These kids of damn the censors and their cuts, or even the distributers and their cuts make me laugh so much.
The only reason people complain about the cuts is because you know about them.
You get a group of 200 people you split them into two groups of 100 and then send one group into see the cut version and another to see the uncut version.
Before they go in you tell them that one version had 2 seconds, or 20 seconds cut or it had an image removed, but not saying what the image was (for example what happened with the DVD release of The Avengers)
When they come out you ask eac person did you see the cut version? Each person that says yes, you then ask what was cut or what was removed digitally.
How many people would get it correct? Even if they correctly guessed that they saw the cut version they wouldn't have a clue what it was unless they were told beforehand.
If you cant tell what the cut is without being told what it was in the first place, then it really wasn't needed in the film or TV series to begin with.
As for the actor not being tall enough.... so? The only people who would know are people that have read the books. If you haven't you wouldn't have a clue.
I knew the name Lee Childs but not the name Jack Reacher, so I have no preconcieved ideas what he should be like.
Having seen the trailer it looks like yet another Mission Impossible, James Bond, Bourne etc film. Punching people, car chases and so forth. They could have cast anyone in that film as it looks very formularic to me as a non-fan.
As for the actor not being tall enough.... so? The only people who would know are people that have read the books. If you haven't you wouldn't have a clue.
Until recently maybe. I think the controversy will have changed that.
And it isn't just the height - its the whole look. And Tom Cruise only plays Tom Cruise. It could have been any random character if its going to stray so far away.
They should have gone to HBO with a set of 3 parters and Ray Stevenson in the lead role. Or even this guy:
I'm not sure his age is ever given, but he seems to be in his early 40's.
edit : wiki says 52!!!
Do the books follow on from each other or can you read them in any order? Don`t know why but it keep imagining him has a john wayne type character. probably isn`t anything like him.
They're all pretty much self-contained and most can be read in any order, although there are a few that should be read in order due to certain characters that appear in them.
Looking forward to this movie.Tom cruise has made it his pastime in proving people wrong............Interview with a vampire/collateral/Magolia...even tropic thunder.presence in abundance
People would seriously prefer "wrestlers" with no acting ability whatsoever because they are a little taller?
That is bizarre.I personally think its a case of people not being to seperate tom the actor from his religious views:D
I've read quite a few of the Jack Reacher novels and in my minds eye I've always imagined him to look like Liam Neeson who IMO would have been perfect for the role
I can't believe some of the comments on here blaming the BBFC. If the film is too violent then it needs to be cut or (and here's a crazy idea) actually bring it out as a 15 rated film that only grown ups can get into see. But oh no! That would mean the kiddies can't get to see it and the studio would lose some money. Urrrgh!!!
I am sick to death of the sodding 12A cert. Its a cop out certificate, and its the certificate itself that's the problem. Some things are unsuitable for children to watch you know, and I find the way Hollywood keeps trying to push the violence levels on this certificate disturbing, particularly in light of recent shootings in the US committed by young people.
No, I do not believe the Daily Mail line that films on their own encourage people to become Mass Murderers, but when you have a culture of violence, entertainment that promotes it further and freely available fire arms it perhaps doesn't help those of wobbly mental states.
I can't believe some of the comments on here blaming the BBFC. If the film is too violent then it needs to be cut or (and here's a crazy idea) actually bring it out as a 15 rated film that only grown ups can get into see. But oh no! That would mean the kiddies can't get to see it and the studio would lose some money. Urrrgh!!!
I am sick to death of the sodding 12A cert. Its a cop out certificate, and its the certificate itself that's the problem. Some things are unsuitable for children to watch you know, and I find the way Hollywood keeps trying to push the violence levels on this certificate disturbing, particularly in light of recent shootings in the US committed by young people.
No, I do not believe the Daily Mail line that films on their own encourage people to become Mass Murderers, but when you have a culture of violence, entertainment that promotes it further and freely available fire arms it perhaps doesn't help those of wobbly mental states.
How can you whine about the 12A certificate and freely available firearms, Britain has a 12A certificate but does not give easy access to firearms, so either the firearms comment or the 12A comment is irrelevant...
