Rating of South Park movie - 15 or 18?
David McGowan
the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
However, my friend thinks that it will be a 15, as it has a great appeal
amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't seem
worth it.
On a similar topic, has anyone here seen the film yet? I've heard good
things about it, although I'm not sure if the uncensored swearing would be
as funny as when they have it beeped out - any opinions?
David McGowan
Michael Brooke
> Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet in
> the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
> the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
You can't go by comparisons with US ratings - 'Starship Troopers' was
threatened with an NC-17, yet the same version was only given a 15 for
its British theatrical release.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mackerness
> Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet
in
> the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
> the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
> amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
> audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't
seem
> worth it.
It looks as if it's going to be an '18', but no official word from the BBFC
yet.
The US version had dialogue containing words describing bestiality, oral and
anal sex cut. If by some miracle the UK got a version with these cuts
restored it would almost certainly be an '18'.
But with Warner Bros. track record anything could happen concerning the
version submitted to the BBFC. The UK may end up with the US 'R' version
although I wouldn't be suprised if they cut even more if this was necessary
in order to get a '15' or even '12' certificate.
> On a similar topic, has anyone here seen the film yet? I've heard good
> things about it, although I'm not sure if the uncensored swearing would be
> as funny as when they have it beeped out - any opinions?
It only came out in the US yesterday (30th June). I'm not a great fan of
the 'South Park' series, so I won't be rushing out to watch it. Saying that
though it has been getting some good reviews in the US.
--
********************************************
Nick Mackerness
http://members.xoom.com/NickMack
********************************************
Oli
Nick Mackerness <n.p.mac...@REMOVE.rl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7lf94s$k...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
> David McGowan wrote...
> > Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating
yet
> in
> > the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled
with
> > the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
> > However, my friend thinks that it will be a 15, as it has a great appeal
> > amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
> > audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't
> seem
> > worth it.
>
> It looks as if it's going to be an '18', but no official word from the
BBFC
> yet.
> The US version had dialogue containing words describing bestiality, oral
and
> anal sex cut. If by some miracle the UK got a version with these cuts
> restored it would almost certainly be an '18'.
> But with Warner Bros. track record anything could happen concerning the
> version submitted to the BBFC. The UK may end up with the US 'R' version
> although I wouldn't be suprised if they cut even more if this was
necessary
> in order to get a '15' or even '12' certificate.
Not very good for a film whose tagline is "Bigger, Longer and UNCUT"
com...@my-deja.com
i strongly against the rating censorship.
when the stupid ticket seller asked me if i am over 17,
i was totally humiliated!
In article <7lf94s$k...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>,
"Nick Mackerness" <n.p.mac...@REMOVE.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> David McGowan wrote...
> > Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a
rating yet
> in
> > the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site,
coupled with
> > the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite
18.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David Wilcock
David McGowan wrote in message <7le747$d0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
>Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet
in
>the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
>the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
>amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
>audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't
seem
>worth it.
>things about it, although I'm not sure if the uncensored swearing would be
>as funny as when they have it beeped out - any opinions?
>
>
>
Hi,
Juding by the content listed on Screen It! at
http://www.screenit.com/movies/1999/south_park_bigger_longer_&_uncut.html,
it seems it's the swearing and sexual content that seems to be causing the
controversy (although no sexual activity is seen.) There might be a chance
that it gets a 15, therefore, as swearing usually gets past the BBFC.
Anyway, it's almost certain it will be going to get a 15 certificate,
because Warners are releasing the film (along with Paramount) and they'll
probably trim it for a 15 certificate (as this is South Park's largest
audience.)
Let's hope it gets through uncut.
DAVID WILCOCK
david....@NOSPAMbtinternet.com
<Remove NOSPAM when replying>
Visit the Wilcock Movie Page for U.K film reviews!
http://www.wilcock54.freeserve.co.uk
"Jesus H. Christ! What the hell is this? I ask for a f*cking
doctor, you send in a goddamn clown! Where the f*ck is
my money going? Where the hell has this country gone!"
-Patient treated by Patch Adams
Nick Mackerness
> Nick Mackerness wrote...
