| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
 Posted - 02/13/2013 : 12:05:25
|
Yes, time for another rant. This time kicked off by my realization A Good Day To Die Hard is a 12A in the UK, yet an R in the US.
12A? This is a franchise that began as an 18 (sadly, I wasn't old enough to see it back in 1988) and has since settled into a solid 15 rating for the subsequent sequels. Now we hit number five and, by 20th Century Fox's own hands (not at the request of the often maligned BBFC) it's been cut to a 12A.
This kiddiefication of the franchise strikes me as the biggest slap in the face you can give to its loyal fans who made it such a success in the first place. After all, any children the distributor is hoping to get in with the 12A that they would have lost with the 15 the BBFC gave it originally would have been 9 when the 15 rated Die Hard 4 came out. They wouldn't even have been a twinkle in anyone's eye when Die Hard 3 was released.
Giving 20th Century the benefit of the doubt and assuming they do not condone minors watching DVDs rated well above their age, why then target the latest one at an audience that won't have seen the previous instalments?
Of course, we all know why: profit. Get as many bums on seats as you can, even if the art has to be chopped up and watered down to do it and the most iconic line of the series has to be jettisoned. (I can only assume the R rating was kept in the US as the adult audience there is considered large enough to get the kind of box office the distributor desires)
It wouldn't be so bad if this was just a one-off, but it concerns me that this seems to be such a growing trend, most especially in the old stalwarts of the 18 certificate: action and horror films. For example, Taken 2 and The Expendables 2 similarly suffered the kiddiefication treatment. Granted, the originals were no masterpieces but what they did well was unashamed bloodshed, violence and swearing- something which the sequels lacked just as much as a coherent plot or characterization. At which point, you have to ask "Why bother?".
You can just see the distributor going "What can we do to get as many kids in to see this as possible?" (we all know 12A basically means adults will bring their 6, 7, 8 year olds along also). But I'd ask why do they need to see it? Why is it so bad to make a big, dumb action film aimed at adults alone? How much money does a film need to make that another 3-6 years' worth of the audience is considered more important than the integrity of the film?
All this makes me wonder if one day we won't even *have* 15 or 18 certificates- not because we're all so numb to the gore and violence but because no film will be considered worth making (in financial terms) if 99% of the cinema-going audience cannot legally see it.
Never mind, I guess we can all wait for the "extended, harder edition" on Blu-Ray later in the year... :( |
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 14:18:10
|
| I just saw a Facebook post by Kim Newman saying his official review was embargoed till today, but...when, he asked, has a *fifth* film in a series been among its best? [Bond?] So I'm anxiously awaiting this one, even though I'm a [AARP] card-carrying adult. |
Edited by - randall on 02/13/2013 14:18:33 |
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 14:24:24
|
Wow... didn't even realize Kim was that well-known outside the UK! I'd be curious to hear which version (UK or US) Kim reviewed. I'd guess UK (since I see him about Leicester Square quite often) but you never know.
Yeah, I'm not saying the film will be bad by any means but, however good it is, you have to admit a film like this always benefits from not having to hold back for fear of upsetting a younger audience. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/13/2013 : 22:44:10
|
Flog a franchise to death, but delay the death by widening the audience target, i.e., get the die-hards (hurr hurr) AND kids. Yep, a sound business decision. They'll keep flogging the franchise until it stops making money, that'll likely be when the die hards stop going.
Thank god for indie cinema.
BTW, this Russian hottie is on the cast list. I wonder if she 'gets them out'?  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 09:50:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Wow... didn't even realize Kim was that well-known outside the UK! I'd be curious to hear which version (UK or US) Kim reviewed. I'd guess UK (since I see him about Leicester Square quite often) but you never know.
Yeah, I'm not saying the film will be bad by any means but, however good it is, you have to admit a film like this always benefits from not having to hold back for fear of upsetting a younger audience.
I read both SIGHT & SOUND and horror stories. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 10:15:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
[quote]Originally posted by benj clews
Wow... didn't even realize Kim was that well-known outside the UK!
I remember him well from my film-critic years. A very nice man! And always willing to engage when the horror word is mentioned! I believe his books have found a sound market around the world - translated into lotsa languages. He also writes fiction under the name Jack Yeovil. Very decent bloke!
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 10:19:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by randall
[quote]Originally posted by benj clews
Wow... didn't even realize Kim was that well-known outside the UK!
I remember him well from my film-critic years. A very nice man! And always willing to engage when the horror word is mentioned!
Absolutely. I especially love the fact he's always there for the entirety of Frightfest every year without fail. He's one serious horror aficionado. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 11:35:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I just saw a Facebook post by Kim Newman saying his official review was embargoed till today, but...when, he asked, has a *fifth* film in a series been among its best? [Bond?]
Well, here's the review...
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137873 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 16:36:01
|
Thanks, benj! It appears Newman was teasing with that Facebook post. And yes, GOOD DAY did retain the R in the US, and yes, for the reason you stated: there are enough customers at that level who want that level for this franchise.
Baffy, Kim Newman is much better known, even over here, under his own name. Remember, I used to dabble in sf/fantasy/horror editing a while back when I was at Bantam. He is indeed a very nice bloke. |
Edited by - randall on 02/14/2013 16:38:31 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 16:44:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Thanks, benj! It appears Newman was teasing with that Facebook post. And yes, GOOD DAY did retain the R in the US, and yes, for the reason you stated: there are enough customers at that level who want that level for this franchise.
Interestingly, I read it may also be down to how films receive ratings in the US versus the UK. Sounds like we have one of the few film censors in the world that provides feedback on how to cut a film for a desired rating and subsequently film distributors are abusing the system to get the widest audience they can.
Am I right in thinking a film just gets a rating in the US and the distributor has to live with it? (Or blindly recut it guessing what might get the lower rating?)
quote:
Baffy, Kim Newman is much better known, even over here, under his own name. Remember, I used to dabble in sf/fantasy/horror editing a while back when I was at Bantam. He is indeed a very nice bloke.
Good to hear- I might now actually get the courage to go and discuss a film with him at Frightfest this year  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/14/2013 : 16:59:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by randall
Thanks, benj! It appears Newman was teasing with that Facebook post. And yes, GOOD DAY did retain the R in the US, and yes, for the reason you stated: there are enough customers at that level who want that level for this franchise.
Interestingly, I read it may also be down to how films receive ratings in the US versus the UK. Sounds like we have one of the few film censors in the world that provides feedback on how to cut a film for a desired rating and subsequently film distributors are abusing the system to get the widest audience they can.
(1) Am I right in thinking a film just gets a rating in the US and the distributor has to live with it? (Or blindly recut it guessing what might get the lower rating?)
quote:
Baffy, Kim Newman is much better known, even over here, under his own name. Remember, I used to dabble in sf/fantasy/horror editing a while back when I was at Bantam. He is indeed a very nice bloke.
Good to hear- (2) I might now actually get the courage to go and discuss a film with him at Frightfest this year
(1) I think you do eventually get down to a list of things to cut if you really want the rating, because you keep not getting the PG-13 and can ultimately suss out why. But it's been a long time since I saw the definitive documentary on the subject of the MPAA, THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. I might add that now in the US, the MPAA has to declare the general reasons for a restrictive rating, within the rating block itself: e.g., "For horror violence," "For smoking" [which is an automatic PG now]. It's part of the graphical rating block; it runs in all ads and before the movie proper and any trailers for it.
(2) Go up and say hi next time! He's quite warm, and can spot a fellow true fan a mile away, and you are one, benj. |
Edited by - randall on 02/14/2013 19:08:43 |
|
|
|
Airbolt
"teil mann, teil maschine"
|
Posted - 02/16/2013 : 21:32:22
|
What is the main cut you have to make to get a 12A out of a 15?
Is it on the level of " You can have 3 "F**ks and a bit of boob but that's your lot"?. I mean the word F**k and not Bruce Willis in flagrante!
In reply to the theme, it is a pity that these franchises get kiddified. Admittedly not as poor as when they turned Robocop into a kids show literally. |
Edited by - Airbolt on 02/16/2013 21:36:42 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 02/16/2013 : 21:46:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
What is the main cut you have to make to get a 12A out of a 15?
Is it on the level of " You can have 3 "F**ks and a bit of boob but that's your lot"?. I mean the word F**k and not Bruce Willis in flagrante!
Not sure of the exact details in general but in this instance this is what the BBFC states...
This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a '15' certificate but that their preferred '12A' classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both 'f**k' and 'motherf***er') and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'.
quote:
In reply to the theme, it is a pity that these franchises get kiddified. Admittedly not as poor as when they turned Robocop into a kids show literally.
Yes, I forgot about Robocop. I guess the reboot will go the same way- the first will likely be a 15 and any sequels gradually kiddiefied until the brand is ruined again. Wait 20 years and start again. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 00:00:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Airbolt
What is the main cut you have to make to get a 12A out of a 15?
Is it on the level of " You can have 3 "F**ks and a bit of boob but that's your lot"?. I mean the word F**k and not Bruce Willis in flagrante!
Not sure of the exact details in general but in this instance this is what the BBFC states...
This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a '15' certificate but that their preferred '12A' classification could be achieved by making a number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both 'f**k' and 'motherf***er') and to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals. The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'.
quote:
In reply to the theme, it is a pity that these franchises get kiddified. Admittedly not as poor as when they turned Robocop into a kids show literally.
Yes, I forgot about Robocop. I guess the reboot will go the same way- the first will likely be a 15 and any sequels gradually kiddiefied until the brand is ruined again. Wait 20 years and start again.
I'm pretty sure the BBFC system is the same as when we in the Critics Circle had a very enlightening guest meeting with them at which they explained exactly how they arrived at various classifications. From what I've read about H'wood, it's slightly different.
In the UK there are a group of people - ostensibly from all walks of life and social classes - housewives, executives, blah blah blah. They sit for hours each day watching the rough cuts of films due for release. They're looking for a wide range of potential breaches of the code.
So, not just language, but stuff like overt product placement, or breach of copyright on any kind of imagery, or breach of privacy. Whatever.
There are [and I can't remember exactly what they are] different criteria categories. Torture porn involving anal sex. Stabbing and fellatio. Kind of thing.
The viewers are pretty inured to anything, so it's not a question of shock horror. More about breaking statute laws - or identifying borderline stuff.
Screenplays are also available. And can become the focus of classification even before the film is shot.
I can't remember how many times any film is assessed before a consensus is reached about whether to grant a film some kind of certificate.
Then the director and/or producer is invited in to discuss the first-stop decision. If a distributor wants to challenge a decision they will usually wind up compromising on stuff like exactly how long a shot is held on a disembowelment, etc.
Of course film-makers and distributors of films likely to warrant discussion already know the stuff they're willing to compromise on in order to get their target audience.
Horse trading.
Hope this helps.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/17/2013 : 01:32:38
|
| It's had terrible reviews across the board it seems - Rotten Tomatoes reports a 17% rating (7% from top critics), and I've come to realise often anything less than 80% on there can still be pretty average. The trailer looked pretty good (and it is ever thus...) but I definitely won't be spending my cinema pennies on it now. I skipped the fourth one too. But it seems to be making a lot of money though so I wouldn't discount a PG rated Die Hard 6. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
The kiddiefication of everything
