Al_Tahoe

I prefer movies with all the non-curse words edited out:

Scarface

collven

Does no one else find it ironic that someone with the username Buttmunker wants the option to remove curse words from movies? Do you tell your kids your username?

TheStoicPaisano

Earmuffs.

pro-bassoonist

I would also like to request that there is something done about Leonardo's work...there is too much nudity in it.

While we are it can we also do something about Goya's work? I think it is too suggestive.

Ciao,
Pro-B

matome

Giles

there's your answer...

jmj713

I think people misunderstood the guy. I think he just thought it would be a cool extra to watch a movie with the TV audio track, as was the case with Criterion's Hopscotch.

tdilia

In my opinion, I would not like this option. I saw movies with curse words when I was younger, but that didn't matter because just about everybody at school used them. Now just because I heard these words in movies and at school doesn't mean I use them. My parents taught me better than that. Could you imagine Glengarry Glen Ross with this audio option? So instead of Jack Lemon saying "Fuck you and kiss my ass" what would he say "Forget you and eat my shorts". I Don't think so.

Jay G.

RCA has a DVD player, model DRC190N, that has what's called "TV Guardian foul language filter." It basically checks the CC for swear words, then mutes the audio track where it thinks the swear word will appear in the audio track. It's not 100% accurate though.

tonyc3742

I support the option, and I also support artistic integrity. I don't think the work itself should be edited without the creators/owners permission, especially to profit, like the one company that got busted for it [I know there are two companies, one that was editing out dvds and reselling them, and another which automatically mutes or FFs past certain parts--the first is not ok, the second is, in my opinion; since I'm not sure which is which, I'm not naming the company's names].

Anyway. For me the issue isn't even necessarily four-letter words, because we don't let him watch anything that would include those words, and we are very careful to avoid them as well in his presence.

Kids imitate what they observe, that's a fact. Add to that the fact that when you tell a kid not to do something or say something, and now it's become forbidden, so it's exciting, and it gets a reaction.
My boy [almost 4] has watched Shrek and Toy Story [and yes, we sat with him and watched with him]. Shrek wasn't that bad, except for one scene where they're crossing the volcano lava, which smells like sulfur. Donkey says "Was that you?" Shrek says "If it was me, you'd be dead." I don't mind a little potty humor, he's at the age where it's funny, but for the next three days, he walked around saying 'If it was me, you'd be dead.' Which is not how I want him talking.
Toy Story was even worse. The very first scene is a depiction of armed robbery, and throughout the movie, there's 'murderer' three or four times, and lots of 'stupids' and 'idiots', from one friend to another. I guess I'm old fashioned, I don't want my son calling his friends stupid or idiot. I did pause the movie often to talk about what we were seeing and what the characters were doing, and I had seen Toy Story quite a while ago, but seeing it thru a child's eyes, I was surprised by the level of namecalling.

And yes, I do try to teach him the difference between fantasy and reality, and we talk about how you're 'supposed' to act or talk; but part of being a child is being swept up in fantasy, and I don't want him to lose that too soon. No, I can't avoid him being exposed to curse words, or violent images of death on the news; but I can do my best to delay and minimize that exposure and talk about it, without hammering it, when we need to.
Yes, those things happen 'outside'. People rape and murder 'outside' as well, and I can't stop that from happening; it doesn't mean I want it in my house, or my child exposed to it if I can prevent it.

Anyway, the second method doesn't alter the original work, it alters the user's perception of it. It would be like taking a 16:9 movie and zooming; I know we have many OAR fanatics here, and I prefer OAR to cropping/losing actual image, but once I explain to someone the difference and benefit of OAR, it's up to them to do it; if they still want to zoom, they have every right to. That's how I view that company. And no, I don't think it would make certain movies acceptable for two year olds, but I think there are a lot of good movies that might be suitable for 'older' kids, were it not for gratuitous language. "Artistic integrity" [yeah, like 'Fuck you, asshole' is "art"] is not compromised, any more than it's compromised if I always skip track 6 on a CD. It's funny/sad, I'll admit there are some times when coarse language either fits the character or the story, but there are at least as many where it's gratuitous and random and adds nothing.

On a lighter note, there was a comedian, the guy from MadTV who does the Madden impersonation, I think, who was talking about networks bleeping out language, and for some reason they picked food related words for the movie he was watching. "Fruit you, son of a biscuit." It was a pretty long, funny bit.

And those of you who don't want the option...well...you don't have to use it [sound familiar?] I highly doubt replacing 40 words in an audio track is going to squeeze out an extra.

planetaire

After reading the title, I thought, that's not a bad idea... sometimes edited soundtracks can be hilarious, intentionally or otherwise. I was purely thinking of the humorous connotations, I won't even speak of the greater moral implications. As an option, I don't see the harm. As long as said edit doesn't oppose original intent. Then I read the thread. Now I'm thinking, well, sure, artistic integrity and whatnot, though I'm not sure how much integrity you can hang on a goddam or shit. All I know is, I like my films fuckin' filthy.

starman9000

I think the option is fine. And I guess I imagined it more in movies that were generally more tame. Yeah, it would be a pretty lame function for Pulp Fiction and wouldn't make the movie more appropriate. Fargo with the "Fruzen" dialogue from TV would be pretty funny though.

Falc04

Couldn't agree with you more!

SterlingBen

This is really lame
your not one of those parents wh sends their kids to those bully free schools are you?

ThatGuamGuy

At first, I was against this idea. But then I realized that it would be a big blow to the power the MPAA had, since it would mean that parents no longer needed to pay any attention to them for home viewing (which comprises most of their viewing, I believe). I like that, so I like this idea.

However, I do have one question:

Why are you showing them movies that would need to be edited then? What movies are you thinking of which are rated R (or even PG-13) that have material which is appropriate for children other than a few specific naughty bits? I'm thinking of movies like 'The Godfather', where there would be a few words cut and a few shots trimmed, but the actual movie itself would still be more-or-less glorifying a crime family.

Oh, also, I have serious doubts that *any* product like what you're talking about would go so far as to excise words like "stupid" and "idiot". That's the real problem with depending on technology - you have to assume that whoever designed the technology has the same beliefs as you. If you're more conservative than they are (in this non-political sense of the word), their product won't acheive what you want it to. Conversely, if they did eliminate all insults, then it does become something of a question of artistic intent, because it interferes with the characters and the story. I understand that's not your primary concern, but it leads directly to the question: At what point is it not worth showing the movie to the kid. If you eliminate 25% of the dialogue (and choppily so, I might add), will the kid still enjoy the movie, or will it get to the point where he can't even follow what's going on because of the removals?

Like, if you removed all the violence and danger from 'The Incredibles', would a kid still like it?

tonyc3742

I'm not. Movie-wise, he's seen Shrek, Toy Story, Cars, and Polar Express. I've never shown him an R-rated movie nor a PG13 movie. Most movies that are R-rated, nowadays, are too full of sex, drugs, violence [sometimes graphic], or language that 'filtering' all of it out would result in virtually no movie [like you mention below].

Yes, even though words might be cut out, 'content' of the film might be inappropriate as well, so that movie, for instance, wouldn't even get past the gate.

Oh, I don't think they could or would be able to make a machine that would 'filter' out this long list of words, I was speaking hypothetically, "wishlisting" if you will, and basing it on a recent personal experience of what 'bothered' me about a couple films.
Depending on what's being filtered, yes, certainly, eventually you'll reach a point where there's not enough movie to matter or mean anything. When you reach that point, don't bother. And I don't. If a movie gets to the point where I have to 'bleep' every three minutes, well, I won't even show it to him. What constitutes a 'bleep' changes as he ages and matures, of course. Is A Clockwork Orange suitable for a 5 year old? No. Would it even make sense as a movie if it weren't for the sex and violence? Doubtful. Is the subject matter even appropriate for a child? Again, doubtful; both in terms of content and in terms of depth [he probably wouldn't 'get it'].

Probably not. I submit, however, that while there's certainly violence in The Incredibles, there's a difference between that violence and The Godfather type violence. Danger doesn't necessarily need to be filtered, depending on the type of danger; the other night we were reading a Thomas the Train book where Thomas ignores some "Danger" signs and falls into a hole, so we started talking about danger and brave vs. foolish. Even Dora the Explorer and Diego face 'danger'; animals' trees are being surrounded by a river or something. I wouldn't want him watching, say, "Saw" type danger, even if the actual results were not shown.

SterlingBen: Why, do you support bullies? If I could find a bully-free school, I would. Though there are always bullies, those people who instantly look down upon and denigrate those who they do not agree with, even on the internet. I plan to teach him not to start anything, try to avoid negative confrontation, but don't take any crap. Also, I do plan to send him to one that teaches people how to spell and use capitalization and punctuation.

emhello

The option is fine until the cost of including it is passed on to the consumer (you). These studios can't even currently produce normal DVDs reliably, so I don't want them adding in something else that they will likely screw up. I can just see myself having to turn the curse words back on every time I load in a movie. We continue to have language track problems to this day, so I don't trust that they will implement something like this correctly either.

mzupeman2

This is rediculous for a couple of reasons. One, would be that as already said, the world shouldn't have to cater to children. We cater to other peoples needs or whining enough to try and make things politically correct as possible. Another thing is, you're just taking up more space on the DVD for a different audio track. Save it for video quality. You want curse words omitted? Wait for it to air on TNT or FX and the DVR it.

Ginwen

I guess I was ok with those special DVD players that did this, since they didn't actually alter the film just how it was played, and since people who wanted the feature would pay for it, not me (or the studios). I'd be opposed to adding this option on all DVD players, or for the studios to spend a penny on it, because then they'd make me pay.

tonyc3742

It could be argued that you're also paying for the trailers..and features you may not watch...and FF versions on a FF/WS disk....and previews of other titles...and the Spanish, French, and Oulof subtitle/audio tracks....none of which I care about. So that's something of a red herring.
I don't think it should necessarily be added to all players, no. There are lots of different players that offer different features for different consumers, and that's the way it should be.
If anyone should be 'catered to', it should be catered to children. And, unless there were some additional cost required [which is most likely a specious argument, as noted above], this feature could be added on players or offered on disks so that those who want it could use it, and it wouldn't affect those who don't want to use it.

Chad

Sorry, but....Worst. "Idea". Ever.

wildcatlh

What about the space that the extra audio track would take up on the DVD?

toddly6666

I'm not for censoring movies, but I still don't understand why TRANSFORMERS (the cartoon movie) has a character say "shit". At the time, was that a marketing ploy to get certain people to the theater?

mllefoo

YOu can always just read the reviews at capalert.com to find the movies that are safe to watch with your kids.

I think Mary Poppins is the only one deemed completely safe, even though there is a big scary dog scene.

tonyc3742

What about it?
Dump the Spanish or French tracks.
Or....they have 'seamless branching' for video. I don't see why they couldn't have 'seamless branching' for audio tracks, where the 'offending' words are muted out. The tracks would be virtually the same.
How much space does an average 5.1 English audio track take up?

I do occasionally read capalert. I don't necessarily agree with everything they call 'offensive', and they do have a rather strict rulebook [which is fine, as long as they're up front about it], but the descriptions/counters are very good at detailing virtually everything that could be considered offensive, and giving me the information I need to make the decision.