Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ??????

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:22:15 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

It's a valid point, though.


It is, I was just making a joke


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 61
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:29:34 PM   
joepeterwilson

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

What you're not understanding is that the studio are 'choosing' to censor within the BBFC's ridiculously strict and completely arbitrary guidelines and willingness to bend over for studios, rather than preserve the right to freedom of expression the UK supposedly has. This is why other countries don't end up with butchered versions the whole time - the difference? The BBFC.



What you're not understanding is arguments predicated on facts and logic.

When A Good Day to Die Hard was first submitted to BBFC, they awarded it a 15 certificate. Fox wanted a 12A and the BBFC advised them on what cuts should be implemented. If the BBFC was willing to let Fox take them up the chuff, they would have thrown away all the criteria required for a 12A and given the flick that certificate without touching a single frame of film.

It's not really the BBFC's fault. You want to direct your hilariously OTT anger at someone else? Direct it at Fox.




I think the biggest misunderstanding on Drooch's part is that Fox submitted the film and the BBFC told them what to cut. A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD has only ever been submitted once, and gained a 12A certificate. It has never received a 15 certificate. What happened was that a member of the BBFC was shown a near-complete version of the film by someone at Fox for advice on how to achieve a 12A rating. The BBFC gave them notes as to what is and is not allowed in a 12A (with references to specific parts of DH5, when applicable). Fox used these notes and cut what was necessary.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 62
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:31:50 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9776
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

What you're not understanding is that the studio are 'choosing' to censor within the BBFC's ridiculously strict and completely arbitrary guidelines and willingness to bend over for studios, rather than preserve the right to freedom of expression the UK supposedly has. This is why other countries don't end up with butchered versions the whole time - the difference? The BBFC.



What you're not understanding is arguments predicated on facts and logic.

When A Good Day to Die Hard was first submitted to BBFC, they awarded it a 15 certificate. Fox wanted a 12A and the BBFC advised them on what cuts should be implemented. If the BBFC was willing to let Fox take them up the chuff, they would have thrown away all the criteria required for a 12A and given the flick that certificate without touching a single frame of film.

It's not really the BBFC's fault. You want to direct your hilariously OTT anger at someone else? Direct it at Fox.




I think the biggest misunderstanding on Drooch's part is that Fox submitted the film and the BBFC told them what to cut. A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD has only ever been submitted once, and gained a 12A certificate. It has never received a 15 certificate. What happened was that a member of the BBFC was shown a near-complete version of the film by someone at Fox for advice on how to achieve a 12A rating. The BBFC gave them notes as to what is and is not allowed in a 12A (with references to specific parts of DH5, when applicable). Fox used these notes and cut what was necessary.



Are you sure Fox haven't just simply read the guidelines? http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/12a-and-12

(in reply to joepeterwilson)
Post #: 63
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:36:38 PM   
joepeterwilson

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB


quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

What you're not understanding is that the studio are 'choosing' to censor within the BBFC's ridiculously strict and completely arbitrary guidelines and willingness to bend over for studios, rather than preserve the right to freedom of expression the UK supposedly has. This is why other countries don't end up with butchered versions the whole time - the difference? The BBFC.



What you're not understanding is arguments predicated on facts and logic.

When A Good Day to Die Hard was first submitted to BBFC, they awarded it a 15 certificate. Fox wanted a 12A and the BBFC advised them on what cuts should be implemented. If the BBFC was willing to let Fox take them up the chuff, they would have thrown away all the criteria required for a 12A and given the flick that certificate without touching a single frame of film.

It's not really the BBFC's fault. You want to direct your hilariously OTT anger at someone else? Direct it at Fox.




I think the biggest misunderstanding on Drooch's part is that Fox submitted the film and the BBFC told them what to cut. A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD has only ever been submitted once, and gained a 12A certificate. It has never received a 15 certificate. What happened was that a member of the BBFC was shown a near-complete version of the film by someone at Fox for advice on how to achieve a 12A rating. The BBFC gave them notes as to what is and is not allowed in a 12A (with references to specific parts of DH5, when applicable). Fox used these notes and cut what was necessary.



Are you sure Fox haven't just simply read the guidelines? http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/12a-and-12


Are you mad? They're far too busy brushing the cocaine off the casting couches to bother with that.

