Posted in NRO's The Corner, some points with which I largely agree:

The e-mailer who questioned the worth of a G-rated version of Scarface has missed the point. I'm pretty sure nobody is yearnig for a G-rated version of Scarface, the Untouchables, Wild Thing, Freddy vs. Jason, etc.

What would be nice is a G-rated version of all the films that COULD be G-rated if you chopped 10 seconds out of them. The G-rated version of Scarface would be a minute long. But there are a large number of films that would be very good for family viewing with only one or two edits. I often hear people complain about Hollywood's gratuitous use of profanity, etc. - about films that are absolutely fine for family viewing EXCEPT for the fact that someone decided to add a gratuitous profanity. Why, for example, does there need to be one profanity in the middle of "The Princess Bride"? Removing such wouldn't detract from the film; quite the opposite.

Nobody was suggesting that Hollywood should make every movie family-friendly, nor that parents should ignore the ratings, nor that parents should be able to expect that every movie would be suitable for children. But when the family "unfriendly" part constitutes only a few seconds of the movie and is irrelevant to the story, and when the technology exists to easily give viewers the option of not having to endure it, why not? That would be a lot more useful and popular that 95% of the "extras" that come on DVD's now.

This isn't "asking Hollywood to raise our kids". It's simply a regret that there are a large number of movies that could be enjoyed together as a family if there a way to cut out a few seconds of pointless garbage.

May not work. Depends on how many lunch martinis were imbibed by the VB or VC++ symbol pusher who wrote the P-ROM thing. It might filter OUT the clean stuff...

A movie was made a certain way for a reason. It is not up to every movie director to justify why they have added what some deem as questionable content to their works. Simply put, if you don't like the work as it was put out, go play Monopoly or watch The Lion King for the 98,000th time.

Now, I do agree that some films which could have been G rated had profanity or other material thrown in there to give it the PG rating on the sole basis that a G-rated film typically has the stigma of being a kiddie film and not worthy of Joe Lunchpail's $8.50 to see. But if you look at the list, let's pull a few examples:

28 Days - because little Timmy has to learn why his auntie disappears for a month at a time
Alien/Aliens - because scaring the crap out of the kid is going to really help their psychological development
Braveheart - all the romance, none of the battles and torture
Vanilla Sky - how could you live without hearing Cameron Diaz discuss the spit/swallow issue?
The Terminator trilogy - not exactly something the little kiddies should be watching anyway

It's not that I agree wholly with the practice of putting random profanities into movies. However, that's what the director chose to do. If you don't like the movie how it is, don't watch it. Or rather, watch it after putting the kids to bed.

I'll still disagree. Doesn't George Lucas violate your principle if he releases a revised edition of Episode IV? The original version is what the director chose to release, therefore he should not screw with it thereafter. Lucas justifies it by saying that's how he wanted the film to appear in the first place. Does that mean it was some sort of violation for me to have seen it in 1977 in the way he didn't really intend for me to see it?

Further, am I violating some authority if I fast forward my video tape to the scenes in a movie that I like without first watching what came before it? Should a painter have the final say on which room I decide to hang his painting?

My thought is, it's the artist's work right up until the point he releases it. Then it "belongs to the ages" and I and whoever else is capable can manipulate that product to our own ends. The tape or DVD belongs to me and I can watch it however I want. So what's the difference between me muting the TV for a word I don't want Jr. to hear and me buying a device which will do it for me? I don't buy into the idea that technological devices have principles attached to them. One buys the device and uses it however one pleases.

I tend to agree with the "belongs to the ages" theory, but the major point in how it is released comes down to "who owns it" ... meaning, the intellectual property rights (sadly, this term does apply to the American Pie genre as well as all others). In other words, why would a DVD be re-released in clean format? Likely because the studio own the rights and wants to milk it any way it can. But even if it were the producer, director, or screenplay writer that owned it, its up to them to release it however they wish and let the people decide how to watch it.

Lucas released Ep. 4 back in the day with two restraints: the technological one that inhibited his ability to show the story in as fine of detail as he would have liked, and the studio control that dictates what they know of market desires to warrant their interest in financing the film. When it was re-released, Lucas was shorn of both those restrictions.

Cut to any number of current major releases now and you will have the "as it was shown in theaters" version, the "uncut" version, the "collector's edition" version ... and Lord only knows what else. Which to choose, then? So, in short, if a the owner wants to release a G-rated version of a non-G-rated film, then that's their choice. We purists may sneer at it for its bastardization. But if we didn't, we'd just get in some other form of trouble.