Discodez
Posts: 777
Joined: 2/9/2010
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Meal Why have they been granted this service in the UK and nowhere else in the international markets? As I already said, the reason why the BBFC have offered this service is because the studios want it. The studios want it because the UK is the biggest market in the world outside the US for Hollywood films. For the studios it's about making the most money they can. The reason why they don't push for it in France, Germany, Italy Australia etc is that the potential differences in revenue between a 12 and 15 certificate are rather small in those countries compared to what they could be in the UK. It's about economics for the studios, not about censorship by the BBFC, the studios are self censoring. quote:
.Making the practice that much more inappropriate and in need of public exposure and consultation What practice, the practice of Hollywood studios wanting to marginalise independant cinema? Then yes we agree. quote:
The countries I'm comparing the UK to are those with similarly evolved values around freedom of expression. Those in Europe, Canada, Australia and Mexico. While I'm sure there are cases of banning, such as Saw 3 in Germany, these are rare exceptions and don't compare to the large number of cut films hitting UK cinemas every year. Also, the Saw 3 example is one of compulsory cuts, not cuts for category, which is the focus here. I really do think you are very much overstating the number of films that are being "cut for category", in recent times I recall 3 (Die hard 5, The Hunger Games and the title film in this thread). Compared to the number of films that are released totally uncut, it's a tiny number and like I say it's at the behest of the studio, not the BBFC. quote:
Really? When did the British public ask to have a constant stream of cut films in their cinemas? Anyone I've told about this practice of advising on cuts for a fee reacts by saying a) that they never knew about this and b) certainly won't be going to see any cut films from now on and c) feel betrayed by the BBFC who are supposed to be acting their interests, not the interests of a studio that's paying them. As others have already pointed out, the BBFC regularly surveys the British public, there's a survey on their website now, and on the whole, the British public tell the BBFC they are happy with the job that they do with regard to classification. It's interesting that your friends seem to be upset at this studio led policy of asking for advice on cutting films to achieve a lower and more profitable classification and decide therefore not to see a film. You see I was under the impression that with the most recent case at least, Die Hard blah blah, that people didn't bother going to see it because it was shit, not because the studio decided to ask the BBFC what to trim so children could go and see it with their parents. quote:
Presumably as a cinephile, are you happy with the amount of cut films in UK cinemas or would you rather we had a system like the rest of Europe in which cuts-for-category never (or extremely rarely ever) happens? As a cinephile I'd rather all films were released uncut and as the director intended but also as a cinephile I'm not going to bother putting myself through a load of old shit like die hard blah blah, no matter what classification it gets. As a cinephile what upsets me more is not being able to see great films from around Europe and the rest of the world at my local multiplex, because they would rather show die hard blah blah or the latest celluloid abortion by the Wayans Brothers or Adam Sandler. Now that really is something to get upset about.
|