Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > DVD Talk Archive
Reload this Page >

DVD Player skipping sexual contents and other "offensive" materials

DVD Player skipping sexual contents and other "offensive" materials

 
Old 04-08-04, 04:22 PM
  #51  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 20,283
Originally posted by talemyn
Now the single use of the word "F**ckers" in the film was the biggest influence of that rating. Removing it would have an exceptionally minimal effect on the movie, and could make it one step "safer" for kids in the eyes of their parents.
I'm not trying to sound condescending or argumentative here, but your example actually highlights the dilemna of having somebody else tell you what is family safe. I will agree that using the F-bomb would be objectionable. However, the things that jumped out more at me were a monkey crawling out of a man's arse, Jennifer Aniston's breasts growing, and Jennifer's orgasm scene. Now, I would argue that these things are more objectionable than simply calling somebody a name.

I will agree with you that the studios play ratings games. I won't argue with you there. I'll agree with you that some movies should not be rated what they are (should I break out my favorite Small Soldiers vs. Titanic debate?). But wouldn't it make more sense to talk with the parents and say "Hey, this rated (fill-in the rating) because of (fill-in the objectionable material). However, we feel that it would be a good film to show because of (fill-in the morally uplifting reason)." That way the parents are actually taking some RESPONSIBILTY and making a decision. Many schools send home "permission slips" these days for showing a film in class (such as Schindler's List). (PS, thank you for what you do for the children!)

Abob Teff is offline  
Old 04-08-04, 04:31 PM
  #52  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Heartland USA
Posts: 33
I just want to know how they plan to upgrade the software on the player itself. Seems to be a major potential roadblock to easy adoption. If purchasers can't watch any newer releases in "edited" fashion than I think it will fail badly. And I can't think of an easy (we are talking Wal-Mart and K-Mart shoppers after all) way to accomplish this. And what would it cost? How can these people make money off of this? Do you really think the purchasers will want to keep shelling out more $ for upgrades? Not sure this model is a winner. But I do think it may pass copyright muster, although there's no telling with the DMCA.
Mr. Toast is offline  
Old 04-08-04, 04:54 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,514
Originally posted by Abob Teff
[B]I still don't understand the concept of somebody wanting their young child watching a movie that obviously was not intended for them in the first place. What could possibly be the logic of somebody watching Saving Private Ryan and thinking, "Gee, my five year old would just love this movie!"?
Keep in mind this wouldn't be just for parents to use for their kids. A lot of young people (well maybe not A LOT) and even adults would probably use this for themselves. I'd actually imagine PG-13 films would be the most common...

Being a christian I can understand why some people would actually want to use this. I hear the "why is it OK for me to watch/listen to this if it isn't ok for my 5 yr old" explanation quite a bit...

Myself however I know that the morality of a story is not in its details (content) but its overall message and themes. Some dont see it that way, and thats fine I guess.

Last edited by Artman; 04-08-04 at 05:02 PM.
Artman is offline  
Old 04-08-04, 05:00 PM
  #54  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Originally posted by Groucho
Here's my take: I don't understand the need for this device. As a parent myself, when I show my daughter a movie I pick a movie that doesn't have the content I don't want her to see. I don't plop I Spit on Your Grave through an editing device and expect a family movie to come out.

You can edit out adult content, but you can't edit out adult themes. And that's what should be important. Seeing a boobie or two is a lot less harmful than the questionable morality shown in a lot of films these days (including kid's films, to be honest).

There are thousands upon thousands of films out there without objectionable content. Enough that you could show one film a day to a child from birth, and not get through them all by the time the child hit 18. Yet people want to show their films poorly edited versions of other films?

I don't get it, but if it sells well more power to 'em I guess.
For the most part I agree, but I understand where some parents might not object to their kids seeing certain movies EXCEPT for such-and-such scene. In this case, they can still allow their kids to see the movie without exposing them to whatever they object to.

