Judd Apatow to Sony: ‘Shove the Clean Versions of Movies Up Your A–!’

Judd Apatow Donald Trump
Tara Mays/Variety/REX/Shutterstock

The Directors Guild of America and Judd Apatow have objected to Sony Pictures Home Entertainment “clean version” initiative allowing viewers to screen edited versions of two dozen Sony films.

The studio announced on June 7 that it was making the broadcast TV or airline version of these 24 titles available when a consumer purchases a film in its original form on iTunes, Vudu, and FandangoNOW. The DGA said in a statement Tuesday that Sony is violating the guild’s master contract with the major studios.

“Directors have the right to edit their feature films for every non-theatrical platform, plain and simple,” the DGA said. “Taking a director’s edit for one platform, and then releasing it on another — without giving the director the opportunity to edit — violates our Agreement. Throughout the years, the DGA has achieved hard-fought creative rights gains protecting our members from such practices. As creators of their films, directors often dedicate years of hard work to realize their full vision, and they rightfully have a vested interest in protecting that work. We are committed to vigorously defending against the unauthorized alteration of films.”

Apatow wasn’t as, um, censored on Twitter: “This is absolute bullsh– and @sony and @SonyPictures is gonna get hell for F—— with our movies.Shove the clean versions up your asses!”

For its part, Sony has asserted that the program’s offerings are pre-existing airline or TV versions of films, which were not edited specifically for this program and are not sold separately. The clean versions are available as extra features only when a customer buys the original theatrical version from one of the select digital retailers.

The films include all five versions of “Spider-Man” along with “50 First Dates,” “Battle Of The Year,” “Big Daddy,” “Captain Phillips,” “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon,” “Easy A,” “Elysium,” “Ghostbusters,” “Ghostbusters II,” “Goosebumps,” “Grown Ups,” “Grown Ups 2,” “Hancock,” “Inferno,” “Moneyball,” “Pixels,” “Step Brothers,” “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby” and “White House Down.”

“This is a pilot program, developed in response to specific consumer feedback, that offers viewers the option of watching an airline or TV version of certain movies when they purchase the original version,” said Sony Home Entertainment President Man Jit Singh in statement. “We discussed this program, and the use of these pre-existing versions, with each director or their representatives.”

Seth Rogen, who produced and starred in Sony’s “The Interview” and “Sausage Party,” objected to the initiative following the June 7 announcement with his own profane Tweet: “Holy s— please don’t do this to our movies. Thanks.”


Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 29

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Elaine says:


  2. For everyone talking about airplane versions, those are usually made with the director’s input. Sony’s plan seem to be circumventing that, and as such, is a major violation of the DGA contract the studio signed with the director in the first place. The studio may own the film but the director has creative rights and Sony is bound by them.

    • usero1 says:

      No, Son’y isn’t “circumventing” anything. From their official announcement: “The Clean Version is created using the broadcast or airline versions to remove some scenes of graphic violence, offensive language, sexual innuendo, and other adult content.”

      There clean versions *are* the broadcast or airline versions of these movies. So the question returns to why these directors insist on deny the public other ways of seeing their movies. Clearly, studios know that there’s a huge market for clean movies. It’s instances like these that reassure the public that “Hollyweird” really is intent on saturating us with poisons like foul language, cheap sex, gruesome violence and their anti-religious bigotry.

      This has nothing to do with “artistic vision”, so what other explanation is there really?

  3. Nanny Mo says:

    It’s pretty short sighted. I’ve long said that I’d release 2 versions, and R and a PG/PG13, get a bigger audience and make more money, but, hey, don’t think about money Apatow, you’re an artist and we all know money means nothing to you, especially when you are spending Sony’s.

  4. JoeMcG says:

    Apatow says, “SonyPictures is gonna get hell for F—— with our movies.” Excuse me? WHOSE movies? Last I checked the studios were paying the bill for producing these films and the director was picking up a paycheck like everyone else. So unless the the director has some of his or her own cash in the game, they’ve got no room to argue (that is, outside of what may be in the DGA agreement). They’re just employees like the rest of us.

    • usero1 says:

      Exactly! However, it’s instances like these that reassure the public that “Hollyweird” really is intent on saturating us with poisons like foul language, cheap sex, gruesome violence and their anti-religious bigotry.

