I always thought it was called Jay Sherman’s Razor, after that guy who said “Occam” all the time.
Actually, what I meant in my poorly worded question was: Is there a name for this principle that’s similar to Ockham’s Razor, but is more specific to the “follow the money” concept?
Yeah, and Hitler never killed any Jews … personally.
Hmmmm….perhaps Blockbuster doesn’t do it anymore, but I have in my video collection several older horror films (Halloween comes to mind) that specifically have “Blockbuster Presents” at the top of the box, written in the 80’s BB logo with the yellow and blue lines behind the lettering. All of the films with this tag on the top of the box are cut down to what you would be able to show on say a local ABC affiliate.
Nah, this is bullpucky.
Blockbuster has a policy of what types of movies they rent. While I may not agree with where they set the line, it’s certainly their right for all sorts of business reasons to do so. They’re a big player so most studios want their movies to go into the Blockbuster stores.
But they studios have other avenues to rent movies, and they can and do take advantage of those. It’s the studios that make the choice to play Blockbuster’s game; they could (and do) just as easily choose not to play. It’s silly to blame Blockbuster for creating a market that the studios wish to take advantage of.
Disclaimer: The company I work for does business with Blockbuster.
Nonsense. In an orderly world, consumers create the market. The consumer simply wants to see Pulp Fiction – they don’t walk under the blue and yellow sign thinking “Ah! Here’s where I can get slightly less Tarantino for the same price that I’d pay down the block. Finally!” Most customers just take it and watch it and have no clue that they’re not watching the film as it was intended. Blockbuster is artificially manipulating the market.
The distributors’ reaction to the policy is totally ineluctable. Sure, their complicity is a bummer, but the way things are set up, it’s exactly what’s going to happen. Shareholders don’t give a rat’s ass about artistic principles, or making sure that the consumer gets a genuine product; they’re looking at the bottom line. If a little inexpensive bowdlerizing is going to get your titles into more than 10,000 stores that would otherwise not carry them, then the razor’s going to come out. That’s simple.
If it weren’t for Blockbuster and Wal*Mart taking it upon themselves to take such a censorial position, there would be no consumer demand for watered-down movies. (Or at least not enough to get the watered-down versions made and placed on the shelves next to the original versions.) The wingnuts at FOTF and the AFA who pressured BB to set this policy could get their movie-watching needs met by specialty places for prudes like fecking Cleanflicks – except that their intent is to protect everybody else in the world from strong language and steamy love scenes, whether they want protecting or not.
They can suck up to the Maude Flanders’ people without hurting their bottom line, so they do.
Personally, I’d be totally fine with the whole thing, so long as there was a law saying that films that have been edited this way have to be prominently labeled as such – both on the package and at the beginning of the film. (Same approach used for cropped/pan&scan versions.)
As long as it’s clear to the consumer that what they’re getting isn’t the full-strength product, no problem. That way the market works the way it’s supposed to. Those titles wouldn’t get rented as frequently, as many (most?) people would choose to rent them somewhere else if they knew what was up. If it’s cool with them, then no problem.
The current situation is dishonest and a raw deal for both consumers and filmmakers.
While it doesn’t say it on the package the beginning of most movies that have been watered down (or liquored up in the case of the new Unrated Director’s Cut craze) has a similar warning.
Usually it’s along the lines “The content of this motion picture has been altered from the original teatrical edition.”
Unless things have changed since I left, it does say it on the package. They are labeled, inside and out. The rental box (the one with Blockbuster’s name on it) says “RATED”, the cover box and the beginning of the tape say “Edited for content”.
There are countless websites (wrongly) screaming that Blockbuster edits movies. This is not some sneak attack done under the radar. People know, and they don’t care! Or, like the people in this thread, they do care, and they go somewhere else! Hell, while I *worked *at Blockbuster, I had a card at a Mom and Pop so I could rent Unrated films we didn’t carry. Blockbuster has every right to carry whatever they want to carry.
I also noticed this at Borders. I has purchased a video of a live concert performance, nothign on the tape noted it as being edited ot rated for a particular audience, however every bit of profanity (and there wasn’t much) had the annoying old school bleeeep over the top of it.
I know the standard issue didn’t have this editing as I had seen clips at a friend’s place.
I have no issues with selling multiple versions of a video but at least make it obvious if it’s the censored version or not.
