If LALD were released today

Post by **Kristatos** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:23 am

I was looking at something on the BBFC website just now and I happened to stumble upon this description of cuts required to be made to the new animated film Bee Movie:

The distributor was required to make one cut, in a film aimed at younger viewers, of a potentially dangerous and easily imitated technique involving materials that are readily available in the average household (specifically, turning household items into a flame thrower). An uncut classification was not available to the distributor.

I thought to myself "that sounds suspiciously like the way Bond disposed of the snake in LALD". I wonder, if the film were released today, would it have been cut too?

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:56 am

Probably. MacGyver might be a too dangerous as well. Making a flamethrowers bug spray was a childhood favorite.(thank god I never got caught

)

Acutaly I'm surprised CR had a PG-13, it really deserved a R.

Would the old Bond movies still be PG? I think the would, but the censors would cut some other scenes that might be imitated by kids. But I'd bet they'd leave the sex scenes .

James1090 · Post by **James1090** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:48 am

Dr. No wrote:Probably. MacGyver might be a too dangerous as well. Making a flamethrowers bug spray was a childhood favorite.(thank god I never got caught )

Acutaly I'm surprised CR had a PG-13, it really deserved a R.

Would the old Bond movies still be PG? I think the would, but the censors would cut some other scenes that might be imitated by kids. But I'd bet they'd leave the sex scenes .

I think they would go up to PG-13 for the old ones. If I remember correctly I don't think there was a PG-13 back in the 60's and 70's.

Post by **Kristatos** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:52 pm

James1090 wrote:I think they would go up to PG-13 for the old ones. If I remember correctly I don't think there was a PG-13 back in the 60's and 70's.

No, it was created in the 80's after some controversy over Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins getting PG ratings in the States. The new rating was apparently suggested by Steven Spielberg, who directed the former and executive produced the latter film.

James1090 · Post by **James1090** » Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:24 pm

Kristatos wrote:
James1090 wrote:I think they would go up to PG-13 for the old ones. If I remember correctly I don't think there was a PG-13 back in the 60's and 70's.
No, it was created in the 80's after some controversy over Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins getting PG ratings in the States. The new rating was apparently suggested by Steven Spielberg, who directed the former and executive produced the latter film.

Oh ok, I really wasn't sure but would Connery, lazenby and Moore's Bond get differnet ratings?

Post by **Kristatos** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:57 am

James1090 wrote:Oh ok, I really wasn't sure but would Connery, lazenby and Moore's Bond get differnet ratings?

Some of them might. OHMSS and DAF were quite violent for PG films and LALD had the snake scene I mentioned earlier, plus a mouthed F-word.

Post by **Dr. No** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:11 am

I forgot that the Temple of Doom market the start of PG-13.

If CR is what is considered PG-13 today then GE was closer to PG. The Potter films are some what violent and rate PG.

There are afew exceptions of the older ones might earn a PG-13 , but the majority would squeak by with PG.

Post by **Kristatos** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:06 pm

Dr. No wrote:If CR is what is considered PG-13 today then GE was closer to PG. The Potter films are some what violent and rate PG.

No, GE was a PG-13, as were all the Bond films since LTK. The last two Potter films were also PG-13. The first two were fairly safe PG, though Prisoner of Azkaban was borderline and there was serious debate at the MPAA about whether to give it a PG or a PG-13.

Post by **Dr. No** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:14 pm

Kristatos wrote:
Dr. No wrote:If CR is what is considered PG-13 today then GE was closer to PG. The Potter films are some what violent and rate PG.
No, GE was a PG-13, as were all the Bond films since LTK. The last two Potter films were also PG-13. The first two were fairly safe PG, though Prisoner of Azkaban was borderline and there was serious debate at the MPAA about whether to give it a PG or a PG-13.

I know GE is PG-13, but comparing a Bond PG-13 film from 1995 to the alleged Bond PG -13 film from 2006, if CR is the standard GE would deserve a PG rating compared to it. More accurately I don;t think CR was PG-13 at all.
But the standards seem to go down as more and more violent films earn a pg-13 rating. I think compared to todays standard quite a few of the older Bond films wouldn't be earn the 13 rating. Some of The sexual situations and violence might earn the higher rating, but any week night prime time TV are more suggestive and violent than some Bond films.
Robocop was a movie that was considered for a X rating, I don;t think they'd blink at giving it a solid R today.

