|
||||||||
Reclassifying Films |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#151 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
|
Quote:
Spoiler
If anything, I found it far less scary, bloody and violent than Raiders. Yet the more violent one gets a PG and the tamer one gets a 12A. I don't think the BBFC do themselves many favours sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#152 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
bbfc could have put Raiders up in 2012 but didn't. 2012 decision on it, spoilered for space-
"Looking into the Ark causes the faces of several key villains to melt, although the sequence is highly fantastical in nature and the heroes are protected by keeping their eyes closed". So, it's OK for the face of a Nazi to melt down to the skull in close up, but if Harrison Ford's face had melted, we would've have had to give it a 15 because he's a good guy, and children can't be allowed to see harm come to the good guys. You have to laugh. BBFC: Idiotic in the 80s, openly imbecilic in the 21st century. |
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
|
Quote:
The insight piece that you spoilered is quite laughable on the BBFC's part.
"Looking into the Ark causes the faces of several key villains to melt, although the sequence is highly fantastical in nature and the heroes are protected by keeping their eyes closed". So, it's OK for the face of a Nazi to melt down to the skull in close up, but if Harrison Ford's face had melted, we would've have had to give it a 15 because he's a good guy, and children can't be allowed to see harm come to the good guys. It's not the BBFC being idiots; it's common sense that children don't have as complex an understanding of morality as adults. Whether you agree with film classification at all is a different argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
They do contradict themselves a lot with older films.
In the most recent Twitter Q & A that they did, they said that Watership Down still got a U because 'on the whole, the film was within the U guidelines' and that 'it was well-known', so it would be unreasonable to give it a PG.
Spoiler
The second reason it's silly is that the only reason it's well-known as a U-rated film is because of how much U is an inappropriate rating for it. Thirdly, the 'on the whole, the film's within the ... guidelines' isn't always applied consistently. It's from a completely different genre, but the extended cut of Taken got an 18 for one torture scene alone (the insight said that it tipped the classification into '18') even though the rest was at the 15 level. |
|
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,042
|
Watership Down should be a PG, no question of it. It's not like people are asking it to be made a 15, just to flag up the goriness. There's even a swear word!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
Watership Down should be a PG, no question of it. It's not like people are asking it to be made a 15, just to flag up the goriness. There's even a swear word!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
I think that the 12 and 15 ratings should have different colours instead of both being light red as a 15 is a lot stronger than a 12 and they tend to have more in common with an 18 than a 12 in terms of content, so the colour should reflect that. To me, the 15 guidelines are fine but it would suit the color system more; the colours go from light (green - U) to dark (red - 18) depending on the intensity of the film and it would give parents a better warning. I'd keep 15 as light red and change 12 to blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 13,766
|
They use blue for porn. The 12A is orange. They should do away with that and just make 12 orange. They should also give 15 and 18 separate colours.
U - Green PG - Yellow 12 - Orange 15 - Purple 18 - Red |
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
Quote:
U - Green
PG - Yellow 12 - Orange 15 - Purple 18 - Red 12: http://s22.postimg.org/c1wz8erhr/91_...1_L_SL1500.jpg 15: http://s1.postimg.org/l54t0sdzz/71pt...k_L_SL1112.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
#160 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 394
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#161 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#162 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 596
|
Quote:
And you know this how exactly?
![]() ![]() I think the 12A symbol which is an orange background with white text would look better for the 12 cert (just remove the A) rather than making the current red 12 symbol have orange text instead. In fact, I think all of them would work better as solid colour backgrounds and white lettering to help re-enforce the colour code. |
|
|
|
|
|
#163 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 596
|
This is a quick and dirty mock giving an idea what I think the symbols would be better looking like:-
Click Here |
|
|
|
|
|
#164 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
Just on this, Batman is probably irrelevant re the 12 rating which would have happened anyway, there were months of discussions about whether Licence to Kill could be cut for a new rating before Batman, hell you could argue when Spielberg phoned Jack Valenti in 84 and told him the MPAA system needed a rating between PG & R as a matter of urgency, in that moment 12A in Britain was inevitable.
Interesting, Licence to Kill was very nearly an 18 - it really did cause the BBFC a few problems - it was cut on its first release(some of the scenes of the "fire violence" and the stuff with the sharks). It's uncut now. Broccoli wasn't happy with the rating - but I think a 15 is about right for that film - as it's very violent - still the most violent Bond film to date. |
|
|
|
|
|
#165 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
True to form Ferman flip flopped on Licence to Kill for months, but at one point in July 89 (before Batman) he apparently did prepare a cuts list and offered the producers the 12 rating with the cuts. They said no, I'd imagine because he wanted more cut than they were willing.
|
|
|
|
|
#166 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
True to form Ferman flip flopped on Licence to Kill for months, but at one point in July 89 (before Batman) he apparently did prepare a cuts list and offered the producers the 12 rating with the cuts. They said no, I'd imagine because he wanted more cut than they were willing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#167 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Melonfarmers page on Licence to Kill:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bbfc_c...ce_to_kill.htm Can't access this at work but it should provide more background. |
|
|
|
|
|
#168 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,719
|
Quote:
Melonfarmers page on Licence to Kill:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bbfc_c...ce_to_kill.htm Can't access this at work but it should provide more background. |
|
|
|
|
|
#169 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
|
The 5th Wave has just been given a 15 for strong violence, injury detail . It's very rare to see a teen book adaptation that's willing to accept the higher rating rather than get chopped up for a 12A.
It will be very tame for a 15 though, seeing as it got a PG-13 in the States and a 12A in Ireland (although the IFCO state that it's at the higher end of 12A). With this in mind, I imagine that it was a borderline decision for the BBFC. |
|
|
|
|
|
#170 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Reanimator II has gone from being a cut 18 (mpaa R version) to uncut 15 (mpaa unrated version)
The 1950 Humphrey Bogart film, In A Lonely Place, appears to have been upgraded from PG to 12. |
|
|
|
|
#171 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Kenneth Branagh's 1989 version of Henry V, or The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France to give it a better title, was raised from PG to 12A for cinema.
Ferman was always soft on Shakespeare, Franco Zeffirelli's 1990 version of Hamlet was given a U for cinema despite the presence of the "Do you think I meant cuntry matters?" line.
|
|
|
|
|
#172 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,538
|
I was watching Quadrophenia last week on blu ray which was classified 18. Then I noticed it was on Sky Movies and rated 15. Quite surprised by that. I think it still deserves an 18 certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
I was watching Quadrophenia last week on blu ray which was classified 18. Then I noticed it was on Sky Movies and rated 15. Quite surprised by that. I think it still deserves an 18 certificate.
1979: X (cinema) 1986: 18 (video) 1996: 15 (cinema) 1998: 18 (video) 2006: 18 (video) 2015: 15 (video) Not sure why the Blu ray would be an 18. Was it released before 2015? |
|
|
|
|
|
#174 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
|
Quote:
According to the BBFC site:
1979: X (cinema) 1986: 18 (video) 1996: 15 (cinema) 1998: 18 (video) 2006: 18 (video) 2015: 15 (video) Not sure why the Blu ray would be an 18. Was it released before 2015? As well as the Good, Bad & Ugly, Eraserhead was issued as an 18 rated bluray after years available as a 15 rated dvd, presumably for the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
#175 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,419
|
Quote:
According to the BBFC site:
1979: X (cinema) 1986: 18 (video) 1996: 15 (cinema) 1998: 18 (video) 2006: 18 (video) 2015: 15 (cinema) Not sure why the Blu ray would be an 18. Was it released before 2015? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:39.





