Has Hollywood Gone Too Far With DVD Control?

[maycocksean]

I'm a writer, also, and I have never written a character using the Lord's name in vain. Not even when the characters are very angry. There are other ways that people express their anger that do not involve the Lord's name in vain. Using one of these in place of the Lord's name in vain detracts nothing from realism. Exclamatory words do indeed add to a movie's realism, but they don't have to be offensive words.

Well, I think that is a decision each artist has to wrestle with him or herself. And for those of us who are Christians, we have the additional responsiblity of our relationship with the Lord, and our witness to others. These are serious issues and I take them seriously. The fact remains that other artists may feel that their depictions (including those that use God's name in vain) are realistic and authentic. Perhaps they themselves as well as those around them use God's name this way a lot, and thus it seems natural. (This does have a big impact. The phrases "Oh my God" and "God" may turn up in my writing even though I don't use them because I hear them used by people around me quite a bit. I never use the phrase "Jesus Christ" because I don't hear that and it just doesn't flow in the dialogue I create, if you know what I mean). The fact remains, that for this artist the expunsion of these words from his/her work compromises the authenticity of the piece even if it wouldn't for you or I.

Have you ever walked out of a movie in which the Lord's name wasn't used in vain and said "You know, that movie would have been more realistic if the Lord's name had been used in vain"? Ever? I seriously doubt it.

No, but that's because most movies that don't use the Lord's name in vain (and there are only a few) aren't movies that have the sort of characters that would realistically use the Lord's name in vain. On the other hand, if I was watching a war movie and someone had their leg blown off and they said "Oh gol-DARN it, that hurts. Oh my goodness. Goodness. DANG! this is killing me" I'd question the authenticity. Unless the character was a chaplain.

Furthermore, a lot of Christian fiction does ring terribly false. Is it because they refuse to use the Lord's name in vain? Maybe not. But it probably does have to do with a desire (or the necessity) of sugar-coating reality to make it palatable to the Christian readers. I believe in Phillippians 4:8 as much as the next Christian, but I don't think Paul intended it as instruction to sugar coat or to recreate our own sanitized version of reality.

One author who is a Christian (who does not write for the Christian market) who I think does a remarkable job of navigating these issues is John Grisham (while he generally avoids obscenities in his books, I'm not sure about using God's name in vain). Granted, he's not exactly High Literature but still. Another author within the Christian market who I think does a pretty good job as well is Frank Peretti. Though even for him, and a lot of other Christian writers, what he does on the page would be harder to translate authentically to the screen. He'll do things like "Suddenly the car exploded in flames. Mike swore as he dove to the ground." We can imagine what Mike said as he dove to the ground, but the writer doesn't have to say it. When it comes time to film it, that gets a little bit more dicey.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well, I think that is a decision each artist has to wrestle with him or herself. And for those of us who are Christians, we have the additional responsiblity of our relationship with the Lord, and our witness to others. These are serious issues and I take them seriously. The fact remains that other artists may feel that their depictions (including those that use God's name in vain) are realistic and authentic. Perhaps they themselves as well as those around them use God's name this way a lot, and thus it seems natural. (This does have a big impact. The phrases "Oh my God" and "God" may turn up in my writing even though I don't use them because I hear them used by people around me quite a bit. I never use the phrase "Jesus Christ" because I don't hear that and it just doesn't flow in the dialogue I create, if you know what I mean). The fact remains, that for this artist the expunsion of these words from his/her work compromises the authenticity of the piece even if it wouldn't for you or I.

I understand that a nonChristian isn't likely to be offended by the words and thus may use them in his book. However, the issue of compromising his authenticity? I just don't buy it. "Oh s###","damn" and other excalmations are just as "popular" as using the Lord's name in vain, so why would the use of those words instead make the piece less authentic? In fact, why even use swear words at all? Are there no exclamatory words that aren't swear words?

