There's legit versions everywhere, bootleg versions everywhere, but evidently no one would rather hear Marty McFly say "Jeez Louise" instead of something profane.
Actually, there ARE tons of us out here, but copyright laws have been interpreted in court decisions that make it darn near impossible to get one.
You can own the movie and edit it yourself.
You can't own the movie and pay someone else to edit it.
You can buy software that edits language out on the fly.
You can't buy software that permanently creates an edited copy for you to enjoy and re-use at your leisure.
It's nuts!
But the thing I hate worst about it is the sanctimonious tripe about the Director's artistic purity that they claim is the reason for such idiotic legal "protections". And this is coming from an art CRITIC (me), who should normally hold such attitudes sacrosanct.
Who do you think made the decision to offer the film on TV in the first place? Don’t you think they find SOME benefit to offering their art to a broader audience? They may chafe at the edits, but they DO it anyway, and they don’t mind the royalty check from the stations. If you’re taking their argument of artistic purity at face value, you’re falling for a lie. It’s not wrong, it exposes them. If they truly had a problem with the concept of public decency, they would never allow their movie to get played on TV where public decency standards exist. The fact that they don’t object proves their problem is selective in its application. They know what they've created is indecent, but want to believe being profane/obscene is somehow more "real" or somehow conveys their "message" better. Of course there are adult situations that ARE integral to a plot, "message", etc. I'm just talking about the gratuitous stuff here. Back to the Future gains absolutely nothing by any of the multiple swear words in its script except when Marty tells his dad to swear "damnit". Public decency standards are good. Release edited versions and see how the market rewards you.
Comments