Bullets 'n' Babes

bradavon wrote:I thought you were against all forms of cuts?

I am against censor cuts; what I meant was they classify the films too leniently. The Dark Knight should've been a '15'. And had the movie been a low budget number about a character called "Fatman" it almost certainly would have been. Terminator 3 is another example. I could come up with plenty more if I had time to think about it...

Yeah Terminator 3 was rated too low IMO.

Markgway wrote:The Dark Knight should've been a '15'.

Yeah, my mum and I think that too.

I thought it was strong for a 12A too. But I do get annoyed when parents obviously made a decision to go and see it with their children, and then complain the bloody film is too violent. Tough shit. They made that decision, the film is how it is and they may be (partly) the reason why the film is possibly cut on DVD

Dark Knight probably should've been a 15 but why T3? That was almost a comedy in places.

Agreed, T3 violence was pathetic compared to T2. It pretty much all off screen ie the Terminatrix assassinating John Connor's lieutenants.

I Remember the controversy way back in 1975 when Jaws was given an "A" certificate

Roughly equivalent to the 12A of today right? -

Those aged 5 and over admitted, but parents advised that they may not wish children under 14 to watch the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... rtificates

Yeah I can see why at the time 12 would be considered too low.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Agreed, T3 violence was pathetic compared to T2. It pretty much all off screen ie the Terminatrix assassinating John Connor's lieutenants.

For the strong language and a moderately gruesome scene in which The Terminator's hand is punched thru a cop's chest. In the US it was given an 'R' for those reasons. To me it pushes the film into the '15' category. Not by much - but just.

bradavon wrote:Roughly equivalent to the 12A of today right? -

Those aged 5 and over admitted, but parents advised that they may not wish children under 14 to watch the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... rtificates

Yeah I can see why at the time 12 would be considered too low.

Actually the 'A' was the equivilent of a 'PG'. There was no equivilent to a '12' back then. It was 'U' 'A' 'AA' (roughly a '15') and X (or '18'). Jaws should be at least a '12' today as it's pretty horrific for kids. The BBFC let Spielberg away with murder. See also Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park should really have been a 12 IMO.

Markgway wrote:For the strong language and a moderately gruesome scene in which The Terminator's hand is punched thru a cop's chest.

I cannot remember that scene (any pictures?) so will have to ignore that bit but I don't recall the swearing being too bad.

12A is pretty high as it is, kids can handle the odd bit of swearing. Besides the tone was so comical for most of the film. For that reason 12 was a better rating.

Markgway wrote:Actually the 'A' was the equivilent of a 'PG'.

I first thought that but that info above makes it sound more like a 12A but I see what you're saying. PG is more likely.

Markgway wrote:Jaws should be at least a '12' today as it's pretty horrific for kids.

Agreed. I forgot it was as the DVD releases are all 12 anyway, due to the extras but that means it's effectively a 12. I doubt many parents read the VERY small print explaining why it's a 12.

grim_tales wrote:Jurassic Park should really have been a 12 IMO.

Why on earth should it be a 12?

PG is perfect. It's all fantasy violence, like Lord of the Rings. I agree in some examples but you guys are being way too harsh on kids. They're more intelligent then most adults give them credit.

It's a pretty strong PG though, I remember a guy getting mushed by a dino - bone snapping/crunching noise and then a bloody mess as he gets eaten.

Yeah, when I saw Jurassic Park at the cinema it was scary stuff. I'll have been about 7.

The BBFC got a lot of complaints about Lord of the Rings being a PG. Hence why the second and third parts were 12s.

I seem to remember someone being bitten in half in Jurassic Park - or was that The Lost World? It was still too scary for pre-teens though. In the US it was PG-13.

The most ludicrous PG of all time remains Airplane. That should be a '15'.

Maybe that was also the Jurrasic Park scene I was thinking of Mark (guy being bittten in half).
Agreed about LOTR, the 1st part was still really violent for a PG, IMO even if it was "fantasy". Spider-Man was mostly fantasy violence and that was a 12.

Markgway wrote:I seem to remember someone being bitten in half in Jurassic Park - or was that The Lost World?

I think the guy who gets pulled off the toilet by the T-Rex gets visibly chomped in half and thrown in the air or something. The whole car attack scene with the T-Rex is pretty intense though, with the kids stuck in there screaming and being crushed into the ground. I remember the spitter dinosaur freaking me out a bit too because of the venom in the eyes.

Markgway wrote:The BBFC got a lot of complaints about Lord of the Rings being a PG. Hence why the second and third parts were 12s.

Interesting. I didn't know that. It's clearly fantasy violence but agreed all three should be 12.

Markgway wrote:The most ludicrous PG of all time remains Airplane. That should be a '15'.

WTF! 15 definitely.

gasteropod wrote:I think the guy who gets pulled off the toilet by the T-Rex gets visibly chomped in half and thrown in the air or something.

That scene was so comical though. I seem to recall you see him eaten in half but it's done very subtly. I don't believe you see his body get thrown.

I think the start of Jurassic Park 2 was far more violent, and the horror of the kiddies being attacked was only implied by sounds and bloody water in a stream?

luckystars wrote:I think the start of Jurassic Park 2 was far more violent, and the horror of the kiddies being attacked was only implied by sounds and bloody water in a stream?

I don't think that affected me, although I doubt any of that tepid film did to be honest

gasteropod wrote:I remember the spitter dinosaur freaking me out a bit too because of the venom in the eyes.

Lol... yeah, that bit made me jump when I saw it at the cinema.

bradavon wrote:That scene was so comical though. I seem to recall you see him eaten in half but it's done very subtly. I don't believe you see his body get thrown.

A child will see it differently to an adult. Children believe in monsters and fantasy figures in a way adults don't. They don't process what they've seen by thinking "oh this is a great effect" then think "a bloke's just been torn in half... yikes" -- or something.

luckystars wrote:I think the start of Jurassic Park 2 was far more violent, and the horror of the kiddies being attacked was only implied by sounds and bloody water in a stream?

A clever scene in that it unnerves without doing anything to threaten the PG rating. There's simply nothing to cut.

gasteropod wrote:I don't think that affected me, although I doubt any of that tepid film did to be honest

I'm one of the few who preferred The Lost World. I thought it was more exciting, wittier, better written and acted. Only the final act wasn't necessary; they should've saved that for Part 3.

The final act in Lost World is awful. I like Part 3 best, sure the story is no where near as good but it's a no padding B Movie Dinosaur movie.

Parts 1 and 2 are a bit dull, expect when Dino action is happening. The stories are your typical Spielberg sentimentally.

Spielberg hasn't made a good film since Last Crusade has he?