No, but that's because most movies that don't use the Lord's name in vain (and there are only a few) aren't movies that have the sort of characters that would realistically use the Lord's name in vain. On the other hand, if I was watching a war movie and someone had their leg blown off and they said "Oh gol-DARN it, that hurts. Oh my goodness. Goodness. DANG! this is killing me" I'd question the authenticity. Unless the character was a chaplain.

There are a lot of words that fall between the family/friendliness but corniness of "gol-darn" and the severity of using the Lord's name in vain. The English language is filled with colorful expressions used every day.

Furthermore, a lot of Christian fiction does ring terribly false. Is it because they refuse to use the Lord's name in vain? Maybe not.

Not "maybe not" - "definitely not". Watch an episode of realistic crime drama on network TV. Do the bad guys use "G.D."? No. Does that make it ring terribly false? No. If you see a bad guy not even saying "Oh my G-d", do you stop and say "Hey, something's not right about that murderer. I know what it is; he didn't use the Lord's name in vain"? If there's something that rings terribly false about some Christian fiction, it's not that they don't ue the Lord's name in vain.

Another author within the Christian market who I think does a pretty good job as well is Frank Peretti. Though even for him, and a lot of other Christian writers, what he does on the page would be harder to translate authentically to the screen. He'll do things like "Suddenly the car exploded in flames. Mike swore as he dove to the ground." We can imagine what Mike said as he dove to the ground, but the writer doesn't have to say it. When it comes time to film it, that gets a little bit more dicey.

Actually, I think it's easier when it gets time to film it, because in film and video, you can convey the character's emotions/anger through facial expressions and body motion; he doesn't even have to utter a word.

 

[verte76]

To me, there is a special quality about certain words that happen to be taking the Lord's name in vain. I remember my grandmother, who has passed on, objecting strenuously to words that took the Lord's name in vain. Did she go to the movies? Yes. She saw plenty of movies that she thoroughly enjoyed. None of them used the name of the Lord in vain. The words that do take the Lord's name in vain have a special quality to them. Sometimes you have to convey irreverence. Now, you have no room for irreverence in your life. Fine. Some people do, and that's what the artist was trying to get across. Take out the irreverence, and you're left with no message because the artist's message has been compromised.

 

[80sU2isBest]

To me, there is a special quality about certain words that happen to be taking the Lord's name in vain. I remember my grandmother, who has passed on, objecting strenuously to words that took the Lord's name in vain. Did she go to the movies? Yes. She saw plenty of movies that she thoroughly enjoyed. None of them used the name of the Lord in vain. The words that do take the Lord's name in vain have a special quality to them. Sometimes you have to convey irreverence. Now, you have no room for irreverence in your life. Fine. Some people do, and that's what the artist was trying to get across. Take out the irreverence, and you're left with no message because the artist's message has been compromised.

Sorry, Verte, I don't buy that, either. If the character hated God or was angry with God, then yes, that would show irreverance. But guess what, there are other ways to show that. You will never convince me that using the Lord's name in vain is ever necessary for a story.

 

[verte76]

Sorry, Verte, I don't buy that, either. If the character hated God or was angry with God, then yes, that would show irreverance. But guess what, there are other ways to show that. You will never convince me that using the Lord's name in vain is ever necessary for a story.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. It's all good.

 

[AtomicBono]

Sorry, Verte, I don't buy that, either. If the character hated God or was angry with God, then yes, that would show irreverance. But guess what, there are other ways to show that. You will never convince me that using the Lord's name in vain is ever necessary for a story.

wow, I hope you never read The Catcher in the Rye then

I'm surprised this thread has gotten so long, but that's FYM for you. personally, I see no debate. Clean Films is operating outside of the law. Is it right to uphold morality in one aspect (editing films to remove offensive content) by circumventing the law? I think not. If Clean Films were editing films with permission from the studios, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I swear to something I believe in when I say for f*cks sake.

