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: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 3:52:52 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4314
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

If studios want a certain rating then they'll get a certain rating eventually.

If the BBFC didn't provide this so called "cuts for cash" service then the studios wouldn't decide "hey, wait, why not release it uncut". What they'd do instead is blindly cut and resubmit it†until the BBFC deem it worthy of the rating the studios are aiming for.

Now, do you reckon by going this route that the likelihood is that more stuff will be cut out of the film or less? If anything you should be thanking the BBFC for ensuring the bare minimum gets cut out of the film.


This is an excellent point.


Seconded.

Plus I keep seeing the word "censorship" bandied around and I really don't think it can be applied here. The word implies things like the suppression of free speech and ideas, a notion of the state enforcing ideology on its people. It's all a bit dramatic. The video-nasty nonsense of the 80s comes very close to representing that kind of control and interference. What we're talking about here is marketing, pure and simple.

_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 121
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 3:54:35 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

If studios want a certain rating then they'll get a certain rating eventually.

If the BBFC didn't provide this so called "cuts for cash" service then the studios wouldn't decide "hey, wait, why not release it uncut". What they'd do instead is blindly cut and resubmit it†until the BBFC deem it worthy of the rating the studios are aiming for.

Now, do you reckon by going this route that the likelihood is that more stuff will be cut out of the film or less? If anything you should be thanking the BBFC for ensuring the bare minimum gets cut out of the film.


Less, or no cuts - as is the case with equivalent countries that don't offer cuts-for-cash.


(in reply to Harry Tuttle)
Post #: 122
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:09:30 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.


(in reply to Chief)
Post #: 123
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:12:19 PM   
shool


Posts: 10221
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

you bitchy bitchy catty tinpot dictatorship



Censorship rules




Seriously though Drooch, interact nicely with other posters. Criticise the post and not the poster.

If you continue with your current tone we will likely have to limit your posting rights. Can you not see how your tone has dragged this topic off to not a very nice place?


Are you joking? Look back at the thread, the hostile 'high horse' comment brought the tone down, and then MonsterCat and pals started dropping provocative gifs to try and derail the thread. I've tried to get things back on topic at every turn, as you can see for yourself, so please direct your powers where they belong.



You are certainly not helping things though. I'll also deal with others who consistently drag the thread off topic as I have posted above. You will notice that they havent since my post.

quote:


quote:

Please regard moderators comments otherwise our corrupt power will start to be used.


I have no problem with you, shool, and will respectfully take your comments onboard. I can't say the same for elab49 who, as you can see for yourself, throws around bitchy comments at people then threatens to abuse his moderator powers to silence their entirely justified resistance to being bullied.


** Sigh **

If you have a particular problem with any post. Whether it be by a moderator or otherwise please feel free to report the post.

quote:


Anyway, back on-topic as you asked. Where do you stand on the BBFC's cuts-for-cash service?


I dont give a damn. I'm too busy sorting this sort of crap out.


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 124
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:38:56 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5113
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 125
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:43:50 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8327
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.


Exactly. They've not said "Under no circumstances can X be shown", they've said "X will require certificate Y". The studio decides they'll make more money if they cut it. The studio self-censors in the name of profit.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 126
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:52:29 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
I would perhaps care more about this if the movie is a labour of love for the director, and just before release, the studio cut it up and release a different version of it just to make more cash. But mostly it's always films where the studio just hired a director to deliver a product for them, he does his job and then it goes. I just can't get myself worked up over a studio releasing the version of the film they want to release in different territories, compromising such world-renowned auteurs as... John Moore, and... erm... Olivier Megaton.

Let's face it... they're hardly Ridley Scott or Christopher Nolan, are they.

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 127
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 4:58:44 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
I haven't gone back through the thread to my previous posts, or responses to them, so am not sure if this was raised before or not, but.....

