Skyfall

Cinema Releases, and Rumours/Discussion of Upcoming Films
User avatar
grim_tales
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 21733
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 18:34
Location: St. Albans, UK

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by grim_tales » 20 Oct 2012, 12:15

Yeah I couldnt believe Casino Royale was 12A in the cinema, should have been a 15 IMO, at least the uncut version was.

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10833
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by HungFist » 20 Oct 2012, 12:16

I've always wondered about Raiders of the Lost Ark's low ratings. In fact, BBFC called it a masterpiece of kids' entertainment... I rewatched it a few months ago and was shocked by how hard the violence was. People are beaten to pulp, shot in the face, their heads melt and explode. Yes, it's a boys' adventure film, and a hard one at that, something to be watched with a guardian, but publicly calling it a kids film??? It's clearly a film made for grown ups, and was quite rightfully rated 16 in many countries at the time of its release. The violence both is and feels hard... and this comes from someone who eats Human Centipedes and Serbian Films for breakfast.

Image

Image

Yi-Long
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 8616
Joined: 26 Oct 2004, 13:46
Location: Alkmaar, Holland

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Yi-Long » 20 Oct 2012, 21:09

I think nowadays we seem to be much more 'over-sensitive' when it comes to on-screen violence. Just look at the Looney Tunes cartoons, to see a level of violence that's both extremely hard, and hilariously funny because it is that cruel and hard. And some who see it now consider it unsuitable for children.

TBH, when I was a kid myself, you experience that stuff completely different, cause you know it's a movie or a cartoon, so you see the extreme violence for what it is: FAKE!

I feel a lot of grown-ups seem to under-estimate the ability of children to recognize that difference between reality and entertainment. And, as Hung also already mentioned, I'm guessing most parents would rather turn it off instead of just sitting their alongside their kids and guide them through it, explaining the difference between fake and reality.

On the other hand, it seems many old movies now get a free pass and get shown during day-time, while they were originally clearly intended for a mature audience.
Image
I was there, the big BNB blackout of november, 2008. We lost many that day...

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 21 Oct 2012, 06:31

RAIDERS' renewed 'PG' rating is ridiculous given the BBFC just upgraded the (less violent) TEMPLE OF DOOM (uncut here for the first time) to a '12'.
Image

gasteropod
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 6868
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 18:16

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by gasteropod » 21 Oct 2012, 14:04

Markgway wrote:RAIDERS' renewed 'PG' rating is ridiculous given the BBFC just upgraded the (less violent) TEMPLE OF DOOM (uncut here for the first time) to a '12'.
Temple of Doom is known as the darkest one, there are child slaves being beaten and a man has his heart ripped out. Raiders is in a lighter tone.

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 21 Oct 2012, 23:43

gasteropod wrote:Temple of Doom is known as the darkest one, there are child slaves being beaten and a man has his heart ripped out. Raiders is in a lighter tone.
RAIDERS is more graphic though and that's the one that bothered me more as a kid. TEMPLE never upset me in any version.
Image

gasteropod
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 6868
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 18:16

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by gasteropod » 22 Oct 2012, 01:05

Markgway wrote:RAIDERS is more graphic though and that's the one that bothered me more as a kid. TEMPLE never upset me in any version.
You're probably in the minority then, a child will relate more to children on-screen being beaten and turned on by a possessed Indy in a scary temple. Temple of Doom has more of a horror vibe to it.

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10833
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by HungFist » 22 Oct 2012, 06:58

gasteropod wrote:a child will relate more to children on-screen
That's the kind of statement thing I always found strange... when I was a kid, I absolutely hated movies with kids. I even refused to watch E.T. cause I had heard it stars some kid. When I was an 9 year old boy, I wanted be like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis, not like some dumb ass child (that I was already :lol: ).

I always thought it was some strange adult-misconception that kids would relate better to other kids as movie characters. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I always found the whole idea ridiculous, and in my case the opposite was true.

gasteropod
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 6868
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 18:16

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by gasteropod » 22 Oct 2012, 07:07

There's a difference between identification and aspiration, and there's a reason why so many people's childhood favourite was The Goonies...

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10833
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by HungFist » 22 Oct 2012, 07:37

heh, I saw The Goonies as a child and didn't especially care for it

Ivan Drago
Hail the Judge!
Posts: 2234
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 23:05

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Ivan Drago » 22 Oct 2012, 10:52

It's worth pointing out Dr. No was seen as totally scandalous by certain factions of society...not least because Bond shoots a man in the back.
bradavon wrote:
but I guess you're more intelligence than me.

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 22 Oct 2012, 12:40

HungFist wrote:heh, I saw The Goonies as a child and didn't especially care for it
Me neither.
Image

gasteropod
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 6868
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 18:16

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by gasteropod » 22 Oct 2012, 14:12

I didn't even see The Goonies as a kid, it makes me feel left-out sometimes!

Ivan Drago
Hail the Judge!
Posts: 2234
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 23:05

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Ivan Drago » 22 Oct 2012, 22:30

So Mark, you don't like swearing but have no issues with a film series where the "hero" strangles a woman with her bra, tricks a sacred virgin into sleeping with her, and blatantly rapes a woman in the haybarn?

You should try the books too!
bradavon wrote:
but I guess you're more intelligence than me.

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 23 Oct 2012, 00:22

gasteropod wrote:I didn't even see The Goonies as a kid, it makes me feel left-out sometimes!
You really didn't miss anything...
Ivan Drago wrote:So Mark, you don't like swearing but have no issues with a film series where the "hero" strangles a woman with her bra, tricks a sacred virgin into sleeping with her, and blatantly rapes a woman in the haybarn?
I never said I didn't have 'issues' with the aformentioned transgressions - we just happen to be talking about SKYFALL's f-bomb.