As long as it's handled sensitively and appropriately no topics should be off limit at any category, keeping/making topics taboo is what turns them into issues, and makes them intriguing to those who can't see/don't know about them...
How can you whine about the 12A certificate and freely available firearms, Britain has a 12A certificate but does not give easy access to firearms, so either the firearms comment or the 12A comment is irrelevant...
Black teenage gang members in London don't seem to have much trouble getting a gun when they want kill someone.
As long as it's handled sensitively and appropriately no topics should be off limit at any category, keeping/making topics taboo is what turns them into issues, and makes them intriguing to those who can't see/don't know about them...
Some things are best kept away from children. The 12A has become a huge problem for any adult who wants to see a proper action movie. Everything Hollywood makes now panders to the 12A/PG13, meaning the sort of content in classic adult actioners from the 80s like Die Hard, Robocop, The Terminator will rarely ever be put in mainstream films again.
Black teenage gang members in London don't seem to have much trouble getting a gun when they want kill someone.
Some things are best kept away from children. The 12A has become a huge problem for any adult who wants to see a proper action movie. Everything Hollywood makes now panders to the 12A/PG13, meaning the sort of content in classic adult actioners from the 80s like Die Hard, Robocop, The Terminator will rarely ever be put in mainstream films again.
I'd be careful that came across as a bit racist (though I'll assume it wasn't intended as such), and most gang killings involve knifes and blades, not guns...
The 12A hasn't ruined action movies, corporate greed has, if you look hard enough you can still find good action films rated 12, 15 and 18, though most originate from indie companies rather than big studios. And what should be kept away from children, you don't actually provide any examples of what you used to see but now don't (other than obvious stuff like steady camerawork, blood, close ups and swearing)?
I really hate the way movies these days dress their violence up in nice fluffy terms in order to get a Tween rating.
It's a cynical exercise in money making
But that is a whole different argument. Are they doing it to get a tween rating or are they doing it because extreme violence isn't needed?
If you look back at lots of old films they didn't have extreme violence, swearing, nudity etc and they are still great films.
If you look at how many war films there were where you had machines a-plenty and people falling down dead all over the place, yet no blood. Unrealistic? Probably. Made the film crap? Nope!
In the commentray track for one James Bond (Goldeneye I think) the Director mentioned how they had numerous discussions about if they needed blood in the opening of the film. The scene involed Bond and Sean Bean gunning down men as they were running through a door. It was decided not to use it for this reason.... "They have never used blood before in Bond and it didn't change the film so they won't start now."
Since then things have changed of course but at tht time in the mid-nineties that was the way they approached it.
Nothing to do with rating or money, just never needed to do it, it's nott affecting box office so why start doing it now?
It's possibly that rather than catering to tweeners "just" for money film studios are starting to realise that in the past things went a bit too far getting too bloody, too violent, too gory than it needed to be. They could pull back a bit, it wasn't missed or affecting the film or the story so they are easing back or are happy to just cut it if required too or asked too.
The rating system barriers are becoming more and more blurred. What would have got an 15 rating now gets a 12 or a 12A, what was an 18 now gets a 15.
I remember when I went and saw Dredd this year I thought to myself I can't remember the last time I went to see an 18 certificate film. It's the first time in literally years I've been to see a film that hasn't had kids of early to mid teenagers in the audience. It had been so long I can't even remember the last 18 certificate film I had seen before that. Most films are rated 15.
IMO rather than appealing to the tweeners, they are just realising they took things too far, some things that are in films aren't that important and if they need to be cut to make more money then let's do it. Let's not forget that the whole ide is to make profit, not to make a certain number of people happy.
But that is a whole different argument. Are they doing it to get a tween rating or are they doing it because extreme violence isn't needed?
If you look back at lots of old films they didn't have extreme violence, swearing, nudity etc and they are still great films.
If you look at how many war films there were where you had machines a-plenty and people falling down dead all over the place, yet no blood. Unrealistic? Probably. Made the film crap? Nope!
In the commentray track for one James Bond (Goldeneye I think) the Director mentioned how they had numerous discussions about if they needed blood in the opening of the film. The scene involed Bond and Sean Bean gunning down men as they were running through a door. It was decided not to use it for this reason.... "They have never used blood before in Bond and it didn't change the film so they won't start now."
