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: RE:

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:30:40 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

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.


Ok, this is not about the film having anything cut from it, it's about it being digitally altered to get a lower rating. Swear words have been dubbed and blood has been removed. I know I have seen neither version yet but I am pretty sure I'd be able to tell, especially on the dubbing.

This is a film that the MPAA deems suitable to be rated R and by the BBFCs own admission should be a 15 being altered completely to be a 12A. That amount of censorship annoys me and I know the film may not even be great but fans are being treated like morons for extra cash.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 211
RE: - 12/2/2013 4:31:56 PM   
AxlReznor

 

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

ORIGINAL: Craigmustdie

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.


You're right... Django Unchained was totally poorly marketed, and didn't make a shit ton of money at all...

And where is everyone getting that he won't be allowed to say his catchphrase! It's got four uses of the word 'fuck'... you don't think that at least one of them may be preceded by the word 'mother'? I mean, it might be the case that he doesn't say it, but it's kind of like the whole "they put the gun barrel at the end of Skyfall?" bullshit. It has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the movie whether he says it or not.

I think it's fucked up that 5 year olds will be able to see it, too. I wouldn't let a 5 year old see it myself, because it's definitely not going to be suitable for them. But that's more of an issue with the effectiveness of the rating (which came about because people bitched they couldn't take their kids to see Spider-Man), than with anything else...

(in reply to Craigmustdie)
Post #: 212
RE: - 12/2/2013 4:34:17 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Craigmustdie

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.


People need to be made aware that, whilst 12A might mean an adult can legally take a five year old to see the film, it doesn't mean they should. It should be renamed 12-ish or something.

Or cinemas could start implementing their own policies - if they can create 18+ screenings of non-18 rated films, they can state they have the right to refuse entry to a film where they feel a child of a certain age may be too young to comprehend the film / deal with the violence.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Craigmustdie)
Post #: 213
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:38:07 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime
People need to be made aware that, whilst 12A might mean an adult can legally take a five year old to see the film, it doesn't mean they should. It should be renamed 12-ish or something.



The 12A should never have been created, it should have stayed just 12, in my opinion. Taking a infant to the cinema to see a 12A is ridiculous.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 214
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:38:21 PM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
Well however you look at it I think this decision may have ruined DH5 chances in the UK, not a smart move.

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 215
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:39:58 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
I think either it's opening night chances were already doomed from the start, or there'll be a lot of cunnilingus going on on Valentine's night.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 216
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:42:43 PM   
FoximusPrime

 

Posts: 400
Joined: 11/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Well however you look at it I think this decision may have ruined DH5 chances in the UK, not a smart move.


I fear that's an optimistic outlook. People will go regardless because it's Die Hard, some because they don't know about the rating, some because they don't care, and some because the trailers feature explosions and guns and Bruce Willis from that other film.

_____________________________

Spoiler colour: #F1F1F1

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 217
RE: RE: - 12/2/2013 4:45:11 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime
People will go regardless because it's Die Hard, some because they don't know about the rating, some because they don't care, and some because the trailers feature explosions and guns and Bruce Willis from that other film.


Absolutely.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 218
Obviously doen't love Cheesey-Poofs. - 12/2/2013 5:10:49 PM   
Agent Jack Bauer CTU

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 8/9/2011
Because this news is lame.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 219
A Good Day To Die Hard 12A - 12/2/2013 7:02:28 PM   
Scruffybobby

 

Posts: 4357
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: My House
I'm reminded of Mark Kermode's take on the similar situation with The Hunger Games. This isn't about censorship. It's about marketing. Fox are just doing what they can to get as big a boz office as they can. Did anyone really expect anyrhing else?

_____________________________

"You're only given a little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it." - Robin Williams

(in reply to Agent Jack Bauer CTU)
Post #: 220
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 7:18:21 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5110
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


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.



