Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 12:43:22 PM

Empire Admin

Posts: 26334
Joined: 29/6/2005

Post your comments on this article

Post #: 1

- 11/2/2013 12:43:22 PM

umer_ejaz

Posts: 1265
Joined: 9/12/2005

Surely this defeats the purpose of what a Die Hard movie should be all about. I say bring back McTiernan and ramp it up to a 15 or an 18 and make it 150 minutes long than this piece of shit

Don't really understand how one can make a Die Hard movie as a 12A?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 2

RE: - 11/2/2013 12:47:58 PM

coljohnmatrix

Posts: 137
Joined: 29/11/2006

Of course I'd rather see a 15 or 18-rated Die Hard, but I think people get too focused on the rating and how much gore there is. Adding gore won't make an action film good if everything else about the film is bad, likewise, an action film can still be enjoyable with toned-down gore.

As an example, the second AvP film added a hell of a lot more gore and got an 18 rating (I think), but by all accounts was a terrible film (I didn't bother watching it).

(in reply to umer_ejaz)

Post #: 3

- 11/2/2013 12:47:58 PM

nashnash

Posts: 5
Joined: 25/7/2012

I genuinely just lost quite a lot of interest in this film.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 4

- 11/2/2013 12:48:22 PM

badblokebob

Posts: 27
Joined: 10/2/2007
From: Devon

More interesting than it being a 12A it that, at the same time, it's an R in the US. That kind of thing is usually down to nudity, of which none is mentioned, so it seems an unusual discrepancy.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 5

- 11/2/2013 12:49:30 PM

ambswords

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/2/2013

'crunchy sound effects'?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 6

12A?! - 11/2/2013 12:51:51 PM

jackcarter

Posts: 1710
Joined: 12/1/2006

wow a lower rating than the 4.0 theatrical version! (15 in UK yet PG13 in the states). When it was announced it was R in the states i was sure itd be 15 but half hoped it might be 18 like DH1.

Was half planning on seeing it but after watching a bored B Willis on the One Show, catching bits of the blue steel CGtastic 4.0 inbetween the baftas and remembering how dull it all was, and now being cut for 12A i dont think i could make the effort for 4.0 part 2 (which looks to be way too similar) so unless Empire bails it out with a ***** star rating will be a (uncut) rental for me - that is if my Blockbuster hasnt shut by then

< Message edited by jackcarter -- 11/2/2013 4:32:20 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 7

RE: - 11/2/2013 12:51:56 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

Oh no's! Not much swearing! They've ruined it forever! /end sarcasm

I've never understood people's obsession with judging the quality of a film based on the BBFC rating it's gotten. I don't think there'll be that much difference in content, anyway... things that got a 15 rating 30 years ago are getting 12 ratings on re-release. BBFC has just gotten more liberal.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to badblokebob)

Post #: 8

RE: - 11/2/2013 12:52:15 PM

Shifty Bench

Posts: 14562
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: badblokebob

More interesting than it being a 12A it that, at the same time, it's an R in the US. That kind of thing is usually down to nudity, of which none is mentioned, so it seems an unusual discrepancy.

I assume it was rated R for the four uses of the f-word that the BBFC states are in the film. It was the same thing with Terminator 3 which had more than the usually allowed one for a PG-13.

EDIT: According to Empire, it was pre-cut by the studio to get the rating so we're getting an edited version. I was actually happy it was rated R, too. I'll still see the film and look forward to the uncut blu ray

< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 11/2/2013 1:06:11 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best

(in reply to badblokebob)

Post #: 9

- 11/2/2013 1:11:23 PM

Whistler

Posts: 2276
Joined: 22/11/2006

I know the rating doesn't necessarily dictate how good the film will be, but come on. It's Die Hard. This shit needs to be an 18, or at least a 15.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 10

RE: RE: - 11/2/2013 1:16:01 PM

UTB

Posts: 8970
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

I'll still see the film and look forward to the uncut blu ray

Lets hope we do get it unlike 4.0...

