PDA

View Full Version : Download my PG13 edits is all of Season 1



Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:05 PM
About Chapter 6 I realized that the cussing in "We're Alive" was a little worse than I felt comfortable having my 10 and 12 year old sons listen to. So I have edited every episode of the first season to reduce the cusssing to what I consider a PG13 level. I did not eliminate ANY content so if being buried in a pile of rotting human flesh is too much then this edit is not for you.

I think the final results came out very well, I didn't BLEEP anything out, I just carefully removed certain words and tried my best to blend it in. You can occasionally hear a skip in the dialog but my kids haven't noticed it yet.

You can download all of my edits at
podcastnerd.com

CHAPTER 1: IT BEGINS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-01-1-itbegins.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-01-2-itbegins.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-01-3-itbegins.mp3

Chapter 2: THE TWO THINGS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-02-1-thetwothings.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-02-2-thetwothings.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-02-3-thetwothings.mp3

CHAPTER 3: THE NEW ARRIVALS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-03-1-thenewarrivals.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-03-2-thenewarrivals.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-03-3-thenewarrivals.mp3

CHAPTER 4: RULES AND REGULATIONS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-04-1-rulesandregulations.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-04-2-rulesandregulations.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-04-3-rulesandregulations.mp3

Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:07 PM
CHAPTER 5: LADY AND THE TINK
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-05-1-ladyandthetink.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-05-2-ladyandthetink.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-05-3-ladyandthetink.mp3

CHAPTER 6: THE REMAINS OF EASTERN BAY
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-06-1-theremainsofeasternbay.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-06-2-theremainsofeasternbay.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-06-3-theremainsofeasternbay.mp3

Chapter 7: BLOOD SWEAT AND FEARS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-07-1-bloodsweatandfears.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-07-2-bloodsweatandfears.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-07-3-bloodsweatandfears.mp3

CHAPTER 8: WHERE DO YOU GO TO SLEEP
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-08-1-wheredoyougotosleep.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-08-2-wheredoyougotosleep.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-08-3-wheredoyougotosleep.mp3

Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:07 PM
CHAPTER 9: THE ROAD TO LIVING DEATH
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-09-1-theroadtolivingdeath.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-09-2-theroadtolivingdeath.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-09-3-theroadtolivingdeath.mp3

CHAPTER 10: PURGATORY
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-10-1-purgatory.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-10-2-purgatory.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-10-3-purgatory.mp3

CHAPTER 11: R AND R
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-11-1-randr.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-11-2-randr.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-11-3-randr.mp3

CHAPTER 12: THE WAR
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-12-1-thewar.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-12-2-thewar.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-12-3-thewar.mp3

LiamKerrington
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:21 PM
Like ... *PEEEEEEEP*-editions??? O_o

Osiris
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:23 PM
What in the fuck is this?

Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:23 PM
SEASON 2:

CHAPTER 13: SEPARATE DYING EMBERS
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-13-1-separatedyingembers.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-13-2-separatedyingembers.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-13-3-separatedyingembers.mp3

CHAPTER 14: Out of the Ashes (added on 1/12/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-14-1-outoftheashes.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-14-2-outoftheashes.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-14-3-outoftheashes.mp3

CHAPTER 15: Desperate Times (added on 1/14/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-15-1-desperatetimes.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-15-2-desperatetimes.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-15-3-desperatetimes.mp3

CHAPTER 16: Over the Airwaves (added on 1/14/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-16-1-overtheairwaves.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-16-2-overtheairwaves.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-16-3-overtheairwaves.mp3

Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:25 PM
Listen to chapter 6, That has some of the heaviest editing, Saul and Bill cussed more than everyone else combined.

SEASON 2 Continued:

CHAPTER 17: There Might be Others (added on 1/18/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-17-1-theremightbeothers.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-17-2-theremightbeothers.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-17-3-theremightbeothers.mp3

CHAPTER 18: No Place Like Home (added on 1/21/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-18-1-noplacelikehome.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-18-2-noplacelikehome.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-18-3-noplacelikehome.mp3

CHAPTER 19: The Catalyst (added on 2/27/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-19-1-the-catalyst.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-19-2-the-catalyst.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-19-3-the-catalyst.mp3

CHAPTER 20: About Last Night (added on 2/27/13)
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-20-1-aboutlastnight.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-20-2-aboutlastnight.mp3
http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-20-3-aboutlastnight.mp3

LiamKerrington
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:35 PM
You have episode #6 twice on podcastnerd-dot-com. Are these two different versions?

LiamKerrington
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:43 PM
Listen to chapter 6, That has some of the heaviest editing, Saul and Bill cussed more than everyone else combined.

You mean ... Burt, not Bill, right?

Osiris
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:51 PM
Bill was a dick.

LiamKerrington
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:53 PM
Bill was a dick.

He was. To some degree.

Duffus: About your PEG 13 work ... You did quite a job there.

Osiris
Jan 2nd, 2013, 03:58 PM
He was. To some degree.

To all degrees.

LiamKerrington
Jan 2nd, 2013, 04:02 PM
To all degrees.

Let me put it this way: I was not half as sorry for him having deceased as I was for many others on the show ... But: I agree with the character of edit: Burt (fixed it, thx Duffus), who stressed the simple fact that Bill at least fought together with the tower-folks. Does this make him a good guy? Or any better? Especially considering all the theft he did on the one side and the trouble he offered for the towerites on the other? Simple: No.

Duffusmonkey
Jan 2nd, 2013, 04:09 PM
Overall Bill cussed in almost every line. Burt would often talk for a few minutes between cussing.

I did duplicate chapter 6, Thanks for catching that for me Zi will fix it tonight :)

PS It was Burt that pointed out that Bill fought with them in the end

PPS Thanks for the Kudos I NEED something to be obsessive compulsive about and right now that's We're Alive

PPPS. What is PEG 13 work? Sound like something dirty that Michael likes ;)

DeadMen_Walking
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:17 AM
Not trying to be a dick, but is this legal or does it at least have the blessing of KC? Personally, I'd be pretty upset if someone took my Podcasts, edited all the naughty words out, then re-posted them without my blessing.

LiamKerrington
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:25 AM
PS It was Burt that pointed out that Bill fought with them in the end

Thx, fixed it.


Not trying to be a dick, but is this legal or does it at least have the blessing of KC? Personally, I'd be pretty upset if someone took my Podcasts, edited all the naughty words out, then re-posted them without my blessing.

I support this. Just re-editting for changing the PEG-rating won't be considered as 'fair use', thuis copyright-rules fully apply.
In favor of Duffusmonkey speak certain things, though: a) Duffusmonkey shares something, which is available for free anyway; b) Duffusmonkey does not claim ownership, infact all the official credits are still part of each episode; c) Kc observes this forum quite thoroughly (my understanding), which leads me to the assumption that he acquiesces to it (not sure though; I wouldn't want to speak for him).

