quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

Yeah, I think that too. A lot of the swearing is dubbed, though and one change that has always annoyed me is the different line after he kills the helicopter with the car

Yes, the 'I was out of bullets' is a great line; very McClane. The longer 'road deaths' one is too long to be a pithy quip.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

It would obviously have to be an action movie. But you're an absolute retard if you think that swearing and blood is what makes a Die Hard movie a Die Hard movie.

John McClane. That's what makes it a Die Hard movie. If he's there, then that's all you need. Like I said, if the film's shit, it would have been shit anyway, and if it's great, the rating it's given shouldn't matter.

PS - There are four uses of the word 'fuck'. In a 12A movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

The original movie was bloody not for the sake of it, but because at times it showed the consequences of peoples actions. McClane got hurt, he felt pain. When he cut his feet, you felt that.

quote:


All they can do is watch the film that's been submitted, inform the distributor of the certificate they feel is appropriate, and then based on the BBFC's findings the distributor can choose to run with the BBFC's initial decision or ask for advice on what they can cut to secure a lower rating. Any final decision to cut a film rests solely with the distributor. The BBFC doesn't force their hand in anyway.

quote:

I know this because my views are based on logic, research, an interest in the inner workings of the BBFC and having worked within the film industry for almost twelve years.

Your views are specious and ill-informed ramblings - same as your accusations of Empire "unfairly punishing" Scream 4. You don't like the fact that DH5 has been bumped down to a 12A rating, and when something rubs you up the wrong way, you throw your toys out of the pram and fling around this utterly absurd accusations.

Now, I'm not saying that the BBFC haven't fucked up in the past, but in this instance (and the ones you just listed) it's not their fault. It all comes down to the distributors seeking cuts in order to maximize ticket sells.

Now go to bed and pop your pacifier in your mouth. It's almost 2am and you tend to get cranky when you're up this late.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo
You keep blaming the BBFC for cuts made to Die Hard 5 and other films. Literally everyone else who has commented has said that this is wrong and that the BBFC are not culpable; it is the grasping studios who make the cuts in order to squeeze more money out of their films.

Every time someone points this out, you reply with the same arguments as before, except you start highlighting chunks of text in bold as if this is going to make them more pertinent. This has been going on for pages now. You seem utterly convinced of your rectitude despite the fact not one single person has agreed with you and everyone thinks you are a) overreacting, and b) inherently wrong.

Instead of stopping to consider this, you come back again, seemingly blind to the reasoned argument and logic presented to you.

Now, why would a person continue to debate a point with someone who has shown themselves to be indefatigably unreasonable and beyond logic? Well, they wouldn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo
You keep blaming the BBFC for cuts made to Die Hard 5 and other films. Literally everyone else who has commented has said that this is wrong and that the BBFC are not culpable; it is the grasping studios who make the cuts in order to squeeze more money out of their films.

Every time someone points this out, you reply with the same arguments as before, except you start highlighting chunks of text in bold as if this is going to make them more pertinent. This has been going on for pages now. You seem utterly convinced of your rectitude despite the fact not one single person has agreed with you and everyone thinks you are a) overreacting, and b) inherently wrong.

Instead of stopping to consider this, you come back again, seemingly blind to the reasoned argument and logic presented to you.

Now, why would a person continue to debate a point with someone who has shown themselves to be indefatigably unreasonable and beyond logic? Well, they wouldn't.

No. Other posters have repeatedly dodged why other countries in the 'free' world don't end up with cinemas littered with cut films, so I'll repeat myself until they do, assuming they're genuinely interested in this discussion.

Generalised responses, personal attacks and butt-hurt wailing don't compensate for a proper response. It's a shame you've chosen to be a smug prick instead of engage in the discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

First answer this question: Why aren't you listening to a word anybody is saying to you?

Which aspect of what has been said to me do you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed?

All of it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:


All they can do is watch the film that's been submitted, inform the distributor of the certificate they feel is appropriate, and then based on the BBFC's findings the distributor can choose to run with the BBFC's initial decision or ask for advice on what they can cut to secure a lower rating. Any final decision to cut a film rests solely with the distributor. The BBFC doesn't force their hand in anyway.

And THIS is where the problem lies. Unlike other western countries, the BBFC are keenly willing to negotiate cuts with a complete disregard for freedom of expression, leaving UK audiences with far more butchered films in our cinemas than anywhere else in the 'free' world. Other western countries don't seem to suffer from this problem, they don't accommodate this behaviour. They classify films and don't enter into negotiations with the studio about possible cuts.

While this system serves the profit-hungry studios perfectly, it leaves the British public at a loss, the very public the BBFC exists to serve.

Are you starting to understand now?

quote:

I know this because my views are based on logic, research, an interest in the inner workings of the BBFC and having worked within the film industry for almost twelve years.

Your views are specious and ill-informed ramblings - same as your accusations of Empire "unfairly punishing" Scream 4. You don't like the fact that DH5 has been bumped down to a 12A rating, and when something rubs you up the wrong way, you throw your toys out of the pram and fling around this utterly absurd accusations.

Now, I'm not saying that the BBFC haven't fucked up in the past, but in this instance (and the ones you just listed) it's not their fault. It all comes down to the distributors seeking cuts in order to maximize ticket sells.

Now go to bed and pop your pacifier in your mouth. It's almost 2am and you tend to get cranky when you're up this late.

Wow, you've worked in the industry for 12 years and you're still this naive? Impressive. All that time spent learning about the inner workings of the BBFC seems to have made you a censorship apologist - you seem very comfortable with accepting butchered films, almost naive to the fact that other countries don't have this problem.

