Casino Royale: Cut for 12A

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Nov 2006, 18:21

romerojpg wrote:Sad pathetic BBFC

Nope, yet again the BBFC get the blame when it's the studio who're at fault. That link clearly says they were offered an uncut 15 but opted for a cut 12A.

You can't blame the BBFC for having their guidelines, blame the studio. It's them who are more interested in money than the original cut.

In order for it to be cut down to a 12A it must be a pretty strong scene and one I'm not sure I'd want my 12 or under to be able to see. Yes the parent should be allowed to decide but considering they'd then have to go twice to do so it's a fair judgement. Clearly it's "probably" to strong.

You think the BBFC are pathetic, watch "this film is not rated yet" for a really pathetic film censorship board.

Markgway wrote:The only thing we know is that the movie will be cut in the UK. The rest is conjecture and speculation.

Agreed.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 04 Nov 2006, 21:15

There's no mention made of an uncut 15 being available but I guess that can be inferred.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Nov 2006, 00:16

My mistake there's not but I'm willing to bet it was an option.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 05 Nov 2006, 01:30

The only reason a "15" wouldn't have been offered is because a rough cut was submitted for purposes of advice only and not to seek an official classification. By the time the official submission was made (at which point the BBFC could have offered a "15") the necessary 12A cuts had already been made.

The fact that Sony have recently put out uncut versions of Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies at the "15" category makes me suspect that the same will happen for Casino Royale. All I'm saying is that at this stage it's rumour and speculation.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Nov 2006, 01:32

It's happened before and makes marketing sense cut in the cinema uncut on DVD.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 05 Nov 2006, 05:01

I hope that the DVD is uncut.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 05 Nov 2006, 09:44

You mean PG-13 cuts of Goldeneye/TND

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Nov 2006, 16:55

Yawn, Grim and Mark give it a rest. The cuts only you guys "really" would love to see are never going to happen, they're both cutting room floor material that was cut long before it's release.

If you're really bothered how about listing ALL the films that have been cut pre-release. Of which there are hundreds and hundreds. GE and TND are no different.

The films are now uncut, end of discussion.

p.s - Yes Eva means the PG-13 cut, the only uncut print there is.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2006, 01:54

Nope, Grim and I are correct as GE and TND were cut due to censorship interference. That it was pre-official submission makes little difference to the end result. If the director decided to drop scenes of his own accord then that would be his perogative. Please don't try to sound like you know more than me Brad, because you don't. End of discussion. 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Nov 2006, 20:47

Markgway wrote:Nope, Grim and I are correct as GE and TND were cut due to censorship interference.

I never doubted that for a minute but it's not a unique practise to either film, you may as well be consistent and name every film a censor has cut. You'll be there a long time.

The simple fact is being pre-release cuts by the censorship board the film would have to be resubmitted to the MPAA at risk or another R rating which happens here but AFAIK has never happened in the States. The new cut would the have to be re-submitted to the BBFC who again my raise the certificate.

Markgway wrote:Please don't try to sound like you know more than me Brad, because you don't. End of discussion. 8)

I wouldn't dare

, merely pointing out the inconsistent nature of your issues with GE and TND.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2006, 22:59

If I know a film has been cut by any censor board I will mention it.

It's just that the BBFC are generally honest about what they do (compared to the MPAA) and the Bond films are particularly high profile examples of censorship.

It's not that I don't care about other films being cut.

Imagine if we only had the R-rated True Romance.

Casino Royale has been given a 15A in Ireland (same pre-cut version). According to Melon Farmers the PG-13 version will also be the same edit. The BBFC have confiremd that they are willing to give the DVD an uncut '15' IF it's submitted.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Nov 2006, 00:05

Markgway wrote:If I know a film has been cut by any censor board I will mention it.

I know you do but these two in particular you and Grim keep bringing back up. Which is fine but you always sound surprised when you don't get the cut you want, as if it was ever likely.

Markgway wrote:Casino Royale has been given a 15A in Ireland (same pre-cut version). According to Melon Farmers the PG-13 version will also be the same edit. The BBFC have confiremd that they are willing to give the DVD an uncut '15' IF it's submitted.

