How the %$*! did that get a PG?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Dec 2005, 04:11

thelostdragon wrote:Why would a kid immitate Bruce Lee and not say Jackie's moves from "Police Story" or "Project A" which are both 15.

Answer is: they wouldn't. It's just down to the strength and severity of the violence. Bruce Lee's films tend to be bloodier and show more death techniques. Jackie rarely cracks someone's windpipe does he? I understand why the Lee films are '18s' with the sole exception of The Way of the Dragon, which is considerably lighter and less brutal than the others. It's a bleedin' comedy for Christsakes! Only the mild neckbreak at the end and the feature of kicks to the head would get it a reasonable '15' from me.

Or how about "Iron Monkey" which is rated 12, although there are also fighting kids in it and monks who want to gang rape a woman.

That was a surprise to me considering there's actually a clear beheading on-screen. Maybe the BBFC blinked? Or how about the bugger who gets a steal ball thru his eye?

"The Scorpion King" ("Operation Scorpio"), rated 15, features Lau Kar Leung fighting with a three-element-pole. Isn't that as likely to be immitaed as the nunchakus of Lee?

Nah, those things are apparently hard-as-fuck to use. Even with Nunchakus you're more likely to injure yourself.

The fact that "Miracles" gets a PG opposed to all the other ratings of the other Chan-flicks, of which some are really similar to "Miracles", is a miracle to me.

I'd say Miracles is one of Jackie's least violent films. A family film dare I say it? You can't compare it with the brutality of Police Story or Dragons Forever.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Dec 2005, 11:49

but the fight at the end between the Nazi soldier and the Jewish-American is very nasty for a mainstream movie.

Good point.

Although the only thing I leanred was how the Americans won WW2 by themselves - again. Hurrah!

To true, to true

p.s - WOTD a comedy?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 21 Dec 2005, 12:30

Yeah man. The way he rips chest hair off is a hoot!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Dec 2005, 15:06

The Way of the Dragon was always intended to be a culture-clash comedy.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Dec 2005, 09:41

LD, Project A is actually a 12 not 15.

As for Prodigal Son there is a little blood in it but an 18 is harsh IMO. Perhaps it was rated that because there is a considerably darker tone taken midway through the film.
Mag Butcher probably was rated 18 because of Fung Hark On's rape/sexually motivated murder of his cousin but thats still pretty harsh.

Mark wouldn't the nanchucku scenes in WOTD still warrant an 18? The alley fight (and the Chuck Norris fight) are pretty brutal.

I also thought SHREK 1 and 2 were too lenient here and think the US PG rating for Shrek is about right. The UK rating for both is a U (!) There is some (albiet mild) swearing in Shrek and comic headbutts (from Donkey I think).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Dec 2005, 17:19

I'd say Shrek and Shrek 2 are fine at U. A bit of swearing pah!

Mag Butcher probably was rated 18 because of Fung Hark On's rape/sexually motivated murder of his cousin but thats still pretty harsh.

What it's okay to show 15 year olds a rape???

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Dec 2005, 18:33

You don't actuallt "see" the rape though. Its' not like the rapes in Irpn Fisted Monk for example. He just smothers her and at the end she's dead.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Dec 2005, 19:11

grim_tales wrote:As for Prodigal Son there is a little blood in it but an 18 is harsh IMO.

Hmm... can't say I agree with that. The throat slashing at the Opera is pretty brutal and there's a helluva gory headbutt during the final fight.

Mag Butcher probably was rated 18 because of Fung Hark On's rape/sexually motivated murder of his cousin but thats still pretty harsh.

I would assume so... even though the MPAA saw the same thing and gave it a PG-13.

Mark wouldn't the nanchucku scenes in WOTD still warrant an 18? The alley fight (and the Chuck Norris fight) are pretty brutal.

They shouldn't. You can have nunchakus in PGs now. I think Bruce went out of his way to tone down the violence for his comedy.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Dec 2005, 19:25

Yeah but at least with the BBFC their rating actually make sense, the MPAA ratings (and how they use them) are a joke!

The MPAA are really no better than the BBFC, they just cut differently.

grim_tales wrote:You don't actuallt "see" the rape though. Its' not like the rapes in Irn Fisted Monk for example. He just smothers her and at the end she's dead.

Oops I got my films mixed up.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 22 Dec 2005, 19:48

I find the MPAA's rating system worse than the BBFC. They are farr too sensitive about sexual references.

