The UK won't release non-BBFC rated films, unlike the US where you can release 'unrated' versions. As the violence is fairly graphic - even if it's dated - I can see that pick-axe through the eye being denied an 18 cert.
James Ferman is maggot chow, and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the extended cut that would have any problems getting an "18" in this day and age. There is no animal cruelty, no prolonged rape, no sexualized violence... and no nunchakus. (Did they ever get over the nunchukas?)
You also forget the Brits actually saw more on the big screen than we did back in 1981. Cinepix sent a reel of violence trims out to several countries overseas along with an instruction sheet detailing the footage numbers of where to splice the pieces back in should the country's censor board so choose. The U.K. division of Paramount seem to have been one of the few countries who actually took them up on the offer, at least in part. They must have decided the ending looked like a mess the way it was left, so they put the final scene back together, and their theatrical cut was 34 seconds longer than ours and Canada's as a result, as the BBFC required no additional cuts for an "X" certificate. Of course Cinepix could have been done the smart thing and left an intact negative of the director's cut - or at least an intact interpositive, were they contractually obligated by Paramount to have the negative butchered in accordance with the MPAA's wishes. But they did not.
reply
share
mitzibishi (2013)
4 years ago
Even on TV movies were severely cut in the UK, curse words badly dubbed or had edits where the film is chopping all over, maybe we got the US TV edits.
Then sometime in the late 90s the light switch flipped and everything was allowed but aired at later time. So no more "muddy funster" dubbing and graphic horror movies were aired late at night uncut as far as I know. Lethal Weapon and Die Hard werent shown at 8pm and got 10pm slots where nothing was cut.
reply
share