2 of 3

I once loaned my copy of Magnolia, which has a powerful message, to a friend who had never seen it. She said she couldn't get past the first 20 minutes. There was no condemnation of the filmmakers or judgment of me for owning a "sinful" movie. It just wasn't in her to watch such a film. This is called "discernment," and if more Christians would practice it in a positive way, they wouldn't need companies like CleanFlicks to tell them what is appropriate for them to watch. They would be able to make wise decisions by thinking for themselves. What a concept!
Melinda Lane

I strongly disagree with Mr. Moring's idea that editing or sanitizing movies affects the "art" of the movie. I travel internationally for the ministry and have watched hundreds of movies that were cleaned up so they would be suitable for more viewers. The removing foul language and nudity in many of these movies didn't affect the movies' "artistic flow" nor the theatrical content. I think there should be more companies cleaning the unneeded filth from most of what comes from Hollywood.
Kenney Linhart

If we don't like the stuff, then don't watch it. If you want to watch it, then learn from it and use the lesson to bring others to Jesus. Don't complain that the world's entertainment is what it is. What do we expect from lost people? Christian entertainment?
Lee Carter

Hollywood seems incapable of producing a movie that is appropriate for families and children. Often, as you said, the movies are good except for brief objectionable scenes. So let's clean them up and rent or sell them to families. Hollywood should have no complaint. They make their money, we get a good product, and everyone should be happy. You were wrong, and I believe the judge was wrong. I hope CleanFilms, etc., appeal—and win.
Pastor Charlie Swank

Mr. Moring's analogy was right on target. Most of us would cringe if a museum decided to cover up nude art because it was deemed distasteful or obscene, and so the same principle applies to the movies. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church did this with many original works of nude statues and other art by placing "fig leaves" over privates, breasts and other parts. I saw many examples of this travesty while I was in Rome and was sorely disappointed. What CleanFlicks and the like were doing was a return to this type of methodology—an oppressive church or company altering the work of an artist.
Robert Gutierrez, Jr.

While it's true that editing videos for content might alter what the original artist had in mind, so what? Once I purchase a piece of art, whether it's a movie, painting, sculpture, etc., it's mine to do with as I please. If these movie editing firms (I use CleanFilms) purchases a copy for every copy they edit, and the original is never used, the movie company is not losing a cent. In fact, if Hollywood would get a clue, they might find a whole new way of making money doing the same thing, which would allow the artists more input into this process.
Ricky Hale

Just because we edit a few scenes does not make the objectionable film OK. We are saying to Hollywood that just a click of a button will make what you have produced OK, and it is not. Just because you change a label on dog food, it still is dog food.
Judy Romney

First, the "artistic vision" argument does not hold up in today's society. The ending of many a movie is chosen by polling target audience sample groups at preview showings. The most marketable ending is the one that is used. Not artist vision, but marketing vision. Second, the content of many movies is edited for broadcast already. If it is okay to edit or sanitize for the marketing bucks earned through broadcast, why not for DVD? If they are to be consistent, then the film must not be edited for television.
Steve Jameson

next page... |  2 of 3

Related Elsewhere:

No More Smut Editors?	Printer view
A federal judge has ruled that it's illegal for companies to "sanitize" videos by editing objectionable content. And in principle, I tend to agree.