Chris Knudsen on Life & Business

30 Responses to “Finally Weighing in on CleanFlicks”

1. Hey Chris, I wrote a similar post on my blog. I also agree with the verdict, but I hate Hollywood for destroying our culture and exporting their mindnumbing crap around the world.

   I have to disagree with one point though. Although there are many R-rated (and even PG-13) movies I would never watch, there are many that would be great, except for that one scene. I think that these companies, by sanitizing films, provided a valuable service that Hollywood refuses to, and I applaud them for it. They allowed me to watch even PG-13 movies that I wouldn’t have otherwise. But your right, the standard is broken. That’s what happens when you allow companies to rate themselves.

   Your readers may be interested to know that there is a live DVD editing service called ClearPlay that allows you to set very granual levels of tolerance for profanity, etc. I see it as a good, customizable solution, although it’s fairly expensive.

   Thanks for the great post! I wish more people would call it like it is when it comes to Hollywood.

   Left by Jordy on 08/03/2006

2. Jordy, Good points. However, “sanitizing” is still modifying copywrited material, which is illegal. Therefore, I don’t think we can “applaud” them for that. I support them in principle but when you break the law, you cross a line I can no longer support.

   Thanks for the tip on Clearplay. That looks like a good solution.

   Left by ctknud on 08/04/2006

3. I don’t know if I quite understand what you are saying Chris. “A rated R movie is still a rated R movie whether the content is “edited” or not.” Is that so, what if it’s edited for T.V.? What if our own views (or media’s views) change over time as to which movies deserve an R rating.

   Also, what are your feelings on youtube? There is plenty of modified copyright material on youtube. I don’t think I’m participating in anything evil by watching a modified, copy-righted Star-Wars clip. And evenLucas Filmsthinks it’s okay.

   Left by Cort on 08/04/2006

4. Great thoughts!! I never understood how those companies could have so many loyal customers who were upholding one pricipal or moral all the while seeming to have no other basis in that these companies where breaking the law.

   Left by Jeremy Hanks on 08/04/2006

5. Cort:

   You are saying that if a segment is removed it may make it better for some to view and I can agree with that to a point. However, subject matter alone can be a reason for an R rating. That is why I have tried to make the point that an R rated movie can still be an R rated movie no matter how much it is modified.

   I love YouTube. However, if they allow someone to post copywrited material, then they are breaking the law and if they get sued over it then its probably justified. If Lucas thinks its OK then he’s giving permission and the modifier is not breaking the law. You can bet that if he didn’t think it was OK then he’d be on the “modifiers” like white on rice. By the way, Lucas was one of the directors that counter sued in the CleanFlicks case so obviously he didn’t support it in the case of CleanFlicks

   Left by ctknud on 08/04/2006

6. Chris,

   I disagree. It’s not clear that movie sanitizing companies like Clean Flicks are in violation of copyright, especially before this judgment. If I buy a portrait at full price, draw a mustache on it, and resell it to someone who likes painting with mustaches on it, am I violating copyright? Of course not.

   To say that this is violation of copyright is to side with all the large media companies that use DRM and the DMCA to legislate what consumers can do with their products after they’ve bought them.

   These film sanitizing companies buy every movie at full price, then charge an ADDITIONAL fee for the editing. Hollywood loses no money to these sales. They simply show their interest in exposing America to filth and to do it by force.

   This judgment is an affront to the fair use provisions of copyright law and to the freedom of “choice” that Hollywood so frequently advocates. How hypocritical of Hollywood.

   I find it dramatic of you to call out “every Latter-day Saint” on copyright infringement and the “appearance of evil.” While I agree that movie sanitizing may not remove the underlying tone and message of some movies, rendering them equally offensive in Spirit, for many movies the removal of all the 4-letter words and cleavage can do a lot to improve their watchability for families. So why not do it?

   These companies have LDS customers from all over the U.S. in addition to non-LDS conservatives in the Christian South and elsewhere.

   You act like the owners of Clean Flicks are forcing you to watch something you don’t want to watch; you’ve clearly confused them with Hollywood.

   Left by Richard K Miller on 08/05/2006

7. Richard:

   That was a great comment. I love it when guys weigh in with well thought out comments like that.

   Very good point on the LDS thing. You are right, there are plenty of “christians” using this service as well.

   I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the copyright issue. So far, the courts disagree with you as well.

   Remember, I don’t support hollywood and I don’t support and I don’t support CleanFlick either. Anymore, I stay away from the industry in all together.

