Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Attack of the Clones Cut in UK

Posted by michael on from the jar-jar-still-in-it-unfortunately dept.

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."

15 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. PG vs. 12 certificate by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 5, Funny

    For some reason the distributors must think fewer people would see the film if it was a '12'.

    My daughter is four, and she's looking forward to the new Star Wars film. So that's one.

    1. Re:PG vs. 12 certificate by Dante_H · · Score: 5, Funny
      My daughter is two and [...] I don't think a "head butt" is going to scar her.

      Jesus, your daughter must be tough. Last time that happened to me I cried like a girl.

    2. Re:PG vs. 12 certificate by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 5, Funny
      If they can go down a list and say "Ok, you're two points over the line for a 12. You can take out x laser blasts, x seconds of sabre duel, x punches, or this head-butt to get under the line again", I'm ok with that.

      Seems that's how it used to work.

      On the 5th of August 1974, Mark Forstater, a producer from Python (Monty) Pictures, wrote the following letter in respect of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

      'Dear Mike,

      The Censors' representative, Tony Copell, came along to Friday's screening at Twickenham and he gave us his opinion of the film's probable certificate. He thinks the film will be AA [which is 14 and over] but it would be possible, given some dialogue cuts, to make the film an A rating, which would increase the audience [A being five and above].

      For an A we would have to, quote, "lose as many shits as possible, take Jesus Christ out if possible, lose "I fart in your general direction", lose the oral sex, lose "Oh, fuck off", lose "we make castanets out of your testicles".'

      He writes further:

      'I would like to get back to the Censor and agree to lose the shits, take the odd Jesus Christ out and lose "Oh, fuck off", but to retain "fart in your general direction", "castanets of your testicles" and oral sex, and ask him for an A rating on this basis.

      Please let me know as soon as possible your attitude to this.

      Yours sincerely.'

      I first read that letter 20 years ago. It amused me then and it still amuses me. You'd think it was something the Python team themselves had created, not something their producer had written in all seriousness. The thought of a group of people sitting 'round a conference table, heatedly negotiating these points, is quite bizarre. I mean, how many shits do you have to lose to keep castanets out of your testicles? Exactly how many Jesus Christs is fart in your general direction worth? Or is it a combination thereof? Maybe you can have oral sex for four shits, a Jesus Christ and a fuck-off.

      I know it sounds very, very silly, but this type of negotiation is still going on today and will continue going on while we feel a need to classify films. Which I might add, is something I totally endorse in principle and by 'in principle', I mean except when it comes to my own films.

      Source: Watch on Censorship (Australia)
  2. Not the first time by AmunRa · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    --
    " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
    1. Re:Not the first time by karmawarrior · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
    2. Re:Not the first time by karmawarrior · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's also the highest rating:

      R80: Restricted 80. Basically you can't get in unless you're over 80, and accompanied by both parents.

      --
      KMSMA (WWBD?)
  3. No Spoilers!!! by JHromadka · · Score: 5, Funny

    Argh! Now I know there is a head butt in AOTC! Please no spoilers please! Next thing you know someone is going to go around telling everyone that Yoda is Luke's uncle.

    --
    "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
    1. Re:No Spoilers!!! by dylan_- · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess I'd better not mention that Anakin becomes Dar....oops!

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  4. Does anyone else find it interesting... by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that while a movie that shows graphic violence, including decapitations, disembowellings and other acts of torture and sickness that turn viewers' stomachs can still a 'PG-13' or 'R' rating in the US, while just about any sort of hint of sexual acts, both heterosexual and homosexual, will merit at the very least an 'R' or an 'X' rating?

    American censors and the film ratings boards seem to believe that it's OK for people to see violence because it won't affect them at all. Hey, the country was founded in a pit of blood during the Revolutionary War. But it's a hell of a lot better to have that on screen than it is to see two people who love each other show it intimately. Better that we have teenagers running into their school brandishing easily-purchased assault rifles than it is to have them falling in love with someone and spending time with them.

