The Lord loves a hangin'... not in Blighty he doesn't! BBFC cuts Ren & Stimpy by 3 minutes **UPDATED 16/3/06**

07-03-2006 10:10 | 22397 views  |  Michael Mackenzie  |  Show Backlinks

Update, 16th March 2006

http://www.lyris-lite.net/fu_archives/000323.html

It has now been confirmed by the BBFC themselves that the cuts were mandatory and that the scene would not have been permitted at any catergory, even '18'. Their rationale is that Ren & Stimpy are popular characters with children and that children "might" see the material in question regardless of classification. Frankly, I think that's completely ridiculous, and I shudder to think what sort of ethical dilemmas they'll get tied up in if/when Adult Party Cartoon is ever submitted for classification.

On a more positive note, you can see the completed cover art for Adult Party Cartoon (and all sorts of other Spumco goodies) at John K's blog.

You can contact the BBFC to discuss this matter with them here.



It's a milestone in the world of animated cartoons. Even 15 years after it debuted, The Ren & Stimpy Show still looks as inventive, funny and downright crazy as ever. With its History Eraser Button, Vitamin F, Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen and Happy Happy Joy Joy song, it remains a treat for audiences of all ages.

Last year the show was finally released on DVD in North America, suffering from a handful of syndication cuts but, beyond that, in great shape. It should therefore have been a cause for great celebration for the minority of fans still stuck with Region 2 only players that Paramount Home Video is now preparing to give it a UK release. Only it's not.

Why? Because, as classified on March 6th by the British Board of Film Censors, the episode Out West has been bowdlerised by 3 minutes and 2 seconds. According to the censors' web site:

"When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of 23m 31s.
To obtain this category cuts of 3m 2s were required. The cuts were Compulsory.
Cut required to remove a sequence in which the subject of hanging is presented as comedic, fun and risk free, on the grounds of potential harm to the likely audience and in accordance with the Video Recordings Act 1984."

Allow that to sink in for a minute. Paramount was ordered to remove over three minutes of footage and were, it seems, not offered the possibility of releasing it uncut at a higher classification. The implication seems to be that someone - the BBFC, the British Government, or both - thinks that this country's population is incredibly stupid. The underlying implication seems to be that, no matter how old we are, we will somehow come to the conclusion that hanging is "comedic, fun and risk free" after seeing it portrayed in such a manner in a cartoon. This, of course, is completely ludicrous. Funny that no-one ever noticed an increase in kids hanging each other while singing the Hanging Song in the 14 years that the episode has been airing on TV, isn't it?

Of course, it doesn't improve matters any that the scene in question is not only the best part of the episode but also one of the finest moments in animation history. Come on now, y'all, sing with me:

Oh, Lord loves a hangin'
That's why he gave us necks
It tightens up our vocal chords
And loosens up our pecs.

So if you are a horse-thief
And guilty to the bone
Go ahead and blame a friend
And you won't hang alone.

It may be hard to swaller
But you'll be three feet taller
It's a dandy way to entertain your friends.

And say you are a villain
But can't abide by killin'
Go ahead a steal yourself a horse.

Oh, Lord loves a hangin'
And so do we, by heck
So get yerself a lasso
And decorate your neck.

Oh, we is awful ignorant
And uglier'n sin
So go ahead and cut us down
And hang us all again.

Hangin' that is
Swing a spell
Y'all bring the kids now, y'hear?

Rather than waiting for a compromised version to be released in the UK, why don't all prospective Ren & Stimpy fans do themselves a favour and order a copy of the comparatively unmolested US release from one of our affiliates:

Amazon.co.uk
Amazon.com
DVD Pacific
Loaded247

Comments

#1 Posted: 07-03-2006 12:25
andcam
Member
Posts: 16

Report this post
Quote:
To obtain this category cuts of 3m 2s were required.


