iTunes have a lot of catching up to do in terms of their film ratings:
Lethal Weapon 1, 2 & 3 are still 18
The Shining is still an 18
The Godfather trilogy are still 18's
American History X is still an 18
Alien3 is still an 18
Strange, I could have swore the DVD I have of it has a PG certificate on the front.
Pixar's 'PG' List is Toy Story, Cars and Brave. The rest are all U's.
Toy Story isn't a PG is it?
The DVD may have a PG on it; sometimes the special features will bump up the DVD rating. Lawrence of Arabia is a PG but DVD got a 12 because they explain in the making of how they conveyed someone's sexual gratification through coughing.
The DVD may have a PG on it; sometimes the special features will bump up the DVD rating. Lawrence of Arabia is a PG but DVD got a 12 because they explain in the making of how they conveyed someone's sexual gratification through coughing.
Nope, Toy Story 1 has always been a PG, for 'mild violence, scary scenes, dangerous behaviour'
As pointed out in the Watership Down thread, the bbfc are stricter about U these days than they were in the 80's-90's, you'd suspect some Disneys like The Lion King that are U would be PG if seen for the first time now.
As pointed out in the Watership Down thread, the bbfc are stricter about U these days than they were in the 80's-90's, you'd suspect some Disneys like The Lion King that are U would be PG if seen for the first time now.
But alongside this, the changing of the 12 rating to 12A in 2002 means that there are a huge amount of films that would have been unaccessible for children to watch in the 1990s that they can now view with parental supervision. I've seen and heard strong swear words, graphic violence/horror and moderate to strong sexual content in recent 12A films that I wonder how on earth would ever be suitable for children to watch, but if they're with an adult then cinemas are allowed to let them in.
Something I found interesting recently was when the first Woman in Black film was re-issued in cinemas last Halloween as a preview for the forthcoming sequel. When first released in 2012 it was given a controversial 12A rating and many complained it was far too scary for children to be allowed to watch. For the 2014 re-issue the rating was 15. Can't be many films in recent years they've actually had to increase the rating for, surely?
They increased the Ghostbusters rating I believe. Some films they won't do it for simply because they are well known now. The BBFC said that if Grease were submitted for the first time noe it would get a 12.
But alongside this, the changing of the 12 rating to 12A in 2002 means that there are a huge amount of films that would have been unaccessible for children to watch in the 1990s that they can now view with parental supervision. I've seen and heard strong swear words, graphic violence/horror and moderate to strong sexual content in recent 12A films that I wonder how on earth would ever be suitable for children to watch, but if they're with an adult then cinemas are allowed to let them in.
Something I found interesting recently was when the first Woman in Black film was re-issued in cinemas last Halloween as a preview for the forthcoming sequel. When first released in 2012 it was given a controversial 12A rating and many complained it was far too scary for children to be allowed to watch. For the 2014 re-issue the rating was 15. Can't be many films in recent years they've actually had to increase the rating for, surely?
Sounds like the re-issue was the uncut version. The 12A version was cut to get that certificate.
I believe "Toy Story" is a PG because it shows Sid holding and striking matches. Woody does it too.
"Lilo & Stitch" was edited to change a scene where Lilo hides inside a tumble dryer, Disney were offered an uncut 12 (or possibly 15?) if they wanted the scene left unedited. Instead, they edited the animation to make it look like she was under a table (the same size as the tumble dryer) with a pizza box lid (replacing the tumble dryer door) being moved to reveal she is hiding inside.
"The Secret Life Of Alex Mack" was rated 15 for DVD (despite being a kids TV show) because it has a scene where a character hides inside a tumble dryer and the BBFC don't want kids copying them. I guess it must have been the 15 cert they offered Disney for Lilo & Stitch!
Although it was the uncut rerelease that got the 15 rating, the BBFC heavily implied they thought they got the original cinema release rating wrong regardless.
It was either last year or the year before they published a statement saying they will start considering more the tone and general mood of films while deciding the rating. Woman in Black was the main film that was talked about as an example (due to all the complaints about the 12A rating).
The director of the Woman in Black sequel was unhappy and did interviews saying there was no way for the sequel to get a 12 rating and that the bbfc consider even mild quiet-quiet-quiet-boo scenes- slamming doors etc- to be at 15 level now.