And, this isn't just for kids. My wife's parents are pretty damn prude. They shut off 9 months because they didn't like that the man and woman weren't married. There are some films I'm sure my mother-in-law wouldn't watch just because it might contain some nudity or too many curse words.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 04-08-04, 10:25 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 7,466
Originally posted by Abob Teff
I'm not trying to sound condescending or argumentative here, but your example actually highlights the dilemna of having somebody else tell you what is family safe. I will agree that using the F-bomb would be objectionable. However, the things that jumped out more at me were a monkey crawling out of a man's arse, Jennifer Aniston's breasts growing, and Jennifer's orgasm scene. Now, I would argue that these things are more objectionable than simply calling somebody a name.
I intended that to be one example from the film . . . I agree that the other things that you mentioned could definitely be considered objectionable, as well. I guess it sort of depends on how the technology gets implemented to see what would actually get pulled out.

It's getting harder to do effectively the more that we talk about it.
Originally posted by Abob Teff
I will agree with you that the studios play ratings games. I won't argue with you there. I'll agree with you that some movies should not be rated what they are (should I break out my favorite Small Soldiers vs. Titanic debate?). But wouldn't it make more sense to talk with the parents and say "Hey, this rated (fill-in the rating) because of (fill-in the objectionable material). However, we feel that it would be a good film to show because of (fill-in the morally uplifting reason)." That way the parents are actually taking some RESPONSIBILTY and making a decision. Many schools send home "permission slips" these days for showing a film in class (such as Schindler's List).
There are actually a number of websites that break things down like that that are very useful for stuff like that:

- Yahoo!'s Movies and Film Reviews > Reviews for Parents - although a surprisingly high numbers of these sites seem to have had server crashes recently.
- The Movie Mom
- Common Sense Media

Common Sense Media, in particular, is good because:

1) it offers reviews of multiple forms of media,
2) tries to stay objective about issues (i.e., it points out all issues that might be considered objectionable or controversial),
3) it tends to be specific about exactly what those possible points of contention are within the movie,
4) allows for feedback/reviews from users, and
5) even suggests some topics for discussion with your kids after having watched it and/or suggests what a good target audience for the movie might be . . . example from the review of Mrs. Doubtfire:
Common Sense Notes
Robin Williams in a dress is the comic premise of MRS. DOUBTFIRE, a movie that communicates the pain of divorce, a subject often ignored in movies about contemporary families. As with the main character, however, serious issues are buried under a lot of padding and crude jokes. Parents should be aware of some strong language, sexual material, and mature themes. Parents may want to discuss topics such as cross-dressing, divorce, and custody after the movie.
Originally posted by Abob Teff
(PS, thank you for what you do for the children!)
Thanks! It is truely one of the greatest blessings in my life. It's a lot of fun just hanging out with them and being a friend and someone that they can talk to in what, I'm sure we can all agree, is a tough time of life (ages 12-18). My job just pays the bills so that I can do this in my free time . . .

. . . well that and buy DVD's.
talemyn is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 11:44 AM
  #56  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talent, OR
Posts: 1,053
OH NO!!!!! this is going to put Clean Flicks out of business!!!!!!

This idea is going to fail. If it was a good idea, there would be Clean Flicks in every town already.
chemosh6969 is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 12:15 PM
  #57  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Posts: 822
Wal-Mart and Kmart, two of the nation's biggest retailers, are planning to sell a new DVD player that includes a technology that has riled Hollywood -- a controversial program that can automatically skip sexual content, graphically violent scenes and language deemed offensive.