To me the implication in this statement is more that Paramount have requested a PG certificate, or guidance on what is required to achieve it. In that context I don't think this is such an issue. Am sure Paramount could have resubmitted it for a 12 (or 15) certificate if they chose to do so?
------
I think we've all arrived at a very special place... spiritually... ecumenically... grammatically.
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 07-03-2006 13:24
Mike Sutton
Contributor
Posts: 610

Report this post
Sounds to me like Paramount didn't want it released at a higher classification since there are joke-hanging scenes in several other films that spring to mind.
Quote this post
#3 Posted: 07-03-2006 14:02
Kirei
Member
Posts: 136

Report this post
Indeed, I think if you email the BBFC they'll probably say that they would have happily classified it at a higher rating. Who knows though, they often come up with some strange and inconsistent decisions.
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 07-03-2006 15:18
minister_x
DVDCompare.net Admin
Posts: 150

Report this post
No I'm afraid Michael is right guys - note carefully the use of "cuts were COMPULSORY" - the BBFC make distinctions between "cuts for CATEGORY" and "...COMPULSORY" - compulsory meaning they are unacceptable at all levels, category unacceptable at a specific level...
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 07-03-2006 16:13
David Mackenzie
ISF Certified
Posts: 356

Report this post
I've emailed BBFC with a lot of questions about this and they said they'll get back to me soon. I'll post the response here.
------
www.lyris-lite.net
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 07-03-2006 16:13
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Yes, generally if a higher certificate was available, then it will say so. For example, Lilo & Stitch and Mulan, where uncut '12' certificates were offered.

It also occurs to me that, given the risqué nature of some of the audio commentaries that accompany these cartoons, the set would have a higher rating than a 'PG' anyway, assuming the intention is to port them over for the UK release. The commentaries on the later seasons include several "fucks" and a "cunt", if I remember correctly.

If the BBFC's reason for deleting the Hanging Song is because they consider children the show's primary audience, I hate to think how they'll react if they ever get their hands on Adult Party Cartoon.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#7 Posted: 07-03-2006 20:56
bradavon
Banned
Posts: 2907

Report this post
Quote:
Last year the show was finally released on DVD in North America, suffering from a handful of syndication cuts but, beyond that, in great shape.

How severe are the cuts? I ask as how are the BBFC UK cuts bad but the MPAA cuts good?

It does annoy me how bad a wrap the BBFC gets when everyone forgets the MPAA routinely cut films too.

Young Adam uncut in the UK, cut in the USA. Rules of Attraction cut in the UK BUT crucially cut in the USA too. The R1 is as much a cut DVD as the UK R2 is.

HOFD cut in the UK yes but cut way worse in the USA. I've read a lot of times people moaning about this one but not even mentioning the R1 is cut even more.
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 07-03-2006 21:02
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
The cuts on the US DVDs are not by the MPAA (who typically don't rate television material) but because those preparing the DVDs were handed syndication masters. The fault, there, lies with the studio, not any censor. You do make a good point but in the case of Ren & Stimpy it isn't applicable.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#9 Posted: 07-03-2006 21:37
echidnaboy
Spiny Anteater
Posts: 181

Report this post
Perhaps they're afraid of offending victims of hanging. It's political correctness gone mad :eek:

Quote:
Rather than waiting for a compromised version to be released in the UK, why don't all prospective Ren & Stimpy fans do themselves a favour and order a copy of the comparatively unmolested US release from one of our affiliates

You know, I might just do that. I'm not sure I can keep waiting indefinitely for the Ultimate Collection. Any word on a release date for that?
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 07-03-2006 21:39
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Quote:
I'm not sure I can keep waiting indefinitely for the Ultimate Collection. Any word on a release date for that?

It keeps on being delayed. The last I heard was that the Lost Episodes are tentatively scheduled to be released this summer, so I would imagine that the Ultimate Collection is still some way off.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#11 Posted: 07-03-2006 23:18
echidnaboy
Spiny Anteater
Posts: 181

Report this post
Thanks Michael.

To return to the topic: this BBFC cut is patently ridiculous as the "likely audience" is, I would imagine, primarily made up of animation enthusiasts old enough to have seen the episode on BBC2 in the 90s (without hanging themselves, I might add). However, as much as I dislike the BBFC, at least they have a reason (no matter how stupid) for the cut. The syndication cuts, in contrast, are motivated purely by money (let's cram some more ads in!) and indicate a complete lack of respect for the material.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 07-03-2006 23:28
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
Good points, Echidna.

What makes the situation so annoying, I think, is the nature of what is cut. The Hanging Song is the punchline for the whole episode, the entire premise of which is Abner and Ewalt trying to find someone to hang. The fact that they end up hanging themselves (and having a right old hoedown while they're at it) is absolutely perfect, and without it the episode has no point to it at all.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#13 Posted: 07-03-2006 23:29
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
By the way, all Ren & Stimpy fans should check out John K's blog:

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#14 Posted: 08-03-2006 10:21
Maffew
Member
Posts: 430

Report this post
It's more of this inane PC crap that's going around at the minute. First we're not allowed to sing 'Bah Bah Black Sheep', then this. Utter stupidity, R & S's reputation preceds them anyway, no mother's going to be stupid enough to buy this for their kids. Oh wait, this is England, I think I see the BBFC's viewpoint now.
------
I am currently watching:
What do you care? Get a life!
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 08-03-2006 14:31
David Mackenzie
ISF Certified
Posts: 356

Report this post
The American box art portrays Ren & Stimpy in one of their more... close moments. I'm sure the UK one will have the same artwork. Surely the sort of people dumb enough to use Ren & Stimpy as a video babysitter for the kiddies would be turned off by what they'd see as "gay" anyway.
------
www.lyris-lite.net
Quote this post
#16 Posted: 09-03-2006 18:20
Wonderlicious
The person that you love to hate...
Posts: 24

Report this post
That dog Mary Whitehouse and her type...if it weren't for people like them, such things wouldn't happen. I bet they're advocates for decency as they're trying to conceal their devil worshiping... :p

As you can see, I really disagree with what's going on with this DVD release. You know, if they really had qualms, couldn't they put a warning somewhere saying "please don't hang yourselves" or something to that degree? If Disney (the kings of wanting a perfect image) can discourage racism and guns with Leonard Maltin introductions, surely can't the BBFC/government order a little disclaimer on the set? And in all honesty, the qualms are fairly ludicrous considering that Ren and Stimpy is so wacky causing one to not take it seriously at all, as others have mentioned. I've been thinking about getting Ren and Stimpy on DVD, but haven't seen it in years. I have a video of some episodes from around 1996, and I'll see how the show holds up for me from that. If it does so, I will not be buying the Region 2 version.

And I'm shocked at the banning of "Baa-Baa Black Sheep". Are you actually joking, there. First blackboard to chalk board, whiteboard to wipe board, then this? Y'know, I'm 100% against racism and xenaphobia, but it's not as if kids are going to join the Klu-Klux-Klan due to a Nursery Rhyme or something the teacher writes on. It's upbringing mainly, not things in a classroom...

Oh, and whilst I have your attention, Michael; can you explain the avatar?
------
-Joe
Quote this post
#17 Posted: 09-03-2006 18:38
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
I agree with everything you've said, Wonderlicious. By the way, my avatar is a shot from Suspiria.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#18 Posted: 10-03-2006 15:01
gasteropod
Member
Posts: 264

Report this post
I think it's racist changing Baa Baa Black Sheep to Ba Ba Green Sheep or whatever they changed it to, and blackboard to chalk board.
Quote this post
#19 Posted: 10-03-2006 15:12
Wonderlicious
The person that you love to hate...
Posts: 24