I'm not too knowledgable about the Australian censorship board but I refuse to buy an Aus R4 disc unless I absolutely have to. Their new policy on emphasising the classification logos is embarassing.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 22 Dec 2005, 20:15

Markgway wrote:
grim_tales wrote:As for Prodigal Son there is a little blood in it but an 18 is harsh IMO.
Hmm... can't say I agree with that. The throat slashing at the Opera is pretty brutal and there's a helluva gory headbutt during the final fight.

Perhaps a "15" would have been better though, are you saying that warrants an "Adults Only" cert?

The Heroic Ones is bloodier than that by far and that only recieved a UK 15 cert last year (I think).

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 22 Dec 2005, 20:47

The BBFC don't really consider blood/gore a problem now, as kids are unlikely to be upset (depending on the context of course).

With regards to violence, the BBFC are more interested in how imitable a particular scene is. That's why some horrors may be splashed in blood but as long as kids can't recreate the same scene at home, then we can all rest easy. Conversely, even if mild action film contains a scene that kids could recreate and subsequently harm themselves, then it's a cause for concern.

Examining China for a second. Apart from being under the Government's watchful eye, most martial arts films are passed uncut for the full public to view. There have been many deaths due to children trying to "fly" like their favourite wire-fu heroes. The difference between a 15 and 18 is huge, as some teens are still easily influenced by what they see on screen.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Dec 2005, 02:20

bradavon wrote:Yeah but at least with the BBFC their rating actually make sense, the MPAA ratings (and how they use them) are a joke! The MPAA are really no better than the BBFC, they just cut differently.

In essence I agree with that. I was just pointing out the differing standards. Usually the MPAA are more strict these days. So if they can give MAG BUTCH a lowish rating there's no reason the BBFC had to give it an '18'.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Dec 2005, 02:23

grim_tales wrote:Perhaps a "15" would have been better though, are you saying that warrants an "Adults Only" cert?

I would probably give PROD SON an '18', yes.

The Heroic Ones is bloodier than that by far and that only recieved a UK 15 cert last year (I think).

It's been about three years since I saw this last but I think the violence is more battle-like and less personalised which makes the difference. David Chiang's gory death is borderline - and maybe worth an '18' - but it doesn't dwell on the worst details (ie. close-ups).

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 23 Dec 2005, 11:59

Markgway wrote:
grim_tales wrote:Perhaps a "15" would have been better though, are you saying that warrants an "Adults Only" cert?
I would probably give PROD SON an '18', yes.

Hmmm... I can understand why the BBFC would give it an 18 or a 15, but I would certainly let my 10 year old kid watch that movie (when I feel I've taught him the differences between reality and make-belief, etc)
I don't think seeing some guy getting headbutted, or some guys getting their throats slit by some ninja, scar him for life, especially since he/she wont have an emotional connection with them. I will certainly explain to him that it's fake, but that there are these kinds of evil in the world.

I'd say a movie like Watership Down would be way more 'damaging' to a young kid's soul...

About imitatable shit: If my kid headbutts another kid without reason, He'll be doing handstands up in a corner for a couple of evenings, plus no allowance etc etc. He'd be severely punished.
If he has a good reason to headbutt another kid, then so be it.

edit in short: I'll raise and teach my own kids. Don't need the BBFC to do it for me. I also wont be blaming TV or movies or videogames when my kids start misbehaving... it's my own responsibility.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Dec 2005, 12:30

Yi-Long wrote:Hmmm... I can understand why the BBFC would give it an 18 or a 15, but I would certainly let my 10 year old kid watch that movie (when I feel I've taught him the differences between reality and make-belief, etc)

Of course when I talk about ratings I take these as recommendations. I'm not saying that ABSOLUTELY no one under '18' should be able to watch The Prodigal Son but rather that's the guideance level it should be set at. That way people know they will get strong violence. We all know that teens watch films not intended for them but I think it makes sense to classify in such a way that they can't just rent or buy them unsupervised.

I don't think seeing some guy getting headbutted, or some guys getting their throats slit by some ninja, scar him for life, especially since he/she wont have an emotional connection with them.

"Scar for life" is pretty strong terminology. But these scenes could be disturbing for some young viewers hence the caution taken.

I will certainly explain to him that it's fake, but that there are these kinds of evil in the world.

Cool. But most parents aren't that clever.

I'd say a movie like Watership Down would be way more 'damaging' to a young kid's soul...

