|
||||||||
Reclassifying Films |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#126 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Just been checking up on the BBFC again, and it seems that "Green Card" is still a 15. Despite being an early 12 in the cinemas - and yep, you guessed it - a 15 on video. Oddly, for it's 2002 re-release on DVD - it's still a 15.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#127 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Keeping 18's out reach 'a lot more' than 15's is just irresponsible parenting. 15's are restricted to older teenagers, so of course they are going to have strong violence in them; just because they are a bit less extreme than an 18 still doesn't mean that they're at all OK for younger kids.
Nothing to do with parenting. |
|
|
|
|
|
#128 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
Just been checking up on the BBFC again, and it seems that "Green Card" is still a 15. Despite being an early 12 in the cinemas - and yep, you guessed it - a 15 on video. Oddly, for it's 2002 re-release on DVD - it's still a 15.
|
|
|
|
|
#129 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
Chaplin was a 12 in the cinema, and there's no way that'd be a 12 if seen for the first time now. As ever James Ferman made eccentric decisions sometimes. Akira was a 12 in the cinema in 1990, and the original Dutch The Vanishing was also a 12 in 1990, the latter in spite of Mark Kermode telling the bbfc it was madness to release it with that rating.
Akira - well, yeah - I re-watched that recently - that's a 15 - no way is that a 12 - just for the violence alone. The Vanishing - well, it's emotionally intense. I suppose you could argue that one either way - as although it's a thriller - the violence in it, isn't gory. Chaplin - hmmm, I suppose that's more to do with the underage sex stuff. Yeah, tricky one - because it's just about goes over the border of a 12 because of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#130 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Yeah, I'm not even sure what point we're debating here any more. Whatever.
An example I can think of is Judge Dredd (the Stallone version) being an uncut 15 at the cinema but getting violence cuts for a 15 on video because younger kids might watch it; if you've cut all of the 15-rated stuff out of it to make it OK for younger kids, then why not just put a PG or 12 rating on it? It makes no sense at all. The upgrading rule is similar; there's no point upgrading a film from 15 to 18 when there's no 18-rated content in it. A parent might not let their 15-17 year old watch one of these upgraded films, which is totally fine for them but was upgraded just because of little kids who shouldn't be watching 15s or 18s anyway. (It's not worth arguing about because this doesn't happen at all nowadays but looking back it's still a pointless rule that I'm glad is not as heavily enforced.) |
|
|
|
|
|
#131 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
|
No....that's not my argument at all. I've already explained why I think it made perfect sense, for the reasons already specified.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#132 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
No....that's not my argument at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#133 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Back on topic now; Quadrophenia was downgraded from 18 to 15 for cinema on 3rd August.
It's been from 18 to 15 twice now. It was given an 18 for video in 1986, then a 15 for cinema in 1996 before being upgraded again for video in 1998 and 2006 and lowered back down again this year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#134 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Bill Hicks- Revelations was downgraded from 18 to 15 today.
|
|
|
|
|
#135 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
Back on topic now; Quadrophenia was downgraded from 18 to 15 for cinema on 3rd August.
It's been from 18 to 15 twice now. It was given an 18 for video in 1986, then a 15 for cinema in 1996 before being upgraded again for video in 1998 and 2006 and lowered back down again this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#136 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.
|
|
|
|
|
#137 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.
Ireland have given both the theatrical and director's cut a 15 ( http://www.ifco.ie/website/IFCO/ifco...Query=compton* ) and they're usually stricter that the BBFC so there's a good chance that the BBFC's 18 is for the director's cut commentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
#138 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies extended cut has been given a 15 in the UK for strong violence. Now the R (America) and MA15+ (Australia) given to it too sound a lot more reasonable.
However, the extended cut also got an M in New Zealand (advisory 16+) and a 12 in Ireland, which is the same rating that the theatrical version got in those places. |
|
|
|
|
|
#139 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies extended cut has been given a 15 in the UK for strong violence. Now the R (America) and MA15+ (Australia) given to it too sound a lot more reasonable.
However, the extended cut also got an M in New Zealand (advisory 16+) and a 12 in Ireland, which is the same rating that the theatrical version got in those places. On a certificate related note, the Daily Mail has done a piece about the 12A rating. I'm not normally one to agree with them, but I think it's food for thought. Here it is :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...IAN-VINER.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.
The director's cut commentary was given an 18 on the 5th of November, but the Director's Cut on it's own was given an 18 on the 24th. |
|
|
|
|
|
#141 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
Wow. That's interesting. I'm guessing that's the first time that one of Tolkien films has got that rating.
