Time for a new 16A category, perhaps?

2»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    grimtales1 wrote: »
    That sounds good, theres an 18A in Canada isnt there?
    But unfortunately what is too strong for a 12 (Dark Knight etc) is subjective.
    Canda has several classification systems (one for each district and an another for home entertainment), but I think most have an 18A though their critera is different to ours.... Hockey comedy Goon got a 15 in the UK (nearly got an 18 for strong bloody violence) , it got an 18A in Canada, not for the strong bloody violence throughout, but for the frequent crude sexual references...
  • mattybmattyb Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think the BBFC should update the current ratings that are in place. What they should be doing is actually looking at film's content more closely and think even if this film was to be cut in order to receive a '12A', should it really be aimed at that audience?
    As they don't what they should be doing is still use the '12' certificate in cinemas and not just on DVD/Blu-ray.
    So where people were claiming films like 'The Dark Knight Rises' was a bit strong for '12A' rating, then why not just certify it as just a '12' so kids can't see it or would that be too confusing for some?

    As for the argument regarding Die Hard 5, that was down to Fox and their money grabbing ways. Fox went to the BBFC for advice and acted upon it so that kids could go and see an adult film by taming it to receive a '12A' certificate.

    What is annoying is that people go on about games, tv programmes and films being too violent for kids and more things should be done to prevent them from seeing this type of content. Yet you get Hollywood studios like Fox asking the BBFC to make suggestions to how violent adult themed films like Die Hard 5 can made suitable for kids. The Die Hard films are not for kids so why the hell are studios given advice by the BBFC on how to manipulate the '12A' so kids can go see these films?
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,896
    Forum Member
    I agree that there might as well be one main rating instead of the 15/18 - 16 sounds about right. Although it shouldn't be 16A. It would be an enforced age rating.

    The 18-rated content that gets thrown into 15-rated films these days is making a mockery of the old system that was perfect - as a consumer you used to be able separate general grown up content (15) from more severe adult content (18). Now pretty much everything just gets shunted down to 15 unless it has graphic penetration or prolonged super-uber-ultra-gooey gore.

    Ironclad is rated 15 and has close up shots of faces getting caved in and split in half by axes in full grisly detail. Some people don't want to see stuff as graphic as that - and the old 15/18 system used to aid consumers in determining the level of content (Ironclad would have been an instant 18 film in the 90s). That system is already long gone.

    So yeah, since the BBFC have gradually made the old 15/18 comparisons worthless these days then you might as well join them tbh.
  • KidMoeKidMoe Posts: 5,851
    Forum Member
    The 12A certificate has done enough damage as it is without watering down the rating system further. Too many films are cut and spliced down to a 12A in order to massively increase the potential audience who can see a film rated at that level, compared to a 15.
  • cy_bonescy_bones Posts: 1,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    stvn758 wrote: »
    What 16 year old would want to to the cinema with their parents, especially for an adult type movie. Be embarrassing.
    The adult doesn't have to be a parent :)
  • starsailorstarsailor Posts: 11,347
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I just can't get over the fact they ripped the soul out of Die Hard to turn it into a 12A.

    That is just shocking.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    cy_bones wrote: »
    The adult doesn't have to be a parent :)

    Yeah it could be a stranger or their drug dealer or a million other different people they shouldn't know...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,305
    Forum Member
    starsailor wrote: »
    I just can't get over the fact they ripped the soul out of Die Hard to turn it into a 12A.

    That is just shocking.

    Considering that it seems like the "all swearing, all violence" version released as an R in the US is barely any better than our 12A version, i'd say that the soul was ripped out of that film long before Fox UK took the scissors to it.
  • cy_bonescy_bones Posts: 1,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah it could be a stranger or their drug dealer or a million other different people they shouldn't know...
    Or perhaps simply an older sibling???
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    cy_bones wrote: »
    Or perhaps simply an older sibling???

    Probably worse than going with a parent for most teens...
  • KodazKodaz Posts: 1,018
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJClarke wrote: »
    Considering that it seems like the "all swearing, all violence" version released as an R in the US is barely any better than our 12A version, i'd say that the soul was ripped out of that film long before Fox UK took the scissors to it.

    It's quite possible that it was compromised *because* they made it with being easy to cut in mind.

    For example, discrete (*) scenes including sex and violence might be okay if they could easily be removed without affecting the plot too much, but if it would have to be more closely woven into a large, important scene, they might just shoot it without.

    If the film had been intended as strictly adults-only to start off with, that would not be an issue, so this would affect even the "uncut" version of such films.

    (*) Not discreet; can one have discreet sex and violence?! :D
  • lordo350lordo350 Posts: 3,633
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The ratings these days now have too much power over movies, due to the fact that movies will be edited to fit a certain age range for money. Die Hard 4 and 5 are prime examples of this.
  • stvn758stvn758 Posts: 19,656
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    cy_bones wrote: »
    The adult doesn't have to be a parent :)

    You can imagine how well that would go down in this country, can just see the Daily Mail articles now, strange men taking teens to cinemas. :eek:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not sure there's room for both PG & 12A - maybe get rid of PG & 15 and use U, 12A, 16 & 18?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,488
    Forum Member
    Gilbertoo wrote: »
    Not sure there's room for both PG & 12A - maybe get rid of PG & 15 and use U, 12A, 16 & 18?

    What difference would changing the 15 to a 16 make?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What difference would changing the 15 to a 16 make?

    16 is the legal age of consent, so nudity and sex should be less censored when compared with a 15. 18 is when both violence and sex become more graphic.
Sign In or Register to comment.