Jaws is now a 12A but hasn't been resubmitted since 2000 for video so is still a PG on DVD (the 12 rating is for bonus features). IMO the main film should be a 12 anyway and probably would be if resubmitted for video today.
Has been given a 12A for its theatrical re-release in 2012. It was on limited re-release. So, it's not just for the DVD/Blu Ray version and the commentary - and bonus features. That's probably about right - as has been mentioned - it does contain some strong content.
Gone Girl was definitely a tame 18. The subject matter and 'that' scene in the final third are bloody, but not absurdly so. A 15 could have cut it, with a few of the C-words removed.
What I think should have been a higher rating, but watered down for the sake of commercial success is another question... *cough* Taken 2 & 3 *cough*
Totally agreed. Apart from the UK, the only countries that gave it an 18 were the super-strict Asian ratings boards (Thailand, Singapore etc). I e-mailed the BBFC about it (like you do) and it was the context of that scene rather than the violence that got it the 18. Along with the C-words of course, but they get treated far too harshly.
Watership Down is a U and as the bbfc (as their website notes) have legally no way of changing it. Ferman was just soft of animation I think; Akira had a 12 rating for cinema in 1990, which is just he also gave Princess Mononoke a PG, and I'd certainly imagine it'd be 12A if seen for the first time now.
As mentioned on the other thread, a fair few of the DC comics animated features are 15 now, kinda odd. The Dark Knight Returns part 1 is 15 and isn't really more violent than the 90's Batman cartoon. I assume Warner Bros are asking for 15's, but they'd probably have been PG under the Ferman bbfc.
From what they've said, they wouldn't neccesarily change Watership Down even if it was resubmitted to them. They've suggested that it's being kept there for "historical reasons", as everyone expects it to be a U, and it's become notorious for it.
From what they've said, they wouldn't neccesarily change Watership Down even if it was resubmitted to them. They've suggested that it's being kept there for "historical reasons", as everyone expects it to be a U, and it's become notorious for it.
I doubt they'd have a problem putting it up, they've put Jaws and Ghostbusters up from PG to 12 in recent years, and everyone remembers them as PG (and in the 80's/90's they insisted PG was the right rating for Jaws).
Watership Down is a bit of an odd one though, no one seems sure why Ferman thought it a U in the first place, and the bbfc freely admit the use of "piss off" in it alone wouldn't be acceptable in U now.
I doubt they'd have a problem putting it up, they've put Jaws and Ghostbusters up from PG to 12 in recent years, and everyone remembers them as PG (and in the 80's/90's they insisted PG was the right rating for Jaws).
Watership Down is a bit of an odd one though, no one seems sure why Ferman thought it a U in the first place, and the bbfc freely admit the use of "piss off" in it alone wouldn't be acceptable in U now.
Everyone's first thought about Ghostbusters isn't "those sex references were moderate, not mild, hot the hell did it get a PG", everyone's first thought about Watership Down is "how did it get a U?"
Taken should not be an 18. Even the BBFC said that the extended torture scene only just 'tipped it' into an 18 and that it was the sadistic element that put it there; even with that reasoning, it was no-where near as bad as torture scenes I've seen in 15-rated films.
Pan's Labyrinth is rated 18 here in Ireland, which seems excessive. 16 would be fine.
The 16 rating only exists for cinema. Pan's Labyrinth got a 16 for cinema but an 18 on DVD because the video system only has 15 and 18, so a film that was a 16 for cinema can go either way (e.g. John Wick and Gone Girl are 15 for DVD but Unfriended and Riot Club are 18)
Silent Hill should've been an 18 (a low one perhaps, but
Christabella's barbed wire death was pretty nasty, especially when she gets ripped in two on-screen.
Watch it here at your own risk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSAei2-c83s
Haven't seen it but from what I've heard, Spectre is one of the most brutal Bond films yet and I've heard quite a few complaints about the 12A being too low for it. Even Matt Baker made a comment on the higher 12 rating for modern Bond films on The One Show recently.
(Using spoiler tags) is it over-exaggeration from parents taking pre-12 yr-old kids or is it genuinely quite bad?
