I don't understand how this doesn't piss more film fans off but maybe I'm missing something...
I'm aware that BBFC -- very occasionally -- still makes cuts, usually to accord with the law or maybe sometimes to make a different ruling for video. They are accountable and publish not only the fact that the film has been cut but their reasons. Also sometimes a cut is agreed with the director in order to get a particular certificate. So far, so good: we see the work as intended by the film-maker.
What seems less artistically justifiable is when a streaming service makes their own cuts without telling anyone. To an extent this can be determined (if you think unnecessary cuts are likely to have been made) by comparing running times -- but this maybe only really works when there's a massive difference as there is, I understand, a tiny difference for instance between video speed and cinema speed. I don't see that this should affect streaming though.
So what if you want an unedited version? Sometimes the difference is palpable. Google or Apple for instance advertise the film with a longer running time than say Prime or Netflix. I think Chili also has a reputation for leaving films uncut though I'm not sure.
Now I certainly don't want to use this argument to justify streaming porn or extreme violence into people's homes. When it
does bother me is when a film is judged to have artistic merit one standard (say, Cannes) but not by a less selective audience. Sometimes the cuts don't affect the overall thrust of the film – other times they do: but if it's worth seeing I want to see it as the director intended, as with anything else: the National Gallery for instance wouldn't paint fig leaves over a Carravagio and expect me to believe that was the original!
The overall effect of such covert cuts will surely be to push some purist film-lovers towards viewing the same films on sites that are semi-legal or known for possible piracy. Those sites are unlikely to make their own cuts. The film industry wants to stop piracy. There is no reason not to pay a reasonable amount to see the movie in cinemas or in 4K at home: but unless the industry includes a provision against cuts by streaming services (which could be done by copyright law) then the eventual result could be pushing people towards unlicenced services as the industry cuts off its nose to spite its face.
At the moment, it seems, pressure would have to come from fans: but a new provision could perhaps be called External Link/Members Only