If this 'cash for cuts' service exists (have we actually established that it does?) and the studio wishes to use it to get a rating for their movie, I don't see how that is 'Censorship' per se, surely it's just another form of editorial control being exorcised by the owner of the product i.e. the studio? Now, I'd rather not see films edited to achieve a particular rating, if that detracts from the original intent of the movie and movie makers. So, for example if DreamWorks had decided they wanted to broaden the audience scope of Saving Private Ryan, and submitted the movie to the BBFC to understand what they would need to cut in order to gain a 12A, at the expense of Spielberg's original vision, then I suspect I would be pretty pissed. However, that isn't really what is happening is it? At least I've not read or heard of any case of a movie being submitted and re-edited to achieve a rating that wasn't the original intent of the movie. So, for example The Hunger Games was always aiming for a 12A rating, and the studio took BBFC advice (paid for or not, I've no idea) and edited a few seconds that allowed the movie to achieve it's ratings goal. There was no censorship in place by either the BBFC or the studio, simply an editorial decision. In these cases In really don't have much issue and I don't see how someone could take from this system the idea that we are somehow having movies 'censored'. Also, I have no idea how many films this actually impacts? Seriously, does anyone? Drooch, do you? I mean, how many films were released in 2012, and how many of those were submitted to the BBFC and then subsequently resubmitted following further studio cuts? 10% of all films? 20%? I'd imagine no one could answer it, so I don't understand how we can get up in arms about this 'Censorship' when there is nothing to support the fact that it actually happens, or that it happens enough to really impact on what we, as a viewing audience, are given?

I still maintain that the BBFC of today remains a much better organisation, and I'd suspect we see less imposed cuts these days as we did back in the day when the BBFC were making more headlines during the VHS boom. Even back in those days, I'd suspect the percentage of films being cut was relatively small. But again, lets not kid ourselves, the BBFC is not imposing 'Censorship' and they're not cutting movies. Their advice service (paid for or not) is being used by the studio's as an editorial tool, not a method of censorship. You can get pretty much anything released these days with an appropriate rating. Again, as per above, I'd love to know of examples of movies being changed from their original intent by this service. Even movies that I suspect had some cuts via this advisory service, such as Hunger Games and Total Recall, still managed to include things that ten or fifteen years ago would've been unheard of in a 12A rated movie. Even going further back, Terminator 3 including violence that is easily on par with Camerons original. Still, am genuinely intrigued to see the evidence of this 'cash for cuts' service in action. So, c'mon, what impact is it really having?



Edit.... I was trying to edit out some of the shitty grammar and spelling errors in this fucking post, but my computer is being a dick, so I've only done a bit. I cant be arsed with it, the cunting thing.

< Message edited by porntrooper -- 24/4/2013 5:12:16 PM >


_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 128
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:08:28 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.



I'm not sure that's right is it?

Surely with the DH5 example, the studio want more people to see it but the director has made a film that doesn't fit the criteria for 12A, the studio's preferred rating. Therefore, on advice of the BBFC they've edited certain things (I gather this is mostly bullet impacts and swearing, though am not sure?) so while I don't agree it's 'censorship as such, it is certainly the studio removing content to allow a wider audience. The problem is with the studio's not the BBFC. The BBFC will rightly allow Die Hard 5 an uncut release, and it will receive a 15 rating, the studio is imposing it's own cuts. I believe what Drooch is saying is that if the BBFC did not offer this advisory service, Die Hard 5 would likely be released as an uncut 15. Personally, I think that's balls, and I think the studio would simply remove what they themselves think needs to be removed to achieve their desired rating.

I could only ever see it as an issue if it started to mess with the integrity of the original movie (see my Private Ryan example above) but in most cases, we're talking big movies that need a big audience to make sure they make a profit. The majority of these films are made with a rating in mind, again Hunger Games is a good example as this was always, always being intended as a 12A rated movie. They were given advice on what needed to be removed (I think it's about 30 seconds or some shit) and they removed it.

Drooch, do you think there should be any ratings system? Any at all?

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 129
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:11:22 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".

Now like you said, if it were Saving Private Ryan or the like suffering from studio interference in order to maximise profit, I'd be pretty pissed off about it. But I've found that generally, the best directors are being given more and more leeway to submit the film that they want.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 130
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:14:52 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.


No, the censors don't want people to see the cut footage. Specifically, they don't want 'underage' people seeing the cut footage, but to force adults into watching the cut version is problematic. The studio, of course, just wants as many people as possible to see the film and doesn't care how much they need to butcher their product to achieve that.





(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 131
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:18:49 PM   
AxlReznor

 

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

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.


No, the censors don't want people to see the cut footage. Specifically, they don't want 'underage' people seeing the cut footage, but to force adults into watching the cut version is problematic. The studio, of course, just wants as many people as possible to see the film and doesn't care how much they need to butcher their product to achieve that.







So do you think two versions of every movie should be released, to give adults the option to watch the uncut version? Personally, I think there should only be one theatrical version of any movie (24fps, and 2D), and if you want to watch another version you can just wait for the DVD which is almost always released with an uncut version on it (which is how most people watch movies nowadays, anyway).

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 132
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:26:24 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".