But since you raised them...

The bra strangulation was one of the elements that (rightly) saw DIAMONDS recently upgraded to a '12'. Had the scene gone on longer or the breasts been more visible it would've been a '15'.

The virgin trick in LIVE was one of the acts I was referring to when in my capsule review I claimed that Roger played Bond as a 'bit of a dick'. I'm not sure how relevant it is censorship-wise given that the woman is an adult and Bond's persuasion is non-aggressive.

Again the barn rape in GOLDFINGER starts out as a comedy fight and ends with Bond forcing a kiss on Pussy (oo-er) - but from there on she's a willing participant. I think a '12' for aggressive smooching' would be harsh. The electric fan thrown in the bathtub on the other hand...
You should try the books too!
That's a different medium. Let the bookworms worry about those. :cool:
Image

User avatar
grim_tales
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 21733
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 18:34
Location: St. Albans, UK

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by grim_tales » 23 Oct 2012, 08:19

The 60's Bonds are quite tough in places for PGs, IMO.
Last edited by grim_tales on 23 Oct 2012, 10:26, edited 1 time in total.

Ivan Drago
Hail the Judge!
Posts: 2234
Joined: 16 Mar 2005, 23:05

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Ivan Drago » 23 Oct 2012, 10:16

The American PG rating used to let filmmakers get away with a LOT, then PG-13 came in about 1985.

Curiously, Beetlejuice only got a PG in 1988 despite the f-word, tons of sex references and grusome death!
bradavon wrote:
but I guess you're more intelligence than me.

User avatar
grim_tales
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 21733
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 18:34
Location: St. Albans, UK

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by grim_tales » 23 Oct 2012, 10:27

I think Big got a PG too in 1988 (and on DVD/BD) in the US despite an F-bomb, I thought that was whole point of PG-13?

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 23 Oct 2012, 10:35

Ivan Drago wrote:Curiously, Beetlejuice only got a PG in 1988 despite the f-word, tons of sex references and grusome death!
It took about 3-4 years for the MPAA to come to grips with the PG-13 rating, so, yeah a few films slipped thru with f-words.
Image

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10833
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by HungFist » 29 Oct 2012, 15:31

Interesting... (despite its 16 rating) Skyfall made a new weekend record in Finland. No other movie has ever received as many viewers in 3 days.

The previous record was held by (the 11 rated) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002).

User avatar
degeneration
Royal Tramp
Posts: 1474
Joined: 30 Oct 2004, 09:49
Location: Wales (but I'm Scottish!!)

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by degeneration » 31 Oct 2012, 08:56

Watched Skyfall yesterday. Decent film, enjoyed it a lot. Still prefer Casino Royale, but this was good enough.

3 x "shit" and 1 x "fucked" - the latter was a blink (your ears) and you'll miss it though as it was uttered right at the start of a cut scene. No need for it - "buggered" would have been just as meaningful - but it didn't really bother me. Personally it shouldn't have been in a 12A.

Good film though.

Yi-Long
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 8616
Joined: 26 Oct 2004, 13:46
Location: Alkmaar, Holland

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Yi-Long » 06 Nov 2012, 00:48

Will hopefully be able to watch it tomorrow. Was supposed to go last friday, but healthproblems kicked in once again and ruined the day.

The only thing that slightly annoys and worries me, is the whole aspect-ratio thing. It's both in widescreen, and IMAX, and it's supposedly intended to be in both, yet that hardly makes sense to me at all.

The IMAX showing is the whole movie shown in a kind of full-frame aspect ratio, so it has extra info on the top and bottom, but surely when they filmed it they were also focussing and framing it to make sure it looks good in 2.35:1 (or whatever it is...)!?

Just fucking pick 1 aspect-ratio and stick with that! Now when I go to see the widescreen non-IMAX version, I'll be thinking I'm missing parts of the screen cause they've been 'chopped' off (top and bottom), and when I go to see the IMAX showing, I'll be thinking: This looks framed very peculiar, not cinematic at all!

I honestly HATE it when they release different versions of the same product. Just release the very best version possible, and fuck off!
Image
I was there, the big BNB blackout of november, 2008. We lost many that day...

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10833
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by HungFist » 06 Nov 2012, 04:19

If I'm not mistaken, none of this was shot in IMAX. Am I right?

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19885
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Markgway » 06 Nov 2012, 14:03

It's not true IMAX (1.44) but a post-convert. Film was shot in HD Widescreen (2.35).
Image

Yi-Long
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 8616
Joined: 26 Oct 2004, 13:46
Location: Alkmaar, Holland

Re: Skyfall

Unread post by Yi-Long » 06 Nov 2012, 22:42

We went to watch it today, in the original screen-ratio (not IMAX). Still crazy expensive btw at 9,50 a ticket.

Decent Bond movie, but I was left a bit underwhelmed. The opening was strong enough, but after that I didn't feel it really made great use of the foreign locations. We barely saw anything from Shanghai or Macau. The abandoned island looked cool, but also wasn't really used to great effect.

There's been a very positive reaction to Javier's villain, but TBH I didn't really care all that much about him. Also, it seemed a bit like he was main bad guy and sidekick henchman in one, basically just doing everything himself.

Like I said, I was left a bit underwhelmed, sadly. It was certainly better than Quantum of Solace, but although it was longer than QoS, it still 'felt' a bit 'short, cause not all that much happened, as far as you can expect from a Bond movie.

Casino Royale still my favourite. This was decent/good, but it didn't 'wow' me. It kinda lacked stand-out scenes, the Bond girl was pretty much instantly forgettable, and basically it was all just a set-up to now be done with the 'reboot' and get everything back to how it was in the old movies...
Image
I was there, the big BNB blackout of november, 2008. We lost many that day...

Post Reply