    I'm just curious when the culture of violence and hate that the United States pushes on its citizens will finally become tiresome or offensive to them. Look at crime rates in Europe, where guns are near impossible to get hold of and where there are no restrictive anti-sex laws on television. Is it any wonder that their crime rates per capita are significantly lower than the US?

    Let's keep producing more violent movies and glorifying war, like Platoon, Saving Private Ryan and all the Rambo movies do. That'll make everyone safer...

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
    1. Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... by First+Person · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually what I find even more stupid is that (in the US) full frontal female nudity is perfectly okay for a R, but any full frontal male scenes and you are talking NC-17 or X. For the nearly all male movie executives and ratings board members, it's not like this should be anything they haven't seen before. Right?

      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    2. Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... by Loligo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Let's keep producing more violent movies and
      >glorifying war, like Platoon, Saving Private
      >Ryan

      Uh... You honestly think Platoon or Saving Private Ryan "glorif[y] war"?

      Have you SEEN Saving Private Ryan? Have you actually WATCHED Platoon? There's nothing in either of those movies that glorifies war. They both attempt to portray war as the horrible nasty hellish nightmare that it is.

      After the release of SPR, military recruiters all over America reported a drop in inquiries. This from a nation that was ALREADY largely apathetic about military service. This was almost exclusively in response to the opening D-Day scenes.

      If you're looking for a movie that glorifies war, go find a copy of The Longest Day (B&W, please, none of that Turnerized colorized crap). Watch the Omaha Beach landing sequence. Compared to SPR's, it's about as violent as an episode of Seinfeld.

      For a more modern movie (yet set in an older war...), go get Mel Gibson's "The Patriot".

      Neither SPR nor Platoon try to be "feel good" movies. Neither is a chest-thumping rah rah "we kicked their sorry asses" movie.

      Oh, and I can't let this one go...

      >Look at crime rates in Europe, where guns are
      >near impossible to get hold of

      That kid in Germany sure seemed to have his share. I won't mention terrorist groups like the IRA, Red Brigade, ETA, 17 November, or any of a hundred splinter groups...

      -l

    3. Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... by smagoun · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not that the execs haven't seen it before, it's that they're jealous...

  5. Re:that extra second. by minus9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suggest that the purists wait until the cut second is about to come up shout 3..2..1.. and head butt the person in the seat in front. Audience participation could bring the film to life.

  6. Re:How nitpicky can they get? by iapetus · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wonder how many British children are exposed to professional wrestling? They'll see loads there.

    Maybe so. But perhaps it looks realistic in the film. :)

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  7. Re:The real weird part for us crazy Americans by karmawarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of my first wierd experiences as a Brit living in the US was watching "Airplane" on network TV. Roughly 50% appeared to be missing. The most bizarre cut I recall went like this:

    Original: Pilots are discussing problems. One turns to other: "When McCruskie hears about this, the shit's really going to hit the fan!"

    Cut to shot of fan. A large brown mass hits it and slops to the bottom.

    Cut to McCruskie and rest of film.

    Network TV version: Pilots are discussing problems. Then are silent for a few seconds.

    Cut to shot of fan. Nothing happens. "WTF is the significance of the fan?" asks audience.

    Cut to McCruskie and rest of film.

    I recall watching this, open mouthed, wondering how anyone can be that conservative. Then I got to know my collegues better, and while most are as liberal as the people in the UK, it's not uncommon to find an extremist in their twenties who will refuse to watch a film because it has a rude word in it. It's even more bizarre when you consider the standards being set: Beat the crap out of someone, and it's standard TV. Show crap, or use the word "crap", and it's controvertial.

    This is one of the potential benefits of the V-chip. As the V-chip becomes more prevalent, the censors will have no excuse. Network TV should be able to show what it wants, safe in the knowledge that those who would normally whine and complain can be answered with the line "Well, we tagged it, if you'd set your V-chip properly you wouldn't have seen it. You only have yourself to blame."

    Here's hoping.

    --
    KMSMA (WWBD?)