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.
That sounds far too logical and consistent to ever work in this country:-P
The two films that affected me most as a child were Jaws and The Elephant Man, both inexplicably PG.
The Elephant Man in particular I found to be too intense for a sub 12 year old at the time. The B&W cinematography was superb but only added in making scenes claustrophobic especially the Dickensian cruelty.
Great film but could have waited a few years to see it.
No one under 12 is going to go to the cinema on their own, therefore parents will be deciding what their kids watch. Everyone over the age of 12 is capable of dealing with any film released in the UK.
In today's world kids can basically watch anything they want on the internet anyway so it really is pointless having this restriction at the cinema. At a minimum they should do what they do in the US and allow under 18s to watch any film with an adult.
The two films that affected me most as a child were Jaws and The Elephant Man, both inexplicably PG.
The Elephant Man in particular I found to be too intense for a sub 12 year old at the time. The B&W cinematography was superb but only added in making scenes claustrophobic especially the Dickensian cruelty.
Great film but could have waited a few years to see it.
It used to be an AA (14 and over) before the system overhaul.
Everyone over the age of 12 is capable of dealing with any film released in the UK.
You don't watch many films, do you? Even lower-end 15's (e.g. Mad Max: Fury Road) aren't really appropriate, never mind hard 18's.
Just because they can access nasty stuff on the internet doesn't mean that they should or would. I think that the ratings system is a great idea; if you want to abuse it, that's your choice, but many parents and kids do find it useful (including me).
At a minimum they should do what they do in the US and allow under 18's to watch any film with an adult.
The R rating is 17+, not 18+. The American ratings system is widely seen as one of the worst and I can see why. The King's Speech gets an R but then so does Hostel and The Green Inferno; it's way too broad. Splitting R into 15 and 18 is a lot more useful than having just one adult rating.
I'm far from a prude but there would rightly be many complaints if the system you want was put in place.
The two films that affected me most as a child were Jaws and The Elephant Man, both inexplicably PG.
Jaws was uprated for it's anniversary cinematic re-release to a 12. That's about right - as I and a few other people have commented on it. Yes, it's got some pretty strong content in it. Amazing that it managed to get an A and then a PG.
I'd understand why Watership Down was a U if it hadn't been re-submitted, but it was in 2013 for video and it still got a U
There is a 'submission lite' option at the bbfc, where in new distributors can get a work that's been rated before rated cheaper than normal, on the understanding that it's going to get the same rating it had before. It doesn't really make sense, but it happens.
There was confusion about why The Good, The Bad and The Ugly remained an 18 on dvd years after it had been lowered for cinema because of this. Also this week The X Files season 2 episode 21- The Calusari- was given an 18 for blu-ray, it's 1997 rating and it's unlikely it would be an 18 if seen for the first time now.
There is a 'submission lite' option at the bbfc, where in new distributors can get a work that's been rated before rated cheaper than normal, on the understanding that it's going to get the same rating it had before. It doesn't really make sense, but it happens.
That's a complete waste of money; why not just not submit it at all? You'll keep the old rating anyway.
Something else that I think is silly is that films need to be re-submitted separately for cinema and video; a film very rarely gets a different rating due to the different guidelines between both (the last I can remember was City By The Sea being upgraded from 15 to 18 for instructional drug use being more of a risk at home, and that happened 12 years ago).
Take Mad Max as an example. It last got submitted for video at 18 in 1995 but got a 15 when submitted for cinema in 2015, but the 2015 home release still has an 18 because of the 'different ratings for cinema and video' rule.
Regardless of the rule, it doesn't make sense to use the rating given in the mid-90's for a modern release as opposed to the one given in 2015, and most people assume that the rating on the box falls under current guidelines when they don't always do. Because of this, you can have something relatively tame on video at 18 such as Aliens (which got a 15 for cinema last year) but The Equalizer would be a 15 so you'd automatically assume that Aliens would be more unsuitable for 15 year old's when it isn't necessarily the case.
From what I know in terms of ratings systems, only America/the MPAA doesn't require separate submissions for home and cinema releases.
