Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Saving Private Ryan - The Safehouse Forums

How anyone could think this is an indecent movie is beyond me.

This is a movie about war, sorry the bad guys don't yell "You got me 11!!one!!" and drop over.

Sorry the people use an expletive on occasion.

Sorry it doesn't meet your standard for the neat little package you think war really is. So seldom does Hollywood do anything important beyond entertaining us for 2 hours at a time.

A movie that helps us remember to avoid the mistakes of the past and does it without talking down to us is amazing indeed. Spending the first 20 minutes in tears.

Whenever I see the field of crosses is breaks me down (seeing them IRL or otherwise). Spending the next 20 nauseous, thinking about what really does happen when people decide to shoot chunks of lead and other assorted things at other people. Spending 10 more minutes in tears again from the bodies in the water. Spending the next two hours angry, laughing occasionally, and nauseous all over again. Then ending the movie crying, yet again. Every time I see this movie it reminds me War can't be the answer, there has to be some better way.

Here's to finding that better way.

Was this an article from the Onion?

No, this, sadly, is real. http://www.cnn.com/money/2004/11/11/...ex.htm?cnn=yes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138264,00.html My God, some people are stupid.

Morons.

I also remember people moving to block Schindler's List when it aired on NBC uncut about ten years ago, due its "violent content." Lenilya said: Morons.

/agree

Anyone else really not like the FDC?

They might promote good morals, but they really end up being a way to cencor almost everything we see on tv.

American TV is teh squeemish.

I kinda get the feeling that some of the stations, if not all may have done this to make a point, to try and make the FCC look bad. "See, we can't even show you this great patriotic movie on Veteran's day!

The FCC is a bunch of meanies who would get mad if we did."

Gotta give them props for not allowing any editing or censorship of the movie. We need to form a group that fights the FCC and to allow the use of the F word in open channels and for boobies to again be legal on prime time.

Yeah, the contract Spielberg has with ABC says they can't edit it in any way shape or form if they want the rights to it.

Very smart move on his part. I just hate the fact the stations who refused to show it said they were "afraid" of the fines the FCC could levy against them.

This didn't float because ABC said they would foot the bill for any fines that resulted from this. Hopefully after allowing it to air twice before, and after declining to act on the one (yes one) complaint they got last year, the FCC could keep its head out of its ass and not fine anyone. I still can't imagine anyone filing a complaint about this short of doing it just to be an ass.

Meddik said: I kinda get the feeling that some of the stations, if not all may have done this to make a point, to try and make the FCC look bad.

Sinclair Broadcasting stopped all of its ABC affiliates from showing the movie, and that sort of passive aggressive censorship protest doesn't really seem like their style. So it turns out Janet Jackson has the most powerful breast in human history.

I bet nobody saw that coming.

This was one of the most realistic war pictures ever made, according to my mom's fiance who fought in WWII, and my best friend's dad who fought in Vietnam.

Band of Brothers miniseries on HBO was even moreso, according to friend's dad.

Kudos to Tom Hanks on both projects. I'm glad that it wasn't edited for content.

People should see what hell war really is, maybe they won't be so eager for blood then. Then again, in a country where a 3 second shot of a nipple causes a big media ruckus and FCC fines, I can't expect but that we will be continually sheltered from real life being depicted on network television.

I just hate the fact the stations who refused to show it said they were "afraid" of the fines the FCC could levy against them.

This didn't float because ABC said they would foot the bill for any fines that resulted from this.

This is their rationale: ABC has told its affiliate stations it would cover any fine the FCC might choose to impose over the movie broadcast.

However, should the FCC fine a station, that could be used against it when its license comes up for renewal.

I still can't imagine anyone filing a complaint about this short of doing it just to be an ass.

The American Family Association would be the asses that filed a complaint last time. But Parents Television Council didn't attack ABC stations the first time they aired "Saving Private Ryan." The American Family Association, aka Donald Wildmon's conservative watchdog group, did. These days the AFA is focusing on trying to get advertisers to promise not to buy time in ABC's new hit series "Desperate Housewives" because it features a housewife who's having an affair with her high-school-age gardener and female neighbors discussing their relationships with their husbands over dinner.

But back in 2001, the AFA went after ABC over "Saving Private Ryan," filing a complaint with the FCC in hopes it would slap the stations with an indecency fine.

In its complaint, the AFA noted the movie's "violence, bloodshed, language and profanity," according to a letter of response from the FCC, a copy of which was obtained by The TV Column.

One thing I don't get is why everybody thinks Saving Private Ryan was such a great movie.

The first 20 minutes were really good, but the rest was an average war movie.

I didn't care for the characters at all, and I didn't care what happened to them.

Tom Hanks' character was the only one that had any depth at all, and it wasn't much. Band of Brothers was a lot better.

Heck, for D-Day movies, The Longest Day was a great movie.

Saving Private Ryan isn't even close. 'Saving Private Ryan': A New Casualty of the Indecency War;

[FINAL Edition] Lisa de Moraes.

The Washington Post.

Washington, D.C.: Nov 11, 2004.

Pg. C.01 ABC suits scrambled yesterday to try to contain the mutiny among stations that refuse to air tonight's broadcast of the unedited "Saving Private Ryan," citing indecency concerns. At press time, ABC stations owned by Cox Television, Citadel Communications, Belo Corp., Hearst-Argyle and Scripps Howard Broadcasting, among others, had declined to air the 1998 Academy Award-winning movie.

They say they're afraid the film's scenes of extreme violence and intense adult language will lead to sanctions by the Federal Communications Commission under its new, supersize anti-indecency standards.

Among those preempting the World War II movie are stations in Dallas (the country's seventh largest television market), Atlanta (No.

9), Tampa (No. 13), Phoenix (No.

15) and Orlando (No.

20). Ironically, most of them already aired "Saving Private Ryan" when ABC ran it, unedited, to commemorate Veterans Day in 2001 and 2002.

Of course, those broadcasts predated the FCC's decision to slap CBS- owned TV stations with a record $550,000 fine over the national debut of Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl, and the commission's ruling that a rocker's spontaneous use of an expletive at a trophy show broadcast by NBC was indecent and profane. ABC has told its affiliate stations it would cover any fine the FCC might choose to impose over the movie broadcast.

However, should the FCC fine a station, that could be used against it when its license comes up for renewal. "The Federal Communications Commission has changed its standards for certain content related to programming broadcast before 10 p.m.," Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications, said in a news release.

Citadel's ABC affiliates in Des Moines and Sioux City, Iowa, and Lincoln, Neb., are preempting the movie. Cole told The TV Column that Citadel attempted to get an advance waiver from the FCC but the commission refused, saying that stations need to "exercise their own good-faith judgment." The FCC declined to comment on any aspect of this story. "Without an advance waiver from the FCC .

