Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Jack Reacher Trimmed For UK 12A Certificate


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-11-2012, 09:12
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651

Another movie trimmed to accommodate the tweens:

The BBFC have classified Christopher McQuarrie‘s Jack Reacher and the final result is a 12a rating for a film cut by 2 seconds.

Or rather, the BBFC have reclassified the film. They originally handed Paramount Pictures a 15 certificate for the full, intact movie. The cuts came when the studio decided that the ‘offending material’ was less important than the patronage of those aged 14 years old and under.

Or rather, the money spent on tickets for those aged 14 years old and under.

According to the extended classification information, the material removed was:

a woman being suffocated by a man and a man being hit over the head with a rock.

It’s not clear how those two seconds of footage were unsuitable for under 15s but I guess I’ll have to wait for the DVD or Blu-ray release to find out.

Incidentally, the film now comes in at 130 minutes and 14 seconds. Despite the cuts I still look forward to every frame of what remains, and then onwards to seeing the film that the director actually delivered once commerce allows.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/11/...a-certificate/

I know it’s only two seconds but it still annoys me a little bit tbh
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-11-2012, 09:30
Starry Eyed
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,508
It annoys me too. I am very anti-censorship and the BBFC are a joke, frankly, when it comes to some of their antics like their recent treatment of the Avengers DVD release. I find the vast majority of their decisions bonkers and completely insulting...why not try treating adults like adults and with a bit of respect, FFS?
Starry Eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 09:37
EVILSPEAK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 731
Congratulations to the BBFC on their fine work, cutting those 2 seconds of horrific violence has definitely prevented young minds being corrupted and creating another Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. We can all sleep safely in our beds tonight thanks to their vigilance.
EVILSPEAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 09:45
Mark A
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,129
But they didn't ask for the cuts, the distributors did. They were willing to pass the film uncut, so don't blame the BBFC.

Regards

Mark
Mark A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:08
Starry Eyed
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Kent
Posts: 1,508
The BBFC treat the audience like babies and have been doing so since the video nasties scandal in the 1980s.
Starry Eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:18
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
What annoys me is when they cut them and the original cut never sees the light of day in the UK.

Examples of which are Lady in Black and Immortals both of which we’ve never seen without the pre-distribution studio requested cuts.

Fair enough the studio accountants want to see them cut in order to maximize bums on seats but at least allow the dvds/blurays to be released in their original cut

Sadly though the studios are run by accountants and they simply don’t care
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:33
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
With a suicidal release date of 21st Dec in the US and Boxing Day in the UK, the film will tank anyway. Definitely one to wait for the US Blu-ray if you want to see it.

Film is a PG13 in the US. It must be reasonably hardcore for the uncut version to have been given a 15 here. Most PG13s have been uncut 12 certs here in recent years.
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:43
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,760
People do realise the BBFC were perfectly happy to release the film uncut? Right?

"Oh noes! Teh evil BBFC!! Censorship!!"


Blame the film distributors, not the BBFC. It seems we get one of these threads every few weeks or so - it's the same answer every time. The greedy money men want as much dollar for their product as possible, leading to slicing their film up for a lower rating. It's the way the industry works these days unfortunately.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:48
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
People do realise the BBFC were perfectly happy to release the film uncut? Right?

"Oh noes! Teh evil BBFC!! Censorship!!"


Blame the film distributors, not the BBFC.
Mark A and I didn't blame the BBFC tbf

"Oh noes! I didn't read teh thread!!"
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:50
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,760
Mark A and I didn't blame the BBFC tbf

"Oh noes! I didn't read teh thread!!"
Are you feeling okay? Isn't it obvious I'm referring to those who are blaming the BBFC?

I agree with the two of you.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 10:59
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,001
This is hopefully another franchise starter for Cruise so it was always going to be this way.

And I doubt two seconds cut from what looks like an average at best film will make any difference, unless your measurement for quality centres around bullet wounds and the like.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 11:21
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
Are you feeling okay? Isn't it obvious I'm referring to those who are blaming the BBFC?

I agree with the two of you.
sorry x
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 11:31
The Terminator
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,877
But they didn't ask for the cuts, the distributors did. They were willing to pass the film uncut, so don't blame the BBFC.

Regards

Mark
But they did specify which two seconds of footage made the difference between kids being mentally scarred or not. The criticism is justified.
The Terminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 11:34
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,760
But they did specify which two seconds of footage made the difference between kids being mentally scarred or not. The criticism is justified.
Well no, any system has to have criteria. Lines have to be drawn somewhere otherwise there's no point even having a rating system.

