Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - uncut in UK for 1st time

Dust McAlan · May 20, 2008

WeAreGoingToDie said:
Actually, if one actually sits and watches the Saw films they'll find a gory film series with amazingly intelligent nd thought out plotting running through the films. Every action is either influenced or influences another action. It isn't simply violence for the sake of it.

I haven't seen the other films in the series, but the first Saw was an incredibly well done and layered film. The violence was practical and necessary for the story.

rowerguy7 · May 20, 2008

Dust McAlan said:
I haven't seen the other films in the series, but the first Saw was an incredibly well done and layered film. The violence was practical and necessary for the story.

yeah after saw 1 they were just milking it. GREAT first film, after that, not soo good.

Attila the Professor · Aug 3, 2011

Here's a good rundown of the differences between the original version and the British version.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 2, 2012

Temple Uncut in the UK...

...but not till the end of the year. Didn't see a couple of these "cuts" listed here:

British fans of Indiana Jones will be able to see the second film in the franchise just as its director Steven Spielberg wanted, almost three decades after its release.

Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom will be screened unedited at the National Film Theatre in London for the first time at the end of next year as part of a season of films put together to celebrate the centenary of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).

Censors demanded a number of cuts to Temple of Doom when it was submitted in 1984 before it would grant a family-friendly PG rating.

Paramount Pictures "was keen to avoid a 15 certificate as the film was aimed at kids and families, but it was too violent and intense for a PG classification," a spokeswoman for the BBFC said. The Board would not introduce the 12 certificate for another 15 years.

The BBFC director at the time, James Ferman, flew to Los Angeles to edit the film for UK release with Spielberg. The "numerous" cuts reintroduced will please the more bloodthirsty of fans. They include close-ups of a heart being ripped out and a head cracking against a rock. A scene where Indiana Jones is forced to drink blood before being whipped will also be reinstated.

You didn't get the blood drinking scene? Doesn't sound quite right, hmmm.

ResidentAlien said:
I saw it at 6...I turned out alright, eh?

Montana Smith · Jan 2, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
You didn't get the blood drinking scene? Doesn't sound quite right, hmmm.

Doesn't sound right at all.

oki9Sedo · Jan 2, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
...but not till the end of the year. Didn't see a couple of these "cuts" listed here:

You didn't get the blood drinking scene? Doesn't sound quite right, hmmm.

We did. It was cut down though.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 3, 2012

oki9Sedo said:
We did. It was cut down though.

From my reading, seems you guys got those Bourne Identity "quick cuts" before there were Bourne Identity quick cuts...

Montana Smith · Jan 3, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
From my reading, seems you guys got those Bourne Identity "quick cuts" before there were Bourne Identity quick cuts...

We get the rough end of the pineapple with most things in the UK.

emtiem · Jan 4, 2012

I'm also of the opinion that the cut version is better: in one big way it actually helps the film - the SFX shot of the hand going into the chest is rubbish; doesn't fit with what the Mola Ram actor was doing, doesn't fit in with the cinematography of the rest of the scene- just looks terrible.
The original is just too harrowing, too: the victim is screaming quite horribly all the way down and bursts into flames, which the cut versions excises. The screaming and burning just makes it too much; I think the censor and Spielberg were right to get rid of it.

It's not a great edit; I think more of the heart in Mola's hand could be shown and some of it does feel slightly choppy; but although it's interesting to own the uncut one, I do think the cut one is probably the best version.

emtiem · Jan 4, 2012

WeAreGoingToDie said:
If Spielberg himself didn't make the edit, then there is no dispute. The Original version is the only version. The other is a hack job done for the sake of censorship.

This is an old post, I know; but I believe Spielberg was involved in the process. In fact, I'm pretty sure the BBFC always notify the director of what they want and a dialogue is entered into.
It's often mentioned that Spielberg actually prefers the UK edit, but I don't know what the source of that is or how reliable it is.

Henry W Jones · Jan 4, 2012

emtiem said:
I'm also of the opinion that the cut version is better: in one big way it actually helps the film - the SFX shot of the hand going into the chest is rubbish; doesn't fit with what the Mola Ram actor was doing, doesn't fit in with the cinematography of the rest of the scene- just looks terrible.
The original is just too harrowing, too: the victim is screaming quite horribly all the way down and bursts into flames, which the cut versions excises. The screaming and burning just makes it too much; I think the censor and Spielberg were right to get rid of it.

It's not a great edit; I think more of the heart in Mola's hand could be shown and some of it does feel slightly choppy; but although it's interesting to own the uncut one, I do think the cut one is probably the best version.

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6635479789_bb81571ddb.jpg" width="300" height="300" alt="Censorship"></a>

I totally disagree!!! You didn't originally see the full film. You saw a hacked version. Someone decided for you what you should see and that in itself makes the cut version crap!!! Also what threat is Mola Ram with the scene cut? That's the part where I said "Wow!!! That's one bad dude right there!!!!" Out of curiosity, how does the cut scene play out?

emtiem · Jan 4, 2012

Henry W Jones said:
I totally disagree!!! You didn't originally see the full film. You saw a hacked version. Someone decided for you what you should see and that in itself makes the cut version crap!!! Also what threat is Mola Ram with the scene cut? That's the part where I said "Wow!!! That's one bad dude right there!!!!" Out of curiosity, how does the cut scene play out?

You haven't seen it but you've decided it's crap? I dunno; I think I'll take informed opinion over kneejerk reaction, if it's all the same to you.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 4, 2012

emtiem said:
...the SFX shot of the hand going into the chest is rubbish; doesn't fit with what the Mola Ram actor was doing, doesn't fit in with the cinematography of the rest of the scene- just looks terrible.

It was creepy, but I agree that it looked terrible.

emtiem said:
The original is just too harrowing, too: the victim is screaming quite horribly all the way down and bursts into flames, which the cut versions excises. The screaming and burning just makes it too much; I think the censor and Spielberg were right to get rid of it.

The effect was one of the better ones in a film full of bad effects...but I agree with you about lingering too long.

emtiem said:
It's not a great edit; I think more of the heart in Mola's hand could be shown and some of it does feel slightly choppy; but although it's interesting to own the uncut one, I do think the cut one is probably the best version.

Don't remember, may have watched it on youtube, but in the overall picture, I can't imagine it making that much difference.

Henry W Jones · Jan 4, 2012

emtiem said:
You haven't seen it but you've decided it's crap? I dunno; I think I'll take informed opinion over kneejerk reaction, if it's all the same to you.

It is inform. Censorship = crap. Fact.
Whenever you make the decision for the director or the people for that matter of what they should show or should see it a horrible thing. And since its not the vision of the director and its what some jack hole thinks you should see makes it basicly "edited for tv". (Which I've seen and compared it sucked) So if you like the directors vision censored better..... That's great!!! We all have our opinions. So again how does the scene play out?

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 4, 2012

Henry W Jones said:
Censorship = crap. Fact.

Spielberg could have released the film as he wanted but it would have been restricted to a certain age group.

Spielberg made wanted more kids to see it, ($) so he made the alterations.

Raiders went through public test screenings.

Spielberg wasn't forced.

Montana Smith · Jan 4, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
Spielberg could have released the film as he wanted but it would have been restricted to a certain age group.

Spielberg made wanted more kids to see it, ($) so he made the alterations.

Raiders went through public test screenings.

Spielberg wasn't forced.

My thoughts exactly.

In any case, what you don't know doesn't hurt you. TOD was gruesome enough for family viewing .

I think, in general, we got more sex on screen in the UK, and the US got more violence. Make love not war. I'd call that a fair trade.

Henry W Jones · Jan 4, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
Spielberg could have released the film as he wanted but it would have been restricted to a certain age group.

Spielberg made wanted more kids to see it, ($) so he made the alterations.

Raiders went through public test screenings.

Spielberg wasn't forced.

Right! It's still a censored version of the film. Whether Steven and Lucas signed off on it or not does not change that fact. They made a money decision but left the film as is where they could get away with it. Hence that was not the original vision once they hacked the film up for a better rating. Still censored. Just sayin' :hat:

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 4, 2012

Henry W Jones said:
Right! It's still a censored version of the film. Whether Steven and Lucas signed off on it or not does not change that fact. They made a money decision but left the film as is where they could get away with it. Hence that was not the original vision once they hacked the film up for a better rating. Still censored. Just sayin'

You could say that about every iteration that went through Michael Kahn's movieola!

I hear ya, but when I read "censorship" its usually like crying "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I don't think there's ever an "original vision" when it comes to Spielberg films.

Henry W Jones · Jan 4, 2012

Rocket Surgeon said:
You could say that about every iteration that went through Michael Kahn's movieola!

I hear ya, but when I read "censorship" its usually like crying "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I don't think there's ever an "original vision" when it comes to Spielberg films.

You're making sense here but..... I still would rather have the extra footage in it than not. And I think it makes the villains seem more ruthless not only that they rip out hearts, but also whipping Shorty, which was cut as well if I'm not mistaken.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 4, 2012

Henry W Jones said:
You're making sense here but..... I still would rather have the extra footage in it than not. And I think it makes the villains seem more ruthless not only that they rip out hearts, but also whipping Shorty, which was cut as well if I'm not mistaken.

I want every bit of footage I can get my grubby hands on, but Crystal Skull has example of example of extraneous crap that can be thrown on an extras disk.

The whole heart ripping scene and the fact that the victim lives is just craziness!

...and I agree with empty: it's a poorly executed effect.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - uncut in UK for 1st time

New member

New member

Moderator

Guest

Active member

New member

Guest

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Guest

New member

Guest

Active member

New member

Guest

New member

Guest