. . we're not going to present the movie in prime time," Cole said.

"Under strict interpretation of the indecency rules we do not see any way possible to air this movie.

To be put in this position is unfortunate, and reflects the timidity that exists at the commission right now." According to Cox's Atlanta station general manager, Greg Stone, the company asked ABC for permission to edit the film or air it outside prime time but was turned down.

According to news reports, ABC's broadcast rights preclude any editing.

Cox's ABC affiliates in Orlando, Atlanta and Charlotte will not air the movie. On Atlanta's WSB-TV Web site, Stone cited the FCC's March ruling that it was both indecent and profane when NBC broadcast live Bono exclaiming, "This is really, really [expletive] brilliant!" as he picked up his trophy at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards.

That same word comes up often in the movie.

The Bono ruling "reversed years of prior policy that the context of language matters," Stone said. Belo is pulling the broadcast from all four of its ABC stations, in Dallas, Austin, Louisville and Hampton-Norfolk.

Belo stations ran the movie in 2001 and '02, but "sensitivity to these kind of matters has changed over the last few years," Belo Vice President Carey Hendrickson explained to The TV Column. "Community tastes are not constant and change over time.

Every time something like this comes up, you have to evaluate and reevaluate;

We felt this was appropriate for this time." Scripps Howard has pulled the movie from all five of its ABC affiliates, in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Phoenix and Tampa, Poynter.com reported.

In a statement, the company said it did so because "recent federal regulatory decisions on profanity appear to make it clear the Federal Communications Commission prohibits the broadcast of the type of profanity used in the movie.

Clear unequivocal warnings to viewers .

. . do not appear to mitigate a TV station's obligation to prohibit the broadcast of profane language prior to 10 p.m." ABC executives declined to discuss the matter with The TV Column.

In a statement, the network noted the broadcast would contain 11 advisories, including one at every ad break. And, in one of those politics-makes-strange-bedfellows moments, ABC even recruited Parents Television Council pit bull Brent Bozell to put out a statement giving a big thumbs-up to the broadcast. Bozell is the guy who launched the successful campaign to get the FCC to declare Bono's Golden Globe comment indecent.

He's also credited with initiating the letter-writing campaign about the Super Bowl incident that so impressed FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

"No television event has ever received as many complaints from the American public -- over 540,000 -- as the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show produced by CBS," Powell marveled in his statement accompanying the FCC's announcement it would slap CBS stations with that record-setting fine. "Context is everything," Bozell says in the statement.

"We agreed with the FCC on its ruling that the airing of 'Schindler's List' on television was not indecent and we feel that 'Saving Private Ryan' is in the same category.

In both films, the content is not meant to shock, nor is it gratuitous.

We applaud ABC for letting viewers know ahead of time about the graphic nature of the film and that the film would be uncut. "We will not be filing an indecency complaint with the FCC over the airing of this film," Bozell added reassuringly. But Parents Television Council didn't attack ABC stations the first time they aired "Saving Private Ryan." The American Family Association, aka Donald Wildmon's conservative watchdog group, did. These days the AFA is focusing on trying to get advertisers to promise not to buy time in ABC's new hit series "Desperate Housewives" because it features a housewife who's having an affair with her high-school-age gardener and female neighbors discussing their relationships with their husbands over dinner.

But back in 2001, the AFA went after ABC over "Saving Private Ryan," filing a complaint with the FCC in hopes it would slap the stations with an indecency fine.

In its complaint, the AFA noted the movie's "violence, bloodshed, language and profanity," according to a letter of response from the FCC, a copy of which was obtained by The TV Column. Last week's presidential election also played into Citadel's decision to scrap tonight's unedited broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan" and replace it with the TV movie "Return to Mayberry." "We're just coming off an election where moral issues were cited as a reason by people voting one way or another and, in my opinion, the commissioners are fearful of the new Congress," Cole told the Associated Press. Staff writer John Maynard contributed to this report.

Maybe they were mistaken and were presented with "Saving Ryan's Privates" instead?

I got the same impression Meddik did. Read what's actually being said.

These people are trying to get the laws relaxed back to pre-Janet standards.

But hey.. why get mad at the FCC when you can shoot the messenger instead? the content is not meant to shock Ahahahaha.

Bah I wrote a reply with nice Quote: s and everything, then the friggin board hiccups and loses it all! Basically, I would think that it would take a few more complaints than one from an organized group to get a liscence revoked by the FCC or denied renewal.

Now, if there were several thousand complaints from individuals all across the nation it would be a different story. SPR (hate using the lazy way) is more of an anti-war movie for me.

I don't like blood and guts, but I will watch this simply because it strikes an emotional chord with me (as can be gathered by the initial post). Whether it is a "good" war movie or not, I can't say as I am not a huge fan of the genre.

I prefer documentaries over movies for such things.

However, standing on its own (not comparing it to others) it works for me.

Being able to elicit a set of emotions (other than this movie sucks, or outright hatred) is always a good thing IMO, and obviously it does for me. All I know is the movie gives you the tiniest glimpse of what war is/can be.

It demystifies it, and doesn't glorify war and killing others.

Focusing on the mission of finding Ryan vs the mission of winning the war went a long way.

Jhani Vandolay said: the content is not meant to shock Ahahahaha.

I do believe they meant to say it isn't meant to shock just for kicks, it has a reason.

Yes, it is meant to make you react, but not just for the sole reason of revulsion/disgust.

Basically, I would think that it would take a few more complaints than one from an organized group to get a liscence revoked by the FCC or denied renewal.

Now, if there were several thousand complaints from individuals all across the nation it would be a different story.

From the Washington Post article: Bozell is the guy who launched the successful campaign to get the FCC to declare Bono's Golden Globe comment indecent.

He's also credited with initiating the letter-writing campaign about the Super Bowl incident that so impressed FCC Chairman Michael Powell.

"No television event has ever received as many complaints from the American public -- over 540,000 -- as the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show produced by CBS," Powell marveled in his statement accompanying the FCC's announcement it would slap CBS stations with that record-setting fine.

It looks like one group is given credit for causing the fine against CBS to be so large.

Without people like this to tell us what happened, most people at home wouldn't have even noticed.

I know I couldn't tell what happened.

*nod* However, when you tuned into the halftime show during the Superbowl, did you expect to see a nipple (even if you didn't really see it)?

I am not saying CBS should have been fined, but it seems the context was different. Saving Private Ryan had disclaimers posted before and during the show.

I feel there is a significant difference.

I also see the paranoia side as well (unfortunately).

