The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[Ernest Rister]

How do we know that after inhaling oxygenated fluid, the rat didn't get crazy high and tripped balls and suddenly discovered truths and new perceptions heretofore unknown to said rat, and later, in the rat's final months, the rat took solace in its experience and existential philosophies?

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

How do we know that after inhaling oxygenated fluid, the rat didn't get crazy high and tripped balls and suddenly discovered truths and new perceptions heretofore unknown to said rat, and later, in the rat's final months, the rat took solace in its experience and existential philosophies?

Well, we now have the plot to The Abyss Part II: The Undiscovered Country.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by mannie002

Typical Americlaps, talking out their ass about countries they can't even point out on a map.

This is a very Americlap thing to say

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by mannie002

Damn, I forgot to leave a tip. Guess im not Americlap enough.

what?

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by mannie002

It was a joke about your country's tipping culture...

huh?

[sojrner]

[admiral_akbar]

Originally Posted by Krynoid-Man

Cutting Edge: Episode 12 - True Lies - YouTube

As stated at the end of this video, True Lies is now fully uncut in the U.K. and has been since the original cuts were waived back in 2010.

Also confirmed on Melon Farmers.

Based on this (and that the pre-order is already live), I’m sure the UHD release will be the uncut version.

Hoping the same can be achieved for The Abyss.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Well, we now have the plot to The Abyss Part II: The Undiscovered Country.

Get Malick to direct.

[SwatDB]

Originally Posted by admiral_akbar

As stated at the end of this video, True Lies is now fully uncut in the U.K. and has been since the original cuts were waived back in 2010.

Also confirmed on Melon Farmers.

Based on this (and that the pre-order is already live), I’m sure the UHD release will be the uncut version.

Hoping the same can be achieved for The Abyss.

Once you have the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 active, While the RSCPA complains to the BBFC to request cuts to the film for the distributors, you UK consumers are on your own with Uncut imports from either:

North America
Scandinavia
France

So, no Uncut UHD sale for the UK…

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that it is a law passed by Parliament (the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937) that dictates that this cannot be depicted in films exhibited in the UK?

If the BBFC just "let it slide" and someone complained, the release would have to be pulled anyway, fines could be levied and likely the person who let it pass uncut could lose their job.

What happened with Malcolm McDowell or Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio or any other human actor is irrelevant.

They certainly seemed happy enough to let the butchery of live animals go uncut in Apocalypse Now and Oldboy though, right? The law as it stands appears to be quite outmoded, especially in cases where reasonable proof exists that the animals were ultimately unharmed. Anything else in this discussion is just contrarian gasbagging on my part.

[Ernest Rister]

Here's some kindling on the fire...Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut saw digital alterations to accomodate standards in the U.S., while Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange was or wasn't suppressed in the UK for quie a bit of time? Films and even movie posters are altered for reginoal/nation standards all the time, and as as potentially laughable as it it seems today, the "airplane-friendly" version of John Boorman's Excalibur with naughty bits trimmed out was the version I saw on HBO as a pre-teen.

Makes me recall Disney animator Ward Kimball chuckling over a stack of memos he said he still had dictating how the female centaurs and their boobies were to be drawn in Fantasia, saying the memos were a form of amusement unto themselves, meanwhile boobies and nipples were okayed for demonic harpies in the same film.

Every country has their own standards, and film studios accommodate these unto this day. Not every time, though. Steven Spielberg famously denied all requests to cut even a frame out of Schindler's List around the world, and when it came to network TV, he held true to that even in the U.S., the FCC be damned. So...boobage and penises on network television. Kinda crazy that was the concern by the FCC, versus the graphic violence in Schindler's List.

Fear the nipple and the pee-pee.

Just curious...how does the UK handle Baraka, and the poultry farm footage juxtaposed with urban traffic?

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

You got a license for that snark, Marky?

There's nothing gets up my nose more than Americans slagging off the UK, whilst seemingly oblivious to their own country's myriad flaws. Unless this comment "This is why we dumped their tea into a harbor, just a deeply flawed society" happened to be some sort of ironic joke I missed.

And yes, I do have a licence, thank you.

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I mean if you're going to get on your high horse and be smug about it, I live in a country that does/has neither and is consistently ranked as one of the top three countries in which to live.

I didn't start it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

I guess you'd best avoid A Clockwork Orange, since Malcolm McDowell nearly drowned for real when he was being held down in that trough and most likely suffered a lot more than the rat did. I don't endorse the way the rat was treated, I just find it absurd that after all this time they can't just let it slide with a disclaimer somewhere on the back cover about historical attitudes or something like what Studio Canal does with almost every catalog title.

Well, believe it or not but the actors had a CHOICE. That's the point. That's always been the point and makes such an equivalency null and void. If it ever got too much for their physical or emotional well-being then they could've walked away. They were also getting paid for it, as grubby as that might sound. But the rat(s) didn't have any say in the matter, and as it is perceived to be in some distress then it is regarded as animal cruelty according to the laws of this crazy old country. Remember, this isn't even a BBFC thing, this is an actual UK law that's been in place since 19-fookin-37.

Ironically though you can show an actual live animal getting killed as long as the kill is clean and kick! The law in question states that the "cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury" is prohibited in motion pictures, so a swift kill like the beast in Apocalypse Now or the snake in Friday 13th does technically circumvent that description because no pain/suffering/terror was caused. Just boom, out go the lights. But trip a horsey on-screen and that'll get snipped pretty darned quick.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Here's some kindling on the fire...Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut saw digital alterations to accomodate standards in the U.S., while Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange was or wasn't suppressed in the UK for quite a bit of time?

Re: A Chocolate Orange, Kubrick himself requested that Warners withdraw it, it had nothing to do with the BBFC or any legislation or whatever.

Originally Posted by DrWally

If I had to hazard a guess, the situation with the BBFC will ultimately get resolved and The Abyss will be released. Maybe with an on-screen disclaimer or something.

Literally got nothing to do with the BBFC. So, no.

Originally Posted by Cochran

True Lies is also BBFC censored.
I don't see this as a loss with the quality they offered.

As folks have said: True Lies was BBFC censored. But all the cuts were waived well over a decade ago so saying anything else is just shit-stirring for the sake of it. You'll fit right in, stranger!

[By_His_Strypes]

But, for all we know if the Rat could speak (sorry Remy) he might have signed his contract in front of the camera during a pre-production presser, might have even asked Cameron the tough question about why the breathing liquid is pink and not his usual blue. But, he might not have got to work again... Hooray for Hollywood.

[Geoff D]

I hope Beany demanded a 30ft trailer with jacuzzi and all the cheese he could eat when he signed the contract

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Just curious...how does the UK handle Baraka, and the poultry farm footage juxtaposed with urban traffic?

It's rated as a documentary, so some acts are permissible (like documentaries about the wealthfare of children and animals), lots of documentaries are Exempt from classification, but the imagery in Baraka pushes it to PG.

[ClassicCraig]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

... The law in question states that the "... cruel goading of any animal to fury" is prohibited in motion pictures ...

[snips marked with ellipses]

"The Great Outdoors" (1988) has a scene with a

[Show spoiler]bear roaring

and you can see it being poked with a stick by someone offscreen. Well, at least you could at the time. Anyone know if that had any problems in the UK? Like others, just trying to get a feel for the how the guidelines are applied.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ClassicCraig

[snips marked with ellipses]

"The Great Outdoors" (1988) has a scene with a

[Show spoiler]bear roaring

and you can see it being poked with a stick by someone offscreen. Well, at least you could at the time. Anyone know if that had any problems in the UK? Like others, just trying to get a feel for the how the guidelines are applied.

No problems there. Given that it was a trained bear - still capable of tearing people limb from limb, obvs, but tame enough to allow them to add a bald cap to his head and his ass - and clearly a comedic scene then said pokery wasn't cruelly goading him into actual fury, you know? Could be argued his entire existence as a trained animal was "cruel", sure, but then we're getting into headier realms of discussion not related to on-screen depictions as such.

[paulboland]

Originally Posted by Alister_M

They certainly seemed happy enough to let the butchery of live animals go uncut in Apocalypse Now and Oldboy though, right? The law as it stands appears to be quite outmoded, especially in cases where reasonable proof exists that the animals were ultimately unharmed. Anything else in this discussion is just contrarian gasbagging on my part.

As previously explained multiple times in regards to Apocalypse Now


UK 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act
Exceptions are
Example a documentary showing something that would have taken place regardless of whether or not it had been filmed

Apocalypse Now
The animal slaughter scene in that film (a water buffalo, or carabao) was killed - but not for the film. The tribe in the film was a real indigenous tribe that lived in the area, and they had already decided to slaughter it. Coppola merely decided to film the event and edit it into the film
This latter point of the act largely applies to documentary producers, though scenes such as the climactic sacrifice in Apocalypse Now (US, d. Francis Coppola, 1979) have also benefited.

Oldboy
Reason why allowed is given
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/oldbo...q6vlgtnzk3nzcy



The Abyss is different
The Abyss rat scene it's not something that would have taken place regardless of whether or not it had been filmed
It's not a natural event it was done deliberately for the film and you see the rat in distress

British Veterinary Association made a complaint after the Abyss was released in UK
Due to that complaint BBFC was required to check that scene
BBFC are required to check films after a complaint is made and then make a decision if that complaint is upheld or not
The BBFC reviewed the rat scene the complaint was upheld after consultation with RSPCA and they had to apply UK 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act to the rat scene this cut was done for the first UK DVD release of the theatrical cut also applied to the later UK special edition cut Cinema/DVD/VHS releases in UK

The rat scene cut also applied to the Under Pressure: Making the Abyss" 1993 documentary on UK DVD releases of the Abyss

[Alister_M]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by paulboland

As previously explained multiple times in regards to Apocalypse Now


UK 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act
Exceptions are
Example a documentary showing something that would have taken place regardless of whether or not it had been filmed

Apocalypse Now
The animal slaughter scene in that film (a water buffalo, or carabao) was killed - but not for the film. The tribe in the film was a real indigenous tribe that lived in the area, and they had already decided to slaughter it. Coppola merely decided to film the event and edit it into the film
This latter point of the act largely applies to documentary producers, though scenes such as the climactic sacrifice in Apocalypse Now (US, d. Francis Coppola, 1979) have also benefited.

Oldboy
Reason why allowed is given
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/oldbo...q6vlgtnzk3nzcy



The Abyss is different
The Abyss rat scene it's not something that would have taken place regardless of whether or not it had been filmed
It's not a natural event it was done deliberately for the film and you see the rat in distress
RSPCA made a complaint when the Abyss was released when BBFC checked that scene they had to apply UK 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act

[/quote]

I can honestly understand the Apocalypse Now exception. Oldboy is a bit more conflicting since a total of four octopii were eaten alive, and the classification of invertebrates as not worthy of protection is just bizarre. One of the most intelligent non-human creatures on the planet and it's considered expendable because it lacks an endoskeleton. Nice one.