This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Mr. Dominic, get this man a refrigerator."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 24 October 2014




Tweet







June 06 2011

Filtering Firefly for Family Friendliness. If you've ever wanted your DVD player to automatically skip or mute scenes from the show because of undesireable content, well now you can. You can also do the same for Serenity (via the ClearPlay blog).

More info about ClearPlay can be found at Wikipedia.

HAHAHAHAhaha. ha. ha.

Oh, wait, this is a real thing?

Snipes and lemon curd that is unbelievable.
I found their list of 'thematic elements' amusing.

FIREFLY:
Non-Sensual/Non-Crude Sex Talk Homosexual/Lesbian Characters
Implied Premarital Sex
Implied Extramarital Sex
Revealing Clothing
Some Suggestive Dialogue
Intense Action/Adventure
Intense Life/Death Situations
Western Action
War Themes
Fantasy/Sci-Fi Action
Scary Moments
Non-Graphic Injury/Wound Criminal/Gangster/Mob Themes
Alcohol Consumption
Smoking
Bar/Club Environment
Mature Thematic Elements
Intense Thematic Elements
Murder Topic
Dysfunctional Relationships


SERENITY:
Implied Premarital Sex
Revealing Clothing
Some Suggestive Dialogue
Threatening Dialogue
Intense Action/Adventure
Martial Arts Action
Fantasy/Sci-Fi Action
Horror Themes
Scary Moments
Non-Graphic Injury/Wound
Criminal/Gangster/Mob Themes
Intense Battle Sequences
Alcohol Consumption
Smoking
Bar/Club Environment
Intense Thematic Elements
Suicide
"Daddy, how come your favourite show is only 12 minutes long?"
'Y'know, I don't feel like *talking* to my kids about what they see. I wish there were a way to just skip past anything 'bad.'"

Sorry, 'bit snarky there.
That is actually an interesting look at the difference between the show and the movie. No potentially dangerous "Western Action" in the movie but it does have "Threatening Dialogue" What does it threaten to do, do you suppose?

And whose relationship are they referring to as dysfunctional in the show?
Me, I cannot stand the morality of ClearPlay, which violates the filmmaker's vision of the film he or she made. But that will open up a huge can of worms.
If you wanted your favourite shows and films to be "family friendly" but not make any sense at all...
Me, I cannot stand the morality of ClearPlay, which violates the filmmaker's vision of the film he or she made.


What about airline versions of movies and tv shows which are censored or where the MPAA or BBFC forces studios to make cuts if they want to get a particular rating?
And here I thought this WSJ article was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

My head literally hurts.
Why would I ever want to do that?
From that WSJ article link (Thanks ceo!):

As it happens, 40 years ago, no one had to contend with young-adult literature because there was no such thing. There was simply literature, some of it accessible to young readers and some not. As elsewhere in American life, the 1960s changed everything. In 1967, S.E. Hinton published "The Outsiders," a raw and striking novel that dealt directly with class tensions, family dysfunction and violent, disaffected youth. It launched an industry.


Er, not exactly. Launched an industry? I don't think so. There were lots of writers writing for the YA market, from at least the mid forties. The YA award (finally established in 2008) is called the Amelia Elizabeth Walden Award after A.E. Walden who published her first of forty YA in 1946. It was a different time and so perhaps some of those novels might feel more "innocent," but they still had teenagers whose parents went bankrupt, who lost their mothers, who were bullied, who worried about getting into college, etc.

Well, maybe the WSJ author doesn't consider them "edgy"enough? And I must admit, I'm not sure how many authors and books need to be published to qualify as an industry. Regardless, nothing against S. E. Hinton, but I wouldn't say she "launched it." Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that it gathered speed from that point.
You know, I never get this sort of thing, but I'm not the target audience. And at the end of the day, I'd rather the coddling morality police play their own game, rather than getting into the studios and keeping stuff from being made. Stuff like this I never have to see. I feel sorry and afraid for children raised like this, but I believe it's someone's choice if they want to raise their children in the dark.