Yes, the BBFC is much better than it was, and went through something of a golden age in the 2000's, but this decade has seen a slide back towards the scissor happy days of old. There are still far too many films coming through with butchered cinema versions:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

My point being that other western countries don't have to put up with a cinema full of patronisingly butchered versions. The difference between them and us? The BBFC.

While the BBFC are not snipping films themselves, they are indirectly responsible for all of this by being happy to cater for greedy, audience-hating studios by offering cuts advice to those studios and failing to uphold freedom of expression by not forcing mandatory uncut versions for adults, which should be available on principle. As a cinephile I have absolutely no interest in watching neutered material. Other countries simply classify films and don't start colluding with the studios to create these mutated, ball-less versions. Slap a certificate on the film and go home, job done, stop fucking around with our films.



Apart from a certain slasher sequel that came out last year and was basically the original with it's bollocks cut off?

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 221
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 12/2/2013 9:09:48 PM   
musht


Posts: 1882
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland
... did I mention that this was 15A in Ireland?

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

"color=#F1F1F1" Spoiler text "/color"

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 222
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 13/2/2013 1:07:29 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor


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...



Lots of passionate generalisations there and an attempt to imagine yourself being in some club with 'we' and 'our', cowering behind your imaginary friends. You're on your own, you made a statement and when I asked you to back it up you ran away from doing so. You keep dodging it, so I'll put to you again.

Be specific. Name one thing that has been said to me that you think I haven't listened to or adequately addressed.



(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 223
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 13/2/2013 1:30:54 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: peter


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.


The solution is for the BBFC to adopt the same system that equivalent countries employ, which doesn't result in their cinemas being littered with censored films.

Exactly how that is achieved needs to be researched, but my strong suspicion is that those countries simply don't offer that 'cuts advice 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 #: 224
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 13/2/2013 1:39:22 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


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.



Yes, the BBFC is much better than it was, and went through something of a golden age in the 2000's, but this decade has seen a slide back towards the scissor happy days of old. There are still far too many films coming through with butchered cinema versions:

Die Hard 5
Taken 2
Jack Reacher
The Woman in Black
The Expendables
The Hunger Games
Savages
The Inbetweeners Movie
The Three Stooges
The Knot
Now Is Good
The Cold Light Of Day
Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part 1

My point being that other western countries don't have to put up with a cinema full of patronisingly butchered versions. The difference between them and us? The BBFC.

While the BBFC are not snipping films themselves, they are indirectly responsible for all of this by being happy to cater for greedy, audience-hating studios by offering cuts advice to those studios and failing to uphold freedom of expression by not forcing mandatory uncut versions for adults, which should be available on principle. As a cinephile I have absolutely no interest in watching neutered material. Other countries simply classify films and don't start colluding with the studios to create these mutated, ball-less versions. Slap a certificate on the film and go home, job done, stop fucking around with our films.



Apart from a certain slasher sequel that came out last year and was basically the original with it's bollocks cut off?


If you're referring to Scream 4, that film was easily the most graphically violent of the series, to suggest that it had its 'bollocks cut off' in comparison with the much tamer original is gobsmackingly ignorant. What a stupid thing to say.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 225
RE: 12A ?????????????? Why ?????? - 13/2/2013 2:29:11 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b


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.




Oh, irony. Sweet irony.


Amusing, isn't it?

There was no personal attack, Drooch, only an observation of the events of this thread. But thank you for calling me a "smug prick" and further supporting my point that your responses are irrational and unreasonable. I can now add 'childish' and 'offensive'.

I explained at the very beginning of my post why I wasn't getting involved, but you have conveniently edited that out of the quote. I must say, I'm impressed you even noticed it as you seem otherwise incapable of absorbing information.

Hilarious that this debate is still going on. Given your bloody-minded stubbornness I'll look forward to seeing it in Mammoth Threads.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 226
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 3:37:04 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: FoximusPrime


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Well however you look at it I think this decision may have ruined DH5 chances in the UK, not a smart move.


I fear that's an optimistic outlook. People will go regardless because it's Die Hard, some because they don't know about the rating, some because they don't care, and some because the trailers feature explosions and guns and Bruce Willis from that other film.



Yes you're right and I agree with you. I'm sure the film will do well as its Die Hard, but I wouldn't say its stretching it too far to think the film may well have done much better had it been an adult rating. Even if it does really well you could still say it may well have done even better had the rating been for adults because then more adults would have gone. This whole plan can only be bad for the films UK success.

I agree many will go and not care about the rating but I also believe many won't go because of the rating. I mean think about it, what's the point of going to see a Die Hard film that is a 12A rating? what's the point of going to see any action film with that rating UNLESS its a comedy action film like 'Rush Hour' when you expect that rating. Would you go to see the new 'Robocop' film if it were a 12A? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Its like going to see a horror film that has a 12A rating, you'd be thinking why has this horror film got a 12A rating?, is it really a horror film?? there must be a reason why it has such a low rating because its not suppose to be a kids film.

Personally I think everyone should boycott the film and not go to watch it, send a message to the big wigs. The original US version isn't even an adult film anyway, it would only gain a 15 rating here in the UK! yet to see this version I will have to buy the film! fudge that, adios Die Hard, you had a good run.

(in reply to FoximusPrime)
Post #: 227
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 4:07:35 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

I mean think about it, what's the point of going to see a Die Hard film that is a 12A rating? What's the point of going to see any action film with that rating UNLESS its a comedy action film like 'Rush Hour' when you expect that rating. Would you go to see the new 'Robocop' film if it were a 12A? I sure as hell wouldn't.


This is interesting. Why must action films be rated 15 or above? Do they need lots of blood-letting and swearing? Why can't action films be suitable for all? Would you have Indiana Jones films as profanity-filled gore fests? There are many fantastic PG action films out there; boycotting them on account of their rating is daft.


quote:

Its like going to see a horror film that has a 12A rating, you'd be thinking why has this horror film got a 12A rating?, is it really a horror film?? there must be a reason why it has such a low rating because its not suppose to be a kids film.



A horror film is supposed to instil fear and dread, so it is unlikely to be suitable for children aged 11 and younger. There is no 'Children's Horror' genre; parents tend to prefer they sleep at night. The comparison here isn't really valid - there's no reason why children shouldn't be able to enjoy action films; however there's every reason why they would not enjoy horror.

Please bear in mind: I do not favour the DH5 reduction; however DH5 is a franchise where tone and expectation have already been set. It is not every action film.


< Message edited by Cloud Cuckoo -- 13/2/2013 4:18:27 AM >


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 228
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 4:16:07 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

I mean think about it, what's the point of going to see a Die Hard film that is a 12A rating? What's the point of going to see any action film with that rating UNLESS its a comedy action film like 'Rush Hour' when you expect that rating. Would you go to see the new 'Robocop' film if it were a 12A? I sure as hell wouldn't.


This is interesting. Why must action films be rated 15 or above? Do they need lots of blood-letting and swearing? Why can't action films be suitable for all? Would you have Indiana Jones films as profanity-filled gore fests? There are many fantastic PG action films out there; boycotting them on account of their rating is daft.


quote:

Its like going to see a horror film that has a 12A rating, you'd be thinking why has this horror film got a 12A rating?, is it really a horror film?? there must be a reason why it has such a low rating because its not suppose to be a kids film.



A horror film is supposed to instil fear and dread, so it is unlikely to be suitable for children aged 11 and younger. There is no 'Children's Horror' genre; parents tend to prefer they sleep at night.




Well yes I realise what you're saying but....

My point is some action films are suppose to be 15 and above, then there are others which of course are below. Why go to see an action film which is for all intense and purposes is really suppose to be a kick ass fest of guns n blood, when its 12A. If you wanna see a 12A/PG action film then you go see 'Indy' or 'Rush Hour' or 'Spy Kids' etc....