Also unfortunately, I am not in charge of the decisions of the FCC, and niether it seems is common sense.

Hodurbear said: One thing I don't get is why everybody thinks Saving Private Ryan was such a great movie.

The first 20 minutes were really good, but the rest was an average war movie.

I didn't care for the characters at all, and I didn't care what happened to them.

Tom Hanks' character was the only one that had any depth at all, and it wasn't much.

Exactly my impressions on the movie, as well! Maybe the political idea behind the move is that the film is NOT patriotic enough to motivate the youth into the madness of the useless war, the bland chars in the film and all?

:P

Sillis said: Jhani Vandolay said: the content is not meant to shock Ahahahaha.

I do believe they meant to say it isn't meant to shock just for kicks, it has a reason.

Yes, it is meant to make you react, but not just for the sole reason of revulsion/disgust.

Yeah, that's pretty much why it bugs me at all.

It's obvious they don't mean exactly what they say, but rather mean to say it's acceptable by using terms that deny the purpose of the movie.

The intent of the movie is to shock, and to create an emotional reaction by shocking.

To say something is done to shock shouldn't be perceived as inherently negative, they can draw lines between movies like this and, say, Wild Boys (err, the MTV show where guys from Jackass run around taunting animals wearing thongs), using terms or phrases that actually apply.

I find it hilarous that the networks won't run SPR for potential indeceny....yet I saw bare ass(lots of bare ass) on NYPD: Blue the other day, and the networks still run their trashy reality shows with people making out and treating each other like ****. Indecent, indeed.

My problem with the US censorship only that they do try to send us the censored versions of songs and music videos that obviously should have an uncensored version.

Why would a country where you can say **** on national television in any language you want want to get music videos with lots of blurs and bleeps?

Lord knows in half of them the titties and swears are the only redeming part cuz the music sure ain't doing it for ya.

It's very puzzling.

I hate our FCC with a passion. Here we are one of the "great" countries of the world who pride ourselves on freedom os speech, religion and a bunch of other bs and we are one of the most censored countries of the free world...

(notice FREE WORLD) It's crazy places as close as mexico have prime time soaps with full nudity.

Yet everyone gets pissy when a boob is thrown out at the superbowl.

OK I can see getting upset it wasn't a hot 19 year olds breast and we had to suffer through Janets old boob, but still it is just a freakin body part. It was live TV, crap happens on live tv - EXPECT IT.

Taped shows should be able to show nudity, have cussing, what ever the prudish SOB's at the FCC currently are censoring, as long as there is ratings/warnings to let you know it is coming.

It is not an agencies job to police tv for out kids, the tv isn't a freaking babysitter.

It is a parents job to police what their own kids are watching!!!!

Meddik said: I kinda get the feeling that some of the stations, if not all may have done this to make a point, to try and make the FCC look bad.

People don't need to try to make the FCC out to be bad guys.

The FCC and Michael Powell do a excellent job of that themselves.

"This is the FCC.

Discontinue the broadcast of your pirate signal or we will open fire". "I think he just told us to go screw ourselves!" "Oh that's ****ing it!

DROP THE ****ING HAMMER!"

*nod* However, when you tuned into the halftime show during the Superbowl, did you expect to see a nipple (even if you didn't really see it)?

I am not saying CBS should have been fined, but it seems the context was different.

That is undoubtedly true.

I think what these stations really want is a clear-cut outline of when the context is appropriate and when it isn't.

This whole controversy stemmed from the FCC's refusal to give these stations an "indecency waiver" before the movie aired.

The FCC said that they cannot rule on whether something is obscene or not before it is aired because that would be censorship. The problem is that now, instead of explicitly censoring the stations, the FCC is implicitly censoring them, by not giving the stations any guidelines on what is acceptable and what is not.

That could lead to more being censored ultimately, since the stations are going to want to preserve their FCC licenses, and will do so by avoiding anything potentially controversial at all. *edit* grammar

The FCC has the greatest game in town, they make the rules and you're not allowed to know them til after you make your bet.

Ridiculous. Saving Private Ryan is an incredible movie.

I suppose they wouldn't show Platoon on television either.

Or The Deer Hunter. Oh, and off topic, but this annoys me: Spending the next 20 nauseous Nauseated is actually a more correct term for "suffering from nausea." "Nauseous" originally meant "causing nausea or disgust," but it has been widely turned to usage in meaning "suffering from nausea." But Merriam-Webster is telling me it's not incorrect to use it that way.

I guess I'm just an English Nazi.

THANK YOU TROLO!!! Seriously man, HUG grammar pet peeve of mine...

It's all over televison and movie scripts too.

Drives me nuts. :p

Doing my duty to the language, sir! Oh, and yay for Nenjin for the Sealab Quote: .

The FCC is just a bunch of mailbox heads anyways.

Trolo said: Ridiculous.

Saving Private Ryan is an incredible movie.

I suppose they wouldn't show Platoon on television either.

Or The Deer Hunter. Oh, and off topic, but this annoys me: Spending the next 20 nauseous Nauseated is actually a more correct term for "suffering from nausea." "Nauseous" originally meant "causing nausea or disgust," but it has been widely turned to usage in meaning "suffering from nausea." But Merriam-Webster is telling me it's not incorrect to use it that way.

I guess I'm just an English Nazi.

Waaaa ! Just teasing

Sillis said: Yeah, the contract Spielberg has with ABC says they can't edit it in any way shape or form if they want the rights to it.

Very smart move on his part.

Anyone can rent Saving Private Ryan and hear all the curse words to their hearts content.

Here is an opportunity for Spielberg to reach out to those who have committed to avoiding cursing (the majority of society, the reason the FCC fines people in the first place) and you are praising him for his ethnocentric view of society?

Yes Spielberg is ethnocentric because he is unwilling to allow his movie to be seen by anyone who doesn't share his view that cursing brings meaning to a movie. I have seen Saving Private Ryan in the edited form and I was touched as are most who see this great film.

I cryed, I laughed, I saw the lowest human emotions and I saw nobility. Two points: 1) Why does Spielberg and those who agree with him need for those like myself (who have committed not to see R-rated films) to hear the F-word or see a head blown off?

I completely enjoyed and understood the emotional content in edited form.

You see someone shooting and then you see someone dead, you don't need to see a bullet tearing through someone's flesh to understand how wrong the whole situation is.

Now maybe there are people who need to actually see it, but others are sensative enough to get the picture without the gory details. 2) Why leave money on the table?

Why not market your product to all who want to see it in the form tailored to them?

You translate a movie to other languages for other countries to see it?

Why not make an edited version for those who won't see it otherwise?

