Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: RE:

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 12:26:34 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/12/2005

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.


Ah yes, 'I was out of bullets'. Forgot about that one. I stand corrected about there being no one-liners of note in that film.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 151
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 12:28:02 PM   
Sutty


Posts: 3552
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row
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.


I'm not suggesting that all Im interested in is swearing and bloodshed. But I would suggest that being a bit sweary is part of the characters make up. Fox or whoever are not sanitising 4.0 or the new movie because they believe it is in keeping with the character or the franchise, they are after upping the audience quota so kids can see it. Now for me, any Die Hard movie should not really be seen by children. I mean, it's called DIE HARD. McClane was any everyday joe who got hurt, said the wrong thing sometimes, or worked his luck. By 4.O he can fly helicopters and is racing jet planes in trucks on exploding freeways along the eastern seaboard! Yet he doesn't know that a web cam picks up audio? Thats not character, that is slack film making. And it is not a "Die Hard" movie. And nor will part 5 be either.
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. When Powell crashed his police vehicle there was no random explosion, just a hard and rather uncomfortable looking prang. Takagi got his brains splattered because he got shot in the head in cold blood. He was executed and we felt that. Because he was becoming an established character and the consequences of his actions needed to be shown.
McClanes swearing came from frustration, anger, stress. Now he just wears a perma smirk, and from what I hear, yells at people like some crazed old man not really knowing whats going on.
So yeah, to a degree the language is necessary as is a more adult movie. Watch Die Hard again, then watch 4.0, then go watch part 5. And you tell us, honestly, are the last two installments "Die Hard" movies. Is John McClane true to how he was written all those years ago. I bet the answer is no.

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 152
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 12:43:59 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/12/2005
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.


This is another unsettling thing about editing out blood splatter, etc. in general. It opens the film up to a younger audience but then doesn't show the consequences of, for example, being shot. I believe the BBFC does take this kind of thing into account to an extent though.

I'm not saying I want a Winding-Refn Die Hard, depicting graphic violence, although...


Edit: I'm not someone who believes that screen (or video game) violence leads to real violence by the way, although my gut feeling is that glamorising violence without showing consequences doesn't set the right example when the film is aiming so young. I'm really not a Daily Mail reader, honestly.

< Message edited by FoximusPrime -- 12/2/2013 12:53:16 PM >


_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Sutty)
Post #: 153
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 12:55:44 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

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?




(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 154
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:03:46 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
In a movie that was always going to be controlled by the studio, though, don't you think it's their right to "express" their film any way they choose, and they chose to show a cut version of it? It's hardly some arty movie by an auteur. In the Die Hard franchise, the director is a work-for-hire who's job is to produce the movie the studio wants. So for the BBFC to tell Fox how to release their movie would basically go against freedom of expression itself. And that's beside the fact that as has been said many times, this is not their job.

Also, the BBFC only act as censors when the content is so reprehensible that there's really no reason for it to be there other than to shock people. Hence The Human Centipede 2... the first was just gross for the sake of being gross with no artistic merit whatsoever, and the second was apparently even worse. At all other times (nowadays), they don't censor anything... they just give it a rating. Giving an age rating appropriate to a film's content is not censorship.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 155
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:06:48 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
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.


(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 156
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:07:42 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14562
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.

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.




Oh, irony. Sweet irony.

_____________________________

quote:

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


(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 157
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:11:16 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

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.


(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 158
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:11:25 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/12/2005

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?







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.

It isn't up to the BBFC to release a 15 rated version of the film, it's up to Fox, and only Fox. Only they have the power to do so and, what's more, they clearly know they'd get a 15 without cuts. So I suggest you march down to Fox UK's Offices and start picketing them until they give in to your demands.


* Obviously this is a rhetorical question, since it's been repeatedly stated up-thread.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 159
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:14:45 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/12/2005
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.




Answer: because the studios want to secure a lower rating so make the conscious choice to cut their own films, based on regional criteria. They could have an 18 rather than 15, 15 rather than 12, and so on, but they first seek out advice from the BBFC, then they opt for the lower rating in order to maximise profits.

< Message edited by FoximusPrime -- 12/2/2013 1:15:29 PM >


_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 160
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:18:18 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
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.


(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 161
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:25:18 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Okay... so Australia is considered to be one of the most restrictive on film ratings in the Western world. Instead of releasing "butchered" versions of films, they just outright ban them if they don't meet their standards.
A Serbian film has been banned in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil... released uncut over here.
We received the uncut version of I Saw The Devil, despite being cut heavily for its domestic South Korean release.
The MPAA is - as has also been stated - borderline puritanical in its ratings guidelines.