It stands to reason there will be depictions of violence that will fall down very closely on one side or the other - and a call has to be made. And it's natural that a few will disagree.

But the system itself is sound I think. If the film distributors want to censor their own films, it's up to them.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 11:36
wrongsaidfred
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 114
This is hopefully another franchise starter for Cruise so it was always going to be this way.

And I doubt two seconds cut from what looks like an average at best film will make any difference, unless your measurement for quality centres around bullet wounds and the like.
I doubt there'll be a franchise from this. The worst mis-casting of a role ever, Lee Child should have demanded an actor who actually looked the part. He's as much to blame as Cruise for taking the role.

The director said that no actor fitted the bill physically, oh really? Instead of a rehash of the character using a dwarf in a big blockbuster, I'd have preferred a lower budget, true-to-the-book adaptation with Ray Stevenson.
wrongsaidfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 13:36
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,491
It annoys me too. I am very anti-censorship and the BBFC are a joke, frankly, when it comes to some of their antics like their recent treatment of the Avengers DVD release. I find the vast majority of their decisions bonkers and completely insulting...why not try treating adults like adults and with a bit of respect, FFS?
Other have already pointed out that this is the fault of the distributor, not the BBFC.

The same is also true for The Avengers. The BBFC did not cut the home release - Disney did (& then initially lied about it, saying it was exactly the same as the theatrical release and that the UK had never had the "spear tip" in the first place... which was of course utter BS).
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 13:48
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
Other have already pointed out that this is the fault of the distributor, not the BBFC.

The same is also true for The Avengers. The BBFC did not cut the home release - Disney did (& then initially lied about it, saying it was exactly the same as the theatrical release and that the UK had never had the "spear tip" in the first place... which was of course utter BS).
That was a european cut that was censored elsewhere, Disney just used the same version over here to save money.

I don't think anyone was blaming the bbfc for that one.
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 13:49
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,491
That was a european cut that was censored elsewhere, Disney just used the same version over here to save money.

I don't think anyone was blaming the bbfc for that one.
The person I was quoting blamed the BBFC...

It annoys me too. I am very anti-censorship and the BBFC are a joke, frankly, when it comes to some of their antics like their recent treatment of the Avengers DVD release.
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 13:49
Dave1979
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,431
I doubt there'll be a franchise from this. The worst mis-casting of a role ever, Lee Child should have demanded an actor who actually looked the part. He's as much to blame as Cruise for taking the role.

The director said that no actor fitted the bill physically, oh really? Instead of a rehash of the character using a dwarf in a big blockbuster, I'd have preferred a lower budget, true-to-the-book adaptation with Ray Stevenson.
The Rock would have been perfect
Dave1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 14:07
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
With a suicidal release date of 21st Dec in the US and Boxing Day in the UK, the film will tank anyway. Definitely one to wait for the US Blu-ray if you want to see it.
Seemed to work out pretty well for Tom Cruise last year when Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol came out around the same date and went onto become the highest grossing entry in the MI franchise. Granted, that was a sequel to an established brand and there was a distinct lack of competition (this year he'll be facing The Hobbit which opens the week before), but after MI3 was a relative flop, it just shows that the date isn't suicidal at all, infact it's a fairly good release date as it can capitalize on the Christmas holiday business.

As for the cuts, it's annoying, but it is only 2 seconds and it wont make any difference to the overall story. Considering that it's a PG-13 in the US i can't imagine that it'll be that violent anyway.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 14:12
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
The person I was quoting blamed the BBFC...
ahh ok, you were right

The Rock would have been perfect
I agree, having Cruise play a 6' 5" hard man is an awful piece of casting.

The bit in the trailer where he's taking on all those guys at once is just laughable tbh

It's a shame because I really enjoy most of the books
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 14:29
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 27,419
The Rock would have been perfect

Alexander Skarsgård could have beefed up for the role
welwynrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 14:38
SHANK0055
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 651
Alexander Skarsgård could have beefed up for the role
yeah could be a good young reacher but Tom Hardy would be better......

If they do ever make one of the prequel Reacher books they'll probably cast Warwick Davis.
SHANK0055 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 15:32
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 27,419
yeah could be a good young reacher but Tom Hardy would be better......

If they do ever make one of the prequel Reacher books they'll probably cast Warwick Davis.

Not tall enough
welwynrose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2012, 15:37
Eddie Badger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,652
I keep picturing Adam Baldwin as Reacher when I read the books.
Eddie Badger is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:52.