Meal
Posts: 7
Joined: 1/3/2013
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farley1711 Im a huge movie fan...studied it at university,see movies 2 or 3 times a week, have subscribed to EMPIRE pretty much since issue one...and for the first time Ive felt to start a forum here. For years Empire have addressed issues around censorship, however they appear to be dropping the ball on confronting a far more insidious form of censorship...studio edits to secure the wretched 12a.Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 12a, appreciateing that there needs to be something a little more flexible sat between a PG and the rigid 15 classification. However studios have now realised that sacrificing 3 or 4 minutes of footage can secure them a family friendly rating...and allow them to release the inevitable ('harder, longer cut' on blu ray). For an industry which was fearing for its life years ago, insitgating censorship on its own creativity is inexcusable. The rest of the world have an unct Die Hard 5, why don't we? Taken 2 was butchered, looking more like it was edited for a sunday afternoon showing on Ch5. For the first time ever Im considering illegally downloading a movie from the states to see it uncut. I wont be going to the movies to see Die Hard, and will probably not want to see it once it arrives on BluRay - retruning the respect 20th Century Fox have paid me with their greed and cynicism. Id also be interested in the legal standings, as Advertising Standards should sure be making studios detail where we are not 'buying' the full product. That may be my next stop... And c'mon Empire...you are our publication, not the stuidios. Represent us, and confront the studios ... Im boycotting any studio censored movie from now on. We know they only listen when we hit them in their wallets... Completely agree, farley. The trend of cutting films for lower ratings is, sadly, returning. Fortunately, it's not nearly as bad as back in the 80's and 90's and, most importantly, the uncut versions are USUALLY released for home-viewing. As long as I don't have to OWN the sanitised version, I'm OK. That said, I wanted to watch Die Hard 5 in theatres and now I won't. No way I'm paying today's crazy ticket prices for some neutered version. I absolutely agree that the cuts information should be made VERY CLEAR. If there have been cuts, it should appear along with the consumer advice by the certificate, not be tucked away on the BBFC website, where even then it's somewhat ambiguous. As a consumer, the FIRST thing I want to know is whether I'm getting the real deal or the kidz club version. This needs fixing. The problem comes down to who is responsible. Fox chose to cut the film, so it's their fault, right? Fine, but then you have to ask why it's always the UK that ends up with the kids version, while our European neighbours, Ireland included, always get uncut versions. I did a bit of digging on this, and it turns out that the BBFC takes money from the studios in exchange for telling them exactly what needs to be cut to secure the desired lower rating, whereas other classification bodies do just that - classify. It seems the BBFC have a little business on the side, helping the studios to get those profit-friendly ratings... Is this really how our classification body should be behaving? Why can't they adopt the same classify-only policy of other countries and not get involved with the editing of a film? Should the BBFC, a government body designed to serve the British public, be coordinating with movie studios to deprive that public of uncensored footage? Does freedom of expression include the right of the public to see uncut films? The BBFC are a much more transparent and accountable organisation these days, I think it's time they knew that people don't want to see snipped versions, and that the practice of cutting is making piracy all the more necessary for adult cinephiles.
|