The new DVD player, manufactured under the RCA brand by Thomson Inc., comes as public debate is heating up over whether the media have pushed the limits of decency, especially after too much of singer Janet Jackson was bared during this year's Super Bowl halftime show.
I'd hate to watch a film that had sexual content, graphically violent scenes and language deemed offensive in it on this player. The thing would be skipping all over the damned place. If the baring of a breast by Jackson is supposed to be the media pushing the limits of decency then that is a laugh!!! Now if she had engaged in graphic sex on stage, well then some people might have an argument. In any case I think this is just going to be wasted money by these corporations. And if parents need a DVD player like this to police the viewing habits of their offspring then they have not done a good job with raising their children IMHO.
Dragonslayer is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 12:59 PM
  #58  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,468
Originally posted by Mr. Toast
And I can't think of an easy (we are talking Wal-Mart and K-Mart shoppers after all) way to accomplish this. And what would it cost? How can these people make money off of this? Do you really think the purchasers will want to keep shelling out more $ for upgrades?
This is simple: release a CD with a software update on it. Any user that can play a DVD can load the software CD into the machine, and it would cost pennies to produce a CD.
DigIt is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 02:37 PM
  #59  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 130
Technology like this frightens me because it is putting what is acceptable in someone elses hands. Who ever purchases one is basically allowing another group to decie what is too graphic for them to see or hear - even if there are 14 levels of control.

I can see this becoming like web browsing filters blocking closley associted items...

Wll it allow you to see the statue of David in a movie ?
Or how about any classic nude painting ?

And how much more of a step would it be for someone to decide to block out political commentary...

Censorship in mass media is a scary thing that shouldnt be tread upon lightly.
TBFL is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 03:29 PM
  #60  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vineyard Zippy's
Posts: 621
I think I'll purchase one of these and see how it works. If you don't want one- don't buy it! It's voluntary. Please take a deep breath and relax! Everything will be ok.

Thanks for the post.

PS I hear it has a feature that automatically mutes Sean Penn dialogue.
mmguen is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 04:08 PM
  #61  
eau
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 9,379
If the player skips the objectable scenes, will it skip any musical score in those segments too?
eau is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 04:18 PM
  #62  
DVD Talk Legend
 
AGuyNamedMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 15,233
Originally posted by mmguen
...If you don't want one- don't buy it! It's voluntary. Please take a deep breath and relax! Everything will be ok....
Ahhh, the voice of reason!
AGuyNamedMike is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 04:49 PM
  #63  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Originally posted by TBFL
Technology like this frightens me because it is putting what is acceptable in someone elses hands. Who ever purchases one is basically allowing another group to decie what is too graphic for them to see or hear - even if there are 14 levels of control.

I can see this becoming like web browsing filters blocking closley associted items...

Wll it allow you to see the statue of David in a movie ?
Or how about any classic nude painting ?

And how much more of a step would it be for someone to decide to block out political commentary...

Censorship in mass media is a scary thing that shouldnt be tread upon lightly.
Scary? What are you talking about. IT'S VOLUNTARY. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Yes, you are trusting someone else to judge what is appropriate or not, but guess what... If you disagree with them, you no longer need to use their services.

It's hard to even consider this real censorship when the editing they are doing is for a select audience that agrees to their guidelines.

If they block out political commentary, then that's up to the consumer to decide if they'd like to continue using it or not. If they block out the statue of David... same. What is so hard to understand here?

In case you hadn't noticed, the MPAA decides for you what is decent and what's not by applying ratings to movies.

Originally posted by AGuyNamedMike

Ahhh, the voice of reason!


Exactly
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 04:51 PM
  #64  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
You know what. All the anti-censorship people should actually applaud this. Here you have a device that allows people who don't want to see objectionable material to have it edited out. This only affects them.

You could have the alternative, which would be these same people pressuring studios to censor themselves. That would affect everybody.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 04-09-04, 07:00 PM
  #65  
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 38
Originally posted by marty888
////Ashcroft 6900

Last edited by Batoru rowaiaru; 04-09-04 at 07:04 PM.
Batoru rowaiaru is offline  
Old 04-10-04, 12:21 AM
  #66  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Smallville
Posts: 2,782
all i want to know is, is the clearplay dvd players could be hack to make it region free?

from forbes april 19, 2004 article on page 40 entitled "Out of the box", "for $5 a month the player can be updated with fresh filters for newly released DVDs)"
the_dude8 is offline  
Old 04-10-04, 12:23 AM
  #67  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Rypro 525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: a frikin hellhole
Posts: 28,263
Originally posted by eau
If the player skips the objectable scenes, will it skip any musical score in those segments too?
also will the person be able to choose what is bad, and what it not.
Rypro 525 is offline  
Old 04-10-04, 01:16 AM
  #68  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
...the termination of parenting is imminent and psychologists will be without jobs…

...and books will have black lines drawn over the inappropriate…

...Louvren will pixelate the nude images for its visitors...

