MovieChat Forums > Politics > Netflix CENSORED Back to the Future Part...

Netflix CENSORED Back to the Future Part II (thread deleted by a moderator from the General Forum)


This thread was posted in the General Forum and was deleted by a moderator. According to that moderator, it was not appropriate to post in the General Forum, in a website about movies, a thread about a movie distributor editing out scenes from classic movies because they consider those scenes politically incorrect.

This is the video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JhgT8TUEA4

Be aware that Netflix didn't announce or warned about it. It was discovered by a youtuber. Netflix can have done the same thing in other movies. It's not the only case. Some user told (in the deleted thread) about a similar case discovered in Disney (I can't remember the specific movie).

reply

Disney+ censored Daryl Hannah's arse out of Splash.

That is the real tragedy here.

reply

I HEARD THAT...RIDICULOUS.

reply

I've found the image, before and after.

It's... I'm speechless
https://i.insider.com/5e94eb4fb3b092270e4dd7f3

reply

That looks terrible

reply

Netflix has the right to censor anything they broadcast. There is no conspiracy. If you don't like it then use a different streaming service.

reply

Have they? And what's more important: should have they?

Let's imagine that the company that owns the rights of classic movies decided that something is morally incorrect and decides to take action. For example, let's imagine that they decide that adultery is wrong, so they will change dialogue or scenes to eliminate adultery. Let's take Mogambo, where there's a married couple and she cheats him with the main character. Since adultery is wrong, they could change the dialogue so the original married couple will be brother and sister, so there's no adultery anymore!

Since they own the rights, that's OK, isn't it?. They have the right to censor or change the scenes or dialogue. There is no conspiracy. If you don't like it then too bad for you. Isn't it?

reply

It's unethical to censor material without marking the censorship, like the disclaimers before just about every movie on network or cable tv.

Customers should be honestly told what they're paying for.

reply

Warning is not enough.

Copyright is the way authors can monetize their work. It shouldn't be a way to control, edit and censor it.

One example. There was a Russian movie in 1992 called 'The Chekist'. You probably never heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chekist
https://vimeo.com/378689989

Almost nobody has never heard of it. The movie portrays (quite brutally) the situation of political prisoners in the early Soviet Union. The movie was praised in Cannes and the Toronto Film Festival... and that was it. After that, it vanished. It has never been officially distributed in western countries. Somebody decided that the movie was politically pernicious, so he bought the rights... and buried the movie.

That shouldn't be allowed. One thing is to own the rights and use them to do business, and a very different one to use them to censor or even eliminate the movie.

reply

Disney as well

reply

Mod3 right? What I love most about MC is their hypocrisy, can't talk about movies on a movie site but you can talk about this on a movie site. I doubt it ever gets deleted.

Nancy Pelosi Says ‘Morbidly Obese’ Trump Taking Hydroxychloroquine Is ‘Not a Good Idea’
posted 2 days ago by robocat893 (2223)
5 replies | jump to latest
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it’s “not a good idea” for a “morbidly obese” President Donald Trump to be taking the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a preventative treatment for COVID-19 — especially given his age and weight group.

“He’s our president and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists, especially in his age group and in his, shall we say, weight group — morbidly obese, they say,” Pelosi told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday evening. “I think it’s not a good idea.”

Maybe Trump will drop dead then America's biggest problem will have taken care of itself.

reply

Why would my post be deleted? I didn't say I wish Trump would die. I said if he died our country would be better for it. It's my opinion and nothing else.

reply

Quit walking around what you wrote. When you wrote the country would be better off if Trump died...sorry, but that’s wishing he would die. I’m happy the Mod Squad deleted your post. As much as I despised Obama I never wished him dead. Before the Covid 19 the country was better off with Trump. I won’t defend his mouth, but I like his policies.

reply

Sorry to disappoint you but my post wasn't deleted. Do you want a tissue?

reply

OK, my mistake. Read you incorrectly. No tissue needed. Thanks anyhow. 🙄

reply

If his policies don't come from his mouth, where do they come from? Do you imagine what he's trying to accomplish even if he can't explain it plainly?

reply

Prohibited Content:

Content that threatens or advocates for harm on oneself or others, or otherwise violent content.