 

[maycocksean]

I understand that a nonChristian isn't likely to be offended by the words and thus may use them in his book. However, the issue of compromising his authenticity? I just don't buy it. "Oh s###","damn" and other excalmations are just as "popular" as using the Lord's name in vain, so why would the use of those words instead make the piece less authentic? In fact, why even use swear words at all? Are there no exclamatory words that aren't swear words?

Why do YOU think that writers use the Lord's name in vain in books, film, television etc?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Why do YOU think that writers use the Lord's name in vain in books, film, television etc?

The people who don't object to it or who use it themselves use it to convey certain emotions. I never denied that. I was saying that there are other ways to convey those same emotions that are every bit as realistic. It's not necessary.

 

[verte76]

If you put words that the original artist didn't put in there, it's no longer *their* work. It's someone else's. I wouldn't want that done to a piece I wrote--and I'm also a writer.

 

[80sU2isBest]

If you put words that the original artist didn't put in there, it's no longer *their* work. It's someone else's. I wouldn't want that done to a piece I wrote--and I'm also a writer.

Taking out unnecssary words that do not add to the movie and/or replacing with other words does not make it someone else's work.

So, when Titanic was shown on TV, and they took out the 8 instances of GD, it was no longer the work of the original writers?

 

[verte76]

Taking out unnecssary words that do not add to the movie and/or replacing with other words does not make it someone else's work.

So, when Titanic was shown on TV, and they took out the 8 instances of GD, it was no longer the work of the original writers?

No. An element of the dialogue was missing.

 

[80sU2isBest]

No. An element of the dialogue was missing.

I don't agree with you at all, but hey, I'm glad not everyone does agree with me on everything - I'd always have to fight crowds at my favorite restaurants.

 

[maycocksean]

The people who don't object to it or who use it themselves use it to convey certain emotions. I never denied that. I was saying that there are other ways to convey those same emotions that are every bit as realistic. It's not necessary.

So why do you suppose that some writers choose to use those particular words--the Lord's name used in vain--as opposed to other words that communicate the same emotions equally well?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Last night, I showed my 22 year old nephew my edited version of King Kong. He really liked it; I guess he never noticed that the swear words were gone. But he did get really mad at the end. He didn't like the fact that I had changed the ending...Kong doesn't die. The last we see of him, he's beating his chest and roaring atop the Empire State Building, and then the words "to be continued..." appeared. At first, yhe didn't know I had changed the ending and was really mad that the producer would do such a thing, because he hates cliffhangers. I told him it wasmy edited ending, and he said he would have liked the edited ending if I hadn't put the "to be continued" on there.

 

[maycocksean]

Last night, I showed my 22 year old nephew my edited version of King Kong. He really liked it; I guess he never noticed that the swear words were gone. But he did get really mad at the end. He didn't like the fact that I had changed the ending...Kong doesn't die. The last we see of him, he's beating his chest and roaring atop the Empire State Building, and then the words "to be continued..." appeared. At first, yhe didn't know I had changed the ending and was really mad that the producer would do such a thing, because he hates cliffhangers. I told him it wasmy edited ending, and he said he would have liked the edited ending if I hadn't put the "to be continued" on there.

Certainly your ending was a lot less sad then the "real" one. I actually thought that was a pretty good movie, but the ending was heartbreaking.

I'm not sure what the point was you were making though? That people can still enjoy a film even with all kinds of changes? I wouldn't argue that. But I'm not sure that "enjoyment" is the issue here,at least from the artist perspective. Obviously the artist wants the audience to enjoy his/her work but the hope is that they would enjoy the work as it was originally intended to be experienced. Making a change like you did to the end of King Kong, while unobjectionable as a neat little trick for you and your family to enjoy, would probably bother the artist if it was being put out there for a wider viewing audience. Your ending was not what the artist intended and they would be offended by that. Let's say you wrote a story about a man who comes to faith in Christ. And let's say someone bought your book and retyped the last few pages so that instead of coming to Christ, the man comes to the conclusion that religion is a fraud. Now if the guy did it in the privacy of his own home, you might roll your eyes and say,'why'd you buy my book in the first place, you idiot?" But if he started selling his version of the book you might take far more issue.

