(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)

Scope and 3-D movies across the Freeview platform for the coming week (8 - 14 September):


Saturday (8 September)

• 3:10 TO YUMA (5 USA)
• THE BIG CIRCUS (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• HARPER (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• OLDBOY [올드보이] (Film 4)
• RETURN OF THE SEVEN (5 USA) [Panavision]
• THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING (E4)
• A SINGLE MAN (BBC 2)
• TRANSPORTER 3 [Le Transporteur 3] (Film 4)
• WILLARD (Film 4)
• THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (ITV 1) [Panavision]


Sunday (9 September)

• THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (Yesterday) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• DRAGONHEART (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• EVAN ALMIGHTY (ITV 2)
• THE FIFTH ELEMENT [Le Cinquième Élément] (C5)
• THE GAME (ITV 4)
• GLADIATOR (ITV 2)
• HEARTBREAKER [L'Arnacoeur] (BBC 4) [Technovision]
• INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (BBC 3) [Panavision]
• THE ITALIAN JOB (Film 4) [Panavision]
• LADYHAWKE (Film 4) [Technovision]
• MY SISTER'S KEEPER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE OUTRAGE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE REPLACEMENT KILLERS (C5)
• RESIDENT EVIL: EXTINCTION (C5)
• RIDE LONESOME (BBC 2) [CinemaScope]
• THE VICTORS (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK (ITV 3) [Panavision]


Monday (10 September)

• BIGGER THAN LIFE (Film 4) [CinemaScope]
• THE BUSINESS (Film 4)
• THE GAUNTLET (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• HEARTBREAKER [L'Arnacoeur] (BBC 4) [Technovision]
• HOT FUZZ (ITV 2)
• PATRIOT GAMES (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS (5*)
• THREE KINGS (ITV 2)


Tuesday (11 September)

• BLOOD WORK (5 USA) [Panavision]
• THE GREAT SIOUX MASSACRE (More 4) [CinemaScope]
• SHOPGIRL (Film 4) [Panavision]
• VON RYAN'S EXPRESS (Film 4) [CinemaScope / Panavision]
• WANTED (ITV 2)


Wednesday (12 September)

• ASYLUM (Film 4) [Panavision]
• AVPR: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR - REQUIEM (Film 4)
• THE BRAVADOS (More 4) [CinemaScope]
• THE HUMAN STAIN (BBC 1)
• INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (BBC 3) [Panavision]


Thursday (13 September)

• THE BLACK WINDMILL (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• LADYHAWKE (Film 4) [Technovision]
• LETHAL WEAPON 3 (C5) [Panavision]
• MY SISTER'S KEEPER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE WRESTLER (Film 4)


Friday (14 September)

• BIGGER THAN LIFE (Film 4) [CinemaScope]
• THE BLACK WINDMILL (ITV 4) [Panavision]
• DIE ANOTHER DAY (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (Film 4) [Panavision]
• THE ITALIAN JOB (Film 4) [Panavision]
• LYMELIFE (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• WAR (C5)
• THE X FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE (Film 4)

BATMAN was the first film to go out nationally with a 12 - except in a few council areas which hadn't managed to ratify the new rating, where it went out with a 15. There were a few local experiments to test the water before though - MADAME SOUSATZKA was shown in the London Borough of Westminster with a 12. I also remember seeing MY LEFT FOOT at the Curzon Mayfair with a local 12 certificate - it had a 15 nationally.

Since the 12 became the 12A and therefore advisory, it put paid to the "PG with warning" that the BBFC occasionally used for films a little too strong for PG but not really justifying a mandatory 12 - JAWS (A with warning actually), JURASSIC PARK I & !!, THE TIME MACHINE remake etc. Nowadays these would all get 12As, as did JAWS and GHOSTBUSTERS when they were recently reissued.

The other negative result of the 12A was that it became used as an informal babysitting category. Parents took along children who were too young and not interested in a film that was too old for them, and they acted up and became disruptive.

I wasn't disputing it was a better category than the 12, my point was more it didn't really do anything because even at these films very rarely will you see anybody at that age in the cinema watching these films.

I do however agree that Spider-man perhaps wasn't the best film for those below the age of 12. These days it seems to be the default category for action films, even when they don't particularly warrant it. The Amazing Spider-man didn't really warrant a 12A, it would've been perfectly fine at a PG.

I suppose it depends on the film. I've seen younger kids (with parents) at the likes of TRANSFORMERS and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER, though I wouldn't expect to see young'uns at, say, the new version of ANNA KARENINA.