Why marginalize an entire segment of society because you think there is only one way to tell a story?

And don't give me the crap about artistic integrity. How does it hurt anyone to edit out the F-words and over the top gory parts?

It just broadens the audience to an important film.

I'm very glad I saw this movie, but I would not have seen it if not for an edited version.

Same with Schindler's List, I am enriched for seeing the edited version, and NO ONE WAS HURT.

Well, maybe we unintentionally hurt Spielberg's feelings when we took out the bad words that are so important to the story.

I wouldn't understand how important something is without that critical emphasis the F word gives. /flame on /ooc can I get a Bard to sing that raise fire resistance song?

*edit* This came out a bit more venom filled sounding than I wanted, but I feel pretty strongly about it.

This isn't aimed at you Jagyd directly. Spielberg is ethnocentric because he wants to have HIS movie remain in its original form?

Yeah, um, ok... Well, while we are at it, I didn't care for how the Iliad was written, I want an edited version Yes, I am praising him for such.

Too many people sell out because of the all mighty dollar.

Sometimes you have to make a stand and say enough is enough. Editing the content for a vulgarity is not the issue.

Comprimising the integrity of the work is.

Don't give you that artistic integreity crap?

That is easy to say when it is not YOUR work that YOU worked hard to get a messege across that YOU felt was important. You said you watched it in its edited form.

Fine, then YOU go and pop in the edited version.

It works both ways. He was going for realism, well, as much as can be expected from Hollywood.

Swear words were said, body parts were destroyed.

People died in horrible manners.

What next? Point your index finger at them and yell BANG!

? 1) I do not need for you to hear the F-bomb or see body parts blown off either.

However, it is your perogative to not watch it.

But why should I have to watch what you want, because you are offended by what I want to watch?

Why should I have to change the color of my car becuase you do not like it?

Why should I have to go rent the unedited version, when you can go find the edited version yourself? Remove the "gory parts" and you glorify war in general, you make it seem much tamer than what it is.

He didn't want a feel good huggy huggy movie.

No one can truly appreciate what people who fight for this country do, unless they do it themselves.

Making yet another movie where the blue eyed blond haired hero comes away unscathed serves no purpose.

Maybe, just maybe, once people understand people DIE in war, they can understand we need to stop it, not glorify it with yet another Hollywood farce. If you want a relatively safe war movie, go watch Tora!

Tora! Tora! or something similar.

No one is forcing you to watch this.

In fact, Tora! Tora!

Tora! is a good movie, but on a different plane of presentation vs Saving Private Ryan. 2)Why not sell out?

Some things are too important.

Do you really think he needs another couple million dollars?

I doubt it. Some things are more important than money. It doesn't "hurt" anyone to edit the movie.

However, it hurts the movie itself.

The goal was as much realism as he could squeeze in without overdoing it.

I personally do not want to see grown men play Cowboys and Indians like they did in their childhood.

This movie was depicting one of the defining moments (timeframes) in recent world history.

Let's not sugar coat it please, there are already enough movies out there that do that. If the creator wants his work to stay the same without outside interference, more power to him.

If you do not like that, then either deal with it, or turn the channel/don't watch.

Is there an edited version of "The Last Temptation of Christ" out yet?

Spielberg is ethnocentric because he believe his way is the only way.

Ethnocentrism is all about ego.

The very idea that my way of doing it is the only way is the egocentric part.

Are Spielberg's ethnic/cultural views the best?

Or only way? No. Simply put, he told a great story, now let those of us who don't watch R-Rated films enjoy it as well. I don't want him to sell out for the dollar, even if that was kinda one of my arguments (what I was really arguing is that Hollywood/Spielberg shouldn't marginalize cultures with different/higher standards).

I just don't want him to think that making a second version is selling out.

If I make a version of the Godfather for the masses, I still have the R-rated version. And yes, the issue is editing for content.

The integrity of the work is a facade that people have begun to worship.

We are talking about thousands of people working together to make a film that tells the brutal story of war.

That story can be told without losing integrity in numerous forms.

I AGREE with your post about how bad war is and how real the film is, but you can convey the same message without the hero coming home (Tom Hanks didn't come home in this film) with 20 minutes removed from the film and get the exact same message. I suppose if I were in the theater you would let me walk out and come back in if I wanted to miss a scene?

Directors cannot force people to stay in their seats can they?

Did the director suffer because I went to the bathroom and missed something?

No. As for the argument whether you or I should go rent, well the whole argument exists because we have higher standards for public television.

I have no problem with HBO showing the movie, but when NBC shows a film with that much violence and swearing I think people have a right to complain.

What about the children who decide what they want to watch, inattentive parents, they are supposedly protected from R-rated material because its on public TV.

I know thats not a strong argument, protect the children of inattentive parents never was a popular battle cry. And No!

I don't want a "safe" war movie, I want to be challenged and touched, but I think parts of SPR go too far. And as for your contention that editing hurts the movie itself, you are buying into the illusion that the movie is a creature, not a creation.

Its an inanimate object without feelings recorded on varying media.

You can show 5 minutes of it in a class or 2.1 hours and no one will know the difference.

The "movie" suffers?

Give me a break. If you re-read many of your arguments you might see that you are arguing how important the film is, not why its important to only have one version.

I do agree the film should have been made and it is important.

I want movies like this to reach as wide an audience as possible, including those from different cultures. Finally, I reject the idea that a creator of a work has complete ownership of all aspects of said work.

Currently the law is somewhat split.

If I buy a book of art I can legally cut the book up and even hang pictures in my house (First Sale Doctrine).

I can't add to a picture and resell it for fear that it might hurt the artist when someone confuses his/her work for mine and thinks less of that artist.

However, in this case there is very unlikely that people will watch the movie not knowing it was edited for TV just like all other TV movies are edited.

That big disclaimer at the beginning is a big hint for people to recognize that the F-words are gone.

Wouldn't watching Saving Private Ryan without violence or swearing be like trying to watch a Quintin Tarantino movie for the whole family?

The fact that it's horrible and brutal and generally not a fun experience for the people is sort of the point.

Hey, maybe to take the same director we could have Schindler's List where the Nazi's don't really do anything except fling occasional negative non-cuss words at the Jews.

Sorry but it just takes away from the experience for me at least by making it appear things weren't as bad as they're supposed to be in the story, I don't see how anyone so affected by cuss words would be able to watch any of either movies since they generally do not contain pleasant happy things.

Come to think of it wouldn't Passions of the [messianic figure of christianity] also be unwatchable? And what Sillis, you didn't see Troy?

:p Nooo, really, Hector and Paris just shared a straight manly brotherly love of the purely platonic nature...

