Most of us have uttered the familiar mantra, “If only someone would take out the swearing (substitute – “naked girl,” “bedroom scene,” “severed arm”) that would have been a good family film.” Well, someone has done exactly that! In fact several small companies are offering the public what it has wanted for decades; edited versions of certain almost-family-friendly movies. This raises certain questions: How do they do it? Can they do it legally? And will the public support a movement to clean up movies?

The subject of family-edited films has been high on the agenda of The Dove Foundation ever since its inception in 1990. The three primary goals of Dove are: 1) to locate high quality, wholesome feature films and award them the Dove “Family Approved” seal; 2) to encourage Hollywood to release cleaned up versions of certain films and award them the Dove “Family Edited” seal; 3) to create a demand for more wholesome, family-scripted films.

We spent nearly 14 years trying to convince the studios that there is a huge untapped market for edited movies. One major company, New Line Cinema stepped up with a positive response. New Line execs agreed to release four films on home video that met Dove Family-Edited standards; “The Mask” starring Jim Carrey, “The Batchelor” with Rene Zellweger and Chris O’Donnell, “Lost in Space” starring Mat LeBlanc and William Hurt, and “Blast from the Past” with Alicia Silverstone and Brandon Frazier.  These family edited videos were released in a small, but successful trial.  You can purchase them in their edited form at the Dove Foundation’s Online Store http://www.dove.org/shop.

Since the New Line experiment, no edited titles have been released by a major studio. At the same time, however, the demand for edited movies has grown dramatically. The studios have refused to respond to the demand. So several independent companies have popped up that utilize different technologies to filter or edit objectionable content out of videos and DVD’s.

One company, Clear Play has developed software that reads a DVD while accessing filtering software that automatically cuts out the content they determine is out of bounds. For a small fee, you download the filter from the Clear Play web site that matches the title you purchased. Then you can watch your movies on a computer with a DVD Rom drive. Or, you can purchase a special Clear Play DVD player that holds the filtering software for the movie you purchase.

Another method of filtering is offered by the makers of TV Guardian. This is a set top box that mutes the sound when an objectionable word or phrase comes up. This system works seamlessly on television programs as well as DVD’s or videos. The secret is that it reads the closed caption signal and has a filter that automatically bleeps a swear word from the show or movie you are watching.  TV Guardian works with audio signals and does not filter any video content such as nudity or violence.

The simplest, most direct method for editing the content of videos has been adopted by several companies, including one that The Dove Foundation has chosen to work with, Family Flix.   

The Dove Foundation reviews films edited by Family Flix and awards its Family Edited seal to those titles that meet Dove standards. There is a complete listing of Dove-approved DVD’s that were edited by Family Flix at http://www.dove.org/shop.

Family Flix staff maintains an edited a copy of each movie in its library. When you order a title, they purchase an unedited original DVD and disable it so it cannot be played. This meets the royalty payment obligation, and there is no chance that you or your children will inadvertently play the wrong version. They package both the edited DVD and original together and send them to you in the original package

This new marketing strategy has caused the studios and writers, producers, and directors to go apoplectic.  Hollywood is crying, “foul.” Several law suits have been filed to try and stop these companies from doing business. The complaints are two-fold. First, they are accusing all of these aftermarket companies of violating copyrights. The problem is that the creative people do not hold the copyrights on their films; only the studios do. So the studio execs have reluctantly gotten involved in the legal complaints lodged against these “outlaw” mom and pop companies. Secondly, the creative folks are complaining that they are being cheated out of the royalties they deserve. In fact, all three types of companies have one thing in common; they all involve the purchase of the original product. The purchase price includes any royalty payments due.

The bottom line seems to be one of pride in workmanship. No artist wants to see his work disfigured; and I sympathize. Any creative person should be able to have their works presented with the same vision they had intended, so long as the content doesn’t violate any obscenity laws.  But, upon closer examination, no-one is preventing the sale of the original body of works. Rather, some consumers are merely asking a middle man to do what they already do with their remote controls…get past the stuff that is not appropriate for their family members to watch.

What about the poor artist? Does he suffer financially when his work is altered by an outsider? That is unlikely, since creating an edited version actually adds to his income. Thousands of consumers who would otherwise not purchase or rent a copy will do so, since it now meets their standards.  Furthermore, it is a common practice for directors or producers to authorize the editing of their work so it can be played on a commercial airline or on broadcast television. For example, the producers of “Titanic” went ballistic when a small town video store offered edited versions to their customers, after paying full price for the original.  At the same time, they signed a $30 million deal with NBC television, knowing full well that the NBC censors would edit out the same two scenes that the video store owner cut.  So much for “creative integrity.”

The bottom line is there is a huge bottom line, and Hollywood’s stubbornness is keeping them from sharing the wealth. It seems a waste of time trying to litigate small independent companies for providing what the public wants; kinder gentler entertainment options. Why not enter the marketplace with their own edited titles?