But back to the issue of the use of the Lord's name. Since you've not answered my question yet, I'll hazard an answer of my own. Why do writers use those words as opposed to others that might work "just as well." I think we'd agree it's because they don't think much about the "rightness or wrongness" of the words in the moral sense. They just write the dialogue that they feel is real and authentic and reflects the story and characters the best. I'm in no way suggesting that it is a REQUIREMENT for an author to use bad language or misuse the Lord's name in order to be a "good" writer. As you have pointed it out it is entirely possible to write a good, authentic story without such things. However, IF a writer chooses to use such words, it is mostly likely because that writer felt that the words "worked" best in their scenario and wouldn't want to change them. This is not to say that a writer says. . ."hmmm, you know what would be great here? A good abuse of God's name" It doesn't work like that.

What I try to do, as a writer, is to write, especially in the first draft without artificial "restraints." In other words, if I'm writing a story, and the next thing for a character to logically say would be a bad word, I'm going to write that bad word. When I go back for revisions, I may go ahead and change it. I may not. That's when I take a hard look at whether it is "necessary" or not. I think when we start saying to ourselves, "Well, yes, this is right for this character. This is what they would say, but I'm not allowing myself to use those words, so what else can I use" then to me I'm compromising the authenticity of my character.

The average Hollywood writer may not think about those issues when it comes to the use of God's name, but certainly they think about them somewhat in regards to other types of language since that will determine what kind of rating the film gets etc. A good writer, one with any sense of integrity, will change what he/she "can" and leave the rest.

For someone else to come in and make still further changes (especially without the permission of the artist) is a disrespect to the work of the artist, in my opinion.

 

[verte76]

I write historical narratives, not stories, but you've got it right maycocksean, they use those words for a reason.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Certainly your ending was a lot less sad then the "real" one. I actually thought that was a pretty good movie, but the ending was heartbreaking.

I'm not sure what the point was you were making though? That people can still enjoy a film even with all kinds of changes? I wouldn't argue that.

I wasns't making any kind of point with my King Kong story; I was just telling a story.

But back to the issue of the use of the Lord's name. Since you've not answered my question yet, I'll hazard an answer of my own. Why do writers use those words as opposed to others that might work "just as well."

Go back and reread your question and my response. I sure as heck did answer your question. The question you just now asked was not what you asked the first time. You originally asked why people include God's name in vain. I answered that question; I said that they do it to convey emotion.

I think we'd agree it's because they don't think much about the "rightness or wrongness" of the words in the moral sense. They just write the dialogue that they feel is real and authentic and reflects the story and characters the best. I'm in no way suggesting that it is a REQUIREMENT for an author to use bad language or misuse the Lord's name in order to be a "good" writer. As you have pointed it out it is entirely possible to write a good, authentic story without such things. However, IF a writer chooses to use such words, it is mostly likely because that writer felt that the words "worked" best in their scenario and wouldn't want to change them. This is not to say that a writer says. . ."hmmm, you know what would be great here? A good abuse of God's name" It doesn't work like that.

And we're still back to my point; "it's not necessary.

What I try to do, as a writer, is to write, especially in the first draft without artificial "restraints." In other words, if I'm writing a story, and the next thing for a character to logically say would be a bad word, I'm going to write that bad word. When I go back for revisions, I may go ahead and change it. I may not. That's when I take a hard look at whether it is "necessary" or not. I think when we start saying to ourselves, "Well, yes, this is right for this character. This is what they would say, but I'm not allowing myself to use those words, so what else can I use" then to me I'm compromising the authenticity of my character.

There are many other words that would be just as authentic for a character to use, so by subbing out other words, you're not affecting the character's authenticity at all.

