So let me understand this BlockBuster, showing full frontal nudity of a woman and the use swear words are not ethical enough to show your customers because it’s “bad material”, however it IS ok to show the action of taking and shooting up drugs? Where the fuck are your prioritys? You fuckers are a fucking joke. Why the fuck is it ok to show the “horrible” and “bad” idea of making and taking drugs, but the beautiful thing of nudity - Uh huh, NO! NO! NO! Mr. OfAgeCitizen, you can’t handle that!
Oh yeah, the movie in question was - Spun. Obviously some kind of spinoff of Requiem For A Dream, but I enjoyed the movie. I would’ve enjoyed it better if it had my much required nudity and swear words.
BTW, this movie wasn’t labeled as being censored or anything. Buch of crap.
So let me get this straight… they aren’t showing nudity but they ARE showing drug usage? Let me know and I’ll call them to complain. I think drug usage is a LOT worse than nudity and I’m personally getting REALLY sick of the crap they call entertainment now days. The main reason I don’t waste my money on movies any more is because of the seeming approval of drug use in almost every movie made any more. It’s disgusting. What ever happened to Cinematic art?
That’s what I’m saying. If they wanted to censor this movie because of content, they should’ve just not rented out the movie. Because it’s pretty bad if you don’t like this kind of content. I’m talking full on snorting speed, injecting AND the making of the drug in a hotel with a little lab setup - IN FULL VIEW OF THE CAMERAS! But in the sex scenes, the womans private parts were blurred out! WTF? The usage of ‘fuck’ was also bleeped out! This is why I question there prioritys. Ok, foul language and nudity in their eyes is bad, but drug usage is good? I’m not really complaining about the content or anything, I mean I did like the movie, it’s just come on, your sending mixed signals to your customers when you’re trying to say that this isn’t acceptable and this is, you know?
You mean like *The Man With the Golden Arm*? I don’t know what films you’ve been seeing lately, but I haven’t seen any with drug use even mentioned (unless you’re including alcohol, caffiene and nicotine) in the past year. Methinks a movie about a bunch of potheads getting stoned and ODing on brownies is a better choice for a film’s subject matter, than one that degrades women, is filled with senseless violence, or is simply used to milk a few bucks out of an old TV show.
Let’s see if I understand, ParentalAdvisory. Was the nude scene blurred as in “pixillated”?
I wasn’t aware BustBlocker was doing that sort of thing. I have heard of stores that bill themselves as cleaning up nudity, etc. They market themselves to people who want such scenes bowdlerized.
Could it be that the particular BustBlocker franchise store had an overall policy of doing that?
I’m not sure if this peticular BB has this policy, this is the first rental I’ve had that has been censored. I wasn’t really pixillated, it was more like “blurred out” like the bad guys in COPS, but with a complete rectangle of blurryness in the offending areas. I know these disney type stores like to bolster themselves as “clean”, but this is unacceptable. They’re censoring one extreme that is offending to some, but not the other extreme that I think is offending to more people than nudity and swear words. It’s just hypocritical. (Not another mention of my nickname!)
Was the movie actually glorifying the drug use? I haven’t seen it, but I’ve read a little about it, and I saw Requiem, which, I would have to say was decidely anti-drug in the same vein as Trainspotting. They were both fantastic movies, though.
I guess they had to clean Spun up to get the ‘R’ rating. The threatrical version is unrated, according to IMDB. Stupid MPAA bastards. It’s fine to show peoples’ arms getting shot off in Saving Private Ryan, but a few bad words and some boobs are apparently going to turn us all into foul-mouthed perverts. :rolleyes:
Blockbuster didn’t do anything to the movie. Columbia Tristar Home Video released both R-rated and unrated versions of this film on DVD, and Blockbuster has a policy of not carrying unrated films. What changes were necessary to obtain an R rating were between the studio and the MPAA.
The R-rated version is not marked as censored, but the unrated version displays “Uncensored Director’s Cut” prominently on the cover. Again, this is a studio decision, as Artisan made the opposite choice for Requiem for a Dream.
The movie studios hate Blockbuster, by the way, so it’s not for BB’s benefit that the censored versions exist. They exist because of Wal-Mart.
So, ParentalAdvisory did you complain to BB and get your money back or a free rental? Did you write a letter to BB corporate? I just ask, 'cause ranting here is nice and all but is less likely to make a difference, in an aggregate potential sort of way, you know.
“Remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don’t say any naughty words! That’s what this war is all about!”—Sheila Broflovski
If you are in the US, consider yourself lucky. In the UK we don’t get the option of an “approved” or “unapproved” version. Everything has to have a BBFC certificate so if they object to it, you can’t release the original version of the movie at all. Both the number, and type, of movies that get censored over here is mind boggling. Buying a martial arts movie in the UK is a pointless exercise as many martial arts moves are a no-no (head claps, nunchukas and so forth). The newer James Bond movies get censored. Natural Born Killers was too violent when it came out, but now it isn’t.
And don’t even get me started on how ratings work for film vs TV vs customs (for importing stuff). It is entirely feasible in the UK for the following to occur;
2 movies gets made and the BBFC refuse to grant certificates
The movies are released on DVD/Video and one of them is granted a certificate because the rules are different for cinema vs video/DVD
Both movies are shown on broadcast television because this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the BBFC
I buy both movies from Amazon in the US and customs sieze one of them but let the other one through.
I fly to the US and buy the movie that was seized. I get to Heathrow, customs check my baggage but that particular branch of customs don’t have a problem with the movie so I can keep it.
That’s called “government beaurocracy,”, sirtonyh, and we’re not immune to it over here. I’m just glad The Gummint hasn’t gotten into the movie censoring business here. (Yet.) The MPAA’s formulae are inconsistent, secretive, constantly changing, subjective and nonsensical, but at least they don’t carry the force of law.
Blockbuster also carries the edited version of Bad Lieutenant. I try not to rent anything edgy from BB for fear of censorship.
And even worse, I bought a VHS movie from BB and found to my dismay that there were half a dozen commercials at the beginning of it. Commercials?! I bought the damn tape!
Ok, some of you brought up a point that it may not be BB that’s doing all this BS, and that maybe, the studios releasing the videos are doing this. So they’ve got a censored version and an unedited one. For a movie of this caliber and content, is having a censored one in which just swear words and nudity are swiped out justified as being censored? I mean for the most part, doing the drugs in this movie are illegal, nudity and swearing generally are not (in public I suppose it is). So why would the drug part of the movie be ok, but and little bumpin’ uglys isn’t? The issue I have here is not the actual content of the movie, I’m fine with that. My problem is with the people who decide what should be censored and what shouldn’t.