In my opinion, I don't think the studio ever intended Die Hard 5 to be aiming at a 15 rating here in the UK. Like you say, the MPAA system allows a bigger audience within it's R rating, so Fox knows they won't need to cut much to keep a wide audience available. They know they would need to achieve a 12A to get as much an audience as possible here in the UK. Whether the decision was made on the back of a realisation that the movie was shite, I don't know, but I'd suspect it was a decision made well before that and the instructions would've been 'Shoot the movie how you wanna shoot it, and we can worry about the edit and UK rating later'.

I'm pretty sure too, that Moore was involved in the edit for the UK rating, I'm sure Empire covered it, suggesting that he was sweating away trying to make it fit.... it's a good example of how the studio would be dictating the need for cuts for the desired rating.

I don't really agree with it, but I also don't think it's censorship in the same sense we had censorship back in the eighties. And again, it's more the studio dictating things, than the BBFC. If the advisory service wasn't available, I am sure Fox would've gone through a similar edit process but using guesswork and I'm sure that if the rating had come back as 15, they would've simply taken a second stab at it. The other point is, how much does this advisory service really impact things? Like I say, I'd love to know what % of films were submitted and had advice given, and were then edited for re-submission. I'd suspect it would be a very low percentage of movies, I'd love to see the data if anyone has it? Drooch?

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 133
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 5:42:09 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.



I'm not sure that's right is it?

Surely with the DH5 example, the studio want more people to see it but the director has made a film that doesn't fit the criteria for 12A, the studio's preferred rating. Therefore, on advice of the BBFC they've edited certain things (I gather this is mostly bullet impacts and swearing, though am not sure?) so while I don't agree it's 'censorship as such, it is certainly the studio removing content to allow a wider audience. The problem is with the studio's not the BBFC. The BBFC will rightly allow Die Hard 5 an uncut release, and it will receive a 15 rating, the studio is imposing it's own cuts. I believe what Drooch is saying is that if the BBFC did not offer this advisory service, Die Hard 5 would likely be released as an uncut 15. Personally, I think that's balls, and I think the studio would simply remove what they themselves think needs to be removed to achieve their desired rating.

I could only ever see it as an issue if it started to mess with the integrity of the original movie (see my Private Ryan example above) but in most cases, we're talking big movies that need a big audience to make sure they make a profit. The majority of these films are made with a rating in mind, again Hunger Games is a good example as this was always, always being intended as a 12A rated movie. They were given advice on what needed to be removed (I think it's about 30 seconds or some shit) and they removed it.

Drooch, do you think there should be any ratings system? Any at all?


Of course, I want us to have the same system as every other equivalent country where the classification board classifies and doesn't get involved in cutting films for a fee.



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 134
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 6:01:57 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".



In my opinion, I don't think the studio ever intended Die Hard 5 to be aiming at a 15 rating here in the UK. Like you say, the MPAA system allows a bigger audience within it's R rating, so Fox knows they won't need to cut much to keep a wide audience available. They know they would need to achieve a 12A to get as much an audience as possible here in the UK. Whether the decision was made on the back of a realisation that the movie was shite, I don't know, but I'd suspect it was a decision made well before that and the instructions would've been 'Shoot the movie how you wanna shoot it, and we can worry about the edit and UK rating later'.

I'm pretty sure too, that Moore was involved in the edit for the UK rating, I'm sure Empire covered it, suggesting that he was sweating away trying to make it fit.... it's a good example of how the studio would be dictating the need for cuts for the desired rating.

I don't really agree with it, but I also don't think it's censorship in the same sense we had censorship back in the eighties. And again, it's more the studio dictating things, than the BBFC. If the advisory service wasn't available, I am sure Fox would've gone through a similar edit process but using guesswork and I'm sure that if the rating had come back as 15, they would've simply taken a second stab at it. The other point is, how much does this advisory service really impact things? Like I say, I'd love to know what % of films were submitted and had advice given, and were then edited for re-submission. I'd suspect it would be a very low percentage of movies, I'd love to see the data if anyone has it? Drooch?


Then why doesn't this happen in equivalent countries that don't offer cuts-for-cash?

I'm not sure of the percentage of cut films but these are some recent examples of popular films that suffered:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1



(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 135
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 6:10:25 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chief

Can the "cash-for-cuts" thing be compared to putting your car in for a pre-MOT? You pay money to have your item inspected and advised how to get it to an acceptable state before testing?

It's kind of like that but it's not the studio who then have to drive the reduced-speed vehicle, it's you the consumer. Meanwhile people in other countries are allowed the full-speed model. Or something.

quote:

What is it you actually think you are missing out on by having these cuts made? Do you feel like you aren't seeing the complete film? Because there will be a shit load more on the editing room floor that you'll never see....

