BBFC cuts

[Driller_Killer]

why must region 2 buyers be forced to by
versions of films that have been cut by the all powerfull
censors at the the BBFC thank god for region 1

Here are some Region 2 DVD's That have been cut.

Romeo Must Die ( 30 secs )
The Mummy Returns ( 1 sec )
Tomb Raider ( 4 secs )
Eraser ( 3 mins 40 + secs )
Bridget Jonse's Diarys ( 1 sec -the word **** was removed to
get a 15 rating


People on the forum already know the word that is missing. As you have agreed to the T&Cs when you joined the forums please stick to them. You will find lots of discussion around the BBFC cuts to films - and you will also find they don't actually do some of the cuts to the film. The films are often submitted in that form to get a required certificate. Gromit

[Shingster]

All those title's you've listed were cut to achieve a lower rating, they all could have been passed uncut, but the studios decided to cut them not the BBFC. Mind you, if the BBFC rules weren't stupidly strict in the 1st place......

[RichB]

Wow your first post and you break the T & Cs :D

[kcxdev]

yeh, welcome, but you better make a cut on your post as well, doesn't only apply to dvd's :D

[jroadley]

Originally posted by RichB
Wow your first post and you break the T & Cs :D

But its film related ;) :D

[Ol' Blue Eyes]

Yeah a lot of films are cut but they're mostly older films from the scissor-happy James Ferman era. The main reasons they're still cut are the BBFC's knuckle-headed policy about refusing to allow the same film with more than one rating (meaning that a film that was butchered for a 15 rating many years ago can't be released uncut as an 18) and that the distributor is too cheap or too lazy to resubmit a film uncut.

The BBFC are a lot more relaxed about cutting stuff these days. Kiss Of The Dragon is a prime example of a film that would have been mutilated a few years ago, particularly the bit involving the steam irons! The only things the BBFC will insist are removed now are "eroticised" sexual violence and animal cruelty... although the rating you'll get for head-butts and the C-word seems to depend on what mood they're in. I think about half a dozen mainstream films were cut this year and all but one of those was at the request of the distributor for a lower rating (Before Night Falls was cut for animal cruelty).

In most case you can still get uncut PAL DVD - Region 2 discs from mainland Europe and Region 4 from Australia. I've got my Mummy disc on order from Belgium because I've heard such great things about the PAL transfer. And, as you say, there's always Region 1.

[sampath]

All of the films mentioned did get cut to get a lower rating, but in the case of Eraser, the BBFC decided to cut the 18-rated cinema version at any rate. Having seen the uncut R4 DVD (which is rated MA incidentally - equavalent to an US R rating except the age limit is 15 as opposed to 17) I can't for the life of me figure out what the BBFC could've deemed unsuitable for 18 year olds! Anyone know what they cut out?

And I completely agree with Ol' Blue Eyes about the 'no dual rating' policy - it sucks.

[Ol' Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by sampath
All of the films mentioned did get cut to get a lower rating, but in the case of Eraser, the BBFC decided to cut the 18-rated cinema version at any rate. Having seen the uncut R4 DVD (which is rated MA incidentally - equavalent to an US R rating except the age limit is 15 as opposed to 17) I can't for the life of me figure out what the BBFC could've deemed unsuitable for 18 year olds! Anyone know what they cut out?

Not sure what was taken out specifically for an 18 but there's a complete list of stuff cut from the 15 video version here (and boy, is it a long list) -

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/hitse.htm

Eraser would certainly pass uncut at 18 today.

[Chris]

Originally posted by Driller_Killer
The Mummy Returns ( 1 sec )
The BBFC say that cut was due to headbutt.

But they allowed a headbutt in Shrek which was a PG.

[daveo]

Oh god, please don't start this again. It'll end up like the "Should the Grinch have been cut" thread. Forget individual instances of cuts and discuss the conecpt of censorship.:)

[Paul490]

A lot of the films cut in UK R2 are also cut in R4 because the distributors use the same UK PAL master as well, instead of creating a new uncut one. :(

[Paul490]

Originally posted by Chris

The BBFC say that cut was due to headbutt.

If that was not cut though, that could have been a '15' certificate. I must buy that film sometime.

[Michael Mackenzie]

Originally posted by Shingster
All those title's you've listed were cut to achieve a lower ratingThis subject has been beaten to death before, but for the benefit of newcomers I'll say it again.

I think the line of argument that "it could have been released uncut at a higher rating" is a pretty duff one. It seems like an attempt to exonerate the BBFC of all blame, when in fact it's not the case. True, the distributor could go with a higher rating, but because of the age rating system in this country, IMPOSED BY THE BBFC, they would be losing out on potential sales, since the UK age rating system does not allow minors into 12, 15, and 18-rated films.

Let's take the film "Mulan" for instance. It is edited to remove a headbutt. Now what kind of rating would it require before it could be passed uncut? I'd judge 12 at least. And how would that go down with Disney's "family" policy?

Personally I feel that the BBFC is just as much to blame whether the cuts are mandatory or not. Releasing a film at a higher age rating is not always an option, and let's be honest, most of the cuts the BBFC imposes are idiotic.

[sampath]

I think a big part of the problem lies with the classification system itself, and the arbitrary nature of the guidelines for each classification category. Take 'bad language' for instance: if a film has one use of the f-word it's automatically a 12; more than 2 or 3 and it gets a 15. Well if it is ok for a 12 year old to hear two f-words in a film what exactly is wrong with hearing one more? In this respect the MPAA system is just as bad, if not worse.