...never said I wasn't biased or opinionated ;-)
WHAT!!! This is one of the dumbest things I have heard. I would like to be able to cut F**K out because my TV is in the room my African Grey parrot is in, but there is nothing in Firefly to cut out.
It might be amusing to get a hold of one of these and see just how badly this screws up the plot.
It is a success because everyone I know that has seen it loves it, even people who hate sci-fi.

Then don't censor it, or go watch Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm. Unfortunately, she doesn't live in space. And a Companion is pretty different than simply calling her a prostitute as the writer does at the blog. That irks, but, considering the source.
Too late. My kids already saw that stuff. Now they are sociopaths. Vegan, virgin sociopaths.
I'm suddenly reminded of those fan-edits of Buffy seasons that I came across once. Someone edited Season 6 to make it far more Willow-centric.

ClearPlay also filter the Buffy movie so it's not all bad.
I just read that book article. Could the faith book "Go ask Malice" refer to the "Go ask Alice" book?
Well I'm glad to see my sexuality is still considered undesirable content.

Also i love the fact that the article about YA fiction assumes that no young people ever read books aimed at adults but only read things marked for their age group, and that parents could ever control what books a teenager reads.

[ edited by digupherbones on 2011-06-06 15:12 ]
What about airline versions of movies and tv shows which are censored or where the MPAA or BBFC forces studios to make cuts if they want to get a particular rating?

'if' being the operative word (i.e. they can avoid cuts and plunk for an 18 or R if they want, it may just mean taking a commercial hit). In other words so long as there's a choice I don't have much of an issue with this sort of thing.

It puzzles me somewhat (because won't there be potentially large gaps in the shows that render them nonsensical or at least not as good ? So why watch at all ?) and I don't agree with what they've decided is inappropriate but it's up to the individual what they put in their own heads.
Skytteflickan88: "Go ask Alice" is a quote from the song "White Rabbit" by Jefferson Airplane; the book mentioned in the article probably took its title from there. It is also the name of a famous online sexual health information service which has been run by Columbia University in New York since 1993. The Faith book could have been named after any or all of these.

[ edited by mr_waterproof on 2011-06-06 15:30 ]
Actually, a lot of directors have complained about broadcast TV and airline edits for content. One of my favorite films is "Strange Days," which has a hard-R rating. For kicks, I watched the basic cable edit of it. It was in a two-hour slot, but I think they showed about twelve minutes of actual movie. For anyone who hadn't already seen it, I think it would be the most incomprehensible set of clips in history. So ... the ClearPlay folks are okay with Mal and Wash being tortured, but not with how Inara pulls strings to get them out of being tortured? How are they about the ear? Oh, and how are they with the rescue sequence? Seems more like they are trying to protect children from coherence than traumatic content.
Watching the Expendables on the airplane was an odd experience.
Saw a cut of 'Top Gun' once where after Iceman's "You are still dangerous... but you can be my wingman anytime" come on/peace offering, Maverick responded "Don't fool me [you can be mine]" instead of "Bullshit". Still one of my favourite edits, makes a bit of dumb fun a bit of dumberer fun.

So ... the ClearPlay folks are okay with Mal and Wash being tortured, but not with how Inara pulls strings to get them out of being tortured?

In fairness, the torture's probably covered by "Intense Life/Death Situations" and/or "Non-Graphic Injury/Wound Criminal/Gangster/Mob Themes".
So the end credits start when the opening credits end, right?
As long as there are no government mandates to watch it that way I'm fine with it.
Wow. I'm a parent of a couple of young 'uns and I had no idea such a product exits. But instead of looking to some stranger to decide what's appropriate for my kids to see, I prefer to engage in what used to be known as PARENTING.

In our family, that involves my husband and I taking the time to pre-screen stuff that our kids might enjoy but which might also have adult-oriented content to decide whether we want them to see it at all. Every family has different things they're sensitive to, and we know our kids better than any stranger working for an internet site. In our family, we're OK with our kids being exposed to some kinds of violent or sexual content, but not others, and I can also easily see how other families might make a different call on a particular movie.