Editing is constructive cutting in service of the film, censorship is an intervention by a body that dictates that you cannot have access to certain footage because, unlike them, you will likely be harmed by seeing it. People in other countries CAN see the footage, but you can't, it wouldn't be safe to let YOU see it. An uncut version should always be made available for adults, on principle.




Fair enough, so by that rationale that's clearly not what's happening with Die Hard 5 etc - they're not making cuts because they think people will be harmed by seeing it, they're making cuts because the studio want more people to see it.


No, the censors don't want people to see the cut footage. Specifically, they don't want 'underage' people seeing the cut footage, but to force adults into watching the cut version is problematic. The studio, of course, just wants as many people as possible to see the film and doesn't care how much they need to butcher their product to achieve that.







So do you think two versions of every movie should be released, to give adults the option to watch the uncut version? Personally, I think there should only be one theatrical version of any movie (24fps, and 2D), and if you want to watch another version you can just wait for the DVD which is almost always released with an uncut version on it (which is how most people watch movies nowadays, anyway).


Ideally, I simply want the same system as every other equivalent country - classification with no cuts. BUT, if the BBFC refuse to abandon their cuts-for-cash service then there should be a mandatory uncut version for adults. Yes, I can just wait for the DVD in most cases these days but I want the cinema experience, which I value very much, to be the ultimate viewing experience, and that's not the case when I'm forced to watch some bowdlerised version. Big picture and big sound don't make up for some neutered, sanitised product, and it turns people away from the theatre and back into their houses, which ain't good for cinema.


(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 136
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 6:27:00 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".



In my opinion, I don't think the studio ever intended Die Hard 5 to be aiming at a 15 rating here in the UK. Like you say, the MPAA system allows a bigger audience within it's R rating, so Fox knows they won't need to cut much to keep a wide audience available. They know they would need to achieve a 12A to get as much an audience as possible here in the UK. Whether the decision was made on the back of a realisation that the movie was shite, I don't know, but I'd suspect it was a decision made well before that and the instructions would've been 'Shoot the movie how you wanna shoot it, and we can worry about the edit and UK rating later'.

I'm pretty sure too, that Moore was involved in the edit for the UK rating, I'm sure Empire covered it, suggesting that he was sweating away trying to make it fit.... it's a good example of how the studio would be dictating the need for cuts for the desired rating.

I don't really agree with it, but I also don't think it's censorship in the same sense we had censorship back in the eighties. And again, it's more the studio dictating things, than the BBFC. If the advisory service wasn't available, I am sure Fox would've gone through a similar edit process but using guesswork and I'm sure that if the rating had come back as 15, they would've simply taken a second stab at it. The other point is, how much does this advisory service really impact things? Like I say, I'd love to know what % of films were submitted and had advice given, and were then edited for re-submission. I'd suspect it would be a very low percentage of movies, I'd love to see the data if anyone has it? Drooch?


Then why doesn't this happen in equivalent countries that don't offer cuts-for-cash?

I'm not sure of the percentage of cut films but these are some recent examples of popular films that suffered:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1





Using Die Hard 5 as the example again, do we know that Die Hard was not studio edited in any other country? Do we have confirmation anywhere that is was only the UK that received a studio edited cut? Everywhere outside the UK received the same cut as the US?

Again, where is the evidence of the 'cash for cuts' service, that the BBFC provide a service that will advise on how to edit a movie to acheive a rating for a financial payment?? Have i missed it?

Youre using 13 films to suggest that the UK movie market as a whole is subject to censorship that is far more excessive than anywhere else? You suggested some other posters facts and figures didnt add up or support and argument or something (was it something to do with 53/93 percent?) yet you cant provide any accurate data to back up your claim, or if you have, I dont see it. And I'd certainly be interested to read it.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 137
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 7:22:27 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15403
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
The problem with this topic is, it has all been said. We are just going round in circles to the point that Drooch is using the exact same films as an example of censorship he did a couple of pages back. There isn't really anything else to argue that hasn't been said here or in that other thread.

I wonder what happened to Meal? I think Drooch scared them off.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 138
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 7:40:23 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
I'm not sure if this has come up already, and as hilarious/depressing as the thread is, I can't be arsed to read back, but the BBFC have a FAQ section on their site that addresses this

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/faqs#F36

quote:

Why does the BBFC let film distributors cut their films for a lower age rating when they could still show the film in cinemas at a higher rating?