I forgot the last 2 potter films eared a PG13, they deserved a PG 13. Most parents take a 13 rating with pinch of salt if they know the movie series. Potter's stuff wasn;t real bad unless you have a kid sensitive to it.

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:54 pm

Dr. No wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
Dr. No wrote:If CR is what is considered PG-13 today then GE was closer to PG. The Potter films are some what violent and rate PG.
No, GE was a PG-13, as were all the Bond films since LTK. The last two Potter films were also PG-13. The first two were fairly safe PG, though Prisoner of Azkaban was borderline and there was serious debate at the MPAA about whether to give it a PG or a PG-13.
I know GE is PG-13, but comparing a Bond PG-13 film from 1995 to the alleged Bond PG -13 film from 2006, if CR is the standard GE would deserve a PG rating compared to it. More accurately I don;t think CR was PG-13 at all.
But the standards seem to go down as more and more violent films earn a pg-13 rating. I think compared to todays standard quite a few of the older Bond films wouldn't be earn the 13 rating. Some of The sexual situations and violence might earn the higher rating, but any week night prime time TV are more suggestive and violent than some Bond films.
Robocop was a movie that was considered for a X rating, I don;t think they'd blink at giving it a solid R today.

I forgot the last 2 potter films eared a PG13, they deserved a PG 13. Most parents take a 13 rating with pinch of salt if they know the movie series. Potter's stuff wasn;t real bad unless you have a kid sensitive to it.

I think the Bonds up until Daltons were family orientated PG'S i think after that we had a change in the certification after Batman came out and they could bump up the violence a little because the new cert gave them a bit of leyway. i think mvies in general are marketed to the teenage demographic as seen with the new Die Hard and Casino Royale with the strangling scene alone too strong for a 12 rating

Post by **Kristatos** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:33 pm

james stock wrote:I think the Bonds up until Daltons were family orientated PG'S i think after that we had a change in the certification after Batman came out and they could bump up the violence a little because the new cert gave them a bit of leeway.

My point was that the advent of the PG-13 rating lowered the threshold of what is acceptable in a PG film, and some films that were rated PG in the 70's and early 80's would be PG-13s today, including some Bond films. Before the creation of the PG-13 rating, PG was generally thought to mean "suitable for the entire family". Nowadays, PG films are thought of as kids' stuff. There are even PG rated Disney cartoons. That's why I doubt we'll ever see another PG rated Bond - it would be commercial suicide for a franchise that mainly appeals to adults and older teens.

Post by **Dr. No** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:57 am

Kristatos wrote:
james stock wrote:I think the Bonds up until Daltons were family orientated PG'S i think after that we had a change in the certification after Batman came out and they could bump up the violence a little because the new cert gave them a bit of leeway.
My point was that the advent of the PG-13 rating lowered the threshold of what is acceptable in a PG film, and some films that were rated PG in the 70's and early 80's would be PG-13s today, including some Bond films. Before the creation of the PG-13 rating, PG was generally thought to mean "suitable for the entire family". Nowadays, PG films are thought of as kids' stuff. There are even PG rated Disney cartoons. That's why I doubt we'll ever see another PG rated Bond - it would be commercial suicide for a franchise that mainly appeals to adults and older teens.

yeah, Ok, I take your point.
Shrek 3 was rated PG for "swashbuckling violence:

what was it 1984 when PG13 came to be?
So the first movies to test it would have been VTAK, TLD. LTK was the first pg-13 Bond.

I don;t think it'd be too hard to make/get some of the other Bond movies to qualifie for PG, depending on the standards.
TLD was a pretty standard bond movie and it did ok. LTK was a violent affair, GE was borderline in my book.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Dec 20, 2007 7:17 am

I think all the Bond movies would get the PG-13 stamp if re-rated today. There's enough sex and violence to warrant it. Besides, PG-13 used to be much more rough during 80s and 90s. The last PG-13 movie I can recall that had female nudity was Titanic. The Matrix at one point was PG-13, then R, then PG-13 again, finally R again.

