|
||||||||
Reclassifying Films |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
Nope it didn't. 30 Days Of Night (which was released just three years ago) was upgraded from 15 at the cinema to 18 when it was released on DVD.
It was quite often when Ferman was there - but it's not been since he left. Often the cinema release will be submitted as a cut version for the lower rating , so just because the BBFC say "This film was passed with no cuts made" does not mean it was uncut as cuts made prior to sumission are not taken into account. Home video versions , especially in the US are likely to be a complete unrated version whereas the cinema version is cut to gain a lower rating Quote:
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.
Die Hard 2 is uncut on dvd and Bluray in the UK . Should Die Hard 3 ever appear on Bluray in the UK whether it's cut would be questionable. And Die Hard 4 on Bluray is cut but not by the BBFC- its the studios theatrical version . The stronger R version was part of a 2 disc dvd but remains unavailable on Bluray although suspicions abound about a forthcoming Australian Bluray re-release of the film . My Australian Bluray boxset has the same DH4 as the UK Bluray |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
30 Days Of Night was passed uncut for cinema and DVD release. The second time the BBFC watched it (for DVD release) they thought it was more appropriate at 18 rather than 15. I've never seen it so I can't say what rating I agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Guillermo Del Toro's film Cronos was downgraded from 18 to 15 yesterday, some what surprised at that, it's quite nasty IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
Are older films being resubmitted to the BBFC when they are released on DVD?
The reason I ask this is because the original Terminator, on VHS, was rated 18. I have yet to see an 18 rated version on DVD. Apocalypse Now is another curious one. I have the Redux version, which is 194 Minutes, and therefore I assume "Uncut", and is rated 15. There is also the normal version, running for 153 Minutes and rated 18. I also had on VHS, 18 rated versions of Terminator 2 and Die Hard 2, neither of which have ever shown up on DVD. I'm not an anally retentive person who worries about this sort of thing, I'm just curious. I'm just a film buff who likes to see full films, not cut down versions. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/...Terminator.pdf |
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 173
|
The idiot Ferman and the BBC were jointly responsible for whipping up the media and the public in to a self serving frenzy over quite a few films. Without Ferman, there would never have been any "video nasties", simply because those films were never "nasty" in the first place, but it suited his and the BBC's agenda.
Anyone here old enough to remember the stink when the BBC first aired The Terminator in about 1989, well past 10pm, gave an extended warning about "graphic violence", and still cut at least 5 minutes from it? All from a film the BFFC examiners wanted to give a 15 because they thought the film, albeit for somewhat humourous reasons, had an important message for teenagers. Despite him falling off his perch after he'd left the BBFC, Ferman did cinema and film watchers in the UK a huge favour by dying. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
Stupid. I remember trying to buy it on VHS in a shop and being questioned (even though I was 19 at the time) on my age. I had a debate with the staff member that it was ridiculous them questioning my age when I was clearly well over 15, and had already *legally* seen the exact same film twice at the cinema.
That's the bonkers part of upgrading ratings for DVD releases. ![]() And why are you surprised at being asked your age? 19 is barely above the age limit, and if you can find someone who can 100% reliably determine 16 and 17-year olds from 18, 19 and even 20-year olds every time just by looking... it's news to me. That's why pubs have the "under 25" rule. When you say you had a "debate", it's unclear whether this was an intellectual discussion about how stupid the situation was (with which they may well have agreed while not being able to do anything about it) or whether you were complaining that they weren't bending or ignoring rules that they didn't make and were required to follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,640
|
I remember the old days where films that were classified as 12 at the cinema would go to 15 when they were released on VHS as they did not have 12 as a certification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 13,064
|
Seeing this thread bumped has reminded me of T2 on VHS.
IIRC... When the extended cut of T2 was released on VHS, some of the original footage had to be cut for it to maintain a 15 certificate. Keeping the original footage plus adding the extra footage would have made it worthy (according the the BBFC) of being an 18, but at that time the BBFC would not allow a film to have more than one certificate for different versions. |
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
I remember the old days where films that were classified as 12 at the cinema would go to 15 when they were released on VHS as they did not have 12 as a certification.