It has long been a BBFC guiding principle that works should be allowed to reach the widest appropriate audience. Producing films is very costly and companies are often aiming to achieve a particular age rating to help maximise their profit at the box office and cover their production and other costs. The lower and advisory age ratings of U, PG and 12A can attract a larger audience than the restrictive 15 and 18 age ratings, so sometimes a film distributor will want to achieve a lower age rating. However sometimes they want a higher age rating, for example some horror films prefer an 18 age rating to a 15 age rating, as it tells the audience about the strength of the content in the film.


quote:

Why does the BBFC offer an advice service? Do other classification boards around the world do this?

The BBFC has been providing age-rating advice to film makers and film distributors on how to achieve their preferred category for almost 100 years. Advice viewings and script readings have always been common, what has changed is that today we are more open about which films were advised on and what changes were advised.

Film classification bodies in other countries offer the same services to varying degrees, although not all of them provide this information to the public.


I just want to bold and highlight the last part of that one.


quote:

Film classification bodies in other countries offer the same services to varying degrees, although not all of them provide this information to the public.


quote:

Can the BBFC refuse to suggest cuts to a film to achieve a lower age rating if it might impact on the audience enjoyment of the film?

The BBFC Classification Guidelines are published on the website and most major film companies are very aware of the standards at 12A and 15. If we were to refuse to offer advice on how to achieve a particular rating, there would be nothing to stop companies cutting their films themselves. There is clearly a risk that films would be pre-cut more than is actually necessary in the absence of expert advice. BBFC advice aims to suggest the minimum cuts necessary for the desired age rating and we aim to ensure the cuts advised are specific, targeted and interfere as little as possible with the narrative of the film.

Itís important to understand that some films are already pre cut for a category in another country, such as a PG-13 in the USA, when they are submitted to the BBFC. International standards vary and the PG-13 and 12A standards are not identical, so sometimes further cuts are required to a film pre-cut for a PG-13 rated film. This sometimes creates more difficulty in retaining the narrative of the film.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 139
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 7:44:35 PM   
Rebel scum


Posts: 3483
Joined: 2/1/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".



In my opinion, I don't think the studio ever intended Die Hard 5 to be aiming at a 15 rating here in the UK. Like you say, the MPAA system allows a bigger audience within it's R rating, so Fox knows they won't need to cut much to keep a wide audience available. They know they would need to achieve a 12A to get as much an audience as possible here in the UK. Whether the decision was made on the back of a realisation that the movie was shite, I don't know, but I'd suspect it was a decision made well before that and the instructions would've been 'Shoot the movie how you wanna shoot it, and we can worry about the edit and UK rating later'.

I'm pretty sure too, that Moore was involved in the edit for the UK rating, I'm sure Empire covered it, suggesting that he was sweating away trying to make it fit.... it's a good example of how the studio would be dictating the need for cuts for the desired rating.

I don't really agree with it, but I also don't think it's censorship in the same sense we had censorship back in the eighties. And again, it's more the studio dictating things, than the BBFC. If the advisory service wasn't available, I am sure Fox would've gone through a similar edit process but using guesswork and I'm sure that if the rating had come back as 15, they would've simply taken a second stab at it. The other point is, how much does this advisory service really impact things? Like I say, I'd love to know what % of films were submitted and had advice given, and were then edited for re-submission. I'd suspect it would be a very low percentage of movies, I'd love to see the data if anyone has it? Drooch?


Then why doesn't this happen in equivalent countries that don't offer cuts-for-cash?

I'm not sure of the percentage of cut films but these are some recent examples of popular films that suffered:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1



Oh no, the BBFC butchered all these classic, auteur-driven films!

Also this thread is crazy.

EDIT - Also, the level of violence/threat/intensity/whatever featured in some of those films (I'm thinking The Woman in Black in particular) would have been an automatic bump up a certification level a few years ago.

< Message edited by Rebel scum -- 24/4/2013 7:45:48 PM >


_____________________________

"We are not safe! A dark menace rises to the east! Duckies go quack! Cows go moo! I want ice cream. Verily, will you two hobbits join my quest?"

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 140
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 24/4/2013 11:35:24 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7940
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
As I understand it, the BBFC actually do charge for cuts advice, but then again why shouldn't they?

They're basically a non-profit making organisation and they don't get any funding from the government, so they'll need to get money from any way they can. I mean, they provide an important service. How else are they expected to provide that service if they're not getting the funds from any way they can?

Or maybe I'm a BBFC apologist.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebel scum

Oh no, the BBFC butchered all these classic, auteur-driven films!



Hey, there's only room for one Empire forum badass around here, bucko!

