poprock wrote:That’s really interesting though - to see that the BBFC still has teeth. And their reasoning - that the film includes a genuine criminal act.
MattyJ wrote:regmcfly wrote:poprock wrote:That’s really interesting though - to see that the BBFC still has teeth. And their reasoning - that the film includes a genuine criminal act.
Yep, I like that they still have a bite to them. Remember that the C does not stand for Censorship, as a lot people think, but for Classification.
So has it never had a release in the UK before?
regmcfly wrote:In other news, following the "Globes" the weight behind Oppenheimer seems to be, dare I say, nuclear *glasses on, yeeeaah* for Oscars. I'm all for that, absolutely loved it and best I've seen Nolan since 2010
hylian_elf wrote:poprock wrote:That’s really interesting though - to see that the BBFC still has teeth. And their reasoning - that the film includes a genuine criminal act.
They actually harmed the animal to make the film?! Fuck me, I did not know that.
EvilRedEye wrote:MattyJ wrote:regmcfly wrote:poprock wrote:That’s really interesting though - to see that the BBFC still has teeth. And their reasoning - that the film includes a genuine criminal act.
Yep, I like that they still have a bite to them. Remember that the C does not stand for Censorship, as a lot people think, but for Classification.
So has it never had a release in the UK before?
The quote from the BBFC in the story implies it had to be cut on previous release as well.
EvilRedEye wrote:Tbh, I think Cameron’s stance seems a bit pointless since it’s not a situation where someone at the BBFC has been put in a situation where they need to make a somewhat subjective judgement on how to apply the guidelines in a borderline case. It’s very black and white that they cannot classify the film without cuts and the government would have to pass primary legislation for the film to be released without cuts.
MattyJ wrote:EvilRedEye wrote:MattyJ wrote:regmcfly wrote:poprock wrote:That’s really interesting though - to see that the BBFC still has teeth. And their reasoning - that the film includes a genuine criminal act.
Yep, I like that they still have a bite to them. Remember that the C does not stand for Censorship, as a lot people think, but for Classification.
So has it never had a release in the UK before?
The quote from the BBFC in the story implies it had to be cut on previous release as well.
Ahh this makes sense.
Diluted Dante wrote:EvilRedEye wrote:Tbh, I think Cameron’s stance seems a bit pointless since it’s not a situation where someone at the BBFC has been put in a situation where they need to make a somewhat subjective judgement on how to apply the guidelines in a borderline case. It’s very black and white that they cannot classify the film without cuts and the government would have to pass primary legislation for the film to be released without cuts.
Drowning a rat is crucial to the plot, and the film falls apart without it, so you cannot cut it under any circumstances.
Except when it is being released in cinemas in 1989 and 1993. And on home video in 1990, 1992 and 1993.
But apart from that, you can't cut it.
Moot_Geeza wrote:regmcfly wrote:In other news, following the "Globes" the weight behind Oppenheimer seems to be, dare I say, nuclear *glasses on, yeeeaah* for Oscars. I'm all for that, absolutely loved it and best I've seen Nolan since 2010
The year he made Contact?
regmcfly wrote:Moot_Geeza wrote:regmcfly wrote:In other news, following the "Globes" the weight behind Oppenheimer seems to be, dare I say, nuclear *glasses on, yeeeaah* for Oscars. I'm all for that, absolutely loved it and best I've seen Nolan since 2010
The year he made Contact?
Have you got your Nolans wrong?
LivDiv wrote:You're thinking of The 6th Day directed by Roger Spottiswoode.
Does that mean the film is a musical? One of those stealth musicals like Wonka where they deliberately don’t show any songs in the trailer?Diluted Dante wrote:Its based on the musical, which is based on the film. All are written by Tina Fey. And both films produced by Lorne Michaels. I'll give it a chance.
regmcfly wrote:I thought it was fantastic. It was Downey Jr who stood out when I watched It. F didn't get to see It in cinema so might be a good in to see it again, but aye, it's great Cinema.Rewatched Oppenheimer last week. It's far better with a rewatch. It's damn good. Murphy is simply superb in it.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!