Quote:
Originally Posted by Andydn  If a film cant be release in its entirety, then release something that can be, because we all agree that any cuts that are made are usually ridiculous and unnessesary but DO render the film less enjoyable. |
You raise some good points, but I don't think you fully understand the DVD distribution process. When a DVD label thinks about licensing a film for distribution they have no idea what the BBFC's decision will be. So they have to pay to license the film before they can submit it to the BBFC - they can't submit something they don't own the rights to, as the BBFC have to register the license-holder (all that info is on the BBFC webpages for each film you look up). So having spent a fair bit of money already - licensing the film, BBFC submission fees etc - if the BBFC come back with an unfavourable decision, what do you suggest they do? Scrap the release and lose all their investment in that title? I really don't think a small niche label like Shameless can afford to throw money away like that. So whilst I appreciate your sentiments of only putting out films that are uncut, it's financially unsound and not something a business can afford to do. And some might argue that Shameless, Arrow etc could ask for advice on a title before acquiring it isn't all that reliable either. Arrow were cautioned that
Island of Death would categorically not get through the BBFC uncut, and I believe Marc Morris's and Jake West's label Nucleus passed on it for this reason. So it was surprising to everyone when it was passed fully uncut. So it's not always clear cut and not always black and white.