/snicker Sort of like how Alexander the Great was 100% hetero, as I'm sure will be shown accurately in the upcoming movie about him. Edit: In light of more recent posts I feel I must say the common warcry that needs saying...

For the children!!

Koru said: Wouldn't watching Saving Private Ryan without violence or swearing be like trying to watch a Quintin Tarantino movie for the whole family?

The fact that it's horrible and brutal and generally not a fun experience for the people is sort of the point.

Hey, maybe to take the same director we could have Schindler's List where the Nazi's don't really do anything except fling occasional negative non-cuss words at the Jews.

Sorry but it just takes away from the experience for me at least by making it appear things weren't as bad as they're supposed to be in the story, I don't see how anyone so affected by cuss words would be able to watch any of either movies since they generally do not contain pleasant happy things.

I guess its a matter of degree.

Emotionally charged scenes, potent messages do not offend, but words used only to shock become meaningless and offensive at the same time. It doesn't make things appear not as bad.

The bad parts of Nazi Germany were the gas chambers, torture, totalitarian rule, and loss of freedom in the name of false progress, NOT the swear words that are simply offensive.

You can show the evil of war without seeing the actual bullet.

The edited version I was was skillfully done and probably did leave in more than many would want to see because violence is much harder to quantify on the offensive scale.

However, seeing body parts come off is also not required to forward the plot, simply seeing the guy walking around with no arms/missing leg is enough to convey that message.

I guess my imagination is powerful enough to make the connection and often even visualize the damage without imprinting the image on my mind.

Jagyd Edge said: Spielberg is ethnocentric because he believe his way is the only way.

Ethnocentrism is all about ego.

The very idea that my way of doing it is the only way is the egocentric part.

Are Spielberg's ethnic/cultural views the best?

Or only way? No. Simply put, he told a great story, now let those of us who don't watch R-Rated films enjoy it as well.

You didn't pay him to make "your" version of the movie.

He made a movie, YOU decided to watch it.

You already said earlier you found/saw an edited version.

But yet you act like one doesn't exist.

Plain and simple.

He controls the rights to the movie, it is his.

Do I have the right to tell you how to write your book or what music to listen to?

No. Do you have a right to tell him how to present his story?

Nope. Your ego says that Spielberg MUST make a movie to your liking/standards.

It doesn't work that way. I don't want him to sell out for the dollar, even if that was kinda one of my arguments (what I was really arguing is that Hollywood/Spielberg shouldn't marginalize cultures with different/higher standards).

I just don't want him to think that making a second version is selling out.

If I make a version of the Godfather for the masses, I still have the R-rated version.

You already shot this argument down as you said you found/saw an edited version.

Just because ABC chose not to show an edited version (by agreeing to the contract terms) doesn't mean the edited version doesn't exist. A PG version of the Godfather?

That's a 4.99 bargain bin crap fest. And yes, the issue is editing for content.

The integrity of the work is a facade that people have begun to worship.

We are talking about thousands of people working together to make a film that tells the brutal story of war.

That story can be told without losing integrity in numerous forms.

I AGREE with your post about how bad war is and how real the film is, but you can convey the same message without the hero coming home (Tom Hanks didn't come home in this film) with 20 minutes removed from the film and get the exact same message.

And I say no it can't.

SPR would not have the emotional value without the content in its unedited form.

This film was built upon realism, not imagination.

Remove that content, you alter the whole film. A facade?

Have you ever made/done anything you felt was important enough to share with others?

How would you like it if someone told you "I understand what you are trying to do, but I could have done it better.

I need a version for me.

Your vision means nothing." War and brutality go hand in hand.

I still feel you are trying to sweep the brutality under the rug.

We can't allow that to happen. I suppose if I were in the theater you would let me walk out and come back in if I wanted to miss a scene?

Directors cannot force people to stay in their seats can they?

Did the director suffer because I went to the bathroom and missed something?

No. Nope, but if you cut the movie to your liking EVERYONE else suffers.

Should I have to get up and leave during the scenes you do not like?

[s:79262deebd]Hell[/s:79262deebd] no.

Oops, vulgarity, let me go fix that... As for the argument whether you or I should go rent, well the whole argument exists because we have higher standards for public television.

I have no problem with HBO showing the movie, but when NBC shows a film with that much violence and swearing I think people have a right to complain.

What about the children who decide what they want to watch, inattentive parents, they are supposedly protected from R-rated material because its on public TV.

I know thats not a strong argument, protect the children of inattentive parents never was a popular battle cry.

Maybe they should have shown it after 10 PM, but that would have limited the number of people who could have seen it.

Which is one of your stated goals, to get as many people to see it as possible.

Same with HBO. 10 PM with a three hour movie on a weeknight is a instant death warrant anyway. It is a false premise.

If you care about what your children watch it is up to YOU, not anyone else to make sure they watch what you deem fit.

I do not want anyone telling me what I can watch or not, read or not, listen to or not.

I do not want them telling me what I can let my children watch, either. Inattentive parents is no reason or defense.

Do not penalize me or anyone else for someone else being a poor parent.

It is MY job as a parent to take care of that stuff, not yours or the government's. And No!

I don't want a "safe" war movie, I want to be challenged and touched, but I think parts of SPR go too far.

That is your opinion.

I do not agree with it.

You can show that you feel parts went too far by not watching it.

But do not force that upon me. And as for your contention that editing hurts the movie itself, you are buying into the illusion that the movie is a creature, not a creation.

Its an inanimate object without feelings recorded on varying media.

You can show 5 minutes of it in a class or 2.1 hours and no one will know the difference.

The "movie" suffers?

Give me a break. You are reading too much into what I said.

I do not contend a movie is a living, breathing creature.

However, it is a total experience and cutting out parts you do not agree with alters that experience.

What if the Mona Lisa was bald?

Would it be the same work of art?

Do you want to remove the genitalia from Michelangelo's David, because even though it represents something in the real world, it is icky? It is simple.

Make changes and you change the experience, almost always for the worse. If you re-read many of your arguments you might see that you are arguing how important the film is, not why its important to only have one version.

I do agree the film should have been made and it is important.

I want movies like this to reach as wide an audience as possible, including those from different cultures.

No, you can have as many versions as you wish.

Your contention was the original shouldn't have been shown because of material you found offensive. My contention is do not try to force your version on me because you found parts of the original to be offensive. Finally, I reject the idea that a creator of a work has complete ownership of all aspects of said work.

Currently the law is somewhat split.

If I buy a book of art I can legally cut the book up and even hang pictures in my house (First Sale Doctrine).

I can't add to a picture and resell it for fear that it might hurt the artist when someone confuses his/her work for mine and thinks less of that artist.