Since then things have changed of course but at tht time in the mid-nineties that was the way they approached it.
Nothing to do with rating or money, just never needed to do it, it's nott affecting box office so why start doing it now?
It's possibly that rather than catering to tweeners "just" for money film studios are starting to realise that in the past things went a bit too far getting too bloody, too violent, too gory than it needed to be. They could pull back a bit, it wasn't missed or affecting the film or the story so they are easing back or are happy to just cut it if required too or asked too.
The rating system barriers are becoming more and more blurred. What would have got an 15 rating now gets a 12 or a 12A, what was an 18 now gets a 15.
I remember when I went and saw Dredd this year I thought to myself I can't remember the last time I went to see an 18 certificate film. It's the first time in literally years I've been to see a film that hasn't had kids of early to mid teenagers in the audience. It had been so long I can't even remember the last 18 certificate film I had seen before that. Most films are rated 15.
IMO rather than appealing to the tweeners, they are just realising they took things too far, some things that are in films aren't that important and if they need to be cut to make more money then let's do it. Let's not forget that the whole ide is to make profit, not to make a certain number of people happy.
I wish I was as trusting as you, but I think we all know this is an exercise in money making...
Christopher Nolan has said on the record, he probably wouldn't have taken Batman on if he'd been told beforehand that Batman doesn't kill people, and he's continued to push the limits of what's acceptable at a 12A (and got the BBFC's most complained about film in the process). Film makers aren't changing, studios are, it's almost as if studios suddenly released (with the advent of the Twilight films) they could make more money by targeting tween/teenage audiences and are know hammering that potential for all it's worth.
Though in the comedy market, things do appear to be going in the more adult direction with the success of Judd Apatow and Ted...
I wish I was as trusting as you, but I think we all know this is an exercise in money making...
Christopher Nolan has said on the record, he probably wouldn't have taken Batman on if he'd been told beforehand that Batman doesn't kill people, and he's continued to push the limits of what's acceptable at a 12A (and got the BBFC's most complained about film in the process). Film makers aren't changing, studios are, it's almost as if studios suddenly released (with the advent of the Twilight films) they could make more money by targeting tween/teenage audiences and are know hammering that potential for all it's worth.
Though in the comedy market, things do appear to be going in the more adult direction with the success of Judd Apatow and Ted...
But doesn't that tell you more about Chris Nolan more than the studio or the view the industry has at the moment?
IF Warner's didn't want Batman killing people, Nolan wouldn't have got the gig. Batman would still have got made. It would still have made lots of money, because it's Batman and a successful franchise and the studio would still have been happy. Would it have been as successful? Probably not, but it still would have been successful.
Personally I don't rate Nolan or anyone at all that is trying to "push" what is acceptable for 12A. If you don't like what the limits are don't make a film for that certificate. Bottom line it's not any censorship board/committee's job to give a toss about how much money a film makes and if it is successful.
Nolan and his like would lose every time if they wer facing me as I wouldn't back down at all.
If you do this then it's 12A if you don't it's 15. I don't give Secret Squirrels left nut about box office takings, the fans, how much the film costs, the artistic merit or anything else. It's your decision, so which one do you want the 12A or the 15. Come back to me when you've decided!
There wouldn't be any you needed to have 10 cuts, well ok as you cut 7 we'll let the other 3 go nonsense.
IMO the studio has wised up to the fact that you can make films that are big films, make lots of money etc that can be 12 and 12A because where as before you may have had to rely on extreme and unnecessary violence, CGI/SFX covers a lot of flaws for a start.
Twilight has nothing to do with it and any changes that may or may not be happening. Every studio is looking for a franchise because that is where the money is Twilight was so popular as books it got snapped up. The same as Harry Potter, the same as Percy Jackson, the same as The Hunger Games. They however were aimed at or predominently read by kids and teenagers. At no point did they think lets buy the rights to the kids books and make 18+ version of the film that kids and teenagers can't go and see.
If they wanted more films for the Tweeners market there are plenty of books there for them.
