Current trend of cutting films to get a 12a certificate

AdsAds Posts: 37,037
Forum Member
This seems to be happening more and more these days, and I am not a fan of it. I can see why its done, commercially its probably been quite a boost to the ratings for the Hunger Games and Woman in Black, but from an artistic viewpoint its rubbish. I would prefer to see the movie as the makers intended, rather than a watered down version.

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Completely agree, but unfortunately I think this is a trend that is going to continue. With the 12A certificate, pretty much anyone can go and watch the movie, meaning more takings. The film studios see it as: "Well, for the sake of cutting thirty seconds, we can get a lot more people to watch it"

    I hate the 12A certificate (I believe 2002's Spiderman is to blame for it). I'm fed up watching movies filled with ignorant 12 year olds (I know they are not all the same, but in my experience the bad ones outweigh the good ones). I especially hate parents that take small children. Just because you can take them to the movie, doesn't mean you should.

    The Hunger Games and Woman in Black are the best examples. Two good movies ruined by bad parenting. During the Hunger Games, an 8 year old girl in the row in front of me sobbed and screamed during the arena scenes. During the Woman in Black there was a boy who could have been no more than 5 who ran up and down in front of the screen. Even during the Avengers, there were parents with babies and toddlers sat on their knees!

    Unfortunately, money is more important these days. If I had my way, I'd get rid of the 12A certificate.
  • DandemDandem Posts: 13,260
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I agree. I thought this especially as I watched the Hunger Games, and the deaths were all watered down far too much. I wasn't expecting anything really gory, but still it'd have been nice to actually see some action.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dandem wrote: »
    I agree. I thought this especially as I watched the Hunger Games, and the deaths were all watered down far too much. I wasn't expecting anything really gory, but still it'd have been nice to actually see some action.

    Yeah it did look silly. It showed you kids being attacked and stabbed, and yet the blades being used were all shiny and clean afterwards.
  • Biffo the BearBiffo the Bear Posts: 25,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can anyone think of the last time there was a mainstream hit that was rated 18? The most recent that springs to mind is Rambo.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,037
    Forum Member
    Can anyone think of the last time there was a mainstream hit that was rated 18? The most recent that springs to mind is Rambo.

    Its a lot harder to get an 18 certificate these days, so there are very few 18 rated films at the cinema. Looking at the recent BBFC certifications, most the films which have been given an 18 certificate are either art house films or horror - all mainstream movies seem to be aimed at 15 certificate or lower

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/recent/films/

    A lot of films that were given 18 certificates in the 1980's, would probably be given 15 certificates if rated today.
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,037
    Forum Member
    mr_me wrote: »
    Yeah it did look silly. It showed you kids being attacked and stabbed, and yet the blades being used were all shiny and clean afterwards.

    The stupid thing is that surely this desensitises the violence, and makes it seem less horrific than it really is.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can anyone think of the last time there was a mainstream hit that was rated 18? The most recent that springs to mind is Rambo.

    Drive, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, Inglorious Basterds, Watchmen, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, the Saw movies, etc.
  • Delboy219Delboy219 Posts: 3,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's very annoying, but as a kid, i'd have loved it if most releases were a 12. During the 90s i recall most of the good films always being 15 and 18.

    Everything is easier for the youth of today. You can find out anything online, you can find a girlfriend on fb (back in the day we just didn't have gfs! fb makes it so much more simple, and slutty lol) and all films these days are a 12. Spoilt little shits.

    I'm clearly bitter about the technology boost happening just after my teens.:p
  • PhoenixRisesPhoenixRises Posts: 2,607
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I am with Delboy on this one - another bitter soul here :)

    But in all seriousness I wouldn't mind 12a if it wasn't for the parents of the younger kids. I have seen parents tell their kids to sit on the opposite side of the screening from them, so they end up bothering other people rather than them. I have seen them bring kids of 6 - 8 years old, who seem not to be able to concentrate on something for more than 20 minutes without having to get up and run around or start screaming. I have even sat through one where the parents brought their baby who insisted in crying often while the parents insisted on ignoring the baby.

    It is the reason film lovers have to be almost strategic when it comes to working out when to see the film.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    The source of the problem is the US PG-13 rating more than the 12A, which is just the modern British equivalent that matches the film's content more than 15 or PG. (Sometimes films get cut a little more or less either side but it's generally the same)

    An unfortunate by-product of various aspects of american film industry over the last 25 years. Budgets have gone up, studios only agree to PG-13 to make maximum profit, etc. It's all business.

    You get exceptions occasionally. But money usually talks....
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,895
    Forum Member
    But generally I agree. There was a time when an action director could do what the hell he wanted. If John McTiernan was making Predator or Die Hard in 2012 for the first time, I guarantee they'd both be heavily watered down. Hardly any blood showing, etc...

    It's interesting how the pendulum has swung further from artistic integrity towards studio profit. Would be nice if it swung back one day..
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 121
    Forum Member
    I heard a couple of five-year-olds crying during the action scenes in The Avengers today. That wasn't cut but still, it was a 12A which makes me wonder...
  • Jimmy_McNultyJimmy_McNulty Posts: 11,378
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dark of the Moon was at least 15, i was appalled by the amount of profanity in that film.
  • 3PS3PS Posts: 822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I went with a 8 yo to the avengers. He was well behaved and sat and watched it. I wouldn't of took anyone under the age of 7 to a 12a though. There was a fair few young lads sat nicly watching it. Its the parents who expect the cinema to be a babysitting service and let the kids do what they want that ruin it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dark of the Moon was at least 15, i was appalled by the amount of profanity in that film.

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/CFF275375/

    "The Guidelines at '12A'/'12' also state 'The use of strong language (for example, 'f*ck') must be infrequent'. There is a single use of strong language, which is uttered as an exclamation rather than in a directed or aggressive manner.

    TRANSFORMERS – DARK OF THE MOON also contains some moderate language (eg 'bitch', 'd*ckhead', 'w*nker')"

    That sounds absolutely fine at 12A to me. The King's Speech is a 12A too and contains about 15 uses of the f-word!
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I just don't get it , in the 80's and 90's there were loads of box office blockbusters which were R rated , so what changed ?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 121
    Forum Member
    The King's Speech is a 12A too and contains about 15 uses of the f-word!

    That was a 15 first.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That was a 15 first.

    I know, but it got a 12A after a request from the distributor. Besides, there's loads of 12As that contain more swearing than Transformers: Dark Of The Moon.
  • lmddawsonlmddawson Posts: 484
    Forum Member
    Piranha 3DD is an 18 and that's getting advertised absolutely everywhere! It was meant to be direct to DVD originally.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 119
    Forum Member
    Ads wrote: »
    ...I would prefer to see the movie as the makers intended, rather than a watered down version.

    Me too but the makers are the ones who cut films in order to maximise their earnings.

    I do wonder about certifications particulalrly the 15. At one end you have films like Tinker Tailor which a bit too much sex, violence and language for a 12 and Final Destination (can't remember which one) that had so much violence that it wouldn't have been allowed in the old x certificate.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I just don't get it , in the 80's and 90's there were loads of box office blockbusters which were R rated , so what changed ?

    The cost of making big films went up significantly. Blockbusters are now in the £150-200 million range for budget. That's a lot to fork out and studios want to make sure they at least earn that back. Consequently, they need as big an audience as possible. So ratings get pushed down to guarantee that.
Sign In or Register to comment.