> > It looks as if it's going to be an '18', but no official word from the
> BBFC
> > yet.
> > The US version had dialogue containing words describing bestiality, oral
> and
> > anal sex cut. If by some miracle the UK got a version with these cuts
> > restored it would almost certainly be an '18'.
> > But with Warner Bros. track record anything could happen concerning the
> > version submitted to the BBFC. The UK may end up with the US 'R'
version
> > although I wouldn't be suprised if they cut even more if this was
> necessary
> > in order to get a '15' or even '12' certificate.
>
> Not very good for a film whose tagline is "Bigger, Longer and UNCUT"
Considering Warner Bros. fiasco with 'True Romance' this isn't entirely
suprising. I wonder whether they're going to drop this subtitle. It's
obvious that with cuts the tagline is a blatant lie, false advertising?
nod
--
Film site just starting up - http://www.film-review.co.uk/
Internet Acronym Guide - http://www.film-review.co.uk/guide/
Jim M
"Nick Mackerness" <n.p.mac...@REMOVE.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
>Oli wrote...
<snipped stuff about cutting South Park>
>>
>> Not very good for a film whose tagline is "Bigger, Longer and UNCUT"
Miserable Bastards at Warner Bros...
>Considering Warner Bros. fiasco with 'True Romance' this isn't entirely
>suprising.
Before TR came out on video, a mate managed to get a US laser-disk copy. Nice,
Widescreen and un-cut. Some of the scenes are well graphic. A mate watched
this and then bought the video when it was released. I was surprised at how
much they snipped out. Needless to say, I'd rather have a nice un-cut version,
although it's a bit dodgy coming off LD, than have the butchered version.
>I wonder whether they're going to drop this subtitle. It's
>obvious that with cuts the tagline is a blatant lie, false advertising?
Must be. Would that mean we could be in for a re-fund ? :-)
Jimbo
--
@ Derbyshire
Simon Arnold
David McGowan <mo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7le747$d0$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet
in
> the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
> the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
> However, my friend thinks that it will be a 15, as it has a great appeal
> amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
> audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't
seem
> worth it.
> On a similar topic, has anyone here seen the film yet? I've heard good
> things about it, although I'm not sure if the uncensored swearing would be
> as funny as when they have it beeped out - any opinions?
It's difficult to compare US ratings with UK ones as the MPAA and the
BBFC use different criteria - the former take a purely quantitative
'stopwatch' approach, and react quite strongly to swearing, whilst the
latter are obsessed with context, and don't tend to cut for dialogue
for adult certificates.
'Clerks' (a film which contains no violence, and the sex occurs off-screen)
was 'threatened' with an NC-17 by the MPAA solely on the grounds of
it's dialogue.
Simon
Nick Mackerness
> Nick Mackerness wrote:
> > Oli wrote...
> >
> > obvious that with cuts the tagline is a blatant lie, false advertising?
>
The video release in the UK was labelled 'Uncut'. Whilst this was almost
true if compared to the UK cinema release which was the US 'R' version
(minus 3s), it was not correct with regards to the 'Director's Cut' which
was 'unrated' in the US and contained scenes that were removed for the US
'R' version . It seemed like Warner Bros. were either trying to make out
that it was a struggle to release an identical video version to the one
shown in UK cinemas or that it was the 'Director's Cut' they were releasing
(as happened in Norway). Some people bought the video assuming (rightly or
wrongly) that they were getting the US 'unrated' version. The result of
this was that Warner Bros. had complaints from people who had bought the
video and wanted their money back for being misled.
You'd think Warner Bros. would learn wouldn't you?
Luke Croll
<mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> writes
>David McGowan <mo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet in
>> the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
>> the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
>
>threatened with an NC-17, yet the same version was only given a 15 for
>its British theatrical release.
>
>Michael
Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
--
Luke Croll
Nick Mackerness
> Does anyone know whether South Park the movie has been given a rating yet
in
> the UK? Looking at the film's content on the Screen It! site, coupled with
> the fact that it barely missed being a NC-17, it seems a definite 18.
> amongst teenagers, and could lose out on a large part of its potential
> audience. Making it a 15 would probably mean a lot of cuts, which don't
seem
> worth it.
