for audience approval. Whatever, though.
When the city-state of Thebes rebelled against Alexander, he killed every Theban man and boy, sold 30,000 women and children into slavery, and tore down the city so completely that only two buildings were left standing more than a foot high. Years after Alexander's death, one of his generals said he couldn't pass by his statue without a shiver of fear.
But these are the sort of truthful bits of the character's life that would not make a popular movie, so they were omitted.
#18
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine if Stone released a DVD version of Nixon that rubbed out the Watergate affair? And that the reason given by Stone was that Republicans threatened to boycott the DVD? There'd be cries of censorship from California to the Carolinas, and rightly so. However, according to some posters on this thread, Stone would be justified on the basis that he would be trying to increase the "acceptance of the target audience". I make this point because it illustrates how utterly stupid is this notion that pandering is acceptable.
I want to have the truth, not be pandered to.
I want to have the truth, not be pandered to.
#19
DVD Talk Hero
Found it. It's from Plutarch.
Cassander's fear of Alexander 'In general, we are told, this fear was implanted so deeply and took such hold of Cassander's mind that even many years later, when he had become king of Macedonia and master of Greece, and was walking about one day looking at the sculpture at Delphi, the mere sight of a statue of Alexander struck him with horror, so that he sguddered and trembled in every limb, his head swam, and he could scarcely regain control of himself.'
#20
DVD Talk Legend
More discussion on Oliver ("what-can-I-blame-my-lousy=movie-on") Stone and his re-editing:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403794
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=403794
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't this film a flop worldwide, and not just in the United States? Maybe this new DVD version is being released only in the U.S., but as far as the financial success of "Alexander" during it's initial theatrical run goes, I believe it was avoided by audiences all over the world, not just in the U.S. I guess that makes the whole world a bunch of ignorant homophobes.
The movie sucked ass, btw!
The movie sucked ass, btw!
#22
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alexander made about 35 million in the USA and 135 million around the rest of the world. It recouped its production costs but probably not its marketing costs. As for why it failed in some countries, there's all sorts of reasons. The gay relationship probably scared away some of the lily-livered.
#23
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure it's removing historical detail, but the fact is that not many people want to see this stuff. Certainly few have a problem with implying a gay relationship, but love scenes are going too far; no one wants to see that.
Good decision, but still a poor film.
Good decision, but still a poor film.
#24
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by SvenL
The Red-States-Edition:
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
All that "gay stuff" cut but with a few added scenes:
1. Alexander has sex with a goat.
2. Alexander marries his sister.
3. Alexander congratulates Bush on his "victory" in Iraq.
The last one is a bit anachronistic, but the intended audience won't realize that.
I wonder what they'll do with all that "gay stuff" in Spartacus in the next US release.
Your comments couldn't be any more stupid. Maybe you are better off not to put your two cents in at all if you don't know what you are talking about!
Regards,
Dirk
#25
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DirkUSA
Your comments couldn't be any more stupid. Maybe you are better off not to put your two cents in at all if you don't know what you are talking about!
Regards,
Dirk
Regards,
Dirk
Actually...i found them amusing and accurate.
And I found this quote ironic...but no less amusing.
As read this thread I knew it would go down hill and sure enough someone rights something stupid like this.