All the best!
Liam

DeadMen_Walking
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:38 AM
Thx, fixed it.



I support this. Just re-editting for changing the PEG-rating won't be considered as 'fair use', thuis copyright-rules fully apply.
In favor of Duffusmonkey speak certain things, though: a) Duffusmonkey shares something, which is available for free anyway; b) Duffusmonkey does not claim ownership, infact all the official credits are still part of each episode; c) Kc observes this forum quite thoroughly (my understanding), which leads me to the assumption that he acquiesces to it (not sure though; I wouldn't want to speak for him).

All the best!
Liam

I'm not saying anything was stolen and for all I know, KC was aware that he did this and is perfectly fine with it. I was just asking the question. If a fan of my Podcasts (which are also free) edited content and then reposted them, I would at least like to be asked first.

Matt

LiamKerrington
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:50 AM
Deadmen_Walking: Sorry, no offense intended. Again: I agree with you.

DeadMen_Walking
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:54 AM
LiamKerrington: No offense taken, my good man. And now I do see where Duffusmonkey asked KC in another thread if this was ok. For all I know KC saw this and responded to him with a personal message on here. So my question/concern is probably all for not. lol

Osiris
Jan 3rd, 2013, 10:00 AM
All I'm going to say is this:

I do not agree with manipulating art to be less offensive to an individual. It's like walking into a gallery, taking a paintbrush, and slopping black all over a painting because it shows the form of a naked woman and you don't want to expose you child to it. Here's a pro-tip, don't expose your kids to it period. If you think it's too much for their little minds to comprehend, don't expose them to it. Don't take it upon yourself to force that value upon the world around you.

I don't agree with what is taking place here. Art is art. Leave art the fuck alone.

reaper239
Jan 3rd, 2013, 10:26 AM
Deadmen_Walking: Sorry, no offense intended. Again: I agree with you.

you know fellas


LiamKerrington: No offense taken, my good man. And now I do see where Duffusmonkey asked KC in another thread if this was ok. For all I know KC saw this and responded to him with a personal message on here. So my question/concern is probably all for not. lol

there is a quote function for when you want to reply to a specific comment

http://onlineofflinejournalist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/troll.png

i'm sorry y'all, i just had to get my troll on, you can ignore me now.

Blues_127
Jan 3rd, 2013, 10:31 AM
I thought I saw a thread where Kc was directly asked... I wonder if he would weigh in? If we're alive were transfered to network TV, the pure art would likely suffer anyway, and such a thing could prove the viabilty of the story on it's own without vulger dialogue. Some of the best art of this audio medium existed when you couldn't even discuss pregnancy on the air.

As a father, I can apprecciate the intent. As a father of a 14 year old who knows more dirty words than I do... I would have no use for this. But I always worried more about my son 'parroting' foul language than exposing him to Michelangelo's David or Venus Rising. If you let your kids play video games online I can gaurantee they are hearing worse there.

LiamKerrington
Jan 3rd, 2013, 10:35 AM
you know fellas



there is a quote function for when you want to reply to a specific comment

*IMG*

i'm sorry y'all, i just had to get my troll on, you can ignore me now.

































:hsugh:
edit: As I see it: Things were pretty obvious to everyone. Where's the need of quoting, if people understand the circumstances and the context? Right. No need.

reaper239
Jan 3rd, 2013, 10:38 AM
All I'm going to say is this:

I do not agree with manipulating art to be less offensive to an individual. It's like walking into a gallery, taking a paintbrush, and slopping black all over a painting because it shows the form of a naked woman and you don't want to expose you child to it. Here's a pro-tip, don't expose your kids to it period. If you think it's too much for their little minds to comprehend, don't expose them to it. Don't take it upon yourself to force that value upon the world around you.

I don't agree with what is taking place here. Art is art. Leave art the fuck alone.


you know, i have to disagree with you a little bit here, but only a little. yes, it is an art, and it is intended to be viewed a certain way (viewed being a relative term here) and i agree with your analogy, but at the same time, he's not destroying the original. i personally have no interest in listening to it censored, and i actually would not let my kids listen (when i have kids) until they reached about 15, or i decided they could handle it, but i really don't have a problem with him doing it and making it available. it's kind of like buying your kids lucky charms and picking out the marshmallows, why would you buy your kids lucky charms and not cheerios in that instance, i don't know, but regardless it is within his perview to do so for private consumption. maybe he feels his kids can handle the story, but doesn't want them exposed to all the language, i don't care, but he hasn't made the original in any way unavailable, so i'm kind of for him spending his own time to make the show more accessible to a wider audience, because language or no it's still a great piece of fiction. now, as far as actually making it available, that is definitely something that he should talk to KC about, but with his blessing to make it available here, i'm all for it. kind of a way for fans to pay tribute by trying to make it available to a wider audience.

Osiris
Jan 3rd, 2013, 11:32 AM
you know, i have to disagree with you a little bit here, but only a little. yes, it is an art, and it is intended to be viewed a certain way (viewed being a relative term here) and i agree with your analogy, but at the same time, he's not destroying the original. i personally have no interest in listening to it censored, and i actually would not let my kids listen (when i have kids) until they reached about 15, or i decided they could handle it, but i really don't have a problem with him doing it and making it available. it's kind of like buying your kids lucky charms and picking out the marshmallows, why would you buy your kids lucky charms and not cheerios in that instance, i don't know, but regardless it is within his perview to do so for private consumption. maybe he feels his kids can handle the story, but doesn't want them exposed to all the language, i don't care, but he hasn't made the original in any way unavailable, so i'm kind of for him spending his own time to make the show more accessible to a wider audience, because language or no it's still a great piece of fiction. now, as far as actually making it available, that is definitely something that he should talk to KC about, but with his blessing to make it available here, i'm all for it. kind of a way for fans to pay tribute by trying to make it available to a wider audience.

By changing the language to suit your own moral code, you've changed a core piece of the world. You've changed the way the characters speak and relate to each other. It's the destructive nature of censorship, and censorship of any kind is evil and should be done away with. I don't believe that anyone but the creator(s) have the right to re-work, re-word, re-produce their art. As far as making it available to a wider audience? No, it isn't. What it does is take away the artist's voice and replaces it with the voice of the individual offering it. As far as those people who are exposed to it, the original is no longer available. Pay tribute by adding to the universe, pay tribute by presenting art in the form it was intended to be presented. Don't shit in my mouth and tell me it's chocolate, and that's what this is. It's a lie.

