Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Film Discussions > VHS & Exploitation > Censorship

Like Tree1188Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #921  
Old 21st November 2014, 05:09 PM
Boo Radley's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oxford
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs View Post

One of the most annoying aspects of film classification nowadays is distributed cutting films in order to secure a lower rating from the BBFC in order to maximise box office takings. There was a really interesting presentation from someone from the BBFC at the Festival of Fantastic Films, talking about what goes into decisions and pointing out that films (like Horns, which was initially given an 18 certificate and trimmed by the distributor to secure a 15 certificate) are now censored by distributors.
This is the sad but insidious way they have evolved. Hollywood is in turmoil and nowadays they want to get the most bang for their buck. They won't even consider something that pushes the envelope for fear of losing money so we get stuck with the mediocrity that they pass intended for mature audiences....that are under 15!! Lol!
If you want extreme cinema then you have to look to the independants nowadays and with that comes sever budgetary constraints, poor fx and all the rest of it. It's a vicious circle that doesn't improve, only worsens as people decide that that is acceptable to them and the cutting of an art form is okey-dokey.
If you get annoyed about it then very quickly so called film fans will whine and moan that it is so much better than 30 years ago and you should shut up.
Censorship seems the new way.....
Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 30th November 2014, 10:20 PM
Make Them Die Slowly's Avatar
Cult Addict
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2009
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
This is the sad but insidious way they have evolved. Hollywood is in turmoil and nowadays they want to get the most bang for their buck. They won't even consider something that pushes the envelope for fear of losing money so we get stuck with the mediocrity that they pass intended for mature audiences....that are under 15!! Lol!
If you want extreme cinema then you have to look to the independants nowadays and with that comes sever budgetary constraints, poor fx and all the rest of it. It's a vicious circle that doesn't improve, only worsens as people decide that that is acceptable to them and the cutting of an art form is okey-dokey.
If you get annoyed about it then very quickly so called film fans will whine and moan that it is so much better than 30 years ago and you should shut up.
Censorship seems the new way.....
Glad to see a month in the Heart of Darkness hasn't softened you Boo.
Boo Radley likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 5th December 2014, 06:34 PM
Boo Radley's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oxford
Default

Those stalwart bastions of our decency and morals have protected us again, God bless them all...

House on the Hill. Passed 18 for strong violence, sexual violence after 7:12s of BBFC compulsory cuts .... 7 MINUTES...... of course Cuts required in line with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Which in plain English says that there are no laws being used here, only guidelines that are interpreted by individuals.....

The Inbetweeners 2. 20 minutes.... Really? Oh yes, but remember IT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THE BBFC.... They offered them an uncut 18 but THE COMPANY refused the rating...It doesn't matter that the BBFC have ridiculous and unexplainable criteria regarding what a 17 year old can hear and an 18.......
BBFC commented:

This film was previously seen for advice. The company was advised the film was likely to be classified 18 but that their preferred 15 could be achieved by making reductions to two scenes involving crude humour.

Maybe the cut scenes tried to find their way back on to the disk as Deleted Scenes. But the BBFC were having none of it. The DVD/Blu-ray extra entitled Deleted Scenes was cut by 19m 54s.

Yeah, because when you are only 17 if you hear the word **** more than 7 times in a film you will turn into a hooligan....or some such thing...

Gun Woman. 5 seconds.. apparently has been edited because.....Cut required to remove focus on a man's pleasure in the context of sexual violence.
OMG!! We can't have that!! No, I say! If he is doing sexual violence on a woman we cannot see gratification on his face! No, he must be sad...or angry...or confused...or crying...anything - but not happy! Cut it out! Cut it out now! ...oh, they already have! Phew!

