yes

Doesn't matter..... just interject it where it was originally created. It's like putting it back into it's home. It's artistic butchery to take these liberties (metaphorically and literally) That song was super popular, anybody from the 80's KNOWs the lyrics... it's underhanded, oversensitive, weeny whiny, cry baby, garbage to take it out. It's like saying.. "This is a reallly good song, known by many, catchy tune, we'll play it on the radio, but we're going to ruin it by removing a word to appease a few sissies that might hear it." The whole thing makes me want to spit.

Thank you :) lol

That was profound.

It stops when you sing the intended lyrics. :) they only stop when their rules are ignored.

Still censorship and I disagree with it. The larger issue is where does it stop?

Removed a certain relevant word.

What have they done with him?

What about what they've done to Tom Sawyer?

I can't sing.

But that's the word that was supposed to be there. Perhaps I'm missing the point. So then you are in favor of editing someone's creation?

Yep. Watching Blazing Saddles on regular channels is nothing like watching the DVD.

Agreed. My thought was they have plenty of other songs to choose from. I feel the same way about movies. Don't edit out profanity. Either run it as is or show something else.

I don't think they should have had dead air or changed the words. If they don't like the lyrics they just shouldn't play it. When a band does a cover song it's not like the original because they put their own interpretation on it.

Hahahahaha.

Why no. That would be wrong.

Did you loudly sing "faggot" during the silent spot?

Great point tech. If we are parsing legal lines ethical lines have been obliterated.

I agree, its why I would turn off the color, it was directed for B&W.

On the ethics issue.....

Ethical questions are so far away from the instant gratification, give me all I want when I want culture we have to deal with now, Hubble can't even see them anymore.

Well maybe that's hyperbole, but not terribly much.

The only people that mention ethics now are also the people that would not cross the ethical lines in the first place.

In terms of shadows and even the color of clothes I think directors would have made different choices had they have shot the film in color. I'm not sure it's fair to add the color later and say that this is what the film would have looked like. Is this violating any laws? Is it unethical? I'm starting to think yes...it's unethical.

Once those rights expire it becomes a question of ethics. Should we allow someone to change the artistic intent of the original work? I would say no. Let that work stand and create your own. I enjoyed the first colorized movies but now realize it is unjust to the people that created them.

The one good thing from colorizing was cleaning up the film as far as scratches and what not. I used to turn the color off and watch them as cleaned up black and white. Clean black and white does look far better a lot of colorized versions of B&W movies.

Ted Turner colorized all sorts of movies, there is a firm precedent.

I would assume there are legal issues involved though. I.E. who owns the rights to the work in question.

Was Turner's colorizing to make a political statement? I don't think so. I think it was a move to beat the competition with new technology. (Sometimes it wasn't an improvement, but in the free market one could change the channel.)

Yes. I used to like that and thought the technology was cool but I have changed my mind. I heard a director interviewed who said he would shoot differently in black and white than he would color. Colorizing changes the creative expression of the film. I feel the same way when they edit profanity out of movies to show them on free channels. I would prefer they just not be shown at all.