It's good that Ferman has gone from the BBFC - they seem a lot more sensible nowadays. It seems a lot harder to get an 18 nowadays. Recently, some films that have had a cinematic re-release have been had their ratings changed. I am thinking of Jaws and Ghostbusters. I think that is probably right - as especially with Jaws - that was a very strong film for a PG! With Ghostbusters - I really knew it from the TV version, and when I watched it on DVD - whooah - that is one sweary film! |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 644
|
The Incredibles (2004) was recently declassified from a PG to U if anyone cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
The Incredibles (2004) was recently declassified from a PG to U if anyone cares.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,113
|
I recently bought The Towering Inferno on DVD and that was a 15. Yet I am sure I first saw it at the cinema when I was about 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,766
|
Quote:
Think it was only a PG in the USA. The BBFC have only ever rated it U and uncut
Pixar's 'PG' List is Toy Story, Cars and Brave. The rest are all U's. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,680
|
The rating systems have always been a bit off. Jurassic Park PG, that scene where the guy gets eaten when he in on the toilet, if I had seen that as a child I'm pretty sure I would have shat myself. Jaws is another movie that should have had a higher rating.
And what was the deal with slapping an 18 certificate on nearly every asian kung fu movie and cutting out all Nunchaku scenes because a few people were accidently hitting themselves with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
|
Surprised they downgraded Last of the Mohicans from a 15 to a 12 certificate recently. It's full of gore, exit-wounds and blood.
The part at the end where Mugua gets that huge axe buried in his abdomen and you see a close up shot of it exiting through his spine and out his back. Wow... Occasionally, I wonder if the BBFC try a little too hard to desperately alter every classification - when the original rating was actually perfectly fine. I know they say they have to re-rate each re-release, but it's like they're making up work for themselves or something. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
Surprised they downgraded Last of the Mohicans from a 15 to a 12 certificate recently. It's full of gore, exit-wounds and blood.
The part at the end where Mugua gets that huge axe buried in his abdomen and you see a close up shot of it exiting through his spine and out his back. Wow... Occasionally, I wonder if the BBFC try a little too hard to desperately alter every classification - when the original rating was actually perfectly fine. I know they say they have to re-rate each re-release, but it's like they're making up work for themselves or something. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
|
I'm aware of that.
But I'm still surprised the DVD/Bluray was downgraded from a 15 to a 12, for the reasons specified. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
30 Days Of Night was passed uncut for cinema and DVD release. The second time the BBFC watched it (for DVD release) they thought it was more appropriate at 18 rather than 15. I've never seen it so I can't say what rating I agree with.
Quote:
18 is the more appropriate rating in my 'umble opinion.
That will encourage others to complain about all sorts of stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
I recently bought The Towering Inferno on DVD and that was a 15. Yet I am sure I first saw it at the cinema when I was about 4
![]() Then on video as a 15 (1986 & 1999). |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 4,456
|
Having recently bought the DVD of Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, it struck me that it really should have been downgraded from 15 to 12. True, Elvira's appearance and behaviour are overtly sexualised, and she barely passes a sentence that doesn't contain some (quite crude) innuendo. But the former is comically over the top as opposed to erotic, and as for the latter, you hear (to say nothing of see) worse in some of the Carry On films. There's very little actual swearing (besides one 'visual' f-word, in a hilarious sight gag
), and the horror content is similarly comical and notably gore-free. I don't agree that it's less appropriate for 12 year olds to hear sexually-themed puns - many of which might go over their heads anyway - than to see actual nudity and sex eg Titanic and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Aliens was downgraded to 15 by the bbfc yesterday for cinema. Has always been 18 up to this point.
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
Aliens was downgraded to 15 by the bbfc yesterday for cinema. Has always been 18 up to this point.
There's a re-issue coming. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Re: Reclassifying Films
At some point last month, Alien got re-rated on Blinkbox and iTunes from an 18 to a 15 (for both the director's cut and theatrical cut).
There was a commentary track which carried an '18' rating which bumped the rating up on the DVD and Blu-Ray; otherwise they would've been rated '15' (both the theatrical and director's cuts got a '15' rating all the way back in 2003). That must be why the digital release is a '15'; it doesn't contain the commentary tracks. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
AFAIK, YouTube Movies is the only movie purchase site which carries the correct rating for Aliens and Alien3 (the former re-rated 15 in 2010, with the latter re-rated 15 in 2003).
Aliens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anWz...ture=c4-search Alien3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7_V...ture=c4-search Alien carries a 15, while Alien Resurrection carries an 18 (the only film of the anthology which is still rated 18). |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,813
|
Quote:
James Ferman's doing, no doubt. That man was an real moron.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:01.






), and the horror content is similarly comical and notably gore-free. I don't agree that it's less appropriate for 12 year olds to hear sexually-themed puns - many of which might go over their heads anyway - than to see actual nudity and sex eg Titanic and so forth.