By the way, the excuse for the day, "I think I forgot to set the DVD player..." the man says as he tries to explain his sons erradic behavior to the psychologist.

Cheers

DVD Smurf

Last edited by DVD Smurf; 04-10-04 at 01:24 AM.
DVD Smurf is offline  
Old 04-10-04, 02:11 AM
  #69  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,579
Originally posted by DodgingCars
You know what. All the anti-censorship people should actually applaud this. Here you have a device that allows people who don't want to see objectionable material to have it edited out. This only affects them.

You could have the alternative, which would be these same people pressuring studios to censor themselves. That would affect everybody.
I agree. It will not hurt anyone who wants DVD uncensored.

I would love to have a machine like that, it would give me another option in viewing DVDs if I choose to use it.

But, I dought it would have all the features I would need in my DVD player (progressive, DTS, 10sec backup...).
Iron_Giant is offline  
Old 04-12-04, 11:53 AM
  #70  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 20,283
Originally posted by Artman
Keep in mind this wouldn't be just for parents to use for their kids. A lot of young people (well maybe not A LOT) and even adults would probably use this for themselves. I'd actually imagine PG-13 films would be the most common...
(This is also for Dodgingcars's in-laws)

Now we get down to the real issue in the debate! The real argument here is not censorship or freedom of speach or whether "Showgirls" will corrupt little Suzie. The real issue is the artist's intent and who has control over that intent. I don't consider myself a prude, but more and more often I see things in a film that jump out and I think "that was really pointless other than mild titilation." Example, I thought that Sexy Beast would have been one hell of a movie EXCEPT I felt that the language was WAY over the top. Now, the director made that decision to include the language as a means of conveyance for whatever his message was (I assume it was that Ben Kingsley was a bad ass). I just watched Kill Bill (First Half, not Vol. 1, but that's an issue for another thread). I have always had an aversion to Tarantino because I feel that the violence in his movies is senseless and tasteless. Other than the cartoon violence, I would have thought that it was an excellent movie. As it is, Tarantino deemed that alienating some audiences was worth it to send HIS message the way HE wanted.

Is it my right to remove the language and thus ALTER the director's message? No, it is not. It is my right to watch the film and make my judgement based on the content that the ARTIST produced. Thus, ALL of the components lead us to make the decisions that we make as to whether we like or don't like a movie. Yes, movies are "cleaned up" for TV and airlines, but the artists have a role in the re-editing of THEIR product and thus it is OK. However, for somebody to make money by altering a piece of art (in a general term) WITHOUT the consent of the creator or author of the piece is a violation of copyright laws.

And thus, Janet Jackson is still evil.

Abob Teff is offline  
Old 04-12-04, 11:54 AM
  #71  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 20,283
Originally posted by Mr. Toast
I just want to know how they plan to upgrade the software on the player itself.
*cough* *cough* *DIVX* *cough*
Abob Teff is offline  
Old 04-12-04, 12:00 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Abob Teff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 20,283
Originally posted by TBFL
Wll it allow you to see the statue of David in a movie ?
Or how about any classic nude painting ?Censorship in mass media is a scary thing that shouldnt be tread upon lightly.
See also, The Simpsons, Season Two, "Marge vs. Itchy and Scratchy" (Just watched it yesterday).

Yes, censorship in the mass media is a scary thing. However, this is not a censorship issue. It is an issue of copyright infringement, questionable free use, and to a lesser degree eroding parental responsibility.