It has been given a '15' certificate. The BBFC have not insisted on any
cuts from the version submitted by the distributors, so it's my guess that
it's probably the cut MPAA 'R' version.
Richard Street
Luke Croll wrote in message <0DH3JXBC...@mills1.demon.co.uk>...
>Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
>couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
>--
James Ferman did admit that they'd goofed on that one - apparently they
received a number of complaints.
Ferman's other "too lenient" admission was "Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves";
for the opening sequence which was felt my many parents to be too unpleasant
for a PG.
Richard Street - stre...@bedford64.freeserve.co.uk
"Merely corroborative detail, intended to given artistic verisimilitude to
an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
Pooh-Bah, "The Mikado".
Brian Wescombe
Richard Street <stre...@bedford64.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7m06sv$s9u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Luke Croll wrote in message <0DH3JXBC...@mills1.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
> >Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
> >couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
> >--
>
>
> James Ferman did admit that they'd goofed on that one - apparently they
> received a number of complaints.
probably the reason why it was up-rated to 18 for the video release.
>
> Ferman's other "too lenient" admission was "Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves";
> for the opening sequence which was felt my many parents to be too
unpleasant
> for a PG.
And RH:POT was cut quite severely. 14 seconds from the cinema release, with
further cuts for video. Without cuts, this could have easily been an 18.
Chris Nove
<stre...@bedford64.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Luke Croll wrote in message <0DH3JXBC...@mills1.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>>Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
>>couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
>>--
>
>
>James Ferman did admit that they'd goofed on that one - apparently they
>received a number of complaints.
>
I thought that they got the certificate for Starship Troopers about
right. The violence was so comical that it couldn't be taken
seriously.
Chris
To reply change the 'x' to a 't'
gareth young
Richard Street wrote in message <7m06sv$s9u$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Luke Croll wrote in message <0DH3JXBC...@mills1.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>>Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
>>couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
>>--
>
>
>James Ferman did admit that they'd goofed on that one - apparently they
>received a number of complaints.
one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore scenes.
rather like all the suppresses titters from young boys during the titanic
nude scene-I bet lots of parents weren't expecting that!
Gareth.
i lost my signature and can't be bothered.
FrMerrin
<stre...@bedford64.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Luke Croll wrote in message <0DH3JXBC...@mills1.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>>Though I do feel it was a mistake. I watched it in the cinema and I
>>couldn't believe that the violence in it hadn't guaranteed it an '18'.
>>--
>
>
>James Ferman did admit that they'd goofed on that one - apparently they
>received a number of complaints.
>
>Ferman's other "too lenient" admission was "Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves";
>for the opening sequence which was felt my many parents to be too unpleasant
>for a PG.
>
He proceeded to censor the video release quite extensively.
FWIW I thought that "Starship Troopers" was so plainly over the top
that the violence became completely inoffensive and ineffectual.
Mike
"You pilots are such men !"
"Hey honey, they don't call this the cockpit for nothing"
(Airport 80 The Concorde)
Derek Watson
> FWIW I thought that "Starship Troopers" was so plainly over the top
> that the violence became completely inoffensive and ineffectual.
>
> Mike
>
The nature of the violence was such that at times the film became
slightly disturbing, the graphic way in which the human body is
dismembered struck a chord with me personally.
It WAS way, way over the top but the effects were so good (some of the
best I`ve seen) that there was something realistic about the whole thing
(don`t laugh).
I was quite shocked when I saw the film because I was not expecting the
film to so violent for a 15 rating, I knew what to expect with it being
a Paul Verhoeven film but with the rating as it was I couldn`t believe
it.
Derek
The Jazz Singer
> one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
> screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore scenes.
Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
expecting a different experience for their children?
I am assuming you are not a parent.
--
The Jazz Singer
Purveyor of fine Movie and DVD Reviews since 1999
http://www.jazzsinger.co.uk
gareth young
The Jazz Singer wrote in message <378a...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk>...
>gareth young <d...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
>> one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
>> screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore
scenes.
>
>Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
>the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
>expecting a different experience for their children?