Being cut to avoid a 15 seems to suggest so.
There are 2 scenes in Bond that are not for the faint hearted.
Batista kills someone by putting his thumbs through their eyes, it's mainly implied, most of it is a shot of an emotionless Blofeld watching it happen. This was presumably the cut bit.
The second one is Bond is tied to a dentist type chair while a needle sized screw drills through the side of his forehead. Though Christoph Waltz is basically playing Dr Evil by this point and you could argue the absurdity of the scene takes the sting out of it. Still it is a little jarring.
Film is fine for 12 year olds in my 'umble opinion.
On a similar vain, I noticed there is a minor character called "Spaz" in the PG rated Dead Poets Society, meaning that would be upgraded to 12 if the bbfc ever saw it again.
The mummy brendon frazior ,,,,,,,,,,,,, at the very start they cut the tongue off one of imoteps slaves
The Mummy is a 15 and barely qualifies as one; it actually got that rating due to the hanging scene, which could be dangerous if copied. The cinema and early home releases got a 12 rating with the hanging scene edited but everything else intact.
In the scene you mention, a body moves over the frame before you see anything bad happen; I think 12 is about right for that scene.
Haven't seen it but from what I've heard, Spectre is one of the most brutal Bond films yet and I've heard quite a few complaints about the 12A being too low for it. Even Matt Baker made a comment on the higher 12 rating for modern Bond films on The One Show recently.
(Using spoiler tags) is it over-exaggeration from parents taking pre-12 yr-old kids or is it genuinely quite bad?
Being cut to avoid a 15 seems to suggest so.
Like has been mentioned there are only two scenes in Spectre that are pretty nasty :-
The eye gorging scene. I did watch that - and think it was a bit heavy even for a 12. Surely, the writers and producers must have known that. The torture scene isn't quite as bad - especially compared to the one in Casino Royale. That one was very brutal.
.
It's less intense than Casino Royale, QoS and Skyfall. I probably say that it is the least violent of Craig's Bonds.
The BBFC did bow under pressure to change to the 12A. I've got say - I think it's probably not good.
I think "The Dark Knight" holds the record for complaints over its rating. That's a pretty strong 12 certification - especially for
I think "The Dark Knight" holds the record for complaints over its rating. That's a pretty strong 12 certification - especially for
the pencil scene
.
I don't see a problem with the 12A rating for it (although it's definitely a high '12') and I don't find that many of the complaints were reasonable either; MP Keith Vaz said "There are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter".
It's not an 11A last time I checked; you've been given the choice and responsibility, so use it.
I think that a 16 rating would be useful to bridge the gap between 15 and 18. Ireland has it for their cinema releases and it gives you a better idea of how strong a film is. 15 does cover an awful lot of ground these days.
I'd have said SPECTRE is far less violent than both Licence to Kill (15) and Tomorrow Never Dies, the latter having been cut to achieve a 12A for cinema. You had a brutal punch up with Brosnan using a solid glass ashtray as a knuckleduster, and Michelle Yeoh killing people with ninja death stars. There's nothing approaching that level of violence in SPECTRE, which without the eye scene that you don't see much of, isn't far off a PG.
I'd have said SPECTRE is far less violent than both Licence to Kill (15) and Tomorrow Never Dies, the latter having been cut to achieve a 12A for cinema. You had a brutal punch up with Brosnan using a solid glass ashtray as a knuckleduster, and Michelle Yeoh killing people with ninja death stars. There's nothing approaching that level of violence in SPECTRE, which without the eye scene that you don't see much of, isn't far off a PG.
I just noticed today, that "Diamonds Are Forever" was uprated by the BBFC to 12. According to IMDB, it was for Bond using the word "b1tch" and the part where Klint is covered in flames(much like the scene in LTK - only not as strong).
I just noticed today, that "Diamonds Are Forever" was uprated by the BBFC to 12. According to IMDB, it was for Bond using the word "b1tch" and the part where Klint is covered in flames(much like the scene in LTK - only not as strong).
Klint? Surely you mean Widd?