Kinda surprised Marvel's Jessica Jones got a 15 rating, because tonally at the least, the first episode is very 18.
BBFC guidelines for 15 state that No theme is prohibited (at 15), provided the treatment is appropriate for 15 year olds.
I haven't seen it myself but I've heard that there's quite a lot of sex/sex themes.
I'm wouldn't be surprised though as I felt that Daredevil was pushing the 15 boundaries with the violence, although the worst moments are implied instead of shown so I guess that an upper-end 15 is reasonable.
No one under 12 is going to go to the cinema on their own, therefore parents will be deciding what their kids watch. Everyone over the age of 12 is capable of dealing with any film released in the UK.
If we didn't have the BBFC, there would still be pressure to censor films; it would just come from religious groups and the like. At least this way there is only one organisation involved.
Under twelve year olds are not as mature as fifteen and eighteen year olds and can't handle some things. Remember these are primary-school aged kids.
Not about the BBFC but to me, the OFLC (Australia) are very inconsistent, especially with their M rating (advisory 15+).
Before 1993, M was 15+ and R was 18+, but in that year, MA15+ was added as a restrictive 15 for more violent films and to bridge the gap.
Some films have gone up from M to MA15, since it was introduced, that came out before 1993, such as The Shining, and others have gone down from R to MA such as The Godfather, but there are many still at M (which is used as PG-13 for Hunger Games, Marvel etc) which really need to be upgraded to MA such as Die Hard and Alien which are clearly too violent at M, but kept that rating even after being submitted post-1993.
Another thing about them that annoys me is that MA and R18 are basically interchangeable. The Saw series (bar the last), Dredd and Grindhouse are all MA15+ but Mad Max, Full Metal Jacket and Evil Dead 2 are still R18+ (even after rerating), and whilst they are violent, they are nowhere near as bad as some of the films at MA that I've just mentioned.
I laughed at the consumer advice for the 12A The Force Awakens-
Violence- There are frequent scenes of moderate violence, including use of blasters and lightsabers, and dogfights between spaceships. Sight of blood and injury detail is limited and brief.
Threat- Occasional scenes of moderate threat include characters being interrogated using 'the Force', which it is implied causes them pain, and characters being held at lightsaber-point.
There is infrequent use of very mild bad language ('hell', 'damn').
There are also some scenes in the trailers of Stormtroopers with flamethrowers stalking through some village letting loose, I'm guessing killing civilians.
I'm sure you don't see any detail but I wouldn't be surprised tonally if it's a bit much for a PG.
Plus Abrams films his close up action scenes with quite a bit of intensity, with shots of people's faces in agony, etc, a lot of the violence in his Star Trek films actually comes across pretty harsh for example.
Although I do reckon he's probably toned it down a notch for Star Wars. I'm guessing it was still too much for a PG.
Interesting in that they originally wanted cuts to Quint's death scene, but Universal talked them out of it.
That scene, in particular, is quite violent and bloody. It's amazing that thinking back to it - that it got an A rating - then a PG on video. Nowadays, it's a lot more sensibly got the 12 rating.
That scene, in particular, is quite violent and bloody. It's amazing that thinking back to it - that it got an A rating - then a PG on video. Nowadays, it's a lot more sensibly got the 12 rating.
The BBFC even said that it was a lot closer to a 15 than a PG, even with how much time has passed. It's an interesting point to consider when most older films (e.g. Full Metal Jacket or The Godfather) are getting their ratings lowered instead.
It'll go down as one of those great anomalies, the BBFC's relationship with Spielberg. The number of free passes they've given him over the years is quite interesting.
If a film was released now showing Quint being devoured like that, screaming, with the teeth shown entering his flesh showing blood pumping out, it would be a straight 15. I've yet to see a new 12-rated release show anywhere near as much blood/gore in a character's drawn-out death.
All other modern films are usually told to edit for a 12 or accept a 15. They try and argue the historical popularity of Jaws and that 'everyone knows what to expect', but it's still completely inconsistent ratings-wise.
It'll go down as one of those great anomalies, the BBFC's relationship with Spielberg. The number of free passes they've given him over the years is quite interesting.