   Left by ctknud on 08/05/2006

8. [...] August 5th, 2006 My thanks to Chris Knudsen for motivating me to comment on the recent ruling against CleanFlicks by writing a piece with which I so fully disagreed. [...]

   Left by Richard K Miller dot coooooooooom » On the recent ruling against CleanFlicks on 08/05/2006

9. I find your adherence to the ratings system somewhat disturbing. You claim in your post that a rated R move, when edited, is still rated R. Ratings are relative to the content of the video. Additionally, in recent years the MPAA has issued minor advisors with the films they rate, indicating why the movie received that rating (i.e. “Partial nudity, graphic violence”).

   It is pointless to stick to the ratings system as you are. On my first date after the mission, we went to a PG-13 movie, that had full frontal nudity of a woman in her 50s. I was appalled. Yet, under the counsel by our prophets to not watch rated Rs, are you alleging that I should not have been disgusted with the content, and opposed the movie?

   Also, what does that say of LDS in other countries, where the MPAA has no oversight? Rated R movies often receive lesser ratings in other countries, where the same filth is more widely accepted. Children are able to watch many of these movies with no restriction. I knew of many church members in Honduras (where I served my mission) that watched horrible movies which were R in america, but not restricted in their own country.

   It is all based on content. I draw the line, personally, for rated R movies, because that is what the prophet has told me. But I do not feel bat at all for watching an edited R movie where the offensive content has been removed.

   Left by Connor Boyack on 08/05/2006

10. Connor:

    I think I clearly made the point that we ought NOT stick to the ratings systems. I think I clearly made the point that a rating is no longer a good standard to go by as illustrated by your experience with the movie after you got off your mission. Did you read my post?

    You say “its all based on content” actually you are wrong. Subject matter is also a factor in ratings. How do you edit subject matter? Thus, I stick by my point that even if its illegally edit you are still watching a rated R movie.

    Frankly, I think your argument is a little sideways…you’ll support breaking the law so you can watch edited content someone else tells you is properly edited content. Conner, the Prophet wasn’t the one editing the moive.

    What a joke.

    Left by ctknud on 08/05/2006

11. Of course I read your post. Your last two paragraphs dealed largely with your opinion that an edited R movie is still R, because of subject matter.

    So, if Saving Private Ryan is edited to remove all scenes of blood, gore, and use of profanity, is that movie still R, in your book? Should I not watch the edited version, since it is about war?

    I understand your point, I just think it is not universally applicable. For example, if you edit a movie that is all about sex (such as American Pie, for example), then a good edit might end up with about 5 minutes of screenplay, which would ridiculous since there would be no connected flow of the screenplay.

    If, however, there is a documentary about 9/11 that is rated R for the use of two F words and one scene of nudity, would it be inappropriate to watch if those offending scenes were removed? I don’t think so.

    I do understand your distinction between content and subject matter. I combined them into one when referring to it, but I understand how they can differ. I think this is all very subjective, and is a personal decision for each to make. However, you feel that LDS who support editing R movies should be ashamed of themselves, so of course you don’t agree with me.

    The legality of the issue is altogether a separate issue from the point I was trying to make. I think a sanitized R movie (whether done by Cleanflicks, or by the studio for a made-for-TV edition) is okay to watch, as long as all offending content and subject matter has been removed.

    Left by Connor Boyack on 08/05/2006

12. Conner:

    Again, how do you or CleanFlicks define “offending content”? You are on a very slippery slope.

    Left by ctknud on 08/05/2006

13. As I said, it is subjective. What is offensive to you might not be to me. These are personal decisions, performed on an individual basis (how’s that for a tautological statement?).

    In my experience, Cleanflicks and Family Edited DVDs did a great job and censoring potentially offensive material. The standards they used, bringing the movie down to a PG-appropriate audience (when subject matter permitted), were such that I would have felt comfortable watching the movies with my grandmother.

    Thank you for cautioning me of the slippery slope you feel I am on. Let me observe that a slippery slope for one person might not be so slippery for another. Who’s to say that I don’t have good traction on my shoes?

    Left by Connor Boyack on 08/05/2006

14. I wanted to pop in and voice my opinion on the matter. I doubt I’ll be able to cover everything–these string of comments covered quite a bit–but I’ll get to what I thought was important.

    First I’ll say that I never agreed with the idea of CleanFlicks. Not on a legal level, but on the terms that I always felt it was merely a rationalization. A rationalization to do something one otherwise might not and be able to feel innocent about it. Many of my close friends and family members frequented CleanFlicks to avoid “those occasional scenes”. I always felt this was just a rationalization and still supported Hollywood and the people that created the “offensive” content in the first place.

