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.
Reclassifying Films
6 of 9
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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.”
“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.”
I may be wrong but I assume roger_50 was referring to the video shops keeping the 18 films out of reach which they did.
Nothing to do with parenting.
Originally Posted by stripedcat:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by JCR:
“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.”
“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.”
Ahhh, that might explain a few of the still 15 ratings, that I've mentioned in this thread. Although, in the case of "Green Card" - I think it's only some strong sex references and a little bit of bad language that would call into question it's rating - in my opinion, it's a 12.
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.
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“Yeah, I'm not even sure what point we're debating here any more. Whatever.”
“Yeah, I'm not even sure what point we're debating here any more. Whatever.”
I just think that upgrading 15's to 18's (and having stricter guidelines for video) because of little kids rule is stupid and inconsistent with the guidelines.
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.)
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.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“No....that's not my argument at all.”
“No....that's not my argument at all.”
My bad for not realising; sorry about that. What was your argument?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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.”
“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.”
LOL. Make up your mind BBFC!
Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.”
“Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.”
We don't know. The director's cut was submitted with the corresponding audio commentary so it could be that audio commentary that got an 18. The commentary for the theatrical version got 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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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.”
“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.”
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
Originally Posted by JCR:
“Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.”
“Straight Outta Compton Director's Cut (20 minutes longer than the cinema version) is an 18 not a 15.”
Now it has: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/strai...ompton-video-1
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.
Originally Posted by stripedcat:
“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”
“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 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.
Originally Posted by square-root:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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.”
“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!
Originally Posted by grimtales1:
“ Really? And I thought 12A for 2 of the LOTR films was strong (but correct).
The Hobbit is a children's novel FGS!”
“
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 is 20 minutes longer and has stronger- but still bloodless- violence than the cinema cut.
The battle sequence being longer doesn't help the film at all of course.
Originally Posted by JCR:
“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.”
“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.”
If Jurassic World and Avengers had been released in the 80s, they would've been given a PG. You're forgetting the type of content that was regularly passed at PG, even in the early 90s. The Indiana Jones movies and Jurassic Park would never be given a PG if they were released now. The 12A is all about dumbing down and taking violence out of films, not for kids, but for adults. The BBFC know distributors and film companies want a 12A for max box office, so it's the BBFC that are the puppet masters pulling the strings of the films companies, and acting as the "moral guardian" of the UK far more than it ever did in the 80s when the reviled Ferman was in charge.
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
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
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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”
“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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by square-root:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by giratalkialga:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by square-root:
“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.”
“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.”
bbfc could have put Raiders up in 2012 but didn't. 2012 decision on it, spoilered for space-
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.
6 of 9
