Attack of the Clones Cut in UK 481
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."
Over a headbutt? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:that extra second. (Score:2, Interesting)
One second is a long time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wasn't Episode 4 modified to get a "PG" ? (Score:2, Interesting)
I seem to recall that Episode 4 was originally going to get a "G" rating, but Lucas was worried it would be thought of as a "kid's movie" and wouldn't be as popular. As the story goes, the shots of Luke's family members' burnt bodies was inserted to bump it up to a PG.
Can anyone verify/debunk this?
Re:PG vs. 12 certificate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not the first time (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm involved in a student cinema, and as we show stuff just to the (student) members, we don't bother with ratings. OK, mainly this is because all our memebrs are >18, but we have certainly shown a number of independent films that are not rated...
Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... (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?
Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not from Europe so correct me if I am wrong. I don't mean to troll but I might come off as one.
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?
I contend that most evidence points to the fact that the US, Europe, and Canada (western nations really) have the same crime rates across the board. However the homicide rate in the US is about 5 times greater than other western nations. I think the obvious conclusion we can all draw is that firearms are more easily obtainable in the US than elsewhere in the world. I think the school shooting in Germany proved however that Europeans are not immue from violent crime either.
The real problem I think with your argument is that the crime rate (all of them) in the US is dropping. See this DoJ site [usdoj.gov] for more details. On the other hand crime rates is Europe are slightly rising as reported by business week [businessweek.com].
Okay, so I haven't really shown any conclusive evidence about whether or not crime rates are really different, but I will say this. It is in my opinion that the perception of crime is what guides people to make conclusions above. I agree that homicides and other violent crimes are higher in the US than the rest of the western world, as reported [sciam.com] by Scientific American. But I think many people choose to ignore or forget that Europe has a rising non-violent crime rate. The American media does not help the situation. I can regularly see homicide reports on the local news, I don't think the newspapers in Paris document every Metro pickpocketing. People think crime (in general) in the US is much higher than it really is because it is perceived to be much more prevalent.
Now I don't want to say is that the situation in both regions on the world are okay and nothing needs to be done. The homicide rate in the US, the fact that US jails a tremendous number of its citizen (mostly young black males) as compared to the rest of the western world. There are certainly problems that need to be solved. But to make a sweeping conclusion that the violence in movies in the US and increase sex in the media in Europe is the cause for (untrue) lower European crime rates is a shaky argument.
If anyone has hard evidence on the crime rates in Europe, Canada, and US and their trends of the last decade, I would like to see them. Please feel free to refue my argument, but please remember I am expressing an opinion.
Re:Not the first time - The Matrix (Score:3, Interesting)
You're probably right - I'm tired! :) (Score:2, Interesting)
Afficionados of the film prefer this dub to the original.
Headbutts and ramifications (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The real weird part for us crazy Americans (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I totally agree (Score:3, Interesting)
Kintanon
Re:The real weird part for us crazy Americans (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that weird, it's just that our film classifiers (recently anyway) have been much more bothered about violence than nudity/sex. They did a public survey a couple of years back which basically said that the vast majority of adults want to be able to watch whatever they like, and parents are far more worried about violence than sex.
In the UK (and europe to an even larger extent) nudity (particularly toplessness) is seen as nothing special. Full frontal is common on network TV, and as you say (some) tabloid newspapers have topless page 3 girls. In the summer you'll see girls in the park topless (more in europe than the UK, it rarely gets warm enough!), and on beaches it's derigeur.
As a non (but prospective!) parent, I would have no problem at all with my son/daughter checking out the naturist magazines at any age. I'd be a lot more concerned with them picking up the latest guns & ammo, or even worse, some WWF crap
Re:PG vs. 12 certificate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does anyone else find it interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's in the living room of a teenage boy's house, and he and his girlfriend are on the couch. A theater censor is standing on one far side of the stage, and he periodically stops the kid from doing anything illegal or reprehensible, using a sort of American-movie-rating standard --- "You're edging into R, kid." "No, nope, hands where I can see 'em..! Turn away from the audience if you're gonna do that." The kids pause and alter their behavior with every tsk-tsk.
This continues for a few minutes, with the boy and girl becoming more aware of the censor, like cartoon characters who wink at the camera, until the boy gets frustrated and finally just walks over to the censor and says, "Well, fine, you tell me, what CAN I do?" The censor whispers something in his ear, and he says, "Oh, alright." To his girlfriend, "Hold on a minute, I'll be right back."
Then he goes into the other room, returns with a gun, and shoots her. He and the censor shake hands, and the censor says, "Violence, kid. Sells every time!"