>
>I am assuming you are not a parent.
>
>--
>
>The Jazz Singer
>
why should I feel sympathy?
if anyone under 15 sneaked in that's their own fault.
if they were fifteen or over then what's the problem?
should I feel sympathy for 18 year olds who get offended by an 18 rated
film?
when it comes to a director like paul verhoven you know what to expect!
Simon Arnold
The Jazz Singer <jazzs...@jazzsinger.co.uk> wrote in message
news:378a...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk...
> gareth young <d...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> > one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was
the
> > screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore
scenes.
>
> Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
> the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
> expecting a different experience for their children?
I certainly don't. In fact I can't think of a single reason as to why a 15
year old *shouldn't* be allowed to see 'Starship Troopers' at the
cinema.
> I am assuming you are not a parent.
>
You're forgetting that 'Starship Troopers' played at UK cinemas
with a BBFC '15' certificate. 15 year olds are not 'children' that
need to be wrapped in cotton wool every time they go to the cinema.
Furthermore, I doubt very much that their parents would have played
very much of a role in the decision making process to go and buy
a ticket and see the film.
I can't really understand the contemporary view that until one reaches
their eighteenth birthday, they need to be constantly shielded from any
film stronger than 'Mary Poppins'. Contrast this to the situation when I
was a kid, and one could walk into the local video shop on the way
home from school, and rent out pretty much whatever video you wanted.
And back in those days video shops were a far cry from the likes of
Blockbuster. I have to admit that I feel quite sorry for the teenagers of
today, forced to grow up in a sterile, politically correct environment.
Similar things also apply when for example, the BBFC cut the kind of
(bad) language from 12 certificate films, that most 12 year olds use
in the school playground on an everyday basis.
Simon
Michael Brooke
> gareth young <d...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
> > one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
> > screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore scenes.
>
> Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
> the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
> expecting a different experience for their children?
If there was anyone under fifteen in the cinema, they shouldn't have
been there. And people over fifteen are hardly "children" in the
accepted sense.
So no, I wouldn't feel any twinges of concern at all - and I doubt
Gareth would either.
Luke Croll
<jazzs...@jazzsinger.co.uk> writes
>gareth young <d...@btinternet.com> wrote
>
>> one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
>> screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore scenes.
>
>Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
>the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
>expecting a different experience for their children?
>
>
>
>The Jazz Singer
I'm assuming that you are writing with your tongue firmly pressed into
your cheek.
--
Luke Croll
The Jazz Singer
> if anyone under 15 sneaked in that's their own fault.
> if they were fifteen or over then what's the problem?
> should I feel sympathy for 18 year olds who get offended by an 18 rated
> film?
Ooops. Some thread morphing crept in here. The way the thread unravelled
in my reader it looked like you were commenting on an experience in "Prince
of Thieves" (where children are reported to have reacted similarly to the
way you described).
doan_...@nospam.uk.ibm.com
>It has been given a '15' certificate. The BBFC have not insisted on any
>cuts from the version submitted by the distributors, so it's my guess that
>it's probably the cut MPAA 'R' version.
>
I've seen the film on Video CD and it should really be 18 if the bbfc are
consistent...but seeing as they are not, then thats probably why its a 15.
The swearing is pretty graphic with a whole song called "uncle-f***er"
which I found hilarious, but If parents etc. were complaining about
Starship Troopers then South Park will also generate a few complaints.
Doan
Michael Brooke
> >
> >It has been given a '15' certificate. The BBFC have not insisted on any
> >cuts from the version submitted by the distributors, so it's my guess that
> >it's probably the cut MPAA 'R' version.
> >
>
> I've seen the film on Video CD and it should really be 18 if the bbfc are
> consistent...but seeing as they are not, then thats probably why its a 15.
>
> The swearing is pretty graphic with a whole song called "uncle-f***er"
> which I found hilarious, but If parents etc. were complaining about
> Starship Troopers then South Park will also generate a few complaints.
