MovieChat Forums > Cleanflix (2012) Discussion > CleanFlicks was a great thing...

CleanFlicks was a great thing...

posted 17 years ago by ColJ
34 replies | jump to latest

Everyone who says Hollywood is "just in it for the art," or "just in it for the money," needs to watch this movie. There was a red scare in the last 10 years--that of hollywood demanding summary judgments against old ladies and little girls over downloading media, or, in this case, James Cameron and his ilk suing a group of parents who edited Kate Winslet's artful expression out of Titanic. They then went after every individual theater or company who showed official airline edits or TV edits of movies. In Utah that means they went after video rental stores who rented edited movies. (Let's not even mention the anti-Mormons funding the whole thing. If you don't believe it, just see what happens to the word "Mormon" as Romney goes up in the polls.) The saga has been in the news in Utah for 10 years now, to the absolute pyhrric end of both armies. CleanFlicks has been run out of business, but ClearPlay is now nationally distributed at Target and elsewhere... and hollywood gained... what? A cliched political statement...

I am a Christian schoolteacher with children--and those are three reasons why I don't trust Hollywood to decide what goes into my brain. I buy and support edited movies and movie editors.

www.colinandbethany.com/forum

Hollywood is always out of touch with America.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JackDaniels-theJackMormon 16 years ago

James Cameron and his ilk suing a group of parents who edited Kate Winslet's artful expression out of Titanic.

Is that what she was showing?

I am a Christian schoolteacher with children--and those are three reasons why I don't trust Hollywood to decide what goes into my brain. I buy and support edited movies and movie editors.

I thought you were a Mormon?

"I'll take the fifth"

[–] kidtuffy 16 years ago

You have proven by your statements you truly do not understand the arguments being laid out. You have the right to view and purchase any movie you want. If you don't like what "Hollywood" gives you, don't buy them. It is ridiculous to suggest an independent group would remove content from an artist’s work and then distribute their editorials. There is no legal basis for this sort of activity. What if some guy who had no part of it’d inception decided the book of Mormon is too violent and edited all of that out. It’s about controlling the endgame something you obviously have not considered.

[–] ColJ 16 years ago

What if some guy who had no part of it’d inception decided the book of Mormon is too violent and edited all of that out.

That'd be fine. The only legal question is if he were to intentionally mislead the public into believing it was unedited. All of these movie editing companies buy the movies one by one or buy the duplication rights and then market exclusively on the basis of their being edited--ie putting huge stickers on the front of every DVD saying it's edited.

So my question to you: If James Cameron was so offended on artistic grounds, why did he let every TV station and airline edit the movies? Why was it simply the Mormons he blocked?

www.colinandbethany.com/forum
Hollywood is always out of touch with America.

[–] Can_a_bitch_get_a_donut 15 years ago

Airlines and networks purchase the rights to these films and edit them before airing them.

I admit I know little about this case, but it sounds like the guy was not purchasing any rights to alter and distribute these movies. Even if he did have the rights to sell or rent them, he didn't have the right to change the product itself before distribution.

I for one think what he was doing is offensive. If you cannot bear the sight of breasts, then stick to the Disney channel. You shouldn't be allowed to watch Titanic.

---
In your right hand, there are pleasures forever. --Psalm 16:11

[–] ColJ 15 years ago

Yes, airlines and networks purchase the rights to these films to edit them. But the religious discrimination is pretty overt, because those rights, overtly, cannot be sold on religious grounds. CleanFlix, and so many other religious colleges and religious companies have tried to buy them, and no matter the money they just won't sell them. At that point the "artist" can't even show damages. That's the point--James Cameron went after a theater in Utah, and a little video store, for showing, as an upsell, an edited version of Titanic.

Tell me, are you equally offended by mix tapes? What about when a cheerleader edits a song for a dance routine? This is all that went on here. CleanFlix no more held "edited Titanic" forth as "Titanic" than the cheerleader ran around saying she has an unreleased Britney Spears song.