I'll say it again, because you've touched on it, I've touched on it, and really this is what is at the heart of the matter: If you have a problem with the language, if you find it offensive enough that you don't want to expose your children or others to it, don't. Don't do it. Just leave it alone. I'd be far more concerned with what my children are putting in their mouths, than they do their ears. I would be more inclined to talk to them, and explain why it isn't OK to use the sort of language they are hearing in a podcast at . . . say . . . the dinner table or in school. If they aren't old enough to understand that conversation, they aren't old enough to listen to it in the first place. Would you take your five year old to a Tarantino movie, stop it half way through, and re-cut the film? No. You wouldn't do that, because it's ridiculous.

Just because something exists, and is sent out over the airwaves or optics for your enjoyment, doesn't mean that it belongs to you. It doesn't mean you have a claim over it to do with as you wish. Fuck censorship.

nikvoodoo
Jan 3rd, 2013, 12:12 PM
I've moved this out of Everything Else as it contains too much potential for spoilers. I've also spoken to Kc about it and it's ok that its happened, but I would suggest in the future before you modify and republish anything that belongs to someone you should probably seek out permission first.

Pardon me while I put on my Gryffidor Scarf: There's a website dedicated to everything and all things, The Harry Potter Lexicon, and they produced and published an encyclopedia. This is a site that had all the blessings in the world from JK Rowling when it was online, she linked to it on her website, gave them awards for their dedication to the story, but once they published the encyclopedia they ended up in court being sued by Rowling and her publisher.

Osiris
Jan 3rd, 2013, 12:32 PM
I've moved this out of Everything Else as it contains too much potential for spoilers. I've also spoken to Kc about it and it's ok that its happened, but I would suggest in the future before you modify and republish anything that belongs to someone you should probably seek out permission first.

Pardon me while I put on my Gryffidor Scarf: There's a website dedicated to everything and all things, The Harry Potter Lexicon, and they produced and published an encyclopedia. This is a site that had all the blessings in the world from JK Rowling when it was online, she linked to it on her website, gave them awards for their dedication to the story, but once they published the encyclopedia they ended up in court being sued by Rowling and her publisher.

It's one thing to allow things to exist for the collective enjoyment of others in a certain medium, but once you try to take the works of another and publish them for profit, you're stealing. Not to say that Rowling wasn't involved in her own plagiarism battle in the past, so the irony is not lost on me, but to be honest . . . she was well within her rights to say, "Whoa, you motherfucking muggle motherfuckers . . . that's my shit, that's my shit."

Kc
Jan 3rd, 2013, 12:36 PM
He checked with me on twitter. It's alright as long as it doesn't become a huge draw of traffic or takes away a reasonable number from our potential downloads. As long as it's small scale on here I'm ok with it.

nikvoodoo
Jan 3rd, 2013, 01:46 PM
He checked with me on twitter. It's alright as long as it doesn't become a huge draw of traffic or takes away a reasonable number from our potential downloads. As long as it's small scale on here I'm ok with it.

Well there we go. :)

And I completely agree Osiris, in my example she had every right to stop them from selling the book.

DeadMen_Walking
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:00 PM
He checked with me on twitter. It's alright as long as it doesn't become a huge draw of traffic or takes away a reasonable number from our potential downloads. As long as it's small scale on here I'm ok with it.

You're a nicer guy than me. :D

Osiris
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:14 PM
Well there we go. :)

And I completely agree Osiris, in my example she had every right to stop them from selling the book.


This never happens.

Duffusmonkey
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:30 PM
My Avatar is original art that my wife made for me.

I am sure that Osirus sends David Duchovny a check evey month for the right to use his image.;)

I like to argue sometimes as long as the person I am arguing with will listen to my points.

I am more lenient about language but my wife found it offensive, and she didn't want the kids listening to it. Unfortunately My son was already hooked so I edited the show so we could listen together.

If KC ever asks me to take it down I will, but I love my boys and I will keep editing shows if they ask me too.

I tried VERY hard to not alter the story in any way, but I taught my sons that cursing is for people who are to lazy or dumb to express themselves. There is a great comedy sketch about Fuck being the most versatile word in the english language, its a Noun a verb, a adjective I would link to it on You tube but that is cut from a larger commedy sketch and by taking it out of context I would be altering the orginal art.

nikvoodoo
Jan 3rd, 2013, 04:02 PM
This never happens.

I think it's happened once before.

Or maybe that was in a nightmare I had....

Litmaster
Jan 5th, 2013, 03:57 AM
I do not agree with manipulating art to be less offensive to an individual. It's like walking into a gallery, taking a paintbrush, and slopping black all over a painting because it shows the form of a naked woman and you don't want to expose you child to it. Here's a pro-tip, don't expose your kids to it period. If you think it's too much for their little minds to comprehend, don't expose them to it. Don't take it upon yourself to force that value upon the world around you.

I don't agree with what is taking place here. Art is art. Leave art the fuck alone.


Ok, but I think you're going a bit over the top here with the anti-censorship rant. Parents have every right (as much as they are able) to regulate what their kids are exposed to and I have no problem with them trying to shield them from what they perceive as negative elements. In this case, it was Duff's wife that had the problem and, since the son apparently was already hooked on the story, the dad took these measures so that they could continue to listen to it together.

Moreover, Duff ("Doofus?") the dad wanted to expose his kids to all the good things in the story and at the same time keep the peace with his wife, which is understandable. A similar situation would be if a high school teacher wanted to expose her class to the finest in audio drama but wasn't allowed to use material with cuss words because of school policy.

That's hardly the same situation as if Red China were to ban all zombie stories, including "We're Alive", from their country because they believed that zombie stories tended to stir the populous into social dissent or something. The situation here isn't a censorship issue.



If we're alive were transfered to network TV, the pure art would likely suffer anyway, and such a thing could prove the viabilty of the story on it's own without vulger dialogue. Some of the best art of this audio medium existed when you couldn't even discuss pregnancy on the air.

Of course... if "We're Alive" was made into a TV miniseries to air on, say, CBS, then it would necessarily have to look a lot different, and all the cuss words would have to be taken out. Not sure they would be able to show some of the more violent scenes in the story, either. I'm sure this kind of thing is what makes Kc a bit leery of giving up any creative control over the project to a major studio.

Artists have always been having to make concessions of this nature in order to get their work publicized. Take a look at any 19th century novel and try to find some cuss words there. Generally, they got modified to, "When the hammer accidentally struck his extended thumb, a stream of Foul Oaths issued forth from Uncle Shylo's mouth" or some such thing.



By changing the language to suit your own moral code, you've changed a core piece of the world. You've changed the way the characters speak and relate to each other. It's the destructive nature of censorship, and censorship of any kind is evil and should be done away with. I don't believe that anyone but the creator(s) have the right to re-work, re-word, re-produce their art. As far as making it available to a wider audience? No, it isn't. What it does is take away the artist's voice and replaces it with the voice of the individual offering it. As far as those people who are exposed to it, the original is no longer available. Pay tribute by adding to the universe, pay tribute by presenting art in the form it was intended to be presented. Don't shit in my mouth and tell me it's chocolate, and that's what this is. It's a lie.