_____________________________

"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 Rebel scum)
Post #: 141
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 12:51:12 AM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
The way I understood it was that they didn't actually run a cuts advice service in that sense, rather the film had to be submitted and paid for under the usual fee structure, then the BBFC say that the film as it stands will get a certain rating, at which point the studio can ask for advice on what to cut to get a lower rating. So I thought the fee was for watching the film and the standard submission rate, same as they do for any other classification. It's just that with Die Hard they were screened an unfinished film and they said that in its current state it would get a 15, at which point the studio asked what they had to cut to get a lower certificate.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 142
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 11:34:26 AM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7940
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
You might be right on that one. Either way, yes the BBFC do facilitate studio's decision to make cuts to secure lower ratings, but then again I don't see why they should deny the studios that. It would be different if they were a bunch of chop happy puritans fucking around with important pieces of celluloid art for a quick cash grab, but I honestly don't they are.

The BBFC of today are clearly a smart bunch of people doing a very thankless job. It's not like 30 years ago when they were stupidly banning films and getting all scissor happy.

These "cuts for cash" allegations are pretty baseless and hold no water for me.

_____________________________

"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 rawlinson)
Post #: 143
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 11:55:42 AM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 2/9/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Drooch is the only person I've ever seen refer to a "cash-for-cuts" service, and a Google search brought up no results other than from one website that keeps track of all edits in films, no matter how small... and even then, the term is not actually directly used.

I'd say that the original intent for the last Die Hard film was for it to be a 15, as it was an R in the US, and was only cut at at the last minute to achieve a 12A over here. I suspect the studio realised they had a bad film on their hands, and decided to get the rating lowered over here to maximise the number of possible customers (because in the US, as long as a minor is accompanied by an adult, they're allowed into R-rated movies... a shit system as far as I'm concerned). But again... it's part of a franchise that is very clearly at this point controlled by the studio's from start to finish. They hire director's to give them a product, and they do their job and leave the final edit in the hands of the studio's. It wasn't the work of a director who wants creative control, etc. And I find it a far greater violation of freedom of expression to say that "no, you're not allowed to release the movie the way you want it released... you've got to include all of the violence and profanity so some people don't feel like they're getting ripped off".



In my opinion, I don't think the studio ever intended Die Hard 5 to be aiming at a 15 rating here in the UK. Like you say, the MPAA system allows a bigger audience within it's R rating, so Fox knows they won't need to cut much to keep a wide audience available. They know they would need to achieve a 12A to get as much an audience as possible here in the UK. Whether the decision was made on the back of a realisation that the movie was shite, I don't know, but I'd suspect it was a decision made well before that and the instructions would've been 'Shoot the movie how you wanna shoot it, and we can worry about the edit and UK rating later'.

I'm pretty sure too, that Moore was involved in the edit for the UK rating, I'm sure Empire covered it, suggesting that he was sweating away trying to make it fit.... it's a good example of how the studio would be dictating the need for cuts for the desired rating.

I don't really agree with it, but I also don't think it's censorship in the same sense we had censorship back in the eighties. And again, it's more the studio dictating things, than the BBFC. If the advisory service wasn't available, I am sure Fox would've gone through a similar edit process but using guesswork and I'm sure that if the rating had come back as 15, they would've simply taken a second stab at it. The other point is, how much does this advisory service really impact things? Like I say, I'd love to know what % of films were submitted and had advice given, and were then edited for re-submission. I'd suspect it would be a very low percentage of movies, I'd love to see the data if anyone has it? Drooch?


Then why doesn't this happen in equivalent countries that don't offer cuts-for-cash?

I'm not sure of the percentage of cut films but these are some recent examples of popular films that suffered:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight Breaking Dawn, Part 1





Using Die Hard 5 as the example again, do we know that Die Hard was not studio edited in any other country? Do we have confirmation anywhere that is was only the UK that received a studio edited cut? Everywhere outside the UK received the same cut as the US?

Again, where is the evidence of the 'cash for cuts' service, that the BBFC provide a service that will advise on how to edit a movie to acheive a rating for a financial payment?? Have i missed it?

Youre using 13 films to suggest that the UK movie market as a whole is subject to censorship that is far more excessive than anywhere else? You suggested some other posters facts and figures didnt add up or support and argument or something (was it something to do with 53/93 percent?) yet you cant provide any accurate data to back up your claim, or if you have, I dont see it. And I'd certainly be interested to read it.


I was actually being a bit generous with 53% share figure, I'd calculated that from newspaper articles saying that the "foreign" produced share of China's box office was on the increase after the government had increased the quota to 34 foreign films a year. . According to Chinafilmbiz the US share was actually only 49% in 2012

chinafilmbiz chart

original article

the 93% figure for UK box office is detailed in my earlier posts to Meal.