Then we take the time to actually watch those films and TV shows with our kids so that we can explain or comment on issues right there with our kids. For example, we pause the show and take a moment to discuss how something they're seeing might apply to their own life experience ("Now see how we just learned that the schoolyard bully gets picked on by his own big brother back home? Do you think any of the bullies at your school may have learned to be bullies this way?"). This also allows us to fast forward through parts that might be a little too much for our kids, while explaining to them the general plot point they're skipping over so that the narrative still makes sense to them ("there's a bunch of scary fighting where people get hurt really badly, but then the bad guy loses and runs away while the good guy goes back to town and ...").

But the real beauty of this approach? We get to spend time with our kids AND we don't have to shell out money for a special DVD player.

[ edited by BrewBunny on 2011-06-06 21:46 ]
My very favorite instance of protecting the family was a "cleaned-up" version of "Snakes on a Plane," in which Samuel Jackson uttered the immortal line, "I want those melon-farming snakes off this melon-farming plane!" Take that, all you melon farmers!
I'd certainly never use such a piece of crap bit of technology, but I really don't have an objection to it, certainly not on any artistic integrity grounds. Like that Anna Nalick song, where she so mournfully acknowledges that once free of her, words she puts in song will be put to whatever use the audience wishes -- their love letters, their satire, etc -- this really isn't much different, it's just done digitally.

I do, however, think it would have constituted a copyright violation but for Congress altering the law.
I would love to watch a clearplay filtered version of Pulp Fiction.
True Romance would be better.

[ edited by KingofCretins on 2011-06-06 19:14 ]
Dollhouse would be interesting.
Simon- by and large the studios negotiate the airplnae versions of films, involving the director in such decisions, via contractual obligations/commitments. ClearPlay does it on its own without any involvement of director, which to me is abhorrent. It ruins the director's vision of the work in order to present its own version of its own morality. That's equally abhorrent. To me. People have options, one of which is not to watch at all. And that's okay. But to knowingly alter the original version without the permission of those that created it? That's very troubling.
But to knowingly alter the original version without the permission of those that created it? That's very troubling.


I can see where you're coming from but our fellow fans have knowing altered the works of Joss etc without permission. Though by and large they don't generally charge for it.
I know that the consensus here seems to be that filtering things is Evil and A Violation Of People's Rights, but there are people out there who are sensitive to triggery subjects and would really appreciate being shown things in this form. No one is making you watch it. No one is saying this is the only acceptable way to introduce your children to TV shows. But for someone who, for example, witnessed a shooting, or who was raped, having the opportunity to watch a hypothetical movie or TV show at all without triggering sensitive memories is probably a blessing.
There's a classic airline version of The Big Lebowski, where John Goodman trashes a car while yelling "DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS, LARRY? DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS?"
On the subject of YA literature:

When I was a kid, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were both considered appropriate reading for preteens. Tom Sawyer is G-rated. Huck is a boy who ran away from home because his father, the town drunk, regularly beat him with a stick. Huck has no adult supervision or means of support and lives on a combination of fishing, foraging and petty theft. He habitually lies to authority figure and strangers. The moral center of the book is Huck's decision to do something out of kindness and fellow-feeling which is contrary to the teachings of his church, believing the act will damn him to hell.

I hear the book is no longer read in public schools, not because of any of the above, but because of the name of the second most important character in the book. It's interesting that all the taboos that applied to the "f-word" fifty years ago have been shifted to the so-called "n-word". Progress?
And thus a great euphemism is born. For example, there seems to be a fair amount of people finding each other in the Alps on "Game of Thrones" ...
Well, Phoebe Buffay allways belived that Bambi was a totally happy movie (BTW, I never saw it, exactly with fear of crying a lot :( ).
janef, while I am very torn about the N-word issue regarding the editing of "Huckleberry Finn" (on the one hand, that is what Twain wrote; on the other hand, you want modern kids to understand this is not an okay word to say or indeed an okay concept to have, ever) the F-word isn't used to dehumanize any *particular* group of people, nor does it typically appear in what is marketed as classic literature *for children.*
. But for someone who, for example, witnessed a shooting, or who was raped, having the opportunity to watch a hypothetical movie or TV show at all without triggering sensitive memories is probably a blessing.