I'll say it again, because you've touched on it, I've touched on it, and really this is what is at the heart of the matter: If you have a problem with the language, if you find it offensive enough that you don't want to expose your children or others to it, don't. Don't do it. Just leave it alone. I'd be far more concerned with what my children are putting in their mouths, than they do their ears. I would be more inclined to talk to them, and explain why it isn't OK to use the sort of language they are hearing in a podcast at . . . say . . . the dinner table or in school. If they aren't old enough to understand that conversation, they aren't old enough to listen to it in the first place. Would you take your five year old to a Tarantino movie, stop it half way through, and re-cut the film? No. You wouldn't do that, because it's ridiculous.

Now, come on... get off the soap-box, Osi. First of all, the cuss words in the story are not a 'core piece' of the world. I do agree that they belong there, primarily for characterization, but also occasionally for comedic ("Shoot that bitch in the face!") or other effects. If I thought the swearing had nothing to do with the story and that Kc was simply putting them in there for 'shock value' or something, then I would be opposed to their use. However, they are an element that serves the overall story, which is why I think they belong there. The story features a lot of army guys-- army guys cuss, and so to substitute that with "Golly gee whizz" would be inauthentic.

If you don't like Duff's 'altering' of Kc's world in removing the swearing, then you must also be opposed to product placement ("More Cheetos, Captain?") in films, given that these elements are added for commercial and not artistic purposes, right?

What about when screenwriters have to alter the length of their scenes in order to accommodate commercial breaks and that sort of thing--that too is altering their artistic expression and hamstringing their creative efforts, correct?

Or when a producer casts an 'A-list' actor to a movie--not because the actor is right for the part, but rather because he is a 'name' that will bring in more dollars than a no-name actor, even if the no-name is perfectly suited for the part? Is that not also an example of 'fucking with the art'?





My Avatar is original art that my wife made for me.

I am sure that Osirus sends David Duchovny a check evey month for the right to use his image.;)

"Heh, heh... now THAT shit is funny." (REP to 1st person who can tell me which 'WA' character I just quoted)

LiamKerrington
Jan 5th, 2013, 05:04 AM
"Heh, heh... now THAT shit is funny." (REP to 1st person who can tell me which character I just quoted)

Under normal circumstance I would say you quote Samuel L. Jackson - nearly no matter what role he plays in. But I think you refer to someone totally different.

On topic:

Although I support the general position of Osiris a lot, I do appreciate the well done job by Duffus. Odd, ain't it?
First: I think DM has done a terrific job - from a technical point of view-, and that at least according to the few snippets I have listened to, because his re-editting does not sting into your ear. That's some fine editing. And learning about the circumstances his cause is not bad at all, because it is not about changing "some piece of art" for the sake of changing it, but for what's happening in his family. I wouldn't want to follow down the path, whether it was a good idea to give his kid the chance to listen to it at all or not, because it does not belong into my sphere of responsibility.
Second: Also I don't care for the reasons behind the editing. In fact I did something similar with the downloaded versions myself by simply piecing together each chapter and cutting away the commercials (as funny as they may be ...). But here come the two major differences:
First Third: I don't make my stuff available to others - neither by providing download-links, nor by sharing stuff via p2p, torrent, or whatever, and not even by simply copying it to CDs/ DVDs and spreading the show that way; thus the edited stuff is available only to me, and it remains that way - no matter what;
Second Third: DM makes his stuff available - and that actually even with the limited blessing by Kc. Now, how awesome is that?

I don't know, if the re-editing of curses and stuff really changes the characters or the piece of art; then any kind of broadcasting or streaming using such editorial techniques is considered to be at least disturbing. I guess this really depends on each single character or pieve of art. Imagine a full Samuel L. Jackson-movie re-editting .... 90-120 minutes *peeeeep*. Awesome. Would be an incredible movie ... Hard to put in words, but I guess you take my point here.

All the best!
Liam

Duffusmonkey
Jan 10th, 2013, 09:33 PM
I don't know, if the re-editing of curses and stuff really changes the characters or the piece of art; then any kind of broadcasting or streaming using such editorial techniques is considered to be at least disturbing. I guess this really depends on each single character or pieve of art. Imagine a full Samuel L. Jackson-movie re-editting .... 90-120 minutes *peeeeep*. Awesome. Would be an incredible movie ... Hard to put in words, but I guess you take my point here.



CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

http://podcastnerd.com/PG13_PulpFictionMarvinShot.mp3

Osiris
Jan 10th, 2013, 09:53 PM
Ok, but I think you're going a bit over the top here with the anti-censorship rant. Parents have every right (as much as they are able) to regulate what their kids are exposed to and I have no problem with them trying to shield them from what they perceive as negative elements. In this case, it was Duff's wife that had the problem and, since the son apparently was already hooked on the story, the dad took these measures so that they could continue to listen to it together.

Moreover, Duff ("Doofus?") the dad wanted to expose his kids to all the good things in the story and at the same time keep the peace with his wife, which is understandable. A similar situation would be if a high school teacher wanted to expose her class to the finest in audio drama but wasn't allowed to use material with cuss words because of school policy.

That's hardly the same situation as if Red China were to ban all zombie stories, including "We're Alive", from their country because they believed that zombie stories tended to stir the populous into social dissent or something. The situation here isn't a censorship issue.

Of course... if "We're Alive" was made into a TV miniseries to air on, say, CBS, then it would necessarily have to look a lot different, and all the cuss words would have to be taken out. Not sure they would be able to show some of the more violent scenes in the story, either. I'm sure this kind of thing is what makes Kc a bit leery of giving up any creative control over the project to a major studio.

Artists have always been having to make concessions of this nature in order to get their work publicized. Take a look at any 19th century novel and try to find some cuss words there. Generally, they got modified to, "When the hammer accidentally struck his extended thumb, a stream of Foul Oaths issued forth from Uncle Shylo's mouth" or some such thing.


Now, come on... get off the soap-box, Osi. First of all, the cuss words in the story are not a 'core piece' of the world. I do agree that they belong there, primarily for characterization, but also occasionally for comedic ("Shoot that bitch in the face!") or other effects. If I thought the swearing had nothing to do with the story and that Kc was simply putting them in there for 'shock value' or something, then I would be opposed to their use. However, they are an element that serves the overall story, which is why I think they belong there. The story features a lot of army guys-- army guys cuss, and so to substitute that with "Golly gee whizz" would be inauthentic.

If you don't like Duff's 'altering' of Kc's world in removing the swearing, then you must also be opposed to product placement ("More Cheetos, Captain?") in films, given that these elements are added for commercial and not artistic purposes, right?

What about when screenwriters have to alter the length of their scenes in order to accommodate commercial breaks and that sort of thing--that too is altering their artistic expression and hamstringing their creative efforts, correct?