As far as Ted goes, I've not seen the film but a person I spoke to that has said he didn't get why it was an 18 certifictae as there was nothing in it that couldn't be seen in other 15 certificated films. It was his opinion it only got the 18 certificate because the main character was a teddy bear and there was a danger that if it had a lower certificate some partents would take their younger kids thinking "it's probably not that bad that my young son/daughter couldn't see it."
But doesn't that tell you more about Chris Nolan more than the studio or the view the industry has at the moment?
IF Warner's didn't want Batman killing people, Nolan wouldn't have got the gig. Batman would still have got made. It would still have made lots of money, because it's Batman and a successful franchise and the studio would still have been happy. Would it have been as successful? Probably not, but it still would have been successful.
Personally I don't rate Nolan or anyone at all that is trying to "push" what is acceptable for 12A. If you don't like what the limits are don't make a film for that certificate. Bottom line it's not any censorship board/committee's job to give a toss about how much money a film makes and if it is successful.
Nolan and his like would lose every time if they wer facing me as I wouldn't back down at all.
If you do this then it's 12A if you don't it's 15. I don't give Secret Squirrels left nut about box office takings, the fans, how much the film costs, the artistic merit or anything else. It's your decision, so which one do you want the 12A or the 15. Come back to me when you've decided!
There wouldn't be any you needed to have 10 cuts, well ok as you cut 7 we'll let the other 3 go nonsense.
IMO the studio has wised up to the fact that you can make films that are big films, make lots of money etc that can be 12 and 12A because where as before you may have had to rely on extreme and unnecessary violence, CGI/SFX covers a lot of flaws for a start.
Twilight has nothing to do with it and any changes that may or may not be happening. Every studio is looking for a franchise because that is where the money is Twilight was so popular as books it got snapped up. The same as Harry Potter, the same as Percy Jackson, the same as The Hunger Games. They however were aimed at or predominently read by kids and teenagers. At no point did they think lets buy the rights to the kids books and make 18+ version of the film that kids and teenagers can't go and see.
If they wanted more films for the Tweeners market there are plenty of books there for them.
As far as Ted goes, I've not seen the film but a person I spoke to that has said he didn't get why it was an 18 certifictae as there was nothing in it that couldn't be seen in other 15 certificated films. It was his opinion it only got the 18 certificate because the main character was a teddy bear and there was a danger that if it had a lower certificate some partents would take their younger kids thinking "it's probably not that bad that my young son/daughter couldn't see it."
Batman doesn't kill people, Nolan stuck by the rule (though Batman does come very close at the end of Batman Begins "I'm not gonna kill you, but I don't have to save you either"). If you were offered a Batman film, but were told it had to get a PG-13, would you not take the film, and then push it slightly, so it suits your style?
Twilight started the wave of films aimed specifically at teenagers, and contributed to a lot of the new 12 rated films.
The BBFC does have an all or nothing approach, The Hunger Games had an advice screening, the BBFC said they felt it was a 15, told them what they had to do to get a 12. Lionsgate made some, but not all of the changes and the film got a 15, but was then cut for a 12 (with an uncut release on BD).
Ted WAS a 15, but it got an R in the States and has been the most prominent in a wave of cruder/more adult comedies released in recent years...
Christopher Nolan has said on the record, he probably wouldn't have taken Batman on if he'd been told beforehand that Batman doesn't kill people
I can't see that being accurate. The character of Batman has always generally had a "no killing" rule, and Nolan will almost certainly have known this before taking on the film.
As for Jack Reacher, i saw it on Boxing Day and really enjoyed it, it was a great story and i'd like to see more films, although with it underperforming in the US i think it'll probably be one and done unfortunately.
Comments
Surely the author lee childs agreed to it?
Whether he did or not isn't really relevant. You don't say no to the darkest forces of evil's poster child.
The only reason people complain about the cuts is because you know about them.
You get a group of 200 people you split them into two groups of 100 and then send one group into see the cut version and another to see the uncut version.
Before they go in you tell them that one version had 2 seconds, or 20 seconds cut or it had an image removed, but not saying what the image was (for example what happened with the DVD release of The Avengers)
When they come out you ask eac person did you see the cut version? Each person that says yes, you then ask what was cut or what was removed digitally.
How many people would get it correct? Even if they correctly guessed that they saw the cut version they wouldn't have a clue what it was unless they were told beforehand.
If you cant tell what the cut is without being told what it was in the first place, then it really wasn't needed in the film or TV series to begin with.
As for the actor not being tall enough.... so? The only people who would know are people that have read the books. If you haven't you wouldn't have a clue.
I knew the name Lee Childs but not the name Jack Reacher, so I have no preconcieved ideas what he should be like.
Having seen the trailer it looks like yet another Mission Impossible, James Bond, Bourne etc film. Punching people, car chases and so forth. They could have cast anyone in that film as it looks very formularic to me as a non-fan.
Its called 'selling out'.
Until recently maybe. I think the controversy will have changed that.
And it isn't just the height - its the whole look. And Tom Cruise only plays Tom Cruise. It could have been any random character if its going to stray so far away.
They should have gone to HBO with a set of 3 parters and Ray Stevenson in the lead role. Or even this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Adam_Copeland%2C_2012.jpg
I'm not sure his age is ever given, but he seems to be in his early 40's.
edit : wiki says 52!!!
Do the books follow on from each other or can you read them in any order? Don`t know why but it keep imagining him has a john wayne type character. probably isn`t anything like him.
People would seriously prefer "wrestlers" with no acting ability whatsoever because they are a little taller?
That is bizarre.I personally think its a case of people not being to seperate tom the actor from his religious views:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFal553wR3k
I am sick to death of the sodding 12A cert. Its a cop out certificate, and its the certificate itself that's the problem. Some things are unsuitable for children to watch you know, and I find the way Hollywood keeps trying to push the violence levels on this certificate disturbing, particularly in light of recent shootings in the US committed by young people.
No, I do not believe the Daily Mail line that films on their own encourage people to become Mass Murderers, but when you have a culture of violence, entertainment that promotes it further and freely available fire arms it perhaps doesn't help those of wobbly mental states.
He is age 45 in One Shot.
The books are sequential (except for the prequels in the army) and he continues to age through the stories.
How can you whine about the 12A certificate and freely available firearms, Britain has a 12A certificate but does not give easy access to firearms, so either the firearms comment or the 12A comment is irrelevant...
As long as it's handled sensitively and appropriately no topics should be off limit at any category, keeping/making topics taboo is what turns them into issues, and makes them intriguing to those who can't see/don't know about them...
Black teenage gang members in London don't seem to have much trouble getting a gun when they want kill someone.
Some things are best kept away from children. The 12A has become a huge problem for any adult who wants to see a proper action movie. Everything Hollywood makes now panders to the 12A/PG13, meaning the sort of content in classic adult actioners from the 80s like Die Hard, Robocop, The Terminator will rarely ever be put in mainstream films again.
It's a cynical exercise in money making
The 12A hasn't ruined action movies, corporate greed has, if you look hard enough you can still find good action films rated 12, 15 and 18, though most originate from indie companies rather than big studios. And what should be kept away from children, you don't actually provide any examples of what you used to see but now don't (other than obvious stuff like steady camerawork, blood, close ups and swearing)?
TC's considerable overseas draw could save face though.
But that is a whole different argument. Are they doing it to get a tween rating or are they doing it because extreme violence isn't needed?
If you look back at lots of old films they didn't have extreme violence, swearing, nudity etc and they are still great films.
If you look at how many war films there were where you had machines a-plenty and people falling down dead all over the place, yet no blood. Unrealistic? Probably. Made the film crap? Nope!
In the commentray track for one James Bond (Goldeneye I think) the Director mentioned how they had numerous discussions about if they needed blood in the opening of the film. The scene involed Bond and Sean Bean gunning down men as they were running through a door. It was decided not to use it for this reason.... "They have never used blood before in Bond and it didn't change the film so they won't start now."
Since then things have changed of course but at tht time in the mid-nineties that was the way they approached it.
Nothing to do with rating or money, just never needed to do it, it's nott affecting box office so why start doing it now?
It's possibly that rather than catering to tweeners "just" for money film studios are starting to realise that in the past things went a bit too far getting too bloody, too violent, too gory than it needed to be. They could pull back a bit, it wasn't missed or affecting the film or the story so they are easing back or are happy to just cut it if required too or asked too.