(in reply to Shifty Bench)

Post #: 11

RE: - 11/2/2013 1:18:31 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I know the rating doesn't necessarily dictate how good the film will be, but come on. It's Die Hard. This shit needs to be an 18, or at least a 15.

Any film needs to be whatever it needs to be. Previous films in a franchise should not be a consideration.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to Whistler)

Post #: 12

- 11/2/2013 1:21:15 PM

joepeterwilson

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

It was never a DH flick from the first trailer. That horrible CGI helicopter/jumping out the building to the pool below? The film is also 97 mins long or something daft like that. The reasons behind the cuts are horribly clear. R in the states means kids can go with an adult. 15/18 means nobody under that age, so it's clearly a box office grab.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the BBFC being liberal. This has absolutely everything to do with a studio cutting necessary DH ingredients purely to get shitty little kids in to watch it over half term (which starts on Feb 15).

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 13

PRE CUT INFO - 11/2/2013 1:25:30 PM

joepeterwilson

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

BBFC have got this in their pre-cut info box:

During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission

Note: The following text may contain spoilers

This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a '15' certificate but that their preferred '12A' classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both 'f**k' and 'motherf***er') and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 14

Yipee-ki-yay mother foxers! - 11/2/2013 1:32:42 PM

J_BUltimatum

Posts: 108
Joined: 20/1/2007
From: Edinburgh

I don't want to hear a muted Yipee-ki-yay! I say we take over Fox tower Hans Gruber style until our demands of an 18 rated Die Hard! 20th Century Fox seem to be getting good at killing film franchises with there awful ideas!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 15

RE: RE: - 11/2/2013 1:36:25 PM

Shifty Bench

Posts: 14562
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

I'll still see the film and look forward to the uncut blu ray

Lets hope we do get it unlike 4.0...

Die Hard 4 was never cut, the version we and the US got was the version they shot so the 'uncut' version is on Bu Ray. It's the stupid version with dubbed over swearing and CG blood hits that's not, so it's not a big loss. We'll get an uncut version of 5 on Blu Ray for sure

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Any film needs to be whatever it needs to be. Previous films in a franchise should not be a consideration.

Except this film isn't getting the chance to be what it needs to be. It has been butchered into something else. Apparently, the amount of cuts for this go up to at least 50. That's bad language, squib hits, sounds of bones crunching etc, the lot. Welcome to the 90s again, folks, except this time it is not the BBFC's fault. Thanks a lot, Fox you money grabbing sods.

< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 11/2/2013 1:42:49 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best

(in reply to UTB)

Post #: 16

RE: Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 1:44:05 PM

joepeterwilson

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

The biggest problem is Fox picking people who can't write and can't direct. These are hired guns for a franchise they are not intent on saving. It's a cash cow. They know kids have seen the originals on video or whatever and market it straight at them. Mark Bomback wrote DH4 which wasn't a good film, but it wasn't bad by any means. It had DH elements but was mostly pretty removed from the first. This new one is even worse. It's written by fucking Skip Woods who is responsible for Hitman, GI Joe and that fucking Wolverine film. What are Fox thinking?

Len Wiseman isn't great but at least it looked like a DH film. A bit flashy, but it was going in the right direction. John Moore directed The Omen and Max Payne. Enough said? Not quite. Apparently he argued AGAINST Max Payne receiving an R rating and wouldn't stop until it was given PG-13.

He's the perfect guy to carry on DH, at least in Fox's eyes. If they've any chance with ending on a high, they'd wait for McTiernan or even go with Renny Harlin after his Hercules thing is done. Bring back de Souza and set it in a mall on Christmas Eve. Then again, with Fox behind it they'd just turn it into Die Hard: Mall Cop.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 17

RE: Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 1:47:33 PM

Shifty Bench

Posts: 14562
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson

The biggest problem is Fox picking people who can't write and can't direct. These are hired guns for a franchise they are not intent on saving. It's a cash cow. They know kids have seen the originals on video or whatever and market it straight at them. Mark Bomback wrote DH4 which wasn't a good film, but it wasn't bad by any means. It had DH elements but was mostly pretty removed from the first. This new one is even worse. It's written by fucking Skip Woods who is responsible for Hitman, GI Joe and that fucking Wolverine film. What are Fox thinking?

Len Wiseman isn't great but at least it looked like a DH film. A bit flashy, but it was going in the right direction. John Moore directed The Omen and Max Payne. Enough said? Not quite. Apparently he argued AGAINST Max Payne receiving an R rating and wouldn't stop until it was given PG-13.

He's the perfect guy to carry on DH, at least in Fox's eyes. If they've any chance with ending on a high, they'd wait for McTiernan or even go with Renny Harlin after his Hercules thing is done. Bring back de Souza and set it in a mall on Christmas Eve. Then again, with Fox behind it they'd just turn it into Die Hard: Mall Cop.

But the film has been rated R in the US, it is an actual violent 'grown-up' film over there It is just in the UK that it has been edited into a 'kids film'.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best

(in reply to joepeterwilson)

Post #: 18

A Good Day to.... - 11/2/2013 1:47:58 PM

ryanh75

Posts: 6
Joined: 19/10/2006

Post a review?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 19

RE: Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 1:52:26 PM

UTB

Posts: 8970
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson

What are Fox thinking?

Probably the same when they hired the director of A Nightmare On Elm Street 4 to direct Die Hard 2?

(in reply to joepeterwilson)

Post #: 20

RE: Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 1:56:34 PM

joepeterwilson

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson

What are Fox thinking?

Probably the same when they hired the director of A Nightmare On Elm Street 4 to direct Die Hard 2?

Well played.

(in reply to UTB)

Post #: 21

RE: RE: - 11/2/2013 1:59:22 PM

James2183

Posts: 10214
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

I know the rating doesn't necessarily dictate how good the film will be, but come on. It's Die Hard. This shit needs to be an 18, or at least a 15.

Any film needs to be whatever it needs to be. Previous films in a franchise should not be a consideration.

Then they shouldn't have written and shot the scenes and then cut them out specifically to get a 12A rating.

The franchise and McClane's character is built on violence and bad language. To actively water down films in a series that fans have loved due to their language, violence and characters defeats their purpose overall.

It's a pathetic attempt to not only try and grab younger viewers through the CGI explosions but to also try and make more money by introducing the 'Extended and Unrated' Blue Ray release later down the line.

With the film out in 3 days and no reviews yet up, as well as a bored looking Willis promoting the film, it's a safe bet to suggest this film is going to suck. Making it a kiddie friendly film through editing will not change that fact.

_____________________________

Hey bub, I aint finished with you yet!

"We do not beat the reaper by living longer. We beat the reaper by living well and living fully" - Randy Pausch

(in reply to AxlReznor)

Post #: 22

early word not good - 11/2/2013 1:59:42 PM

mclane1

Posts: 349
Joined: 7/2/2009

early word on the internet is its not great, which if true, is upsetting as I love the die hard movies. Ive had a worry since the first trailer- looked very euro (as in transporter 3, from paris with love) the effects looked xbox360 (like Max Payne, also by moore) I do hope it truns out great. to be fair there hasnt been a bad one yet- die hard 2 only got 3 stars but on reflection, c'mon, its a damn entertaining movie, 3 and 4 were just fine and did the job. I have everything crossed 5 is good. that said I predict 2 stars from EMPIRE.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 23

RE: RE: - 11/2/2013 2:01:47 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

Kiddie-friendly? Really?

I agree that cutting it in order to get their desired rating sucks. But there are loads of 12A rated films that I wouldn't let kids see.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to James2183)

Post #: 24

RE: Die Hard 5 Earns 12A UK Rating - 11/2/2013 2:04:08 PM

joepeterwilson

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson

The biggest problem is Fox picking people who can't write and can't direct. These are hired guns for a franchise they are not intent on saving. It's a cash cow. They know kids have seen the originals on video or whatever and market it straight at them. Mark Bomback wrote DH4 which wasn't a good film, but it wasn't bad by any means. It had DH elements but was mostly pretty removed from the first. This new one is even worse. It's written by fucking Skip Woods who is responsible for Hitman, GI Joe and that fucking Wolverine film. What are Fox thinking?

