[edwardbaker18]

I think that it is about time for the BBFC to do a complete overhaul of the 15/18 categories, and place them more in line of the US system. I think an entirely new certificate should be put in place; by combining the 15 and 18 certificates a brand new 16A category could be introduced. This would mean anyone aged 16 or older could go an see the film unaccompanied, but anyone under 16 would have to be accompanied by a parent or any other adult over 18. It would be similar to the US 'R' (Restricted) category. Films in the 16A category would include the same material allowed in films rated 15 and 18 at present; strong violence, frequent strong language, sexual nudity, drug use, etc.
On the other hand the 18 certificate can still remain, but be reserved only for the really extreme stuff or for films featuring the most explicit sexual material-sort of like the NC-17 in the US.
So in line with the US system my proposals would be; U=G, PG=PG, 12A=PG-13, 16A=R and 18=NC-17.
I await your opinion.
Edward

[Yuffie]

Meh, they're fine as they are !

No need to copycat America.

[CJClarke]

Originally Posted by Yuffie

Meh, they're fine as they are !

No need to copycat America.

Agreed. I don't particularly relish the idea of being surrounded by kids in a film that would otherwise be rated 15 or 18. The restriction is there for a reason, if they make it so that anyone can go into a "16A" rated film as long as they're accompanied by a person over 16 then it kind of defeats the object of even having an age rating.

[theonlyweeman]

The US system is universally loathed by film-makers. There's allegations that the MPAA favours big film-makers over independents, that the MPAA is homophobic, sexist and more welcoming to violence than swearing. The NC-17 spells commercial death, but the 18 doesn't in the UK. There's no accountability in the US, they don't even publish guidelines as to what is acceptable at each certificate (hence the allegations of sexism and homophobia).

The further away for their system we stay the better.

I would however suggest the introduction of a 13 certificate for films that are too strong for a 12 (like the Hunger Games, Chronicle, The Dark Knight), but aren't really 15 rated films...

[mr_me]

Nothing with an "A" in it. One of the best things about going to 15's and 18's is that you know there will be no small children in there. Change the ratings system and you will get chav parents bringing toddlers into horror movies.

[Gort]

Certainly not. I'd rather that the 12A rating was removed rather than add another A rating. The US system is a joke, and the further we steer clear of it the better.

[Theo_Bear]

The 12A became the new 15 years ago, with the 15 becoming the new 18, the tacit admission from the BBFC being that very few if any commercial films with wide box office appeal will have content necessary to have an 18 slapped on them.

I would favour ditching the 12A. We've all seen what it's become, and how the rating and BBFC are being manipulated and misused by the likes of Fox. I would also ban the BBFC from being able to offer pre-classification advice to distributors. Actually, I'd ban the BBFC from cutting films at all. They should classify and nothing else. Every film is what it is. It should be classified in its whole, and made available to the appropriate audience. Film companies and distributors are well aware of what will and won't pass specific age categories.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by Theo_Bear

The 12A became the new 15 years ago, with the 15 becoming the new 18, the tacit admission from the BBFC being that very few if any commercial films with wide box office appeal will have content necessary to have an 18 slapped on them.

I would favour ditching the 12A. We've all seen what it's become, and how the rating and BBFC are being manipulated and misused by the likes of Fox. I would also ban the BBFC from being able to offer pre-classification advice to distributors. Actually, I'd ban the BBFC from cutting films at all. They should classify and nothing else. Every film is what it is. It should be classified in its whole, and made available to the appropriate audience. Film companies and distributors are well aware of what will and won't pass specific age categories.

Banning pre-classification advice would just make things worse. Studios would cut blindly rather than cutting the minimum possible, which is what the BBFC's advice allows them to do. Whilst many agree cutting for a 12 is a bad idea, how much worse would it be if studios just pre-editted the film to suit, probably going on the safe side just to be sure.


Also, what about films which breech the law or contain elements which breach the law (eg unsimulated cockfighting) do they just get banned from distribution in the UK? Banning the BBFC from cutting elements of films will only make things worse, as they will be forced to ban films they wouldn't have had to before...

[Paddy C]

In Ireland they have G, PG, 12A, 15A, 16 and 18 for cinema but for DVD it's G, PG, 12, 15 and 18.

Die Hard 5 has been given a 15A and is uncut. It was given a 12A and was cut for the UK. They could have given it a 15, but then all the younger kids couldn't get in and that would have lost them money. If 15 was renamed as 15A for the UK would that have made a difference I wonder?

[Aneechik]

They need to do something with 18 and 18R. It's pretty silly that the UK is one of the very few free countries that still uses an X certificate for mainstream adult movies, and the internet has made 18R surplus to requirements.

What I would do is abolish 18R, and have 18 as a porn-only category, which would then require a new category for the most violent/sexual non-porn movies, so something like a 16 rating, though it's worth remembering that there isn't a scrap of evidence that violent movies make teenagers violent so I wouldn't have a problem with 15 being the highest non-porn category (maybe they could have a 15A and 15R).

Regarding the criminal law, it's pretty unacceptable in this day and age that a quango is required to make subjective judgments on what may or may not be illegal. They should only be permitted to rate a film, and if is content violates the law, then it should be for a court to decide (obviously nonsense like the Obscene Publications Act should be repealed, but I doubt anyone in their right mind thinks that shouldn't happen).