      This has nothing to do with “artistic vision” and it can only lead to more sales to people who wouldn’t otherwise watch these movies, so what other explanation is there really?

  5. Sam says:

    Yah pervs need movies too.
    Hahaha look it’s a hot dog talking to a bun.
    Hahahaha. Let’s go to the supermarket and
    go home and watch the hot dog going into a bun !!!!!!whoppeeee this is funny!!!!!!
    Hahahaha. Hot dogs. Buns.
    Hahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!
    Omg that’s so funny!!!!!!!!!
    How does anyone get to be so smart to
    think of making a movie with
    hot dogs and buns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    omg what talent !!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!!!

    • Toni says:

      R rated;
      for stoners, pervs, freaks, lowlifes, criminals, they can watch themselves in a movie.
      Look mommy I can swear, it’s in a movie it must be ok. Just look through the spy hole to the girls locker room.
      This is fun it’s in a movie. It’s ok now.

      • Susan says:

        Wow Judd.
        Is that what your beautiful and talented wife and children have to put up with at home?Yikes.

  6. Bill says:

    Wow, just when you think Apatow has sunk to the bottom, he digs even deeper.

    I get it, you consider your work art, and don’t want to see it defiled. Perfectly understood.

    However, when he can’t even respond publicly to that without resorting to a profanity-filled rant, that alone tells you all you need to know about him and his character.

    Decorum and honest debate has gone so far out the window, that somehow profanity and urging studios to perform certain anatomical actions qualify as social discourse now; good to know.

    • usero1 says:

      It’s a reminder of why those few decent Americans left call it “Hollyweird”, right?

      That aside, this guy must really feel secured to publicly insult a major studio, and one that pays for his lifestyle. Josh Trank’s career was destroyed just for apologizing to his fans about the edits Fox made to his “Fantastic Four” movie. Apatow outright threatens his studio and they apologize to him?

      What is this weird, upside-down place called “Hollywood” and why do people go there?

  7. Toni says:

    R rated for…..
    ……….. ROTTEN !!!!!!!!
    Take out the r material and you got yourself a rotten movie.
    The filmguy starts in the dirt and builds a movie around it. Wow what talent.

  8. Another Poster says:

    Of course, ever since movies were shown on TV and had to comply with FCC regulations and they were shown on airlines to families with children, they have had to be censored. No one flies an R rated, or NC-17, airline. Movies have been altered for decades and Now he complaining about it? How about just not showing any of his films on broadcast, (basic cable), TV or on an airline?

  9. Heidi says:

    I think selling clean versions is a great idea! Are people in Hollywood are forgetting that they are making a product? Yes, some films are also art, but really they are all hoping to make money. Movies are financed by people who go to the movies, buy downloads etc. Would they still be making it if no one wanted to buy it? What defines an artist? Vincent Van Gogh created some of the worlds most amazing art but would often go hungry in favor of buying paint (or so I’ve heard, I was not there). Would a film maker ever sacrifice like that for a film they had little hope would sell? I think Hollywood would have no problem selling edited versions or making films with less “Adult” content if that’s where the money was. However, its a minority of the population that prefer clean movies. We often don’t know about content in a film we would rather not have seen or heard until we have already paid for it and been exposed. Most movies are first and foremost entertaining. Stop taking yourself so seriously Hollywood. Make the films you want, make your money then make just a little more by extending your audience with a cleaner version. That obviously won’t work for all movies, those filled to the brim with crass humor are probably safe from this line of marketing, and my life will go on just fine never having seen more then an accidental trailer.

  10. George Lewis says:

    I am totally opposed to government censorship, not to industry censorship. It’s fair for creators of content to have to work with & accept limitations from those who finance and/or are providers of content.

    Viewers should have the right to see detailed content warnings both as a show starts plus online at a network’s or at a consolidated site.

    Would like to see content warnings regarding ‘in your face’ male/male sodomy which is unfortunately a growing issue.

  11. heyitsron says:

    Good luck on that “unauthorized alteration of films.” Tampering with creative artistry should be a copyright violation and subject to litigation. TV viewers are sick and tired of this happening.

  12. Phillip Ayling says:

    Interesting how Variety printed a censored extract of Judd Apatow’s tweet in its’ headline. Then in the body of the article, they reinstate the previously censored word from the headline, but then censor a different word from his quote. And then…at the end of the article, they reprint his actual Tweet, completely uncensored. Variety doesn’t have a standard for acceptable public language for the public, which is any more rational than Sony’s.