One area that I've always found baffling is the R rating which allows under-17's to see such movies in the States, so long as they're accompanied by an adult. Since Jack Valenti retired from the MPAA, there's been a noticeable relaxation in the amount of censorship applied to violence in US movies (Valenti would never have allowed the hideous castration scene in HOSTEL PART II, for example). But even before then, I found it inconceivable that kids would be allowed to see the likes of THE EXORCIST or GOODFELLAS under any circumstances whatsoever.

If the R rating precluded under-12's and only allowed anyone aged between 12 and 16 into the cinema with an accopanying adult, that would be a fair compromise. But I have horrific visions of some idiot parent taking their 5 year old to see the likes of SAW or FRIDAY THE 13th...

Say what you like about the UK censorship system, but at least it does its best to protect kids from inappropriate material. Not because the moralist pro-censorship lobby thinks it will turn children into monsters, but because it's wrong to expose them to sadism, overt sex and graphic horror at an age when they aren't capable of dealing with it in any kind of a mature way.

Not that there's anything wrong with a bit of sadism, overt sex and graphic horror, you understand (that kind of thing happens in my house all the time!!) - but for Adults Only, thanks very much...

The MPAA is a terrible organization, and many of it's decisions are nonsensical. The main issue is that it's not legally enforcable, and as such it only exists to serve major studios. It amazes that they still haven't sorted out the R/NC-17 issue.

A former head of the MPAA said one of his regrets was not passing "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut" at NC-17, it achieved a BBFC:15 for "frequent coarse language and crude sexual references. Whilst neither the MPAA nor the BBFC took issue with the violence in the film, the MPAA were unhappy with the frequent use of the f word and the crude humor. (Somewhat ironically the film took the piss about the fact Americans find the f word and sex jokes horrendously offensive, but violence is perfectly acceptable.)

Matt Parker & Trey Stone (South Park co-creators) also talk of how the MPAA screwed over their indie film, because the MPAA claimed they were unable to provide a list of cuts or changes needed to get an R. When Parker & Stone got a film with Paramount/Warner Bros. suddenly the MPAA were able to give them a list of changes needed...

Even Canada makes some weird decisions and their system is legally enforceable. Hockey comedy Goon, R in the states, 15 in the UK 18 in Canada. The film nearly got an 18 in the UK for frequent strong bloody violence, however that isn't what pushed it up in Canada. The deciding factor (According to the BC government) was:

with the following being listed as secondary concerns...

Worth noting that Canada's home video ratings system is operated by the Motion Picture Association of Canada (but is legally enforced), which has no Canadian member organizations....

I take it you've seen the documentary feature THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, which lifted the lid on MPAA inconsistency? One of the accusations levelled against them is rampant homophobia, a charge that cannot be refuted. An example (not mentioned in the film) is BIG EDEN, passed PG uncut over here, but PG-13 in the US. There is no sex in the film, no violence and no drug-taking, and the 'bad language' amounts to nothing more than a couple of PG-level uses of the word 'shit'. Apparently, the only issue the MPAA could find to award a PG-13 was the sight of two blokes having a snog. And, er... that's it. Granted, the distribs might have asked for a PG-13 for commercial reasons, but in the absence of confirmation for that, we have to assume the MPAA thought the sight of two fellers enjoying a sloppy lip-lock was enough to warn (bigoted) parents of potentially 'unpleasant' material...

I haven't seen the film, I've intended to see it for a while, but never got round to it.

I'm surprised the US hasn't moved to legally enforce the system, or are the studios concerned that if that were to happen they'd have to sort it out so the board weren't having their balls squeezed by the major studios...

Sorry to keep banging on about South Park, but Parker and Stone are the only major filmmakers to go in depth about the ratings procedure and how it caused issues for them during their time at both an indie and a major studio.But, I think this anecdote is all you really need to prove something dodgy is going on...

The UK doesn't have a "censorship" system, it has a "classification" system.

Currently in OAR on BBC2

Try telling that to Tom Six....

ah, do you mean the Tom Six who stated that Human Centipede 2 was a work of art ...then agreed to the cuts the bbfc imposed so he could get another few million, art..ok!

Strictly speaking, "censorship" is the act of examination, not the act of cutting and banning, but the word is often used to mean the latter.

A good example of MPAA homophobia is the film Priest. The sex scene between Linus Roache and Robert Carlyle had to be cut to avoid a NC-17 rating. The BBFC passed the film uncut at 15.

Basic Instinct lost 47 seconds to get a R rating. (We had the full version in the UK.) I'd argue that Basic Instinct, with or without those 47 seconds, is unsuitable for children in any shape or form, particularly in the way it mixes sex and violence.