Or when a producer casts an 'A-list' actor to a movie--not because the actor is right for the part, but rather because he is a 'name' that will bring in more dollars than a no-name actor, even if the no-name is perfectly suited for the part? Is that not also an example of 'fucking with the art'?






"Heh, heh... now THAT shit is funny." (REP to 1st person who can tell me which 'WA' character I just quoted)

You are short-sighted, my friend. They ARE a core element to the story. How? Simple. It brings the characters to life. Victor is the type of guy who talks with that certain sort of charm, so was Angel, and so on down the line. The world isn't sugar and spice, and everything nice. It's filled with every kind of being, a fair cross-section of them use fuck as a buffer between every fifth word. The point is, it shows core differences between characters, and it influences how they interact with others, and the world around them.

My point is simple: if you don't think it's appropriate to share with someone in its original form because of their age, don't share it with them. It isn't rocket science, it's common fucking sense. Censoring art to make it more palatable to an individual needs to end, and the only way it will stop is if people make it stop.

As for product placement versus censorship. No. You're wrong. The two are not related at all.

A writer needing to alter a work to fit a runtime is not censorship. It's a matter of taking out the air, not choking off the words.

A producer (generally the money man) is often given the right to make casting adjustments as per a contract signed by both parties. While you may consider it 'fucking with the art' you're taking a very narrow minded approach to one point, and missing the intent. That is NOT censorship.

To be clear what it is that I rail against here, it is the act of censorship. If you don't want your children exposed to language, don't expose them to anything. Keep them locked in a cupboard. Never let them out of the house, never let them out of your sight, never let them go to school, have friends or turn on a television set while you're not at home.

When you find curse words in a book, do you black out the word with a marker, tear the page out, burn the book or just put it up on a higher shelf, and say "No . . . this isn't for you just yet." So tell me, are you burning books and CDs to prevent future generations from being exposed?

scbubba
Jan 10th, 2013, 10:59 PM
Just trying to clarify something here: isn't censorship the act of an "official" that takes away something from others that doesn't belong to him/her? With the connotation that it is no longer available in its original form.

Since DM is acting on behalf of his children, I don't think it qualifies as censorship. It falls more along the lines of parenting style. Sharing the work he did, with the owner's permission, to others who want to listen also doesn't qualify as censorship, IMO.

Censorship is more about taking away choice than it is about alteration of something in and of itself.

scbubba
Jan 10th, 2013, 11:03 PM
"Heh, heh... now THAT shit is funny." (REP to 1st person who can tell me which 'WA' character I just quoted)

Oh, and I'm going with Victor being the character you quoted there....

Witch_Doctor
Jan 10th, 2013, 11:14 PM
Oh, and I'm going with Victor being the character you quoted there....

Does anyone else quote Victor through out their day?

Osiris
Jan 10th, 2013, 11:29 PM
Just trying to clarify something here: isn't censorship the act of an "official" that takes away something from others that doesn't belong to him/her? With the connotation that it is no longer available in its original form.

Since DM is acting on behalf of his children, I don't think it qualifies as censorship. It falls more along the lines of parenting style. Sharing the work he did, with the owner's permission, to others who want to listen also doesn't qualify as censorship, IMO.

Censorship is more about taking away choice than it is about alteration of something in and of itself.

Actually, it's the very definition of it.

Censorship
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

A parenting style would be to NOT let your children listen to something you felt would have a negative impact on them based on language, until a time when they are old enough to understand. For all intents and purposes, the parent is taking away the choice between the unaltered work and the censored piece. By your definition, you've agreed that it's censorship.

scbubba
Jan 11th, 2013, 04:47 AM
Actually, it's the very definition of it.

Censorship
Noun
The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

A parenting style would be to NOT let your children listen to something you felt would have a negative impact on them based on language, until a time when they are old enough to understand. For all intents and purposes, the parent is taking away the choice between the unaltered work and the censored piece. By your definition, you've agreed that it's censorship.


A parent as an official is different than a government or organization official. The parent has authority and responsibility for his or her children and makes decisions for them until they come of age. That's not they same thing as a government, or other organization, taking away choices.

It is also a parenting style to limit access to something versus just the binary on/off decision.

I haven't agreed that it is censorship, I've agreed that parent's have the right to make choices for their children that a) are not against the law and b) that you or I don't agree with. You may not like what DM did with his edits and may not make that same choice for yourself and your family. But it is entirely legal, is not harmful or detrimental to the children's welfare, and does not take away the choice from anyone not in DM's family.

Context matters here. There are many things that I as a parent will restrict or limit for my children that the government cannot. that doesn't make it censorship. Examples are, watching movies that I think expose them to high levels of "mature" subject matter, walking alone out of the neighborhood, limiting how often they eat at fast food joints.

So, I don't think it's censorship because of the context of the parental role that DM has for his kids.

Osiris
Jan 11th, 2013, 10:10 AM
A parent as an official is different than a government or organization official. The parent has authority and responsibility for his or her children and makes decisions for them until they come of age. That's not they same thing as a government, or other organization, taking away choices.

A very narrow view of the intent. Applying a hierarchical structure to the home, the official in this case is very much the parent. If you really need to hang on to your definition of censorship. But, let's not apply needless definitions or interpretations:



cen·sor [sen-ser]
noun 1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.


3. an adverse critic; faultfinder.

4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.


5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.


In this case, the parent fits both definitions of the word. You can argue that an official needs to sit in a position of authority, making laws, and so on. I'll argue--quite convincingly if you want--that the parent fits the definition. Arguing that censorship is only possible by a government agency shows me you don't understand the definition of the words themselves, and you are placing your own restrictions upon them to fit your argument. You're going to lose that argument ten out of ten times, because the English language disagrees with you.



It is also a parenting style to limit access to something versus just the binary on/off decision.

It is also a parenting style to lock a kid in a closet after beating her with a leather belt until she's bleeding.




I haven't agreed that it is censorship, I've agreed that parent's have the right to make choices for their children that a) are not against the law and b) that you or I don't agree with. You may not like what DM did with his edits and may not make that same choice for yourself and your family. But it is entirely legal, is not harmful or detrimental to the children's welfare, and does not take away the choice from anyone not in DM's family.

Can you show me where I said that what Doofusmanky has done is illegal? I'd like to re-read that.



Context matters here. There are many things that I as a parent will restrict or limit for my children that the government cannot. that doesn't make it censorship. Examples are, watching movies that I think expose them to high levels of "mature" subject matter, walking alone out of the neighborhood, limiting how often they eat at fast food joints.

So, I don't think it's censorship because of the context of the parental role that DM has for his kids.