I have reported dozens of similar posts but they never get deleted. MC is selective on their own policy.

reply

told ya it wouldn't be deleted, even though it violates MC policy

reply

Mod3 right?

Bingo.

Anyway, there's quite a nice live of freedom in this forum, rules use to be correctly applied and moderation in general is well done. Of course, there's always a black sheep.

reply

Yeah, pretty much, with the continual absence of Jim, mods are free to do what they please. At this point I would gladly pay a monthly service fee if IMDb forums ever came back.

reply

I'm sure a bunch of ugly wrong wing, pro-rump pubs can create their own forum where they can pat each other on the back for being great anti-muricans. Buy your own web site so ugly people can have heir own raucous time and not offend the rest of us with constant lies and filth. I'm sure they already exist, just go find them.

reply

Who cares? Local TV channels and basic cable channels have been doing the same thing for years. Ever since the 1980s I can remember scenes missing from movies. It's done because those stations were more prone to being watched by younger viewers. Nobody cried about censorship. But nowadays with the anti-Woke crowd, you've all lost your damn minds.

reply

It's not the same. Not even the same league.

Netflix is not a local TV channel, it's almost a monopoly and owns the rights to stream that content. It's not some local small broadcaster, it's the company that in practice controls that movie worldwide distribution.

reply

So if the TV channel was bigger, it shouldn't be allowed to do it? lol

reply

The two big differences there are that 1) the TV channel would tell you that it was edited for broadcast, and 2) companies are moving more and more towards digital-only models. If streaming services alter movies quietly (ie, without saying its been bowdlerized) and then we move away from DVD/Blue-Ray/whatever, the only versions of these films to exist will be censored and edited.

That last reason is why Star Wars fans are bummed out about the original theatrical releases being unavailable: Lucas changed the movies, said, "This is the way it is", and now you can't get the real version.

If companies dedicate to uncensored and unedited versions, I'm cool with it. But it has to be made known and it cannot be a monopoly.

reply

You can still get the original theatrical release of BTTF 2 though. lol. All this is over a simple warning that it was edited for content? Yikes.

reply

ALL THIS BASED ON IT BEING A DROP THAT COULD TURN INTO A STREAM AND THEN A FLOOD...IF STREAMING IS THE FUTURE...THEN STREAMING SERVICES BEING LEFT TO CHOP AND ALTER FILMS AND SHOWS IS AN ISSUE.

reply

This.

Especially if the alterations are quiet. If there's a disclaimer slapped on the front, "This has been edited from its original version" or "This version differs from the theatrical release" or something like that, then that's different, because then people will know to go looking for the real deal. Or, at least look up what's changed and go, "Oh, that's all? I'm fine with that."

reply

Nah. Netflix is no longer the only game in town. If streaming is the future, it will be because there are multiple streaming services. One does this, the other does that, but neither of them can change the original to force all streaming services to make the exact same edits.

Your paranoia is getting the better of you. But we're not happy unless we have something to bitch about, right?

reply

THEY WONT ALL HAVE THE SAME THINGS AND THEY WILL APE EACH OTHER'S LEVEL OF TAMPERING AS IT WILL QUICKLY BECOME THE INDUSTRY STANDARD.THE BOTTOMLINE IS...IF I AM PAYING TO STREAM MOVIES(ESPECIALLY IF STREAMING IS STANDARD) THEN WHY WOULD I NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MOVIES BEING ALTERED PER THE STREAMING COMPANIES WHIMS.

reply

The only thing concerning here is the monopoly. Netflix shouldn't be the only choice, period. If you can't get the movie anywhere else, that alone is the problem... not that Netflix edited something you didn't like.