Never understood why the first three Star Wars films are U's especially The Empire Stirkes Back where film contains decapitations of limbs (Darth Vader's head being choped off in a dream sequence and Luke's hand cut off during a lightsaber battle with Darth)
Never understood why the first three Star Wars films are U's especially The Empire Stirkes Back where film contains decapitations of limbs (Darth Vader's head being choped off in a dream sequence and Luke's hand cut off during a lightsaber battle with Darth)
In short- from 1975-99 what ratings the major releases got was more or less the personal opinion of one man, James Ferman, and sometimes he made decisions that were eccentric or contradicted other decisions he made. There's a letter he wrote re Temple of Doom that touches on Star Wars- http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Indy-Final.pdf
I doubt any of them, or E.T., would be U if seen for the first time now, but it's subjective if it was the right decision. Of course, Watership Down remains the strangest U he handed out.
I think 2001 A Space Odyssey should be a 15 and certainly not a U (as it is on my copy of it on dvd). It has quite a strong menacing element with HAL that young children could be scared of
Agreed. One of his most bonkers decision was to award Licence To Kill a 15 certificate - the same as the far more violent Lethal Weapon 2 at the same time.
Don't forget that cut in teenage mutant ninja turtles of the sausages being used as nuchos
Agreed. One of his most bonkers decision was to award Licence To Kill a 15 certificate - the same as the far more violent Lethal Weapon 2 at the same time.
It just missed out on the introduction of the 12 certificate so the options were PG or 15. As there is rape, drugs and a guy's head exploding, 15 was most appropriate. Also the fact that the Bond films were seen as light and comically violent, LTK was darker than an audience would expect. The BBFC are more lenient if the audience expect graphicness. Without the BDSM elements Fifty Shades of Grey would have been a 15 but the BBFC are hard on sexualised violence.
I think that Toy Story is a PG because of that scene with the dog having a toy in it's mouth and shaking it about violently. That seemed pretty intense - so I'm guessing that's what pushed it into PG territory.
As far as I know, there was never an 18 rated VHS version of T2, nor does the BBFC database list one. Pre-DVD, it was only released on Laserdisc at 18, a copy of which I own.
Die Hard 2 was originally released on VHS pan and scan only, and heavily butchered with a 15, with an uncut 18 rated widescreen version on VHS which followed later. I think the DVD/Bluray versions of Die Hard 2 have always been uncut with an 18.
Yes. It remained a 15 all these years simply because the film company had never re-released it with additional content - so the BBFC had no reason to reclassify it until a couple of years back.
There's probably untold thousands of films with 15 ratings that would be 12-rated. Likewise 18>15.
I think 2001 A Space Odyssey should be a 15 and certainly not a U (as it is on my copy of it on dvd). It has quite a strong menacing element with HAL that young children could be scared of
Was given a A/PG then Kubrick told them he wanted a U and he got his way I believe.
There is a point there that certainly back in the day there is evidence directors Ferman liked or respected got away with more than directors he didn't respect (Poor ol' Michael Winner being the main loser in that.)
That's a slightly odd re-rating, Duel perfectly fits the PG certificate IMO. I watched it when I was 6 and loved the excited nature of him being chased by the truck. I wasn't troubled at all by it.
It doesn't really make sense for it to sit in the same category as all these violent action movies like Jack Reacher and so on. Two entirely different viewing experiences in terms of severity of content.
I'm seeing the same problem with some 18-rated films that are being thrown into the 15 category with gay abandon. You've now got one category (15) which encapsulates very mild content all the way to uber gory/explicit stuff.
It always used to be easier to gauge content based on certificates but there's so much variance now in what you get in each one I feel it's become less intuitive. It's a lottery these days trying to get an idea of severity of content before viewing - and the extra BBFC info is useless: I've seen films with only brief, average violence get the 'Strong Violence' tag along with films utterly drenched in brutality and gore.
Just all seems a bit of a mess these days. The BBFC don't really censor stuff anymore - which is great - but they've gone backwards in terms of movie ratings IMO.
Comments
Lethal Weapon 1, 2 & 3 are still 18
The Shining is still an 18
The Godfather trilogy are still 18's
American History X is still an 18
Alien3 is still an 18
All of the above should be rated '15'
Toy Story isn't a PG is it?
The DVD may have a PG on it; sometimes the special features will bump up the DVD rating. Lawrence of Arabia is a PG but DVD got a 12 because they explain in the making of how they conveyed someone's sexual gratification through coughing.