You're right. Context does matter here. You limit a child's exposure to keeping porn away from them, from hiding the scary movies, by keeping that creepy uncle from coming to the house. You make not think it's censorship because of the context you're placing it in, but it is in fact the very definition of the word. Again, censorship is the act of censoring.


cellpadding="3" cellspacing="4" style="width: 100%"
|-
| colspan="2" |
|-
| colspan="2" | — n
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 1.
| a person authorized to examine publications, theatrical presentations, films, letters, etc, in order to suppress in whole or part those considered obscene, politically unacceptable, etc
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 2.
| any person who controls or suppresses the behaviour of others, usually on moral grounds
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 3.
| (in republican Rome) either of two senior magistrates elected to keep the list of citizens up to date, control aspects of public finance, and supervise public morals
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 4.
| psychoanal See also superego the postulated factor responsible for regulating the translation of ideas and desires from the unconscious to the conscious mind
|-
| colspan="2" |
|-
| colspan="2" | — vb
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 5.
| to ban or cut portions of (a publication, film, letter, etc)
|-
| align="right" style="width: 1%" | 6.
| to act as a censor of (behaviour, etc)
|-





This could not be more clear. It fits the globally accepted definition to the letter. If you feel the need to argue further that it doesn't, you're not understanding the language at all. I understand that your position is based in a reality where you make up definitions to suit your needs, but it doesn't make it correct.

scbubba
Jan 11th, 2013, 10:30 AM
A very narrow view of the intent. Applying a hierarchical structure to the home, the official in this case is very much the parent. If you really need to hang on to your definition of censorship. But, let's not apply needless definitions or interpretations:


In this case, the parent fits both definitions of the word. You can argue that an official needs to sit in a position of authority, making laws, and so on. I'll argue--quite convincingly if you want--that the parent fits the definition. Arguing that censorship is only possible by a government agency shows me you don't understand the definition of the words themselves, and you are placing your own restrictions upon them to fit your argument. You're going to lose that argument ten out of ten times, because the English language disagrees with you.


It is also a parenting style to lock a kid in a closet after beating her with a leather belt until she's bleeding.

Regarding parenting style, style is a very broad term here and can thus be applied to anything a parent does. Whether or not a parent has the right to beat his kid bloody and lock him in the closet is governed by several different laws that mostly sy the parent would go to jail for doing it. Not the point that we are discussing here since we are, by my assumption, talking about legal things.


Can you show me where I said that what Doofusmanky has done is illegal? I'd like to re-read that.

I didn't say you called DM's actions illegal. I was pointing out that a person's actions would need to pass the legal test here.


You're right. Context does matter here. You limit a child's exposure to keeping porn away from them, from hiding the scary movies, by keeping that creepy uncle from coming to the house. You make not think it's censorship because of the context you're placing it in, but it is in fact the very definition of the word. Again, censorship is the act of censoring.


This could not be more clear. It fits the globally accepted definition to the letter. If you feel the need to argue further that it doesn't, you're not understanding the language at all. I understand that your position is based in a reality where you make up definitions to suit your needs, but it doesn't make it correct.

I seriously doubt that you will find many people who consider parental limiting of their own child's access to things as "censorship". I was under the impression that we were discussing the "right or wrong" aspects of what DM did. It seems we have devolved into a pedantic argument about language. You use the word censorship to, at least as far as I can tell, apply equally to a parent's interaction with his or her child and a government's interaction with the citizens it serves. I contend that they are not the same thing.

Duffusmonkey
Jan 11th, 2013, 10:57 AM
If You keep calling me DM I will assume the role of Dungeon Master and force you to bend to my will.

P.S. Should I continue with my PG13 edit of Pulp Fiction? That tiny clip was almost as much work as whole episode of We're Alive.

Osiris
Jan 11th, 2013, 11:04 AM
Regarding parenting style, style is a very broad term here and can thus be applied to anything a parent does. Whether or not a parent has the right to beat his kid bloody and lock him in the closet is governed by several different laws that mostly sy the parent would go to jail for doing it. Not the point that we are discussing here since we are, by my assumption, talking about legal things.

Go back. Re-read. We're talking about censorship as a moral issue. Not an issue of legality.



I didn't say you called DM's actions illegal. I was pointing out that a person's actions would need to pass the legal test here.

Again, not an argument about legality. You continue to bring up the question of whether or not is legal in order to skirt the fundamentals. It's not a question of legality. It is a question of ethics and morality.


I seriously doubt that you will find many people who consider parental limiting of their own child's access to things as "censorship". I was under the impression that we were discussing the "right or wrong" aspects of what DM did. It seems we have devolved into a pedantic argument about language. You use the word censorship to, at least as far as I can tell, apply equally to a parent's interaction with his or her child and a government's interaction with the citizens it serves. I contend that they are not the same thing.

I would be very surprised to find someone who does not consider the act of an individual taking it upon themselves to remove language from the creative work of another, with the sole intent to keep those words from reaching someone else's ears, to be censorship. People who wouldn't think it to be something else are obviously unclear as to the definition of the word.

As for you contending that the two are mutually exclusive, you are merely remaining ignorant. Can you read? I know you can. Go back and read the definitions. Your adamancy of your position is silly at this point, the facts are the facts. The act of removing the "offensive language" from the show is an act of censorship, whether or not you want to recognize in some attempt to be contrary for the sake of it does not change the intent or the definition. I can unequivocally state that you are wrong, and have supported that statement with quantifiable evidence. You have made it a matter of personal opinion. It is not. You seem to believe that only the government is capable of censoring anything. You are entirely wrong, as I have demonstrated.

I use the word censorship in it's broadest, all encompassing sense. You seem fit to dwell on a singular definition of it, showing complete disregard for its intent, its scope, and its dangers. It is simple ignorance to think in this way. I do not believe that you have an understanding of what you're speaking of, if in fact you believe that the only censorship possible rests in the hands of "the government."

scbubba
Jan 11th, 2013, 11:21 AM
Go back. Re-read. We're talking about censorship as a moral issue. Not an issue of legality.



Again, not an argument about legality. You continue to bring up the question of whether or not is legal in order to skirt the fundamentals. It's not a question of legality. It is a question of ethics and morality.



I would be very surprised to find someone who does not consider the act of an individual taking it upon themselves to remove language from the creative work of another, with the sole intent to keep those words from reaching someone else's ears, to be censorship. People who wouldn't think it to be something else are obviously unclear as to the definition of the word.

As for you contending that the two are mutually exclusive, you are merely remaining ignorant. Can you read? I know you can. Go back and read the definitions. Your adamancy of your position is silly at this point, the facts are the facts. The act of removing the "offensive language" from the show is an act of censorship, whether or not you want to recognize in some attempt to be contrary for the sake of it does not change the intent or the definition. I can unequivocally state that you are wrong, and have supported that statement with quantifiable evidence. You have made it a matter of personal opinion. It is not. You seem to believe that only the government is capable of censoring anything. You are entirely wrong, as I have demonstrated.

