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 - 25/4/2013 4:10:21 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

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.







I'm not sure why I'm bothering but that really doesn't make any sense. These scenes - the ones removed from films such as Die Hard 5 so that the studio can gain their lower rating - wouldn't be cut at all if the studio didn't ask so it's got nothing at all to do with 'the censors' not wanting people to see it. Granted, that may be the case with, say, the bits removed from A Serbian Film, where the choice is made by the BBFC, but my original point was that your definition of censorship - making cuts to stop people watching stuff the censors think is harmful - doesn't apply in the case of these studio-requested cuts.
Right, I'm off.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 151
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 4:23:48 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 799
Joined: 2/9/2010
CARA - the body that issues certificates on behalf of the MPAA has a system very similar to the BBFC.

Film makers can submit their films in whole or part or in script form to the Chair of CARA who will advise on any potential rating before submission for a formal rating. Any producers submitting a film in this way must, nominate a "rating contact" to carry out negotiations and sign an agreement (to keep the details of the consultation confidential) and pay applicable fees.

The film is then submitted to the rating board, the board can view several different cuts if the producer wishes to submit them to attain the certificate they desire. If the producer is unhappy with the granted certificate they can appeal the decision, which goes to an appeals board.

CARA rules

Australia and New Zealand to name but two western countries have similar rules and appeals processes.

So not just the evil BBFC cabal in league with the big Hollywood studios then (as many of us have been saying all along)

Still I'm just a BBFC apologist, butt-hurt, erroneous, smug prick apparently so no doubt this will be ignored too, never mind.



< Message edited by Discodez -- 25/4/2013 4:29:21 PM >

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 152
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 5:25:38 PM   
porntrooper

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


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.

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




Are the BBFC a business designed to serve the public though? They aren't designed to uphold freedom of expression are they?

I thought they were just the people put in charge of film classification for the UK market? They're not here to ensure we're given every drop of film ever produced, they're required to classify the film products submitted to them in whatever state the studio chooses to submit. They will then, using their very transparent (and in my opinion, fair) guidelines give the film a certificate for release in the UK. They can, again based upon their guidelines, refuse certification and a studio then has a decision to make cuts to obtain a certificate. This kind of thing is so fucking rare these days, I'm not even sure what the last film to be fully refused one was, 'A Serbian Film' perhaps?

They're not here to ensure that we, the Great British public, are in receipt of every second of filmed material, they're just there to ensure what is released is classified. They're not upholders of freedom of expression, are they - "Goddamnit Mr Fox Studio's, I know you filmed a whole other scene for this film, now where the fuck is it?! The public are entitled to it!". Why do you want them to be, or expect them to be?

The issue here, whereby a studio chooses to use the advice service (which okay we now have confirmed is charged, and as per rawls post, is plainly described on their website) to edit a movie to a specific rating isn't really censorship is it? This isn't the BBFC saying "That material is unsuitable, and we will therefore cut it from your movie, before you can release it". What the BBFC are saying is "Yea, that movie will gain this rating", and a studio is making a decision to use the BBFC's advice to re-edit their film to a lower rating. And again, what evidence do you have that this is such a seedy practice, as you make it out to be by using the phrase 'climbing between the sheets with Hollywood studio's'? They're two businesses that work together, and one pays the other for a service, and the services and practices are very, very transparent. So yea, details of cuts should be available, and to my knowledge they are. They're published on their site, and the public is then also given the brief summations of content printed with the given rating on posters and in cinemas etc. What would be the point of describing what isn't in the film on posters and dvd cases etc? It's far more effective and helpful to the wider public to print a summation of what is in the film, rather than whats not. Anyone curious enough to know what is cut or how the ratings decision is reached has all the info available on the BBFC website, the last I looked. It isn't a case of British audiences making do, I'd suspect (and I cant be arsed to find the details and prove the point, seeing as you - Drooch - can't be arsed to detail any facts to back up your argument) the vast majority of films released in the UK each year will be released un-touched and un-cut. Some will be of course, but using the average number of films released per year (521 between 2005 and 2010) and your example of 13 films being cut (by the studio, not the BBFC) it's such a tiny amount it isn't really having an impact 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 Drooch)
Post #: 153
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 25/4/2013 7:27:05 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
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.


As has been pointed out before, that is how they are funded by charging fees for rating films. Also, as pointed out before, most of the time it is the studios that want the cuts, the BBFC do offer them the choice of a certain certificate uncut. Again, there is no problem here, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 154
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 12:31:38 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

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.



"Gets paid more". Based on this...

quote:


ORIGINAL: rawlinson

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.




...as a result of their diabolical "cuts for cash" masterplan, the BBFC were coining it in for Die Hard 5 to the tune of 265 (20 + (2.50 x 98) based on a 97:33 run time according to the BBFC listing). If I read the above wrong and it is in fact 75% of this total fee, that takes it down to 198.75.

Multiply 198.75 by 13 for that list of films Drooch loves to cite, based purely on the same run time (because, let's face it, it isn't worth the effort) and we have a grand total: 2,583.75 (or 3,445 if you want to go with the higher value). Three and a half grand for all those films where the BBFC have apparently whored themselves out at the expense of the people's cinema-going experience.

Frankly, I'm amazed the reviewers are still breathing after all the hookers and blow they must have spent that cash on.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 155
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 12:50:59 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Not to mention that one of those listed movies is The Hunger Games. A movie based on a popular young adult novel aimed at girls in their early teens.
If they didn't alter that movie (by a whopping 7 seconds in total!) so that it would get a rating that enables people in their early teens to actually go and watch it, it would've possibly been the stupidest move by a studio last year...

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 156
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 2:26:44 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

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?


In the sense that they don't cut for category like the BBFC, yes.

quote:

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.


Read more carefully then. My 'beef' is that the UK uniquely gets cut versions of films while equivalent countries don't, all because our censorship body offers a cuts-for-cash service, which is inappropriate and beyond their remit. As with those equivalent countries, they should simply classify, and not get involved in editing. As a cinephile, I don't want to watch censored films and I shouldn't have to so that the BBFC can get more money.



(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 157
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 2:33:39 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


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.







I'm not sure why I'm bothering but that really doesn't make any sense. These scenes - the ones removed from films such as Die Hard 5 so that the studio can gain their lower rating - wouldn't be cut at all if the studio didn't ask so it's got nothing at all to do with 'the censors' not wanting people to see it. Granted, that may be the case with, say, the bits removed from A Serbian Film, where the choice is made by the BBFC, but my original point was that your definition of censorship - making cuts to stop people watching stuff the censors think is harmful - doesn't apply in the case of these studio-requested cuts.
Right, I'm off.


That's why I've specifically mentioned cuts for category, as opposed to compulsory cuts. The studio is to blame for being happy to butcher their product, but the reason this happens in the UK, and not in equivalent countries, is that the BBFC offers a cuts-for-cash service, and they shouldn't. They should classify only, as with other countries, and not get paid to meddle in the editing of the film, leaving the British public (who they exist to serve) worse off.






(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 158
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 2:50:52 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5999
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin
Drooch, after 6 pages of this I am tempted to suggest you just build a bridge and get over it.

< Message edited by Keyser Sozzled -- 26/4/2013 2:51:08 PM >


_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 159
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:01:29 PM   
porntrooper

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

Drooch, after 6 pages of this I am tempted to suggest you just build a bridge and get over it.


And when you're done getting over this, start a thread on objective film criticism vs subjective film criticism and how there are ways to objectively critique any film - kinda like what kicked off in the Scream 4 thread. That would be a great topic, far more interesting that this bullshit, and there were points you made in that particular cluster fuck thread that I thought were pretty decent and interesting. Keeping you relegated to this BBFC non-censorship bullshit is a disservice to 'Movie Musings', I suspect a thread on 'Objective Film Criticism' would be a God send for 'Movie Musings' as we havent had decent debate for donkeys.

_____________________________

"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 Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 160
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:24:56 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


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.

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




Are the BBFC a business designed to serve the public though?

They're not a business, they're a non-profit organisation with a statutory obligation.

quote:

They aren't designed to uphold freedom of expression are they?

Their stated aim is to 'balance freedom of expression with public protection'. While preventing children from watching graphic sexual violence is, I would argue, a valuable function, colluding with studios to cut films to make them more profitable, and in doing so preventing adults from watching complete films, and taking a fee for this, is completely inappropriate given their remit.


quote:

I thought they were just the people put in charge of film classification for the UK market? They're not here to ensure we're given every drop of film ever produced, they're required to classify the film products submitted to them in whatever state the studio chooses to submit. They will then, using their very transparent (and in my opinion, fair) guidelines give the film a certificate for release in the UK. They can, again based upon their guidelines, refuse certification and a studio then has a decision to make cuts to obtain a certificate. This kind of thing is so fucking rare these days, I'm not even sure what the last film to be fully refused one was, 'A Serbian Film' perhaps?

This is all true, but you're missing the cuts for category process, which is the issue under discussion here.

quote:

They're not here to ensure that we, the Great British public, are in receipt of every second of filmed material, they're just there to ensure what is released is classified. They're not upholders of freedom of expression, are they - "Goddamnit Mr Fox Studio's, I know you filmed a whole other scene for this film, now where the fuck is it?! The public are entitled to it!". Why do you want them to be, or expect them to be?

I don't, you've invented this entire straw man argument. I'm simply saying they shouldn't offer a cuts-for-cash service to studios wanting a lower certificate, and should instead behave like the censorship bodies of equivalent countries who classify only, without getting involved in editing, for cash.

quote:

The issue here, whereby a studio chooses to use the advice service (which okay we now have confirmed is charged, and as per rawls post, is plainly described on their website) to edit a movie to a specific rating isn't really censorship is it? This isn't the BBFC saying "That material is unsuitable, and we will therefore cut it from your movie, before you can release it". What the BBFC are saying is "Yea, that movie will gain this rating", and a studio is making a decision to use the BBFC's advice to re-edit their film to a lower rating. And again, what evidence do you have that this is such a seedy practice, as you make it out to be by using the phrase 'climbing between the sheets with Hollywood studio's'? They're two businesses that work together, and one pays the other for a service, and the services and practices are very, very transparent.

No, the BBFC isn't a business, as described above, it's a non-profit organisation which exists to serve the British public and not the business interests of studios - which is way out of their remit. They should instead behave like the classification bodies of equivalent countries and classify only.


quote:

So yea, details of cuts should be available, and to my knowledge they are. They're published on their site, and the public is then also given the brief summations of content printed with the given rating on posters and in cinemas etc. What would be the point of describing what isn't in the film on posters and dvd cases etc?

They don't need to describe what was cut, but they should state how much footage was cut.


quote:

It's far more effective and helpful to the wider public to print a summation of what is in the film, rather than whats not. Anyone curious enough to know what is cut or how the ratings decision is reached has all the info available on the BBFC website, the last I looked. It isn't a case of British audiences making do, I'd suspect (and I cant be arsed to find the details and prove the point, seeing as you - Drooch - can't be arsed to detail any facts to back up your argument) the vast majority of films released in the UK each year will be released un-touched and un-cut.

If you're too lazy to back up your point then just admit it, you don't need to accuse me of the same to make yourself feel better. I've backed up everything and if people have asked for more information I've provided it. Leave your bloated ego out of this.

Yes, the vast majority of films are uncut, but to suggest that that makes the BBFC's cuts-for-cash service 'OK', or that we should neglect the films that have suffered under it, is not for you to dictate. You might be fine watching censored films, but cinephiles want to watch films uncut.

I wouldn't presume to tell a music-lover that they should make do with radio edits just because I'm indifferent to their passion.




(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 161
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:31:36 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
I still maintain that charging for advice on edits is reasonable and a way to ensure that the BBFC keeps on doing what they're doing. You're making it sound a lot more salacious than it actually is.

Also: You're not doing yourself any favours by acting so obnoxious everytime someone disagrees with you, sir.

And now that I've dropped that little rat turd, I'm scurrying away from this thread and I'm officially done.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 26/4/2013 3:33:16 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 horribleives)
Post #: 162
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:36:54 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

Drooch, after 6 pages of this I am tempted to suggest you just build a bridge and get over it.


And when you're done getting over this, start a thread on objective film criticism vs subjective film criticism and how there are ways to objectively critique any film - kinda like what kicked off in the Scream 4 thread. That would be a great topic, far more interesting that this bullshit, and there were points you made in that particular cluster fuck thread that I thought were pretty decent and interesting. Keeping you relegated to this BBFC non-censorship bullshit is a disservice to 'Movie Musings', I suspect a thread on 'Objective Film Criticism' would be a God send for 'Movie Musings' as we havent had decent debate for donkeys.


If you want to see a discussion on critical objectivity then why not start one?

I'll have a look at the Scream 4 thread at some point and see if there's still confusion over there. I was pleased to see that Empire corrected their terrible 2-star cinema review and gave it a far more appropriate 3-stars for home video, once they'd had time to reflect.


(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 163
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:39:16 PM   
shool


Posts: 10118
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
I'd be happy with more cuts. Just thought I'd put that out there as I am a prude.

_____________________________

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 MonsterCat)
Post #: 164
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:47:09 PM   
AxlReznor

 

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

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

Drooch, after 6 pages of this I am tempted to suggest you just build a bridge and get over it.


And when you're done getting over this, start a thread on objective film criticism vs subjective film criticism and how there are ways to objectively critique any film - kinda like what kicked off in the Scream 4 thread. That would be a great topic, far more interesting that this bullshit, and there were points you made in that particular cluster fuck thread that I thought were pretty decent and interesting. Keeping you relegated to this BBFC non-censorship bullshit is a disservice to 'Movie Musings', I suspect a thread on 'Objective Film Criticism' would be a God send for 'Movie Musings' as we havent had decent debate for donkeys.


If you want to see a discussion on critical objectivity then why not start one?

I'll have a look at the Scream 4 thread at some point and see if there's still confusion over there. I was pleased to see that Empire corrected their terrible 2-star cinema review and gave it a far more appropriate 3-stars for home video, once they'd had time to reflect.




Or... the theatrical and DVD reviews were written by different people....

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 165
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:49:21 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4237
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

If you're too lazy to back up your point then just admit it, you don't need to accuse me of the same to make yourself feel better. I've backed up everything and if people have asked for more information I've provided it. Leave your bloated ego out of this.


Bloated ego? What the hell are you talking about?

quote:

Yes, the vast majority of films are uncut, but to suggest that that makes the BBFC's cuts-for-cash service 'OK', or that we should neglect the films that have suffered under it, is not for you to dictate.


And neither is it for you to dictate otherwise. Are we all supposed to be agreeing with you? You're the one making the most noise here. And to suggest that films have "suffered" is so melodramatic. This isn't the 80s.

quote:

You might be fine watching censored films, but cinephiles want to watch films uncut.


Again I really think that "censored" is too strong a word. We're talking about marketing. The BBFC have their guidelines, and it's the studios who act according to their needs. The responsibility lies with them. We're very lucky to have a transparent and fairly liberal-minded organisation like the BBFC. It could be a hell of a lot worse.



_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 166
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:50:14 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 11/12/2005
They should have cut about an hour and a half more from DH5.

(I'm kidding, I haven't actually seen it based on the fact it looked shit.)

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 167
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:50:24 PM   
Drooch

 

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

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

I still maintain that charging for advice on edits is reasonable and a way to ensure that the BBFC keeps on doing what they're doing. You're making it sound a lot more salacious than it actually is.

If that's your value system then fine, but cinephiles don't want to watch cut films, so have some appreciation for their plight.

quote:

Also: You're not doing yourself any favours by acting so obnoxious everytime someone disagrees with you, sir.

I have no problem with people disagreeing, if people are rude/bitchy/obnoxious then they can expect resistance. Being on an Internet discussion board doesn't mean you HAVE to be a dick. It's possible to respectfully disagree and occasionally people do, although it's far too rare.

quote:

And now that I've dropped that little rat turd, I'm scurrying away from this thread and I'm officially done.

Good. I can't recall you contributing much more than gifs and rat turds anyway, so probably best for everyone that you excuse yourself.


(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 168
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:51:02 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I'd be happy with more cuts. Just thought I'd put that out there as I am a prude.


Oh thank Christ I'm not alone. I'm not bothered about sex scenes and stuff (unless it's literal porn not being marketed as such), but as one who is squeamish and doesn't enjoy watching graphic scenes of torture, suffering and gore, I'm personally quite glad that the BBFC has my back in terms of violence.

In fact, they're too lenient imho; there are quite a few films I'd bump up a rating, for wimps like me of a sensitive disposition.

Anyway ... serious deja-vu in this thread; it's like watching a hamster in a wheel ...

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 169
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 3:56:45 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Keyser Sozzled

Drooch, after 6 pages of this I am tempted to suggest you just build a bridge and get over it.


And when you're done getting over this, start a thread on objective film criticism vs subjective film criticism and how there are ways to objectively critique any film - kinda like what kicked off in the Scream 4 thread. That would be a great topic, far more interesting that this bullshit, and there were points you made in that particular cluster fuck thread that I thought were pretty decent and interesting. Keeping you relegated to this BBFC non-censorship bullshit is a disservice to 'Movie Musings', I suspect a thread on 'Objective Film Criticism' would be a God send for 'Movie Musings' as we havent had decent debate for donkeys.


If you want to see a discussion on critical objectivity then why not start one?

I'll have a look at the Scream 4 thread at some point and see if there's still confusion over there. I was pleased to see that Empire corrected their terrible 2-star cinema review and gave it a far more appropriate 3-stars for home video, once they'd had time to reflect.




No they didn't, a different person with a different opinion reviewed it. Lots of films receive different ratings when they come out on DVD. Because different people with different opinions review them.

Regarding 'cash-for-cuts', have you read Foximus Prime's post above (154)? Because, assuming those figures are true, I'm struggling to think what the BBFC could possibly get out of 'colluding with the studios for cash'. It's hardly brown envelope stuff, is it?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 170
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 4:06:22 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 5999
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

I still maintain that charging for advice on edits is reasonable and a way to ensure that the BBFC keeps on doing what they're doing. You're making it sound a lot more salacious than it actually is.
If that's your value system then fine, but cinephiles don't want to watch cut films, so have some appreciation for their plight.


As a movie fan of over 30yrs I have never met anyone with any issue regarding the BBFC as you are outlining. Does that mean I am not part of the roving band of "cinephiles" to which you are the self appointed spokesperson?

Your ire is better directed at the studio system as outlined in teh other hundreds of thousands of posts on the issue. YOu seem pissed that the studio value a quick buck over artistic integrity-which you would be right-but I can't see a situation where if the service was not there then studios would release what they want regardless of certificate.

In fact all you would get is the studios either watering down movies in terms of content or cutting the films themselves. And sure we all know how wonderful a studio cut movie is...

The fact is the BBFC service is actually impressive, in that they allow a studio maximise its revenue whilst shaving seconds off scenes rather than have the studios water the shit out of film or butcher them.



_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 171
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 4:13:21 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
As a cinephile I'm more disgusted that hack directors value their own work so little they'll happily let the studio do what the fuck they want to their 'vision' (please...) as long as they get paid. And I'm fairly certain whoever directed Die Hard 5 has pocketed a hell of a lot more from the studio's tampering than those shameless BBFC types with their cash-for-cuts begging bowl.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Keyser Sozzled)
Post #: 172
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 4:14:51 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 11/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

but cinephiles don't want to watch cut films



Nobody's forcing them to do so. Vote with your wallets, knowledge is power, etc. - the BBFC website states what cuts, if any, have been made.

Is it just me for whom the term 'cinephile' conjures up patrons of the local art house cinema. Whilst I'm sure they could enjoy your average brainless blockbuster, not exactly Moore's / Megaton's demographic.

Edit: Of course, the term isn't exclusive to such people, it's just what I visualise when I see / hear the phrase.

< Message edited by FoximusPrime -- 26/4/2013 4:15:55 PM >


_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 173
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 4:36:01 PM   
porntrooper

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch



quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


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.

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




Are the BBFC a business designed to serve the public though?

They're not a business, they're a non-profit organisation with a statutory obligation.

quote:

They aren't designed to uphold freedom of expression are they?

Their stated aim is to 'balance freedom of expression with public protection'. While preventing children from watching graphic sexual violence is, I would argue, a valuable function, colluding with studios to cut films to make them more profitable, and in doing so preventing adults from watching complete films, and taking a fee for this, is completely inappropriate given their remit.


quote:

I thought they were just the people put in charge of film classification for the UK market? They're not here to ensure we're given every drop of film ever produced, they're required to classify the film products submitted to them in whatever state the studio chooses to submit. They will then, using their very transparent (and in my opinion, fair) guidelines give the film a certificate for release in the UK. They can, again based upon their guidelines, refuse certification and a studio then has a decision to make cuts to obtain a certificate. This kind of thing is so fucking rare these days, I'm not even sure what the last film to be fully refused one was, 'A Serbian Film' perhaps?

This is all true, but you're missing the cuts for category process, which is the issue under discussion here.

quote:

They're not here to ensure that we, the Great British public, are in receipt of every second of filmed material, they're just there to ensure what is released is classified. They're not upholders of freedom of expression, are they - "Goddamnit Mr Fox Studio's, I know you filmed a whole other scene for this film, now where the fuck is it?! The public are entitled to it!". Why do you want them to be, or expect them to be?

I don't, you've invented this entire straw man argument. I'm simply saying they shouldn't offer a cuts-for-cash service to studios wanting a lower certificate, and should instead behave like the censorship bodies of equivalent countries who classify only, without getting involved in editing, for cash.

quote:

The issue here, whereby a studio chooses to use the advice service (which okay we now have confirmed is charged, and as per rawls post, is plainly described on their website) to edit a movie to a specific rating isn't really censorship is it? This isn't the BBFC saying "That material is unsuitable, and we will therefore cut it from your movie, before you can release it". What the BBFC are saying is "Yea, that movie will gain this rating", and a studio is making a decision to use the BBFC's advice to re-edit their film to a lower rating. And again, what evidence do you have that this is such a seedy practice, as you make it out to be by using the phrase 'climbing between the sheets with Hollywood studio's'? They're two businesses that work together, and one pays the other for a service, and the services and practices are very, very transparent.

No, the BBFC isn't a business, as described above, it's a non-profit organisation which exists to serve the British public and not the business interests of studios - which is way out of their remit. They should instead behave like the classification bodies of equivalent countries and classify only.


quote:

So yea, details of cuts should be available, and to my knowledge they are. They're published on their site, and the public is then also given the brief summations of content printed with the given rating on posters and in cinemas etc. What would be the point of describing what isn't in the film on posters and dvd cases etc?

They don't need to describe what was cut, but they should state how much footage was cut.


quote:

It's far more effective and helpful to the wider public to print a summation of what is in the film, rather than whats not. Anyone curious enough to know what is cut or how the ratings decision is reached has all the info available on the BBFC website, the last I looked. It isn't a case of British audiences making do, I'd suspect (and I cant be arsed to find the details and prove the point, seeing as you - Drooch - can't be arsed to detail any facts to back up your argument) the vast majority of films released in the UK each year will be released un-touched and un-cut.

If you're too lazy to back up your point then just admit it, you don't need to accuse me of the same to make yourself feel better. I've backed up everything and if people have asked for more information I've provided it. Leave your bloated ego out of this.

Yes, the vast majority of films are uncut, but to suggest that that makes the BBFC's cuts-for-cash service 'OK', or that we should neglect the films that have suffered under it, is not for you to dictate. You might be fine watching censored films, but cinephiles want to watch films uncut.

I wouldn't presume to tell a music-lover that they should make do with radio edits just because I'm indifferent to their passion.






I really, really want to just upsticks and fuck off, to not respond and leave it at that. Shifty said it best by suggesting the thread ran it's course (I probably agree), but maybe just maybe there is life in the old dog yet. So fuck it.....

You may think I wasn't backing myself or my arguments up, you may think I was creating a straw man argument, but it doesn't help when your responses are given like this. It's boring to debate with you as you cant/wont engage in a real discussion with any real detail of how you back up your opinion. It's no wonder people just refuse to really take your opinion seriously. There is no discussion or debate from you, just a stream of 'I am right, you're wrong and you're a fool to think otherwise' responses that never really seem to take in anything anyone else is saying and never seem to fully back up why you think what you think. I think I asked it earlier, why do you think the studio's would suddenly release movies fully un-edited if the BBFC didn't offer an advisory service? Your posting style makes the thread (and your stance on the BBFC) pointless cos you seem utterly incapable of responding or discussing an opposing view with any real respect for the person you're speaking with.

I kinda disagree with how some of the thread derailed, and I tried as did a few others to keep it on track, cos God knows 'Movie Musings' lacks any really good debate threads these days. Like I say, your persona here makes it so difficult to discuss things with you, even when you make good points, such as the 'Objective Critique' discussion in the Scream 4 thread. No point in going there to cover old ground in that dead thread, Scream 4 is a film long forgotten by most, but there were some good points being raised, it's just the thread got buried in bullshit. I suggested a new thread cos a debate with some real meat may have been good for two things....

1) a good and lively debate in Movie Musings, and

2) maybe you could've won over some of your doubters with a good thread rather than stringing this shit out even more without even bothering to really get into a respectful debate.

I can already guess how you're going to respond to the second point 'cos you already seem to have chosen to interpret my suggestion as a little dig at you. It wasnt by the way. I genuinly think there were good points made in the Scream 4 thread that would've been good to discuss. I suggested you raise it 'cos you were the one raising those points. Suggesting to other posters that they raise a thread around something they've previously discussed isn't some kind of dig, it's a genuine suggestion that the forum could do with some good threads. Sadly, it seems you prefer the role of being an antagonistic presence, rather than a genuine cinephile debating interesting points on the forums.

And just so I'm not keeping this thread massively off track, the initial thread title was 'STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A', which again (I don't think) isn't really to discuss the BBFC's transparent, perfectly legitimate operation and practices. Non profit organisation or profit seeking business, it doesn't really matter to me personally - the same description of their processes applies, in my opinion. I also think the thread was looking more at the movie studio's apparent leaning towards the use of the 12A certificate and how that had potential to water down movies. Plus the impact of the 12A certificate in screenings as they tend to now attract people under the age of 12. Iron Man 3 yesterday being a sterling example - why any parent would think an IMAX 3D showing of Iron Man 3 was suitable for toddler is beyond me. However, the use of the 12A to water down movies is something I also don't think is happening as I've pointed out in a shit load of threads before, the 12A now contains things we would only ever have seen in 15 rated movies 10/15 years ago. Also, as per the BFI Statistical Yearbooks for 2010, 2011 and 2012, there were more 15 rated movies released in the UK in those years than any other certificate, so it doesnt seem like 12A movies are being released at the expense of 15 rated movies.

As for the 'cuts for cash' service, is it okay for such a service to exist? I'd guess that depends on how you interpret such a service. Most here seem to understand it in a different way to you, we mostly see that it's not being done as a form of censorship and at the expense of freedom of expression. The BBFC are not acting as censors in this service, they're not restricting what can and cant be shown in UK cinemas. They are not editing movies. They are not restricting what can be shown and are not having an impact on the artistic merit of movies and movie makers. Studios are using the service to ensure that certain movies (and I think weve established it is a small percentage of UK movie releases) reach the required classification so it can reach the target market. I have no issue with it, and that doesn't make me any less a 'cinephile' than any other poster who may have issue with 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 #: 174
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 4:57:39 PM   
DancingClown


Posts: 4237
Joined: 8/1/2006
From: The Lot
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

If that's your value system then fine, but cinephiles don't want to watch cut films, so have some appreciation for their plight.


Plight? Plight? Don't be so absurd. At worst it's a mild inconvenience, if even that.

quote:


I have no problem with people disagreeing, if people are rude/bitchy/obnoxious then they can expect resistance. Being on an Internet discussion board doesn't mean you HAVE to be a dick. It's possible to respectfully disagree and occasionally people do, although it's far too rare.


Perhaps you should practice what you preach?




< Message edited by DancingClown -- 26/4/2013 5:04:09 PM >


_____________________________

Astronomic Tune Boy

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

"Storm just bleeewwww me away..."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 175
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 5:40:56 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8282
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

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


In the sense that they don't cut for category like the BBFC, yes.


And yet the state-controlled ratings body is notorious as one of the most censorious in the English-speaking world.

quote:


quote:

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.


Read more carefully then. My 'beef' is that the UK uniquely gets cut versions of films while equivalent countries don't, all because our censorship body offers a cuts-for-cash service, which is inappropriate and beyond their remit. As with those equivalent countries, they should simply classify, and not get involved in editing. As a cinephile, I don't want to watch censored films and I shouldn't have to so that the BBFC can get more money.



Just to be clear (for the last time, and then I'm done because I suspect you'll ignore this like you do every other inconvenient fact that has been presented in this thread): The MPAA makes recommendations for cuts just like the BBFC. They may not specifically charge for this service (or they may, I'm not sure), but it doesn't matter - they still offer advice for cuts to gain a certain rating. Gaining a rating from the MPAA is also far more expensive than gaining one from the BBFC, ranging from $2500 minimum up to tens of thousands of dollars per submission (depending on cost to negative). So you want a rating for your 45 minute film that cost $10 to make? That'll be $2500 please, and they'll be happy to advise you on what cuts will be necessary to gain that PG-13 you want. The fact that those cuts may be different from the cuts that the BBFC, or the ACB, IFCO, OFLC, RTB or any other classification board may make is utterly irrelevant, since every country has different laws and regulations (not to mention cultural and social factors) that have to be taken into account.

Your 'cuts-for-cash' rhetoric is both inaccurate and reductive.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 176
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 26/4/2013 6:29:55 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best


Sig!

Oh and I'm done with this thread from now on because there are many excellent points that Drooch is ignoring just to say the same shite every time. I'm sick of seeing the made up phrase 'cuts-for-cash' in almost every single one of his posts so I'm done. Shifty out*, bitches!



*of this thread

_____________________________

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

(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 177
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 20/5/2013 2:21:57 PM   
shool


Posts: 10118
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
Drooch would be so proud of me. I just did my own cut version of a film and i didnt even have to pay the BBFC for guidance.

My little girl caught Adventures in Babysitting on channel 5 recently and really liked it. However the DVD version we have was the full 12/15 certificate rated one with swearing and a fair few questionable scenes for a 6 year old. So I cut it myself with no swearing and removing the unsuitable bits.

This bears no purpose to this thread, but I was actually quite proud of myself.

_____________________________

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 Shifty Bench)
Post #: 178
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 20/5/2013 4:18:36 PM   
ghost dog


Posts: 33
Joined: 1/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

If that's your value system then fine, but cinephiles don't want to watch cut films, so have some appreciation for their plight.


Plight? Plight? Don't be so absurd. At worst it's a mild inconvenience, if even that.



Glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

Make a good documentary that "the Plight of the Cinephiles"

_____________________________

"Oh, please, tell me Elizabeth, how exactly does one suck a fuck?"


(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 179
RE: STUDIO CENSORSHIP - THE WRETCHED 12A - 20/5/2013 5:31:10 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12190
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: shool
My little girl caught Adventures in Babysitting on channel 5 recently and really liked it. However the DVD version we have was the full 12/15 certificate rated one with swearing and a fair few questionable scenes for a 6 year old. So I cut it myself with no swearing and removing the unsuitable bits.


(in reply to shool)
Post #: 180
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