Movie Editing-overdubs-scene cutting-CGI edits?

[DVS]

I've got a little rant to mention. I don't like it when movies are "Edited for Content" so the masses can see them, but I really HATE it when they are cut up or edited in a way you can't tell, so someone doesn't even know they are watching an edited movie.

In the old days, when a "bad" word was cut out so a movie could be seen on broadcast TV, they would just cut out the audio of that word. That was the norm for years, until someone decided it abruptly altered the flow of the dialogue. So they hired "sound alike actors" to come in and overdub words that fit the space of the "bad" word, but were not offensive. For instance, instead of someone saying God damn, they might insert gosh darn, because of the space and the two syllables.

Not only were these badly done, but sometimes they would cut in some really lame phrase. It didn't matter if it matched what the actor would have said because it fit the space and the actor's body language. And they didn't often think of the background audio track so the ambiance of the dub didn't match that of the rest of the movie. I thought it was really a lot worse than just cutting out the audio, but I guess it did keep another group of actors working.

But that wasn't enough. I don't know who decided it, but because deaf people could still read the original actor's lips, it was still considered offensive to them. So, I've seen some scenes where the mouth of the actor has been CGI altered with another actor's mouth, so when they insert the overdubbed word, the lips are actually saying the same word. The ones I've seen were not that slick so I'd think any deaf person would have trouble reading any word in the edit.

The thing urks me about all of this is the movie I saw over the past weekend. I saw a simple little sexy movie I'd seen years ago called "Summer of Love" in which the two women in the movie were topless a lot. I was watching this movie on a Sunday afternoon, on public TV and waiting for these scenes to be cut out. No, they did some CGI stuff and actually put bikini tops on the women in these scenes. It was well done, but there was very little movement of the actors, so that made the CGI easier. I felt cheated more by this, than if they had just cut out the whole scene, like they were trying to keep the editing private.

I don't like it when a movie is altered and it's done so well that someone can't tell they aren't seeing the movie in its original form. And in this case, there was no disclaimer at the beginning of the movie to tell someone it had been altered. Is it just me, or do you dislike some editing for content, just so the studio can reap in more cash in a more "vanilla" market?

 

[Primalex]

Well, I know that I would hate it to watch a badly edited video. If it kills my immersion, it kills my fun.

Now, if it's about buying a movie, then I expect information on the cover about editing. But this expectation is rarely met either.

Taking your example though, I wouldn't have cared that much I think.

What is worse in my opinion is that foreign radio stations play censored versions of songs that wouldn't get censored if the song wouldn't have been in English. This is really silly. Just recently noticed in Lily Allens 'Not fair' with a censored "giving head". It's no problem if an artist in those countries sings about "faire une pipe" or "mamada gustosa, lamida cuantiosa", but "giving head" must be censored...

 

[DVS]

Well, I know that I would hate it to watch a badly edited video. If it kills my immersion, it kills my fun.

Now, if it's about buying a movie, then I expect information on the cover about editing. But this expectation is rarely met either.

Taking your example though, I wouldn't have cared that much I think.

What is worse in my opinion is that foreign radio stations play censored versions of songs that wouldn't get censored if the song wouldn't have been in English. This is really silly. Just recently noticed in Lily Allens 'Not fair' with a censored "giving head". It's no problem if an artist in those countries sings about "faire une pipe" or "mamada gustosa, lamida cuantiosa", but "giving head" must be censored...

I've always thought the U.S. is more anal about what they will show on the TV screen. Even movies at a theater must be rated so people are aware of what the content is. I understand the age ratings, but other than that, if someone doesn't want to see what's in the movie, they just don't see the movie.

I know this all started when classic or just popular movies started including objectionable scenes. TV stations want to show popular movies so people will watch their station. The only option to get past the F.C.C. censors and people who will be vocal about seeing this objectionable content is to edit the movie to clean it up. I think that's crap, but at least I see the "Edited for Content" notice at the beginning in most cases.

I know directors totally object to editing the movies. All editing is done after it leaves his/her possession. They don't even like the idea of changing the look of the movie by taking away the letter box view and formatting the movie into the size of the old TV screen and panning left and right so to include what is in the wider letter box screen.

That process ruins the effect of what the director wanted each screen to have. Sometimes the panning effect misses the action relevant to the plot, because it's panning to the other side of the screen. This process also magnifies the screen which puts it slightly out of focus. With the newer wide screen TVs, this process isn't as common as it once was.