For someone else to come in and make still further changes (especially without the permission of the artist) is a disrespect to the work of the artist, in my opinion.

To me, the biggest disrespect is not shown by editing out the Lord's name in vain. The biggest disrespect is to actually use the Lord's name in vain in the first place.

 

[BVS]

I won't deny my disdain for Hollywood. I've hated it for years.

In this particular case, what upsets me is that Hollywood wants to control how we watch their movies. That is why they raise a big stink over this issue and why they are willing to lose sales. They call it "protecting artistic integrity". I call it egotism from self-important jerks who think their views are so meaningful and superior that if you don't embrace them, you're a dumb hopeless clod.

Of course they want control, if not, anyone could do anything they wanted with the movie. You could change the message, give it political bias, turn it into propaganda, you name it. Can you not understand this?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Of course they want control, if not, anyone could do anything they wanted with the movie. You could change the message, give it political bias, turn it into propaganda, you name it. Can you not understand this?

I can't understand what use they would have for that much control - so much that they wouldn't even want me to edit out the bad words so I don't have to hear them when I watch the movie on my own TV set. I don't understand why it matters to them.

 

[Muggsy]

Last night, I showed my 22 year old nephew my edited version of King Kong. He really liked it; I guess he never noticed that the swear words were gone. But he did get really mad at the end. He didn't like the fact that I had changed the ending...Kong doesn't die. The last we see of him, he's beating his chest and roaring atop the Empire State Building, and then the words "to be continued..." appeared. At first, yhe didn't know I had changed the ending and was really mad that the producer would do such a thing, because he hates cliffhangers. I told him it wasmy edited ending, and he said he would have liked the edited ending if I hadn't put the "to be continued" on there.

Do you know what is the real (original) ending of Little Red Riddinghood??.... the wolf eats her and that's it!!!... and the funniest thing is that kids really like that ending, more than the sugar covered ones...

last friday I went to see "the Monologues of the Vagina" with my boyfriend. Most of the interventions had really funny winks and people were enjoying each of them a lot, men and women. Then, the oldest of the actresses interpreted a woman who was raped by a group of military men, that intervention was great, so heartbreaking and I couldn't help to cry because it was so painful. When she finished another of the actresses came to the escene and started another funny story. After that big load of horror and pain the laughters where stronger and there was a bigger connection between the audience and the women who were on the stage. If the story of rape were edited from the play... it just wouldn't be the same... ok It will be a lot of laughs and everything, but that would be worthless without that note of sadness and above all, reality. I wouldn't enjoy that play so much If that didn't make me cry.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I won't deny my disdain for Hollywood. I've hated it for years.

In this particular case, what upsets me is that Hollywood wants to control how we watch their movies. That is why they raise a big stink over this issue and why they are willing to lose sales. They call it "protecting artistic integrity". I call it egotism from self-important jerks who think their views are so meaningful and superior that if you don't embrace them, you're a dumb hopeless clod.

But in the case of the King Kong movie, you didn't just edit the language, you changed the ending of the movie!

I think the studio has good right to upset by this. I don't self-importance or egotism has anything to do with it. The final product has been dramatically altered.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But in the case of the King Kong movie, you didn't just edit the language, you changed the ending of the movie!

I think the studio has good right to upset by this. I don't self-importance or egotism has anything to do with it. The final product has been dramatically altered.

If I gave this version away or sold it, I'd understand why they'd be upset. But it makes no sense for them to be upset that I changed it for my viewings. None at all.

But we were talking about something much less drastic anyway; the removal of swear words, whcih changes the story not one iota.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Most Christians that I know are not happy with the swearing, sex and gory violence that Hollywood shoves into their movies.

Most vegetarians I know aren't happy with the beef in a Big Mac, but they don't expect to be able to set up a shop next door to McDonalds, buy their burgers, remove the beef, package them up in McDonalds packaging again and go and re-sell them at a higher price.

McDonalds make whatever burgers they want to make.