I wanna see a Die Hard film, not a kiddie action film.

My point about the horror flicks is the same, if you go to see a horror flick you expect a 15 and above, you wouldn't go to see a 12A horror (yes I know there aren't any but its just an example). You'd be kinda wondering why a horror is 12A.

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 229
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 4:17:49 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

I mean think about it, what's the point of going to see a Die Hard film that is a 12A rating? What's the point of going to see any action film with that rating UNLESS its a comedy action film like 'Rush Hour' when you expect that rating. Would you go to see the new 'Robocop' film if it were a 12A? I sure as hell wouldn't.


This is interesting. Why must action films be rated 15 or above? Do they need lots of blood-letting and swearing? Why can't action films be suitable for all? Would you have Indiana Jones films as profanity-filled gore fests? There are many fantastic PG action films out there; boycotting them on account of their rating is daft.


quote:

Its like going to see a horror film that has a 12A rating, you'd be thinking why has this horror film got a 12A rating?, is it really a horror film?? there must be a reason why it has such a low rating because its not suppose to be a kids film.



A horror film is supposed to instil fear and dread, so it is unlikely to be suitable for children aged 11 and younger. There is no 'Children's Horror' genre; parents tend to prefer they sleep at night.




Well yes I realise what you're saying but....

My point is some action films are suppose to be 15 and above, then there are others which of course are below. Why go to see an action film which is for all intense and purposes is really suppose to be a kick ass fest of guns n blood, when its 12A. If you wanna see a 12A/PG action film then you go see 'Indy' or 'Rush Hour' or 'Spy Kids' etc....

I wanna see a Die Hard film, not a kiddie action film, and yes it will be tame with a 12A rating, don't try and kid yourself.

My point about the horror flicks is the same, if you go to see a horror flick you expect a 15 and above, you wouldn't go to see a 12A horror (yes I know there aren't any but its just an example). You'd be kinda wondering why a horror is 12A.



< Message edited by Phubbs -- 13/2/2013 4:19:20 AM >

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 230
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 4:39:15 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Well yes I realise what you're saying but....

My point is some action films are suppose to be 15 and above, then there are others which of course are below. Why go to see an action film which is for all intense and purposes is really suppose to be a kick ass fest of guns n blood, when its 12A. If you wanna see a 12A/PG action film then you go see 'Indy' or 'Rush Hour' or 'Spy Kids' etc....


Fair enough, but I was responding to your comment that there is no point seeing an action film rated 12A or below unless it is a comedy, which is clearly not the case.

quote:

My point about the horror flicks is the same, if you go to see a horror flick you expect a 15 and above, you wouldn't go to see a 12A horror (yes I know there aren't any but its just an example). You'd be kinda wondering why a horror is 12A.


Sorry but if there are no horrors rated 12A then why are you using them as an example to back your point? Citing something fictitious and impossible is a strange way to support your reasoning.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 231
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 4:45:42 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
Would you go see a 12A 'Friday the 13th' film? unlikely to happen (well...) but would you?

And I personally wouldn't be interested in an action film that wasn't meant for the younger generation but was 12A or below.

< Message edited by Phubbs -- 13/2/2013 4:47:27 AM >

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 232
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 5:28:19 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Would you go see a 12A 'Friday the 13th' film? unlikely to happen (well...) but would you?



There is no reason to even hypothetically answer this because it will never happen! It's like me asking "Would you carpet your living room ceiling?" It's unrealistic and irrelevant.

Sorry.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 233
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 5:32:40 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cloud Cuckoo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Would you go see a 12A 'Friday the 13th' film? unlikely to happen (well...) but would you?



There is no reason to even hypothetically answer this because it will never happen! It's like me asking "Would you carpet your living room ceiling?" It's unrealistic and irrelevant.

Sorry.