I actually think that they got it right with Saving Private Ryan though; apart from
the guy with his intestines hanging out
it seemed to me to be within the 15 guidelines, even when you dismiss the 'historical education benefit' that helped it to avoid an 18. The scene that I just mentioned probably fits too seeing as 15 certs allow 'strong, gory images' as long as they are brief, which it is, as the rest of the worst parts in the film are.
I'm not entirely sure that the first Godfather should be a 15 nowadays. There is some pretty strong bloody violence in it - namely, the two scenes that I can say
Michael killing the guys at the table in the restaurant - headshots and lots of blood, and Sonny being killed at the crossing in the "Bonnie and Clyde" homage - loads of blood and bullet holes
.
(I know that you made this comment ages ago, but I've only just seen this film today)
*Major spoilers below - proceed with caution*
To me it's within the '15' guidelines - even though it's strong and fairly bloody, it doesn't linger and cuts away quite quickly; there's also a lack of injury detail and gore . The reason why there's so much blood on Sonny's clothes after getting shot is because it's dried up blood; when he actually gets shot, the blood spurts aren't that large. I agree that when the first man gets shot at the table, there is a large blood cloud, but it's very brief which mitigates the impact somewhat.
I agree with you somewhat; to me it's at the higher end of 15. A 16 category in between 15 and 18 (like Ireland has for cinema releases) would suit it more, but out of just 15 and 18, I agree with it being at 15.
I thought that blood spurting when people get shot is what average 15-level violence is; it tends to be gore that gets you an 18 nowadays.
Comments
That sounds far too logical and consistent to ever work in this country:-P
The 1st one is a 15 assuming you're watching the uncut version.
And every child presumably still has to read Lord of the Flies in school these days? Though I dunno, maybes they read Hunger Games instead now. ;-)
The Elephant Man in particular I found to be too intense for a sub 12 year old at the time. The B&W cinematography was superb but only added in making scenes claustrophobic especially the Dickensian cruelty.
Great film but could have waited a few years to see it.
No one under 12 is going to go to the cinema on their own, therefore parents will be deciding what their kids watch. Everyone over the age of 12 is capable of dealing with any film released in the UK.
In today's world kids can basically watch anything they want on the internet anyway so it really is pointless having this restriction at the cinema. At a minimum they should do what they do in the US and allow under 18s to watch any film with an adult.
It used to be an AA (14 and over) before the system overhaul.
Just because they can access nasty stuff on the internet doesn't mean that they should or would. I think that the ratings system is a great idea; if you want to abuse it, that's your choice, but many parents and kids do find it useful (including me).
The R rating is 17+, not 18+. The American ratings system is widely seen as one of the worst and I can see why. The King's Speech gets an R but then so does Hostel and The Green Inferno; it's way too broad. Splitting R into 15 and 18 is a lot more useful than having just one adult rating.
I'm far from a prude but there would rightly be many complaints if the system you want was put in place.
Jaws was uprated for it's anniversary cinematic re-release to a 12. That's about right - as I and a few other people have commented on it. Yes, it's got some pretty strong content in it. Amazing that it managed to get an A and then a PG.
Checking IMDb, the only two countries that have sensible ratings for it are Finland (12) and Brazil (16).
My DVD copy from 2005 has a more sensible (Ireland) IFCO 12 rating even though the one that came out before it got an IFCO G and the 2013 one also got a G.
Must be due to bonus features/trailers on the 2005 DVD but still very strange.
There is a 'submission lite' option at the bbfc, where in new distributors can get a work that's been rated before rated cheaper than normal, on the understanding that it's going to get the same rating it had before. It doesn't really make sense, but it happens.
There was confusion about why The Good, The Bad and The Ugly remained an 18 on dvd years after it had been lowered for cinema because of this. Also this week The X Files season 2 episode 21- The Calusari- was given an 18 for blu-ray, it's 1997 rating and it's unlikely it would be an 18 if seen for the first time now.
That's a complete waste of money; why not just not submit it at all? You'll keep the old rating anyway.