Probably the best system I've come across is the Australian one, mainly because their classification categories are much more flexible than ours. For one thing only pretty extreme films get slapped with the 'adults only' R rating (equivalent to BBFC 18); and even the lower classification levels are more sensible in the way they restrict the film's audience. Most BBFC 15 rated films (and quite a few 18 rated ones as well) get rated M, which is effectively a PG-15; I think this is a perfectly adequate rating for routine flicks with some sex/violence/language but nothing particularly gratuitious. Even the MA rating is less restrictive than a 15 cert (as it allowes under-15s accompanied by adults) and quite a few (if not most) BBFC 18s get rated MA.

The PG-12 rating proposed by the BBFC is certainly a step in the right direction, but they also need to look at their guidelines for the 15 and 18 ratings in my opinion....

[Dagada]

Eraser - I saw the uncut 18 version at the cinema. At the time, Arnie was in his Low phase. The studio knew that they'd get a bigger audience if the film was rated 15 on video, so they asked the BBFC what cuts would be needed for that rating. Hence the result. A very silly state of affairs.

[Paul490]

Dagada - The cinema '18' rated version was cut as well, but not nearly as much.

Not seen the film though, uncut or otherwise.

[Michael Brooke]

<B>I think a big part of the problem lies with the classification system itself, and the arbitrary nature of the guidelines for each classification category. Take 'bad language' for instance: if a film has one use of the f-word it's automatically a 12; more than 2 or 3 and it gets a 15. Well if it is ok for a 12 year old to hear two f-words in a film what exactly is wrong with hearing one more? In this respect the MPAA system is just as bad, if not worse. </B>

The MPAA system is <U>much</U> worse, and I'm constantly amazed by people who seem to hold it up as some kind of positive role model!

The biggest problem is that MPAA ratings on Hollywood films almost always affect the version shown internationally as well - so while the BBFC is far more relaxed about things like nudity (especially male nudity), this material has often been cut before the film is ever shown to them!

<I>Basic Instinct</I> and <I>Eyes Wide Shut</I> are rare examples where the uncut version was shown internationally - and they illustrate the problem (not to mention the additional problem that the major Hollywood studios are extremely reluctant to handle material for adults only, on the grounds that major cinema and video chains and newspapers apply economic sanctions).

Just to give a more specific example of both swearing and the arbitrary nature of the decision-making process, Woody Allen's <I>Manhattan</I> was given an R rating by the MPAA when they initially viewed it, on the grounds that Diane Keaton used the 'f' word a couple of times. United Artists were hoping for a PG (back then that was the next rating down), so they appealed, and the MPAA's New York head said that he was prepared to look sympathetically on the case, as he was an admirer of Woody Allen and thought that the very occasional swearing wouldn't be an issue. Indeed, he thought after he saw it that it wasn't serious enough to justify an R rating...

...but what he didn't know before watching the film was that part of the plot revolved around a sexual relationship between a man in his forties and a girl of seventeen, something the original MPAA examiners didn't turn a hair over - so he insisted that the R rating stayed. But had the original examiners not been so hung up about the swearing, the film would have been awarded a PG and would never have gone to appeal!

<B>The PG-12 rating proposed by the BBFC is certainly a step in the right direction, but they also need to look at their guidelines for the 15 and 18 ratings in my opinion....</B>

The issue that parents seem most concerned about - and I sympathise with them hugely - is <U>clarity</U>. Clearly, there's a huge difference between <I>Crocodile Dundee</I> and <I>Starship Troopers</I>, both of which were given 15 certificates on their theatrical releases - but the bald age category doesn't tell you very much. This is why I'm a firm fan of sites like <A HREF="http://www.screenit.com">Screen-It</A>, because although they're often hilarious - especially in the way they itemise scenes of smoking and drinking alongside sex and violence - they're also genuinely useful in that they provide concerned parents with all the information they could possibly want.

If this level of information was easily available for UK releases, and widely publicised, there's no earthly reason why BBFC certificates shouldn't be advisory, much like the PG is today.

[sampath]

Yeah ScreenIt is a good resource, although I tend to use it to find films I should watch as opposed to ones I shouldn't! :D

But they're not nearly as hilarious as the fun loving people over at CAP Alert (http://www.capalert.com)... :D

[evilashchris]

the cell was cut by the mpaa, but we got the full unrated version over here, it is mighty strange how the tables are turning! generally i jump at the chance at an unrated r1, but now you have got to be careful of the rated ones!:rolleyes:

[Paul490]

Maybe I can suggest looking at UK DVD Cuts (http://www.ukdvdcuts.co.uk)? Quite useful actually.

[sampath]

As regards these MPAA cuts: if you can 'justify' BBFC cuts to films like The Matrix and Mummy Returns by saying "the studios wanted a lower rating" the same can be said of MPAA cuts to films like Basic Instinct, The Cell and Eyes Wide Shut. After all, the MPAA would've been perfectly happy to pass these uncut as NC-17 (which is nothing sinister - at least in theory - as it's the exact equivalent of a BBFC 18). I guess the MPAA were justified to ask for NC-17 as well - after all the BBFC would never dream of classifying the films in question at anything lower than an 18. It's the studios (along with cinema, retail and rental chains), with their 'holier-than-thou' attitude and moral highground, that are causing the biggest problem IMO.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the MPAA are always being fair in the way they make their rating decisions - as MB pointed out, on several occassions they were bordering on the ludicrous. I came across an interesting site (http://www.lot47.com/lie/issue.html) about a film called L.I.E (http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0242587), which is the latest film to be slapped with an NC-17 rating. I get the impression the film makers are not too impressed by Jack Valenti and his MPAA chums.... :D