If the later introduced PG was equivelent to A, why was ST II 15 on VHS?
The 'A' rated version cut out the closeup of the ceti eel coming out of Chekov's ear. The 15 rated (and later 12 rated) version was uncut and re-instated this shot.
Mark Kermode has summed up my thoughts a lot more succinctly than the OP! 12A films should only be seen by those they are made for and suitable for. It has (unfortunately) become an extension of PG.
Similar experience to my OP today but this time with Ant-Man. Cinema had more children in it than adults. And by children, I mean young children (3-7yrs old). Me and my friend were the only people there without children accompanying them. Cue the kids behind me saying they're bored after 5mins, constant toilet breaks, sweet wrappers rustling and boredom settling in 30mins in.
Just because it's a 12A doesn't mean you have to take your child to see it, nor does it mean your child will enjoy it!
As for the old A rating. Didn't that stand for "Adult". As an example, Star Trek II was given an A on it's cinema release in 1982, and when released on VHS, it was a 15, and it remained so until the DVD release in the early 2000s when it was reclassifed at 12. If the later introduced PG was equivelent to A, why was ST II 15 on VHS?
'A' actually stood for 'Advisory'. Anybody could be admitted to an 'A' rated film, but those under 16 had to be accompanied by an adult. The other two certificates in use at the time were 'U' (Universal) - same as today, but very common then, and including many films that have since been re-rated as 'PG', and 'X' (16 and over only).
What’s annoying is that movies are watered down ridiculously these days to fit a 12A rating. Films that were originally edgy are now toned down to fit that stupid family rating.
Examples:
Terminator 1 = 18 / Terminator 5 = 12A
RoboCop 1987 = 18 / RoboCop 2014 = 12A
Die Hard 1 = 18 / Die Hard 5 = 12A
It completely changes a movie franchise such as, say the Terminator, which originally saw people shot, blown up and what have you. Now we are substituted with this ‘action violence’ which is in my view repetitive and lame. It’s got to a point where if I see what looks like a decent movie being advertised and then discover it has a 12A rating, I don’t bother going to see it.
Tarantino was bang on when he said films play it too safe these days. And people would seem to agree with him: Terminator Genysys is a box office flop whilst 18 rated Django Unchained was a smash.
Considering how expensive everybody on here says going to the cinema is now why is the obvious demographic they are catering for so young, where does a 12+ year old get the cash for the ticket and the overpriced food they sell.
Similar experience to my OP today but this time with Ant-Man. Cinema had more children in it than adults. And by children, I mean young children (3-7yrs old). Me and my friend were the only people there without children accompanying them. Cue the kids behind me saying they're bored after 5mins, constant toilet breaks, sweet wrappers rustling and boredom settling in 30mins in.
Just because it's a 12A doesn't mean you have to take your child to see it, nor does it mean your child will enjoy it!
Interesting when I took my daughter to see Minions, how you described the children acting during Ant Man, was how the adults acted during Minions.
I still don't get why 12 was changed to 12A because it's basically like a PG.
Cinemas could either change it back to 12 or be a bit more tighter on who can enter for more kid-unfriendly 12A films, or have two screenings, one for those with kids amd one for those without so they can watch the film in peace and quiet and parents bringing small children can discover how idiotic they are.
And I agree with those saying that just because a film is a 12A, doesn't mean children will want to go or enjoy it. I'm 16 but I avoid 12A's or 15's unless I seriously want to go which is not often
It was changed from 12 because when they launched (if I remember correctly) the 1st Spiderman film it was 12. One of the cinema chains said they weren't going to stop kids under 12 going to see it, so under public pressure they came up with 12A. And so 12A like America's PG13 is just a licence to make violent sweary children films with any merit of what 12 had gone. So really it’s just the comic book films that forced the change.
I agree with most of the comments on here. The whole problem with 12A is it is neither one thing nor the other. Seeing former 15/18 action movies reduced to kiddy friendly 12A's is dire. Hardly anybody makes films for a mature audience now, and I don't just mean action films, but just movies with more meaty story lines. All the grown up intelligent stuff gets released in one big blurge in the run up to Oscar time.
