lets forget the LDS thing for a moment
It would be JUST as horrific if it were any man and any girl of 14

im sorry if i offend anyone but in any case like this the first thing that is said is “i blame the parents”

like i say i dont know the situation BUT i dont know any 18 year olds who would do this for money
let alone 14!

its horrific that it happened yes
but lets all learn lessons from it

there but the grace of God……

While this is technically true, the movie studios allow the editing of their films for the airlines and television. So the real problem could have been nothing more than the studios not figuring out how to cash in. That is always what it is about for them. The legal excuse is just that, a lame excuse since the precedent had already been established. The cleanflix folks did not have the money to legally persue that question I don’t think.

Can’t really believe they couldn’t see that there was money to be made with a clean version of their films. But, then these are not the best business people around, really.

What I started off by saying was that what Cleanflix was doing was illegal. And it was illegal. And they got shut down because it was illegal. I don’t see where we can argue about that point.

Hipocrisy comes into play when people complain about the evils of Hollywood and then support those same movies by paying to watch them. Whether they are paying to watch them minus a few very specific details that are deemed by them “inappropriate” or not, they are still supporting those movies that they consider “bad” in their original form.

I don’t think the “unrated version” plays into our discussion of endorsement because this feature, generally speaking, is used to entice a few more rentals for that specific product (just like the making of featurettes, commentaries, etc). I’m willing to bet that the studios aren’t keeping close track of how well those versions sell vs. the other versions (if they both exist, if they don’t there’s no way for them to tell if it boosted sales/rentals or not). But that is an interesting thing to bring up. Leaving the legal grounds and moving back to the moral grounds, a release with that sort of material would signal to me that the overall film is looking to entice me in ways that appeal to my guts and groins (as a friend of mine puts it), and is probably not worth watching unless I’m looking for that in a movie. And that appeal is what we are currently and explicitly advised against by our church leaders. Whether that movie is PG-13 or R or beyond.

My overall moral point is this: if you are going to watch a movie, go watch a movie. If you think a movie is inappropriate to watch, don’t watch it (or do watch it, whatever you like). But don’t sit on the fence and pretend that a bad movie can be made good by the removal of a few certain things. If the content (and by content I mean the combination of message, craft, execution, story, acting, etc) of a movie is bad, it will remain bad even if the F-word is removed (or wasn’t used in the first place). If the content of a movie is good, it will still be good even if those F-words remain. If those few (or many) F-words (and we can throw in nudity/sexuality/violence, etc) are going to offend my soul, then I can skip that movie (even if it’s a great movie!) without the world coming to an end, and presumably without compromising my integrity. That, of course, is one loud mouth opinion that could very well be wrong. Feel free to disregard it.

But in my mind, the mistake we make is by not giving ourselves the credit to have the ability to digest difficult material in order to get to a good message. By not educating ourselves enough to be able to do determine the message of a film, whether it holds up or breaks down, in short whether the whole content of a movie is truly good or not. We continually support halfhearted attempts at entertainment that undermine themselves and don’t bring any new ideas to the table. I think we can be better consumers of media, and I think the idea of editing content undermines the process of developing ourselves in that way. So, I guess you’re right, I did start off the discussion wrong. I don’t think that those people are criminals, or that they are aware of whatever hipocrisy may (or may not) be involved. But I don’t think they’re doing themselves any bit of good by doing it, and that’s why I wish they wouldn’t.

My point is that it is now possible to do all the things I’ve listed without selling a modified product. People can buy a DVD from anywhere and you separately sell them a filter that will play that DVD in a way not intended by the director.

Currently in the US we’re in a situation where the end of watching a modified movie is legal but some of the means are legal and some means are not. Your are wrong if you think that simply watching a modified movie is illegal. It is explicitly legal for some methods. So starting off the discussion by assuming that anyone watching a toned down movie is a lawbreaker and therefore some sort of hypocrite seems both wrong and unproductive.