Tell me about it... I still can't watch the damn thing!!

If he has a good reason to headbutt another kid, then so be it.

I'd pay to see you tell a teacher that.

edit in short: I'll raise and teach my own kids. Don't need the BBFC to do it for me. I also wont be blaming TV or movies or videogames when my kids start misbehaving... it's my own responsibility.

Agreed, but there's nothing wrong with guideance when it comes to a film's suitability. If there was no classification how would anyone know what they were getting? And that goes for adults too. Lots of people don't like strong sex or violence in films. And that's fair enough.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 23 Dec 2005, 12:48

Markgway wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:
If he has a good reason to headbutt another kid, then so be it.
I'd pay to see you tell a teacher that.

Ow, you can bet your ass that I would tell the complaining teacher that. If my kid gets involved in a fight, I will ask what caused it. If my kid picked the fight, and was responsible, he should be punished big time. By the teacher/school, and probably by me and my wife at home. No question about it, cause I dont want some violent bullying kid walking around, especially not if it's one of my own.
But if I talk to the teacher and it becomes clear that another kid, or kids, had tried to bully my kid, or had initiated the fight or whatever, and my kid had kicked their ass, then I'd just tell my kid :'good job for sticking up for yourself', and I'd be seriously upset if the school/teacher would punsih my kid the same or more as the other kids involved in the fight.
It's the school's job to educate and provide a healthy and safe environment for the kids to grow up and learn stuff. If they neglect their duties, and my kid gets bullies and is forced to protect/defend himself, and THEN gets punished for doing so... then I would have a major problem with that...
Ofcourse, I would prefer if my kids wouldnt get into any fights at all... but we've all been kids and we all know that it sometimes happens.

I totally agree with you that these BBFC recommendations are a good guideline to parents and kids. However, as someone mentioned before, it shouldnt cause producers/labels to CUT movies just to possibly get a lower rating.
It should be STRICTLY used as a guideline.

Do shops actually care about their customers age when they sell a movie? I guess it's the same all over the wprld. A 13 year oldcan easily buy an 18-rated movie most of the time. I also feel that's not a bad thing.
A 15 year old kid is usually mature enough to see Hard Boiled (ESPECIALLY kids that are open to foreign cinema, usually have a more open, down to earth, realistic attitude) so I'd see no problem in him buyin such a movie...

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Dec 2005, 12:56

Watership Down is upsetting, the original is about death and has a bit with a rabbit caught in a snare

And its a "U" (!) (Well it was originally).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 23 Dec 2005, 18:26

Watership Down should be fucking banned!!

gojensen · Post by **gojensen** » 24 Dec 2005, 09:18

You mean because of the word FUCK being said 4 times, T3 shouldn't be seen by 12 year olds? Has it been long since you been around 12 year olds?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Dec 2005, 09:43

I've never heard the word used so many times in a 12 rated movie. I know 12 year olds say FUCK, but I really thought you vould only use it once in 1 movie.

Yi if Home Alone should be a 12 or 15 cert because of the hilarious booby trapped house scenes, then Tom and Jerry should be banned

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Dec 2005, 12:00

Hey,

Mark, do you think PEEPING TOM (Michael Powell, 1960) was harshly rated? Hugely controversial in its' day, it was pre-cut by the BBFC then classified "X" in 1960 (does an uncut version exist?), and is now rated 18 (!) for "infrequent, mild" language and "occasional, moderate" violence.
I don't deny PT is disturbing even now, but an 18 is OTT, IMO.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 24 Dec 2005, 15:15

I assumed the currently available version of Peeping Tom was uncut. Pretty sure it's the UK video version that's been shown on TV a number of times (which is where I saw it a few years back). But checking the original theatrical submission reveals that 7:30 have gone AWOL since 1960 and 1994. I have no idea what was cut I'm afraid.

Quite a good film, not great. Disturbing in theme more than content or imagery (apart from one shock reveal) and in its current incarnation I would suspect suitable for a present day '15'. It maybe the sexualised motives for the crimes which bothers the BBFC? But then it hasn't been submitted since the new guidelines came into effect.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 24 Dec 2005, 17:32

I also think THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY is probably too harshly rated - by the standards of the mid '60's the violence is indeed brutal, but it could have been a 15 like the other Dollars movies, IMO.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 24 Dec 2005, 18:07

Re. TGTBATU. Agreed.

I'm sure it was the hanging that concenred the BBFC but it all seems a bit tame now.