What is the point of making movies? I mean, a lot of people would say, it's art. And it totally is, but people don't usually do or make such costly and time-consuming art unless they are going to make money doing it. People totally have hobbies, and I truly believe that people enjoy making movies, but you've gotta pay all the people it takes to make a quality movie. I mean, the sound people probably aren't going to do it for free. So, what is the real point of making a movie? It's to make money for all involved in the process.
So how does allowing the filtering of movies allow people to make more money off of their art? It allows the audience to LIKE the movie more. Maybe people would disagree, but there are apparently a lot of people who want to use the filtering service. If there are companies that make money off of filtering movies, then I would assume that studios are making money off of them, as well, even if they are being filtered in the process.
There is a movie that I originally saw back in the day when there were rental places that edited movies, like, before they were shut down. I really liked that movie when I first saw it edited. It was one of my favorite movies. Later I saw it in its unedited form. I now dislike the movie. Why? Because I ended up viewing content that I didn't like. There is some content that will automatically decrease my enjoyment of any movie, such as blood, guts, excessive swearing, most nudity, sex, puppets (especially if they're supposed to be people), claymation, etc. If I can filter a movie or watch it as a filtered movie, the likelihood that I will purchase the movie, rent it, or watch it in some other paid manner increases. I realize that I will never find a filtering service that edits out puppets or claymation, but I just don't watch most of those movies, no matter how much critical and audience acclaim it gets. I get that it's an atypical aversion.
Another thing I don't get about studios being opposed to these movie filtering companies is that they are not doing anything different than what TV stations are doing. Obviously studios allow television channels to edit movies to play them for the public to watch. What is the difference? And what is the LEGAL difference between what television studios do and these filtering companies? Do the studios make more money when television stations air them as opposed to when people rent, buy, or stream movies? I mean, I've even watched a movie on an airplane that was edited for content!
So, clearly studios allow movies to be edited (hence, rendering the art argument as invalid). I just don't understand the disconnect between TV providers/airlines having edited the movies for content and the actual individual editing a movie for what that individual knows that he/she will not enjoy. We used to record movies off of TV all the time on our VHS player. I can't tell you how many movies I watched AND enjoyed that way that I no longer view because I don't have an available way to own/view it as an edited movie. People's interests, interpretations, and tolerance for various forms of art are different. Movie studios should allow people to experience this art/entertainment in a way that they enjoy themselves.
4 comments:
It's probably not really a case about art at all, but it's about copyright law. I think only the owner of the copyright can authorize changing content for commercial use. So movies shown on tv and airlines, I think, may be provided by the studios who own the content. Maybe studios should get into the business of providing edited movies, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've already ran the numbers on that business model and the bottom line wasn't worth it.
I'm curious what the movie was that you loved the edited version and not the full version.
I get what you're saying, but if companies are already doing the editing, then they can just say, okay, we'll let you do the editing, but you have to pay us still. So I totally get the copyright aspect (I mean, that's why it's an issue), but they can still allow it (like TV and airlines), as long as they get paid. That's no money out of their pocket, really. It should be only income.
It was 'Love Actually.' I was fine with the concept that they met while filming pornos, but I didn't want to watch them making pornos! That's like watching a porno!
Not that this may help but they weren't filming a porno. They were stand-ins for the real actors in a love scene so the filmakers could figure out camera angles and lighting.
Maybe the studios would do that if the companies came to them first and pitched the idea to them and what the payment structure would be, but it seems like these companies just start on their own. But I'm sure there is a lot that I don't know about why they don't do it.
I wasn't actually looking for 'help,' but I was just writing my opinion about why they should allow companies to edit. Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment