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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:44:27 PM   
jackcarter

 

Posts: 1859
Joined: 12/1/2006
urrrgh 6 pages of this now, who cares....its not as if its going to be anywhere near DH3 or even DH2 standard (no need to mention DH1)

we all know its DH4.0 Part II really so no need to get so worked up about it. in fact early reviews suggest its not even as good as that (surprise)

this 2nd DH trilogy is shaping up to be what SW prequels are to the originals...(so at least we should be in for a half decent part 6 )

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 181
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:50:21 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: jackcarter

urrrgh 6 pages of this now, who cares....its not as if its going to be anywhere near DH3 or even DH2 standard (no need to mention DH1)

we all know its DH4.0 Part II really so no need to get so worked up about it. in fact early reviews suggest its not even as good as that (surprise)

this 2nd DH trilogy is shaping up to be what SW prequels are to the originals...(so at least we should be in for a half decent part 6 )



Now it's 7, bitch!

(in reply to jackcarter)
Post #: 182
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 2:59:07 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: peter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.

Firstly, I'm not suggesting that the studio is not to blame, at all - Fox are greedy, soulless, audience-hating fuckers.

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.




Thanks, genuinely.

I just don't see either of my two stated options as being realistic, purely because Fox own the film. You mentioned option 1 as the more preferable. But the BBFC lists on their site the reasons why a film met the criteria for being a 15 (or any other rating), so any executive at Fox could make a reasonable guess as to why a 15 certificate was earned, and then change the film accordingly - as is their prerogative. The BBFC has no authority to stop Fox making changes to its own property.

As for the potential third option that's sued in other countries, I think this ties in with the comments on here earlier about other countries having poorer certifying bodies. I'm no expert on this, so may well be corrected, but it's my impression that ratings in other countries are a lot broader, rather than the specific 12(A)-14, 15-17, 18+ brackets over here. So if another country gives one of their broad-brush ratings, the impact isn't quite so bad, especially if it's a rating where viewer discretion is allowed.

Also, is it not possible that the UK market is big enough that more attention will be paid to the rating over here than in some other European countries by Fox? Again, I anticipate having the actual facts flung back at me!

Can't we all just have a pancake and get along?



It would be nice to all have a pancake and get along, but there seem to be some egos and tempers around here that react with hostility to questions they struggle to answer. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone reasonable to appear and actually engage and make some useful headway on this.

Yes, I agree that neither of the two options were realistic and I was careful to say 'gun to my head' in case it seemed that I would ever actually pick option 1, as you described it. I certainly wouldn't in the real world.

Whatever the certifying bodies are in other countries, I wouldn't describe them as 'poorer'. They do their job as classifiers without meddling in content by negotiating with the studios about cuts. Consequently, the people in those countries don't have to put up with censored films, that's what I would like to see happen here.

Exactly how that is achieved needs to be researched, but my strong suspicion is that those countries simply don't offer that 'service' so the studio don't bother asking. They hand in the film and accept whatever the board of that country decides. Once you dangle the possibility of increased profits, with a cuts advice service, to a greedy studio guess what happens...

If the BBFC stopped this service and made freedom of expression a principle to be upheld, as they claim they do already, then censored films would start to evaporate from our screens. The studio wouldn't waste time and money fiddling their films to achieve a rating if they didn't know exactly what needed to be cut to get that juicy 12A, it would be too costly a gamble with a release date looming.

While the UK market is a significant one, it's relatively tiny compared to other countries that enjoy uncensored material, it's not worth the studio's effort and time tweaking a separate version for the little UK unless they know it'll pay off. The BBFC should deny them that knowledge and just concern themselves with being classifiers, as their equivalent bodies in other countries do.


(in reply to peter)
Post #: 183
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:01:01 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 798
Joined: 2/9/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo
You keep blaming the BBFC for cuts made to Die Hard 5 and other films. Literally everyone else who has commented has said that this is wrong and that the BBFC are not culpable; it is the grasping studios who make the cuts in order to squeeze more money out of their films.