Found. Apparently the version submitted to the BBFC was already shorn of 99 seconds. Found (Comparison: BBFC 18 - Unrated) - Movie-Censorship.com
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 5th December 2014, 07:01 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Don
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Land of the Prince Bishops
Blog Entries: 4
Default

The BBFC is probably the most transparent ratings board in the world and, as you said, it was up to the distributor to decide whether to release it with an 18 or 15 certificate. They chose the latter. In this case, it isn't the BBFC who is 'censoring' the film, but Entertainment Film Distributors chose money over the director's intentions and pre-cut the film.

I have no doubt that 14-year-olds will see the film (as would 17-year-olds if it was rated 18) and not be harmed by the crude humour and swear words – hopefully they won't take to 'logging' in public pools – but the BBFC have a legal job to do and do it more leniently than ever before.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 5th December 2014, 07:13 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Don
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Land of the Prince Bishops
Blog Entries: 4
Default

In case you're under the impression that behaviour seen in films isn't imitable, there were several stories like this (from the Metro) only recently:

Quote:
British holidaymaker Zara Farrant has fallen ill with a waterborne virus thought to have come from human faeces after teenagers repeatedly imitated a foul scene from comedy series Inbetweeners in her Spanish hotel pool.

Mother-of-two Farrant, 36 is bed-ridden with stomach pains after visiting Benalmedena Holiday Village.

The pool at the resort was closed seven times during Farrant’s two-week holiday, due to youngsters indulging in this year’s ‘logging’ craze, Farrant says.

Farrant is now infected with cryptosporidium, a virus which can cause kidney failure, and has been warned she may take up to half a year to recover.

The disgusting craze is reported to have been inspired by a scene in the recent film Inbetweeners 2.

In the film, one of the characters defecates down a log flume, and the resulting slurry hits another character in the face.

Incidents of so-called ‘logging’ or ‘Code Brown’ incidents have been reported at various holiday resorts that host British tourists this summer.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 5th December 2014, 09:38 PM
Crimson Blade's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lancashire
Default

Pretty pointless to release a film with over 7 minutes of cuts.
And what could have justified such an OTT response from the BBFC when they're passing notorious films like Nekromantik fully uncut?
Even the original I Spit on Your Grave got off more lightly.
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 5th December 2014, 10:51 PM
Stephen@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Irvine, Scotland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
Those stalwart bastions of our decency and morals have protected us again, God bless them all...



House on the Hill. Passed 18 for strong violence, sexual violence after 7:12s of BBFC compulsory cuts .... 7 MINUTES...... of course Cuts required in line with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Which in plain English says that there are no laws being used here, only guidelines that are interpreted by individuals.....

Exactly what I always say. A buch of middle/upper class people interpreting the law and making up a set of nonsensical guidelines based on their on moral superiority and deciding what's in the best interests if the rest of us (the working class), and keeping us in our place.
J Harker and Boo Radley like this.
__________________
"Give me grain or give me death!"
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 5th December 2014, 10:54 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Don
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Land of the Prince Bishops
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs View Post
Exactly what I always say. A buch of middle/upper class people interpreting the law and making up a set of nonsensical guidelines based on their on moral superiority and deciding what's in the best interests if the rest of us (the working class), and keeping us in our place.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the cuts and see exactly how the VRA was being used – it isn't as clear cut as something like the Cinematograph (Animals) Act, which itself has some room for interpretation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 5th December 2014, 10:59 PM
Stephen@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Irvine, Scotland
Default

From the melonfarmers site. Surely this has to be a mistake regarding the deleted scenes on The Inbetweeners 2? If not, WTF!!!!!

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1417820372.051075.jpg
__________________
"Give me grain or give me death!"
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 5th December 2014, 11:09 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Don
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Land of the Prince Bishops
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs View Post
From the melonfarmers site. Surely this has to be a mistake regarding the deleted scenes on The Inbetweeners 2? If not, WTF!!!!!

Attachment 151092
"One character urinating on another" is worth all those cuts? It must have been an extremely long piss!

That wouldn't even be covered by the new rules about content of pornographic films, because that decision was made before The Inbetweeners 2 was released in cinemas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.