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 64
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:39:54 PM   
joepeterwilson

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/2/2013
From: North London
Also, did anybody see this:

CAST INCLUDES Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Patrick Stewart

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/good-day-die-hard-2013-5

I don't remember it being officially announced. I'm guessing we can take that as confirmation?

(in reply to joepeterwilson)
Post #: 65
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:45:56 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

What you're not understanding is that the studio are 'choosing' to censor within the BBFC's ridiculously strict and completely arbitrary guidelines and willingness to bend over for studios, rather than preserve the right to freedom of expression the UK supposedly has. This is why other countries don't end up with butchered versions the whole time - the difference? The BBFC.



What you're not understanding is arguments predicated on facts and logic.

When A Good Day to Die Hard was first submitted to BBFC, they awarded it a 15 certificate. Fox wanted a 12A and the BBFC advised them on what cuts should be implemented. If the BBFC was willing to let Fox take them up the chuff, they would have thrown away all the criteria required for a 12A and given the flick that certificate without touching a single frame of film.

It's not really the BBFC's fault. You want to direct your hilariously OTT anger at someone else? Direct it at Fox.




Quoted for truth and in the hope that Drooch will actually read it and that it will sink in......



I'm struggling to make myself any clearer. THE REASON THE UK IS LITTERED WITH CUT FILMS, UNLIKE OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES, IS BECAUSE OF THE BBFC. Their overly strict, arbitrary guidelines and willingness to help greedy studios butcher their films to achieve lower ratings cause this, as do their failure to preserve freedom of expression by not allowing mandatory uncut versions for adults.

Fox is equally to blame for having zero artistic integrity and complete disdain for their audience, but our endless stream of butchered films, UNIQUE TO THE UK, is the result of the BBFC climbing between the sheets with the studios.

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?



(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 66
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:53:44 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2610
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield
The rating shouldn't really have any bearing on the quality of the film, however, it is a touch dissapointing to see a once great franchise, known for it's harder edge, being slowly watered down. I never had issue with Die Hard 4 as such, it does at times feel very 'Die Hard', and at others not so much, the harder cut that was release on DVD did make things feel a little better and I felt it slotted into the franchise as a whole much better when keeping some of the bloodletting and effing and jeffing. I've always been a bit wary of Die Hard 5 for two reasons, Skip Woods and John Moore, thats it. I had a glimmer of hope as in early press for the film, Moore did state he was trying to stay true to the formula, including keeping things as brutal as he could. However, it's pretty clear now that this has become an issue of salvaging as much money as possible during the school holidays here in the UK. The fact that the movie was shot as a much more adult movie, only to be cut down to meet the BBFC guidelines is what really annoys. Apparently Empire will have an interview online tomorrow in which Moore will touch on the subject o f the rating, and I'll be interested to hear his thoughts. I'll still go see it in the hope that a decent movie lives within, but am more and more convinced that this latest effor will stink and Fox knows word of mouth could kill it, so opening it up for a bigger audience gives them a better chance of profit.

As for the BBFC on the whole, I think they do a pretty decent job and usually get things right. The fact that a 12A movies like Terminator 3 (some pretty grapic violence - hand in guts!), The Dark Knight (tonally it's very oppressive, hard to argue that it's a 'kids filme') and Die Hard 5 (it has 4 f-bombs in it?!) exist proves that they're certainly not the censoring type.

Oh, and Patrick Stewart, really? What the fuck? If the cuts to the film dampened my ehtusiasm, the thought of Stewart showing up somehwere (bad guy?) almost guarantees my arse in the theatre.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to joepeterwilson)
Post #: 67
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:54:40 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
You're hilarious. You should look up the meaning of arbritary, because the fact they have guidelines eliminates "arbritary" from your argument.

And if you think the BBFC are worse than the MPAA, you're beyond hilarious and moving into the delusional territory. In recent years, the only films that haven't passed with them have been the ones with absolutely no content worth seeing whatsoever (The Human Centipede sequel standing out), and most movies pass uncut. We received the uncut version of I Saw The Devil, for Christ's sake!

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 68
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:55:49 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
We're hearing you loud and clear, Drooch, but you're still wrong.