That's a good point and I hadn't thought of it, thanks.
I'd love to see a clearplay version of Heathers. The movie would probably be about 2 minutes long.
Personally I don't like this, either watch the shows/movies as they are or don't watch them. Simple as. Cutting parts out is likely to just mess up the plot and defeat the point of watching it in the first place.
janef, while I am very torn about the N-word issue regarding the editing of "Huckleberry Finn" (on the one hand, that is what Twain wrote; on the other hand, you want modern kids to understand this is not an okay word to say or indeed an okay concept to have, ever)...

I recently re-read 'Huckleberry Finn' and it was pretty uncomfortable reading (certainly to start with) cos 'nigger' appears so often. At the same time, that is what Twain wrote (personally I don't bowdlerise quotes since otherwise it's not a quote) and not only that, both the word and the way Jim's treated by all the "right thinking" people in the book is a fact of history, editing the word out feels a bit like sweeping unpalatable truths under the carpet. Also, for some reason it feels more wrong to me to edit books "for comfort" than TV shows (maybe partly because TV shows are edited so much anyway - for adverts, time, swearing etc. - and maybe because it just feels like it matters more with books).

As others have pointed out, just make sure the kid doesn't read it in a vacuum, that you discuss it with them, talk about how the acceptability of the word has changed etc. In one sense it's an opportunity, not a problem (but then I don't have kids).
While I understand this: "But for someone who, for example, witnessed a shooting, or who was raped, having the opportunity to watch a hypothetical movie or TV show at all without triggering sensitive memories is probably a blessing," I need to ask, what is the trigger? It could be anything, so how could anyone ever know?

And Simon, if Joss wanted the fanfic stopped, he could take action but has made the conscious decision to allow this activity- it is his choice. Other authors have been far more restrictive. And that is their right.
Saje: "...editing the word out feels a bit like sweeping unpalatable truths under the carpet. "

This. Very much this.

I think it matters much more for me with a book, too - I certainly know most adaptations of the written word into other media are going to be bowdlerized and sanitized out of recognition. And most American stuff for TV - barring HBO and a few others - is written with the knowledge that the script has to deal with the constraints of the weirdly bifurcated Puritannical/Libertine American sensibility. *sigh* Gods love our hypocrisy, or our dual personality, or whatever it is...

It's between the creator (and his/her lawyers) and these Filtering Folk - if I had kids, and I had a problem with content, I simply would not show them something until I thought they were ready for it - keeping in mind, though, that since they're going to be exposed pretty early on to everything the world threw at them, I'd prolly rather have them watching it with me. But I've always known that I would have been a rather permissive mom.

As a semi-sensitive adult - I don't watch much stuff with serious brutality or violence or rape or horror because I know it will haunt me for weeks - I'd rather choose whether or not to watch something than to watch something sanitized on my behalf. Feh.

What a disservice to the creator all this filtering/censoring nonsense is. And Joss' PG-13 Serenifly 'verse is hardly very brutal or naughty. But whatever.

(I also dislike changing material in the other direction - when Louisa May Alcott or Jane Austen aren't freethinking or sexy enough, they jazz 'em up with passionate necking or feminist mothers or somesuch. Jeebers, if you don't appreciate the material for what is, don't adapt it. Personally, one reason I like Victorian (and earlier) novels with female protagonists is to watch them deal with the confinements of their time, and - often, anyway - become stronger or wiser in spite of them. I also like stories about the ones who don't make it through, like Hedda and Emma...)

