Bye-Bye CleanFlicks

[MsFish]

Tsk tsk tsk, Spriggan.. Hollywood isn't all about money. It's also about creating a forced market that doesn't normaly exist and exposing people to the artistic tastes of the directors and writers. Hollywood doesn't listen to the mainstream public. As a general rule, R rated movies never do as well as pg-13, but Hollywood pumps them out like they are the only thing keeping them in business.

Strictly speaking, there is no forced market for movies.  No one has to go to these movies at gunpoint.  If no one went to see R rated movies, Hollywood wouldn't be able to afford to make them.  Fact is, people go see these movies of their own free will.  They vote with their dollars, so to speak.  R-rated movies may not do as well as PG-13, but they do well enough for the studios to stay in business.  It bothers me when people suggest that the American public is being victimized by Hollywood.  If you don't like the content of movies, don't go see them.  If you don't go see them, they can't possibly do you any harm.

[Parker]

Equating "cleaning" with "censorship" across the board seems to ignore a great deal of things, not least of which is the meaning and purpose of censorship

I don't really see a difference, except insofar as "cleaning" is voluntary censorship.  Some countries have had book burnings to "clean" their canon of impure works.  Actually, I think it might be more upfront and honest for people to try to ban certain movies or destroy them than to try to "clean" them up according to their own agendas.  I certainly don't agree with either approach.  I've had some patrons at the library suggest we start rating books and limiting access to "bad" ones.  Others have gone so far as to censor (or "clean") the books on their own, as Stacer's already pointed out.  Maybe I'm missing something big here--you referred to "a great deal of things" I'm ignoring.  Care to expand on that?

[FirstMateJack]

Strictly speaking, there is no forced market for movies.  No one has to go to these movies at gunpoint.  If no one went to see R rated movies, Hollywood wouldn't be able to afford to make them.  Fact is, people go see these movies of their own free will.  They vote with their dollars, so to speak.  R-rated movies may not do as well as PG-13, but they do well enough for the studios to stay in business.  It bothers me when people suggest that the American public is being victimized by Hollywood.  If you don't like the content of movies, don't go see them.  If you don't go see them, they can't possibly do you any harm.

I stand by what I say when I say that Hollywood creates a market. The things that would have shocked society 50 years ago on the silver screen are now a part of t.v.'s nature; In fact the things that would have shocked us 10 years ago are a part of the nature of t.v.

This isn't because society as a whole suddenly changed and decided it was time to accept more violence, swearing and nudity in our media, it's because the media will start trying something, and in the middle of the outrage will do it to the point that it deadens society to it. And that is where the harm comes in, even if you don't go to see it. I can't agree that every man is a rock or an island in society that remains unaffected by their environment.

If it really was all about the dollar then when R's didn't do as well, they would not make them, since it is better financially to get $14 million than $13 million, any corporation would agree, no matter how you look at it. Unless you were more interested in things that are not financial.

Even George said about Episode I, II and III. He made the movies he wanted to make and told the stories as he wanted them told, what the public wanted didn't matter.

I would feel the same way if I was making a movie or a game or writing a book and I don't think many of us here would disagree. It is my story, I will tell it how I want to tell it and if I make a lot of money in the process, great.

I just wish that Hollywood would stop pumping out the crap, and society didn't get addicted as soon as it saw it.

[Entsuropi]

What? Dude, violence nudity and foul language have always been part of the human experience. Trying to pretend they don't happen and blaming hollywood for 'deadening society to them' is just inane. Those things are facts of life and people want to see them on the screen because they are facts of life.

And while U (see below) rated movies might make more money, you might want to consider the idea of 'markets'. The market for U is vastly different from the market for 18 rated films. I watch perhaps 2 U rated films a year, out of dozens. If hollywood made no films that weren't rated U, that doesn't mean i'd watch more films rated U - it means i'd watch less hollywood films overall. You may not like that content, but you've hardly got any reasonable claim to demand that nobody else watch it either.



Here in the UK, a U rating means anyone can watch it. The ratings go U, Ua (suitable for kids and adults, but you rarely see it afaik), 12, 12a (kids under 12 can go see it in cinemas, if their parents are with them), 15, 18.

[Parker]

People have been claiming that society's going to hell for a long time.  Heck--go back to the eighteenth century and earlier, and there were people talking about how bad novels are for people.  How they degrade humanity and life, and how any serious person would avoid them.  The envelope's been pushed for a loooong time.  Hollywood and directors are just carrying on in that tradition.  C'est la vie.