Anyway I'm done with Drooch, I really can't be bothered trying to discuss anything with him, it's like trying to have a conversation with a trolling narcissist (he just degenerates to name calling and then accuses everyone else of having ego problems and being butt-hurt), it's just boring now.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 144
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 1:59:25 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

Using Die Hard 5 as the example again, do we know that Die Hard was not studio edited in any other country? Do we have confirmation anywhere that is was only the UK that received a studio edited cut? Everywhere outside the UK received the same cut as the US?

Here is one website that provides worldwide censorship information: http://www.movie-censorship.com/

The UK was the only country in which DH5 received cuts for category.



quote:

Again, where is the evidence of the 'cash for cuts' service, that the BBFC provide a service that will advise on how to edit a movie to acheive a rating for a financial payment?? Have i missed it?

I asked them in an email and they confirmed my suspicion, saying, 'Yes, the BBFC does charge for providing formal advice on films'. Ask them yourself if you're in any doubt.



quote:

Youre using 13 films to suggest that the UK movie market as a whole is subject to censorship that is far more excessive than anywhere else? You suggested some other posters facts and figures didnt add up or support and argument or something (was it something to do with 53/93 percent?) yet you cant provide any accurate data to back up your claim, or if you have, I dont see it. And I'd certainly be interested to read it.

Check the BBFC website for details of those cuts, and check the website I mentioned above for details of cuts worldwide.


(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 145
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 2:46:35 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2616
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

Using Die Hard 5 as the example again, do we know that Die Hard was not studio edited in any other country? Do we have confirmation anywhere that is was only the UK that received a studio edited cut? Everywhere outside the UK received the same cut as the US?

Here is one website that provides worldwide censorship information: http://www.movie-censorship.com/

The UK was the only country in which DH5 received cuts for category.



quote:

Again, where is the evidence of the 'cash for cuts' service, that the BBFC provide a service that will advise on how to edit a movie to acheive a rating for a financial payment?? Have i missed it?

I asked them in an email and they confirmed my suspicion, saying, 'Yes, the BBFC does charge for providing formal advice on films'. Ask them yourself if you're in any doubt.



quote:

Youre using 13 films to suggest that the UK movie market as a whole is subject to censorship that is far more excessive than anywhere else? You suggested some other posters facts and figures didnt add up or support and argument or something (was it something to do with 53/93 percent?) yet you cant provide any accurate data to back up your claim, or if you have, I dont see it. And I'd certainly be interested to read it.

Check the BBFC website for details of those cuts, and check the website I mentioned above for details of cuts worldwide.





Interesting enough about Die Hard 5 not receiving cuts anywhere else, but again, I'd suggest that using this one signle film doesn't really support your argument that the BBFC is providing a censorship service. Neither does the DH5 example support your claim that without the BBFC advisory service, we would receive unedited movies across the board. There is also the other point I made that you haven't responded to either, just how many films does this really impact in the whole of the UK market? You provided 13 examples of films that have potentially been edited by the studio after an initial submission that confirmed they didnt meet the age rating criteria they were aiming for. 13 films isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things and is a tiny % of the films released in the UK. As you're the one claiming we're suffering terribly at the hands of BBFC censorship, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to back it up, wouldnt you say?

I think everyone here accepts and understands the current BBFC process, and the BBFC site itself clearly talks about how it does business, as per an earlier post. It doesnt mention money, but as they're providing the ratings and classification service, I dont see why it is a problem for them to be paid to have a movie submitted for UK classification, lets be clear, they're not getting paid by saying "We'll tell you how to edit your movies, if you spip us some cash". My general understanding from the google searching and info here suggests the studio submits the movie for classification and pays the required fee and a rating is given. The studio is entitled to ask for advice on what would need to be cut if a lower rating was desired, and the BBFC will tell them. The movie is then re-submitted via the same process. I suspect, although it's not clear that the second submission also carries a fee.

What you seem to be saying is that once the movie is submitted, thats it, no going back. You have your rating, and the BBFC shuts the hell up and will speak no more of how they came to that rating, thats the system you want? And if the studio makes their own edits and re-submits the movie, and acheives a lower rating, it would be mandatory to release both versions? Is that what your saying?

The more I think about it, I just dont understand what point you're making???

