Solution to cut in Deep Red
 

Of these three options, which one would you rather have on the DVD/BD of Profondo Rosso?

Fuzzywuzzyness.

Still image. Digital fuzzing or blurring would be distracting. However, they could always try to digitally remove the pin.

groovy foozy :D

I'm leaning more towards fuzziness... if done properly.

I too will go for fuzziness but my preferred option remains a bit of digital manipulation to remove the pin.

My prefered choice too. Can't wait to find out what will satisfy the BBFC.

Hmmm.. I'm really not sure. I'm trying to think what would be best for someone who's never seen it and for that case what would be less distracting and obvious.. I'm almost tempted to go for just a straight cut.

I wonder if Arrow could make two versions: one with the cut and one with the digital manipulation or still image.

Or the uncut/unmanipulated version that accidentally got through quality control and was withdrawn after everyone on here grabbed a copy... :eyebrows:

Maybe via seamless branching?

I think a still image (maybe with a very slight faux camera movement to disguise that it's a still image) might work better to allow viewers see what's going on.
Digitally obscuring it, depending on how it's done could work, too.

Has there been a decision from the BBFC yet, then? Is it definitely going to be censored by the 'classifiers' (who insist they're not censors...)?

How about using CGI to turn the lizard into a snake, as the Animals Act doesn't cover invertebrates?! :lol:

Hmmm not saying I agree with animal cruelty... because I don't, but am I right in saying the BBFC have really no legal basis for issuing cuts to animal cruelty on DVDs since that act only applies to films? They simply have added it to their guidelines under the VRA, which surely, can't cover it either because it's not likely to harm anyone. Under that basis the Video Appeals Committee would have no real legal basis to uphold the BBFC's decision to cut it.... Take it to the Video Appeals Committee!

Joke :P I'd go for cutting the scene.

When I asked the BBFC about whether the Act only applies to films for cinema exhibition, they informed me that at the time of the VRA the Home Office advised them to extend the Act to cover films for home viewing as well. As much as I might get annoyed with the BBFC at times (rarely, though, these days, I might add) they really have no choice in this matter and we can't blame them for having to excise such scenes. I think that as long as the implication of what the child is doing is conveyed well enough then the film will play out just fine. But the implication has to be there, as this is why the child gets a beating, without the implication it would render the sequence a little confusing. I'm confident that if the film has to be altered that the chaps at Arrow will do a good job of it - in fact, most viewers probably won't even know it's cut if it's done well.

To be honest, this wouldn't really be censorship on the BBFC's part, just them adhering to the laws of the land, which they can't be blamed for. As seen with their waiving of the cut to Inferno, they will go as close to the line as they can, without crossing it, as they possibly can. They should be applauded for that IMO. And, as much as we folks don't like cut films, in instances like this there's no alternative. But....fingers crossed it'll get through unscathed - you never know! :)

Whilst I think it's a weird policy of cutting old films like this, I also have no doubt that if the Cinematograph Act (Animals) was scrapped that some unscrupulous souls would make films showing cruelty to animals, which is not something I'd like to see happen. That's just the kind of world we live in, unfortunately.

I'm not totally anti-censorship, as that's a ridiculous stance to take, but I am against draconian censorship, which thankfully is no longer the prevailing attitude at the BBFC. In fact, political censorship and media manipulation worries me far more these days than any fear of cutting horror films!

A digital mosaic would probably be the best bet, Japanese tapes used to do it to nudity.

I voted for some Fuzz.Can't beat a bit of fuzz.

Oops,released uncut by mistake.

I'm sure all law abiding citizens will dutifully return their copies for censored versions.:lol:

Seriously though.Not that bothered about the lizard getting Fuzzy-beared!;)

How come there is no option that says : "Buy the US dvd instead."
Who wants a classic like this interfered with at all ?
If Arrow can't get it passed uncut they should pull off the same stunt that Redemption did with VHS.
Open an outlet somewhere in mainland Europe and offer an uncut version supplied from there .
Anyone could act as the European agent posting uncut discs from abroad perfectly legally.
Buyers of the UK disc could have a mail order option to return the cut version unopened that Arrow could recirculate in the UK and those fans really bothered could get the uncut one in exchange.