There have been a couple of comments about Cinemax ratings and such and I want to give a tiny heads-up/mini-hijack on the current State of Things Cable:
“Pink Flamingos” (justly rated X) has been shown uncut on Starz lately. It also was shown on IFC (along with other Waters’ oldies) but I don’t know if it was cut.
“Crash” (the creepy 1996 Cronenberg one) was shown on HBO-Zone recently in all its NC-17 glory.
I don’t have Cinemax so I don’t know what’s going on there, and there are also no doubt other examples of X/NC-17 movies on standard pay movie channels now.
But “cable version” is losing its meaning.
I rented Y Tu Mama Tambien from Blockbuster and didn’t see what the hoopla about the sex scenes really was about. Then a friend lent me his own copy of the movie and I was like…OH. Significantly more explicit than in BB’s version. I don’t remember the front of his copy saying anything like Director’s Cut or “Unedited/uncensored”
So yes, I believe they do edit stuff out for what they keep in the store.
There’s a huge stink about this in Hollywood. I don’t believe they edit them themselves, but I do believe they get films that have been edited by a third party. However, I believe as others have said, that they have to be clearly marked.
Do you get watered down movies from BB on line? If so, I’ve been unable to tell from labeling that they are. But I don’t even know if I’m missing anything. If this is the practice, I won’t be renting from them any more. But then who can I go to? Is Netlflix into editing?
I just checked IMDb- Y Tu Mama Tambien was rated NC-17. Blockbuster does not carry NC-17 rated movies, and there is an R-rated cut available. Presumably the one you rented at Blockbuster was the R-rated version.
I rent stuff from Blockbuster fairly frequently, and their copy of Pulp Fiction wasn’t censored. I haven’t seen any NC-17 movies there but plenty of unrated ones, especially the newer movies that advertise they are more explicit than the theater versions.
Yes - Cui bono?. Originally a Roman law term.
Pardon me. Pulp Fiction was originally rated NC-17 – I see that the MPAA lowered its rating. If they hadn’t, you’d have seen an edited version at Blockbuster.
So long as there are clear notices on the packages and beginnings of all films that are edited for content, I can’t fault Blockbuster at all. If the consumer is clear on what they’re paying for, everything’s groovy.
(I still won’t go back there, though. I don’t like their philosophy and the environment is hard to endure. When I was going there, I could never stand it without foam earplugs – and there’s nothing you can do about the visual assault, except keep your face close to the titles. Bleargh.)
I justed watched Private Lessons, newly released on DVD this week, and two shots of Sylvia Kristal’s coochie were covered up by a very big, very obtrusive grey BLOB. The Showtime version (which luckily I still have on DVD-R) was uncensored.
However we can’t blame Blockbuster for this one, because I rented the DVD from Netflix!
Those “unrated” versions are probably no worse than the originals, just longer. Or they might push the film from a PG-13 to an R. Someone said earlier that BB would view unrated movies that they wanted to carry and predict what ratings they would get if they’d been submitted to the MPAA.
If people really cared about this, they’d make a stink and either Blockbuster would change their policy or competitors would spring up that showed movies uncut. The latter is happening on a small scale, the former doesn’t seem to be all that common. If BB rented X-rating movies at their suburban stores, you’d probably see some protests, and that would cost them business.
There is a simple and rewarding answer to all this Blockbuster shit. Dont rent from the fuckers, as has been suggested. I buy stuff from half.com and ebay.com for about the price of a Blockbuster rental, and I buy the unrated version or the director’s cut. I rent my flicks from a local place that carries anime and unrated stuff. I drive about ten miles out of my way to do it. But it’s so good to say, “Fuck you, Blockbuster.” Because when they censor, that’s what they say to me.
Not always an option. Another one of Blockbusters wonderful marketing ideas is having studios sign exclusive rental rights with Blockbusters. Let’s say Blockbuster controls 60% of the rental market and you’re a studio. Do you agree to Blockbuster’s terms and go with 60% of the market or do you decline and go with 40% of the market? And of course, once Blockbuster gets you to sign that contract, they become 100% of the market for that film, so every contract they get makes their position stronger for negotiating the next one.
I expect somebody will respond to this by explaining this is capitalism and the free market at work. Which shows that some people think capitalism means “if a big company is doing it and making a profit, it must be capitalism”.