Everything seems very transparent and above board, the process of submission, rating and ratings advice is pretty clear, why do you have issue with it and not with the studios? Like I mentioned elsewhere, I'm no fan of studio's taking movies and chopping them up to achieve a specific rating, but it's not exactly hard to understand, and the films that fall foul of the process are generally movies that are made with a rating in mind, they arent movies being made with a specific intent or purpose that is somehow being undermined by these cuts. If this were something similar to the Private Ryan example I gave earlier, I could understand why someone would be pissed. I'd be pissed myself. But what we have here isn't really that kind of situation. Plus, the suggestion that if a movie is edited by the studio a mandatory second un-cut version must be released is fucking bonkers. How would smaller independant movies get into the multiplexes if screens were clogged up with multiple versions of a single release? It's hard enough as it is with 2D, 3D and Imax versions competing for space.



_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 146
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 3:07:40 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

I think everyone here accepts and understands the current BBFC process, and the BBFC site itself clearly talks about how it does business, as per an earlier post. It doesnt mention money, but as they're providing the ratings and classification service, I dont see why it is a problem for them to be paid to have a movie submitted for UK classification, lets be clear, they're not getting paid by saying "We'll tell you how to edit your movies, if you spip us some cash". My general understanding from the google searching and info here suggests the studio submits the movie for classification and pays the required fee and a rating is given. The studio is entitled to ask for advice on what would need to be cut if a lower rating was desired, and the BBFC will tell them. The movie is then re-submitted via the same process. I suspect, although it's not clear that the second submission also carries a fee.



Some searching around the website gives all the information needed. I was wrong earlier when I thought the advice service was part of the standard classification. The details on the advice service are here

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/industry-services/additional-information/advice-viewings

The fee is 75% of the standard classification fee, which is £20 for submission and then £2.50 per minute for the length of the film. This doesn't give the film a certificate, just what the probable certificate would be for the film in that format. So the film would then need to be resubmitted to actually receive classification. All above aboard, all clearly stated on their website.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 147
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 3:12:23 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

I'm not sure if this has come up already, and as hilarious/depressing as the thread is, I can't be arsed to read back, but the BBFC have a FAQ section on their site that addresses this

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/faqs#F36

quote:

Why does the BBFC let film distributors cut their films for a lower age rating when they could still show the film in cinemas at a higher rating?

It has long been a BBFC guiding principle that works should be allowed to reach the widest appropriate audience. Producing films is very costly and companies are often aiming to achieve a particular age rating to help maximise their profit at the box office and cover their production and other costs. The lower and advisory age ratings of U, PG and 12A can attract a larger audience than the restrictive 15 and 18 age ratings, so sometimes a film distributor will want to achieve a lower age rating. However sometimes they want a higher age rating, for example some horror films prefer an 18 age rating to a 15 age rating, as it tells the audience about the strength of the content in the film.


The BBFC exists to serve the British public, why are they climbing between the sheets with Hollywood studios? Oh yeah, cuts-for-cash. British audiences can make do with butchered films as long as the BBFC gets paid more.

If a film has been cut, details of this should be printed clearly alongside the certificate and content descriptions.

quote:

quote:

Why does the BBFC offer an advice service? Do other classification boards around the world do this?

The BBFC has been providing age-rating advice to film makers and film distributors on how to achieve their preferred category for almost 100 years. Advice viewings and script readings have always been common, what has changed is that today we are more open about which films were advised on and what changes were advised.

Film classification bodies in other countries offer the same services to varying degrees, although not all of them provide this information to the public.


I just want to bold and highlight the last part of that one.


quote:

Film classification bodies in other countries offer the same services to varying degrees, although not all of them provide this information to the public.


That's deliberately vague of them. While of course communist countries and those with strict state censorship will butcher films, no other equivalent 'international market' country engages in cuts-for-cash (I refer to Canada, Australia, European countries, Mexico and others with a similar respect for freedom of expression as the UK).

Notice they conveniently fail to mention that they charge for this service.


(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 148
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 3:15:30 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7940
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
Anyone else here feeling their life force slowly drain out of them?

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 25/4/2013 3:16:08 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 rawlinson)
Post #: 149
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 4:07:53 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8327
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

Film classification bodies in other countries offer the same services to varying degrees, although not all of them provide this information to the public.


That's deliberately vague of them. While of course communist countries and those with strict state censorship will butcher films, no other equivalent 'international market' country engages in cuts-for-cash (I refer to Canada, Australia, European countries, Mexico and others with a similar respect for freedom of expression as the UK).

Notice they conveniently fail to mention that they charge for this service.




Are you seriously suggesting Australia has a more enlightened approach to film classification and censorship?

It seems to me your entire beef is built around the fact that the BBFC charge for their services. Which despite your assertions hardly makes them unique.

< Message edited by superdan -- 25/4/2013 4:08:21 PM >

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.141