Every time someone points this out, you reply with the same arguments as before, except you start highlighting chunks of text in bold as if this is going to make them more pertinent. This has been going on for pages now. You seem utterly convinced of your rectitude despite the fact not one single person has agreed with you and everyone thinks you are a) overreacting, and b) inherently wrong.

Instead of stopping to consider this, you come back again, seemingly blind to the reasoned argument and logic presented to you.

Now, why would a person continue to debate a point with someone who has shown themselves to be indefatigably unreasonable and beyond logic? Well, they wouldn't.


No. Other posters have repeatedly dodged why other countries in the 'free' world don't end up with cinemas littered with cut films, so I'll repeat myself until they do, assuming they're genuinely interested in this discussion.

Generalised responses, personal attacks and butt-hurt wailing don't compensate for a proper response. It's a shame you've chosen to be a smug prick instead of engage in the discussion.




This really rather excellently researched Wiki would seem to suggest that you are wrong, wrong and wrong-diddly-wrong-wrong.

motion picture ratings

Most countries have a ratings board and classification system and most countries will instruct studios on editing or will ban films outright.

The BBFC have been completely transparent in recent years on what they have cut from films and the reasons why and they then put all of those details on their website, this is all true, really it is, go and have a look if you don't believe me.

Now I'm no apologist for or major fan of the BBFC and it's work but to suggest that it is some sort of humourless cabal intent on destroying the grand works of art produced by the likes of Fox movies and is intent on hamstringing the artisitic vision of Auteurs like John Moore, is quite frankly ridiculous.

< Message edited by Discodez -- 12/2/2013 3:02:44 PM >

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 184
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:04:26 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.


Wow, condescending fucker. Just man-up and admit that your argument is flawed and hyperbolic and has been rightfully torn asunder. No shame in it. Your attempts to save face by perpetually screaming the same thing over and over (like some teenage boy who's misplaced his Ritalin) in the hope that others will relent is desperate and sad.

quote:

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.


What utter, utter horseshit.


Cool stuff, lots of impotent rage there, but have you got anything to contribute to the discussion?



I said my brief piece earlier on another page. Others are better at articulating my thoughts on this and I have left them to it. And they have destroyed you. Gloriously. But not nearly as gloriously as you have destroyed yourself. It's been most entertaining. And one other thing:

CAPITAL LETTERS do not help you win arguments. Leave that childish shit to IMDB.


What's to 'destroy'? This is a discussion about the BBFC and why the UK ends up with cut versions when other similar countries don't. If I've been 'destroyed' I really haven't noticed. You seem to be mistaking this for some kind of war zone, why?

(in reply to DancingClown)
Post #: 185
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:15:21 PM   
Drooch

 

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

Most countries have a ratings board and classification system and most countries will instruct studios on editing or will ban films outright.


Can you quote some specifics from the article to support this?

quote:

The BBFC have been completely transparent in recent years on what they have cut from films and the reasons why and they then put all of those details on their website, this is all true, really it is, go and have a look if you don't believe me.


I've never disputed this. Why are you telling me this?

quote:

Now I'm no apologist for or major fan of the BBFC and it's work but to suggest that it is some sort of humourless cabal intent on destroying the grand works of art produced by the likes of Fox movies and is intent on hamstringing the artisitic vision of Auteurs like John Moore, is quite frankly ridiculous.


You're right, that is ridiculous. Why are you telling me this?

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 186
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:19:44 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Good post - well reasoned and without the unhelpful stupidity and smugness that plagues a lot of these, well done.


Wow, condescending fucker. Just man-up and admit that your argument is flawed and hyperbolic and has been rightfully torn asunder. No shame in it. Your attempts to save face by perpetually screaming the same thing over and over (like some teenage boy who's misplaced his Ritalin) in the hope that others will relent is desperate and sad.

quote:

You've presented two options. Gun to my head, I'd pick option 1. Now since there's no gun to my head I'll pick a new, more realistic option - the same one all other 'free' countries pick - the one that doesn't end up with cinemas littered with censored films, whatever precise form that takes.


What utter, utter horseshit.


Cool stuff, lots of impotent rage there, but have you got anything to contribute to the discussion?