However, in this case there is very unlikely that people will watch the movie not knowing it was edited for TV just like all other TV movies are edited.

That big disclaimer at the beginning is a big hint for people to recognize that the F-words are gone.

But that is in your house, not a worldwide stage.

It is not even close to the matter of confusing people thinking his work is lessened.

When Spielberg decided to offer the rights for the movie, he had some stipulations.

The TV studios could have said no, but didn't.

If I rent you a house, I can say you can't change the color of the front room.

That is exactly what he did.

If you do not like my rules, you find another house in which to live. The bottom line is you want censorship for a movie you found offensive in spots.

All of the claims of wanting others to be able to see it doesn't hold water.

They can still see it just fine.

If they choose not to, well, that is their choice, same as yours.

The other cultures who censor these kinds of things need to remove their heads from the rectums. SPR ha socially redeeming value (which you admit).

Just because it makes you go Ewwww!

Is not reason enough to force your changes upon it.

Remove the gore/vulgarity, you lessen the movie and its impact.

It almost made you feel like you were a grunt on D-Day. Remove those parts and the movie is not even close to the same, it becomes just another war movie.

People think in war when you die by being shot, you just get hit by a bullet and fall over.

They dont realize that normally you dont die, that peices of you are just sitting on the ground while your buddy is either grabbing the weapon your dropping or trying to catch your guts as they fall out" This is the best phrasing of a Quote: from a former marine I know who was medically discharged.

It still bothers me thinking of this. Ragnerokk

**** you very much the FCC **** you very much for fining me Five thousand bucks a **** So I'm really out of luck That's more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me So **** you very much the FCC for proving that free speech just isn't free Clear Channel's a dear channel So Howard Stern must go Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbaugh So **** you all so very much So **** you very much, Dear Mr.

Bush For heroically sitting on your tush For Halliburton, Enron, all the companies who fail Let's send them a clear signal and stick Martha straight in jail She's an uppity rich bitch and at least she isn't male So **** you all so very much So **** you dickhead Mr.

Cheney too **** you and **** everything you do Your pacemaker must be a fake You haven't got a heart As far as I'm concerned you're just a pasty-faced old fart And as for Condoleeza she's an intellectual tart So **** you all so very much So **** you very much, the EPA For giving all Alaska's oil away It really is a bummer When I can't fill my hummer The ozone's a nogozone now that Arnold's here to say: "The nuclear winter games are going to take place in LA" So **** you all so very much So what the planet fails Let's save the great white males And **** you all so very much Eric Idle is

Jagyd Edge said: Spielberg is ethnocentric because he believe his way is the only way.

Ethnocentrism is all about ego.

The very idea that my way of doing it is the only way is the egocentric part.

Are Spielberg's ethnic/cultural views the best?

Or only way? No. Simply put, he told a great story, now let those of us who don't watch R-Rated films enjoy it as well.

Let me get this out of the way first, what rating is your world?

I am sorry but daily I hear the Fword, I daily hear cussing, I see nudity in the real world.

It's there so please explain to me how your world is rated PG? Jagyd Edge said: I don't want him to sell out for the dollar, even if that was kinda one of my arguments (what I was really arguing is that Hollywood/Spielberg shouldn't marginalize cultures with different/higher standards).

I just don't want him to think that making a second version is selling out.

If I make a version of the Godfather for the masses, I still have the R-rated version.

It is selling out.

I am sorry but if you have a war movie people are going to die, people are going to cuss it is the real world. Jagyd Edge said: And yes, the issue is editing for content.

The integrity of the work is a facade that people have begun to worship.

We are talking about thousands of people working together to make a film that tells the brutal story of war.

That story can be told without losing integrity in numerous forms.

I AGREE with your post about how bad war is and how real the film is, but you can convey the same message without the hero coming home (Tom Hanks didn't come home in this film) with 20 minutes removed from the film and get the exact same message.

No it isn't the same message.

It is not a true look a what a war really is.

War is brutal. I remember playing war as a kid.

I had no ideas what it was like.

I shot my friend they fell over dead and thirty seconds later they were shooting at me again. Spielberg set out to make a realistic war movie.

He did it, it got a ton of reviews and stories from vets conveying that fact.

I am sorry you don't like what war really is like.

As it has already been pointed out pick a different movie to watch.

I don't want SPR to change in any way shape or form. My son is 7 and I am just about ready to sit down with him and watch it.

He is now at an age where he is curious about war.

Now when I say sit down and watch it that is not just plopping him down in front of the TV and saying here watch this.

We sit down and I tell him he is going to see something that happened in real life.

We go over the fact that this is what war is like.

We talk about it and we watch the movie together.

We discuss stuff as it happens and we talk about he movie after it is over. Jagyd Edge said: I suppose if I were in the theater you would let me walk out and come back in if I wanted to miss a scene?

Directors cannot force people to stay in their seats can they?

Did the director suffer because I went to the bathroom and missed something?

No. It is your money.

It is your life. You decide what you want to watch.

Apparently a lot of people disagree with you according to IMDB which places it at #47 all time us sales! If enough people don't like it and don't support it, directors wont make it! Jagyd Edge said: As for the argument whether you or I should go rent, well the whole argument exists because we have higher standards for public television.

I have no problem with HBO showing the movie, but when NBC shows a film with that much violence and swearing I think people have a right to complain.

What about the children who decide what they want to watch, inattentive parents, they are supposedly protected from R-rated material because its on public TV.

I know thats not a strong argument, protect the children of inattentive parents never was a popular battle cry.

I seriously disagree with this statement.

We are a free country yet our tv is regulated like a third world country.

I hate it and I posted a previous post already in here! Jagyd Edge said: And No!

I don't want a "safe" war movie, I want to be challenged and touched, but I think parts of SPR go too far.

You obviously do.

SPR isn't that movie! Jagyd Edge said: And as for your contention that editing hurts the movie itself, you are buying into the illusion that the movie is a creature, not a creation.

Its an inanimate object without feelings recorded on varying media.

You can show 5 minutes of it in a class or 2.1 hours and no one will know the difference.

The "movie" suffers?

Give me a break. It does make a difference.

SPR is about war, Spielberg wanted to show what war was really like and not the kiddy version that we all fantasize about when we are young.

Changing his vision changes the movie.

It is a "lifelike" vision into war. Jagyd Edge said: If you re-read many of your arguments you might see that you are arguing how important the film is, not why its important to only have one version.

I do agree the film should have been made and it is important.

I want movies like this to reach as wide an audience as possible, including those from different cultures.

There are other movies out that, SPR was Spielberg's vision.

He obviously does not want it changed in anyway shape or form.