Well true but in this day n age I wouldn't bet on anything haha 'Jason' is a popular franchise

(in reply to Cloud Cuckoo)
Post #: 234
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 6:17:07 AM   
Cloud Cuckoo


Posts: 408
Joined: 7/2/2013
From: Mind your own

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phubbs

Well true but in this day n age I wouldn't bet on anything haha 'Jason' is a popular franchise


That may be so, but I doubt he'll damage Peppa Pig's sales margin at any time soon. Or ever.


_____________________________

In Thom we trust.

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 235
Hmmmm - 13/2/2013 8:33:00 AM   
Hippolyte

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 14/9/2006
Eh even the new Tomb Raider game has had the balls (and the sense) to appeal to the audience who have been yearning for more, the ones who relished its invention, and opted for an 18 certificate, yet Die Hard 5 is a 12??? They couldn't be more clear about their stronger commitment to making money than pleasing the fans who made it such a success to begin with! Such a pity!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 236
Ha - 13/2/2013 8:44:41 AM   
Hippolyte

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 14/9/2006
Just noticed the same things been written countless times. Shows how much we loved Die Hard! Again such a pity.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 237
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 1:06:22 PM   
My name is Legion

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 1/2/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

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 detest these kind of comments, as they only go one way. They always take the piss out of people who are disappointed with action franchises being watered down.

Why don't we flip this 'round?

Star Wars: Episode VII is rated a very hard 18. Luke is now insane, he kills anyone in his path, all shown in gory detail. He then thinks {we hear his inner monologue} "That cunt, cocktease Leia, flirting, kissing me then marrying that fuck Solo". He then visits their home, butchers Solo, and rapes his sister in a 20 minute unbroken take. Then chops her into pieces with his Lightsaber. We hold for five minutes as he stands over her decimated body. His cock is still hanging out.

How does that sound? Anyone think it's fine to completely alienate the core audience for that particular franchise?

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 238
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 1:09:05 PM   
Keyser Sozzled


Posts: 6001
Joined: 1/10/2006
From: Dublin

quote:

ORIGINAL: My name is Legion


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

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 detest these kind of comments, as they only go one way. They always take the piss out of people who are disappointed with action franchises being watered down.

Why don't we flip this 'round?

Star Wars: Episode VII is rated a very hard 18. Luke is now insane, he kills anyone in his path, all shown in gory detail. He then thinks {we hear his inner monologue} "That cunt, cocktease Leia, flirting, kissing me then marrying that fuck Solo". He then visits their home, butchers Solo, and rapes his sister in a 20 minute unbroken take. Then chops her into pieces with his Lightsaber. We hold for five minutes as he stands over her decimated body. His cock is still hanging out.

How does that sound? Anyone think it's fine to completely alienate the core audience for that particular franchise?


Would watch again.

3/5

_____________________________

I have no idea who any of them are, apart from Terry Pratchett who I know has got a beard and keeps going on about killing himself but never does.

(in reply to My name is Legion)
Post #: 239
RE: RE: - 13/2/2013 1:12:58 PM   
AxlReznor

 

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

ORIGINAL: My name is Legion


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

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 detest these kind of comments, as they only go one way. They always take the piss out of people who are disappointed with action franchises being watered down.

Why don't we flip this 'round?

Star Wars: Episode VII is rated a very hard 18. Luke is now insane, he kills anyone in his path, all shown in gory detail. He then thinks {we hear his inner monologue} "That cunt, cocktease Leia, flirting, kissing me then marrying that fuck Solo". He then visits their home, butchers Solo, and rapes his sister in a 20 minute unbroken take. Then chops her into pieces with his Lightsaber. We hold for five minutes as he stands over her decimated body. His cock is still hanging out.

How does that sound? Anyone think it's fine to completely alienate the core audience for that particular franchise?


That's a much more extreme example than merely editing out some swearing...

(in reply to My name is Legion)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

0.125