Note that 12 years ago when DVDs were about to come out studios promised that the ability to watch a PG version of an R rated movie would be built in to the technology and that every disc would have a filter. Obviously this hasn’t happened, though DVDs have been produced that contain both a theatrical version of the movie and an “unrated” version that has additional content that is potentially offensive. If I purchase such a disc and watch only the theatrical version am I making an immoral choice because Hollywood will take my purchase as an endorsement of the unrated version?

I agree that it is interesting to look at why people choose to use such technologies, and you’re even free to judge people for using it. Just don’t start off by assuming that they’re criminals.

As to your statement. I think the difference is that many people who produce films aren’t necessarily looking to avoid that sort of content. What they are trying to do (with varying degrees of success) is tell the story. Whether that is through the use of sex/violence/nonviolence/action/humor/music, etc. I would expect that sexuality/nudity is just one of the tools in the toolbox that each filmmaker decides whether or not to use and why.

In my opinion, especially in our United States of America (with our own sexual hangups), showing nudity/sex brings far more baggage to the table (misinterpretation/distraction/takes you out of the story/shock value, etc) than it is worth in general. This is, of course, setting aside my personal moral values.

addressing your original examples head on, with regards to their legality or whether they should be legal, i’m inclined to agree with most of those examples (although the book with the torn pages raises in the very leasts an ethical question. I’m assuming the pages were torn with purpose and resold with knowledge of the action and the purpose). I was never arguing that these things should or shouldn’t be legal, just that they are illegal. The place where I think I would draw the hard line is the making of a profit off of this sort of venture, and I think that is where the heart of the legalities lie. destruction of personal property (as demonstrated in your last remark) is far different from taking someone else’s product, altering it and reselling/renting it for profit. I guess in my opinion that’s where the legal line should be drawn. But for me, the moral questions and implications of this whole discussion are far more intriguing.

Who cares. You own the physical medium on which the art is being presented. You should be free to use that disc/book/tape/whatever in any way that you want. If I want to use my copy of The Godfather as a frisbee is there anything inherently wrong with that? Should it be illegal?

If I want to buy the collected works of Shakespeare and make paper airplanes out of the pages should anyone care?

I’m not even making any claims about disagreeing with the original presentation of the work. I’m saying that I’ve paid money for it. I should be able to enjoy it in any way that I want to. If I want to watch a movie in slow-mo is that a problem? What if I edited out everything except the objectionable parts? Since these things can be done on the fly without making a copy of the work or even altering the disc that it came on I have a hard time seeing why you think it is illegal/bad/wrong/etc. I think you’ve approached the idea purely in the context of CleanFlix, which is just one example of what people might want to do with movies.

I personally have never rented a movie from Clean Flix or any similar service. If I decide that I want to see a movie, I go see it or rent it. If it offends me I walk out or turn it off. So from a religious standpoint I have very little sympathy for Clean Fllix, or perhaps more accurately, for those that rent from Clean Flix.

I do, however, think that what they did while silly, should be legal. Here are some parallel situions:

If I purchase a paperback book, then rip out some pages, should I be able to re-sell it?

Could I print a list of instructions for when to mute or fast forward a certain movie?

Could I go further and make an automated remote control that would do the same?

Can I go even further and make a DVD player that edits what is presented on the fly while leaving the disc itself intact? (Note that this is explicitly legal.)

If Jar-Jar offends me should I be able to watch my copy of Episode I with that character edited out?

I will agree about sex scenes. The actual showing of sex on screen isn’t necessary to include the topic of sexuality in a story. One example of where nudity was used quite powerfully was in Schindler’s List. Its a parallel to the violence in Saving Private Ryan. You cannot truly understand the humiliation and de-humanization quite as deeply (and I’ll admit we still have no clue) as seeing it visually.