The rating system barriers are becoming more and more blurred. What would have got an 15 rating now gets a 12 or a 12A, what was an 18 now gets a 15.
I remember when I went and saw Dredd this year I thought to myself I can't remember the last time I went to see an 18 certificate film. It's the first time in literally years I've been to see a film that hasn't had kids of early to mid teenagers in the audience. It had been so long I can't even remember the last 18 certificate film I had seen before that. Most films are rated 15.
IMO rather than appealing to the tweeners, they are just realising they took things too far, some things that are in films aren't that important and if they need to be cut to make more money then let's do it. Let's not forget that the whole ide is to make profit, not to make a certain number of people happy.
I wish I was as trusting as you, but I think we all know this is an exercise in money making...
Christopher Nolan has said on the record, he probably wouldn't have taken Batman on if he'd been told beforehand that Batman doesn't kill people, and he's continued to push the limits of what's acceptable at a 12A (and got the BBFC's most complained about film in the process). Film makers aren't changing, studios are, it's almost as if studios suddenly released (with the advent of the Twilight films) they could make more money by targeting tween/teenage audiences and are know hammering that potential for all it's worth.
Though in the comedy market, things do appear to be going in the more adult direction with the success of Judd Apatow and Ted...
But doesn't that tell you more about Chris Nolan more than the studio or the view the industry has at the moment?
IF Warner's didn't want Batman killing people, Nolan wouldn't have got the gig. Batman would still have got made. It would still have made lots of money, because it's Batman and a successful franchise and the studio would still have been happy. Would it have been as successful? Probably not, but it still would have been successful.
Personally I don't rate Nolan or anyone at all that is trying to "push" what is acceptable for 12A. If you don't like what the limits are don't make a film for that certificate. Bottom line it's not any censorship board/committee's job to give a toss about how much money a film makes and if it is successful.
Nolan and his like would lose every time if they wer facing me as I wouldn't back down at all.
If you do this then it's 12A if you don't it's 15. I don't give Secret Squirrels left nut about box office takings, the fans, how much the film costs, the artistic merit or anything else. It's your decision, so which one do you want the 12A or the 15. Come back to me when you've decided!
There wouldn't be any you needed to have 10 cuts, well ok as you cut 7 we'll let the other 3 go nonsense.
IMO the studio has wised up to the fact that you can make films that are big films, make lots of money etc that can be 12 and 12A because where as before you may have had to rely on extreme and unnecessary violence, CGI/SFX covers a lot of flaws for a start.
Twilight has nothing to do with it and any changes that may or may not be happening. Every studio is looking for a franchise because that is where the money is Twilight was so popular as books it got snapped up. The same as Harry Potter, the same as Percy Jackson, the same as The Hunger Games. They however were aimed at or predominently read by kids and teenagers. At no point did they think lets buy the rights to the kids books and make 18+ version of the film that kids and teenagers can't go and see.
If they wanted more films for the Tweeners market there are plenty of books there for them.
As far as Ted goes, I've not seen the film but a person I spoke to that has said he didn't get why it was an 18 certifictae as there was nothing in it that couldn't be seen in other 15 certificated films. It was his opinion it only got the 18 certificate because the main character was a teddy bear and there was a danger that if it had a lower certificate some partents would take their younger kids thinking "it's probably not that bad that my young son/daughter couldn't see it."
Twilight started the wave of films aimed specifically at teenagers, and contributed to a lot of the new 12 rated films.
The BBFC does have an all or nothing approach, The Hunger Games had an advice screening, the BBFC said they felt it was a 15, told them what they had to do to get a 12. Lionsgate made some, but not all of the changes and the film got a 15, but was then cut for a 12 (with an uncut release on BD).
Ted WAS a 15, but it got an R in the States and has been the most prominent in a wave of cruder/more adult comedies released in recent years...
I can't see that being accurate. The character of Batman has always generally had a "no killing" rule, and Nolan will almost certainly have known this before taking on the film.
As for Jack Reacher, i saw it on Boxing Day and really enjoyed it, it was a great story and i'd like to see more films, although with it underperforming in the US i think it'll probably be one and done unfortunately.