Download my PG13 edits is all of Season 1

**Osiris** · Jan 3rd, 2013, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by nikvoodoo

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, 01:30 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, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Osiris

This never happens.

I think it's happened once before.

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

**Litmaster** · Jan 5th, 2013, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Osiris

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.

Originally Posted by Blues_127

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.

Originally Posted by Osiris

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'?

Originally Posted by Duffusmonkey

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, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Litmaster

"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, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by LiamKerrington

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, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Litmaster

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, 09:59 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.