I use the word censorship in it's broadest, all encompassing sense. You seem fit to dwell on a singular definition of it, showing complete disregard for its intent, its scope, and its dangers. It is simple ignorance to think in this way. I do not believe that you have an understanding of what you're speaking of, if in fact you believe that the only censorship possible rests in the hands of "the government."

Ok. I concede the point that it is censorship for a parent to limit, in any way, what his or her child has access or exposure to. It is the definition of the word/language/term/etc.

I disagree that it is wrong or damnable for the parent to do it, in context, just because it fits the term. My observation was that you were saying that it was wrong or damnable for the parent to do it unless the parent simply shuttered the child from exposure completely. Which I don't really understand because, by your definition, that complete shuttering would also be censorship and therefore wrong or damnable.

So, we come back to where all internet debates seem to land. You still have your opinion on the topic and I still have mine.

I have, however, been educated on the definition of censorship and for that, my friend, I thank you. :-)

Osiris
Jan 11th, 2013, 07:57 PM
Ok. I concede the point that it is censorship for a parent to limit, in any way, what his or her child has access or exposure to. It is the definition of the word/language/term/etc.

I disagree that it is wrong or damnable for the parent to do it, in context, just because it fits the term. My observation was that you were saying that it was wrong or damnable for the parent to do it unless the parent simply shuttered the child from exposure completely. Which I don't really understand because, by your definition, that complete shuttering would also be censorship and therefore wrong or damnable.

So, we come back to where all internet debates seem to land. You still have your opinion on the topic and I still have mine.

I have, however, been educated on the definition of censorship and for that, my friend, I thank you. :-)

The issue that I take with the whole thing is the principle of it all. It's the simple fact that we live in a world where censorship is so unobtrusive that it's commonplace and most don't even realize that it is happening around them. I think at its core, censorship itself is evil, and has no place in a world that prides itself on tolerance and the values of acceptance. That's the world that the majority lives in (China, India, and parts of the Middle East excluded), but it's a lie. I understand shielding a child from something, but the biggest point I'm trying to get across is: if you feel your child is too young for the language, perhaps the show is not suitable to expose them to in the first place. If you're going hide a piece, hide the whole.

I do see your point, and I can understand why you might not consider it to be on par with some other forms. That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion, and it's completely valid, and reasonable. If everybody agreed, nobody would think. If everyone stops thinking, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes we've already made.

Duffusmonkey
Jan 11th, 2013, 09:06 PM
Does anyone else quote Victor through out their day?

I used to live my life based on the principle of WWVD (What Would Victor Do).... Until I learned he was banging Kelly

scbubba
Jan 11th, 2013, 09:14 PM
The issue that I take with the whole thing is the principle of it all. It's the simple fact that we live in a world where censorship is so unobtrusive that it's commonplace and most don't even realize that it is happening around them. I think at its core, censorship itself is evil, and has no place in a world that prides itself on tolerance and the values of acceptance. That's the world that the majority lives in (China, India, and parts of the Middle East excluded), but it's a lie. I understand shielding a child from something, but the biggest point I'm trying to get across is: if you feel your child is too young for the language, perhaps the show is not suitable to expose them to in the first place. If you're going hide a piece, hide the whole.

Liberty dies with a whimper instead of a bang. It slowly slips away as we make compromises for comfort, security, etc. that's the concern that many, if not most, people have. But a society made up of so many people of different moral & ethical standards are going to have compromises to keep it all together. The balance is the key to a free society.


I do see your point, and I can understand why you might not consider it to be on par with some other forms. That's fine. You're entitled to that opinion, and it's completely valid, and reasonable. If everybody agreed, nobody would think. If everyone stops thinking, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes we've already made.

^^^This. So very true.

LiamKerrington
Jan 12th, 2013, 01:04 AM
If You keep calling me DM I will assume the role of Dungeon Master and force you to bend to my will.

If you do so, would you accept the honorable title of Dungeon Bastard as well?


http://youtu.be/sxlod7QZHxI

http://www.dungeonbastard.com

All the best!
Liam

Duffusmonkey
Mar 11th, 2013, 07:11 PM
I uploaded PG13 Version of all of season 2 to podcastnerd.com

Duffusmonkey
May 5th, 2013, 08:09 PM
I uploaded PG13 Edits of all of Season 3 to Podcastnerd.com

Funny story, since both my kids are going through puberty, strong language is the least of my concerns.
My Youngest son now listens to me editing and was very impressed at how cleanly I can remove curse words.

I guess I will keep editing season 4 because I enjoy doing it but I let my kids listen the original episodes if they want to, but we still listen to the PG13 episodes when my wife is around.

I am curious is ANYONE else listening to the PG13 edits?

Duffusmonkey
Aug 26th, 2013, 07:34 PM
PG13 Edit of latest Episode Season 4.

http://www.podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-37-1-balanceofpower.mp3
http://www.podcastnerd.com/PG13_wa-37-2-balanceofpower.mp3

CitizenSoldier
Aug 26th, 2013, 09:34 PM
No offence but i belive the cussing is a huge part of it and it loses some power without...and what did u do about the tardust attempting rape scene?

CitizenSoldier
Aug 26th, 2013, 09:39 PM
All I'm going to say is this:

I do not agree with manipulating art to be less offensive to an individual. It's like walking into a gallery, taking a paintbrush, and slopping black all over a painting because it shows the form of a naked woman and you don't want to expose you child to it. Here's a pro-tip, don't expose your kids to it period. If you think it's too much for their little minds to comprehend, don't expose them to it. Don't take it upon yourself to force that value upon the world around you.

I don't agree with what is taking place here. Art is art. Leave art the fuck alone.

A fuckin-men...i am sorry for all your hard work but its not really right to kindve well ruin the beauty

Duffusmonkey
Aug 27th, 2013, 07:25 AM
I started doing this ONLY so I would feel comfortable listening to this with my young son. Removing the cussing does reduce the impact of some scenes but my son still loves it. My son is a little older now and the only reason I am stils making these edits is because I am a little OCD.
The Tardust rape attempt is the most uncomfortable scene I left in the edit. It wasn't the language it wad what was happening that is rough. KC did a great job creating suspense and shock without being to graphic.

I did not want to offend KC so I asked permission first and if he changes his mind I will take them down.

Osiris
Oct 7th, 2013, 03:31 PM
I think if Kc had a problem with it, he would have removed all the content by now. Is what it is.

Duffusmonkey
Feb 16th, 2014, 03:13 PM
I am caught of with all of the episodes on podcastnerd.com

Gooer
Feb 16th, 2014, 03:26 PM
Man, that's a good idea, lets people of all age now enjoy our beautiful podcast.....

