Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

IMDB Has A Good Day To Die Hard Rated 18


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-02-2013, 23:10
fhs man 2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 5,415

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/?ref_=sr_1

Still to be confirmed though, I don't remember seeing the rating there before.
fhs man 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-02-2013, 23:13
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,896
Not on the BBFC website, so I'd assume it isn't official yet...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 23:16
fhs man 2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 5,415
Not on the BBFC website, so I'd assume it isn't official yet...
Yes it is not confirmed yet but I have heard they have connections with people on the inside of BBFC.

One theory could be that BBFC have rated it 18 and the company have not decided weather to cut it to 15 or keep it as an 18. This would explain why it is taking them so long to rate this movie.
fhs man 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 23:27
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,896
Yes it is not confirmed yet but I have heard they have connections with people on the inside of BBFC.

One theory could be that BBFC have rated it 18 and the company have not decided weather to cut it to 15 or keep it as an 18. This would explain why it is taking them so long to rate this movie.
Only the US, Netherlands and South Korea have a rating yet, so Fox aren't exactly cutting it close, and they're 17A/16/15 (on appeal) respectively. I very much doubt it's an over the top gross out Tarantino-esque gratuitously violent film...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 23:30
fhs man 2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 5,415
Only the US, Netherlands and South Korea have a rating yet, so Fox aren't exactly cutting it close, and they're 17A/16/15 (on appeal) respectively. I very much doubt it's an over the top gross out Tarantino-esque gratuitously violent film...
BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.
fhs man 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 23:33
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,896
BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.
It's not uncommon for ratings to appear later on, and Fox haven't rated it in that many countries, so I very much doubt anything's come up, it's probably sat in a "To Watch" pile at the BBFC or a "To Send To BBFC" pile at Fox UK....
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:34
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
BBFC usually have films rated by now it appears as if there is an issue that has come up during rating.
I've seen films not get rated until the week of release before, that said, with this being a fairly high profile release it does seem a bit unusual for them to have not classified it yet. When I read the Canadian ratings info though it did make me think it could end up with an 18 (it mentions stabbings and mutilation). If the mutilation or stabbings are graphic enough then I could see it getting an 18, and with Fox (and no doubt IMAX too, considering it'll be taking up their screens for 2 weeks) wanting to maximise profits Fox might want cuts for a 15. Of course, that's assuming the Canadian info was accurate.

Watch it end up being a 12A now I've said all that, lol.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 02:12
Jonwo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 7,435
I imagine FOX will want a 15, as successful as Django Unchained is doing at the moment, an 18 will limit audiences and therefore box office potential. TBH I think it'll be a 15 will little if any cuts.
Jonwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 02:21
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,858
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/?ref_=sr_1

Still to be confirmed though, I don't remember seeing the rating there before.
IMDB can be edited by anyone.
JCR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 14:47
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
At a running time of only 97 minutes, I don't think I care anymore what rating it gets. It could be an R18 and I still wouldn't bother with it.
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 15:53
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
At a running time of only 97 minutes, I don't think I care anymore what rating it gets. It could be an R18 and I still wouldn't bother with it.
I really don't get people's horrified reaction to the 97 minute running time, i know that the other ones were over 2 hours, but i'd rather them have a shorter but tight film rather than have it drag just to make it as long as the others. As long as it's long enough to tell the story i don't see a problem with it. I said this in another thread too, but Commando is only 88 minutes and that doesn't stop it being an action classic does it? Just seems like a massive overreaction to something that probably wont have any bearing on your overall enjoyment of the film.

If the film itself turns out to be crap, then fair enough, i'll be getting the knives out as well since Die Hard 1-3 are among my favourite films, but i doubt my complaints will have anything to do with the running time, there's been plenty of 90-100 minute action films that are still really good, it really isn't the end of the world if it's 20-ish minutes shorter...
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 17:12
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,616
It's true. There's endless action films that outstay their welcome and should have been tightened up. Anything around the 90-100 minute mark is perfect.