[Paddy C]

How about:-

A - Same as U but A means All as in Suitable for All
8 - Same as PG
11 - Same as current 12 rating, but no 11A for cinema
14 - Same as the current 15 rating
17 - Equivalent to 18, anything goes, no restrictions unless illegal
X - For porn only

[mike65]

The studio/distributor cut DH 5 as they simply wanted the biggest market available to them in the UK. They said we want a 12A and so had to cut to meet that.

This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a '15' certificate but that their preferred '12A' classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both 'f**k' and 'motherf***er') and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'.

[JasonWatkins]

I think the ratings should be simplified - not add more on top.

Change "U" to "G" for General, then have 15 and 18 with "X" for Porn.

I personally think that's all you really need nowadays. I've seen many 12A's that would have been easy "15" certificates back when I was that age, and it's absurd that children can get to see them if they have an adult with them.

[Paddy C]

Yes, but if a 15A was available in the UK, would they have cut it? They still could have got the same audience as younger children would have still been able to get in.

[Theo_Bear]

Originally Posted by Paddy C

Yes, but if a 15A was available in the UK, would they have cut it? They still could have got the same audience as younger children would have still been able to get in.

Of course it would still have been cut. The BBFC deemed the uncut version to be unsuitable for 12-14 year olds. A 15A would've allowed any child up to 14 to see the film with an adult present, little different to the 12A. That the film was given a 15A uncut in the ROI shows what a bunch of prudes still run the BBFC. Any child can see the film uncut with an adult in the ROI.

The problem here is being created by Fox's desire to have children being able to see an adult action film in a country where it believes the adult cinema going public won't mind being treated like children.

[CLL Dodge]

Too many ratings as there is. 12A seems to be there just to encourage distributors to cut.

[mike65]

I think a return to U, A, AA, and X is what is needed. Frankly cinema hasn't been quite the same since the thrill of going to a X rated film vanished!

[Tal'shiar]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

The US system is universally loathed by film-makers. There's allegations that the MPAA favours big film-makers over independents, that the MPAA is homophobic, sexist and more welcoming to violence than swearing. The NC-17 spells commercial death, but the 18 doesn't in the UK. There's no accountability in the US, they don't even publish guidelines as to what is acceptable at each certificate (hence the allegations of sexism and homophobia).

The further away for their system we stay the better.

I would however suggest the introduction of a 13 certificate for films that are too strong for a 12 (like the Hunger Games, Chronicle, The Dark Knight), but aren't really 15 rated films...

Quoted for super truth about 18 in the UK being fine, and NC-17 basically killing a movies chance of making money.

Odd bit of info, but Texas Chainsaw Massacre was made entirely in the PG guidelines in America. No blood or swearing, the whole lot.

But with that thought, lots of films still to this day change films to avoid the higher ratings (if the film comes close, Toy Story had to cut 8 minutes of animal rape and 36 "****s" for its theatrical release)

[Gemma_Nancarrow]

The ratings system isn't quite right but I'm not sure what the best change is. 12A should never have been brought in - the number of films I've seen in the cinema with children aged 8-12 in the audience that end up screaming and crying and being dragged out.
Also, I work with teenagers and I've seen several 12As that I wouldn't show to the group of 10-14 year olds because of the content - they should have been 15 rated, especially in comparison with older films that are 15 and very tame - but it's all about the money.

[stvn758]

What 16 year old would want to to the cinema with their parents, especially for an adult type movie. Be embarrassing.

[kev]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I would however suggest the introduction of a 13 certificate for films that are too strong for a 12 (like the Hunger Games, Chronicle, The Dark Knight), but aren't really 15 rated films...

Or offer a middle ground - i.e.

15A - 12-14 with parental accompaniment, 15+ fine on their own
18A - 15-17 with parental accompaniment, 18+ fine on their own

(i.e. an "A" would be too strong to get the next certificate down, but with aqueduct parental supervision will be okay for many in the middle ground between certificates).

[Kodaz]

I propose the following new certificates:-

* A12 - No adults are allowed in to see this film unless accompanied by a child under 12, thus providing them with an excuse to watch kids' films *they* secretly want to see ("Yeah, the neice wanted to see Fluffybunny Valley V, not my thing, honest")

* 30 - Vapid teenage-oriented explosionfest that no-one over 30 would actually *want* to watch. Might work too well, as would have to be applied to 90% of all current Hollywood output

* X - for adult films

* XX - for more risque adult films

* XXX - for hardcore adult films

* XXXX - for Australian beer

[grimtales1]

Is that brand of Aussie beer still on sale? Havent seen it for years

[Julzei]

Originally Posted by stvn758

What 16 year old would want to to the cinema with their parents, especially for an adult type movie. Be embarrassing.

Exactly.

[grimtales1]

Originally Posted by kev

Or offer a middle ground - i.e.

15A - 12-14 with parental accompaniment, 15+ fine on their own
18A - 15-17 with parental accompaniment, 18+ fine on their own

(i.e. an "A" would be too strong to get the next certificate down, but with aqueduct parental supervision will be okay for many in the middle ground between certificates).

That sounds good, theres an 18A in Canada isnt there?
But unfortunately what is too strong for a 12 (Dark Knight etc) is subjective.