Attack of the Clones Cut in UK

MartyJG writes "The British Board of Film Classification has demanded a cut in Ep2 AOTC for a head-butt. I don't know which is more extreme: UK viewers insisting on viewing the US version for 1 second of extra film, or that a 1 second cut means the difference between a '12' (~PG-13) and a 'PG' certificate. For some reason the distributors must think fewer people would see the film if it was a '12'. The film report is on the BBFC website."

Comments

Not the first time

[AmunRa]

This sort of thing is not uncommon in the UK. If I recall correctly, Jurassic Park (1 or 2) had similar cuts. This is mainly due to the rating system in the UK, which is quite different to the states. In the UK, there are 5 certificates:

• U - Any age
• PG - Parental Guidance - If you are under 12, you have to be with a parent to see it
• 12 - 12 yeras or over
• 15 - 15 years or over
• 18 - you get the idea...

These are all legally binding (i.e. the cinema will get fined if they let a 10 year old into a 12 film). Basically, if AotC got a 12 cert, then Lucas would loose all those kids who he seems to be aiming at, and it would be less £££ (or $$$) for George.

Re:Not the first time

[gowen]

PG - Parental Guidance - If you are under 12, you have to be with a parent to see it

Thats not actually true. PG and U are both open to all. The PG is a warning to parents to use their discretion as to whether little Johnny should be allowed to go (harking back to a previous age, I fear).

Re:Not the first time

[karmawarrior]

They're not actually legally binding for films in cinemas. The system is a little more complicated than that.

Local government has the absolute right to allow or disallow a film to be shown in local cinemas in the UK. To make things smoother, there's a policy that there will be little or no meddling in what films can be shown as long as the BBFC rates them and cinemas agree to restrict access according to the ratings. Cinemas who do not comply risk being unable to show films, either because the local council will withdraw their right to do so, or (more often) because the cinema chain will remove troublesome managers to prevent exactly this kind of showdown from happening.

Occasionally ratings are ignored and censorship goes ahead anyway: many local councils banned Life of Brian and also The Last Temptation of Christ, though generally the public doesn't stand for this kind of thing: bus tours were organised to neighbouring towns and counties where the films were being allowed to be shown. On the flip side, many art house cinemas are able to show films that aren't rated, if they have a liberal enough local council.

The BBFC ratings do have a legal mandate in one area, videos (and DVDs) where during the early eighties, the Thatcher regime responded to a "moral outrage" panic fanned a hysterical press about so-called slasher movies and passed a law making the ratings compulsory for video cassettes, and forcing sellers of video cassettes to abide by the certificates. There's at least one film, The Exorcist IIRC, that isn't available on video because the BBFC refuses to rate it.

Incidentally, on your rather specific definition of PG: PG is a voluntary code in more ways than one - there's no requirement that a parent accompany the child, and I recall seeing films when I was below that age without needing a parent to come with me. It was assumed that my parents had given me the necessary "guidance". This may have changed in the last 20 years, but I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if it had.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[dylan_-]

In the UK, children under 12 aren't allowed to view a 12 rated film, even with an adult. PG (parental guidance) is the rating for "under 12 with adult".

It's kind of interesting that cutting bits off people is OK, but headbutts are out....

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Jagen]

Yes it is the law, the certificates for films dictate the ages of those who can watch (in cinemas) or rent films. Unfortunately alot people even in the UK dont seem to realise this, if a cinema lets in a person under the age for that film they can lose their license. I used to work in a cinema and we were always getting parents complaining that their 10 year old kid should be allowed to go into a 15 rated film because they gave "permission".

In response to someone around here who said PG is is for accompanied by adult, thats not true, PG is only an advisory in that its recomended that the parent be aware of the film before letting their child watch it, but they can watch unattended.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[choco]

The BBFC is a bit of an anomaly. It is part-legislated and part advisory.

It was setup (in 1912 ) by the Film Industry to bring some consistency to film censorship.

In the UK Cinemas are licenced by the Local Authority (Council). Each council has the final say about who can see which films with what cuts. In practice the BBFC classifications are routinely and almost universally accepted by all local councils - but they can and do overule the BBFC on occassion. The two most famous, recent examples are "Crash" (which was banned in some areas) and Mrs Doubtfire (which was rated by the BBFC as "12" but many councils reduced this to "PG").

Any cinema breaking the rules imposed by the Council could find its cinema licence withdrawn.

The BBFC has a quite seperate role for Videos and DVDs - where it is given authority by statue to censor these for the whole country. It is quite possible (and not uncommon) for the same film to have different certificates and different cuts for Cinema and Video release.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Galvatron]

On a similar subject, Trey Parker (one of the creators of South Park) wrote about how unbelievably different it was warding off an NC-17 rating for South Park versus Orgazmo and Baseketballs. For South Park, they got a letter much like the above, and the studio helped them write appropriate responses, and generally negotiated it down to an R. For the other two, they basically got something that said "The MPAA has rated this NC-17." They tried to guess which parts they needed to cut, and were successful for Baseketballs, but not for Orgazmo. So, apparently the larger your budget and more influential the studio you're working for, the easier it is to get more favorable ratings.

I also remember hearing once that some movies that are worried about getting an NC-17 intentionally put in scenes that are way over the top, so that they have things they can cut easily to bring down their ratings. It's a fairly corrupt system all around it seems.