Re:What does that give ya? (Score:5, Insightful)

by dillon_rinker (dillonunderscorerinkerathotmaildotcom) on Wednesday November 14, @10:51AM (#2563611)

(User #17944 Info | http://slashdot.org)

the bit that was removed is not needed to understand the movie (then why did the director put it in?)



Apparently you live in a world where all directors are ascetic celibates. However, in my world, directors often add nude scenes because they like to see live nude girls doing what they tell them to do. About Basic Instinct, the American writer gave some song and dance about the artistic necessity of the nudity and sexual situations in the film...the Dutch director was much more straightforward. He liked looking at naked women. I doubt that you disapprove of his opinions. Why then do you disapprove of the opinions of people who DON'T want to look at naked women?



What this thing produces are censored versions of movies.

The word is "expurgated." You apparently live in a world where if a person denies anything to themself, then Big Brother won't let them watch it. (Censorship is editing by others). If someone else wants to avoid hearing profanity, or vulgarity, or obscenity, why not let them? If you have the right to hear those words in a movie, why should someone else not have the right to NOT hear those words?



It's great that directors can do anything they want to with their films. Fair use lets other people