The Abyss 4K UHD (1989)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

They did a number on '80s horror.

People usually complain about too much violence being let through.

Make up your minds!

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yeah, but it takes two to tango though. The MPAA didn't order any cuts or censor anything, they just deemed that the content contained therein deemed the films worthy of an X-rating

The first cut of Army of Darkness got slapped with an X. They were a bit crazy in that period.

[Kyle15]

Y'all need to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA can go drink eggs.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Y'all need to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA can go drink eggs.

I've been meaning to watch this...

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by starmike

I've been meaning to watch this...

It's fantastic. Highly recommended! Even though it's been out for years at this point, the MPAA's antics are still alive and well.

[GeoffOliver]

Wait, so the BBFC keeps refusing classification for The Abyss uncut for a scene with a rat that wasn’t even killed, but passes Friday the 13th (1980) uncut with a scene of a live snake being cut in half for real on camera? Unless there’s something I don’t know, that’s some serious bullshit.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Cook

I bet the BBFC use mouse and rat traps in their building.

I'd ban all non-humane traps.

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

I honestly never got why the UK censors hate the idea of an animal getting remotely hurt on screen even though other countries have no issue with it

It's not the getting hurt (as they allow some awful shit) it's whether it's deemed "cruel" in their interpretation of the law. The BBFC passed a lot of animal stuff I wouldn't allow, but are perhaps stricter in areas where I would be more lenient. Unless any of these cases actually reaches the courts, it's subjective.

As for other countries... I wouldn't go by that as most countries have lower standards of animal welfare than the UK.

Originally Posted by Telemachus

You could just choose to look away during that very quick shot

There's a lot more than a quick shot. Doesn't it play out from multiple angles and in slow motion? I read that in order to get that much footage they requested filming more than one sacrifice.

a frog (or something alive) gets cut in half during Double Impact by a street vendor

Horrible, agreed. But that is a quick shot.

Event Horizon has extreme gore in some fast shots that I don't enjoy watching.

Hardly the same thing...

Getting steeming mad over a rat taking a swim 30 years ago is some extreme first world privilege.

You're being silly now...

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Wait, so the BBFC keeps refusing classification for The Abyss uncut for a scene with a rat that wasn’t even killed, but passes Friday the 13th (1980) uncut with a scene of a live snake being cut in half for real on camera? Unless there’s something I don’t know, that’s some serious bullshit.

I can't explain that one either. Cuts for similar snake kills have been made to other movies.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Yeah, but it takes two to tango though. The MPAA didn't order any cuts or censor anything, they just deemed that the content contained therein deemed the films worthy of an X-rating. And because studios were afraid of the X-rating due to the fact that it meant adult content in the eyes of the public, and because they wanted kids to be able to see the films, they complied with the recommendations of footage that needed to be excised in order to bring them down to an R.

Back in the day, newspapers and TV stations would not accept advertisements for X-Rated films as a matter of local ordinances, so sure, you could make an X-rated film, but you couldn't advertise it, which means you couldn't really sell them in mass-market venues. Economics were a back-door method of content controls. Hence, in the late 80's, the push for the NC-17 rating to distinguish films with sexual content while not crossing into spank-house material. At least for theatrical releases to skate around the advertising bans, meanwhile porn made a fortune on VHS and on later formats, and then? Welcome to the internet.

[pjl69]

Originally Posted by Noir Black Schwarz

I've heard so many great things about this movie that I am excited to give it a shot when this disc comes out next year.

Yeah, I think it's the most interesting movie along with the first Terminator from Cameron. But that's just my opinion.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

I just simply can't fathom essentially having a government censorship board for movies.

The BBFC is not a government censorship board, our content generally by law needs to be certified, but they're not a government agency. Local authorities can ban rated films or even change the ratings.

If children or animals are expoilted, abused, endangered or treated cruelly (or killed), the different laws for the protection of children and animals, makes distributing that content illegal.

So by law that conent needs to be seized, banned, or edited out of the content.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Y'all need to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA can go drink eggs.

I have seen it. It makes some excellent points, but it's also one of those gonzo "documentaries" akin to the works of Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore that fail to take the bigger picture into account.

I mean, the MPAA was set up by the major studios and the ratings system is completely voluntary, particularly for any film that isn't made by a major studio.