I respect that. If you want another "kiddy" vision of war, there are a ton of them out there! Jagyd Edge said: Finally, I reject the idea that a creator of a work has complete ownership of all aspects of said work.

Currently the law is somewhat split.

If I buy a book of art I can legally cut the book up and even hang pictures in my house (First Sale Doctrine).

I can't add to a picture and resell it for fear that it might hurt the artist when someone confuses his/her work for mine and thinks less of that artist.

However, in this case there is very unlikely that people will watch the movie not knowing it was edited for TV just like all other TV movies are edited.

That big disclaimer at the beginning is a big hint for people to recognize that the F-words are gone.

Spielberg doesn't want it edited.

No if and or buts.

It is his movie. I hear that you reject the idea that a creator completely owns his work but that is not how it really is.

Sure you can buy the movie and import it into movie maker and edit out all the cus words or all the violence that you want to because you paid for the movie.

But you CANNOT sell that version no matter how much you want to. I applaud your desire to live in a PG world but SPR is not a PG movie, period!

Biggwin said: Let me get this out of the way first, what rating is your world?

I am sorry but daily I hear the Fword, I daily hear cussing, I see nudity in the real world.

It's there so please explain to me how your world is rated PG?

Just because you live in an R-rated world doesn't mean the rest of it is.

I'm not saying I never hear anyone cuss, but I rarely hear the F-word.

It clearly depends on the cultural upbringing of the people you are around.

As for nudity, where are you working?

I don't see any nudity, unless you're talking about in private with your spouse. Biggwin said: It is selling out.

I am sorry but if you have a war movie people are going to die, people are going to cuss it is the real world.

Did I say I don't want to see anyone die?

I expect to see numerous people die in a war movie, but for public television I think they should edit the most gruesome shots.

Don't try and characterize my critique as seeking a milk-toast movie.

There are lines drawn for public television, no F-words is one clear example.

You aren't supposed to hear that word on television at all.

Maybe you think everyone should use that word and the sooner it becomes common place the better.

I happen to know that the more often children hear curse words the more likely they are to use them.

Its a fact jack. Biggwin said: No it isn't the same message.

It is not a true look a what a war really is.

War is brutal. I remember playing war as a kid.

I had no ideas what it was like.

I shot my friend they fell over dead and thirty seconds later they were shooting at me again. Spielberg set out to make a realistic war movie.

He did it, it got a ton of reviews and stories from vets conveying that fact.

I am sorry you don't like what war really is like.

As it has already been pointed out pick a different movie to watch.

I don't want SPR to change in any way shape or form.

Oh, are you saying you like war as it really is?

Thank you for opening my eyes and telling me people die in war and that means they don't get back up like children playing a game.

Please don't talk down to me, the point you are trying to make was made much better in the above paragraph stating what Spielberg set out to do.

Again this isn't about what you or I want, its about public standards and who will set them and if we will keep them. You sound like a responsible person, sitting down with your children so they learn the horror of war.

But I bet he is more likely to use the F-word when he is with his friends after seeing a movie that makes those men look tough. Biggwin said: Apparently a lot of people disagree with you according to IMDB which places it at #47 all time us sales! If enough people don't like it and don't support it, directors wont make it!

I never said people don't like it, I said it would have done better if there were a PG-13 version distributed as well.

Again I think you miss the gist of my argument.

I don't want you to miss out on any violence or cursing that you desire to take into your mind, I just want the option to enjoy the same movies without that content.

Like the video games where you can set the blood content.

We both still enjoy the game and see the same story, but I see less blood and hear less cursing.

Why are you opposed to that, and if you're not they why change the standards for public television for this or any movie? biggwin said: It does make a difference.

SPR is about war, Spielberg wanted to show what war was really like and not the kiddy version that we all fantasize about when we are young.

Changing his vision changes the movie.

It is a "lifelike" vision into war.

I don't think seeing numerous corpses on the beach or hundreds die make a movie the "kiddy" version because I didn't see the bullet tear through a persons flesh.

Psychologists differ on what effect realistic violence has on people, but I err on the safe side and avoid realistic violence in movies.

And your attempt to attack my argument by calling it a request for "kiddy" versions of war is weak. Biggwin said: Spielberg doesn't want it edited.

No if and or buts.

It is his movie. I hear that you reject the idea that a creator completely owns his work but that is not how it really is.

Sure you can buy the movie and import it into movie maker and edit out all the cus words or all the violence that you want to because you paid for the movie.

But you CANNOT sell that version no matter how much you want to.

Actually that is in contention right now in the legal and legislative community.

With the recent outcry against the vulgarity and nudity on TV because of the Superbowl (ok not so recent) and the support of President Bush because of "values" it appears that editing for content may be an exception to copyright laws, which I heartily applaud.

I have thoroughly enjoyed watching films like "Matrix" "Patriot" "Saving Private Ryan" and numerous others I would not have watched without edited versions existing.

I appreciate the entrepeneureship of those who provide popular movies with inappropriate content removed and I don't even feel bad for the producer who thinks the F-word is required to get his message across. And SPR was one of the best PG movies I ever saw.

The version I watched was only about 20 minutes shorter than the version you saw but carried the same emotionally charged message.

I cried and felt a much greater appreciation for those men who paid the greatest price for my freedom and the freedom of strangers.

I really do appreciate Speilberg and don't actually want his feelings hurt, but this work is too important to restrict it to a culture that largely rejects the silent majority.

I'm sure Spielberg appreciates you telling him what to do with his work. The bottom line is simple: he is the ultimate creator of the work.

Spielberg is an artist in full control of his canvas.

If he felt the full effect he was striving for could be reached without the evil "F-word" or without the visceral violence, he would have made it that way.

That's not "ethnocentrism" (of which the correct definition can be found here ), that's knowing how to control his chosen art form. Spielberg has made many films that are edited for air every day on television.

He knows this, and he allows this, because he knows that not only are there people like you, but there are also randomly stringent guidelines (that are growing ever more constricting) that govern the most mass of our mass media.

He allows those edits because he feels that the gist of the film can still be conveyed even with those cuts. However, he will not allow editing of Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List .

For the very simple reason that I stated above.

They are his most intensely personal films, and they were made for a very specific reason: to show the viewer, uncompromisingly, what the Holocaust and World War II were like, respectively.

Editing the brutality of those scenes is compromising the integrity of those films, because that is part of their purpose.

As a matter of fact, Saving Private Ryan not even that brilliant of a film, aside from the intensely powerful initial twenty minutes (what else is to be expected with a script from The Patriot scribe?).

Spielberg's strength and vision, however, make it a film that's necessary not to watch, but to experience , just as Schindler's List before it.