Out of all of the options I'd rather see it cut (not a popular choice is seems). I think, perhaps fairly, genre fans seem slightly allergic to cuts, and people seem to feel it's the last resort. However, to me anything that will detract my attention from the film is something I don't want to see. I don't want to see the fuzzing or a hanging frame (you just need to watch the terrible treatment Studio Canal has given to Breathless to see how annoying a hanging frame can be in a film; which I promptly returned I might add). A cut won't bring me out of thrall of the film. It's hardly a hugely significant nor a poignant scene.

It's completely understandable if Arrow do go to the effort of digital manipulation, considering the majority of people seem to (sadly in my opinion) want that (bunch of George Lucas wannabes or what? :tongue1:), and I wouldn't hold Arrow in any less admiration than I currently do, however, it would just mean I'd have to hope for another Blu of Deep Red from another company, or even country.

Because that is a DVD and not a Blu-ray which is why we are also excited about the prospect of watching Profondo Rosso in high definition.

I'm going with this one. Does this scene have to be cut? I mean we got away with the cat and mouse in Inferno, why not this?

Under the Cinematograph (Animals) Act (1937), there is a difference between footage of a cat eating a mouse which is not staged and someone filming a lizard which is wriggling in pain because someone stuck a pin through it's back. The basic difference is that one was footage of something that was happening normally and the other had been staged for the cameras.

But it was just a skink. I don't see what the big deal is.

Everytime I go to HMV and ask for a US Import they tell me to f*ck off! :pout:

It is still a vertebrate that was treated cruelly in order for the film to be made so the BBFC have to legally remove or alter it in such a way that it doesn't appear as if the animal is suffering. If it were a snake, worm or octopus, then there would be no such problem as the act doesn't cover invertebrates.

Snake killings are still cut from Killer Of Snake, Fox Of Shaolin (a similar shot to Profondo Rosso), 99 Women, and Kirk Douglas's A Gunfight. The latter was cut in 2000 but could possibly be waived now.

They were also cut at one point from films such as Bloody Moon and Blood Of Fu Manchu though these have since been restored. Despite this, similar footage was left intact in Friday The 13th, Capricorn One, Westworld and Stanley.

*sigh* I hate the UK rating system. :(

That shows how inconsistent the BBFC can be over one rule which I thought was pretty clear-cut. The BBFC can be brilliant and they can also be extremely infuriating!

So there's no chance of getting this cut waved?

I wouldn't say there is no chance but whatever chancelleries is probably extremely slim and I would be extremely surprised if the BBFC overlooked this.

Do we have any grounds to stand up to them and defend the scene if they do say they want it out?

I'm no expert so don't quote me on this but I wouldn't have thought so as lizards are covered by the Cinematograph (Animals) Act and any scene in which they are mistreated by members of the film crew or people acting on behalf of the film crew in order to be filmed is contrary to the act. I know the act only applies to public screenings but the Video Recording Act and advice from the Home Office means that it applies to the home viewing as well.

I'm not liking our odds here then. Thanks for the information though. Much appreciated.

It normally boils down to what they class as a 'quick kill', though I couldn't see any difference between the snake shootings in Westworld (uncut) and A Gunfight (cut). The latter would probably be passed intact if submitted today.

The lizard impaling in Profondo Rosso isn't a quick kill and was obviously staged for the film. The BBFC have no legal grounds for waiving it as, unlike Inferno, the scene simply couldn't have been faked.

The BBFC Classification Guidelines states:

"For the purposes of this legislation
and The Animal Welfare Act 2006, only
vertebrates which are domesticated
or otherwise under the control of man
are defined as ‘animals’.

Generally, reptiles are not domesticated animals.

Here's a list of domesticated animals:

List of domesticated animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this has gone way off topic. Isn't the thread about the best way to edit the scene?

It shouldn't be cut. That's ON topic.

Whether it should be cut or not is irrelevant. If you open your eyes wide enough you'll see that the topic is about which of the 3 options is the best way to edit the scene in the film.

Will the BBFC ask for it's removal in its entirety or simply tone it down? If it's the latter, then hopefully a quck shot implying that the lizard is being tormented should be good enough.

Let's wait and see what the BBFC say though. If they want cuts, I'm not sure which of the 3 options in this poll would be the best though - that's probably a specific headache for the editors!

Obviously my preference is uncut, as it would be for most of us, but I understand the problems that it creates, seeing as it's a human being cruel to an animal.

They would probably ask that the image is removed completely or 'masked' (pixillated or similar). The cut in the Platinum DVD was made very badly, and the scene cut off very jerkily during the pan-down of the father.

Thought this thread was about the best way to edit the scene.

:p