Abob Teff is offline  
Old 04-13-04, 01:00 AM
  #73  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Originally posted by Abob Teff

Is it my right to remove the language and thus ALTER the director's message? No, it is not. It is my right to watch the film and make my judgement based on the content that the ARTIST produced. Thus, ALL of the components lead us to make the decisions that we make as to whether we like or don't like a movie. Yes, movies are "cleaned up" for TV and airlines, but the artists have a role in the re-editing of THEIR product and thus it is OK. However, for somebody to make money by altering a piece of art (in a general term) WITHOUT the consent of the creator or author of the piece is a violation of copyright laws.

And thus, Janet Jackson is still evil.

This is where you and I differ in opinion. I think I have every right to alter the music or movies or other intellectual property that I have bought. Do I have a right to distribute the altered version, without consent? No. But, this DVD player does nothing like that. It merely is pre-programmed to edit movies for PERSONAL HOME viewing. I don't think the Director has any say how I watch his movie in the privacy of my own home. I can mute it, pause it, fast forward it or even skip chapters. I should also be able to watch it without curse words or nudity if I'm so inclined.

The issue with Clean Flicks is a little different, I admit. They alter movies to be rented out to by their customers. I can see how the creators would have a case, but I still disagree with them.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 04-13-04, 01:02 AM
  #74  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Originally posted by Abob Teff
See also, The Simpsons, Season Two, "Marge vs. Itchy and Scratchy" (Just watched it yesterday).

Yes, censorship in the mass media is a scary thing. However, this is not a censorship issue. It is an issue of copyright infringement, questionable free use, and to a lesser degree eroding parental responsibility.

Give me a break. This isn't censorship (in the real sense), because it is VOLUNTARY!!!!!!

It's not an isue of copyright infringement, because the copyright holder cannot tell me how I can watch their movies.

And how is this an issue of eroding parental responsibility? Because a parent might not want their child to see questionable material. OH NO!!! The HORROR!
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 04-13-04, 08:45 AM
  #75  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Mouthweathercity, IL.
Posts: 3,521
Originally posted by DodgingCars
And how is this an issue of eroding parental responsibility? Because a parent might not want their child to see questionable material. OH NO!!! The HORROR!
Parenting – caring for the child in the outmost sense with affection, protection, food, clothing, and education among other things. The DVD player is technology used for education, but material on the DVD is still present even without the violent scenes. For example, Friday the 13th, if the violent is removed the idea is still present and it is the violent notion that teaches and not the brief visual violence. However, the violence has an affect in the sense as it traumatizes the naïve and uninitiated. This baptism into violence can be harmful, yet a world without violence does not exists. This could also create more naïve and unprepared people for the dangers of the world [ref: Irreversible]. For example, Red Little Ridding Hood has a moral lesson due to its violence, but without the violence in this case it would not educate the young of the dangers of the of world, which would help the child self-defensive mechanisms.

There is a quote in the Arabian Nights that goes, Stories are told to teach us how better our lives. If one removes the violence from Red Little Ridding Hood, then the lesson would be dropped and it would not improve our view of our lives. However, in today’s society there are plenty of films with out lesson to be learned, and in this case these films should be avoided for that purpose only as it could be viewed as a waste of time.

I am against violence as much as the next person, however, the violence is not the visual imagery in this sense, but the notion that causes the violence. As we all have heard before, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.. This statement is clearly putting the consequence in the hands of the people, and not the technology. In this reference I would like to say, DVD players does not enlighten people, people teaches people.

I would prefer to see parent use their common sense and not bring their 6-year-olds to movies such as Blade 2 and Wrong Turn. I think the idea is noble with this DVD player, but for the wrong reason. We need more parenting knowing what children are viewing and parent (as an action) their children, as they are not miniature adults.

I stop here as I could go on for ever...


Cheers

DVD Smurf

PS. thoughts...

Last edited by DVD Smurf; 04-13-04 at 08:47 AM.
DVD Smurf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.