While the BBFC are very sensitive about swearing below the 15
certificate (for example, you can only say "fuck" once or twice in a 12
and not at all in a PG or U), once you hit 15 pretty much anything goes
- I can't think of a recent film that was given an 18 for language alone
(the likes of 'Trainspotting' and 'Nil By Mouth' had plenty of other
reasons to give them 18s!).
And with regard to any of the other contentious bits, it's a
long-established fact that animation can get away with one hell of a lot
more than live action can ('Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend' would
undoubtedly be refused a certificate in a live-action version, while a
live-action version of the middle bit of Jan Svankmajer's 'Dimensions of
Dialogue' - assuming such a thing was even remotely conceivable - would
certainly get something rather stronger than a PG!)
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE GROVE - a film about life, death and the bit in the middle
starring Ron Moody, Rula Lenska, Lee Blakemore and Leyland O'Brien
http://www.filmsite.co.uk/paradisegrove
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Wescombe
Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1dvcx0f.1j3...@everyman.demon.co.uk...
> <doan_...@nospam.uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >It has been given a '15' certificate. The BBFC have not insisted on
any
> > >cuts from the version submitted by the distributors, so it's my guess
that
> > >it's probably the cut MPAA 'R' version.
> > >
> >
> > I've seen the film on Video CD and it should really be 18 if the bbfc
are
> > consistent...but seeing as they are not, then thats probably why its a
15.
> >
> > The swearing is pretty graphic with a whole song called "uncle-f***er"
> > which I found hilarious, but If parents etc. were complaining about
> > Starship Troopers then South Park will also generate a few complaints.
>
>
> While the BBFC are very sensitive about swearing below the 15
> certificate (for example, you can only say "fuck" once or twice in a 12
> and not at all in a PG or U), once you hit 15 pretty much anything goes
IIRC, Die Hard 3 (15 cert.) was dubbed (quite amusingly) to reduce the
number of 'fucks'.
gareth young
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dvcx0f.1j3...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>And with regard to any of the other contentious bits, it's a
>long-established fact that animation can get away with one hell of a lot
>more than live action can ('Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend' would
>undoubtedly be refused a certificate in a live-action version
unfortunately at least one episode has been refused a certificate.
Tony Tupman
(Michael Brooke) wrote:
>> The swearing is pretty graphic with a whole song called "uncle-f***er"
>> which I found hilarious, but If parents etc. were complaining about
>> Starship Troopers then South Park will also generate a few complaints.
>
>
>While the BBFC are very sensitive about swearing below the 15
>certificate (for example, you can only say "fuck" once or twice in a 12
>and not at all in a PG or U), once you hit 15 pretty much anything goes
>- I can't think of a recent film that was given an 18 for language alone
>(the likes of 'Trainspotting' and 'Nil By Mouth' had plenty of other
>reasons to give them 18s!).
What about 'Bulworth'? Can't remember what certificate it was at the
cinema but it's definitely an 18 on video.
--
Tony Noo...@ukgateway.net
Oil up the women, for tonight we celebrate.
Gary Couzens
Tony Tupman wrote in message <37982a31...@news.ukgateway.net>...
>>- I can't think of a recent film that was given an 18 for language alone
Not technically films but videos, but several stand-up comedy tapes come to
mind. I think it's the *explicitness* rather than the frequency of the
strong language that makes the difference.
>What about 'Bulworth'? Can't remember what certificate it was at the
>cinema but it's definitely an 18 on video.
It's a 18 in the cinema, and I remember wondering why.
>
Gary Couzens
G Bell
>gareth young <d...@btinternet.com> wrote
>> one of the amusing things about the time I saw this at the cinema was the
>> screams of surprise and shock from all the kiddies during the gore scenes.
>Oh? You found that amusing? You didn't feel even a twinge of concern for
>the children and sympathy for their parents who had beem misled into
>expecting a different experience for their children?
I would feel nothing for parents so ignorant they went in not knowing
what to expect. Read any article or review of this movie and it would
have been clear what they were getting.
Frankly I am fed up to my teeth by morons complaining when it's really
their own ignorance and lack of forethought that is to blame not the
filmmakers. There is tons of easily accessible information out there, be
it hard copy or on the internet that can be used in assessing whether a
said film, tv show, etc. is suitable.
Graham