Will there ever be an R rated Bond film?

TouchMyButtons

Yes yes, there already was an R- RATED bond outing -"License to kill" which grossed the least amount of money in the franchise which simply bedazzles me, but I have a few reasons to believe why perhaps, this was Dalton's second outing, following the fairly serious yet still humorous outing, The Living Daylights", and before that was a hugely successful 7 film course of outings starring Roger Moore as Bond, how they were successful? maybe due to the slapstick silliness of the 70's era.

Where im going at is mainstream audiences were used to Rogers Style of Bond, the comedy, corny charm, outrageous stunts and overall silliness. Dalton was following up on a 7 year tenure of a unrealistic silly tenure of Moore, while trying to Bring the character back to basics and what the books intended . Audiences couldn't comprehend that and were just too immuned to Moore's Style of Bond and this resulted in poor ticket sales for LTK.

In my opinion LTK did not fail in ticket sales due to the R-Rating, it failed with mainstream audiences because people just weren't ready for a change of pace in Bond at the time, in this case a more serious gritty bond.

But now its 2012, Craig is Bond, audiences know what to expect from Craig's style of Bond, grittyness,toughness, seriousness, realism and overall a darker style of Bond which I love by the way. If..and if EON decided to bring Bond to a R-RATING level, I would say this is perhaps the best time to do so due to the films being more serious with Craig. Am I saying they should just make Bond 24 "R" just to be R? no, but I think if EON wanted to really bring a dark,dark amazingly serious script with true reasons for having a R Rated rating, than it would be wise to do so before Craig's tenure is over because audiences could grasp the rating with more gratitude now than ever before.

Conclusion - I would like to see another R rated bond film before I die to see what EON could do with more leverage of the R RATING than what the PG13 boundaries offer.

But I know as long as the PG13 sells, we'll most likely not see this happen , atleast until producers either decide to take a huge risk or poor ticket sales happen.

You're thoughts?

TopGearJB007

Licence to Kill wasn't released as an R rated film.

No, we will not see an R- rated Bond film. It would hurt ticket sales because an R rating would cut out a whole demographic of people.

The only reason a film is rated R is because it has a ton of swearing and an over dosage of graphic violence. (None of which belong in a Bond film.)

That being said, I'd still see it.

TouchMyButtons

It wasn't rated R? I think otherwise chap.

check the link my friend -

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

It had scene cuts in order to get the PG-13 rating, and much later there was a complete uncut copy released, and that was what had the R rating.

TouchMyButtons

American Beauty was Rated R, it did not have a ton of swearing or an over dosage of
graphic violence.. Films just aren't rated R for over the top violence or cursing as you can clearly see with my example of American Beauty. Sometimes its the course of direction involving the script and plot which can lead to specific events of violence or drama that regulates towards the story's tone. Duh

TopGearJB007

American Beauty was rated R because the entire film's plot was related to sex and nudity.

Licence to Kill was released PG13. Look at your DVD of it.

The original uncut R version of LTK was released on the ultimate edition DVD and even that was rated PG13. No Bond film has ever been released in theaters or on DVD with an R rating.

X3MSonicX

Idk if it is on topic, but i need to say that: Actually DAD has a little scene where Bond has cut off the hand of that Kil guy. we can still see he throwing the hand to the left when he gets out of the room. idk if that could be considerd as a violent scene, But it's a BIT scaring, specially when it's coming from a Bond film.

thelordflasheart

Given that young boys are a huge part of Bond's audience I can't imagine we'll ever get a R rated film for some time. I could imagine them releasing an "unrated" DVD version of a Bond film in the next few years but really it seems unlikely. The Bond films generally don't need tinkering after the fact; I don't think that there are a *lot* of deleted scenes included in the discs, are there? The more deleted scenes made available and different versions of a Bond film would lead to "dilution of brand" where the films look a little less special - like we weren't getting the best version that we could have and that they need to be "fixed".

Forget r rated ,what about a x rated bond :)

TouchMyButtons

001 said:
Forget r rated ,what about a x rated bond :)

Oh ya baby now were talking !

Dr.YES, YES, YESSSSS OH YESSSSSS

Baltimore_007

I think an '18' Bond could very well be a flesh and blood reality in the not too distant future, it's not outside the boundaries of never. Furthermore kids gets to see all kinds of content these days one way or another and what may pass as adult fare may seem tame to others, there's so much blood and guts and profanities out there and I'm not suggesting Bond should take that route, but it could all very well be water off a ducks back to some as a viewing experience