(Love your catchy post title, Simon. ; > )


ETF: tyyyyyyyyypos.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2011-06-07 01:00 ]
Dana5140, I'm just saying that people who have had certain negative experiences might be sensitive to particularly violent images. It's one thing to say that people don't have to show their children images that might upset them, but to say that an assault or a rape victim can just find her own entertainment is a little harsh. I personally would not be a big fan of ClearPlay, but I do think there are those who would appreciate being spared the harsh reminders of their experiences by being able to watch edited versions of shows that interest them.
You can dress a pig in a tuxedo, but it's still pork.

You can call something "Family Friendly" too, but it's still a form of Censorship.
Censorship is just a tool - a means to an end. Usually a bad end imo, but like pathsunbeaten points out there are a few good ones to be had.
So censorship doesn't kill people, people kill people ? ;)

(I don't consider this censorship because it's opt-in and because no particular effort is being made - yet ? - to prevent anyone from seeing the un"censored" version i.e. it's no more about controlling the content than, for instance, offering cars with and without air-con is about controlling your ability to stay cool while driving)

I personally would not be a big fan of ClearPlay, but I do think there are those who would appreciate being spared the harsh reminders of their experiences by being able to watch edited versions of shows that interest them.

Not to speak for Dana5140 but I think his point is more that relying on someone else's idea of what's offensive/disturbing/going to trigger traumatic memories is a very fragile method for avoiding post traumatic stress (better than nothing maybe but still, not robust). If someone was raped in a launderette then an advert for washing machines may well be a trigger for instance, it's not just seeing fictional characters being raped that's going to do it. The mind is a strange beastie.
Yes, saje has captured what I meant quite nicely. I was not suggesting that we simply pretend the bad thing never happened; it is just that how could we ever know what the exact trigger for any given person could be? Listen, a little history here for me: years ago I got divorced from wife #1. And then I found out some things I would have preferred not to know (nothing like taking your son to his mom's house at 6am to get the schoolbook he forgot to take and finding a car in the driveway that you recognized as being a colleague of your now ex-wife's, and this only 2 weeks after the divorce was final and understanding what that meant and how long it had been going on prior to that date...). Since that time, I do not and will not watch any movie with a cheating spouse in it. Painful. I understand the issue. But see, I opt not to see, not to have something sanitized to avoid my pain because my pain in unique to me and my trigger is my trigger, not yours. And how could you know? How could the "editors" know? In reality, the editors are not editing these films to help people like me avoid pain; they are editing them in a way that projects their version of morality and religion into the films that others have made. It is part of a culture war, not a method to help the suffering.
I know film is a fuzzy sort of medium, creation and ownership wise. So many people have contributed to the final work (which somehow never seems to be final), that it's hard to say who's vision is "The" vision. And it's so easy to change! It definitely shares a fairly easy malleability with the preforming arts, but then we sort of freeze it and call it done.

There is a sort of sense of vandalism though about having a film work changed. The line where it irrevocably becomes something different than what was intended by the creative voice, feels fuzzy too. But I would think ideally, every line uttered is integral to the plot and to illustrate character, every scene adds to the creation of plot and atmosphere, every action helps build the picture of who people are and what their world is like. I know some films are um, tighter than others in terms of fat and all, but it seems to me that if these things are altered, the work has been destroyed so that it no longer has the ability to say the same things. Sounds very much like a form of vandalism to me.

Anyone ever compared the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a story to the original? I understand the idea behind it, because I've never managed to make it past the first hundred-ish pages of Moby Dick. Just not that interested in whaling, I guess. I keep trying though, because so many people think it is so great. Like this guy who is making one work of art for every page of Moby Dick. I'm sure I'm too modern or something, and like a bit more of a plot centric book than that. But if it is whittled down to make it more digestible, is it the same book? Would it still be a classic? Would it still inspire an artist so deeply that they devote a great portion of their life to making 522 works of art?