    Good thing Variety wasn’t reporting on a debate between Bill Maher and Larry Wilmore about which comedians can use ethnic slurs with impunity.

    • Frank says:

      If you need to make r rated films you have no talent. Any idiot can make an r rated film. Sic of it. Babies playing with their poop.

  13. Crystal Brooks says:

    First off, if you have to use profanity, then you have issues. Secondly, why would you not be open to people BUYING an edited version of your movie? Have you ever watched Pulp Fiction on the Sundance channel? They edit it to death. It’s terrible. The studios fought to shutdown vendors editing movies for profanity and nudity. They obviously found their is a demand for this service. So he should shut up. He can sell his movies to an audience that’s obviously not going to darken the doors of a movie theatre to watch his stupid movies.

  14. millerfilm says:

    Maybe they could come up with a process that takes Apatow’s movies and makes them watchable. :-)

  15. Julian Penrod says:

    Among other things, how will movies with filth, vulgarity, obscenity edited out hurt the directors, or “directors”? How, really, will it hurt the movies?
    Vulgarity, profanity, worldwide, in all languages, has qualities of animalistic vocalizations. All such words are single syllables. They use short vowels rather than long ones, “A” as in “cat”, as opposed to “A” as in “cake”. Evidently, for the thoughtless explosion that profanity, obscenity is intended to be, the time difference between enunciating a long vowel and a short one is too long. And they use consonants to be found in animal utterances. “Growling” sounds like “g”, “k” and “r”; “hissing” sounds, like “h”, “s”, “sh”, “ch”; “spitting” sounds, like “p”, “b”, “t”, “f”, “th”, “f”. “Soft” consonants like “m”, “n”, “w”, “l”, “y” are not present, except accompanied by the more animalistic consonants. And that plays up another aspect of profanity, obscenity, it does not provide any information. It foes not tell you what time it is. It does not communicate. It is not intended to communicate. It is not something someone who wants to convey ideas, sentiments, thoughts would find necessary or even, really, desirable.
    If vulgarity does not convey any thoughts, feelings, ideas, how will removing it affect a legitimate movie? It doesn’t add anything deep or sensitive or thoughtful to a production, so how will removing it hurt? Removing it will only affect something if it was nothing but a depraved cesspool from the start. And then all it will do is make it less filthy, since these “directors” and these “writers” don’t seem to have anything of actual value to offer, anyway.

    • usero1 says:

      Julian, thank you for sharing this very insightful post. I’ll have to share this with others.

      Thank you!

  16. DougW says:

    Not sure what all the fuss is about. Films have always been edited for television and airlines. Also, songs/albums are often released with two versions – explicit and clean. This is not a new concept.

  17. Michael anthony says:

    It’s bowing to pressure from TRUMPETTES. You know, the dirty dasterdly lefties can’t be trusted. If consumers don’t like a film because if content, so be it. But to give in and offer clean versions is BS. What’s going to decide clean? If rapidly anti gay Pence was to become POTUS, his version of clean would b no sex before marriage and no gay people.

    • Heidi says:

      “What’s going to decide clean?” Good point, I like the option Vid Angel offered where you can personalize it each time you watch a movie or show. “Clean” is not going to be the same standard for everyone. I’m all for the freedom to watch how you choose. I might choose not to watch some movies at all but sometimes it’s just one thing that I don’t like. Restaurants let you ask for “no onions” or “pass on the tomatoes”. We don’t all have to have the same tastes and standards do we? I don’t think anyone would tolerate a food chain that said, “No! I made this hamburger with onions and your going to eat it that way.” My choice to watch a movie a different way should not effect anyone else… unlike my choice to have extra onions for lunch might effect everyone else I talk to that day. ;)

    • yellowmalibu@iwon.com says:

      Get real, mental midget. Clean versions of films have been shown on airlines for decades. Even during your precious Obama and the Serial Rapist In Chief before him. How about you CLEAN out your brain and argue the issue, and get over your Trump-Hyperventilation-Syndrome. You’ll live a long longer and your blood-pressure will go way down…

  18. Rachel says:

    Sony you fucked up again!

More Digital News from Variety