What would an Bond 18 entail anyway ?, certainly an F word or too maybe, but a number of 18 releases of years past had no such content, would people be so shocked by that, I for one, it wouldn't bother me at all, but Bond is supposed to be family fare, and I think any 'shits' or such would be about as far they can take it without causing over offense. Add to that, a significant amount added of violence, more blood, a bit more graphic Bond etc, - the thing is, I'm all for it, I would welcome it for sure, but one person doesn't make an opinion and the general consensus would be something people would, or might take issue with, it can happen, this 18 Bond release, one day, maybe in the next 10 years even, but don't quote me on that. James Bond has always for the most part been family fare and for all ages, it could be a bit of a risk for the producers to take a step up and go for the whole adult package, but I'd jump at the chance to see something like that

Creasy47

I would love to see an R-rated Bond, just to see how much different it is. Granted, I wouldn't want it to change the formula up too much: Bond ends up spending the entire film bedding nude women, or overly gruesome deaths that feel like they should be in a Rambo film, or one character who overly cusses and makes the scene(s) they appear in totally unbelievable.

But, if they took bits of these, and didn't stretch the limits of belief for what we would expect from a Bond movie, then I would enjoy myself.

TouchMyButtons

Completely agree Baltimore, Kids today can turn on ABC and instantly be sighted by the eyes with mainstream demoralized shows such as Desperate Housewives or Cougar Town and see soft porn with no hesitations at all.

Alot of people are saying on here that an R-Rated bond would drive families/young kids away, yeah it may, but Ian Fleming didn't intend Bond to be for little kids, for Christs sake Bond is a licensed hitman for the British government. not a circus clown petting pony's by the Riverside at kids party's. Yes yes I understand theres been a PG-/PG13 formula within the cinematic franchise of bond and that involves the routine stunts and family friendly dialogue to a degree, but an R-Rated bond would be refreshing. Seeing Craig pistol whip a guard, then he spits on the body and says,"fuck you". Or Craig Pointing a gun at a hostaged/captived terrorist and says,"I dont give a fuck if you die, I want the information now, if you dont give it to me your dead." The terrorist says,"Go to hell". Bond (Craig) then shoots him in the head and says,"never was one to cooperate ". Or Craig (Bond) is sleeping with a woman, a guard or intruder interrupts abruptly, Bond quickly uses the woman as a body shield , then throws her in front of the intruder, fights off the intruder and manages to kill him, then looks down at the girl and says," what a shame". Then gets dressed and moves on.

Baltimore_007

Craig would be most appropriate I feel to be the first Bond to provide a global audience with an adult themed Bond adventure, it simply wouldn't have worked with Brosnan, possibly Dalton, well we did have a 15 that was for mature teenagers, and as for Moore in his time - not a chance - but I think if they ever go ahead with this the time to do it is during Craig's tenure, it could be now or never almost, but I hope some don't take issue with it and it causes a stir, but I think it may very well do so in some quarters, even if I do give it the green light

Creasy47

Baltimore_007 said:
Craig would be most appropriate I feel to be the first Bond to provide a global audience with an adult themed Bond adventure, it simply wouldn't have worked with Brosnan, possibly Dalton, well we did have a 15 that was for mature teenagers, and as for Moore in his time - not a chance - but I think if they ever go ahead with this the time to do it is during Craig's tenure, it could be now or never almost, but I hope some don't take issue with it and it causes a stir, but I think it may very well do so in some quarters, even if I do give it the green light

Why not Brosnan? Look at films like The Tailor of Panama and The Matador - he certainly has no problem with letting words fly and having a large amount of sex on screen. He could have definitely pulled it off.

But today, for Craig, he most certainly could, especially after seeing a film like The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

Baltimore_007

Suppose for arguments sake Brosnan had delivered, or participated, in an 18 Bond from 1995-2002, well as James Bond is the most important figure of any Bond film, of course, all eyes would invariably be on him or Bond as a whole, and above all else I just don't think Brosnan would of been appropriate for it, maybe he's not ruthless enough, doesn't have the same screen presence of Craig maybe, what I'm trying to say, if they had gone ahead with this in the last 17 years pre Craig, it just wouldn't have worked for me, Brosnan has done plenty of profanities in other films outside of Bond, but as James Bond, and all that it entails, I just think - wholly inappropriate, it just wouldn't have worked for me

Creasy47

That's why an R-rated Bond might not necessarily need to be a profanity/gore/nudity fest; just a little mixture of all of it to give it that R-rating.

But see, that's what makes me wonder - do we truly need an R/18 Bond film? After 50 years of Bond, do we desperately need to see a Bond girl naked, or hear Bond say the 'f' word a few times, or see a very gruesome death? I don't think so. An R/18 Bond film would be nice, but I'll never need it.

Granted, I would be lying if I said I hadn't wondered what some of these Bond girls would have looked like under the sheets ;)

TouchMyButtons

Definitely Agree there with you creasy, Brosnan had major, I mean major potential to shine as Bond, but he was fed over-the-top action and bad writing rather than the much needed drama and grittyness he would have thrived on.

