MPAA rating released

2

Comments

  • I am guessing like all the BOND films SKYFALL will be rated "TOUS PUBLIC"...meaning everyone can watch it....Its interesting the different rating systems in different countries...

    i forgot to mention that this is in France...
  • SaintMark wrote:
    Still I will not take my daughters to the cinema to watch Craigs 007, I find the violence in his movies a tad more in the face than some of the previous actors. They love Moore, Brosnan & Connery.
    It is my perogative and responsibility as a parent that is in place here. I find craigs Bond a tad on the aggresive side for younger kids.

    Did you not show them Dalton? (alright fair enough not LTK).
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote:
    Still I will not take my daughters to the cinema to watch Craigs 007, I find the violence in his movies a tad more in the face than some of the previous actors. They love Moore, Brosnan & Connery.
    It is my perogative and responsibility as a parent that is in place here. I find craigs Bond a tad on the aggresive side for younger kids.

    Did you not show them Dalton? (alright fair enough not LTK).

    Nope, LTK for obvious reasons and TLD not because I do not like watching Dalton as 007. However they love Dalton in the Rocketeer and Hot fuzz. Found him convincing and menacing as a evil timelord in Doctor Who as well.

    He should have been a Bond baddie.

  • edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Well I love Dalton as Bond but he could've been equally great as a villain.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Well I love Dalton as Bond but he could've been equally great as a villain.

    Easily better.

    ;)
  • edited September 2012 Posts: 12,837
    SaintMark wrote:
    Well I love Dalton as Bond but he could've been equally great as a villain.

    Easily better.

    ;)

    Nah ;)

    I think it would be kind of cool if Dalton was a villain in a Bond film now. He still looks great, and the series doesn't really value continuity, especially after the reboot.
  • SaintMark wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Still I will not take my daughters to the cinema to watch Craigs 007, I find the violence in his movies a tad more in the face than some of the previous actors. They love Moore, Brosnan & Connery.
    It is my perogative and responsibility as a parent that is in place here. I find craigs Bond a tad on the aggresive side for younger kids.

    Did you not show them Dalton? (alright fair enough not LTK).

    Nope, LTK for obvious reasons and TLD not because I do not like watching Dalton as 007. However they love Dalton in the Rocketeer and Hot fuzz. Found him convincing and menacing as a evil timelord in Doctor Who as well.

    He should have been a Bond baddie.

    How old are your kids out of interest?
  • SaintMark wrote:

    Nope, LTK for obvious reasons and TLD not because I do not like watching Dalton as 007. However they love Dalton in the Rocketeer and Hot fuzz. Found him convincing and menacing as a evil timelord in Doctor Who as well.

    He should have been a Bond baddie.

    So you didn't show them LTK or Craig's Bonds, but you're fine with Hot Fuzz? Or was it a edited version they saw. Because I found that a lot more bloody/violent than any of the Bond films

  • Fun fact: LTK and Hot Fuzz both have exploding heads!
  • I was just about to say....they can see Hot Fuzz but not Craig's Bonds?
  • edited September 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Regarding Mark's comments, as a parent myself I'd like to say that whether we agree or not with him on this, we really shouldn't be questioning his decision too much. He absolutely has every right as a responsible parent to decide what his children can and can't watch.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again- the anti-smoking brigade and their pals in the insurance business would have made great Nazis. Tobacco is a legal product, if you're of legal age to purchase and use it, no one has the right to impose their will on you. It's called freedom of choice. If I'm outside and want to smoke a stogie, I will. If you come around me and tell me to put it out, I'll tell you I was here first and if you don't like it then get to stepping. These Nazis think they have the right, but they don't.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,490
    Regarding Mark's comments, as a parent myself I'd like to say that whether we agree or not with him on this, we really shouldn't be questioning his decision too much. He absolutely has every right as a responsible parent to decide what his children can and can't watch.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again- the anti-smoking brigade and their pals in the insurance business would have made great Nazis. Tobacco is a legal product, if you're of legal age to purchase and use it, no one has the right to impose their will on you. It's called freedom of choice. If I'm outside and want to smoke a stogie, I will. If you come around me and tell me to put it out, I'll tell you I was here first and if you don't like it then get to stepping. These Nazis think they have the right, but they don't.

    I couldn't possibly agree with you more. When I go outside for a cigarette and I find a suitable location to do so, nobody else can come into my area and tell me to put it out.

    In regards to SF - like I've said before - I think it would be a nice nod to the Bond days of old.
  • edited September 2012 Posts: 7,653
    Regarding Mark's comments, as a parent myself I'd like to say that whether we agree or not with him on this, we really shouldn't be questioning his decision too much. He absolutely has every right as a responsible parent to decide what his children can and can't watch.

    Thank you, and as a parent you tend to discriminate in what you consider good or bad for your children, as you tend to know them best. But we all make mistakes even when we try to do our best.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again- the anti-smoking brigade and their pals in the insurance business would have made great Nazis. Tobacco is a legal product, if you're of legal age to purchase and use it, no one has the right to impose their will on you. It's called freedom of choice. If I'm outside and want to smoke a stogie, I will. If you come around me and tell me to put it out, I'll tell you I was here first and if you don't like it then get to stepping. These Nazis think they have the right, but they don't.

    On the subject of the anti-smoking brigade I can only say that I do not mind smokers as long as they remember to not inconvenience other folks with the smoke I really don't care. And when they do not litter their ciggie butts (that also aplies for general littering for me)
    I quite smoking when my daughters were born and I did no allow any smoking around my daughters and most did not mind and actually agreed that kids should remain in a smoking free enviroment.
    The non-smoking bars and clubs I find very nice, as a large majority of people do not smoke and they get not bothered anymore by the behaviour of a small minority. When I go out these days I actually get to smell people and don't stink of ciggies when I get home. Just of beer. :D

  • Posts: 5,767
    I´m not sure wether we´re still in the right thread, but I can´t help myself thinking that in a film, sensual impression has the stronger impact than pc. In a time when smoking is associated more with lung diseases than with sex-appeal, you´d have to have a Bond that is significantly flawed without impairing his badass-ness, then it might work. It´s very much down to public reception. Alcohol is about as devastating as tobacco, yet so far no MPAA complained about Bond´s drinking issues.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Well thank goodness it isn't R! I am grateful for that! Of course I don't believe Bond will ever go to an R rating, and thankfully so, because there's no need to. I wouldn't doubt there will be a slight bit of language, but I am glad to notice the rating didn't specify its level for use of rough language, so quite possibly there won't be too much. I certainly hope not, because it always ruins a good movie with too much language!
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    No, Bond will never be an R-rated film. I'm a type of person to f*cking swear of the handle, but if I ever here somebody in a Bond film utter an F-bomb, I'm going to feel insulted (so far, the closest we've gotten is Sheriff Pepper mouthing the word, but it's never spoken).
  • Posts: 4,762
    No, Bond will never be an R-rated film. I'm a type of person to f*cking swear of the handle, but if I ever here somebody in a Bond film utter an F-bomb, I'm going to feel insulted (so far, the closest we've gotten is Sheriff Pepper mouthing the word, but it's never spoken).

    I'm surprised it wasn't included in License to Kill, because really just about every other word got thrown into it. What a disaster, I mean you can go dark and gritty without the language, it can be done!
  • Posts: 5,767
    00Beast wrote:
    No, Bond will never be an R-rated film. I'm a type of person to f*cking swear of the handle, but if I ever here somebody in a Bond film utter an F-bomb, I'm going to feel insulted (so far, the closest we've gotten is Sheriff Pepper mouthing the word, but it's never spoken).

    I'm surprised it wasn't included in License to Kill, because really just about every other word got thrown into it. What a disaster, I mean you can go dark and gritty without the language, it can be done!
    Ambience is never depending on language.
    On the other hand, in several of Fleming´s novels the word is clearly there, though not written out. So, I´m wondering, we had the one-off QOS, then why not have a one-off smoking and cursing Bond...?

  • edited October 2012 Posts: 12,837
    An R/18 rated Bond film could be good, but there's just no need for one. We get enough violence to keep me happy when the films are 12s and it would be an 18 for the sake of being an 18, and the film would make less money.
  • Posts: 406
    Bond doesn't need f words, just enough for it violence/swearing for a low 15 or high 12 certificate will do me fine.
  • Posts: 1,453
    An R/18 rated Bond film could be good, but there's just no need for one. We get enough violence to keep me happy when the films are 12s and it would be an 18 for the sake of being an 18, and the film would make less money.

    In the UK, LTK got an 18 rating when we first took it to the BBFC. I also remember hearing that Timothy Dalton was rather pleased with the adult rating, but no one else was. At the time it got a little heated between Eon and the BBFC, and in the end, because time was running out for the release date, Cubby and the supervising editor had to go to Soho and make the actual "cuts" with the BBFC present so that both parties could agree on the "cuts" to achieve a 15 rating. BTW; all those "cuts" (Sanchez whipping his girlfriend, her lover's OC screams as his heart is cut out, rifle butt smashed into prison truck driver's face, Felix's leg being bitten off, Sanchez going up in flames for longer,) have all been restored in the present LTK BluRay release - rated 15.

  • Posts: 7,653
    An R/18 rated Bond film could be good, but there's just no need for one. We get enough violence to keep me happy when the films are 12s and it would be an 18 for the sake of being an 18, and the film would make less money.

    If a Bond woman would take her bikini top of it would immediately have a 18 stamp. Strange how a naked body trumps violence and swearing.