******

And regarding the whole people might be triggered thing...I personally think it's bullshit. You. Just. Don't. Watch. Find something else to watch, if you suspect something to be a bit iffy. I've been dealing with a family member who's in recovery from major PTSD for three months now. As Dana5140 and saje said, it is completely unpredictable what is going to trigger an "event." The most mundane thing will do it if something about it provides a close enough pattern match to the original trauma.

The really big fucking triggering problem is the Goddamn t.v.s everywhere with the news on that you can't ever get away from because the whole world is wired. And ugh, those tickers that they mount on the sides of the buildings. You wanna talk about triggers? It's an assault. There is no choice but to be around all of that crap unless you take the path of becoming a Hikikomori. And that doesn't seem particularly healthy either.
I've read enough LJ posts in my time to see that there is a broad appreciation for trigger warnings and that sympathetic support groups can help minimise the danger of a trigger situation by going online.
Definitely, Simon -- and if nothing else, ClearPlay does seem to offer trigger warnings for those who choose to use the technology that way.
I was going to post something, but Brew Bunny already posted it. But I have an example. When my kids were very young I rented Terminator 2 to pre-screen it, decided it wasn't appropriate and left it on the shelf before I took it back. I had to go out, and when I got home my husband had watched it with the kids. They enjoyed it, we talked about it and after that I stopped screening things. I later found out my daughter was going over to her friend's house and watching horror movies anyway. She later studied film at college.

BTW, I find this clear whatever pretty disgusting. Just let you kids watch My Little Pony if you're worried about the bad movies.
Let these people watch what they want. If they want to watch films with half the dialogue cut out and black boxes over naughty body parts, let them. It's hardly vandalism: no-one's taking the original away from you. As long as they don't blame the writers for the plot being nonsensical without the cut stuff, let them do what they like to it.

If these parents think that Firefly is a TV series their children should be watching, that's a GOOD thing, even if they think it should be filtered for them (whether it's done by them or by a magic machine, it's still filtering, and it's always only an interpretation). As they get older they won't need as much filtering, and eventually they'll see the series in its original form. No-one loses out, and possibly a future generation gets to grow up on Firefly.

(NB: There's no way I'd ever use this. If it's appropriate, they'll see it, even if I have to talk them through some of the more adult moments. But then, isn't that just a different sort of filtering?)
While I don't completely agree with this technology, I can see another use for it. Showing tv shows and movies to groups of kids who aren't your own. When I was at Space Camp (for the adult program) a couple of years ago, they had some "cleaned up" versions of Top Gun and other aviation movies to show to the Aviation Challenge campers. Great movies for those settings, but with some issues if you've got late elementary school or early teenage kids in a camp setting.

Similarly, I'm a volunteer with the youth group at my church. And there are some movies I would love to show to the youth group. But there's a bit of language or just that one scene that means that the paid youth guy would get a phone call if one or two of the junior high kids attended that event. And we try to do what we can to minimize the phone calls for little things like that.
redeem147: Just let your kids watch My Little Pony if you're worried about the bad movies.

I think you'll like this, an old Black20 trailer for "My Little Pony" on YouTube.
(Context: On the "net_work" series, they had an episode about how everything has already been done on the Internet. They mentioned "My Little Pony - the Movie". A few days later, this trailer went up.)

[ edited by OneTeV on 2011-06-07 17:31 ]
Folks- we are not talking about all the many reasons you might wish to edit a film- to protect campers, to keep in line with church teaching, to stop triggers. That is not what Clearplay is all about! They have set themselves up as the arbiter of what is moral and view-worthy; they, not the person who created the film or TV show and whose vision is projected. They pretend to know what is right and moral and what should not be seen. They have decided for you. It is their vision of what is right that ends up projceted, yet they do not have the right do this. In your own home, do what you want. But a company, designed to make money and to represent a specific reliogiopolitical perspective, is doing it for you. It. Is. Wrong.
They have decided for you.

And we can decide whether to use their service. Freedom I think they call that ;).