    Also on that note, the “avoiding the appearance of evil” advisement would very much apply in this situation. What message are you sending by renting a film that needs to be cleaned? “Yeah, I saw American Pie, but it was from CleanFlicks”. Again, a rationalization that isn’t fooling anyone. Unless the authority that defines your level of appropriateness (which should be you) also edited the film you’re only fooling yourself.

    I also agree that “offensive content” is completely relative. Who is to decide what is appropriate for another? In some situations I think the “offensive content” is needed. Consider films like Schindler’s List. The graphic nature of the film is critical to educate the viewer. If we didn’t understand the very mature nature of the situation–if we filter it out based on someone’s decision on what is or isn’t appropriate–we never be able to understand what happened. I think those that don’t allow themselves to make their own decisions–to completely rely on another–make themselves weaker for it.

    Also, for anyone curious, I will say that I was born & raised LDS. I served a mission, and I don’t recall any priesthood interview asking about R rated movies. Where is it stated, other than the advisement of avoiding the apperance of evil, that R rated movies should be strictly avoided? I’d be interested in seeing documentation of where an authority specifically listed R movies, and if so shouldn’t this be included in the critical worthiness interviews?

    Left by Christer on 08/06/2006

15. Christer:

    Great points. I realy enjoyed your comments.

    Left by ctknud on 08/07/2006

16. Christer: I also dislike hearing “…but it was from CleanFlicks” tacked onto the lists of movies people watch, but I still think they provide an important service. Almost everyone knows which words offend, which scenes offend, and which themes/stories are inappropriate for children. So why shouldn’t a company take them out for customers that want it?

    Movies that educate are no less offensive for it. I’m not convinced that being exposed to the base and vile parts of our human history is necessary to avoid repeating them.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the absence of specific questions in worthiness interviews is any sign of their unimportance. (The temple recommend interview doesn’t ask about pornography either.) But if you want a reference to the “no R movies” talk, it’s President Benson in Priesthood session, April 1986 .

    I believe avoiding R rated movies is the baseline. But the hidden danger with a specific rule is that many people don’t put in additional thought; they’ll see any G, PG, or PG-13 movie instead of avoiding (using their own agency and judgment) “any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic”.

    Left by Richard K Miller on 08/07/2006

17. Richard:

    Thank you for the reference.

    Left by ctknud on 08/08/2006

18. Has anybody here ever actually used CleanFlicks before? I’m going to weigh in on all of this because I do have a membership there, and I have a few thoughts on the matter to put out when i get back from S.F.

    Left by Russell Page on 08/08/2006

19. Wait a second . . . an R-rated movie is still rated R, regardless of whether or not the naughty bits have been trimmed? So, by that same logic, if I insert R-rated language and nudity into a G-rated film, it’s still G-rated and therefore okay for all ages? Yes, some movies are rated R for subject matter and no amount of editing is going to remove that, but that wasn’t what was stated. There’s just no sense in that assertion.

    Also, I’m not trying to offend anyone here, but I think it’s a little goofy when Latter-day Saints insinuate that it’s never been expressly said that R-rated movies are bad. Even a quick search on LDS.org reveals that R-rated movies have been mentioned in the following General Conference talks in ADDITION to the one by President Benson mentioned above (and there are probably others):

    You Can’t Pet a Rattlesnake
    David E. Sorensen, “You Can’t Pet a Rattlesnake,” Ensign, May 2001, 41

    Rearing Children in a Polluted Environment
    Joe J. Christensen, “Rearing Children in a Polluted Environment,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 11

    “Yagottawanna”
    Jack H. Goaslind, “Yagottawanna,” Ensign, May 1991, 45

    The Savior Is Counting on You
    Joe J. Christensen, “The Savior Is Counting on You,” Ensign, Nov. 1996, 39

    Rated A
    Marvin J. Ashton, “Rated A,” Ensign, Nov. 1977, 71

    Priesthood Power
    John H. Groberg, “Priesthood Power,” Ensign, May 2001, 43

    “Touch Not the Evil Gift, nor the Unclean Thing”
    H. Burke Peterson, “Touch Not the Evil Gift, nor the Unclean Thing,” Ensign, Nov. 1993, 42

    Purify Our Minds and Spirits
    H. Burke Peterson, “Purify Our Minds and Spirits,” Ensign, Nov. 1980, 37

    Live above the Law to Be Free
    Hartman Rector Jr., “Live above the Law to Be Free,” Ensign, Jan. 1973, 130

    Spiritual Crevasses
    David B. Haight, “Spiritual Crevasses,” Ensign, Nov. 1986, 36

    As a Beacon on a Hill
    H. Burke Peterson, “As a Beacon on a Hill,” Ensign, Nov. 1974, 68

    Left by Curtis on 08/08/2006

20. Curtis:

    Thanks for the reference to the talks. However, and no offense, your comment about the G movies is one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my entire life. We deal in reality on this blog. If you want to put forth ridiculous theories go somewhere else.

    Thanks…

    Left by ctknud on 08/09/2006

21. The logic isn’t off at all Chris. It is exactly along the lines of the logic you used.

    If you say R-rated movies are still R-rated without bad stuff that logic suggests that G-rated movies are still G-rated with added “bad stuff.” It’s insane, but it’s what you suggested.

    The point you essentially made is that rating doesn’t change even if content changes. I think it’s kind of funny that you take such a staunch stance on your opinion here and choose to insult the commenter because he called you on it. That isn’t dealing in reality at all, it’s pretenting it doesn’t exist.

    Left by Rusty on 08/09/2006

22. That last one was me . . . . I sometimes use the name Rusty online . ..

    Left by Russell Page on 08/09/2006

23. I agree that my G movie comment was dumb. But, the way I see it, it was your logic I was using, not mine.

    That aside, I’m surprised at your response. I simply point out what I perceive to be a flaw in your argument and your response is a mini-lecture and to tell me to “go somewhere else”?? What gives?

    Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re wrong. When it comes right down to it, where anybody stands on the CleanFlicks debate doesn’t matter enough to make me really care. But if this isn’t the type of blog where people can make comments without getting shouted down and insulted, maybe this isn’t the type of blog I want to be reading anyway.

    Left by Curtis on 08/09/2006

24. Ok, Maybe I came on a little strong.

    PEACE…

    Left by ctknud on 08/09/2006

25. [...] Here are a few thoughts: 1) Richard Miller - “On the recent ruling against Cleanflicks” 2) Jordan Gunderson - “Hollywood Hates you” 3) Chris Knudsen - “Finally weighing in on Cleanflicks” 4) Josh Steimle - “CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms - Court Rules Against Three Utah Companies” [...]

    Left by the CleanFlicks conundrum | Russell Page on 08/09/2006

26. A well reasoned and logical post… Not to mention my own opinion except for the LDS stuff which I steer clear of. Im a big fan of the off button except for regular TV which I’m sometimes embarrassed by when watching and a Girls Gone Wild ad comes on.

    Left by Jeff Barson on 08/12/2006

27. I knew a Chris Knudsen in highschool. Graduated 2001. Don’t know if you’re the same person or not. Anyway, I can understand many of your points. I know that some things we do for the Lord we do by principal. We do them simply because he tells us to whether or not we understand it or not, and we’re told to always uphold the law. However, there have been times when the Lord has told people to go against rulers and the law to establish his good principals like in the Book of Mormon when Moroni brought out the Title of Liberty and they fought against the corrupt government that existed. There is a line there though, and I think it’s important that LDS people follow the prophet so we know where to draw that line.

    I have to say one thing about watching edited movies though. I think almost every LDS person has watched an R-rated movie that was edited and shown on TV. I’ve never felt wrong about doing this. Course there are some shows even on TV that shouldn’t be watched by a good LDS person. Some movies, however are only rated R because of profanity. Take those words out and you’d never know they were rated R. However, when we watch a movie that’s rated R that’s been edited, we’re still supporting the people who make rated R movies, so perhaps we shouldn’t even watch edited movies on tv that were once rated R.

    Left by Brandon Hanberg on 01/01/2007

28. [...] Some of my best posts were made great by the comments not by my commentary. Last August I called out CleanFlicks. There was a great debate about the merits and morality of this business in the comments. I’m still getting comments on the post. Just the other day I blogged about risk and Josh and Russ piped in on the comments with some great value add commentary that I felt really completed the post and complimented my points. [...]

    Left by Chris Knudsen on Utah Business and Entrepreneurship on 01/02/2007

29. COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ON THIS POST.

    Left by Chris Knudsen on 01/06/2007

30. [...] I blogged about CleanFlicks last August and that post drew some of the most heated comments I’ve seen on my blog. [...]

    Left by Chris Knudsen on life, business, and entrepreneurship » CleanFlicks claims new legal loophole to continue editing movies on 04/11/2007

Leave a Reply