  • ColonelSun wrote:
    In the UK, LTK got an 18 rating when we first took it to the BBFC. I also remember hearing that Timothy Dalton was rather pleased with the adult rating, but no one else was. At the time it got a little heated between Eon and the BBFC, and in the end, because time was running out for the release date, Cubby and the supervising editor had to go to Soho and make the actual "cuts" with the BBFC present so that both parties could agree on the "cuts" to achieve a 15 rating. BTW; all those "cuts" (Sanchez whipping his girlfriend, her lover's OC screams as his heart is cut out, rifle butt smashed into prison truck driver's face, Felix's leg being bitten off, Sanchez going up in flames for longer,) have all been restored in the present LTK BluRay release - rated 15.

    Amazing. I assume it would have been at the 'lower end' of the 18 scale (i.e. it was debatable whether it could be 15 or 18 and the cuts they ended up making were only a few seconds of film time?). Did Cubby and the editor genuinely believe that the BBFC were being unreasonably harsh, or were they only pushing for their film in the way any producer/editor would?

    It is quite interesting how the BBFC now seems to be more lax about violence but more sensitive towards un-PC behaviour and things that they fear young people might copy.
  • Posts: 1,453
    ColonelSun wrote:
    In the UK, LTK got an 18 rating when we first took it to the BBFC. I also remember hearing that Timothy Dalton was rather pleased with the adult rating, but no one else was. At the time it got a little heated between Eon and the BBFC, and in the end, because time was running out for the release date, Cubby and the supervising editor had to go to Soho and make the actual "cuts" with the BBFC present so that both parties could agree on the "cuts" to achieve a 15 rating. BTW; all those "cuts" (Sanchez whipping his girlfriend, her lover's OC screams as his heart is cut out, rifle butt smashed into prison truck driver's face, Felix's leg being bitten off, Sanchez going up in flames for longer,) have all been restored in the present LTK BluRay release - rated 15.

    Amazing. I assume it would have been at the 'lower end' of the 18 scale (i.e. it was debatable whether it could be 15 or 18 and the cuts they ended up making were only a few seconds of film time?). Did Cubby and the editor genuinely believe that the BBFC were being unreasonably harsh, or were they only pushing for their film in the way any producer/editor would?

    It is quite interesting how the BBFC now seems to be more lax about violence but more sensitive towards un-PC behaviour and things that they fear young people might copy.

    All of us felt that the BBFC were being way too harsh. The BBFC's argument, if you can imagine this, was that because it was a Bond film it was a "family" film and therefore the violence was "too much" for children. "Cubby", John Glen, John Grover, all argued that this was a more adult Bond film, like an early Connery film (which had, in those days, an "A" rating), and LTK should not be compared to a lighter Roger Moore film. And of course they were dead right, but the head of the BBFC, at the time, would hear none of it and insisted on the "cuts" or else the film would be given an 18 certificate rating.

    And now, after all these years later, LTK is shown un-cut with a 15 rating.

  • I would personally love a 15/R rated Bond film simply because it allows for a grittier tone, more akin to Fleming's books. However, it feels hypocritical for me to say this because a few years ago a 15 rated Bond film would have broken my heart, since I wouldn't have been allowed to see it. So I can't support such a move, as much as I would prefer it.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I would personally love a 15/R rated Bond film simply because it allows for a grittier tone, more akin to Fleming's books.
    The tone is made by pictures, not by violence. If you take David Fincher´s Se7en and watch only the scenes without violence or mistreated bodies, you´ll still have a mighty sinister film. On the other hand, hardly anyone rates Pulp Fiction as sinister, even though it´s full of brutality.

  • That's another thing, it stops kids from seeing it so it alienates people who could be future Bond fans. An R/18 rated Bond film would just be pointless when they can make the films dark and gritty and still have a 12 rating (see CR).
  • Posts: 406
    It won't stop kids seeing it, they just won't see it in the cinema
  • Alan007 wrote:
    It won't stop kids seeing it, they just won't see it in the cinema

    But if they can't see it in the cinema it won't make as much money, I'm not bothered about it making tons of money but if a Bond film flops we could get a long gap again.
  • ColonelSun wrote:
    All of us felt that the BBFC were being way too harsh. The BBFC's argument, if you can imagine this, was that because it was a Bond film it was a "family" film and therefore the violence was "too much" for children. "Cubby", John Glen, John Grover, all argued that this was a more adult Bond film, like an early Connery film (which had, in those days, an "A" rating), and LTK should not be compared to a lighter Roger Moore film. And of course they were dead right, but the head of the BBFC, at the time, would hear none of it and insisted on the "cuts" or else the film would be given an 18 certificate rating.

    And now, after all these years later, LTK is shown un-cut with a 15 rating.

    Thanks for your insights. Its interesting how there didn't seem to be an absolute objective criteria for what makes an 18 certificate, and that its influenced by what predictions of who the audience will expect it to be for.


Sign In or Register to comment.