The USA is one of the few countries in the first world that has a problem with a category restricting films to adults only. (Australia does have some problems - films carrying a R rating cannot be shown unedited on television, though much of what gets an 18 in the UK is a MA15+ in Oz, which bans the film to under 15s unless accompanied by an adult.) France may be notoriously lenient with their categories, but even they have films restricted to the over 16s or (rarely, outside hardcore porn) over 18s.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think the First Amendment means that enforcement could be described as 'censorship' in law, thereby violating that particular Amendment. Working your way around that one, without being seen to suppress or censor a film, could be very tricky.


Nice catch...


I don't think that's entirely fair. This was a small film, picked up by an independent distributor who knew that it was only going to be seen by a small audience ("Hey, Martha! Waddya wanna see tonight? The latest Avengers movie, or the one where some guy uses sandpaper on his particulars?! I know where I'm inclined, and I'm not ashamed to admit it!!..."). I'm assuming they'd already paid a pretty penny for the UK rights and needed to recoup their investment. A major distrib could have written off the loss incurred by upholding the director's principles, but not an indie. In other words, economic censorship.


Same with Almodovar's BAD EDUCATION - threatened with NC-17 in the US because of the scene in which Gael Garcia Bernal takes advantage of a sleeping stud (absolutely disgraceful - I've watched it over a hundred times), passed uncut at 15 over here. There again, the BBFC has traditionally 'defended' us from violence (not so much in recent years) while the US has always had a problem with expressions of sex and sexuality.


Couldn't agree more. THAT opening scene was SO mean-spirited and vicious, it put me off the rest of the film.


Again, I think it has a lot to do with the First Amendment, and also because the MPAA probably takes account of the religious nutcases so prevalent in 'Middle America' (not all of them are nutcases, you understand, but the influence of those who ARE nutcases is worryingly evident).

By the way, guys - at the risk of killing the discussion, do you think we should take this topic to another thread? I have a feeling we might get told off for drifting away from the core subject (not that I mind personally, you understand!!).

The sandpaper shots had to be cut in the UK, the BBFC don't like mixing violence/gore with sexual pleasure...


You're right, this is probably one for the movie forum...

Thanks very much for the input. Has anyone on here seen Total Recall and know whether or not it opens up? I might be going to see it, but the 2.35:1 scenes of Dark Knight Rises didn't look brilliant stretched across the screen. I was sat right of centre and the images on the right look stretched as a result. The 1.44:1 stuff was great, though.

Might be going to see this tomorrow, so might not have time to check back here, so if anyone has seen it, can they send me a quick PM about it as I'll get that via email. Thanks.


Didn't realise they'd made up a certificate in my neck of the woods.

Covering some of the posts in this thread, I thought Spider Man was too violent even for a 12A (I'm getting old!) but I guess as it's comic book nonsense, they got away with it.

Batman felt more like a 15. Can't believe the BBC premiered it on Xmas Day around 6.20pm or so, and then had to censor it of course. Bloody awful self-indulgent crap, anyway.


Didn't know about that. I tried to get that for review but it would only have been if they could (a) have the disc back and (b) have it back by Tues/Weds this week (and the email came on Fri afternoon!). Since it's cut, I'm glad I haven't bothered. Will seek the American version.

That said, the BBFC site doesn't list any cuts:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BVF285236/

Here's a cut site for listing cuts to films: (The page is specifically a comparison between the cut BBFC 18 and the uncut VOD avaliable, though comparisons between other versions are avaliable): http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=244308

Don't bother importing the US version, it was pre-cut by IFC Films, then released unrated....

Note: LINK INCLUDES SPOILERS AND IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR THOSE WITH A NERVOUS DISPOSITION...

HEARTBREAKER (BBC 4) and THE VICTORS (BBC 2) both screened OAR yesterday.

By the way, I recently bought an HD TV (so I'm bragging - so sue me! ), and it has an option whereby you can eliminate overscan altogether, thereby giving you an opportunity to see the entire image that's being fed to the screen, whether broadcast or video. And one thing I've noticed is that the majority of broadcasts do not extend to the very sides of the screen - there are usually (though not always) matte bars down either side of the image. They're very small, but still noticeable, moreso during the broadcast of scope movies, because it has the effect of 'windowboxing' the image - and it's getting on my bloody nerves! For some reason, I can't abide this kind of presentation, not least because extending the image just that little bit to the very edges of the screen adds a surprising amount of size to the overall image. That's a BIG plus, even on a 42-inch screen.

The only other alternative is to switch to '16:9' mode, which reintroduces all the overscan prevalent in standard-def TV's, thereby cutting off the edges of the image on all four sides. Adding that extra inch (or so) to the wide image really does make a visual difference, but the windowboxing effect takes all the magic out of it. Anyone else notice this?