By contrast, there are only three films that are currently still banned outright in the UK, and one of those (Cocksucker Blues) and that one is only because the Rolling Stones prevented its distribution. And nowadays the majority of films that have been cut, have been cut by the studio's to achieve the desired rating. They would have allowed the film to pass uncut with a higher rating if that was the studio's intention. Again... this is not censorship. Most films that are given 12A certificate over here are considered by many to not be suitable for children, so if anything the guidelines aren't strict enough. Irreversible, Romance and Antichrist all passed completely uncut.

In what world is the UK the most restrictive country in the Western world?

(I know South Korea isn't part of the Western world, but I thought it was relevant that we received the uncut version of one of their own movies, which had been edited for their release).

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 162
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:26:59 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14562
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
Axl, man, what are you doing by giving him facts? You know he can't handle them!

_____________________________

quote:

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


(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 163
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:30:32 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

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.




It's their movie! It was never about freedom of expression, because this film was never going to belong to the director! It was their movie from the start! They just hired someone to produce the movie they wanted! Therefore whatever they do to it is up to them! If the version of the movie they show to people is the version that allows most bums on seats, then it's their right to do so! Not just because they own it, but because the whole project was a way to make money for them!

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 164
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:31:20 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

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


Hmmm... good point.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 165
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:38:22 PM   
peter

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 25/1/2006
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.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 166
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:38:51 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
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.


(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 167
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:41:18 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4229
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
You just completely repeated yourself. Are you aware of Einstein's definition of insanity?



_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 168
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:45:26 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14562
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
I think he's aware of cutting and pasting.

_____________________________

quote:

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


(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 169
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:46:54 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
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'.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 170
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:48:09 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

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.


(in reply to peter)
Post #: 171
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:53:59 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
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.




Elaborate on this mythical "third option" that all country's have except for ours in which the classification board refuses to help a studio release the movie they want to release. How exactly would that conversation go? I think we'd all find it illuminating...

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 172
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:54:16 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
I've emailed the BBFC about this thread.

I doubt they have the time to look at this thread and address Drooch's posts, but I figured it was a worth a shot. After all, I think they're in a better position than us to do so.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 12/2/2013 1:58:56 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 173
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 1:59:57 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4229
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
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.

< Message edited by DancingClown -- 12/2/2013 2:01:26 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 174
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:07:01 PM   
peter

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 25/1/2006

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.




Thanks, genuinely.

I just don't see either of my two stated options as being realistic, purely because Fox own the film. You mentioned option 1 as the more preferable. But the BBFC lists on their site the reasons why a film met the criteria for being a 15 (or any other rating), so any executive at Fox could make a reasonable guess as to why a 15 certificate was earned, and then change the film accordingly - as is their prerogative. The BBFC has no authority to stop Fox making changes to its own property.

As for the potential third option that's sued in other countries, I think this ties in with the comments on here earlier about other countries having poorer certifying bodies. I'm no expert on this, so may well be corrected, but it's my impression that ratings in other countries are a lot broader, rather than the specific 12(A)-14, 15-17, 18+ brackets over here. So if another country gives one of their broad-brush ratings, the impact isn't quite so bad, especially if it's a rating where viewer discretion is allowed.

Also, is it not possible that the UK market is big enough that more attention will be paid to the rating over here than in some other European countries by Fox? Again, I anticipate having the actual facts flung back at me!

Can't we all just have a pancake and get along?

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 175
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:08:52 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

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'.


No, you're cowardly running away from the discussion. Back up your statement and name just one. If there are many, that's fine, just pick one to start with.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 176
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:15:54 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

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?


(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 177
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:18:47 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Please stop baiting people. It's really not helping matters.

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 178
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:24:22 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4229
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

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?



I said my brief piece earlier on another page. Others are better at articulating my thoughts on this and I have left them to it. And they have destroyed you. Gloriously. But not nearly as gloriously as you have destroyed yourself. It's been most entertaining. And one other thing:

CAPITAL LETTERS do not help you win arguments. Leave that childish shit to IMDB.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

'The town knew darkness, and darkness was enough.'

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 179
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:44:07 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 11/12/2005

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.




So now it's "studio censorship"? I thought you said it was the BBFC who were censoring this auteur entry into the Die Hard canon?

It's actually rather good that the BBFC is willing to "negotiate cuts" in their capacity as a classification body instead of acting as a censor like they used to, applying draconian, puritanical rules and preventing films from seeing the light of day. Of course, "negotiate cuts" is a misleading phrase since they actually offer advice where requested. On a throne made of studio bribes no doubt. Am I right? Huh? Huh?

Simply put, the only people "meddling" are the studio.

To which other 'free' countries are you referring by the way? And why are they 'free' and not free? Is it the machines? Have they taken over in those countries so freedom is just a word and a long-forgotten abstract concept? Or are you through the looking glass?

[ctrl]+[v]

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125