Page 1 of Region 2 BBFC cuts - I`ve been stung again!

Oh dear, I bought Cliffhanger on monday and had a quick skip through and thought "wow, fantastic A/V quality, this was a great buy". Much to my dismay though, after watching it all the way through it`s quite clear that several scenes have been butchered (possibly with a huge axe!). I`m not bothered about the odd second here and there, or slight toning down as these are often imperceptible, but what`s been done here is disgraceful. It reminded me of a T.V screening of "Robocop" years back which lasted about 40 minutes. Several scenes of Cliffhanger are "jumpy" messes - The bit with Dan from eastenders talking about soccer is bizzare and when Leon is asking Stallone where the money is, you haven`t a clue what`s happening or what`s being said. It ruins the film and I don`t want it in my collection. When will this madness end?

I agree, the BBFC must change their guidelines. I wonder if they consult the filmakers before they butcher their films?

Who do you think implements the cuts? The distributors usually, or if you`re lucky, sometimes the director. The BBFC don`t just take a film and then cut it before giving it back. They provide a written list of the cuts required. With Cliffhanger, I`ll bet the distributors themselves wanted a lower rating to make more money, as was the case with Lethal Weapon 4 and The Matrix on video. I don`t think the BBFC is entirely to blame here. I understand Momentum submitted the uncut version, but this was rejected, presumably because the cut video version could not be withdrawn. This led to a dual certification problem and as a result, only the cut version could be released. But given that this problem was widely reported over the net, why did you buy it in the first place?

Obviously because I was unaware of these problems, It was an impulse buy and also, the video version was nothing like this attrocity. Like I said, small cuts here and there I can live with, but massive chunks are missing and no attempt has been made to soften the blow. When you`re in a shop and need another film (buy one, get one half price) You can`t check the net for censorship, I assumed it would at least be fit to watch!. To be honest it never occured to me, because you often can`t tell anyway, I`ll be much more vigilant in the future don`t you worry. For the love of god though, nobody else buy this cut and shut!.

it`s pathetic - I saw Cliffhanger at the flicks and it`s about as harmful to the mind as erm... Stop or my mom will shoot!

The same with `Billy Elliot` i just watched it and its got 5mins taken out of it!! it says 106 mins on the back and it is only 101 mins!!!! why do you cut the films???

But ask yourself, who probably cut Billy Elliot? 15 in the cinema, 15 on video. Nothing potentially illegal under the video recordings act. I haven`t seen the film, but I guess there`s not 5 minutes of violence which warranted removal. So I can only conclude that this was done by the filmmakers before submission to the BBFC. It`s not uncommon for films to be edited before appearing on video, Oliver Stone`s Heaven and Earth being a notable example. Sometimes filmmakers just take note of criticism, or see with 6 months hindsight where they can make, what are to them, improvements. Does anyone know what is missing from Billy Elliot? I`ll hazard a guess it`s stuff that takes away from the feelgood atmosphere. Now that`s censorship I really disagree with, watering down the message to make it more palatable.

This is the main reason why l choose Region 1 over Region 2 when it comes to films rated 12 or above!

Wildsheep, do you work for a P.R company or something? (contracted by the BBFC). As you have eagerly defended them twice now, if it isn`t down to them, why are all R1 versions un-cut?. You can comment on contrivances like who actually edits the film and the other reasons behind it, but again, U.S discs don`t have to be cut in this way. Therefore the guidelines laid down by your clients (nudge, nudge) are too stringent. If a filmmaker decides to alter what they submit to the BBFC (pre-emptive strike), it is still the strict guidelines that are to blame. You have valid points and they are worth mentioning, but please, don`t portray the BBFC as anything other than the film-spoilers they are.

Don`t be so paranoid. Of course I don`t work for the BBFC. I don`t even have a job. But people tend to forget that a lot of films are pre-cut by the distributor before submission to the BBFC, as I think some of the comments here show. I believe that films like Cliffhanger, Lethal Weapon 4, The Matrix, The Frighteners and Edward Scissorhands were cut to allow a lower rating and therefore more bums on seats. These were not censorship decisions, these were commercial decisions by the film companies themselves. If the difference between an 18 on LW4 and a 15 is about £3 million on the theatrical run, then Warners is going to make those cuts. This is not the BBFC`s fault because they don`t make the law they enforce. That`s the fault of government. I don`t like censorship, but fair`s fair, the blame needs to be correctly apportioned here, and when it comes to action films, the film companies are equally to blame because they want to make money and aren`t prepared to release these films as 18 ratings, which they could easily do, and as Warners previously did with LW 2. Also, censorship still operates in the USA, just not in the same way. The NC-17 rating is largely the kiss of death for a theatrical run, as local newspapers refuse to carry advertising for films with this rating. Likewise the big video chains refuse to stock NC-17 videos and dvd`s. Consequently, films are edited down to R ratings, and uncut versions are rarely released. Boogie Nights, for instance, still only exists in the R rated version. Why? So they can sell more and Blockbuster will stock it. Fight Club wasn`t released in the harder version, the hard elements were placed on the extras disc. Why? Because if they went back into the print, the film gets an NC-17 and Blockbuster refuses to stock it. US freedom of speech laws allow them to put the extras on the second disc, but removed from the film and marked as unrated. This is how they get around censorship that is imposed by the major retailers. But there is little will to release films uncut and not be able to sell them. I think the US system is better, but to say there is no censorship there is slightly misleading, it`s just of a different type. So I`m not defending the BBFC, just pointing out that they are not the ogres people often portray them as. They don`t butcher every film, as you imply, but if you like violent action films, you are better off sticking to R1. Recent decisions indicate the BBFC are loosening up on works that previously they have been harsh on, and often with government disapproval. To me, this indicates that they are more independent than they used to be, and there is now talk of the age classifications for cinema becoming advisory only, as in the US. If this happens, it seems to me that it will be difficult to still censor films, if you can get into an 18 at 15, albeit with an adult present, the studios will not need to edit down to a 15 rating. Of course, the Video Recordings Act will still cause problems, but blame the tories for that, they wrote it. By the way, telling me not to portray the BBFC in a particular light because you disagree with it, well that`s you trying to censor me, isn`t it?