(The real character names were Mr Wint and Mr Kidd)
I think that a 16 rating would be useful to bridge the gap between 15 and 18. Ireland has it for their cinema releases and it gives you a better idea of how strong a film is. 15 does cover an awful lot of ground these days.
I've always felt there should be no 18 certificate - only a 16. If a person can have sex/get pregnant, get married, join armed forces, drive, leave home, get a job etc before 18 then they are old enough to watch simulated violence and other strong content.
I've always felt there should be no 18 certificate - only a 16. If a person can have sex/get pregnant, get married, join armed forces, drive, leave home, get a job etc before 18 then they are old enough to watch simulated violence and other strong content.
I agree but to me 16 is a tiny bit too low. 15 and 17 would be perfect.
Comments
Has been given a 12A for its theatrical re-release in 2012. It was on limited re-release. So, it's not just for the DVD/Blu Ray version and the commentary - and bonus features. That's probably about right - as has been mentioned - it does contain some strong content.
From what they've said, they wouldn't neccesarily change Watership Down even if it was resubmitted to them. They've suggested that it's being kept there for "historical reasons", as everyone expects it to be a U, and it's become notorious for it.
I doubt they'd have a problem putting it up, they've put Jaws and Ghostbusters up from PG to 12 in recent years, and everyone remembers them as PG (and in the 80's/90's they insisted PG was the right rating for Jaws).
Watership Down is a bit of an odd one though, no one seems sure why Ferman thought it a U in the first place, and the bbfc freely admit the use of "piss off" in it alone wouldn't be acceptable in U now.
Everyone's first thought about Ghostbusters isn't "those sex references were moderate, not mild, hot the hell did it get a PG", everyone's first thought about Watership Down is "how did it get a U?"
The 16 rating only exists for cinema. Pan's Labyrinth got a 16 for cinema but an 18 on DVD because the video system only has 15 and 18, so a film that was a 16 for cinema can go either way (e.g. John Wick and Gone Girl are 15 for DVD but Unfriended and Riot Club are 18)
Strangely, the Special Edition Blu-Ray shows the Irish rating as a 15: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JYweAlotL._SL1600_.jpg
even though the normal Blu-Ray shows it as an 18: http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/HeMAAOSwLVZVx26d/$_57.JPG
Maybe it was re-rated somewhere along the line as the Special Edition came out in 2011, which is four years later than the normal version.
Watch it here at your own risk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSAei2-c83s
(Using spoiler tags) is it over-exaggeration from parents taking pre-12 yr-old kids or is it genuinely quite bad?
Being cut to avoid a 15 seems to suggest so.
The second one is Bond is tied to a dentist type chair while a needle sized screw drills through the side of his forehead. Though Christoph Waltz is basically playing Dr Evil by this point and you could argue the absurdity of the scene takes the sting out of it. Still it is a little jarring.
Film is fine for 12 year olds in my 'umble opinion.
"We help you.."
"Piss off!"
In the scene you mention, a body moves over the frame before you see anything bad happen; I think 12 is about right for that scene.
Like has been mentioned there are only two scenes in Spectre that are pretty nasty :-
It's less intense than Casino Royale, QoS and Skyfall. I probably say that it is the least violent of Craig's Bonds.
The BBFC did bow under pressure to change to the 12A. I've got say - I think it's probably not good.
I think "The Dark Knight" holds the record for complaints over its rating. That's a pretty strong 12 certification - especially for
It's not an 11A last time I checked; you've been given the choice and responsibility, so use it.
It was an 18
I just noticed today, that "Diamonds Are Forever" was uprated by the BBFC to 12. According to IMDB, it was for Bond using the word "b1tch" and the part where Klint is covered in flames(much like the scene in LTK - only not as strong).
Klint? Surely you mean Widd?
(The real character names were Mr Wint and Mr Kidd)
Whoops. Typo.
I've always felt there should be no 18 certificate - only a 16. If a person can have sex/get pregnant, get married, join armed forces, drive, leave home, get a job etc before 18 then they are old enough to watch simulated violence and other strong content.