HALLOWEEN (1978) 40th Anniversary Edition | Lionsgate | Sep 24 2018

[chip75]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I quite enjoy discussion on BBFC classification, what ratings you agree and disagree with. I'd like to start a thread but where is the question.

Perhaps it could join the uncut/cut BD thread?

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by chip75

Perhaps it could join the uncut/cut BD thread?

That's not really the same thing, though.

[samdaman94]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'd never seen Ghostbusters with an audience (despite loving that film for almost every waking moment of my life) until I caught it in 2014 at a sold-out screening at the BFI IMAX, and although it certainly wasn't like watching a different film it was amazing to me how much of a laugh-machine it actually is. Not saying that applies either way to what you're saying, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Absolutely. I've seen a few re-released comedies and seeing them with a passionate good-humoured crowd really brings the comedy out stronger. Incidentally, what was that BFI screening like? I remember seeing it advertised and wondered how the film would look stretched out onto such an enormous screen.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It mentions the sexualised aspect of it though, does it not? I hadn't even read that Insight before but stuff like that really is what's kept the 18 ridin' high all these years. People mention Silence a lot but how much actual carnage and violence is seen to be inflicted on women in that film? I don't mean having inanimate corpses on slabs or Bill's idea of haute couture or Miggs throwing his baby batter in Clarice's face, I mean brutal bloody violence that we actually see being performed on womens. While the subject matter still rides the line between a 15 and 18 the violence on show lacks an overt sexualised context so I'm not too shocked that it got brought down to a 15.

I think you might be surprised if you read the Insight first published in 2012 (and as I said, used again in 2014 and 2018). First of all, the short Insight is simply "strong threat, horror", but the detailed Insight is this:

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by BBFC

HALLOWEEN is a new cinema release of John Carpenter's 1978 horror film in which an escapee from an asylum returns to his old neighbourhood where he stalks and terrorises a baby-sitter.

THREAT
Strong threat runs throughout the work, with an early flashback to the killing of a teenage girl and the later stalking and killing of young people in the quiet suburb. Killings include stabbings, a teenager being pinned to a wall with a knife, and a young woman being throttled with a telephone cord. Other encounters see characters being slashed, stabbed and shot. The real-world setting and domestic environments add to the tension and impact of the threat and violence.

Breast nudity and sex also feature. However, the sex predominantly takes place under covers and without nudity. There is also brief sight of marijuana being smoked.

That's it, and as you'll note, there isn't a lot there to infer that the BBFC were thinking of "sexual violence" or "sexual threat". They even took the unusual step of qualifying their statement about sex by saying it "predominantly takes place under covers and without nudity" in a way that makes you feel that they were writing Insight to parents for a 12 cert film.

Also, the case study states that the film was initially passed X without cuts and then, after the modern certificates were introduced and a video release was being classified, there is only "the moderate sexual element to the first killing" amongst "several 18 level elements", which meant 15 couldn't be applied. This remember, was in 1986, right at the height of video nasties, and sounds a lot more genteel than what most horror films were afforded. The only other time I know of such a lax BBFC reaction to horror in this general era is Alien (1979), which was almost passed AA (for 14 and over) uncut on its initial cinema release until Fox withdrew it's appeal and accepted an X. The examiners actually compared Alien to Jaws, and it seems that there was a significant belief that the "nightmare images" in Alien would affect adults much more than children.

The Halloween case study does go on to say that "the moderately sexualised first killing shown from the child attacker's point of view" played a part in keeping the 18 certificate on DVD, but again, that is still according to James "throwing stars are evil" Ferman's BBFC in 1996, and we are worlds away from that iteration of the BBFC. I doubt the modern BBFC sees Halloween as any more of a problem when it comes to sexual violence and gender issues than any other slasher film of the era, in fact, less so than most, I would bet.

[Agent Kay]

Breast nudity is my REM covers band

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

I've never seen why they can't just merge theatrical and video into one. I mean, I don't buy the reasoning that people will respond differently to something in theatres than on cinema. Sure, scenes can be played out of context and repeated, but is this really a big issue?

I believe it has more to do with the fact that it's harder to enforce a rating on home video. You slap a film with a 15/18 at the cinema and you've got to get by the cinema staff if you're under the limit. You do this on a home video release, well all you need is a non-discernng adult/teenager to give you access.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

I think you might be surprised if you read the Insight first published in 2012 (and as I said, used again in 2014 and 2018). First of all, the short Insight is simply "strong threat, horror", but the detailed Insight is this:



That's it, and as you'll note, there isn't a lot there to infer that the BBFC were thinking of "sexual violence" or "sexual threat". They even took the unusual step of qualifying their statement about sex by saying it "predominantly takes place under covers and without nudity" in a way that makes you feel that they were writing Insight to parents for a 12 cert film.

Also, the case study states that the film was initially passed X without cuts and then, after the modern certificates were introduced and a video release was being classified, there is only "the moderate sexual element to the first killing" amongst "several 18 level elements", which meant 15 couldn't be applied. This remember, was in 1986, right at the height of video nasties, and sounds a lot more genteel than what most horror films were afforded. The only other time I know of such a lax BBFC reaction to horror in this general era is Alien (1979), which was almost passed AA (for 14 and over) uncut on its initial cinema release until Fox withdrew it's appeal and accepted an X. The examiners actually compared Alien to Jaws, and it seems that there was a significant belief that the "nightmare images" in Alien would affect adults much more than children.

The Halloween case study does go on to say that "the moderately sexualised first killing shown from the child attacker's point of view" played a part in keeping the 18 certificate on DVD, but again, that is still according to James "throwing stars are evil" Ferman's BBFC in 1996, and we are worlds away from that iteration of the BBFC. I doubt the modern BBFC sees Halloween as any more of a problem when it comes to sexual violence and gender issues than any other slasher film of the era, in fact, less so than most, I would bet.