Nope, Toy Story 1 has always been a PG, for 'mild violence, scary scenes, dangerous behaviour'
As pointed out in the Watership Down thread, the bbfc are stricter about U these days than they were in the 80's-90's, you'd suspect some Disneys like The Lion King that are U would be PG if seen for the first time now.
But alongside this, the changing of the 12 rating to 12A in 2002 means that there are a huge amount of films that would have been unaccessible for children to watch in the 1990s that they can now view with parental supervision. I've seen and heard strong swear words, graphic violence/horror and moderate to strong sexual content in recent 12A films that I wonder how on earth would ever be suitable for children to watch, but if they're with an adult then cinemas are allowed to let them in.
Something I found interesting recently was when the first Woman in Black film was re-issued in cinemas last Halloween as a preview for the forthcoming sequel. When first released in 2012 it was given a controversial 12A rating and many complained it was far too scary for children to be allowed to watch. For the 2014 re-issue the rating was 15. Can't be many films in recent years they've actually had to increase the rating for, surely?
Sounds like the re-issue was the uncut version. The 12A version was cut to get that certificate.
"Lilo & Stitch" was edited to change a scene where Lilo hides inside a tumble dryer, Disney were offered an uncut 12 (or possibly 15?) if they wanted the scene left unedited. Instead, they edited the animation to make it look like she was under a table (the same size as the tumble dryer) with a pizza box lid (replacing the tumble dryer door) being moved to reveal she is hiding inside.
Full comparison of the two scenes here.
"The Secret Life Of Alex Mack" was rated 15 for DVD (despite being a kids TV show) because it has a scene where a character hides inside a tumble dryer and the BBFC don't want kids copying them. I guess it must have been the 15 cert they offered Disney for Lilo & Stitch!
Has the 15 certificate version been released on DVD yet?
It was either last year or the year before they published a statement saying they will start considering more the tone and general mood of films while deciding the rating. Woman in Black was the main film that was talked about as an example (due to all the complaints about the 12A rating).
In short- from 1975-99 what ratings the major releases got was more or less the personal opinion of one man, James Ferman, and sometimes he made decisions that were eccentric or contradicted other decisions he made. There's a letter he wrote re Temple of Doom that touches on Star Wars- http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Indy-Final.pdf
I doubt any of them, or E.T., would be U if seen for the first time now, but it's subjective if it was the right decision. Of course, Watership Down remains the strangest U he handed out.
Don't forget that cut in teenage mutant ninja turtles of the sausages being used as nuchos
It just missed out on the introduction of the 12 certificate so the options were PG or 15. As there is rape, drugs and a guy's head exploding, 15 was most appropriate. Also the fact that the Bond films were seen as light and comically violent, LTK was darker than an audience would expect. The BBFC are more lenient if the audience expect graphicness. Without the BDSM elements Fifty Shades of Grey would have been a 15 but the BBFC are hard on sexualised violence.
Sorry, but in regard to Terminator 2 you are wrong and justpootling is correct. The only 18-rated UK-release of T2 was the laserdisc.
This is also correct
Diamonds Are Forever had its rating increased from PG to 12 for the most recent re-issues.
There's probably untold thousands of films with 15 ratings that would be 12-rated. Likewise 18>15.
Hilariousness aside, re the thread I am simply astounded this was once an 'A'/'PG' film. Even the 12 isn't enough, it should be an all-out 15.
Was given a A/PG then Kubrick told them he wanted a U and he got his way I believe.
There is a point there that certainly back in the day there is evidence directors Ferman liked or respected got away with more than directors he didn't respect (Poor ol' Michael Winner being the main loser in that.)
It doesn't really make sense for it to sit in the same category as all these violent action movies like Jack Reacher and so on. Two entirely different viewing experiences in terms of severity of content.
I'm seeing the same problem with some 18-rated films that are being thrown into the 15 category with gay abandon. You've now got one category (15) which encapsulates very mild content all the way to uber gory/explicit stuff.
It always used to be easier to gauge content based on certificates but there's so much variance now in what you get in each one I feel it's become less intuitive. It's a lottery these days trying to get an idea of severity of content before viewing - and the extra BBFC info is useless: I've seen films with only brief, average violence get the 'Strong Violence' tag along with films utterly drenched in brutality and gore.
Just all seems a bit of a mess these days. The BBFC don't really censor stuff anymore - which is great - but they've gone backwards in terms of movie ratings IMO.