I think music is mostly the same way about editing, except there are cases where profanity is included in the lyrics of some songs when it doesn't enhance the song or even seem necessary to be there. I know it's probably the style these days to do this, but that doesn't make it less offensive to our censoring system.

Editing these songs for contend on the radio is necessary, or the station can't play the popular songs. If they don't play the popular songs, nobody listens to the station. At least they don't try to insert something to take the place of the edited lyrics. Well, at least I haven't heard of that happening. I have heard artists do their own editing in a live recording, my not saying the offensive words clearly.

I understand your example of music. I've never had the experience to here something in another country but it does seem rather silly to edit something like slang when other countries are much more open about sex than we are. Maybe the song you heard was imported from the U.S. and already edited. I don't know how that works.

And my example was just a movie I'd seen in the past. When I saw it, it was on a pay cable channel. When I saw it the other day, it was on a free channel. I'm sure some people had no idea the movie had even been edited. Even though it was fairly well done, I just don't think someone should mess with someone else's work. When will someone be draping the objectional parts on the sculptures in Europe or maybe editing a great painting.

Actually, if the sculptures were in the U.S., I bet someone would object enough that something would have been done. And if it was allowed, paintings would be repainted. But then the painting wouldn't be by the great master any more. But with a great movie, just bits here and there are edited and the movie is still considered the same movie?

 

[Seurat]

But with a great movie, just bits here and there are edited and the movie is still considered the same movie?

No. I saw an interview (Scorcese, I think) where they were talking about pan and scan. He went off on a rant on how, as soon as you take it from widescreen to television screen, a movie ceases to belong to the director and becomes the editors. I would imagine he is just as irritated as you are with bullshit 'cleaned up' editions of movies.

The first time I remember getting hit with it head on was from the other direction. They had just released 'Highlander' on cable and it was edited for time and content. I saw it, was interested, and rented it. Very pleasant surprise.

Nowadays, if we are stuck watching something that has been edited for TV, half of the reason we watch is to see where the edits are.

Yippy-kai-yay, Mr. Falcon. Indeed.

 

[Primalex]

I've always thought the U.S. is more anal about what they will show on the TV screen.

I guess every country has its pet peeve. Some don't like nipples, others hate religious jokes.

That process ruins the effect of what the director wanted each screen to have.

Well, it is ruined already because your screen is just no cinema screen. Not even with a video projector.

I understand your example of music. I've never had the experience to here something in another country but it does seem rather silly to edit something like slang when other countries are much more open about sex than we are. Maybe the song you heard was imported from the U.S. and already edited. I don't know how that works.

Well, I'm not sure whether I'm more happy about laziness or anticipatory obedience.

Even though it was fairly well done, I just don't think someone should mess with someone else's work. When will someone be draping the objectional parts on the sculptures in Europe or maybe editing a great painting.

You are a bit too late. This happens all the time. Sure, nobody adds a cute little kitten to Edvard Munch's "Scream", but all exhibitions these days are controlled - world wide and if deemed necessary, pieces removed.

And there are lot of paintings that were basically completely censored - by painting something new over them. But this is not really new, there is censorship since there is art.

But with a great movie, just bits here and there are edited and the movie is still considered the same movie?

I see it more grey than black and white. It's one thing to cut out Darth Vaders "I'm your father" scene and another to cut out a dieing storm trooper. I'm traditionalist, a movie should tell a story. If the story does not change, I can live with it. And bad translations are a worse enemy to the story than censored boobs.

 

[DVS]

...You are a bit too late. This happens all the time. Sure, nobody adds a cute little kitten to Edvard Munch's "Scream", but all exhibitions these days are controlled - world wide and if deemed necessary, pieces removed.

And there are lot of paintings that were basically completely censored - by painting something new over them. But this is not really new, there is censorship since there is art.

They actually paint over someone's work? I guess there are two schools of thought there. The starving painter needs to eat so he sells the painting and is happy. But on the other hand, why would some gallery bother with buying someone's painting, and then cover up something in it. I wonder if they even mention that the painting has been edited.

I see it more grey than black and white. It's one thing to cut out Darth Vaders "I'm your father" scene and another to cut out a dieing storm trooper. I'm traditionalist, a movie should tell a story. If the story does not change, I can live with it. And bad translations are a worse enemy to the story than censored boobs.