The other flip side is many 12A's are far too violent, sweary or un-child friendly for actual kids. Plus as others have said a lot of the younger ones are either bored or completely horrified because it’s just not made for them.
Something that also makes me laugh about our 12A is if you read the BBFC guidelines you can have frontal nudity (as long as its brief) on our certificate, but very few films do because Hollywood would never get way back home in America as it’s a total no-no stateside.
Further showing it’s all about Americanisation. We don't like excessive violence and they don't like sexual content, but their values seem to be the ones forced on us every time.
Even in the 1980's some examiners wanted to pass T1 at 15 uncut but Ferman refused.
IMO Terminator isn't that bad, but even today, Die Hard is definitely at the upper end of the 15 rating, even if I agree with their decision and reasoning for downgrading from 18 to 15.
And I agree with those saying that just because a film is a 12A, doesn't mean children will want to go or enjoy it. I'm 16 but I avoid 12A's or 15's unless I seriously want to go which is not often
In my experience, 15's aren't too much of a problem; even when teenagers are there (sorry, I really hate to stereotype but I'm making a positive point in their defense) I've never heard any excessive talking. A lot of adults tend to go to them because 15-rated films are aimed at adults just as much as they are at older teenagers.
Tarantino was bang on when he said films play it too safe these days. And people would seem to agree with him: Terminator Genysys is a box office flop whilst 18 rated Django Unchained was a smash.
In worldwide terms, Mad Max: Fury Road has so far made £236 million on a budget of £96 million and Kingsman made £259 million on a budget of £52 million.
Both of those have 15 ratings so I'd say that we're heading in the right direction.
(of course violence doesn't make a good film on it's own but it felt to me that Miller and Vaughn were just making the films that they wanted to and didn't care about more money or a lower rating)
In my experience, 15's aren't too much of a problem; even when teenagers are there (sorry, I really hate to stereotype but I'm making a positive point in their defense) I've never heard any excessive talking. A lot of adults tend to go to them because 15-rated films are aimed at adults just as much as they are at older teenagers.
Yeah you're right
What I meant is I don't really watch 12A or 15 films because I'm not into those sort of films (bit of a scaredy-cat) so it amazes me that people half my age are expected to enjoy films like Jurassic World because I couldn't get through it
What I meant is I don't really watch 12A or 15 films because I'm not into those sort of films (bit of a scaredy-cat) so it amazes me that people half my age are expected to enjoy films like Jurassic World because I couldn't get through it
I can see your point about 15-rated films (some are pretty tough to watch in terms of violence, but I suppose that's why they have restrictive ratings) but 12A's aren't that bad. Apart from JW, are there any in particular which were too much?
Apart from JW, are there any in particular which were too much?
Woman In Black seemed like way too much, especially with the added atmosphere of being in the cinema. I was also really nervous throughout HP Deathly Hallows Part 2. Also, I haven't watched them but judging by the books, I would have found the Hunger Games books too much and I would definitely not class 2012 as a 12A (in fact any disaster movie)
It’s got to a point where if I see what looks like a decent movie being advertised and then discover it has a 12A rating, I don’t bother going to see it.
I'm getting pretty close to this too, it just puts me off, but I've got a cineworld unlimited card, and if I stopped going to 12As I suspect I'd maybe use it once a month at best, such is the lack of movies for adults these days.
I can see your point about 15-rated films (some are pretty tough to watch in terms of violence, but I suppose that's why they have restrictive ratings) but 12A's aren't that bad. Apart from JW, are there any in particular which were too much?
The Robocop remake struck me as being unsuitable for 12A. there were a few kids in when I saw it who spent most of the movie hiding their eyes or crying at what was up on screen.
back in the 80s and 90s there were loads of big budget R rated movies , it peaked with Terminator 2 and True Lies which had the biggest budgets of their respective year I believe , I can't imagine them now spending say $350 million on an R rated movie .
obviously plenty of kids in America were seeing these R rated movies back then , so what changed ?
obviously plenty of kids in America were seeing these R rated movies back then , so what changed ?
Officially, I believe the reduction to PG13 for most action films was to increase box office, with families allegedly not wanting to take their kids to R rated movies, and those parents not going to see the film on their own because they had to pay for babysitters. This is of course complete BS. Parents have been taking their kids to R rated movies for decades. Why? Because they're legally able to. Alas, this doesn't apply to other countries where most age certificates don't allow anyone of any age in. Get a 15 in the UK, and no one under that gets in. That's a huge drop in revenue.
Somewhat ironically, the US studios are making American movie goers suffer child friendly pap so they (the studios) can increase foreign box office revenue. This is the reason there are so few R rated movies in the US. It's easier to make a PG13 movie than make an R and have to cut half of it out for foreign markets.
In worldwide terms, Mad Max: Fury Road has so far made £236 million on a budget of £96 million
The production budget doesn't take into account marketing and distribution costs, which according to posts in another thread here mean that the actual total cost of a film is 2-3 times the production budget. And of course the studio doesn't see 100% of the gross anyway, so it's not as simple as then deducting total cost from total gross.
So I don't think that MM:FR can be classed as a commercial success, unfortunately. And if we got a sequel, I'd bet it would be a lower rating
back in the 80s and 90s there were loads of big budget R rated movies , it peaked with Terminator 2 and True Lies which had the biggest budgets of their respective year I believe , I can't imagine them now spending say $350 million on an R rated movie .
obviously plenty of kids in America were seeing these R rated movies back then , so what changed ?
$350m was an excessive figure, there's only ever been one film with a budget higher than that, one of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels...
Looking at wikipedia, the most expensive 15 to date is World War Z (which was a PG-13), then Troy, which is the first R on the list, and then 2004/5's Alexander, which the only other R on the list.
Maybe I have picked this up wrongly, but where is it graven in stone that a film rated 12A in this country cannot be a good film in its own right? I don't think they are all watered down 15s. Even for those that are, does it necessarily make them worse films? I am thinking, particularly, of 'The Hunger Games'. I have read the books and the films are definitely not as graphic in their depiction of the violence, but they get the point over and are - at least in my opinion - well-made, well-acted films.
Comments
The 'A' rated version cut out the closeup of the ceti eel coming out of Chekov's ear. The 15 rated (and later 12 rated) version was uncut and re-instated this shot.
Mark Kermode has summed up my thoughts a lot more succinctly than the OP! 12A films should only be seen by those they are made for and suitable for. It has (unfortunately) become an extension of PG.
Should of gone to Specsavers.
Just because it's a 12A doesn't mean you have to take your child to see it, nor does it mean your child will enjoy it!
'A' actually stood for 'Advisory'. Anybody could be admitted to an 'A' rated film, but those under 16 had to be accompanied by an adult. The other two certificates in use at the time were 'U' (Universal) - same as today, but very common then, and including many films that have since been re-rated as 'PG', and 'X' (16 and over only).
Examples:
Terminator 1 = 18 / Terminator 5 = 12A
RoboCop 1987 = 18 / RoboCop 2014 = 12A
Die Hard 1 = 18 / Die Hard 5 = 12A
It completely changes a movie franchise such as, say the Terminator, which originally saw people shot, blown up and what have you. Now we are substituted with this ‘action violence’ which is in my view repetitive and lame. It’s got to a point where if I see what looks like a decent movie being advertised and then discover it has a 12A rating, I don’t bother going to see it.
Tarantino was bang on when he said films play it too safe these days. And people would seem to agree with him: Terminator Genysys is a box office flop whilst 18 rated Django Unchained was a smash.
Interesting when I took my daughter to see Minions, how you described the children acting during Ant Man, was how the adults acted during Minions.
Cinemas could either change it back to 12 or be a bit more tighter on who can enter for more kid-unfriendly 12A films, or have two screenings, one for those with kids amd one for those without so they can watch the film in peace and quiet and parents bringing small children can discover how idiotic they are.
And I agree with those saying that just because a film is a 12A, doesn't mean children will want to go or enjoy it. I'm 16 but I avoid 12A's or 15's unless I seriously want to go which is not often
I agree with most of the comments on here. The whole problem with 12A is it is neither one thing nor the other. Seeing former 15/18 action movies reduced to kiddy friendly 12A's is dire. Hardly anybody makes films for a mature audience now, and I don't just mean action films, but just movies with more meaty story lines. All the grown up intelligent stuff gets released in one big blurge in the run up to Oscar time.
The other flip side is many 12A's are far too violent, sweary or un-child friendly for actual kids. Plus as others have said a lot of the younger ones are either bored or completely horrified because it’s just not made for them.
Something that also makes me laugh about our 12A is if you read the BBFC guidelines you can have frontal nudity (as long as its brief) on our certificate, but very few films do because Hollywood would never get way back home in America as it’s a total no-no stateside.
Further showing it’s all about Americanisation. We don't like excessive violence and they don't like sexual content, but their values seem to be the ones forced on us every time.
Terminator 1 and Die Hard are 15 ratings now (T1 in 2000 and DH in 2008)
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/die-hard-video-1
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/terminator-2001-6
Even in the 1980's some examiners wanted to pass T1 at 15 uncut but Ferman refused.
IMO Terminator isn't that bad, but even today, Die Hard is definitely at the upper end of the 15 rating, even if I agree with their decision and reasoning for downgrading from 18 to 15.
In worldwide terms, Mad Max: Fury Road has so far made £236 million on a budget of £96 million and Kingsman made £259 million on a budget of £52 million.
Both of those have 15 ratings so I'd say that we're heading in the right direction.
(of course violence doesn't make a good film on it's own but it felt to me that Miller and Vaughn were just making the films that they wanted to and didn't care about more money or a lower rating)
Yeah you're right
What I meant is I don't really watch 12A or 15 films because I'm not into those sort of films (bit of a scaredy-cat
I can see your point about 15-rated films (some are pretty tough to watch in terms of violence, but I suppose that's why they have restrictive ratings) but 12A's aren't that bad. Apart from JW, are there any in particular which were too much?
Woman In Black seemed like way too much, especially with the added atmosphere of being in the cinema. I was also really nervous throughout HP Deathly Hallows Part 2. Also, I haven't watched them but judging by the books, I would have found the Hunger Games books too much and I would definitely not class 2012 as a 12A (in fact any disaster movie)
I'm getting pretty close to this too, it just puts me off, but I've got a cineworld unlimited card, and if I stopped going to 12As I suspect I'd maybe use it once a month at best, such is the lack of movies for adults these days.
The Robocop remake struck me as being unsuitable for 12A. there were a few kids in when I saw it who spent most of the movie hiding their eyes or crying at what was up on screen.
back in the 80s and 90s there were loads of big budget R rated movies , it peaked with Terminator 2 and True Lies which had the biggest budgets of their respective year I believe , I can't imagine them now spending say $350 million on an R rated movie .
obviously plenty of kids in America were seeing these R rated movies back then , so what changed ?
Officially, I believe the reduction to PG13 for most action films was to increase box office, with families allegedly not wanting to take their kids to R rated movies, and those parents not going to see the film on their own because they had to pay for babysitters. This is of course complete BS. Parents have been taking their kids to R rated movies for decades. Why? Because they're legally able to. Alas, this doesn't apply to other countries where most age certificates don't allow anyone of any age in. Get a 15 in the UK, and no one under that gets in. That's a huge drop in revenue.
Somewhat ironically, the US studios are making American movie goers suffer child friendly pap so they (the studios) can increase foreign box office revenue. This is the reason there are so few R rated movies in the US. It's easier to make a PG13 movie than make an R and have to cut half of it out for foreign markets.
The production budget doesn't take into account marketing and distribution costs, which according to posts in another thread here mean that the actual total cost of a film is 2-3 times the production budget. And of course the studio doesn't see 100% of the gross anyway, so it's not as simple as then deducting total cost from total gross.
So I don't think that MM:FR can be classed as a commercial success, unfortunately. And if we got a sequel, I'd bet it would be a lower rating
$350m was an excessive figure, there's only ever been one film with a budget higher than that, one of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels...
Looking at wikipedia, the most expensive 15 to date is World War Z (which was a PG-13), then Troy, which is the first R on the list, and then 2004/5's Alexander, which the only other R on the list.