I see you've dropped a few more rat-turds there because your ego got dented - grasping at something to try and hurt me with, referring to some utterly irrelevant Scream 4 discussion. Bit of a reach, don't you think? By the way, if you want to discuss that we can step over to the Scream 4 board and do just that. I know you want to distract from this discussion because you lack any valuable content but try to make your cowardice less obvious, mmm-K?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

No. Other posters have repeatedly dodged why other countries in the 'free' world don't end up with cinemas littered with cut films, so I'll repeat myself until they do, assuming they're genuinely interested in this discussion.

Generalised responses, personal attacks and butt-hurt wailing don't compensate for a proper response. It's a shame you've chosen to be a smug prick instead of engage in the discussion.

quote:


Even an ignoramus on these matters such as me can see that this is utterly conclusive. The BBFC didn't precipitate the cut, and didn't influence it at all other than by providing information upon request (he likes bold) as to how the studio could achieve their desired rating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:


Even an ignoramus on these matters such as me can see that this is utterly conclusive. The BBFC didn't precipitate the cut, and didn't influence it at all other than by providing information upon request (he likes bold) as to how the studio could achieve their desired rating.

THERE YA GO! And it's this willingness to negotiate cuts and facilitate studio censorship instead of preserving freedom of expression that leaves UK cinemas littered with cut films, unlike other 'free' countries who classify without this kind of meddling.

It's weird that you're adopting the smug, patronising tone when it's you that's naive to this very simple concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

Axl, man, what are you doing by giving him facts? You know he can't handle them!

quote:


You know the BBFC don't own the film, right?* They haven't forced Fox to cut anything, they merely advised them based on an entirely unsolicited request from the studio as to what would be needed to secure a lower classification. Because Fox wanted a lower rating, not the BBFC, the Illuminati, the Pentaverate, nor anyone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

First answer this question: Why aren't you listening to a word anybody is saying to you?

Which aspect of what has been said to me do you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed?

All of it!

No, that's just a generalised, useless response. Be specific. Name one thing that has been said to me that you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: peter

Let's look, then, at how you think the system should operate...

Studio approaches BBFC with a film.
BBFC says: "That'll be a 15."
Studio says: "Oh, that's not going to bring in a lucrative teen market. Tell me, BBFC, why was it a 15 instead of a 12A?"
BBFC says: "nanananananananananananana not listening!!!!"
Studio says: "Well in that case, I'll just have to release the 15 version."

Or, similarly,
BBFC says: "That'll be a 15."
Studio goes away, comes back, says: "Think we've managed to edit this so it'll be a 12A."
BBFC says: "Tough luck. Because your first submission was a 15, that is the only version we'll ever release. This way, we're protecting the artistic integrity."

You're suggesting that the BBFC is to blame for the cuts to secure lower ratings, even at the studio's request. Which of the two options above do you suggest is the better way forward? Blame here lies with Fox, not the BBFC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: peter

Let's look, then, at how you think the system should operate...

Studio approaches BBFC with a film.
BBFC says: "That'll be a 15."
Studio says: "Oh, that's not going to bring in a lucrative teen market. Tell me, BBFC, why was it a 15 instead of a 12A?"
BBFC says: "nanananananananananananana not listening!!!!"
Studio says: "Well in that case, I'll just have to release the 15 version."

Or, similarly,
BBFC says: "That'll be a 15."
Studio goes away, comes back, says: "Think we've managed to edit this so it'll be a 12A."
BBFC says: "Tough luck. Because your first submission was a 15, that is the only version we'll ever release. This way, we're protecting the artistic integrity."

You're suggesting that the BBFC is to blame for the cuts to secure lower ratings, even at the studio's request. Which of the two options above do you suggest is the better way forward? Blame here lies with Fox, not the BBFC.

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

Firstly, I'm not suggesting that the studio is not to blame, at all - Fox are greedy, soulless, audience-hating fuckers.

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

quote:

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

Firstly, I'm not suggesting that the studio is not to blame, at all - Fox are greedy, soulless, audience-hating fuckers.

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

First answer this question: Why aren't you listening to a word anybody is saying to you?

Which aspect of what has been said to me do you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed?

All of it!

No, that's just a generalised, useless response. Be specific. Name one thing that has been said to me that you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed.

If there were just one thing, I'd name it. But considering you haven't listened to a single reasoned argument that anybody has made, I'm sticking with 'all of it'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

Wow, condescending fucker. Just man-up and admit that your argument is flawed and hyperbolic and has been rightfully torn asunder. No shame in it. Your attempts to save face by perpetually screaming the same thing over and over (like some teenage boy who's misplaced his Ritalin) in the hope that others will relent is desperate and sad.

quote:

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.

What utter, utter horseshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

Wow, condescending fucker. Just man-up and admit that your argument is flawed and hyperbolic and has been rightfully torn asunder. No shame in it. Your attempts to save face by perpetually screaming the same thing over and over (like some teenage boy who's misplaced his Ritalin) in the hope that others will relent is desperate and sad.

quote:

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.

What utter, utter horseshit.

Cool stuff, lots of impotent rage there, but have you got anything to contribute to the discussion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:


You know the BBFC don't own the film, right?* They haven't forced Fox to cut anything, they merely advised them based on an entirely unsolicited request from the studio as to what would be needed to secure a lower classification. Because Fox wanted a lower rating, not the BBFC, the Illuminati, the Pentaverate, nor anyone else.

THERE IT IS! And it's this willingness to negotiate cuts and facilitate studio censorship instead of preserving freedom of expression that leaves UK cinemas littered with cut films, unlike other 'free' countries who classify without this kind of meddling.