Again, I understand what you mean. I also appreciated the link. But for me, I guess I'm just a purist, when it comes to created "one of a kind" works. If someone doesn't like it, don't buy it and change it. Leave it the fuck alone. I don't like any changes to someone's art, especially if they intend to make money from it.

 

[DVS]

No. I saw an interview (Scorcese, I think) where they were talking about pan and scan. He went off on a rant on how, as soon as you take it from widescreen to television screen, a movie ceases to belong to the director and becomes the editors. I would imagine he is just as irritated as you are with bullshit 'cleaned up' editions of movies.

The first time I remember getting hit with it head on was from the other direction. They had just released 'Highlander' on cable and it was edited for time and content. I saw it, was interested, and rented it. Very pleasant surprise.

Nowadays, if we are stuck watching something that has been edited for TV, half of the reason we watch is to see where the edits are.

Yippy-kai-yay, Mr. Falcon. Indeed.

Yes, I've heard other directors complain about the letterbox thing, too. And I understand their complaints. They take a long time setting up how each scene is going to look, only to have someone wreck the whole thing so they can show it on a smaller screen. Someone will say they got their money, why complain? I'd bet they'd say it isn't the money. Most creative people don't complain because of money. They complain because of content, especially when their name is still on the production as the creator.

Funny, that was one reason I was watching "Summer of Love" that day. Just to see how they did the editing. It's kind of funny how the industry has created a new way to watch TV..we've become amateur editing critics.

 

[DVS]

To me, it's not just the idea that naked boobs are edited out. It's the whole idea of changing the original story or look of the story that the director intended. I wouldn't want someone messing with my creativity so I don't like messing with someone else's creativity. With the advanced technology that's out there and with that technology getting better and better, how long is it before someone (maybe big brother) will be filtering what we see before we even get a chance to see it. We won't even know what was filtered out.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

To me, it's not just the idea that naked boobs are edited out. It's the whole idea of changing the original story or look of the story that the director intended. I wouldn't want someone messing with my creativity so I don't like messing with someone else's creativity. With the advanced technology that's out there and with that technology getting better and better, how long is it before someone (maybe big brother) will be filtering what we see before we even get a chance to see it. We won't even know what was filtered out.

Actually, the super censorship can cost money. A few years ago [2007] the French director Luc Besson [The Fifth Element/ La Femme Nikita] made a kid's animated movie "Arthur et Les Minimoys" that became a world wide sensation. A central character Princess Selena was modeled on and voiced by the queen of French pop, Myl`ene Farmer.

The Weinstein Bros [ Disney] bought the US rights and re-recorded the sound track with Madonna, David Bowie, Snoop Dog, and Robert de Niro. Then they cut the movie from the French 104 minutes to 93 minutes -- all but 1.5 minutes taken from the final 20 minutes. As a result the movie made no sense and failed with both the critics and the public. {There were a few double-entendres that the accompanying adults could enjoy but were sure to go over the heads of the kids.}

In the rest of the world the movie is almost as big as Harry Potter. The third installment was released this spring and had people camped outside theaters all over Europe, Asia, and Oz. There are special Blu-ray editions with extra "making of" discs etc.

I have the first one {France, Region 2, PAL--not playable on standard American DVD players/TVs} it has both the original French and the uncut English sound tracks. The Madonna et al track was released in full in the UK and other parts of the world/

So censorship is costing Disney/ Weinstein big bucks. LOL LOL

 

[Netzach]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-rGnI9XNo Like this? I remember many a sunday afternoon movie like this, LOL.

I hate the whole thing - everything having to be at a level where 8 years olds can watch it in order to air at all.

 

[ThorkelGriersen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-rGnI9XNo Like this? I remember many a sunday afternoon movie like this, LOL.

I hate the whole thing - everything having to be at a level where 8 years olds can watch it in order to air at all.

Oh yeah!!! Laughing myself sick.

Too hot for American kids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI1Y8Tz3rGQ&feature=related

 

[DVS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-rGnI9XNo Like this? I remember many a sunday afternoon movie like this, LOL.

I hate the whole thing - everything having to be at a level where 8 years olds can watch it in order to air at all.

That has pretty much all of the edits I've been talking about (obviously not quite as slick, though ). I guess other people do notice. I don't feel so alone any more.