(people have been setting themselves up as moral guardians since the year dot - whether we listen to them or just smile politely and carry on regardless is up to us. As long as that's true there's no problem)
I wholly disagree. ClearPlay is the very definition of choices -- just as we (and by "we" I mean legal adults) have the choice to watch movies in their full and unabridged form, ClearPlay gives people the choice to watch movies in the way that they feel most comfortable.
Does the Serenity list assume Kaylee and Simon get married later? Or is there other movie sex I'm not remembering.
And suicide... is that the murder scene in the beginning? I thought this was a checklist for awesome but I was watching a different movie I guess.
Sarah Paulson's character attempts suicide, albeit holographically (though unfortunately for her it sounds like she doesn't succeed). Arguably so does Zoe. Aside from those i'd guess they mean the murder at the beginning (which i've seen described as suicide elsewhere though it's not an interpretation that makes any sense to me).

Which nicely highlights one of the practical problems with this sort of thing - you're relying on the people behind it having a clue and even if they do, you're relying on their subjective interpretation of events depicted (that's true of anyone making those judgements for you of course but at least with friends you should have some idea how their thinking compares to yours).
Sunfire: Does the Serenity list assume Kaylee and Simon get married later? Or is there other movie sex I'm not remembering.


That's the term that I've seen a lot of folks use for sex outside of marriage - when it's not "adulterous". I don't use it, as I'm not keen on implying that sex and marriage are necessarily associated with one another.

I do like to use "post-marital sex" - just because.

(Unless you're making a joke that I missed, Sunfire, in which case: ha ha! and ignore me, there's nothing to see here. ; > )


ETF: *sigh* Another in a series of typos.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2011-06-07 22:44 ]
I've been through enough awkward moments fast-forwarding sex scenes on TV when watching with my parents to understand where ClearTV is coming from. However, I think that sex and violence are so ingrained in Firefly's plot that you might as well wait until your kids are old enough to see the whole thing then to watch the edited version. But I think ClearTV would be a better idea for movies/tv shows where the sex/violence is more condensed and less crucial to the plot.
Ohhh right, the Miranda scene. Duh. Technically a suicide attempt, yeah. Although the presence of Reavers makes me think of it in a very different emotional space. More of a "death is inevitable, how do we deal with it" space.

When in doubt, you can assume I'm sort of serious sort of joking. I keep getting in trouble for too much deadpan lately. I guess it's translating to text too. I could use hand signals and a special font but that would totally kill my joy in life.
Ohhh right, the Miranda scene. Duh. Technically a suicide attempt, yeah. Although the presence of Reavers it makes me think of it in a very different emotional space. More of a "death is inevitable, how do we deal with it" space.

I think I'd call it more of a "I'd rather die from a bullet to the head than be eaten alive" sort of space. *shivers*
That's the space. It's so gruesome and heartbreaking. Some of us maybe filter our content *after*, with forgetfulness.
She seemed the (very, very) lucky sort to me, maybe they killed her first.

(clearly a smart woman and moral enough to feel remorse for what they'd done but with the reflexes ? Not so much. To quote Il Cattivo, "If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk")
So then, I take it everyone is just fine with them broadcasting highly edited versions of all Buffy episodes? Because they can? Why just them, then? Why not create broadcasts with the ClearPlay ethos, with the anti-racial version, the anti-feminist version, the pro-feminist version, the funadamentalist version, the whatever version, why not create them all? Create a new version of Huck Finn that denies its roots because one word in the book has become offensive to many 100 years after original publication. But why stop there- do it for all books, and all movies, for any reason that might offend anyone in any capacity. Where does it then stop? Not everything ought exist in the marketplace of ideas. Especially when their market is to deny the vision of the people who created works of art. And replace it with their own.
I do like the creativity of "melon farmers". It's up there with "He's a mean motor scooter and a bad go-getter."