Report this post
Wow, wow, wow...green sheep? :eek:
------
-Joe
Quote this post
#20 Posted: 11-03-2006 13:22
Maffew
Member
Posts: 430

Report this post
Anyone else noticed the little text that appears during film adverts on TV now as well? e.g. Hills Have Eyes: "Contains strong bloody horror". No shit! I couldn't tell that from the advert!
------
I am currently watching:
What do you care? Get a life!
Quote this post
#21 Posted: 12-03-2006 15:19
Wonderlicious
The person that you love to hate...
Posts: 24

Report this post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maffew:
Anyone else noticed the little text that appears during film adverts on TV now as well? e.g. Hills Have Eyes: "Contains strong bloody horror". No shit! I couldn't tell that from the advert!


I'm probably in the minority here, but overall I actually like the warnings that are included on the ratings (I understand that showing bloody horror in a TV spot and then putting a disclaimer is a bit silly). I'm not a parent (please, I'm doing A-levels), but if I were, I'd rather see generally what the risky material in the film/DVD was as opposed to strictly obeying the guidance rating. I don't always agree with the ratings on films; I personally would never have given Toy Story a damned PG and I think that there are some things rated 12 that I wouldn't mind my (if I had any) kids seeing (so long as they were over the age of seven or eight). I think that the disclaimers are better as they are more honest.

And after seeing what a snappy old biddy one of the BBFC censors was when being interviewed once on Newsround a few years ago, I think I'd take a few facts over the opinion of a teabag.
------
-Joe
Quote this post
#22 Posted: 12-03-2006 15:24
Michael Mackenzie
Contributor
Posts: 1647

Report this post
I don't have an objection to content warnings either - in fact, I think anything that makes the viewer more aware of the content of a film is a good thing, since it means people have far less justification for complaining when they find that it contains something not to their liking.
------

Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site

Quote this post
#23 Posted: 14-03-2006 09:23
Maffew
Member
Posts: 430

Report this post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderlicious:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maffew:
Anyone else noticed the little text that appears during film adverts on TV now as well? e.g. Hills Have Eyes: "Contains strong bloody horror". No shit! I couldn't tell that from the advert!


I'm probably in the minority here, but overall I actually like the warnings that are included on the ratings (I understand that showing bloody horror in a TV spot and then putting a disclaimer is a bit silly). I'm not a parent (please, I'm doing A-levels), but if I were, I'd rather see generally what the risky material in the film/DVD was as opposed to strictly obeying the guidance rating. I don't always agree with the ratings on films; I personally would never have given Toy Story a damned PG and I think that there are some things rated 12 that I wouldn't mind my (if I had any) kids seeing (so long as they were over the age of seven or eight). I think that the disclaimers are better as they are more honest.

And after seeing what a snappy old biddy one of the BBFC censors was when being interviewed once on Newsround a few years ago, I think I'd take a few facts over the opinion of a teabag.

Refresh my memory, why wouldn't you have given Toy Story a PG?
------
I am currently watching:
What do you care? Get a life!
Quote this post
#24 Posted: 14-03-2006 10:51
Wonderlicious
The person that you love to hate...
Posts: 24

Report this post
Well, from what I know, Toy Story got a PG due to "mild horror" (the back of the Region 2 DVD said so). However, if older Disney films like Snow White and Pinocchio can get a U (especially the latter, which not only has as scary as Hitchcock scenes, but the foes involved don't get any cumuppance), I really can't understand how Toy Story can't.

By the way, I have another question; on the Animated-News forum, I heard that John K dissed The Simpsons in public; can anybody tell me exactly what he said?
------
-Joe
Quote this post
#25 Posted: 15-03-2006 17:03
gasteropod
Member
Posts: 264

Report this post
Disney films are often horrible, and unsuitable for young children. Scenes from Snow White, Beauty & the Beast, The Lion King, and The Fox & the Hound spring to mind.
Quote this post

Page: 1, 2, 3