On a certificate related note, the Daily Mail has done a piece about the 12A rating. I'm not normally one to agree with them, but I think it's food for thought. Here it is :- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...IAN-VINER.html The 12A was the BBFC's creation. There was never any public demand for it. Had the BBFC given Batman a 15 for cinema release which it should probably have done (it's still a 15 on DVD now), the 12A would never have come in to existence and there wouldn't be a problem. Adults could watch uncut, unsanitised films, and kids could watch kids films. It all worked very well before 1989. |
|
|
|
|
|
#142 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
The 12A is actually betraying adults who are fed up of watching sanitised action films which should be a 15 or an 18.
The 12A was the BBFC's creation. There was never any public demand for it. Had the BBFC given Batman a 15 for cinema release which it should probably have done (it's still a 15 on DVD now), the 12A would never have come in to existence and there wouldn't be a problem. Adults could watch uncut, unsanitised films, and kids could watch kids films. It all worked very well before 1989. |
|
|
|
|
#143 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 42,866
|
Quote:
The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies extended cut has been given a 15 in the UK for strong violence. Now the R (America) and MA15+ (Australia) given to it too sound a lot more reasonable.
However, the extended cut also got an M in New Zealand (advisory 16+) and a 12 in Ireland, which is the same rating that the theatrical version got in those places. Really? And I thought 12A for 2 of the LOTR films was strong (but correct).The Hobbit is a children's novel FGS! ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#144 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
Really? And I thought 12A for 2 of the LOTR films was strong (but correct).The Hobbit is a children's novel FGS! ![]() ![]() The battle sequence being longer doesn't help the film at all of course. |
|
|
|
|
#145 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
Comparisons to the 1980's are meaningless. Films like Jurassic World, Avengers, Star Wars: The Force Awakens (highly likely to be given a 12A next week) wouldn't be released in cinemas with an actual age restriction on them, they'd just cut them for PG, and no one would be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
It's not betraying children at all; the BBFC clearly point out to viewers that 12A is only suitable for 12 years and over. It's just certain irresponsible parents and the Daily Wail who see that and say, "Only suitable for 12+? Must be fine for my 8 year old then".
Like square-root said, the real problem is how many adult action films are getting watered down for 12A. It does happen between 18 and 15 as well, but looking at how much Kingsman was allowed to get away with, I wouldn't worry too much
|
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
It's not betraying children at all; the BBFC clearly point out to viewers that 12A is only suitable for 12 years and over. It's just certain irresponsible parents and the Daily Wail who see that and say, "Only suitable for 12+? Must be fine for my 8 year old then".
Like square-root said, the real problem is how many adult action films are getting watered down for 12A. It does happen between 18 and 15 as well, but looking at how much Kingsman was allowed to get away with, I wouldn't worry too much ![]() The main problem with the implementation of the 12A is that's it's not age restricted, and is therefore pointless. Make it age restricted and adults might start getting adult action movies again as there won't be the drive to get in parents with their precious little 5 yr old Johnnys and Jemimas. |
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
The church scene in Kingsman is massively over hyped in terms of what you can actually see. The CGI is so bad, as it is in much of the film, it's little more than a comedy horror squence that I'd expect to see in a zombie console game. It's too stylised, and with all the quick editing and careful use of blurring from speeded up camera panning, it's almost impossible to focus on most of the violence. I don't think it got away with anything at 15. it's not as if it was a 12A or ever wanted to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#149 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
I agree that's it's OK at 15 but I saw a few complaints online about the rating back when it came out (about this scene). Definitely at the upper end of 15 though.
There's no difference between a PG from 30 years ago and a modern 12A. |
|
|
|
|
|
#150 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
IMO, there's very little in the church scene that's worse than say the face melting scene near the end of the PG certified Raiders of the Lost Ark, especially considering that was a prolonged close up. Was it gratuitously violent? Probably not. But it was gratuitously disgusting. This is all goes back to my earlier post about the sort of thing that was being passed at PG 30 years ago now universally being a 12A.
There's no difference between a PG from 30 years ago and a modern 12A.
Spoiler
James Ferman said in a letter about Temple of Doom that the Star Wars trilogy, E.T. & Raiders got lower ratings than they might otherwise have had because basically he was in awe of them. |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:39.





Really? And I thought 12A for 2 of the LOTR films was strong (but correct).