If we ban Netflix from editing movies, but in return Netflix is the only place we can get them, we are fucked.

But if Netflix gets to edit them however they want, and other streaming services can compete against it, then all is good.

Because the answer to your question of 'what if I don't get the value I'm looking for with my money?' is the same with any product... you take your money elsewhere.

reply

🤔NEVERMIND.LOL.

reply

I've called out the shitty bias mods on here before. This site is run by triggered children it seems.

reply

Welcome to every site on every forum.

reply

Very possibly true. I've really only used this site and IMDBs message board. I

reply

I would guess because this topic belongs on this board:
https://moviechat.org/tt0096874/Back-to-the-Future-Part-II

reply

I bet if you posted it on the actual movie thread itself it would've stayed... The mods are pretty lenient if not cool (understanding). As long as it is within context it should be fine. ie. use of derogatory words not used in a derogatory manner but to explain things

Fyi, the uncensored version is already restored if you checked that person more recent vid...

reply

Yeah, that was me, mentioning Disney. I was wondering what happened to that thread, and I can't figure out why it was deleted at all Scratches head in confusion.

I managed to watch the video. The people there aren't as annoying as the Nostalgia Critic, and I don't have to see their faces either. Plus, the one guy brought up the important points in the video above. I'll see if I can remember what I posted in the deleted thread:

So....Streaming services have no issues with full frontal female nudity, bare tushies, soft porn sex, dropping F-bombs everywhere, gratuitous violence, and naked political messages....but they think we viewers, who have been watching the "Back to the Future" movies for over 30 years, can't handle the fact that Biff has a French girly magazine in his drawer? Talk about hypocrisy.

Disney+ is no better. The video pointed out the idiocy of what Disney+ did to "Lilo and Stitch," which kids have been watching for 19 years already. It's pretty obvious that Lilo was hiding in the dryer in the laundry room, and yet for some weird reason, they photo-shopped in a wooden cabinet with a pizza painted on the door, despite the rest of the room obviously being a laundry room. I smell a "cover our asses" scheme going on. It's like, the young idiots working at Disney just assumed all children are gonna do what Lilo did, hide in their parents' dryers, get hurt, and sue Disney for inspiring them. They must really think kids are stupid these days.

And yes, I heard what they did with Daryl Hannah's rear end in "Splash!" Honestly, while kids will notice a bare bottom in a movie, they're not gonna make a big deal about it.

For the record, I hate "Back to the Future II," because it was the worst of the trilogy, but even they don't deserve censorship (save for old Biff's face).

It's interesting because I kept telling my parents to keep physical dvd copies of their fave tv shows and movies, because Netflix kept gaining and losing the things they wanted to watch. Now we gotta deal with the damned streaming services censoring stuff we didn't ask to be censored, while applying double standards to their content vs. older stuff. It's starting to stink of Orwellianism to me.

reply

Personally, I don't care about nudity or F-bombs, as long as it's properly warned. In my opinion, there should be a couple of small symbols placed in a corner, so it's not intrusive for viewers and at the same time parents can check quickly the rating (That was the system when when I was a kid, though I still watched a couple of "forbidden" movies from a hidden corner in the hall, after a ninja-like incursion in the middle of the night 😄). In general, movies or books shouldn't be altered under any circumstances. If they're not suitable for children, just give a warning and make it clear, but don't edit them.

Regarding the youtube channel (Clownfish TV), I'd recommend it. This couple is quite reasonable and they usually make some good points. The videos are long (sometimes more than 30 minutes talking about some topic), but fun, I use to queue a couple of them as it was a radio in the background.

reply

One thing all the streaming services seem to get (except Disney+) is they have settings so you can choose whether to watch the kid-friendly version of the stream, or the one for adults.

They do keep MPAA ratings on older films, why don't they put ratings on new stuff in streaming services?

reply