Len Wiseman isn't great but at least it looked like a DH film. A bit flashy, but it was going in the right direction. John Moore directed The Omen and Max Payne. Enough said? Not quite. Apparently he argued AGAINST Max Payne receiving an R rating and wouldn't stop until it was given PG-13.

He's the perfect guy to carry on DH, at least in Fox's eyes. If they've any chance with ending on a high, they'd wait for McTiernan or even go with Renny Harlin after his Hercules thing is done. Bring back de Souza and set it in a mall on Christmas Eve. Then again, with Fox behind it they'd just turn it into Die Hard: Mall Cop.

But the film has been rated R in the US, it is an actual violent 'grown-up' film over there It is just in the UK that it has been edited into a 'kids film'.

I disagree with it being a grown-up film. Based on the cut Fox showed the BBFC before submission, it still would have got a 15 rating. It being a 12A isn't my real issue. My real problem is that they're not taking the actual fanbase seriously. The film is aimed at a much younger audience in it's direction. It looks so plastic and just not what DH looks like to me. It's so ridiculous now. He jumps out a fucking window down God knows how many floors and lands in a pool after smashing through a roof. Fox don't understand that people will still see a new DH even if it isn't a brainless film to look at. Not sure about you but I cared about what happened to McClane in the first three. I couldn't care less now. The first three are so involving and exciting to experience but seeing John and John Jr race a flaming helicopter to the ground from hundreds of feet up just doesn't do it for me.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)

Post #: 25

RE: RE: - 11/2/2013 2:05:57 PM

Shifty Bench

Posts: 14562
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Kiddie-friendly? Really?

I agree that cutting it in order to get their desired rating sucks. But there are loads of 12A rated films that I wouldn't let kids see.

Kiddie friendly as much as Fox know kids can see a 12A and lots of parents will take them to see it, therefore Fox get more money. Kids can see R rated films in the US with an adult but the closest we have to that is a 12A. Hence the (apparently shit load) of cuts.

They pre-cut Chronicle and Taken 2 to get 12A certificates for exactly the same reason. They even pre-cut The Three Stooges movie to get a PG so younger kids can see it.....

< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 11/2/2013 2:07:40 PM >

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b
You have a nice face, Shifty. A face I would have a cup of tea with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Shifty said it best

(in reply to AxlReznor)

Post #: 26

- 11/2/2013 2:35:48 PM

umer_ejaz

Posts: 1265
Joined: 9/12/2005

People are missing the basic thing about certifying Die Hard as a kid friendly 12A movie. It's Die Hard - the name totally gives the meaning that this movie is meant to be a bloody crime action thriller not a movie to which a ten or eleven year old should go and see and hear words such as f**k, m******ker

It states on the BBFC website that the movie was cut to get rid of the blood and swearing - don't really understand as to why. For me this is a definite miss. Also it's the shortest entry in the franchise clocking in at a measly 1hr 37mins

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 27

RE: - 11/2/2013 2:51:44 PM

paulyboy

Posts: 2135
Joined: 30/9/2005

Slightly confused why the studio was happy to punt for an R in the US but pushed for cuts and a 12A here. I know minors can technically see an R in the States if they're accompanied by an adult, but PG-13 is still very much the rating to aim for if you're concerned about such things, which clearly they are given the UK rating. Strange...

_____________________________

"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever!"

(in reply to umer_ejaz)

Post #: 28

12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 2:58:23 PM

veneeringman

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/2/2013

What the hell are they playing at ?? Watered down Dross that is what this film will be, Bloody greedy twentieth century fox !!!
97 mins way to short !! what happened did they run out of story or money ?? This has got Taken 2 all over it (and that was rubbish as well) another movie franchise ruined !!!! well done Fox & Moore !!!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 29

- 11/2/2013 3:11:03 PM

jimbaf

Posts: 14
Joined: 24/4/2006

seems to be the norm now, that children 12 or under are allowed to view films that are more suited for an older audience. Doesnt seem right that true die hards fans having to watch the film with kids on the loose.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 30