Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:50:59 AM

Login with username, password and session length

18/X/R/NC-17 movies that could quite easily be rated G/PG/PG-13/12/A

Started by Noodle Lizard, May 17, 2013, 11:36:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Noodle Lizard

A reaction to the other thread.  The movie ratings system is full of huge flaws and inconsistencies (both the BBFC and the MPAA, dunno about the others), so whaddya think?

'Lost In Translation' is an R (15).  Can you believe it?  I think it's because of the completely benign prostitute scene and one shot of a stripper, but other than that I can't think of anything that would have warranted such a rating (I don't think there's even any swearing).

'Before Sunrise/Sunset' are rated R (15).  Why?  A bit of chatter about sex and maybe the odd swear word aside, there's nothing at all damaging about them (quite the contrary, I reckon).

'Orgazmo' was rated NC-17 with no chance of appeal/re-edits, even though there's no nudity (except for a hairy male arse) and only jokey sex talk.  A soft R at most.  In the iffy documentary 'This Movie Has Not Yet Been Rated', Matt Stone explains how this was mostly down to it being an independent film.

'Army Of Darkness' was originally NC-17, ended up with an R (15).  Of course it's fairly old and probably hasn't been resubmitted, but there's no way it deserves more than a PG-13.  'Drag Me To Hell' managed a PG-13 and it was undoubtedly gorier.

'The Others' is a PG-13 (12).  While it's certainly creepy and has a few uncomfortable themes, there is absolutely no objectionable content in there.  No bad language, no violence, no sex (well not really).  That being said, it was a 12 before there was a 12A, so it may have been beneficial not to have had a cinema full of bored children.

I could go on, but then none of you would have anything to say would you?  Haha okay I hope this thread is successful.


Wet Blanket

I've always thought the 18 for Saturday Night Fever was a bit harsh.

Swearing too much can bump a film up to an 18 in the UK too, which is pretty fucking dumb. On the rare occasion that a DVD has a lower Irish category than the British one it's usually down to sweariness, such as on The Angels Share or The Best of the Old Grey Whistle Test

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Wet Blanket on May 17, 2013, 11:43:33 AM
I've always thought the 18 for Saturday Night Fever was a bit harsh.

It's because they say "cunt" a few times, though I'm sure it would get a 15 if it was resubmitted now.  Until relatively recently, the BBFC was terrified of the word.  In fact, in the guidelines book I have from around 1998, they say that just one use of the word was grounds enough to warrant an 18, even if the rest of the film is Disney.  I can think of a few exceptions to that, though, and nowadays it's quite common to hear a "cunt" or two in a 15.  It also has something to do with the way it's said, apparently (saying "her cunt" is more acceptable than "you're a cunt", for instance).

QuoteSwearing too much can bump a film up to an 18 in the UK too, which is pretty fucking dumb. On the rare occasion that a DVD has a lower Irish category than the British one it's usually down to sweariness, such as on The Angels Share or The Best of the Old Grey Whistle Test

I often found that the Irish rating would be higher than the UK one, if anything.  I can't remember specific examples, but there were a few PGs I found that were rated 15 in the Ireland, although they gave 'The Passion Of The Christ' a 15 as opposed to the UK's 18.

billtheburger

There are many Jackie Chan & Bruce Lee films with 18s that would get much milder certificates now.

Noodle Lizard

'The Shining' (although I think it now has its rightful 15 after being re-submitted for Blu-Ray).  I would say 'The Exorcist', but all that cross-wanking and "your cunting daughter" stuff and such probably means it'll be an 18 forever, despite being pretty tame by today's standards.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 11:36:44 AM
'Lost In Translation' is an R (15).  I think it's because of the completely benign prostitute scene and one shot of a stripper

Sounds fair enough to me.

MojoJojo

Dazed and Confused is an 18 - it's ages since I've seen it but I remember when I did I was surprised by that. I think it must be due to the casual drug taking.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: MojoJojo on May 17, 2013, 12:08:37 PM
Dazed and Confused is an 18 - it's ages since I've seen it but I remember when I did I was surprised by that. I think it must be due to the casual drug taking.

I'm sure the DVD I had was rated 15 (though I can't remember if I ever even had it on DVD).  If it is an 18 it certainly doesn't deserve one.  Then again, along with the two Linklater films I mentioned earlier, 'Waking Life' is a 15.  Why?