I'm not some many of you understand quite where America generally stands on this. I work in design in San Francisco, and still have rarely heard an argument for "artist's rights." (I'm a school teacher by license, and "artists rights" is talked about in about the same tone as "tenure." :) ) James Cameron produced what to me was a raw product--whether he considers it finished or not is irrelevant; he created a product, and morally has no more influence over what I do with that product once I pay my $20 for the DVD than my contractor has say over what color I paint my house once I've taken possession of it. They can create all the laws they want, but in the end the cosmic morality of it always lies with private property rights at all costs.

So if you don't want to see an edited movie, don't see it. Stick to Cinemax. Me, I'll stay with the vast majority of America, on mainstream networks that by law must edit every movie, and I'll find ways of renting edited movies. To me it is a moral right, to keep certain things away from myself and my kids; and I don't even factor in what Hollywood thinks is "appropriate." Again, as a schoolteacher I can write a book on what happens if you try to raise your kids as "mature" and "grown up about this stuff." Any look at the raw stats will show that Hollywood doesn't get it and never have. So if someone tries to stop me from censoring a movie however and whenever I want, my first and honest reflex is self-defense at all costs.

[–] Can_a_bitch_get_a_donut 15 years ago

As long as one does not try to sell and profit from a self-made mixed tape, the situations are not the same.

---
In your right hand, there are pleasures forever. --Psalm 16:11

[–] ColJ 15 years ago

>>As long as one does not try to sell and profit from a self-made mixed tape,
>>the situations are not the same.

If the laws were written honestly, that would be a valid legal argument and not just a moral one. Because legally, there is no difference whether you're selling a mix tape or not. It is magically and unilaterally illegal to redistribute music, or to play it in any way other than the purposes intended for you by the RIAA. To James Cameron/the MPAA/the RIAA/Lars Ulrich, there is no difference in a high school kid making a mix tape to get a girl and a pirate in vietnam duplicating DVDs wholly--the only difference is the mood of the movie company and who they decide to go after. And that was my point earlier.

No one tried to sell or profit from Titanic, but from their editing. To take Under Pressure and claim you, Vanilla Ice, wrote it and deserve 100% of the royalties is illegal and immoral. To take Under Pressure, mix a small portion into your song, market it as your song while explaining the entirety in the liner notes, paying David Bowie his fair and standard cut for such is not immoral at all and legally gray. The ethics around this whole thing is exactly what you said--it doesn't have anything to do with the product or what raw products it used, it comes from how they declared those products and how they held forth the finished product.

Did anyone who saw Titanic at the Pleasant Grove theater think they were seeing the unedited version? Were any of them confused? Was the theater misleading so they could have an illicit upper-hand versus other theaters? Did they even charge more for the edited version than the unedited? Or was their market entirely the editing of such? Pleasant Grove's modified Titanic is no different than a Shelby Cobra--Ford has no rights to what Shelby does with a Cobra they bought, as long as they disclaim that it's no longer a normal Ford mustang when they market it. But everyone knows that. The Pleasant Grove theater took a product that was not selling, modified it to fit the audience, and marketed it exclusively as modified, kicking 100% of the money back to the appropriate channels; and that modification was the only reason anyone saw the movie around there. Nothing was secret or circumvented in any way.

I know this isn't your world, Zuul. But it's mine, and there are a lot of us. G-rated movies average more revenue than PG, which make more than PG-13, which make more than R, which make more than NC-17. If they want to sell to my people, they need to start running the industry like a business and follow what's selling.

[–] gcarras (2726) 7 years ago

Thumbs up!

[–] mr_different1 14 years ago

They edit for airline and TV because the FCC has different laws for Airline movies and TV. Not rentals and Theatre films. James Cameron more than likely doesn't want them to be edited at all but BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THE LAW. He has too. But when people start editing and making a profit for so called "moral reasons" (which from what we've learned from the clean flix owners true intentions were only to exploit and profit off of a naive people) he can disagree all he wants.

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

<i>"which from what we've learned from the clean flix owners true intentions were only to exploit and profit off of a naive people"</i>

Don't think you can sneak that one by us. Honestly, I knew those guys. They were spiritual people from a spiritual part of town. They edited movies because they didn't watch R-rated movies, and they lived in a place where few people do. These guys and most of their customers have migrated on to other forms of getting edited movies, and that's just the way it's done with millions of Americans. You can feign to vilify them all you want, but they're just people who hold themselves to a different standard than you.

[–] mr_different1 14 years ago

Listen to yourself. "A spiritual part of town?" Spirituality doesn't come from a location it comes from people. You have a pretty Elitist view of your surroundings. That still doesn't explain that they broke the law. And what about the underground porn ring from most of the editing places?

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

Now I think you're just being contrary, since you're being silly and illogical. Of course I was using slang when I said "a pretty spiritual part of town." Of course I know that there is no causation between zip code and intrapersonal integrity. I meant, however, these were good people, not elitists, not judgmental, and they didn't have a secret underground porn ring.

PS I live in San Francisco (Marin County, actually)--easily the most libertine place in the US, and perhaps the most elitist, but that has nothing to do with the sweet folks in Provo, Utah. ;)

[–] mr_different1 14 years ago

No porn ring huh?

http://www.theinsider.com/news/623309_Clean_Flix_Founder_Busted_For_Keeping_Smut_To_Himself

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

I know, I know. And people should read this along with it.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/02/sex-drugs-and-dirty-mo vies-cleanflicks-sues-cyberpirate.ars

It sounds to me like Daniel Thompson never owned the chain, but he was the first, or at least the largest, franchisee; and the only man I ever associated with the company. But to be fair, he had long since left the company by the time any of this happened, and that's why Cleanflix is suing him.

That being said, it should be disclaimed loudly that pretty much any article you find is going to be written by a sarcastic non-reporter who's excited to see these people fail. (As you can see from my postings, I've honestly never understood why people care about other people editing movies they've bought.) Surely there are articles who will try to tie Thompson into the northern Arizona polygamists, articles that call him a conspiratorial pedophile, and articles that will list this as cosmic karma. In the end he's a guy who did something wrong who used to work for a company that is controversial. I'm not saying he shouldn't go to jail, but I am saying he isn't a Warren Jeffs or a Roman Polansky.

[–] mr_different1 14 years ago

I don't feel that he is a polygamist, nor have I ever related the LDS church to splinter groups led by people like Warren Jeffs. But I do feel that there really isn't much of a moral high ground when it comes to editing movies. I would also have to say that most "mormon films" are just to exploit mormons for profit. (Coming from experience from working with people who make them)

[–] ColJ 14 years ago

We really only disagree on the main point, which is whether editing movies is justifiable.

(I actually just made a mix tape for a family member at thanksgiving, and went in and edited it. Again that's the world I'm from.)

[–] mr_different1 14 years ago

I can agree to that. I just disagree with editing because I really don't see the "message" that lethal weapon has edited or not. And I don't think it's okay to close our eyes and cover our ears in a censorship sense. I wouldn't ask for a movie to be edited for content anymore than I'd ask for a book to be.

[–] Coolestmovies 11 years ago

Way late to this party but I need to leave this for posterity: I got so SICK of people bringing up this "Well I made a mix tape" tripe in relation to this issue back in the day. BIg deal. EVERYONE MAKES MIX TAPES, or clip compilations or whatever. But it's one thing to make a tape like that and GIVE it to a friend or family member, and it's one HELL of another thing to open up a store, start renting out AND SELLING copies of that mix tape to thousands of people, and pocketing all the proceeds. Sorry, but "that's just the way it is 'round these parts" is an utterly despicable defense of the piracy openly committed by the "edited movies" zealots, who were all too happy to fatten their bank accounts by eviscerating other peoples' work. But then again, believe so hard in the validity of something to the point that you can't even SEE the conflict of interest (or the challenge to common sense), and it becomes easy to make such blinkered statements because, for all intents and purposes, it's the only way of being the speaker knows. Of course, that's pretty much how all religions propagate themselves, so it's absolutely no surprise that this whole concept of editing SOMEONE ELSE'S ART originated in the pea-brained, tunnel-visioned minds of religious zealots. And even as recently as 2009-2010, this "ColJ" apologist was as creative as the CRIMINALS depicted in this film at devising ways to obfuscate the real issue.