(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)


Scope and 3-D films released on UK Blu-ray (10 - 16 September):

• AMERICAN PIE: THE WEDDING [American Wedding] (2003)
• BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW (2010) [Techniscope]
• BREATHING [Atmen] (2011)
• HARRY POTTER AND THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS (2002)
• HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART I (2010)
• HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART II (2011) [3-D]
• HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE (2005)
• HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE (2009) [IMAX DMR 3-D (partly)]
• HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX (2007) [IMAX DMR 3-D (partly)]
• HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE [Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone] (2001)
• HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004)
• THE HOT POTATO (2011)
• LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) [Super Panavision 70] [2.21:1]
• THE PIRATES! IN AN ADVENTURE WITH SCIENTISTS (2011) [3-D]
• SAFE (2012)
• TITANIC (1997) [2-D to 3-D]


Scope and 3-D films released on US Blu-ray (11 - 17 September):

• BECOMING JANE (2007)
• BRAVEHEART (1995) [Panavision]
• CASE 39 (2009) [Hawk Scope]
• CLEANSKIN (2010) [Techniscope]
• CURSED (2004) [Hawk Scope]
• DARKNESS (2002)
• DECEPTION (2008)
• DRACULA II: ASCENSION (2002)
• DRACULA 2000 (2000)
• ELLES (2011)
• FOR GREATER GLORY: THE TRUE STORY OF CRISTIADA (2012)
• GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (2003) [Reality Camera System 3-D] [1.78:1]
• GLADIATOR (2000)
• GOATS (2012)
• THE HOLE (2001)
• HONDO (1953) [WarnerVision 3-D] [1.85:1]
• THE HUMAN STAIN (2003)
• KARATE-ROBO ZABORGAR [Denjin Zaborger: The Movie] [電人ザボーガー] (2011)
• MARS ATTACKS! (1996) [Panavision]
• MEN OF WAR (1994)
• ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST [C'era una Volta il West] (1968) [Techniscope]
• THE PROPHECY (1995)
• THE SCORE (2001) [Panavision]
• SNOW WHITE & THE HUNTSMAN (2012) [Panavision]
• TALE OF THE MUMMY (1998) [Technovision]
• THEY (2002)
• VENOM (2005)
• WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING (2012)
• WHERE DO WE GO NOW? [Et Maintenant, On Va Où?] (2011)

Looked on Melonfarmers but can't see the film listed on there at all so that doesn't tell us anymore I'm afraid.

I meant the sandpaper shots in The Human Centipede II, so all my previous comments refer to Human Centipede II. Avengers Assemble has not been cut in the UK (though the DVD isn't out till Wednesday, so it may have been...)

What little I saw of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on Saturday was cropped to 16:9.

It shouldn't be a problem with HD broadcasts or blu ray/HD video, but the BBC are actually one of the worst offenders for pointlessly large black bars on the edge of their SD broadcasts.

I thought you might be talking about HC2 but DVDFever's link led to the page for Avengers which was what threw me. Melonfarmers says 2 mins and 37 secs was cut from the UK release of HC2.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/hitsh_hn.htm

I understand the BBFC is currently investigating attitudes to sexual violence in the light of recent films which have 'had' to be heavily cut over here. We can thank the introduction of the Human Rights Act into UK law along with the BBFC's public consultations which have led to an increasing liberalisation of attitudes at the Board (the passing of CALIGULA at 18 sent genuine shock-waves through the industry). So it will be interesting to see what this particular consultation reveals about people's attitudes to the kind of material which the BBFC has always found 'necessary' to cut.

And there's hope on that score. Recent court cases have seen juries find people Not Guilty of possessing 'obscene' images, even when those images involve activities at the extreme end of S&M behaviour - and gay behaviour at that (once upon a time, even the mildest sexual images involving gay men would have been found obscene by default, thanks to widespread bigotry). Even so, none of this would help the likes of A SERBIAN FILM, which would still have to be cut due to laws designed to protect children - the BBFC's hands are tied on that one. The film's director may have been trying to make a particular point, but I wish he could have made it some other way.

I have a Technika TV which does the same with the overscan options (on Freeview, but not via aerial, which is annoying as I use the set as a second TV in my main room and occasionally watch stuff from my TiVo on there if I'm using the main (Panasonic) set for gaming, and it means I can't avoid losing screen image while watching that way)...

Anyway, the problem is with the BBC. They don't put enough resolution into their images, as I understand it, and what you see is the end result. You don't get this on the HD channels.


Yep. Presuming you have HD, switch to that.