In the US - it very nearly got a R rating - because of the bit where Belloq's head explodes, but to save it, they obscured it by a ball of fire(added by the effects department).

Interestingly, I tend to think that Raiders of the Lost Ark is probably prime 12 candidate territory nowadays. There's quite a few violent scenes in it.

They gave some episodes of Wolfsblood, which is a Children's BBC show, the 12 rating today. Raiders would be a 12 if seen for the first time now. But back in the day restricting it to 14+- AA- would have been incredibly harsh on it and raising it now is pointless.

I think it was more the fact recently they went through the whole rating process from scratch for Raiders and there didn't seem to be any consistency by choosing to rate it PG, especially when you consider they upped Duel from a PG to a 12, which has to be the most tame 12-rated film that's ever existed.

At the very least, I think it's fair to say they can often be very inconsistent with how they choose to interpret their own guidelines.

Tomorrowland was the strangest 12 rating in my 'umble opinion. (Tonally it is as Disney as any other live action Disney, and, well quite a bit tamer than Raiders it must be said)

Raiders has a familiarity that Duel doesn't. The bbfc has said the fact Jaws was shown on tv at 7.30pm before it was rated for video and no one complained was a factor in it getting a PG in the eighties; suspect something similar went on with Raiders, in addition it's likely the people who rated Raiders in 2012 had watched it as children, & probably didn't see the need to raise it.

Oh yeah I get that reasoning, I just don't think it works for the consumer. It just breeds confusion IMO. A child sitting down today watching the newly PG-rated RotLA will be watching a film far more violent and scary than 12 rated films.

I just think they need to stick to a system, or the whole thing becomes a waste of time. Relying on people already 'knowing' a films content so they can buck their own rules is an odd way of approaching it, at least it seems that way to me.

Why is it that 12 certificate films can't be shown unedited before 8pm but TV programmes can?

Context is everything. I'm sure some 12 films could be shown- the aforementioned Tomorrowland- but some can't.

12 is a very broad rating. There are episodes of Neighbours, happily broadcast at 5.35pm back in the day, that are 12. Ditto cosy Sunday teatime show Last of the Summer Wine.

And BBC2 broadcast the David Tennant version of Hamlet, which is 12 and has a clear use of the c word in it, pre watershed. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/royal...y-hamlet-video

Does anyone know why the remastered DVD and Blu Ray versions of A View to a Kill and The Living Daylights have been uprated to 12? Is it because of extra material? Is it commentary or extras?

DELETED SCENES WITH INTRODUCTIONS BY DIRECTOR JOHN GLEN [Additional material,A VIEW TO A KILL], rated 12- http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/delet...or-john-glen-0

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY 007 [Additional material,THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS,DECLASSIFIED - M16 VAULT] rated 12- http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/happy...sary-007-video

The latter appears to have been given a PG rating in 2006 & a 12 rating in 2012.

Okay, thank you, JCR.

Barry Lyndon raised from PG to 12A

How about a film like Psycho? Does anyone see that getting lowered to a 12 certificate in the future? As while it's great, is pretty tame compared to 15 rated films these days.

Even in the 1980's, Psycho was an uncut 15 (it was submitted for a video classification in 1986), so yes, it's quite tame for a 15.

Pretty much anything rated 15 in the 1980's under the iron fist of Ferman is either a 12 or a very tame 15 nowadays. Off of the top of my head, First Blood and Platoon are the only two 15's of the 1980's which would still be solid 15's nowadays (and not low-end/tame). There are some more than just those two but hopefully you get the gist.

It was last rated 15 for strong violence in 2010 and I can't see it getting lowered to 12A any time soon because the bbfcinsight describes it as featuring 'strong impact and bloody injury detail'. Not really something you'd want a 12-year-old to see.

I also doubt that it will be lowered to 12A in the near future as it's been just six years since it was last rated 15. Then again, that may not be the case, because The Shining was rated 18 in 2004 but was lowered to 15 only three years later in 2007.

RoboCop 3 is a film currently rated 15 that I think will get rated 12 if it ever gets resubmitted. No strong language, no blood or gore, no real violence to speak of and very childish in places. I'm surprised it was given a 15 in the first place, as 12 was around by the time it was released.

I was at a talk given by the BBFC today and it was very interesting to find out about the decision making processes they go through, and how context plays a huge part in classification

12A seems almost the default classification these days even for old films, can't any vaguely adult content/themes be covered in a PG film anymore?

For cinema exhibition from an A (1975) to 12A.

When first released on video (1987) there was no 12 certificate so they gave it a PG and let it go uncut, leaving it the same for the 1999 re-issue when a 12 would have been available.

I'd say it's correctly certified now, the 12A being equivalent to a PG with extra warnings as far as cinema admittance in concerned.

Would be interesting to see what would happen if it got a solo Blu Ray release. In the Kubrick box set it is PG rated but the box is 18 rated.

A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut are the reasons for the 18 rating. The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Lolita are rated 15 and 2001 is a 12 (due to special features - the film is a U on its own).

I haven't seen Barry Lyndon myself but the bbfcinsight lists the violence, sex and nudity as being 'moderate'. The content would need to be 'mild' in order for the film to get a PG (or if it was moderate, it would need to take place in a fantasy context, which Barry Lyndon doesn't have).

Yeah, there's a scene where he's being kissed and groped by topless prostitutes. It goes beyond mild sexual reference into visual sexual stuff, so it fits the 12 rating.

If I'm honest I'm surprised they chose the PG instead of the 15 rating back in 1987, considering how strict they were in general back then. Perhaps its period drama nature veered them towards being lenient that day.

I'm pretty sure the BBC have shown it uncut in daytime in the past, still seems overly cautious to me.

5th May 2003 at 11.50 am.

9th September 2006 at 14.30.

Not sure if it was cut at all.

It's more about consistency for me.

If you have a system, then it makes no sense to randomly have some 12-rated content in a PG and similar content in a different film as a 12. Plus that system has to have guidelines, so the public know generally what to expect within a rating.

Otherwise they might as well not bother with the whole idea of ratings to start with.

It's fairly academic anyway. The new rating is for BFI cinema screenings, not a wide release, and even if it gets a deserved solo Blu Ray release (it's a near masterpiece) I doubt any under 12s would have it on their want list.

You've raised a great point there. I think another reason why it was rated PG instead of 15 in the 1980's is because of the target audience - there's a v/low risk of a child being exposed to it by the fault of their own actions as it probably doesn't appeal to them.