It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Exactly Bain123. That's why i hope it does not happen. Bond can and has been alot tougher and darker, especially lately and done in such a way as to not get in my view an incorrect rating.
Which means no one gets to miss out which is how it should be. That's why its been around for 50 years and long may it continue!
Over here in Belgium you're either allowed in or you aren't. Sometimes, sporadically, the limit is set at age 12 but it's mostly 16.
That said, I don't think we need an R rated Bond film, unless the MPAA goes mad. ;-) Oh, wait. (I'm a slasher fan: I have quite a few good reasons for hating the MPAA with passion.)
Anyway, I don't need boobies or extraviolence in a Bond film.
Some of the scariest, most intense horror films I've seen lately are R-Rated: The Descent (has to be my favorite), House of Wax, The Strangers, The Hills Have Eyes, Vacancy, etc.
Unbelievable. I wish there was a way to completely watch an unrated director's cut of all films: three, four, five hours long, it would be beautiful. No cuts, deleted scenes, nothing. The Town did something to this effect, but I just wish we could see it throughout all genres, all the time. Would make me that much more excited to see a film when it is released on home video format.
But you are right, so many horror films get butchered (no pun intended) because of massive cuts.
Even The Hunger Games, despite its violent premise, was carefully edited so as to get an PG-13 instead of an R.
It does seem so, yes. It blows my mind that Hollywood thinks that society needs to be shown the raunchiest and grossest aspects of film in order for it to be entertaining. Since that's the way today's movie go-ers are looking like, then I doubt there is any way to turn it around. Thankfully the Bond series seems to be sticking to its guns most of the time. Even still, there are many apsects of the Bond movies where I would have cut that out, such as the sex scenes and all of the language, especially in LTK. Both are really not needed for anyone to enjoy the movie.
@Creasy compare that fight with scenes from 'I saw the devil'.... you'll probably see we don't need stuff like that in Bond films (even if these scenes are awesome in non-Bond flicks), and CR was violent enough for Bond standards.
last time I saw DN, I thought was film was just slow, too slow. Connery is immense, yes, but the film looks cheap and has an appalling pace. I gladly take CR, which is for me the best made film in the franchise, even if I prefer Connery's performance in DN to Craig in CR.
So where do you rank Casino Royale, might I ask? At present, I believe it's right outside the top 10 for me, around the 11-14 margin.
CR was 21st, but I think it may have well jumped to 19th, or even slightly higher !!
That's what I believe needs to continue happening with the series- maintain the legendary stuff we would expect and even throw in new elements of violence and dark plots but secure a PG-13 rating to allow all fans to watch the series!
That's the problem I'd have with it. My boy is 11. And while I can monitor what he watches, I'd have to take him because there is no way a Bond film can come out now without me taking him.
If ever there is another long hiatus like with Licence to Kill to GoldenEye in the series, then they should give an R rated movie a shot and see how it goes when they come back
@-) Say it ain't so! Are you pranking us today DC? Maybe had a few Vespers?
I didn't say CR was now in my top 10.... but if I updated my ranking, it would move from #21 to about #18 or #17.....
Tell me where you want the tattoo. ;-)
R rated films are no longer in vogue. Studios feel that the R rating cuts down on some potential "asses" in the seats.
There was a time when R rated films were the rage (mostly 80's and 70's) but those days are behind us. the rising production costs, etc. Studios and investors want their money back and better sooner than late.
For example, do you really think the MPAA would be as lenient on the scene from Goldeneye where Xenia strangles the admiral with her thighs? I don't think so. That, along with LTK, CR and QOS gritty and darker style, is the closest we'll get to an R-Rated Bond film. And I say that with the view of it being a good thing.
If Bond was rated R, it would become "just another action movie franchise."
I think one man's questionable moment in any film is another man's indifferent apathy or 'what is all the furore about' kind of thing, but as of now, I said before I do feel, one day in the not too distant future, an adult themed Bond release could just happen
There is an alternate point to consider - we always don't become more permissive in our entertainment. While not *directly* related to the MPAA look at what has happened to American television in the last few years.
With the rise in power of social conservatives the FCC began a crackdown on what was allowed on TV and radio. People always think of exceptional incidents like the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction". But there were more disturbing incidents IMHO because they weren't as sensational.
I can't recall how many times I had seen DAF on TV in the 80s and it was relatively uncut. But in 2002 the film was altered for the scene where Plenty is thrown off the balcony and into the pool. Her skin-coloured panties were digitally changed to black and a bra was digitally painted on to her. Here's the kicker - you never saw her breasts, the bra straps across her back were what were painted on. She wasn't even nude, it was the *idea* that she was topless that was so offensive. Seriously? It's fine to burn a man to death, but the *idea* that a woman is topless is over the line?
Since then things have calmed down at the FCC but I think that's a indication that moral standards can change (not necessarily in the general public, but in ratings boards). Who knows what things that we think are completely harmless now could be considered taboo in the future?
I don't think any Bond film would be rated R if released today, not even LTK.
I think the MPAA has become more lenient, not more strict. We're a far way from the days when married couples onscreen had to sleep in separate beds!