No! Let's fight about it! :)

I also just added "I guess because it didn't *have* to be cut and could have been released without those cuts made" as a reason in an edit afterwards.


But yeah as you say, agree to disagree. I do kinda see where you're coming from, just can't agree with it

Oh alright then! You're wrong and I'm right. "put 'em up!, put 'em up!" :D

If a director makes a film that is not intended for younger audiences but the studio insists on cuts to lower the certificate to allow younger audiences then that's not the film that was shot, for me it's not just censoring the film but also the vision of the film maker and the writer. Babylon A.D was cut to bits by the studio and producer to the point where the director Mathieu Kassovitz publicly told audiences not to watch the film as it's not the film he shot. That i consider as censorship.

What about directors cuts? are Theatrical cuts censored versions?

But aren't films like AGDTDH and The Woman In Black made with the younger audiences in mind anyway? They then take them to the BBFC to see if they can get the desired rating and if not take the BBFC's advice on what to lose.

Look at Taken 2 - even the 'harder uncut extended" version won't be comparable to the original because it was made with a younger audience in mind.

Younger audiences? With Die Hard, they cut Mother****ers from the film, blood and people having their brains blown out. Hardly made for a 12 year old.

Ah right, I stand corrected then!

Remember when movies just got the rating they got and that was the end of it?

That's what's so annoying about this current trend. Films clearly not meant for 12 year olds being neutered by the studio just so they can get more cash from that younger demographic . . .

The thing is (and I hope this is true of more people than just me) it means I just won't go to see it at the cinema. If I am going to watch a film like the 4th Die Hard sequel it's probably only going to be something I'll want to watch once and so will want to see it in a form more appropriate to that type of film and therefore wait for the higher classification.


edit: that's a really badly structured sentence! My apologies!

AGDTDH was made as a full R rated action film and was released as an R rated film in the U.S, Fox for some unknown and silly reason opted for a lower rating in the U.K which is why a lot of the violence is trimmed and the majority of the swearing is cut. The Woman In Black was shot as a 15 but Momentum, the distributor, wanted to capitalize on the Harry Potter thing because of Daniel Radcliff so asked the BBFC what could be removed to gain a 12A. Taken 2 was again shot as an R rated film but released as a 12A with cuts because of the success of the first film, again FOX who seem to be the biggest culprits when it comes to cuts, wanted to see if a sequel with a lower rating would make more money. My biggest problem with Taken 2 was how lazy the film was, yes the first one had a ridiculous premise but the second took things to new heights of silly, the 12A version zoomed in on all the action scenes and cut the majority of violence.

Woman In Black is the film with the highest amount of complaints to the BBFC in the last 10 years because people took their kids to see it because of the whole potter thing and found that it was a genuinly frightening film for little children.