It's an action flick, not War & Peace.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 12:06
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
I like a bit of characterisation, plot and motive in my action films. That's why Die Hard is still so damn good after nearly 25 years. You won't get that in a movie which looks little more than 90 minutes of "let's blow some shit up."
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 12:45
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,616
Nah, 97 minutes can still have plenty of efficient characterisation and story-telling. If it's done well.

Time isn't the issue with these things normally - it's the script/direction/acting that usually defines whether it succeeds in that area or not.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 17:05
DeelyBopper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,291
I can't imagine it ending up in theatres with an 18 though I pray that it is.
DeelyBopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 19:48
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
I like a bit of characterisation, plot and motive in my action films. That's why Die Hard is still so damn good after nearly 25 years. You won't get that in a movie which looks little more than 90 minutes of "let's blow some shit up."
And you're basing that on a 2 minute trailer which is designed to show exciting action packed bits rather than slower character building moments. All the Die Hard movies have had "lets blow shit up" style trailers, this is no different.

When i watched Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard again the other week i really felt that the film could have been a fair bit shorter, essentially chopping out the diversion to Kevin Smith's basement which would have saved a good ten or fifteen minutes (i like Kevin Smith, love his films, but his character here was utterly pointless). The characterization in DH4 left a lot to be desired too, particularly when it came to Timothy Olyphant's bland bad guy and his collection of faceless henchmen/women who had all the personality of a piece of cardboard, and that film lasted well over 2 hours. The length of the film isn't indicative of how good/bad a film is.

Nah, 97 minutes can still have plenty of efficient characterisation and story-telling. If it's done well.

Time isn't the issue with these things normally - it's the script/direction/acting that usually defines whether it succeeds in that area or not.
Completely agree.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 21:18
Theo_Bear
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 961
OK, just to point out the script comes from the guy who wrote The A-Team. Enough said really.
Theo_Bear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 16:01
-GONZO-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 7,752
The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.
-GONZO- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 18:48
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,616
deleted
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 19:14
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 70,204
The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.
If the trailer is a 12A you'd expect the film to be harder.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 20:16
Stansfield
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,275
It's true. There's endless action films that outstay their welcome and should have been tightened up. Anything around the 90-100 minute mark is perfect.

It's an action flick, not War & Peace.
Did anyone see, Shoot 'Em Up '18'......86 minutes.
9/10....it can be done, it is a Mad Action film.
Stansfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 22:11
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
The Carlton Cinema in Westgate-On-Sea are saying its a 12A.
So is VUE, but I very strongly doubt that they've got accurate info there though considering that there are now numerous sources that claim the film has a fair amount of swearing and violence. It'll be a 15 at the very least.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2013, 22:32
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,896
So is VUE, but I very strongly doubt that they've got accurate info there though considering that there are now numerous sources that claim the film has a fair amount of swearing and violence. It'll be a 15 at the very least.
I read somewhere the info we have is "42 uses of coarse language", it could be 40 uses of shit and 2 uses of the f word. And you may very well be able to scrape that through at a 12....

The Canadians tend to be stronger on sex and language than us, but weaker on violence. You're probably right about it being a 15 though
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 09:56
Paddy C
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,817
Coarse language is the MF and C words, anything else is strong (F) or moderate (W) and the rest is mild. There is no way that any censors in the world think that 'shit' is course language. Perhaps you read or picked it up wrong somewhere and they said 42 uses of strong language? That would count for 42 F words (par for the course in the first 3 Die Hards) with plenty of other swearwords and the big MF at the very end.
Paddy C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 14:04
dbob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Get real people, this will never be an 18. 15 if you're lucky but more than likely a 12A. Something tells me the film is c*** so they have probably re-cut to maximise the audience with a 12A. However bad the reviews are a large number of teens will still go and see it.
dbob is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49.