Filmstalker: British Airways edits competitors out of Casino Royale

Now I hate censorship, but I can accept it for a reason, but British Airways has been showing Casino Royale on their flights with a number of scenes removed. They've removed shots of their competition from the film, both Virgin Atlantic airlines and their boss Sir Richard Branson.

Branson was given a small cameo in the film where he is seen face on walking through a metal detector going to board a plane, there's also a shot showing the tail of a Virgin Atlantic plane.

The shot of the tail has been obscured and the scene of Branson facing towards the camera has been edited out, according to the BBC all you see is the back of his head.

There's been a long running dispute between the two companies, and this looks like it will do nothing but increase it.

British Airways say...

"Many films are edited in some way on board...We do reserve the right to edit films, and many films are edited in some way on board..."

...and to counter, Virgin Atlantic have said...

"We think passengers should see the whole film and nothing but the whole film"

I'm with Virgin here, but there's another reason I'm for them, product placement. As much as some might not like it, product placement helps raise the money to make the films in the first place, and those companies that are paying for the placement are paying so that it is seen. So do those showing the film have the right to edit out the product placements that they don't like?

Add a comment

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

I am also with Virgin Atlantic on this one.

Posted by: Simone | April 21, 2007 9:00 PM

This kind of editing is inexcusable and unjustified.

Trivia... IIRC Airplane II was the inflight movie on the very first Virgin Airline flight.

Posted by: Morbius | April 22, 2007 7:01 PM

what a load of baloney. British Airways should be embarressed that they have stooped so low.

Posted by: pablo | April 23, 2007 5:39 AM

I'd just as soon see real companies than fake ones in a movie so what the hell. Place them products.

The only time I'd struggle with it is if a film is set some time in the 50's or something and we still see Virgin banners.

Posted by: Wilf | April 23, 2007 2:46 PM

Yeah, I'm with you Wilf, if they can get funding from product placement then go with it, as long as it's not as blatant as I, Robot and those trainers/sneakers I'm happy.

It should merge into the real world and make it feel more like reality, sometimes the fake products can pull you away from that.

Airplane II on an inflight movie? Superb. You have to respect Virgin for showing that.

Posted by: Richard Brunton | April 23, 2007 5:46 PM

BA is not alone. This is standard procedure for films shown on airline overhead screens. Every airline does the exact same. Nothing new. This has been going on for years. You'll never see any aircraft crashing or exploding either in an airline version. And as far as product placement goes, the contracts are only for theatrical release. TV Versions are also edited for product placement - usually achieved with digital graphics to remove products in shots. These edits are done only with the cooperation of the studios and the approval of the directors. In the case of BA & Virgin, it's simply Virgin trying to recoup the advertising that was cut out.

Posted by: Frank | April 23, 2007 11:55 PM