The discovery of the porn ring, and Thompson's predilection for little girls really was icing on the cake. Just think, if he'd been able to pull of his criminal leech routine for just a few more years, he could've tried to take his butchered movie routine online only to fail there, too. But at least he'd be able to get his hypocritical jollies from all the free porn sites on the web without having to draw to much embarrassing attention to himself. Dude shoulda got a REAL job a long time ago.

[–] gcarras 13 years ago

"Tell me, are you equally offended by mix tapes? What about when a cheerleader edits a song for a dance routine? This is all that went on here. CleanFlix no more held "edited Titanic" forth as "Titanic" than the cheerleader ran around saying she has an unreleased Britney Spears song. "

Then there is the thing of cheerleaders whether THEY'RE gettin' less virginal. Especially with that Spears chick. Man, oh man.:)

[–] gcarras (2726) 7 years ago

Cheerleaders are already always considered "offensive" by real prudes with the intention to think a nice lady showing some tail is too sexy..Britney Spears music would just add fuel LOL. (Unable to edit my old posts.)

[–] obliv 11 years ago

Sorry, miss, but the "vast majority of America" did NOT agree with you on this issue. If you choose to be offended (and you do make that choice... there is nothing innately offensive about sex or violence, and esp. language in and of itself. this is a paper tiger issue based on the preferences of Queen Victoria of england, and who decided to relate it to morality and religion. The Bible has sex and violence in it.) then Hollywood has given you the option to decide what you want to see... the ratings code.

I am a film maker, and it offends me that movies are sanitized because people choose to be offended. What strikes me as most obvious in hearing people like yourself talk is the sanctimonious language they use... "we have higher standards"... "it's good vs evil..." says who? i think YOUR viewpoint is LOWER standards, and that censorship is evil in itself.

The fact that cleanflix was trying to make money from movies that someone had to write and direct and act and edit, and they decided to change the way they chose to tell their stories without even trying to buy the rights.

Screw them. They lost. Good riddance. I hope that teaches the tiny minority who insist on pushing their small minded agenda that they stand very much alone and apart, and that if they are so feeble minded that they can't bear the thought of content that falls outside their narrow frame of reference, they need to separate themselves and live in a bubble. we don't want you. we don't need you. you lost. good riddance.

the only part that I wish they could change is that Hollywood could have taken every penny from the morons who pushed this bs idea. This story is proof that America still works.

Death to cleanflix. goodbye forever.

[–] JackRussellDog 11 years ago

I watched this and was so pleased to learn that creepy dude showed his true colors and Hollywood came back with a vengeance. Editing someone else's material and trying to make a profit from it is stealing. Plain and simple.

Again the moral right is blurring their axioms. If they should not watch R Rated movies, why purchase them in the first place. Do you not have to view them in order to edit them?

Trey and Matt are in the right to rip these people a new one.

[–] gcarras 11 years ago

"Death to cleanflix. goodbye forever. "

I think that they may make a comeback. Mormons now have a lotta power, y'know.

[–] gcarras (2726) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gcarras (2726) 5 years ago

Onb cheerleaderrs...Universal's BRING IT ON finsihed release was full of hot scenes with cheerleaders as doen by Beacon Productions (the guys of FAMILY MAN fame) until they agreed to a change from a R to a PG rating.)

[–] ManFromSanFernando 12 years ago

Absolute bollucks. Anyone who thinks Hollywood was doing the right thing here is full of *beep*

[–] tawdry_hepburn 16 years ago

And you trust some arbitrary third party instead?

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

[–] mr_different1 15 years ago

I agree in full with Kidtuffy.

[–] gcarras (2726) 7 years ago

I also a agree in full with KidTuffy, but the religious communities do have their own desires, wishes,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Coolestmovies 11 years ago

Well said!

The great thing is that if you removed all the disgusting, abnormal and deviant behavior from the bible, the damned thing would only be about 20 pages long. This would keep your printing and distributions costs low. Of course, you'd have to watch out for scammers taking your bibleaflet, photocopying it, editing out even MORE stuff, and living off the profits while they secretly fondle teenagers in the back rooms of their stores in order to vent their sexual frustration.

[–] squeemu 11 years ago

If you think there's only 20 pages of non-"disgusting, abnormal, and deviant behavior" in the Bible then you clearly are a moron.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]