Something else that I think is silly is that films need to be re-submitted separately for cinema and video; a film very rarely gets a different rating due to the different guidelines between both (the last I can remember was City By The Sea being upgraded from 15 to 18 for instructional drug use being more of a risk at home, and that happened 12 years ago).
Take Mad Max as an example. It last got submitted for video at 18 in 1995 but got a 15 when submitted for cinema in 2015, but the 2015 home release still has an 18 because of the 'different ratings for cinema and video' rule.
Regardless of the rule, it doesn't make sense to use the rating given in the mid-90's for a modern release as opposed to the one given in 2015, and most people assume that the rating on the box falls under current guidelines when they don't always do. Because of this, you can have something relatively tame on video at 18 such as Aliens (which got a 15 for cinema last year) but The Equalizer would be a 15 so you'd automatically assume that Aliens would be more unsuitable for 15 year old's when it isn't necessarily the case.
From what I know in terms of ratings systems, only America/the MPAA doesn't require separate submissions for home and cinema releases.
I haven't seen it myself but I've heard that there's quite a lot of sex/sex themes.
I'm wouldn't be surprised though as I felt that Daredevil was pushing the 15 boundaries with the violence, although the worst moments are implied instead of shown so I guess that an upper-end 15 is reasonable.
If we didn't have the BBFC, there would still be pressure to censor films; it would just come from religious groups and the like. At least this way there is only one organisation involved.
Under twelve year olds are not as mature as fifteen and eighteen year olds and can't handle some things. Remember these are primary-school aged kids.
Before 1993, M was 15+ and R was 18+, but in that year, MA15+ was added as a restrictive 15 for more violent films and to bridge the gap.
Some films have gone up from M to MA15, since it was introduced, that came out before 1993, such as The Shining, and others have gone down from R to MA such as The Godfather, but there are many still at M (which is used as PG-13 for Hunger Games, Marvel etc) which really need to be upgraded to MA such as Die Hard and Alien which are clearly too violent at M, but kept that rating even after being submitted post-1993.
Another thing about them that annoys me is that MA and R18 are basically interchangeable. The Saw series (bar the last), Dredd and Grindhouse are all MA15+ but Mad Max, Full Metal Jacket and Evil Dead 2 are still R18+ (even after rerating), and whilst they are violent, they are nowhere near as bad as some of the films at MA that I've just mentioned.
Would have been a U in the 80's.
would have prevented several desperate nights at the pictures
Sounds rather soft for a 12A, surely a PG would suffice?
I'm sure you don't see any detail but I wouldn't be surprised tonally if it's a bit much for a PG.
Plus Abrams films his close up action scenes with quite a bit of intensity, with shots of people's faces in agony, etc, a lot of the violence in his Star Trek films actually comes across pretty harsh for example.
Although I do reckon he's probably toned it down a notch for Star Wars. I'm guessing it was still too much for a PG.
Interesting in that they originally wanted cuts to Quint's death scene, but Universal talked them out of it.
That scene, in particular, is quite violent and bloody. It's amazing that thinking back to it - that it got an A rating - then a PG on video. Nowadays, it's a lot more sensibly got the 12 rating.
The BBFC even said that it was a lot closer to a 15 than a PG, even with how much time has passed. It's an interesting point to consider when most older films (e.g. Full Metal Jacket or The Godfather) are getting their ratings lowered instead.
If a film was released now showing Quint being devoured like that, screaming, with the teeth shown entering his flesh showing blood pumping out, it would be a straight 15. I've yet to see a new 12-rated release show anywhere near as much blood/gore in a character's drawn-out death.
All other modern films are usually told to edit for a 12 or accept a 15. They try and argue the historical popularity of Jaws and that 'everyone knows what to expect', but it's still completely inconsistent ratings-wise.
(I know that you made this comment ages ago, but I've only just seen this film today)
*Major spoilers below - proceed with caution*
I agree with you somewhat; to me it's at the higher end of 15. A 16 category in between 15 and 18 (like Ireland has for cinema releases) would suit it more, but out of just 15 and 18, I agree with it being at 15.
I thought that blood spurting when people get shot is what average 15-level violence is; it tends to be gore that gets you an 18 nowadays.