I can't see how CR should warrant an R. GE had a very unsubtle sex scene, not to mention Xenia receiving an orgasm more than once. Bond rolls around the floor with two girls in CR. What does LTK have? A lot of swearing, decapitation, someone getting diced through a grinder and of course the infamous pressure chamber scene; all scenes that required cutting to avoid the R stamp.

If there was any film that was PG-13 but really deserved an R-Rating, it would be Live Free or Die Hard. When I left CR I never thought it was too much, but when I left LFDH I noticed that the film had a lot more violence and swearing than the average PG-13 film gets.

Post by **Dr. No** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:04 am

CR was way over the line with many violent scenes. The carpet beater or whatever it was not even in the kingdom of PG-13 and the Irish agree with me. They'd know after all the have leprechauns

GE doesn't even make desperate house wives blush.

DH4 was water down, more True Lie than DH.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:51 am

Well the MPAA certainly saw no reason to give it anything else than a PG-13 stamp, otherwise they would have stamped an R and EON would be forced to make cuts like they did with LTK if they thought it crossed the line.

Post by **Dr. No** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:12 am

the MPAA massaged it. the Irish slapped a 15 rating on it with edited down scenes.
PG-13 movies can make more than a rated R ,not always but normally its true, the whole reason for the DH4 watering down was to get more fans in the stands. Didn't work out that great for them, but that's the reason,. Even then DH4 violence was not in the same league as CRs psychopathic rundowns . All DH 4 required for PG-13 certificate was a language mod, which will happen anyway when it goes to TV . For Tv CR requires drastic cuts or a late night showing, or both.

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:03 pm

It'll be interesting to see how they approach editing CR for TV-and agreed that there are going to have to do some serious editing before it's shown on TV.

I saw Raiders Of The Lost Ark in the movie theater when it first came out..talk about a movie that would be rated R nowadays.There is a LOT in that movie,that had it come out in 2008 would hage gotten an R rating for sure.

When I was a kid ABC(US TV network)would always show Bond films on the weekends,but edited(so they claimed).I haven't seen very many Bond films, apart from LALD,CR and GF on video,so I can't do much of a comparison.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:41 pm

katied wrote:I saw Raiders Of The Lost Ark in the movie theater when it first came out..talk about a movie that would be rated R nowadays.There is a LOT in that movie,that had it come out in 2008 would hage gotten an R rating for sure.

You may be right. LTK had the shot of the exploding head edited to get a PG-13 rating, yet Raiders (rated PG) had it uncut. Going back to my childhood in the 70's, it strikes me that even the British U certificate (equivalent to the American G rating) had more freedom then than the PG rating does today. The original Star Wars trilogy all had U certificates, but would probably be rated 12A/PG-13 if they were released now. I recently saw 10,000 BC in the cinema, which was rated PG-13 in the States and, I think, 12A in Britain, and I thought that if it had been released when I was a kid, the BBFC would have debated whether to give it a U or an A certificate, due to some minor violence.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 9:13 pm

Raiders originally was given an R rating because of the exploding head. However once they superimposed transparent fire over the exploding head it was given a PG. Back then ratings were viewed as...

G - Family films.
PG - Aimed at teens and adults.
R - Primarily aimed at adults.

Now today films are viewed as...

G - Extremely harmless kiddy flicks.
PG - Family films.
PG-13 - Aimed at teens and adults.
R - Aimed for adults.
NC-17 - Only for adults.

If Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Temple of Doom were released today I have no doubt they would have been rated PG-13. I think even all the films prior to Licence to Kill would have been rerated PG-13 for all the sexual content alone.

In fact, tell me one popular G rated flick? All the popular ones today are films like Shrek which gets PG primarily because there are fart jokes and pop culture references which are too dirty for G rated films. I suppose kids view anything "G" as not being edgy enough hence the unpopularity. I notice that not one sigle live action film is rated G. Even if it is as harmless as the other kiddy flicks, it still gets a PG rating anyway. I I don't think I have seen a live action G rated film since the 90s.