The most powerful anti-war message comes simply from seeing war itself.

Jagyd Edge said: I never said people don't like it, I said it would have done better if there were a PG-13 version distributed as well.

Again I think you miss the gist of my argument.

I don't want you to miss out on any violence or cursing that you desire to take into your mind, I just want the option to enjoy the same movies without that content.

Like the video games where you can set the blood content.

We both still enjoy the game and see the same story, but I see less blood and hear less cursing.

Why are you opposed to that, and if you're not they why change the standards for public television for this or any movie?

No movie maker in the real world releases two versions.

It is monetary suicide.

Creating competition with your own product is not a good idea. I am not going to re-hash all of this, but here you go Jagyd: http://www.cleanfilms.com/viewdvd.phtml?SAV01 I still do not think it will solve your problem with them showing SPR on TV, as it seems your problem is they showed the non "family friendly" (what a load IMO, not aimed at you, just my opinion of "family friendly") version instead of the one you thought they should. You already mentioned you have seen an edited version, it does exist, and here is further proof.

Yes, it is not by Spielberg, but it is available. Enjoy. *edit* Oh yeah, please do not give me "But it costs more!".

You want a car with the options beyond the standard, you have to pay for it.

Moneytary suicide?

You own both films, how is that suicide?

If one film would have grossed 150 million and instead both films gross $200 Million then you have a $50 million dollar increase. With some films you would have an even bigger increase.

This isn't true of all films of course, but potential blockbuster films could experience a dramatic boost, especially in the red states where PG films do even better. Ethnocentrism: "The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups." Spielberg's belief that his ethnic and cultural values are more important and that other need to experience his culture without consideration of the subjective groups culture is ethnocentric.

The idea that those who believe in avoiding curse words are less valuable as people or as a culture is ethnocentric.

His actions denying access to his own important works because he does not value the religious, cultural, or ethnic values of these other groups is ethnocentric. I also don't think any movie can depict an uncompromising view of war unless it is real life.

And I have to disagree with you on one last point.

Saving Private Ryan is a brilliant film, as was The Patriot and Schindler's List .

All excellent films that draw from reality and depict challenges faced by real people in the worst of times.

The closest we can come to understanding what these people went through is to see films like these.

We can only get a glimpse into the type of challenges faced by these people, unless you develope a time machine.

Jagyd Edge said: Ethnocentrism: "The tendency to evaluate other groups according to the values and standards of one's own ethnic group, especially with the conviction that one's own ethnic group is superior to the other groups." Spielberg's belief that his ethnic and cultural values are more important and that other need to experience his culture without consideration of the subjective groups culture is ethnocentric.

Incorrect. example woudl be: The USA is ethnocentric in it's belief that most, if not all, nations should embrace democracy. That would be a proper use of the word.

Re-read the definition - it says group, not an individual.

Good try though.

Jagyd Edge said: Moneytary suicide?

You own both films, how is that suicide?

If one film would have grossed 150 million and instead both films gross $200 Million then you have a $50 million dollar increase. With some films you would have an even bigger increase.

This isn't true of all films of course, but potential blockbuster films could experience a dramatic boost, especially in the red states where PG films do even better. It doesn't work that way.

Some scenes would have to be reshot, and the post production costs would increase.

Advertising costs increase.

Distribution costs increase.

Also, a lot of theaters would not want to tie up even more screens to have multiple copies.

You can't even come close to guaranteeing any increase in the money. In fact, when there are no guarantees (which is always the case with a movie, short of something along the lines of the prequels for Star wars, even if you don't like them you knew they would do well), you could lose that much more money if the movie tanks. If you were a movie exec, how would you like to "lose" 150 million instead of 100 million?

Most I doubt are willing to risk that much more capital on a move that is not a sure money maker for them to begin with. The real bottom line is, there is not much upside to thinking about making multiple versions of a film for screen release, and way too much potential downside. And I still say a rated PG version of Saving Private Ryan would suck beyond belief.

Soo sorry, I meant Spielberg and the Hollywood subculture, not just Speilberg (I mistakenly deleted a sentence when editing).

Everyone is ethnocentric to a degree. Also I disagree with your example.

Democracy is empirically better than tyranny or totalitarian government. Silis, of course some scenes would need to be reshot, as if those scenes aren't already being shot several times, just do a take or two with one different word (or a few different words for some moveis).

I seriously doubt the cost would approach 5% because you're not paying for any CGI changes or extra actors, just a little more film. I will admit it would only work for some films.

Blockbuster that already command 7-8 screens like Matrix would do better if half the screens were PG-13.

Course you'd have to guage the area the film is shown and do a little market research, a film in Oklahoma would be better on more PG screens while cynical New York might have 1 PG screen and 7 R screens.

(I actually think New York is less cynical than before, but it still fits the stereotype). Even a film like Shrek would have done another $100 million ala Lion King with a G rated version.

I know many parents who wouldn't take their young ones to it because of the language ( Shrek is a better movie than Lion King and would have made more money if the audience included younger kids, many of whom had to wait for DVD). The potential for loss would also be lower because you'd open the film to a wider audience with a minimal amount of money at risk.

The costs going to actors, CGI, advertising would be almost unaffected.

At the end of a trailer it would say available in R or PG-13 flavors/varieties. There is no way it would cost an extra $50 million to do a couple edits and take a couple extra shoots.

Both of these activities are on the less expensive side. Bottom line, slightly increase cost of production, double potential audience.

Jagyd Edge said: There is no way it would cost an extra $50 million to do a couple edits and take a couple extra shoots.

Both of these activities are on the less expensive side. Bottom line, slightly increase cost of production, double potential audience.

Do you happen to work for the movie industry?

Have any numbers to back up your claims?

Things are ungodly expensive because they know it is a cash cow. Reshooting a scene with just one word is not that simple.

You have to shoot it voer and over until you get a good shot with the new dialogue.

Yes, the actors still get the same rough amount, but the crews, extras, rental for the location, logisitcs costs all add up and quite quickly. Neither one of us should make claims we can't back up.

I do however think you are grossly underestimating the cost of the changes you would want.

Shrek making 100 million more?

Doubtful. The Lion King by all rights for the time should have been rated PG, but because it was Disney, it got the G rating.

But did anyone get offended?

A few maybe, but they are what I so emphatically love to call the lunatic fringe (tm). Maximum profit dictates one version of the movie.

It is the way it is.

Until you can make some changes and actually guarantee it would work out with different versions, it won't change. I just do not see you arguement I guess.

/agree to disagree.

Discussion Title: Saving Private Ryan
Title Keywords: Saving  Private  Ryan  Safehouse  Forums 



Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet