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

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Dec 2005, 13:39

What films do you think have been ridiculously rated by either the BBFC or your local censor boards? Too strict or too leniant? You tell us.

I'll start with a trio of too leniants:

1. AIRPLANE! - Possibly the only movie in history to be given an uncut PG despite containing cocaine snorting, glue sniffing and references to paedophilia.

2. WAYNE'S WORLD - Some of the sexual references are a bit much. Cream of Sum Yung Gai anyone? "He Blows Goats"? Bestality and oral sex in the same sentence? Uncut PG of course.

3. T3 - A hand bursting through a cop's chest and several f-words is probably not most viewers idea of a 12 certificate. But it is the BBFCs!

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:10

Have you ever wondered:
-Why a small animated head-butt was cut from Mulan in the UK ?
-and why Richie and Eddie on that Bottom show can head-butt each other for twenty minutes and it doesn't get cut ?

Now THAT doesn't make sense.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:11

I havent seen the first 2, but I agree T3's ludicrous 12 rating was WAY too lax considering the swearing. There were at least 4 "fucks" that I counted.

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:13

AIRPLANE - you forgot the gratuitous nudity when theyre all panicking on the plane. anyway, it was a 15 shirley because I got in trouble at school distributing it... :twisted:

i think the harry potter films should have been a 15, the last 2 anyway, i mean they were still dumb but i feel its much more likel for kids to be scared of fantasy horror than violence etc.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:47

Mordib wrote:AIRPLANE - you forgot the gratuitous nudity when theyre all panicking on the plane. anyway, it was a 15 shirley because I got in trouble at school distributing it... :twisted:

i think the harry potter films should have been a 15, the last 2 anyway, i mean they were still dumb but i feel its much more likel for kids to be scared of fantasy horror than violence etc.

Perhaps, but wouldnt you argue that reading books gets you even more involved ina story, then seeing a movie!? If that's the case, should only 15 year old and older be allowed to read those books? And if so, how would you rate other children's books, like the grimm fairytales, or Roald Dahl's books?

Personally, I think the whole age thing should ONLY be used as a recommendation, and not as a restriction. If my 12 year old is mature enough to see a 18 rated picture, then he/she should be able to watch it.
I think most of us have seen '18 rated' movies in our youth...

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:50

Airplane was classified "A" in 1980, and strangely the Director's Commentary on the DVD gained a 15 certificate yet the film itself is an uncut PG. Wierd...

The first LOTR film should of been a 12 IMO.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:53

Anal Carnage 34 - Re Entry.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Dec 2005, 14:58

What?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Dec 2005, 15:24

Airplane has always been an uncut PG - except for the audio commentary.

The BBFC really fucked up on this one.

I mean did they actually watch a woman snort cocaine and think "yeah, that's OK for a PG! The kids'll love it!"

Bizarre...

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Dec 2005, 15:26

OK. Too strict.

1. DREADNAUGHT - an '18' (???) Bit harsh no?

2. THE MAGNIFICENT BUTCHER - an '18' (???) The Americans gave this a PG-13(!)

3. THE QUEST - an '18' (???) Also a PG-13 and Van Damme's LEAST violent film surely?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 20 Dec 2005, 16:32

DRAGON LORD - An '18' (???) - This should have been a 12 max IMO.

A '15' would have been more suitable for THE MAGNIFICENT BUTCHER.

THE WICKER MAN - originally given a pretty harsh '18' (???)

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 20 Dec 2005, 16:46

jurassic park was quite intense for a pg as was jaws which was an "a" certificate on release ( i should know i remember queing for hours christmas 1975 to see it

)

Mordib · Post by **Mordib** » 20 Dec 2005, 17:42

Yi-Long wrote: Perhaps, but wouldnt you argue that reading books gets you even more involved ina story, then seeing a movie!? If that's the case, should only 15 year old and older be allowed to read those books? And if so, how would you rate other children's books, like the grimm fairytales, or Roald Dahl's books?

Personally, I think the whole age thing should ONLY be used as a recommendation, and not as a restriction. If my 12 year old is mature enough to see a 18 rated picture, then he/she should be able to watch it.
I think most of us have seen '18 rated' movies in our youth...

oh i totally agree, my 1st choice would be no restriction at all only advisement, but assuming that willnever happen i figure they may as well be consistent. like drugs, , i think they should all be legal but since thatll never happen i would at least like to see tobacco and alchohol made illegal as well

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 20 Dec 2005, 19:42

I'm not too bothered about BBFC being too leniant. When you think about how badly some countries censor their films (including the US), then we're pretty lucky. Of course I'm referring to post 2000 BBFC.

PG is of course a caution rating. I agree with their PG rating of LOTR: FOTR, Wayne's World (especially as it's only inuendos) and to a certain extent, their original 12A rating of T3.

I reckon society has changed. Kids aren't traumatised by horror as they used to be. By being leniant, kids who can 'handle it' have a chance to see more extreme cinema. However it's still up to the parents to be responsible, we shouldn't blame some classification board.

With regards to Airplane, I'll need to watch the film again, to see if I reckon it deserves an uncut PG.

The BBFC decisions that annoyed me are the censorship of 18 rated films that really should not have been censored. i.e. Ichi the Killer, The Rules of Attraction (DVD only).

Certain rules need to be relaxed for 18 rated titles. But so far, I've supported the majority of recent BBFC classifications.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 20 Dec 2005, 19:45

Mordib wrote:
oh i totally agree, my 1st choice would be no restriction at all only advisement, but assuming that willnever happen i figure they may as well be consistent. like drugs, , i think they should all be legal but since thatll never happen i would at least like to see tobacco and alchohol made illegal as well

You remind me of that Ben Elton novel High Society, which is a thought provoking story on what the UK would could be like if all drugs were legal.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Dec 2005, 21:29

Here's mine:

The End of the Affair - Starring 'Ralph Fiennes' and 'Julianne Moore'.

Everyone expected it to be 15 but the BBFC gave it 18. The reason is still a mystery, sure it has minor sex scenes but really they're exactly the same as most Hollywood films with sex scenes.

It does feature adultery which maybe the BBFC were being all snooty about. It's definitely a 15 rated film to everyone I know and most film critics.

Markgway wrote:3. T3 - A hand bursting through a cop's chest and several f-words is probably not most viewers idea of a 12 certificate. But it is the BBFCs!

Wasn't that 12A? It's not the same as 12 at all.

Tom2681 wrote:Have you ever wondered:
-Why a small animated head-butt was cut from Mulan in the UK ?
-and why Richie and Eddie on that Bottom show can head-butt each other for twenty minutes and it doesn't get cut?

Different censors Tom or are you saying the DVD is uncut too?

Aren't they very different ratings? Plus one is shown in humour and the other serious.

I agree the BBFC do have an odd thing for headbutts, it makes no sense except to them.

grim_tales wrote:Airplane was classified "A" in 1980, and strangely the Director's Commentary on the DVD gained a 15 certificate yet the film itself is an uncut PG. Wierd...

Extras?

The first LOTR film should of been a 12 IMO.

Agreed. Fantasy violence is still violence.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Dec 2005, 22:34

Home Alone has a kid shooting a pellet-gun (sp?) from about a meter away into a guy's face, never mind the swinging paint-cans and other stuff he abuses the burglers with

Sure, it's cartoon-violence in a kid's movie, but since the BBFC assume kids below a certain age are very influential, I wonder why this has gotten a PG rating, instead of a 12 or 15...

I dont remember the headbut in Mulan! Where is it!? What scene?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 20 Dec 2005, 22:50

"Saving Private Ryan" got a 15. So did "Taegukgi".

Compare these films to "Dragon Lord", "Prodigal Son", "Magnificent Butcher", "Outlaw Brothers", "Ong-Bak", "Musa: The Warrior" or all the Bruce Lee-films.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Dec 2005, 22:57

bradavon wrote:The End of the Affair - Starring 'Ralph Fiennes' and 'Julianne Moore'.

I haven't seen that one but I heard it was a strict rating. I think it was something to do with the amount of thrusting?

Wasn't that 12A? It's not the same as 12 at all.

12A for cinema, 12 for video.

I agree the BBFC do have an odd thing for headbutts, it makes no sense except to them.

I actually understand the BBFC's concern about headbutts because of the easy imitability weighed up against the amount of damage they can do (as opposed to say a punch). The problem these days is that so many youth-oriented films contain them and probably shouldn't.

Extras?

The audio commentary as has been said. The track contains a strong sex reference.

Agreed. Fantasy violence is still violence.

The BBFC realised their mistake that's why the sequels were given 12s.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 20 Dec 2005, 22:58

grim_tales wrote:DRAGON LORD - An '18' (???) - This should have been a 12 max IMO.

Totally agree with that one, Grim. Should be a '12'! Again in the US it's a PG-13!

The Wicker Man is a '15' now. It was downgraded a few years ago.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Dec 2005, 23:26

What about the MPAA, OFLC, other film censors?

Give us your comments guys. Lets open it up to non-BBFC bashing.

thelostdragon wrote:"Saving Private Ryan" got a 15. So did "Taegukgi".

Compare these films to "Dragon Lord", "Prodigal Son", "Magnificent Butcher", "Outlaw Brothers", "Ong-Bak", "Musa: The Warrior" or all the Bruce Lee-films.

It's back to the imitable argument. Kids who see Bruce Lee flicks 'are' going to to act them out (hell I do and I'm 27, they're to cool for school

).

There is no way a kid is going to re-enact SPR (it's not intense enough for an 18 rating). I agree with the BBFC on this one.

BiscLimpkit wrote:The BBFC decisions that annoyed me are the censorship of 18 rated films that really should not have been censored. i.e. Ichi the Killer, The Rules of Attraction (DVD only).

Agreed, it's supposed to be an adult rating! Allow adults to be adults.

That said if adults didn't leave such titles lying around then the BBFC wouldn't be worrying.

Markgway wrote:Totally agree with that one, Grim. Should be a '12'! Again in the US it's a PG-13!

Why is it an 18?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Dec 2005, 23:32

Well... if my kid got into a fight at school with someone, I'd rather he'd give the guy a nice roundhouse kick to the face, rather then pick up a brick and bash his head in, or a stick and poke his eyes out

It's funny though, cause I watched many violent movies and series in my youth, and although I have been in a bunch of fights, I can't say any of it was ever the result of me seeing a movie and wanting to act it out or something. And although there will always be a couple of idiots who ARE influenced by something they see and want to imintate it, that percentage is very very small, and so it's sad that all kids will have to suffer from the BBFC's ratings because of a few lil idiots who havent been brought up right...

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 20 Dec 2005, 23:57

bradavon wrote:It's back to the imitable argument. Kids who see Bruce Lee flicks 'are' going to to act them out (hell I do and I'm 27, they're to cool for school ).

There is no way a kid is going to re-enact SPR (it's not intense enough for an 18 rating). I agree with the BBFC on this one.

But where is the logic behind that? Why would a kid immitate Bruce Lee and not say Jackie's moves from "Police Story" or "Project A" which are both 15.

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.

"City Hunter" is rated 12 and even features a few original Bruce-Lee-fight-scenes.

"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?

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.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Dec 2005, 00:24

Jackie Chan I'm guessing is part humour and not as brutal as Bruce Lee anyway.

But yeah I agree that glass scene in Police Story is brutal. Pah I've no idea there logic.

Yi-Long wrote:It's funny though, cause I watched many violent movies and series in my youth, and although I have been in a bunch of fights, I can't say any of it was ever the result of me seeing a movie and wanting to act it out or something.

Good point. Ask the BBFC!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 21 Dec 2005, 04:03

bradavon wrote:There is no way a kid is going to re-enact SPR (it's not intense enough for an 18 rating). I agree with the BBFC on this one.

I thought it was seriously borderline myself. If it had been given an '18' I would've understood. The gore of the opening battle isn't personalised, but the fight at the end between the Nazi soldier and the Jewish-American is very nasty for a mainstream movie. The BBFC took into consideration the educational value for teenagers. Although the only thing I leanred was how the Americans won WW2 by themselves - again. Hurrah!

bradavon wrote:Why is it an 18?

No idea. I don't even recall any imitible techinques or blood in Dragon Lord. I would let my 12-year-old watch it.