Universal Studios makes whatever films it wants to make.

Both are guided by money and will only change if it is for money.

In the meantime the vegetarian eats elsewhere.

 

[V Nura]

I'd like to see how many people actually buy the clean versions of these films.


Personally I think it's ridiculous, I wouldn't pay to have a movie cleaned up for me...I'd just go and find something else to watch.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I completely understand the want for such a service, and think commercialy it's probably a good idea. As others have stated, it's not like they are trying to re-make Sin City into Cinderella. The King Kong example is a good one. The cleaning up is taking out only references to the Lords name, which probably accounts for all of 30 seconds of footage and in no way changes the film or storyline. Film studios already do this for airlines for films that only need such a minor clean up.

In the same way, going back to my McDonalds analogy, many fast food outlets have added vegetarian options to their menu. Also, many people have made a great buck out of healthy fast food outlets. Identifying a commercial need and expoiting it in both cases.

What is ridiculous is a demand that either the studios HAVE to do it, or that anyone else has a right to just go and do it (commercially) if the studios don't.

McDonalds make changes to their menu as the market dictates. Hollywood studios do or will to their film slate as well. I hope one day 80's has a far greater range in choices of films he can comfortably watch, or access to a service that provides that for him, but in the meantime he has to accept what decisions the Studios make. It's their product, their commercial interests. There is no communal ownership and Hollywood studios are not some kind of public service. They make very expensive products that make a fortune in revenue. It's their decision, even if he and perhaps thousands others think it's a mistake.

The truth is, if there really is such a big market for it, it will rise one day. I wish they didn't make so many overblown junk movies like King Kong, but I know that's where the big money is and that my kind of movies make virtually no money. I know that is not going to change for sometime, so my movies generally come from smaller distributors, screen away from the large multiplexes, and cost more to have shipped in on DVD from online stores. There are thousands like me shaking our fists at the Studios for pumping out one dumb blockbuster after another, but the box office numbers on a Monday morning don't lie. The same has to apply for 80's as well. A sex'n'drugs'n'murder teen tv show like The OC out-rates the clean Christian value heavy 7th Heaven a hundred fold. That's the reality in entertainment. The masses want a lot of what you want none of. They want sex and guns and explosions and "motherf*ckin" attitude from their heroes. You want none of that. They want dumbed down 2 hour escapism entertainment aimed at the lowest of IQ's. I want none of that. The same applies to many others across a variety of niche tastes. but it's mass tastes that demand what is made for mass consumption, whether it's fast food or films.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'd like to see how many people actually buy the clean versions of these films.


Personally I think it's ridiculous, I wouldn't pay to have a movie cleaned up for me...I'd just go and find something else to watch.

I am 39 years old, and I have loved King Kong since I was a little kid. I also hate to hear the use of the Lord's name in vain. Do you understand why I was so excited about a new King Kong movie and why it made me cringe when I hear the Lord's name in vain in that movie? If so, you would understand why I would pay someone to edit it for me.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I wish they didn't make so many overblown junk movies like King Kong,

King Kong was a 3 hour movie that would have worked a lot better as a 2 hour movie. There was too much fluff and side stories that didn't advance the story. Take out an hours worth of that stuff and you've got a wonderful tale of compassion, heroism, sacrifice, ambition, greed and love.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I just meant that massive blockbusters generally do zero for me. Commercially I agree with you though, I think the length killed Kong, especially with most people knowing the story line. You look at your watch and it's over the 2 hour mark and they are STILL not even back in NY. I think word of mouth over the time, plus the concept not capturing the imagination like it once did (since Kongs initial release, we've had the Big Oversized Everything, from the great Jaws to the awful Anaconda and everything in between) are what made it a let down at the box office. It did really well, but no-where near expectations.

 

[Anthony]

There's no two ways about it; its a flagrant abuse of intellectual property and stinks of the censorship lamp. Detestable.

Ant.