Interesting indeed Ireland has a 15A, AFAIK that's the only difference between our and the Irish board. 15A could be pretty weak.

Also even more interesting the Irish censorship board though our 12A cut was still to violent for a 12A over there. Cheers for the update on how it's going to be shown in the USA.

Where did you hear about the BBFC offering a 15 rated DVD? Fingers crossed we'll get it but who knows it could go either way.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 00:47

Martin Campbell has confirmed this is a 2 parter and he won't be returning for the instalment.

Pity as bar a few niggles:

1. Yes it's about 20 minutes too long
2. M as Judi Dench is right out of place
3. A reference to 9/11 (What???)
4. No Miss Moneypenny

I thought it was awesome. Gritty, dark and tough. It's definitely border-line 15 and NOT one for the young kids.

It's great to finally see a Bond after so long to look like a hard nut, someone you wouldn't mess with. There's no way Pierce Brosnan could've played the part, they took the ideal opportunity to reinvigorate the role.

Eva Green is also very good (she's only 26), she has some real intensity to deal with, something the Bond girl is never normally aloud. One shower scene (not as you're thinking) is handled very well.

I remember they tried to make Bond feel pain in Die Another Day to quickly throw the idea away as soon as possible, this time it's for real. In one scene he's all cut and bruised. The torture scene is already pretty intense so it will be interesting to see it uncut.

Oh and what are you guys on about the version I saw had gadgets just they were for and far between, and grounded in reality.

It did remind me of Doctor Who in the sense of a fresh start while throwing away some of the old staple aspects that make up Bond. It doesn't feel like a Bond film at all, that's not a bad thing (or good thing) mind you.

Bond even says he loves someone, which contradicts a remark in a previous film stating he's only been in love once but does give us a reason for why he keeps women at a distance as he grows older.

Overall very good. I can't wait to see what they do with part 2, I hope it then goes back to normal.

8 out of 10

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 01:39

And now for a completely different point of view: http://movies.uk.msn.com/features/Overr ... ticle.aspx

I do why wonder this guy even bothered to see Casino Royale. He clearly has a Bond chip on his shoulder.

p.s - Regarding the 2 part reference I learnt it on Film 2006 and Martin Campbell also said they may bring the next instalment forward from the usual 2 year gap. Yipeey!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 15:22

Reminded you of Dr Who

pure 100% bile, made so cheap it hurts and acted like a bad episode of Home and Away? dont think so

Anyway Casino Royale is fantastic. Loved it myself, but the end was silly and that last 15 minutes were dumped in it seemed. Still its maybe the best bond in many ways, nice to see no shitty CGI overused, only one dodgy set of shots in the entire film revolving around a grounded plane.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 15:36

Dude, Brad said it reminded him of the new Dr. Who in the sense of how it was a fresh start to the franchise. Seems fair enough to me.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 15:49

Maybe to you, not to me. Dr Who isnt fresh at all, its stinking bile with no new ideas or inovation, its pure shit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:04

The comparison was purely focused around the change of course both have gone on silly

. It had nothing to do with Dr Who being fresh (or not). I'm not going to comment any further on Dr Who when your tastes are clearly so different. You think Buffy and Alias are decent for starters.

romerojpg wrote:Reminded you of Dr Who pure 100% bile, made so cheap it hurts and acted like a bad episode of Home and Away? dont think so

LOL. That's so funny

. Of course I didn't think it was Dr Who just that it's different from the old Dr Who.

romerojpg wrote:Anyway Casino Royale is fantastic. Loved it myself, but the end was silly and that last 15 minutes were dumped in it seemed.

Yeah that was a shock but boy I thought it worked well, it's almost unheard of for "that" to happen in a Bond film.

romerojpg wrote:Still its maybe the best bond in many ways, nice to see no shitty CGI overused, only one dodgy set of shots in the entire film revolving around a grounded plane.

Agreed. I thought that scene worked well if a little out of place.

grim_tales wrote:Dude, Brad said it reminded him of the new Dr. Who in the sense of how it was a fresh start to the franchise. Seems fair enough to me.