I said my brief piece earlier on another page. Others are better at articulating my thoughts on this and I have left them to it. And they have destroyed you. Gloriously. But not nearly as gloriously as you have destroyed yourself. It's been most entertaining. And one other thing:

CAPITAL LETTERS do not help you win arguments. Leave that childish shit to IMDB.


What's to 'destroy'? This is a discussion about the BBFC and why the UK ends up with cut versions when other similar countries don't. If I've been 'destroyed' I really haven't noticed. You seem to be mistaking this for some kind of war zone, why?



And this obliviousness is what makes you such an object of scorn and pity.

Seriously, your arguments have passed beyond flawed all the way to nonsensical and plain false. Literally everyone who has spoken to you has tried to respond with reasoned and knowledgeable arguments about exactly how and why your arguments are nonsensical and false, and in response all you have done is at best copy and paste previous posts and just put different parts of it in bold as if this act makes what you're saying correct, and at worst resorted to insults and claimed that our responses are the ones that are insulting.

You wonder why I don't point out one thing that you've ignored, when I don't see the need to, because you've ignored everything, and are still spouting the same ridiculous borderline conspiracy theory-esque nonsense. I must be really bored to even attempt to continue any kind of discourse on the subject...

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 187
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:21:12 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14559
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

What's to 'destroy'? This is a discussion about the BBFC and why the UK ends up with cut versions when other similar countries don't. If I've been 'destroyed' I really haven't noticed. You seem to be mistaking this for some kind of war zone, why?



quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Absolute DISGRACE. I hope many of you will join me in boycotting this atrocity. I'm trying very hard to avoid piracy but Fox are forcing UK viewers to avoid censored kiddy crap the only way we know with this cynical, audience-hating move.

now I'm forced to reimplement the boycott.

Fox have raped McClane's corpse with this despicable move. Oh, and the BBFC can go fuck themselves for failing to allow adults access to uncensored material.



_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 188
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:23:24 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 370
Joined: 11/12/2005
Well, several pages of rambling conspiracy theories have certainly put it all into perspective: it's only a movie.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 189
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:24:47 PM   
garvielloken


Posts: 1186
Joined: 23/10/2011
This thread, eez deelishus.




_____________________________

Exactly six miles north of Skagg Mountain in the Valley of Pain, there lives an evil devilmonster. His name is Bingo Gas Station Motel Cheeseburger With A Side Of Aircraft Noise And You'll Be Gary Indiana.

Razzle them, dazzle them. Razzle dazzle them.



(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 190
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:27:25 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It would be nice to all have a pancake and get along, but there seem to be some egos and tempers around here that react with hostility to questions they struggle to answer. I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone reasonable to appear and actually engage and make some useful headway on this.


No, people have answered you with actual facts but you have chosen to ignore them. You insisted that this was the BBFC's fault, which it isn't. I understand your stance on the BBFC's strict guidelines but those have actually improved over the years and don't even matter when talking about Die Hard 5. The fact is, the film should be a 15, the BBFC would happily have given the film that rating but Fox insisted on getting more bums in sets and wanted a 12. There was, and I can't stress this enough or more than once apparently, anything the BBFC could do. There is absolutely no way the film would have passed as a 12A uncut any more than it would a PG-13 in the US. The 'strict guidelines' had nothing to do with it.In fact, the version we get has four uses of 'fuck' which is pretty good for a 12A. That is the answer you won't get another one and I certainly won't be repeating it again

As for your question 'why is the UK the strictest 'and I say it really isn't. It's not perfect but it's getting better. It is sometimes even better then the US- Terminator 3 is rated R there but 12A here uncut and the majority of films they classify as NC-17 get passed here uncut at 18. The MPAA aren't perfect either, no censorship body is but the BBFC are a hell of a lot better now than they ever were.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 191
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:45:10 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
I'm reading that people are saying it doesn't matter what rating it is because it could still be a good film...this is true, but then what's the point of having ratings? just make everything PG or 12A so everyone can see everything all the time.

The whole point of an 18 rating is the film is suppose to be adults. This franchise is an adult franchise end of, instead of trying to gain more fans from the very young generation they should be trying to please the older adult fanbase that has been with the film from day one.