FunkyDung
Feb 16th, 2014, 05:11 PM
I do not agree with manipulating art to be less offensive to an individual. It's like walking into a gallery, taking a paintbrush, and slopping black all over a painting because it shows the form of a naked woman and you don't want to expose you child to it. Here's a pro-tip, don't expose your kids to it period. If you think it's too much for their little minds to comprehend, don't expose them to it. Don't take it upon yourself to force that value upon the world around you.


I guess network TV edits of movies really piss you off, then, because this is really no different.

FunkyDung
Feb 16th, 2014, 05:38 PM
A parenting style would be to NOT let your children listen to something you felt would have a negative impact on them based on language, until a time when they are old enough to understand. For all intents and purposes, the parent is taking away the choice between the unaltered work and the censored piece. By your definition, you've agreed that it's censorship.


I suppress lots of media. I don't just bleep or blur; I ban. Am I censoring? Maybe. I don't care, though, because I see that as part of my job as a parent. Do I ever provide "adulterated" media for my kids? Not often, but yeah. Every time I play something like "Forget You" instead of "Fuck You" or the clean version of Radiohead's "Creep", I'm doing that. Granted, the original artists not only approved of those alterations, but they participated in their creation. However, KC gave approval (within certain reasonable limits).

If Duffusmonkey wants to make edits just for his kids, he's free to do so as far as I'm concerned. DMCA and other copyright law be damned. What anyone does to media for personal consumption is their own damn business and content creators and busybody art purists can piss off. Distributing edited works for others enters different territory, but permission has already been granted.

I don't know if I would do what DM has done for my kids. They're not old enough to consider it, and won't be for several years yet. I don't think it's impossible, though. Yeah, there's violence, but it's not particularly bad, IMHO. It's not gratuitous, and even the really bad parts can only be imagined. I mean, it's not like the kids can see ludicrous gibs flying across a screen in 3D. [Bonus points to the first person to remember the source of "ludicrous gibs".] There's a little bit of implied sexual activity, but it's not like KC had the actress doing her best "Sally in a restaurant with Harry" impression. So, that just leaves the language. Given the amount and nature of violence, and the amount and nature of sexual activity, I could justify presenting a version of WA that's edited for language to my kids. Furthermore, if I thought other parents might appreciate having the same, and KC approved of it, I might provide it for others as DM has. Kids are very impressionable, and I don't want mine swearing like the characters in WA. As was said earlier, profanity is for lazy, uncreative people who can't think of anything more intelligent or witty to say. I ought to know; I'm very often that lazy, uncreative son of a bitch.

Sorry for being all over the map with my response, but I just found out about this controversy, and I have a lot of soapbox time to catch up on. ;)

ADDENDUM: Another post in the thread reminded me of the attempted rape. Not sure I'd let that through my censoring to get to my kids.

FunkyDung
Feb 16th, 2014, 06:20 PM
The Tardust rape attempt is the most uncomfortable scene I left in the edit. It wasn't the language it wad what was happening that is rough. KC did a great job creating suspense and shock without being to graphic.

Wowsers. I'd forgotten about that. When I was thinking of sexual content earlier, I was thinking of Michael and Pegs. I'd really have to think long and hard about what age an attempted rape scene would be ok to let my kids listen to.

Burgerbros
Feb 26th, 2014, 09:30 AM
Thanks so much.

Kc
Feb 27th, 2014, 09:58 AM
One thing I will say, and I may sound like a broken record because this is something I've been wanting to do for a while, is eventually release the clean version of the show. That'll most likely happen AFTER we're all done.

Duffusmonkey
Feb 28th, 2014, 08:50 AM
One thing I will say, and I may sound like a broken record because this is something I've been wanting to do for a while, is eventually release the clean version of the show. That'll most likely happen AFTER we're all done.

You will probably be too busy making movies and too rich to care by then,
Some day people will say "I wish KC Wayland would learn from George Lucas and sell the rights to We're alive so that more movies could made, six movies were just not enough!"

Then again my predictions have pretty much all been wrong ;)

Duffusmonkey
Jun 29th, 2014, 05:28 PM
Since the show is coming to an end I finally got caught up with PG13 Edit of every episode up chapter 47 part 2

kamelkamel
Jul 3rd, 2019, 04:57 PM
Since the show is coming to an end I finally got caught up with PG13my ip (https://myip.kim/) birthday wishes (https://birthdaywishes.onl/) tneb (https://elecpay.in/tneb/) Edit of every episode up chamy ip (https://myip.kim/) birthday wishes (https://birthdaywishes.onl/) tneb (https://elecpay.in/tneb/)pter 47 part 2

I suppress lots of media. I don't just bleep or blur; I ban. Am I censoring? Maybe. I don't care, though, because I see that as part of my job as a parent. Do I ever provide "adulterated" media for my kids? Not often, but yeah. Every time I play something like "Forget You" instead of "Fuck You" or the clean version of Radiohead's "Creep", I'm doing that. Granted, the original artists not only approved of those alterations, but they participated in their creation. However, KC gave approval (within certain reasonable limits).

kamelkamel
Jul 12th, 2019, 05:51 AM
Since the show is coming to an end I finally got caught up with PG13 Edit of every episode up chapter 47 part 2

You mean ... Burt, not Bill, right?

oliverthom707
Dec 9th, 2020, 03:05 AM
I tried VERY hard to not alter the story in any way, but I taught my sons that cursing is for people who are to lazy or dumb to express themselves. There is a great comedy sketch about Fuck being the most versatile word in the english language, its a Noun a verb, a adjective I would link to it on You tube but that is cut from a larger commedy sketch and by taking it out of context I would be altering the orginal art. Axis Bank Corporate Login (https://hellodear.in/axis-bank-corporate-login/)

Regards, teatv.ltd (https://teatv.ltd)

feedtaleone
Feb 14th, 2021, 07:10 AM
I'd be pretty upset if someone took my Podcasts, edited all the naughty words out, then re-posted them without my blessing. get-vidmate.com (https://get-vidmate.com) instasave.onl (https://instasave.onl)

kumar0raja
Mar 30th, 2021, 02:49 PM
I can apprecciate the intent. As a father of a 14 year old who knows more dirty words than I do... I would have no use for this. But I always worried more about my son 'parroting' foul language than exposing him to Michelangelo's David or Venus Rising. If you let your kids play video games online I can gaurantee they are hearing worse there.
teatv apk (https://teatv.ltd)
hellodear.in (https://hellodear.in)

Duffusmonkey
Dec 4th, 2021, 04:12 PM
You will probably be too busy making movies and too rich to care by then,
Some day people will say "I wish KC Wayland would learn from George Lucas and sell the rights to We're alive so that more movies could made, six movies were just not enough!"

Then again my predictions have pretty much all been wrong ;)

Yikes! This didn't hold up! Thank God KC Wayland didn't sell the rights of We're Alive to Disney!