I'm pleased you got it.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:09

Thanks

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:16

Problem is I expected all that happened in the end to happen, as it showed it all in the god damn trailer, so none of it suprised me at all

Wish I went in late to the cinema sometimes to miss god damn spoiler influxed trailers.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:18

Originally Posted by Romerojpg:
So once again you read LOADS about the film, including loads of spoilers and you had not even seen the film jesus man, why not let other people just tell you how it all ends and save your cash.

You have once again been influenced so much your own opinions are invalid and pretty much the same as others. Why not read bugger all about a film for once, go see it 1st then read all the hype and reviews.

Sorry Mr Hitler I'll do as I'm told in future. What's the point reading a "cinema" review after you've seen the film? The whole point is so you can get an idea if it's any good.

My opinions I can assure you are my own. If I agree with someone it's pure coincidence. so in other words if you agree with other people it's immediately a null comment?

I'm influenced just because I happen to agree with someone? Okay. Have you never agreed with someone's opinion of a film? Of course you have so stop talking bollocks.

Oh and sorry get over it I'll continue to listen to Mark Kermode because I think he's a good critic. I'm well aware you have an "issue" with film critics, tough because I don't. Get over yourself and move on.

I didn't exactly read loads anyway. I read a DVD Times review, listened to the Mark Kermode review and saw a Film 2006 article, so no loads. Although that's more than I usually do.

I unlike you Mr. Romero don't like watching crud so if the consensus is it's crud (i.e - Da Vinci Code) I'm not interested in checking it out at the cinema. I'll wait to see it on DVD. I hate paying £6-7, driving 20 minutes to my local cinema to be disappointed, you however don't mind so whoopy doo for you go and continue to waste your £6-7.

What gives you the right to say my opinions are invalid? I happen to think your opinion is often way off but wouldn't call them invalid. Do you even know what invalid means? You may not agree but I've not said anything inaccurate.

p.s - You're obsessed with knowing nothing about a film before you see it I am not (except when it suites you to check out a Trailer). Your definition of a spoiler differs wildly from mine. Again get over it.

Source: http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?c ... mentpage=2

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:23

romerojpg wrote:Problem is I expected all that happened in the end to happen, as it showed it all in the god damn trailer, so none of it suprised me at all Wish I went in late to the cinema sometimes to miss god damn spoiler influxed trailers.

As per usual you're a walking hypocrite, and yes if you're "that" bothered you don't have to watch the trailer in the cinema. You blast me for looking into a film before hand and in your opinion it spoils the film YET you can't even do it yourself.

Hypocrite!

p.s - Oh and it no it doesn't show the crucial part of the ending in the trailer anyway.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:28

I agree with you though Brad, I saw the Casino Royale trailer before I saw the Departed, it didnt spoil anything for me TBH. Brad's review just makes me want to see it and I'm looking forward to it

I have heard the film is very good. If my opinion is the same so what?

Does it make me a sheep who can't think for himself Romero?
If you think modern US/Hollywood trailers are bad you should see old style HK trailers.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:31

It does and its easy to assume what was happening in the trailer, and you cannot avoid trailer in cinemas, unless you shut your eyes and put your fingers in your ears.

You keep ruining films for yourself, I dont care much, but do get sick of your rants on many forums when you aint even seen films (or the dvd, when talking about quality of dvds). Many people comment on your comments like that.

I watch what I want to watch, unlike you who watches what your told to by the media and people on forums.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Nov 2006, 16:37

For heavens sake, if you agree with another guy's opinion he's hardly "telling" you what to see. For example, you have said "I like Killer more than any other Asian film" which many critics rate as Woo's masterpiece. So I guess you're a sheep then.

You love all the LOTR movies and many critics and fans have rightly raved about those films. Were the 169m albums sold in the US by The Beatles all bought by sheep?

Though I agree there are some trailers that spoil movies, like the US Shiri trailer (it gives away the twist! How daft is that?) But I had seen the film before watching the trailer.