Even the US version will have only been a 15 here in the UK, so that still isn't an adult film! god how I miss the 80's.

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 192
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:46:45 PM   
jackcarter

 

Posts: 1859
Joined: 12/1/2006
hasnt the UK always gotten cut versions of the DHs? (& Lethal Weapons) its not really that much different - its just the US are getting the full R cut makes it a bit annoying as they got the same edited version as us for 4.0


< Message edited by jackcarter -- 12/2/2013 3:47:48 PM >

(in reply to Shifty Bench)
Post #: 193
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:49:31 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
The whole point of the 18 rating is that it lets people know that the BBFC don't consider it to be suitable for people under 18. That's the only significance it has. End of.

There are plenty of movies aimed at adults that have a 15 or 12A rating... those ratings don't mean that the films are for teenagers. It just means there's nothing in there that the BBFC thinks should stop teenagers from watching it if they want to. And conversely, there are plenty of "teen" films that have been given 18 ratings.

Stop putting so much emphasis on the numbers. It has nothing to do with the actual film at all, other than to give an indicator of what age the BBFC think is the youngest you should be allowed to watch it.

< Message edited by AxlReznor -- 12/2/2013 3:50:46 PM >

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 194
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:50:24 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 798
Joined: 2/9/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

Most countries have a ratings board and classification system and most countries will instruct studios on editing or will ban films outright.


Can you quote some specifics from the article to support this?

quote:

The BBFC have been completely transparent in recent years on what they have cut from films and the reasons why and they then put all of those details on their website, this is all true, really it is, go and have a look if you don't believe me.


I've never disputed this. Why are you telling me this?

quote:

Now I'm no apologist for or major fan of the BBFC and it's work but to suggest that it is some sort of humourless cabal intent on destroying the grand works of art produced by the likes of Fox movies and is intent on hamstringing the artisitic vision of Auteurs like John Moore, is quite frankly ridiculous.


You're right, that is ridiculous. Why are you telling me this?



Point one: Have click around the article and you'll see the rules and regulations for different countries, the article states quite clearly that major studios submit different edits of the same film to different countries allowing for local laws and sensibilities. However have a look here (banned films) and you'll see, for example that Saw 3D was initially banned in Germany but was later made available in an edited version.

by the way, this is the first and last time I will do your research for you.

Point two: If you are not disputing this is how the BBFC works then what are you actually saying? why are you so against the BBFC and how come you agreed so wholeheartedly with "peter" above (by the way, i think he was taking the piss out of you, not agreeing with you, have a read again), or was this a sarcastic double bluff?

Point 3: I'm telling you this because you seem to have gotten yourself into a major tizzy because the BBFC have given the new Die Hard film a 12a rating. This is the fault of the studio wanting a 12a certificate, not the BBFC telling the studio that this is the only acceptable certification and the only acceptable cut of the film that will be shown in the UK.

< Message edited by Discodez -- 12/2/2013 3:55:20 PM >

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 195
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:51:07 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

The whole point of the 18 rating is that it lets people know that the BBFC don't consider it to be suitable for people under 18. That's the only significance it has. End of.

There are plenty of movies aimed at adults that have a 15 or 12A rating... those ratings don't mean that the films are for teenagers. It just means there's nothing in there that the BBFC thinks should stop teenagers from watching it if they want to.

Stop putting so much emphasis on the numbers. It has nothing to do with the actual film at all, other than to give an indicator of what age the BBFC think is the youngest you should be allowed to watch it.



So why have them? like I say they should just make everything the same then...right?

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 196
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:52:45 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

The whole point of the 18 rating is that it lets people know that the BBFC don't consider it to be suitable for people under 18. That's the only significance it has. End of.

There are plenty of movies aimed at adults that have a 15 or 12A rating... those ratings don't mean that the films are for teenagers. It just means there's nothing in there that the BBFC thinks should stop teenagers from watching it if they want to.

Stop putting so much emphasis on the numbers. It has nothing to do with the actual film at all, other than to give an indicator of what age the BBFC think is the youngest you should be allowed to watch it.