TV-14: DSLV tells me more, but not the degree. Am I willing to deal with a certain level of suggestiveness in some circumstances but not others? Perhaps. For instance, violence that might be appropriate in a war-based movie detailing the history of a real war mean to teach us about that war (“Saving Private Ryan” springs readily to mind) is much more acceptable than the gratuitous level of violence in the rather silly and unsavory movie “The Condemned”. Films like Saw 1 to 12 (or whatever) are much more gratuitous, and are therefore more dispicable than a film like Glory or Saving Private Ryan. Language, too, is highly dependent on the situation, although I find that generally speaking it is almost always gratuitous. Sex and nudity is almost always gratuitous. I cannot think of a single instance where a sex scene or nudity was so essential to the story that it couldn’t have been handled in a more tasteful manner (fade to black, etc). Passion should not be absent from movies, but sex is, I think, never necessarily shown on screen.

I think that this story does show two things: first, we don’t know of a certainty, which came first: the editing or the solicitation of sex acts and making pornography. It doesn’t really matter, however. I think what the story shows, however, is that we cannot make blind decisions to trust people simply because they are of a particular faith. With the elections coming up, this is an important thing to remember! I would not be surprised, however, if the men in question started off with good intentions, if rather questionable intellectual reasoning on the matter, and probably little spiritual guidance. But constant repeated exposure to the most detestable scenes of the worst of Hollywood’s offerings isn’t going to make things better, even if you are the best person in the world.

This is why one of my friends got out of the business of being a private investigator–he spent far too much time sifting through the deranged and pornographic contents of the computers that cheating spouses were using. Emails, pictures, and the like were getting to him and he felt that he would eventually lose all spiritual strength.

Ultimately, JH is right: we are responsible for making our own decision about what is appropriate and what is good, and relying on the Spirit for that. Letting others do that is a silly and dangerous way to live.

Your points are excellent. Years ago we had a Clean Flicks around the corner from our house and we rented there. I was continually surprised at the titles that were being carried, edited or not. Some movies seemed like they’d only be 45 minutes long after editing. I always thought, “what’s the point?”

Let’s examine that statement. The movie business is all about making money, often times to the detriment of quality. If something will make money, the movie business will make it. The way we, as consumers of movies, encourage the movie business to make or not make certain types of movies is by the simple vote of our money. If I pay to see a movie (in the theater, on video, etc) i am saying to the movie industry: make more of this. This is a very simplified explanation, but that is what it boils down to. I speak with my wallet, the movie producers listen.

What movies were being supported by Cleanflix/flix club and their customers? Movies that by the nature of this business’ existence were movies that they felt were inappropriate. So inappropriate that they purchased them. They voted with their dollars for “evil hollywood” (that’s the studio’s name, i believe) to make more of this kind of movies. And so did every person who rented those movies, edited or unedited.

Now on to the real question. Why didn’t this occur to us? Why didn’t we ASK ourselves, wait does what this guy is saying make sense? If he is fighting against “evil hollywood” why doesn’t he rent only family friendly fare? why not only stock Toy Story I and II, the Incredibles, and Princess Bride? The comment, when examined on the very superficial level can only be found to be disingenuous (as he smiles and takes your money for the rental/monthly subscription).

Our religious culture doesn’t foster asking questions, especially the hard ones. The kind that make us realize, “maybe I do like watching R-Rated movies.” or “maybe
i need to re-examine how I consume media”. Or “this movie, despite it’s mild rating is a nonsensical piece of poor filmmaking, and in the future I am not going to support films like it.” or most importantly “i am responsible for discerning what is and isn’t appropriate for me, and i need to act in accordance with that.”

We’ve seen it before, starting with the Nauvoo Expositor.

Yes – the Nauvoo Expositor was nothing but sensationalism….

Thanks for editing the post. But be careful about dragging people’s or company’s names through the mud all in the name of a sensational blog post about the “truth” about Mormons. We’ve seen it before, starting with the Nauvoo Expositor.

Regardless of the fact that the story strikes you as fishy, nobody is saying that there weren’t 14-year olds prostituting themselves. I don’t mean to diminish what these evil men did to these girls in any way, but what on earth is going on when your child thinks that this is an acceptable way to raise funds?