The case study is what I was referencing then (I lost track of what it is I was looking at), it clearly mentions the sexualised elements and I guess Ferman's ghost is still hanging over this one. Or, more boringly, it's just that it's simply never been considered for a re-rating in any official capacity, i.e. it's just been waved through time after time in its continual home video re-releases and it'll take a theatrical re-release for it to get properly re-assessed. The BBFC are still bearing down on sexualised violence in any case, I don't think that can be denied. Not that they're banning stuff left and right but they're clearly pushing it into the purview of the highest (well, highest for non-porn ) rating, which was my wider point here.

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Or, more boringly, it's just that it's simply never been considered for a re-rating in any official capacity, i.e. it's just been waved through time after time in its continual home video re-releases and it'll take a theatrical re-release for it to get properly re-assessed.

I think that's what i'd put my money on, I think there's just been no compelling reason for them to re-assess it.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Shingster

I believe it has more to do with the fact that it's harder to enforce a rating on home video. You slap a film with a 15/18 at the cinema and you've got to get by the cinema staff if you're under the limit. You do this on a home video release, well all you need is a non-discernng adult/teenager to give you access.

That was certainly Ferman's contention. Hence the likes of Con Air, Copland, Ransom, etc., all being upgraded for VHS.

Nowadays it's pretty much a given that whatever certificate a film is given for the cinema will be replicated on video, even if there are many complaints.

[SymbioticFunction]

Watched Xtro yesterday. Since that is now a 15, it amazes me that Halloween is still an 18.

[alananthony]

Well, there goes any chance of this being an UHD release. £8.99 from Amazon.co.uk and HMV.... Lionsgate have dropped the ball and will likely be dusting off one of the many previous releases and slapping on a "40th Anniversary" sticker on it! Bravo ��

[jediwilt]

Frightfest have announced 2 screenings of a brand new 4K restoration print of Halloween (1978) at the festival this August bank holiday weekend. I would assume this is the new release from Lionsgate

[Markgway]

I could understand if the rights were held by a different company.

But why would Lionsgate release a UHD in the US but not here?

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I could understand if the rights were held by a different company.

But why would Lionsgate release a UHD in the US but not here?

Probably because there's not enough 4K UHD adopters to make it worth the money. Lots of 4K stuff gets US-only releases - The Quick and the Dead, Christine, The Punisher. This is especially true of the Lionsgate releases than have come out of nowhere (The Transporter, etc) so Lionsgate have that going for them.

Then again, they did release Sicario in 4K over here, and surely Halloween sould sell more units than Sicario? Or maybe Lionsgate were testing the waters with an early 4K release because Sicario was all they had and they used it as a guinea pig?

[MrVorhees]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I could understand if the rights were held by a different company.

But why would Lionsgate release a UHD in the US but not here?

UHDs are region free. While i understand your anger, there is always the option to import the US UHD, if it helps.

[Jamiouse]

Are there any details about this new edition known yet? Is it a new scan, special features or anything? It's going very cheap on Amazon and HMV if there's anything new included.

[princessgleek]

No image yet for it, so that remains to be seen

[Hawkmonger]

Excellent! I missed out on the 35th Anniversary edition so this will be most welcome! Hopefully the sequels are on their way also, even if it's just Part II.....and Season of the Witch.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

Probably because there's not enough 4K UHD adopters to make it worth the money. Lots of 4K stuff gets US-only releases - The Quick and the Dead, Christine, The Punisher. This is especially true of the Lionsgate releases than have come out of nowhere (The Transporter, etc) so Lionsgate have that going for them.

Then again, they did release Sicario in 4K over here, and surely Halloween sould sell more units than Sicario? Or maybe Lionsgate were testing the waters with an early 4K release because Sicario was all they had and they used it as a guinea pig?

4K has actually got off to a good start in the U.K.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

Probably because there's not enough 4K UHD adopters to make it worth the money. Lots of 4K stuff gets US-only releases - The Quick and the Dead, Christine, The Punisher. This is especially true of the Lionsgate releases than have come out of nowhere (The Transporter, etc) so Lionsgate have that going for them.

Then again, they did release Sicario in 4K over here, and surely Halloween sould sell more units than Sicario? Or maybe Lionsgate were testing the waters with an early 4K release because Sicario was all they had and they used it as a guinea pig?

I wouldn't say "lots of stuff" but there's a few, sure. It's surprising that Sony don't appear to be releasing TQATD or Christine over here but mostly they've been quite diligent at releasing their stuff, and US UHD Sony titles like Fifth Elephant, Leon, Starship Troopers and Zero Dark Thirty are with different distributors in Europe hence the lack of concurrent UHDs in the UK (first two are with Studio Canal, ST is with Disney and ZDT is with Universal, though TFE was released in Germany via Tobis).

When it comes to Lionsgate you've got to bear in mind that they're a mini-major and so a large proportion of their US stuff has different distributors over here, Punisher is with Sony for example, Dredd is with EiV (spit), Kick-Ass and Ex Machina are with Universal, plus a few more.

I realise that this is the opposite to the situation with Halloween, that Lionsgate DO have the rights over here so releasing the UHD should be a no-brainer, I'm struggling to understand why they wouldn't just clone the US disc and get it out there. Same goes for Sony and the two mentioned above (though perhaps the Indicator licence for Christine is what's holding that one back, and TQATD has a different edit in Europe). But for many other UHD absentees it's the rights rather than the UK market not being receptive to it, I'm amazed it's doing as well as it is.