I might like to be on the debate team defending the resolution that art is better when artists have to cope with some degree of censorship. It forces them to make some of their points indirectly, and that leads to art which has more depth, complexity of symbolism, and resonance.
And regarding the whole people might be triggered thing...I personally think it's bullshit. You. Just. Don't. Watch. Find something else to watch, if you suspect something to be a bit iffy.

It's not always that easy, BreathesStory, especially if you prefer to remain as unspoiled as possible when watching a television series.

And being triggered is damn well not bullshit. It's horrible.
I think the rest of BreathesStory's post makes it pretty clear she's well aware of how horrible it is (from personal experience), to me she was saying not that the idea of triggers is bullshit but that the idea of ClearPlay helping people avoid suffering as a result is which, in milder terms I mainly agree with - it's probably better than nothing but not by all that much (the support and "trigger warnings" of your friends/peers/fellow sufferers, as Simon mentions, seems far more useful to me).

So then, I take it everyone is just fine with them broadcasting highly edited versions of all Buffy episodes?

Heh, I wondered when the slippery slope fallacy would rear its ugly-yet-familiar head ;). Firstly, so long as it's made very clear that that's the nature of the broadcast and other options are available then yeah, i'm fine with that (the BBC cut Buffy for various things - swearing, violence etc. - but screened them uncut later at night so I just videoed those - cos it was the olden days ;) - and watched them later). Secondly it's nothing to do with broadcasts anyway, ClearPlay is for DVDs i.e. those shiny little discs people watch in the privacy of their own homes and thirdly, if they did those things you mention Dana then i'd disagree with them even more than I already do. And it would still be up to the individual what they choose to watch/put in their own head and ClearPlay would still be free to offer that service (because who else's rights are being impinged upon ? [ETA:] Provided it's actually legal to tamper with the shows/books/etc. to that extent - maybe the creator's rights are being infringed ?[/ETA]).

To flip it around, why not just have someone (maybe you Dana5140 ?) decreeing what people can and can't do with their own DVDs/books/newspapers in their own homes for their own consumption ? In what respects would we be freer then ? It's not (and never has been) about letting people do/say what they like as freely as possible until we disagree with them right ?

[ edited by Saje on 2011-06-08 07:28 ]
FYI SunFire - I believe the suicide scene is the scene where River talks to Simon about blowing her brains out with a gun - it is a short scene but it is distrubing.
Saje-Perhaps that is what BreathesStory meant to infer with the entire post but that's not the way that one paragraph reads.
Well it's no biggie but I don't agree - the paragraph that uses the word 'bullshit' also talks about how you just don't watch anything that's iffy rather than take a chance and how it's unpredictable what will trigger an "event" so it's pretty clear to me (from that paragraph alone) that BreathesStory accepts triggers exist and that they cause great anguish (to a family member with PTSD in her case). It's not even particularly implicit but fairly plainly stated IMO ([ETA:]Added to which of course, is the more fundamental point that surely it doesn't make all that much sense to judge someone's intent based on a single paragraph of a multi paragraph post anyway ?[ETA]).

(and it's 'imply' BTW - you infer what she implies [/grammar Nazi] ETFA: Or is that [/semantics Nazi] ? Either way, Nazism's involved. Only not really ;)

[ edited by Saje on 2011-06-08 17:26 ]
Heh. What saje said. (I think that's my first!)

Yep. That's what I meant. Maybe looking back on it, I should have included some sort of linking sentence there in the middle...Ah, the dangers of sending one's thought-child out into the world lacking the proper accessory to make a truly coordinated looking paragraph.

And it's funny, but it occurred to me about... six hours after I posted my comment, that ClearPlay would probably edit it so much so that my original authorial intent of conveying feelings of miffed-ness and ire would be missing from the whole thing. ;)
This reminds me of a Christian video game review site. They listed "taking the lords name in vain" as a negative against Mass Effect.

I don't even like movies being broadcast in full screen. So this would not appeal to me on any level. Also their "without all of the junk you donít want" comment devalues the whole idea that there could be artistic vision in anything, and that there can't be any value in what they choose to remove.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home