Brosnan isn't as physically capable than Craig is, but Pierce could have definitely been more ruthless, conniving and persuasive in his personality while playing Bond. I wish the writers would have made Brosnan more sneaky, more infiltration scenarios involving him as well. The directors and writers misused Brosnan bigtime.

Creasy47

TouchMyButtons said:
Definitely Agree there with you creasy, Brosnan had major, I mean major potential to shine as Bond, but he was fed over-the-top action and bad writing rather than the much needed drama and grittyness he would have thrived on.

Brosnan isn't as physically capable than Craig is, but Pierce could have definitely been more ruthless, conniving and persuasive in his personality while playing Bond. I wish the writers would have made Brosnan more sneaky, more infiltration scenarios involving him as well. The directors and writers misused Brosnan bigtime.

Which goes to show that someone shouldn't get so much flak over something that isn't necessarily their fault. If you hate Brosnan for other reasons, fine: personally, he's my favorite actor - not just as Bond, either - and I don't see the complaints because I love the man's work so much, but in terms of, say, the story, it can't be his fault. But, complaints in other departments? Understandable.

Baltimore_007

@Creasy47 No we don't need to see it - but it's an area to explore if nothing else, would a one off instance really be that bad though, License to Kill wasn't really for kids in 1989 after the tame affairs of before, and after that we lessened it again when Brosnan took over in 1995 etc

I watched an 18 movie the other night when I had time, Turbulence to be exact, and take it from me, it has nothing to warrant such a classification, I thought a 12 would of been more appropriate, methinks these guys who put these ratings on film releases sometimes must have been smoking some good stuff when they make these decisions

I've always said also in retrospect that Live and Let Die should of been a '15' at the time of release, there was no 12 certificate back in 1973 of course, but all said, and I've seen it more times than you could imagine, it's not really a kids film sometimes

TouchMyButtons

Im seeing you guys mention 12's, 15's and 18's ...etc... I'm guessing over there in Europe the terms G, PG, PG-13 and R are not used? but age numbers are used in place instead of the letters? interesting. I apologize for my unknowing, I am an American so bare with me.

Creasy47

TouchMyButtons said:
Im seeing you guys mention 12's, 15's and 18's ...etc... I'm guessing over there in Europe the terms G, PG, PG-13 and R are not used? but age numbers are used in place instead of the letters? interesting. I apologize for my unknowing, I am an American so bare with me.

No worries, I'm an American, too. I believe those are the European rating numbers, yes.

Baltimore_007

Film ratings are film ratings, all cater for different ages at the end of the day, I've always prefered numbers than figures, it's not really about nationalities but some people just say that was a '18' release as to an NC-17 or a '12' to a PG-13 etc, the bottom line is, if there's content there will be suitable classifications, and for the purpose of this thread, once again, I think one day there will be an 18, sorry, NC-17 James Bond release, and when it arrives, I'll be one of the first in theaters to grab a seat and see what occurs, so long as they don't have the damn thing too loud :-<

craigrules

Both craig films would have been cut a lot more under James Ferman's draconian rules had they been out in the 80's

4EverBonded

I personally would be interested in a well made R-rated Bond flm, but they won't do it any time soon because it would cut the revenue so much. Of course the producers do not want to limit the audience too much and that rating would do that.

I don't need a lot more graphic violence, swearing, or sexual inuendo/nudity to enjoy the Bond movies (ok could enjoy the sexual inuendo/nudity bits more, yeah). But ... it would be interesting to see what a good director would do with an R rated Bond film; I'd go see it of course. Maybe some day.

thelivingroyale

TouchMyButtons said:
Im seeing you guys mention 12's, 15's and 18's ...etc... I'm guessing over there in Europe the terms G, PG, PG-13 and R are not used? but age numbers are used in place instead of the letters? interesting. I apologize for my unknowing, I am an American so bare with me.

Well I don't know about all the other countries, but in the UK we use U, PG, 12, 15, 18. LTK was released as a 15 over here.

sirseanisbond

I agree, it's unlikely that we'll see an R rated Bond film but do you suppose that if they did make an R rated one that it could bring Bond to the Oscars?

M_Balje

Casino Royale should have been consider to get 16+/R-rating.

In my country i think the extra symbol's (besides the age symbols (ALL) 6-9-12 and 16) there yuse work better, but should be extented.

AgentJamesBond007

1. LTK wasn't rated R and IMDB isn't reliable.
2. Why is it necessary? Bond doesn't need to show nudity. It adds to the imagination as it is.

RogueAgent

Why deny the entire fanbase the chance to see a Bond movie on the big screen? Less Box office is bad news! The rating is key in that respect.

BAIN123

I'm guessing "15" or "18" is the equivilent in the UK.

To be honest I hope we don't. While I know full well Bond is (or at least was) made for adults primarily, the vast majority of us first experience Bond as a kid. An "R rated" film wouldn't allow that to happen.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements