my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » UK cinemas to show two different cuts of Bruno (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: UK cinemas to show two different cuts of Bruno Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 07-13-2009 05:03 PM                     From BBC NEWS: link ---------------------------------------------------- Bruno cut for under-18 audiences UK cinema-goers are to be presented with two alternative versions of hit comedy film Bruno from Friday, 24 July. A 15-rated edit of the movie will be distributed alongside the original cut, which has an 18 certificate. It is the first time alternate versions of a film have been released in the UK at the same time. Universal Pictures said it had re-cut the film after cinemas reported turning away large numbers of teenagers during the opening weekend. Only 1 minute 50 seconds had been lost from the original, it said. Sacha Baron Cohen's mock documentary went straight to number one in the US this weekend. It is expected to achieve a similar feat in the UK, despite its restrictive certificate. Universal said the movie had taken an estimated £5m at the UK and Ireland box office since it opened on 12 July. If that figure is verified, Bruno will have achieved the biggest opening weekend of all time for an 18-rated film. Centred around an Austrian fashion TV reporter, the film sees Baron Cohen stage a variety of audacious, and often explicit, encounters with the public. It has already survived several encounters with the editor's scalpel. Some scenes were shaved in the US to stop the film being given a restrictive NC-17 rating, which would have banned anyone under the age of 17 from seeing it. And, shortly before release, a scene involving Michael Jackson's sister La Toya was removed "out of respect" for the Jackson family. ------------------------------------------------- This seems to been an awfully complicated way of doing things, it would have been much more easier to just have released the 'cut' version this weekend, and release the uncut on DVD. I'll be interest to see how many sites actually pick up the cut version (especially since it will have been the 3rd week of release.)  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-13-2009 07:45 PM                     No prizes for guessing where the 1'50 was taken from.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-13-2009 09:30 PM                        I wish they would do that here, then we'd have the pleasure of not playing both versions.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-13-2009 10:14 PM                      |  IP: Logged Jeremy Weigel Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1062 From: Edmond, OK, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-13-2009 10:55 PM                     quote: Michael Brown Some scenes were shaved in the US to stop the film being given a restrictive NC-17 rating, which would have banned anyone under the age of 17 from seeing it. From what I've heard, it should have still been given this rating. I've had many people walk out and leave within the first 10-15 minutes of the film with most commenting that its pretty much soft porn. And its not just older folks leaving. Most have been males between 25-40.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 07-14-2009 06:46 AM                    Hopefully they all got refunds.  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-14-2009 10:21 AM                        I am amazed that the film wasn't NC17 because I didn't think male parts could be shown. Is there a list of things that can't be shown in an R rated movie?  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-14-2009 10:43 AM                     There are plenty of movies that show male parts without being NC-17. And there is no set in stone rule, AFAIK, for what is R and what is NC-17. What used to be NC-17 would be an R now. Things change.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-14-2009 12:12 PM                     Nudity alone isn't enough to warrant a NC-17, not even full frontal male nudity. Recent example: Watchmen. The blue CGI character "Dr. Manhattan" walked around naked with his dork hanging out in numerous scenes. Still, the MPAA is inclined to slap a movie with a NC-17 rating if the judges get too uncomfortable with how sexual activity is depicted. That especially holds true if the movie is from an independent studio. They don't have any set rules. They just use the criteria of how they feel at the time. What's really funny is cable networks like HBO, Showtime & Cinemax often televise adult oriented programs that show full frontal male and female nudity and strong sexual content, some of which is not simulated. They may not be showing the actual in-out details like a hardcore porn video would show, but you still know the two people are really doing it anyway. In that regard, the NC-17 rating is pretty much obsolete when it comes to rating simulated sexual activity on screen. Of course, we all know the MPAA is much more tolerant of graphic violence. But that's true of American society in general. I see bloody, graphic violence on broadcast network TV shows that would have been edited out 20 years ago. Some of it really is R-rated caliber stuff -all free to view in prime time.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-14-2009 12:55 PM                        I also think that comedic context is allot easier to get by the board than when the exact same "parts" are shown in a drama. Humor tends to dissipate the discomfort level of those six sitting on the MPAA rating board whence comes a glimpse of genitalia their way. I would think it's a bit difficult to get all uppity over at the sight of a penis when you're in the throws of laughing your ass off.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-14-2009 01:01 PM                        I haven't seen the Bruno or Watchmen, but if you have both nudity AND sexuality, you're just about guaranteed an R. If you take either of those out, it's PG-13. If you show "penetration" or other overt sexuality in a "real life" context, that's an NC-17. If the movie is animated or otherwise "cartoonish," you can have more nudity than you might otherwise but you would probably still get an R unless you show actual penetration.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-14-2009 01:30 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley If you show "penetration" or other overt sexuality in a "real life" context, that's an NC-17. quote: Mike Blakesley I haven't seen the Bruno The most obvious sign that you haven't seen Bruno is that you think penetration automatically gives you NC-17. I only saw bits and pieces of the movie, and there's a fair bit of penetrating.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 07-14-2009 07:20 PM                     Bruno still did massively well here, believe it is the biggest ever opening for an '18'. Can't say I have seen any walk-outs yet, imagine most people knew what to expect.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 07-14-2009 10:39 PM                     quote: Chris Slycord The most obvious sign that you haven't seen Bruno is that you think penetration automatically gives you NC-17. I only saw bits and pieces of the movie, and there's a fair bit of penetrating. Does the movie contain any camera shots of a penis going into an orifice? I haven't seen Bruno yet, but I would be very surprised if the movie actually showed fully explicit penetration. That's been one of the very clear dividing lines between "hardcore" material and everything else. If the camera actually shows a man's penis going into a woman's vagina (or any other orifice) it removes all doubt the activity is simulated. A number of other things can be listed that clearly go into the not simulated/hardcore category. I believe there is a very clear dividing line between porn and strong yet still simulated sexual content. It is a physical, not artistic line. That's why I think the MPAA should have kept both the "X" and "NC-17" ratings and used either in the appropriate context. Instead they simply wussed out. And that ended up placing serious limits on depicting sexual content in movies even if it is all simulated.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-14-2009 11:29 PM                     Touché. The actual penetration is covered up but when I happened to walk by they had repeated shots doing the same kinds of stuff, all obvious penetration. Those parts felt like I was watching porn.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.