Home› Movies
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Movies section for the latest news, updates, cast interviews and reviews of your favourite films.

Horns cut for UK viewers

darkjedimasterdarkjedimaster Posts: 18,621
Forum Member
✭✭
in Movies #1
I just read that that upcoming Fantasy Horror film Horns has been cut for a UK audience to obtain a 15 certificate from the BBFC. This kind of action really boils my pi$$, as I hate it when they cut films so that it will get more ticket sales to teenagers. Still I will see this film at the cinema as it does look pretty good, and then when a decent copy of the USA uncut version appears online, I will grab it. Hollywood screw the UK viewers, so I will screw them back. The industry have nothing to blame but themselves for making these unneeded cuts.

Comments

  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #2
    It was cut before submission to the BBFC, though following their advice:
    Precuts information

    During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission.

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/horns-2013

    Lionsgate are the villains here.

    On the plus side the Halloween re-issue of The Woman in Black appears to be the uncut 15 rated version. As the soon-to-be-released sequel is 15 rated it makes little sense to persist with the cut version.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,924
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    darkjedimaster wrote: »
    ...these unneeded cuts.
    Well, they're not unneeded are they?

    The film company know they can make more money for their shareholders by releasing a 15-rated film instead of an 18-rated film in the UK. So therefore it becomes a need.

    From a business point of view it makes perfect sense. Especially for a film like Horns where it's just a couple of small sequences that were 18-rated. Other, more extreme films it becomes impossible to lower the rating, but when the opportunity is there it's completely understandable when they trim a few bits to get more profit.
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,851
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #4
    roger_50 wrote: »
    Well, they're not unneeded are they?

    The film company know they can make more money for their shareholders by releasing a 15-rated film instead of an 18-rated film in the UK. So therefore it becomes a need.

    From a business point of view it makes perfect sense. Especially for a film like Horns where it's just a couple of small sequences that were 18-rated. Other, more extreme films it becomes impossible to lower the rating, but when the opportunity is there it's completely understandable when they trim a few bits to get more profit.

    The OP would have meant that the cuts were legally unneeded, not commercially advantageous.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,924
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    Well, he didn't actually explain what he meant by unneeded in this instance.

    I mean, it kinda goes without saying that it's not legally needed. But in every other sense, the cuts are needed.
  • bluefbbluefb Posts: 15,461
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    I expect 'the industry' will be too busy counting their extra revenue to worry about blaming anyone.
Sign In or Register to comment.