[MsFish]

I'm not saying that Hollywood is all about money.  I think a great deal of film makers are about the creative process.  Film is art.  If you don't like the art, don't watch it.  I just don't see how anyone can say that Hollywood creates a forced market when no one is forced to see the films.  If a film maker wants to make an R rated movie, good for him.  If a person wants to see an R rated movie, good for her.  If you don't, don't go.  I personally make the choice not to go to R rated movies, but it's a personal thing.  If another person makes a different choice, more power to them.  No one is taking away your choice.  Choose as you will.   But please don't whine about how society is going to hell because of some movies.  For other reasons, sure, but not because of movies.  

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I think I have to go with the Mr. Lewis here. I don't see more than a semantic difference between "cleaning" and "censorship." Keep in mind that censorship can be voluntary and can be done for a variety of purposes, some of which could be arguably valid. There is no single "Purpose" for which censorship is created.

What? Dude, violence nudity and foul language have always been part of the human experience. Trying to pretend they don't happen and blaming hollywood for 'deadening society to them' is just inane. Those things are facts of life and people want to see them on the screen because they are facts of life.

I love how people think that's a meaningful argument.
Yes, people have always had sex. Does that mean we should expose 3 year olds to sodomy films? If so, how do you reach that conclusion? Just as there has always been nudity and violence, there have also been socially unacceptable forums for the discussing them. The very idea of "foul language" demonstrates that there are inappropriate forums. Other wise the language wouldn't be "foul" would it?

I don't think it beneficial to unilaterally assign those forums though. I don't think that any topic should necessarily be anathema in all cases. Voluntary restraint on when and where topics are discussed is much more effective and productive.

Thus the argument, is essentially, do we have the right to alter the discussion when it is moved to a different forum. Or must the discussion not be held at all if the forum isn't specifically what it was made? I think the creator of that discussion should have more control over it than CleanFlicks does.

[42]

Wait one moment! So your saying that just because murder has always been around and always will be, spending late nights plotting the gruesome deaths of several of the forum members isn't acceptable?

To add to the discussion, it kind of hard to blame Hollywood for all the ills of the world. Yet at the same time it isn't fair to absolve them of all wrong doing. IMO, the world has been growing a little more corrupt very slowly over time. Hollywood has been tuned into the easing of standards, and thus has produced movies that have catered to these individuals of lax moral fiber. This in turn feeds the immorality of these individuals and makes general immorality just a little more common (sorry, no individual can loosen his or her standards without it effecting everyone else). As immorality becomes a little more commonplace, Hollywood agains tunes into the changing of the times and produces films to suit, thus perpetuating the cycle.

[Entsuropi]

I'd like to hear precisely how the modern day is more immoral or corrupt or bad than the victorian era. Or the early 20th century. Or, indeed, any other time period you care to name.

[Skar]

Porn.  Far more freely available to minors as well as adults than it ever was.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

reported crime is also much higher.
that may simply be a case of a change in attitude toward reporting crime. However, I'm not sure I believe that's the only change.

[Parker]

Just as an observation, I think it's interesting that when Hollywood makes "dirty" movies, they're accused of worsening society.  But they also make plenty of uplifting, "good" movies, yet hardly anyone ever comes to bat for them then, pointing out how Hollywood also helps society.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

a valid point

But I think, for hte most part, there are few child-friendly movies that aren't simplistic and un-artful (is that a neologism? partly this is a hollywood problem, but no one should complain about what hollywood does (or how much sports heroes make, or what have you) without point out that the audience ultimately has responsibility for the influence these things have. If no one ever goes to an R movie, there will be very few R movies left. You can say they'd make them anyway, but that's not likely. They wouldnt' have the MONEY to make them if they couldn't at least break even with them. The George Lucas point doesn't enhance the case. He made his billions off movies he'd already made. If the original trilogy hadn't had a mass appeal, he wouldn't have been able to make the prequels the way he wanted.

so, ultimately, society reinforces what Hollywood is doing. Whether that is just money-grubbing or they have some sort of conspiratal agenda (something I think is a bit... fevered... to swallow), ultimately the public has responsibility for that. Encourage people not to go. That's about the only way you can put a stop to it.

[MsFish]

so, ultimately, society reinforces what Hollywood is doing. Whether that is just money-grubbing or they have some sort of conspiratal agenda (something I think is a bit... fevered... to swallow), ultimately the public has responsibility for that. Encourage people not to go. That's about the only way you can put a stop to it.

Exactly.  Take responsibility for your own actions and to stand up for what you believe.  Beyond that, meh.  

[Fellfrosch]

So the general feel I'm getting from this conversation (yes, this is a generalization) is that people are free to make any kind of art they like, and people are free to consume any kind of art they like, but people should not be free to consume only portions of that art--it's all or nothing. If you want to watch a movie you need to watch the whole thing, because taking out the swear words or blocking out the nudity is somehow wrong. Does that extend to hitting the mute button or closing my eyes during the scary parts? Am I censoring a movie when I leave in the middle to get a snack, and miss part of it? What about blinking? Where are we drawing the line here?