EDIT:  Yeah, 'Dazed & Confused' was originally an 18 but got dropped to a 15 for its DVD release in the early 2000s.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 11:36:44 AM
'Orgazmo' was rated NC-17 with no chance of appeal/re-edits, even though there's no nudity (except for a hairy male arse) and only jokey sex talk.  A soft R at most.  In the iffy documentary 'This Movie Has Not Yet Been Rated', Matt Stone explains how this was mostly down to it being an independent film.

I dunno, I've got Orgazmo on DVD and while for the most part it's just a conventional caper movie it has references to sexual things that might not ever have been done like DVDA and that. NC-17 sounds about right, 15 at a push but why would you want to push ? That's my question, why would you want kids to watch more filth and sex references, there'll be plenty of time for filth and being jaded and wanting to die every single day because your life is crushing your soul when they get older, why corrupt kids ? They'll be corrupted soon enough anyway.


Noodle Lizard

'License To Kill' is the only Bond film to get a 15 rating.  It's nothing in comparison to the 12A-rated ones that would follow it.  I suppose they didn't have the 12A back when it was made, but it was resubmitted in 2009 and still got landed with a 15.  Should be a 12, shouldn't it?

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: checkoutgirl on May 17, 2013, 12:12:11 PM
I dunno, I've got Orgazmo on DVD and while for the most part it's just a conventional caper movie it has references to sexual things that might not ever have been done like DVDA and that. NC-17 sounds about right, 15 at a push but why would you want to push ? That's my question, why would you want kids to watch more filth and sex references, there'll be plenty of time for filth and being jaded and wanting to die every single day because your life is crushing your soul when they get older, why corrupt kids ? They'll be corrupted soon enough anyway.

NC-17 is bad news in America, not like the 18 in the UK (even though that's technically a more restrictive rating).  It basically means it has no chance of being shown in most cinemas - none of the chains will carry an NC-17.

Do you really think there's anything worse in 'Orgazmo' than any other recent sex comedy?

Kane Jones

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:14:43 PM
'License To Kill' is the only Bond film to get a 15 rating.  It's nothing in comparison to the 12A-rated ones that would follow it.  I suppose they didn't have the 12A back when it was made, but it was resubmitted in 2009 and still got landed with a 15.  Should be a 12, shouldn't it?

Nah, Licence To Kill is still the most unpleasant/nasty Bond film.  There's that guy in the pressure chamber who explodes - that's 15 material right there.  Then Sanchez feeding Felix's legs to the shark, Bond locking a guy in a drawer full of maggots and saying 'bon appetit', Benicio Del Toro being fed through a mincer, Sanchez doused in petrol and being set on fire.  It's pretty bad.

When I saw it in the cinema I hated it.  It just didn't feel like a Bond film.  I enjoy it far more now, in retrospect.

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 11:36:44 AM
'The Others' is a PG-13 (12).  While it's certainly creepy and has a few uncomfortable themes, there is absolutely no objectionable content in there.  No bad language, no violence, no sex (well not really).  That being said, it was a 12 before there was a 12A, so it may have been beneficial not to have had a cinema full of bored children.

Well the BBFC doesn't rate solely on the basis of language, violence and sex, so by their criteria I'd say 12 is about right for The Others.

Mister Six

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:14:43 PM
'License To Kill' is the only Bond film to get a 15 rating.  It's nothing in comparison to the 12A-rated ones that would follow it.  I suppose they didn't have the 12A back when it was made, but it was resubmitted in 2009 and still got landed with a 15.  Should be a 12, shouldn't it?

Nah, it's a nasty flick, that, especially for a Bond film. There's a streak of genuine sadism in it, and a bunch of scenes I wouldn't want a 12-year-old to watch.

Off the top of my head:
* Fella being put in a pressure chamber and panicking in horror as his head expands and eventually bursts all over the chamber's window.
* Baddie feeding Felix and his wife to a shark, including a bit where Felix's leg comes off.
* The baddie finding his girlfriend in bed with another man, and hitting her while her lover is taken outside to have his heart cut out.

Not all of this is graphic and on-screen, but the violence is a world away from the goofy cartooniness of the Moore films that preceded it. The early Connerys were a bit brutal, too, but they're less graphic and the '60s film stock and editing dulls some of the impact.

Wet Blanket

Goldeneye, Tommorrow Never Dies and Casino Royale are all 15 in my DVD box set. Dunno if this is due to extra footage or being more strict when it comes to home media that youngsters could buy.

Diamonds Are Forever recently got bumped to a 12 too. Back in the 60s the A-cert that they got was equivalent to a 12A - under 14s needed a parent or guardian. The X age limit was 16 until the early 70s too, fact fans.

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
NC-17 is bad news in America, not like the 18 in the UK (even though that's technically a more restrictive rating).  It basically means it has no chance of being shown in most cinemas - none of the chains will carry an NC-17.

Yes, I seem to recall that Blue Valentine was originally given an NC-17 rating, due to the oral sex scene therein. They appealed though and managed to get it reclassified.

It's a bit frustrating (though obviously not surprising) when films end up being cut in order to achieve the classification that will bring in the maximum amount of revenue. I've not seen The Woman In Black for example, but it seems unreasonable to me that people should have to see a 12A cut of the film in cinemas, purely so more money can be extracted from the Radcliffe fanbase.

Kane Jones

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2013, 12:24:15 PM
Nah, it's a nasty flick, that, especially for a Bond film. There's a streak of genuine sadism in it, and a bunch of scenes I wouldn't want a 12-year-old to watch.

Off the top of my head:
* Fella being put in a pressure chamber and panicking in horror as his head expands and eventually bursts all over the chamber's window.
* Baddie feeding Felix and his wife to a shark, including a bit where Felix's leg comes off.
* The baddie finding his girlfriend in bed with another man, and hitting her while her lover is taken outside to have his heart cut out.

Not all of this is graphic and on-screen, but the violence is a world away from the goofy cartooniness of the Moore films that preceded it. The early Connerys were a bit brutal, too, but they're less graphic and the '60s film stock and editing dulls some of the impact.

You've just repeated my above post, but more eloquently! :)

Wet Blanket

The Woman in Black scared the bejeezus out of me at 12A too. I wouldn't expect a film in that category to be so intense, but maybe if I was a 12 year old I'd think differently. 

Mister Six

Quote from: Kane Jones on May 17, 2013, 12:39:01 PM
You've just repeated my above post, but more eloquently! :)

Oops, didn't see your post! Sorry!

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Harpo Speaks on May 17, 2013, 12:19:10 PM
Well the BBFC doesn't rate solely on the basis of language, violence and sex, so by their criteria I'd say 12 is about right for The Others.

I e-mailed them about it when I was 12 myself (I was a cool and popular kid) and they said pretty much the same thing.  I pointed out there was nothing about this mentioned in my copy of their book of guidelines.  They apologised.

I then asked them why they didn't have a category for poo and wee and such.  They didn't care.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Mister Six on May 17, 2013, 12:24:15 PM
Nah, it's a nasty flick, that, especially for a Bond film. There's a streak of genuine sadism in it, and a bunch of scenes I wouldn't want a 12-year-old to watch.

Off the top of my head:
* Fella being put in a pressure chamber and panicking in horror as his head expands and eventually bursts all over the chamber's window.
* Baddie feeding Felix and his wife to a shark, including a bit where Felix's leg comes off.
* The baddie finding his girlfriend in bed with another man, and hitting her while her lover is taken outside to have his heart cut out.

Not all of this is graphic and on-screen, but the violence is a world away from the goofy cartooniness of the Moore films that preceded it. The early Connerys were a bit brutal, too, but they're less graphic and the '60s film stock and editing dulls some of the impact.

Yeah, I remember all of that.  But when you consider that Daniel Craig's Bond spent a fair chunk of 'Casino Royale' getting his balls whipped with a fucking big rope, for instance, it doesn't seem all that grim.

Kane Jones


Kane Jones

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:44:36 PM
Yeah, I remember all of that.  But when you consider that Daniel Craig's Bond spent a fair chunk of 'Casino Royale' getting his balls whipped with a fucking big rope, for instance, it doesn't seem all that grim.

Bollock-whipping is nastier if you're an teenage/adult male.  A child would think a guy's head blowing up in a pressure chamber was worse.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Harpo Speaks on May 17, 2013, 12:37:17 PMI've not seen The Woman In Black for example, but it seems unreasonable to me that people should have to see a 12A cut of the film in cinemas, purely so more money can be extracted from the Radcliffe fanbase.

I saw both versions and the difference really wasn't worth the cut at all.  The BBFC have a hang-up about "imitable content"[nb]head butts used to get cut out quite often, as well as a lot of detailed drug-taking ('Trainspotting' and 'Pulp Fiction' spring to mind) - they also famously cut Bruce Lee's nunchuck wanking scene in 'Enter The Dragon'[/nb] and they didn't like the bit where The Woman does a little jump and hangs herself.  You see most of it in the UK version, there's really not much missing.  Besides, it's shit.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Kane Jones on May 17, 2013, 12:49:11 PM
Bollock-whipping is nastier if you're an teenage/adult male.  A child would think a guy's head blowing up in a pressure chamber was worse.

It's been a little while since I've seen it, but doesn't the little window on the chamber just go red with a little cartoonish "splat"?  I saw it when I was a kid and I'm alright now (although I sleep with prostitutes, have some cannibalistic tendencies and have a pretty big head, actually).

Wet Blanket

In that recent book about the history of the BBFC[nb]This one, sounds like lots of you would like it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-Scenes-BBFC-Classification-Digital/dp/1844574768/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368791413&sr=8-1&keywords=bbfc
[/nb] there's a case study on Licence to Kill, and it was cut to get that 15, so had skirted the 18. The woman being whipped at the beginning, Felix's leg and Benicio Del Toro being chopped up by the mincer all got trimmed.

It's uncut these days. 

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:17:13 PM
Do you really think there's anything worse in 'Orgazmo' than any other recent sex comedy?

I'll be honest, I don't watch sex comedies like Sex Drive or Anna Farris movies about sex'n'relationships'n'phonenumbers so I'm not best placed to comment. However it appears to me that the problem is that cinemas won't carry NC-17 films and not that the certificate guys want to slap an NC-17 raing on a flick that makes direct reference to Double Vaginal Double Anal. If Trey and Matt really wanted kids to see their film then they wouldn't have made it to be based on the porn industry with a load of jokes based on porn and that. Given the content of most of their output, I doubt Trey'n'Matt are that bothered if kids get to see their flicks and even Team America had a Cleveland Steamer scene for fuck's sake.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: checkoutgirl on May 17, 2013, 12:54:14 PM
I'll be honest, I don't watch sex comedies like Sex Drive or Anna Farris movies about sex'n'relationships'n'phonenumbers so I'm not best placed to comment. However it appears to me that the problem is that cinemas won't carry NC-17 films and not that the certificate guys want to slap an NC-17 raing on a flick that makes direct reference to Double Vaginal Double Anal. If Trey and Matt really wanted kids to see their film then they wouldn't have made it to be based on the porn industry with a load of jokes based on porn and that. Given the content of most of their output, I doubt Trey'n'Matt are that bothered if kids get to see their flicks and even Team America had a Cleveland Steamer scene for fuck's sake.

They didn't want kids to see it, but presumably they wanted some people to be able to pay to see it in a cinema.  The issue was that plenty of far more graphic and "obscene" films (including their later movies) had passed with an R because they were attached to major studios, whereas the MPAA couldn't be arsed dealing with an indy film.

The Cleveland Steamer in 'Team America' got cut.  That entire sex scene was deliberately put in there to distract the censors from other content in the film (having learned from their previous experiences with 'Orgazmo' and the 'South Park' movie).  That and it was funny.

Kane Jones

Quote from: Noodle Lizard on May 17, 2013, 12:51:07 PM
It's been a little while since I've seen it, but doesn't the little window on the chamber just go red with a little cartoonish "splat"?  I saw it when I was a kid and I'm alright now (although I sleep with prostitutes, have some cannibalistic tendencies and have a pretty big head, actually).

Well, there you are.  Proof that it's gone done you a damage.

Yeah, there's not much to it visually, you do see his head expand and then the 'splat' but it's the build-up, his fear and panic, him screaming "it hurts" - and the callousness of it, I suppose. You were obviously made of tougher stuff than me.  I saw it when I was 14 in the cinema and thought it was really horrible.  But then as I've explained in another thread, a Tom & Jerry cartoon made me cry when I was little kid, so clearly I'm a big wussy fanny balls.