Directors get indignant when they are asked to make cuts because it compromises their "art", but that ignores the fact that most of them are contractually obligated by the studios that hire them to deliver a specific rating for marketing purposes.

The studios themselves as well as movie theatre chains (and video rental chains when those were still a thing) are not blameless for their refusal to screen X, NC-17 or Unrated movies because all they are doing is caving in to moral and/or political pressure.

[Havenbull]

Originally Posted by chip75

The BBFC is not a government censorship board, our content generally by law needs to be certified, but they're not a government agency. Local authorities can ban rated films or even change the ratings.

If children or animals are expoilted, abused, endangered or treated cruelly (or killed), the different laws for the protection of children and animals, makes distributing that content illegal.

So by law that conent needs to be seized, banned, or edited out of the content.

Found the guy that works for BBFC

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by chip75

The BBFC is not a government censorship board, our content generally by law needs to be certified, but they're not a government agency. Local authorities can ban rated films or even change the ratings.

If children or animals are expoilted, abused, endangered or treated cruelly (or killed), the different laws for the protection of children and animals, makes distributing that content illegal.

So by law that conent needs to be seized, banned, or edited out of the content.

Yeah, but that kind of control is moot when a simple VPN skates right past it. Here in Texas, we have a lot of outdated laws still on the books, like being in possession of wire-cutters near barbed wire fences holding livestock.

[TenYearLurker]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not going to work. If you walk up to a movieplex with the family to "just go see a movie" you aren't going to have time or patience to look up each and every movie playing.

We all have tiny computers in our pockets these days, with unlimited access to information at our fingertips that can be pulled up within seconds. Parents have no excuse to take "the family" to a movie without knowing anything about it. Knock it off.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And let's face it, the MPAA gets things right more often than not.

Based on what, exactly? Them having the same ideas of what is "decent" and "acceptable" to you?

They're an arbitrary group of faceless old parents who get to decide what is permissible to the masses based on their own ethical ideals/political and religious leanings, and they have the power to bury films based on their own "feelings" and aforementioned leanings.

It's a laughably bad and outdated system, and countless films and filmmakers have suffered because of it.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I have seen it. It makes some excellent points, but it's also one of those gonzo "documentaries" akin to the works of Morgan Spurlock or Michael Moore that fail to take the bigger picture into account.

I mean, the MPAA was set up by the major studios and the ratings system is completely voluntary, particularly for any film that isn't made by a major studio.

Directors get indignant when they are asked to make cuts because it compromises their "art", but that ignores the fact that most of them are contractually obligated by the studios that hire them to deliver a specific rating for marketing purposes.

The studios themselves as well as movie theatre chains (and video rental chains when those were still a thing) are not blameless for their refusal to screen X, NC-17 or Unrated movies because all they are doing is caving in to moral and/or political pressure.

Of course they're complicit, the documentary gets into that. Just cuz I'm dissing the MPAA doesn't mean I'm ignoring the other part of the picture, I'm very aware of it.

[SammymeBlu]

Originally Posted by Yearbook

*John Lennon gets shot. MPAA: "Cut Friday the 13th Pt. 2 to the bone for the sake of the children!"

They did even more damage to My Bloody Valentine a few months before Friday the 13th part 2 was released. Both were hammered by the MPAA but MBV more so.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by TenYearLurker

We all have tiny computers in our pockets these days, with unlimited access to information at our fingertips that can be pulled up within seconds. Parents have no excuse to take "the family" to a movie without knowing anything about it. Knock it off.

Puleeeze. Even with that tiny computer in your pocket, how would you like to look up a dozen films to see if it has certain violent acts, sexuality, or language you might object to? And in what context?

Based on what, exactly? Them having the same ideas of what is "decent" and "acceptable" to you?

Based on what filmmakers think for one.

It's a laughably bad and outdated system, and countless films and filmmakers have suffered because of it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Y'all need to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. The MPAA can go drink eggs.

I watched it and it's a bunch of people stalking and literally going through people's trash. It's a POS of a documentary and definitely one sided.

[TrueGent10]

correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the UK DVD of the abyss have the rat scene cause if that were the case then It doesn't make sense as to why they won't release it

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Puleeeze. Even with that tiny computer in your pocket, how would you like to look up a dozen films to see if it has certain violent acts, sexuality, or language you might object to? And in what context?

Or if the film has intense depictions of very bad weather.