The BBFC can't tell a studio not to cut their films.

_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 69
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:58:19 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

I'm struggling to make myself any clearer. THE REASON THE UK IS LITTERED WITH CUT FILMS, UNLIKE OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES, IS BECAUSE OF THE BBFC. Their overly strict, arbitrary guidelines and willingness to help greedy studios butcher their films to achieve lower ratings cause this, as do their failure to preserve freedom of expression by not allowing mandatory uncut versions for adults.

Fox is equally to blame for having zero artistic integrity and complete disdain for their audience, but our endless stream of butchered films, UNIQUE TO THE UK, is the result of the BBFC climbing between the sheets with the studios.

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?



We don't have a huge list of butchered films though. Not any more anyway, the BBFC are far more lenient now than they have ever been hence the fact that the 12A Die Hard 5 has four uses of 'fuck'. Many of the films that were cut in the 80s and 90s are now uncut and they can only do this if the films are resubmitted. Just look at the original Die Hard, it is now 15 and uncut. And Lethal Weapon 2, once on home video as an 18 but with a full scene edited out is now available fully uncut and a 15! Things are much better now than they were before, you seem to be living in a different UK than me, Drooch.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 70
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 4:59:27 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

We're hearing you loud and clear, Drooch, but you're still wrong.

The BBFC can't tell a studio not to cut their films.


Great, now answer this question:

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?



< Message edited by Drooch -- 11/2/2013 5:00:17 PM >

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 71
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:02:21 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
First answer this question: Why aren't you listening to a word anybody is saying to you?

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 72
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:03:47 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?



Virtually all? lol hyperbole.

Some were cut, this much is true. Maybe it's because the tolerance threshold for on-screen violence wasn't as high as it is today. They're actually much more relaxed about on screen violence these days. Look at action films which were once rated 18 like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon. These kind of films were recently re-rated 15 and in some instances even had their cuts waived and the missing footage re-instated.

OH MY GOD FACIST BBFC CORPORATE COCK SUCKERS AMMARITE?

EDIT - I should say that when the BBFC was being run by James Ferman in the 80s there were some ridiculously puritanical decisions being made. But now they're very much a bunch of easy going cats who very rarely act in a puritanical manner.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 11/2/2013 5:14:38 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 73
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:05:22 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

We're hearing you loud and clear, Drooch, but you're still wrong.

The BBFC can't tell a studio not to cut their films.


Great, now answer this question:

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?




Holy crap.

The UK no longer has a huge list of butchered films. We used to but the BBFC have changed a lot of their guidelines so many of those films from the 80s and 90s are uncut now.


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 74
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:06:49 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2610
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

I'm struggling to make myself any clearer. THE REASON THE UK IS LITTERED WITH CUT FILMS, UNLIKE OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES, IS BECAUSE OF THE BBFC. Their overly strict, arbitrary guidelines and willingness to help greedy studios butcher their films to achieve lower ratings cause this, as do their failure to preserve freedom of expression by not allowing mandatory uncut versions for adults.

Fox is equally to blame for having zero artistic integrity and complete disdain for their audience, but our endless stream of butchered films, UNIQUE TO THE UK, is the result of the BBFC climbing between the sheets with the studios.

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?





It's hard to argue that the BBFC of the 80's and early 90's wasn't complete gash and were responsible for several terrible decisions regarding the classification of some movies. However, the BBFC of today is pretty damn good, and I'd take them over many other of the worlds certification houses.

I mean, as I said in my earlier post we live in a world where Terminator 3 is rated 12A and on screen violence is an equal match to Cameron's original. Seriously, compare the gut punch made by Arnie in the original movie to that which we get on screen in T3 and tell me which has the most blood spilled on screen. Compare the shooting of the other Sarah Connor in the original with the shooting of Johns lieutenants in T3, they both show about the same amount of on screen violence, and bear in mind T3's executions are of teenagers. Tonally Cameron's original is more oppresive and grimy, but in terms of actual on screen violence, they're pretty equal.

My point is these days there is nothing wrong with the guidelines the BBFC has set up. Quite a bit can make it into a 12A (Total Recall had three titties and 'fucks' galore - at least the extended cut did) and we retain our 15, 18 and 18R certificates. I cant remember the last time a film was not allowed a certificate without cuts (Human Centipede 2?). The MPAA essentially kill off movies by hitting them with the dreaded NC-17 rating, with Killer Joe being a good example of a film not being able to find an audience because the rating system there is awful. I'd take our BBFC over MPAA any day. The problem here is a studio cutting a movie to meet requirements, not a certification house imposing cuts or having unrealistic guidelines on certification. The BBFC of the 80's and 90's is long gone.

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 75
Not gonna cry about it, but yeah, I'm a little disappoi... - 11/2/2013 5:07:20 PM   
Nicky C

 

Posts: 687
Joined: 31/5/2006
Die Hard without a bit of grue isn't really Die Hard. The shot of John pulling himself along the floor with glass in his feet in DH is what it's all about. John wins because he can endure the most pain and take the most punishment. His victory is only as satisfying as the crucible he goes through to reach his goal. The bad guys die hard but John dies the hardest. I want to watch him bleed all over the place and then win anyway. Fuck YEAH! Just talking about it makes me want to watch Die Hard ... again!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 76
Yippie Kay yay melon farmer - 11/2/2013 5:10:44 PM   
Funkmasterflex

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 30/1/2013
Thats sealed it for me, Im not going to watch this film

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 77
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:17:02 PM   
porntrooper

 

Posts: 2610
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

We're hearing you loud and clear, Drooch, but you're still wrong.

The BBFC can't tell a studio not to cut their films.


Great, now answer this question:

Why are you absolving the BBFC of blame, and why do you think the UK ends up with such a comparatively huge list of butchered films? Why do you think virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK and uncut elsewhere?





Firstly, I don't think that 'virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK'. Some were, some weren't, but I honestly don't have any stats to back up that kinda statement, I suspect you don't either.

The BBFC of the 80's and 90's is not the BBFC of today.

A better question to ask and answer would be 'How many of the movies that the BBFC did not give certification to, have now been re-submitted and certified without cuts?'. Another, better question would be 'Of all the movies that were released in the UK with cuts, how many have been re-submitted and are now passed and certified uncut?'. See, as has already been pointed out, a number of films from the 80's/90's did receive re=classification and are available uncut. Was Die Hard ever cut? No idea. Lethal Weapon 2 and Commando were, and I beleive both are now available uncut and with appropriate classification. Name 10 action movies that were cut to obtain certification that remain cut. Can anybody?

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 78
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:43:14 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
For anyone interested in the cuts for various films, the Melon Farmers website keeps a list of what was cut, why and if the cuts have been restored now.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 79
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:48:48 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper
Firstly, I don't think that 'virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK'.

They weren't, only some were.

quote:

Another, better question would be 'Of all the movies that were released in the UK with cuts, how many have been re-submitted and are now passed and certified uncut?'

I'd say most of the big ones that were once cut are now uncut. Lethal Weapon 2 and 4, Die Hard 2, Under Siege 1 and 2, Cobra, The Rock, Tango & Cash, T2.....

quote:

Was Die Hard ever cut? No idea.


Nope. And neither were films like The Last Boy Scout, Red Heat, The Terminator (now a 15), The Long Kiss Goodnight (now a 15), Lock Up, Total Recall, The Specialist, Predator, The Running Man,
quote:

Name 10 action movies that were cut to obtain certification that remain cut. Can anybody?


I doubt it. I can only name Enter The Ninja and Rambo III, both were cut for violence towards animals.


< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 11/2/2013 5:49:30 PM >


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 80
- 11/2/2013 5:50:35 PM   
Craigmustdie

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 19/9/2011
It's not about focusing on gore, it's about making a film for adult fans who have supported the franchise rather than pandering to every other wanker. I'm actually disgusted, the last film was a step down to start with, softening it further is ridiculous. This is not Die hard, that is not John McClane, and I, a life long fan, am out...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 81
- 11/2/2013 5:50:56 PM   
Craigmustdie

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 19/9/2011
It's not about focusing on gore, it's about making a film for adult fans who have supported the franchise rather than pandering to every other wanker. I'm actually disgusted, the last film was a step down to start with, softening it further is ridiculous. This is not Die hard, that is not John McClane, and I, a life long fan, am out...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 82
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:55:29 PM   
jonson


Posts: 9009
Joined: 30/9/2005
I'm thinking I can take an under 12 into the cinema to see a film containing the word fuck 4 times, then the BBFC aren't strict enough! The people who complain about low certificates are the same people who smoke because they think it makes them look older.
Enough of that though. Either way I'm sure it'll be either average or bad, irrespective of the certificate.

_____________________________

I've got all the Barbie ones!!!

Yeah but you're old. Really old. Old. Old. Old. Old.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 83
RE: - 11/2/2013 5:56:21 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10881
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Craigmustdie

It's not about focusing on gore, it's about making a film for adult fans who have supported the franchise rather than pandering to every other wanker. I'm actually disgusted, the last film was a step down to start with, softening it further is ridiculous. This is not Die hard, that is not John McClane, and I, a life long fan, am out...


Yeah, because adding swearing and blood to scenes like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU5GKM_Rh2c would make it so much better and more interesting to adults.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Craigmustdie)
Post #: 84
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:57:23 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

Firstly, I don't think that 'virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK'. Some were, some weren't, but I honestly don't have any stats to back up that kinda statement, I suspect you don't either.


Yes, I do. Pick an action film and check this website to see what was cut:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk

In addition to the Die Hard 2 and With A Vengeance, Cliffhanger was cut to pieces, Under Siege 2 was cut by 2 minutes, Eraser was cut by over 3 minutes, True Lies was cut, T2 was cut, Face/Off was cut, The Rock was cut, Commando was cut, Executive Decision was cut, Under Siege was cut, The Matrix was cut, Lethal Weapon 2 was cut. Virtually every Seagal and Van Damme film was cut, including Marked for Death, Hard To Kill and On Deadly Ground. In fact, it's difficult to think of an action film that wasn't cut during that period.

(in reply to porntrooper)
Post #: 85
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 5:58:18 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Bought my tickets for Thursday night, suckers!

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 86
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 6:00:52 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

Firstly, I don't think that 'virtually every action film released during the 80's and 90's was cut in the UK'. Some were, some weren't, but I honestly don't have any stats to back up that kinda statement, I suspect you don't either.


Yes, I do. Pick an action film and check this website to see what was cut:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk

In addition to the Die Hard 2 and With A Vengeance, Cliffhanger was cut to pieces, Under Siege 2 was cut by 2 minutes, Eraser was cut by over 3 minutes, True Lies was cut, T2 was cut, Face/Off was cut, The Rock was cut, Commando was cut, Executive Decision was cut, Under Siege was cut, The Matrix was cut, Lethal Weapon 2 was cut. Virtually every Seagal and Van Damme film was cut, including Marked for Death, Hard To Kill and On Deadly Ground. In fact, it's difficult to think of an action film that wasn't cut during that period.



The point is though......most of them are now uncut. The others that aren't have yet to be resubmitted. That is what everyone is is saying, the BBFC have changed! And I gave a wee list of those not cut above, it wasn't that difficult to be honest.

< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 11/2/2013 6:01:55 PM >


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 87
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 8:28:18 PM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own
So ... will John McClane be saying "Yippee-ky-yay motherfucker!" or not? As long as we get that and a few spectacular explosions I don't really understand what all the fuss is about...

_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 88
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 8:39:00 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo

So ... will John McClane be saying "Yippee-ky-yay motherfucker!" or not? As long as we get that and a few spectacular explosions I don't really understand what all the fuss is about...


He will not be saying that in a 12A, no. The fuss is about Fox butchering a film to get a certificate it shouldn't have. It's like cutting the original Die Hard or Die Hard 2 (with its death by icicle scene) to get a 12 or essentially watching an edited for TV version of the movie on the big screen.

_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 89
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 11/2/2013 9:00:58 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12151
Joined: 30/9/2005
I imagine they could squeeze quite a lot into a 12A these days. I remember "Go fuck yourselves" in X-Men First Class for instance, and a lot of implied but grizzly moments.

I wonder if they'll just substitute McClane being covered in blood with McClane being covered in soot/mud/gunpowder/sweat etc?

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.203