So why have them? like I say they should just make everything the same then...right?



Why have them? How about because it's a legal requirement?

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 197
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:53:36 PM   
MonsterCat


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackcarter

hasnt the UK always gotten cut versions of the DHs? (& Lethal Weapons) its not really that much different - its just the US are getting the full R cut makes it a bit annoying as they got the same edited version as us for 4.0



Die Hard wasn't cut, but it now seems a bit tame for an 18 certificate. Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With a Vengeance were cut to obtain 15 certificates, but again these were decisions taken by Fox. And even then this was back when the BBFC made the requirements for a 15 much more stringent.



_____________________________

"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 jackcarter)
Post #: 198
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:53:55 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

The whole point of the 18 rating is that it lets people know that the BBFC don't consider it to be suitable for people under 18. That's the only significance it has. End of.

There are plenty of movies aimed at adults that have a 15 or 12A rating... those ratings don't mean that the films are for teenagers. It just means there's nothing in there that the BBFC thinks should stop teenagers from watching it if they want to.

Stop putting so much emphasis on the numbers. It has nothing to do with the actual film at all, other than to give an indicator of what age the BBFC think is the youngest you should be allowed to watch it.



So why have them? like I say they should just make everything the same then...right?



Why have them? How about because it's a legal requirement?



But you just said it has nothing to do with the film haha so why not make everything a PG.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 199
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:57:57 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

ORIGINAL: jackcarter

hasnt the UK always gotten cut versions of the DHs? (& Lethal Weapons) its not really that much different - its just the US are getting the full R cut makes it a bit annoying as they got the same edited version as us for 4.0



No, the first Die Hard has always been uncut and is now a 15, the second film was cut to be a 15 fr the cinema but has been an uncut 18 for years now, three was cut once but now is uncut but the MPAA cut it before we even got to see it anyway so the actual full uncut version isn't available. Lethal Weapon 1 and 3 have never been cut and 2 and 4 are now uncut and rated 15. And the difference is the amount Fox've cut to make it a 12.

And I can't be arsed repeating myself on Die Hard 4.


< Message edited by Shifty Bench -- 12/2/2013 3:58:55 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to jackcarter)
Post #: 200
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 3:58:31 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
It doesn't! All it means is that the BBFC thinks that's the age that is the youngest you should be before you watch them. How is that so hard to understand? It doesn't matter if it's a film with adult themes or not... if it doesn't have anything in it that the BBFC thinks should be for adults only, then they're not going to rate it 18 just because that's who it's aimed at. If they didn't have the numbers at the bottom, kids would be able to get in to see anything, and the parents of the world would throw a fit that their 10 year old was allowed to see The Evil Dead.

There is no significance to it, other than that very simple criteria. The attitude you have reminds me of the idiots who would buy 18-rated games for their kids, and when informed that it's 18-rated would reply, "well, that's okay... he's very good at these games, they're not too old for him"... as if the age rating was based on proficiency level and not content.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 201
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 4:02:19 PM   
peter

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 25/1/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Point two: If you are not disputing this is how the BBFC works then what are you actually saying? why are you so against the BBFC and how come you agreed so wholeheartedly with "peter" above (by the way, i think he was taking the piss out of you, not agreeing with you, have a read again), or was this a sarcastic double bluff?



To clarify, it's between the two. I diagree with Drooch, but wasn't trying to take the piss. Was hoping that to discuss the opinion a bit more might make its flaws apparent, which i think was partly done through the fact that no-one could come up with a preferred 'third' alternative.

< Message edited by peter -- 12/2/2013 4:07:13 PM >

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 202
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 4:03:16 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
The way I see it, certificates exist because they're a way of preventing kids from seeing something like Dredd without the consent and supervision of parents. They're there to help curb kids from seeing something which may upset them or a have a negative psychological impact. There are some parents who have no qualms with allowing kids to watch a violent 18 cert movie, but that's a blind spot that the BBFC can't do much about. Their powers only go so far as cinemas and video stores.


< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 12/2/2013 4:04:25 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 Phubbs)
Post #: 203
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 4:04:35 PM   
peter

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 25/1/2006
DP

< Message edited by peter -- 12/2/2013 4:07:58 PM >

(in reply to peter)
Post #: 204
RE: - 12/2/2013 4:08:42 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: joepeterwilson

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).


This.



quote:

ORIGINAL: James2183


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.



And this.

(in reply to joepeterwilson)
Post #: 205
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 4:16:41 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 798
Joined: 2/9/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: peter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Point two: If you are not disputing this is how the BBFC works then what are you actually saying? why are you so against the BBFC and how come you agreed so wholeheartedly with "peter" above (by the way, i think he was taking the piss out of you, not agreeing with you, have a read again), or was this a sarcastic double bluff?



To clarify, it's between the two. I diagree with Drooch, but wasn't trying to take the piss. Was hoping that to discuss the opinion a bit more might make its flaws apparent, which i think was partly done through the fact that no-one could come up with a preferred 'third' alternative.


What's wrong with the way things are though Peter? I really don't see what the problem is. There are virtually no films banned these days and films that are edited are either edited by direction of the BBFC because they breach rules on violence or violent sexual content (and these rules are changed every few years on line with public opinion) or the studio does it to make the most money they can.

As to the question of whether one agrees with censorship or not is another discussion entirely (for the record I think it's moot, as in this day and age you can get any film you want anyway with a bit of shopping around).

(in reply to peter)
Post #: 206
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:18:06 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Running time on Wikipedia (based on the US version) say 97 minutes. Running time on BBFC website says... 97 minutes. If any actual footage has been cut out, it will be so insignificant that you won't even be able to tell the difference unless you watch both versions side-by-side. So all in all, this reminds me of the Hunger Games debacle.

Tell them that 15 little seconds have been cut out of a movie, and EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS! (Paraphrasing, of course )

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 207
- 12/2/2013 4:18:37 PM   
Craigmustdie

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 19/9/2011
As dramatic as I know this sounds, this is something of a betrayal, the fans who have supported this franchise since its inception have been ignored in favour of, well, EVERYBODY else. This rating means that, if accompanied by an adult, a 5 year old can see the new Die hard, which says a LOT about the content of the movie. The main character is not even able to say his own catchphrase, McClane and the movie have been neutered and the fans ignored and marginalised in favour of a few extra bucks, which unfortunately doesn't even surprise me any more. Adult, 18/R rated action is dead, the adult movies that make it uncut are poorly marketed by people who want them to fail and use them as evidence to forward the concept of 'safe' mass marketable, neutered fluff just to get the almighty tween dollar in their greedy mitts.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 208
RE: - 12/2/2013 4:25:20 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
Maintain the credibility of your adult franchise, don't compromise it by making a PG-1.......oh.

(in reply to Craigmustdie)
Post #: 209
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 4:29:20 PM   
peter

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 25/1/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: peter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Point two: If you are not disputing this is how the BBFC works then what are you actually saying? why are you so against the BBFC and how come you agreed so wholeheartedly with "peter" above (by the way, i think he was taking the piss out of you, not agreeing with you, have a read again), or was this a sarcastic double bluff?



To clarify, it's between the two. I diagree with Drooch, but wasn't trying to take the piss. Was hoping that to discuss the opinion a bit more might make its flaws apparent, which i think was partly done through the fact that no-one could come up with a preferred 'third' alternative.


What's wrong with the way things are though Peter? I really don't see what the problem is. There are virtually no films banned these days and films that are edited are either edited by direction of the BBFC because they breach rules on violence or violent sexual content (and these rules are changed every few years on line with public opinion) or the studio does it to make the most money they can.

As to the question of whether one agrees with censorship or not is another discussion entirely (for the record I think it's moot, as in this day and age you can get any film you want anyway with a bit of shopping around).



Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way things are at all. Like I say, I disagree with Drooch, but hoped that taking his arguments further down the line might give new ways to discuss the issue rather than the same points circling around.

My argument is that I don't see any sort of system where the BBFC can prevent a studio making cuts to its own property, which I think was one of the things Drooch was saying they should be doing.

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.094