Poll: Should Eon Go For the R Rating?, Explicit Sex and Violence? Options

[Kara Milovy]

I apologize in advance for not knowing the intricacies of movie ratings outside the U.S. (they're confusing enough here!). The R rating in the U.S. is used for nudity and explicit violence, as well as strong language, extensive drug use, and some other stuff. For this poll, I'm interested in sex & violence. (And who isn't? )

I guess we all know that Pierce Brosnan has said (on several occasions) that he'd like more explicit sex and violence in the Bond films. Do you agree?

For this poll, please answer:
1) Your Age
2) Bond films should be
a. R rated: Sexier sex
b. R rated: More violent violence
c. R rated: Both sex & violence
d. Keep 'em PG-13 (sex and violence levels as currently seen)

After answering, your reasons behind your answer are very welcome.

Survey results will probably appear in The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book, and I will thank you all from the bottom of my heart.



This post has been edited by Kara Milovy: 17 November 2005 - 15:44

[Mr Malcolm]

Happy to oblige, m'dear!

I'm 24, and I'd like to see c) more sex and violence. Not totally gratuitous (I don't want to see a wounded henchman spraying blood around Peckinpah-style, nor full frontal nudity), but definitely a bit more than we've seen. Although not necessarily in every future Bond film, only if it fits the tone of the film. In a TSWLM/DAD-style of film, it wouldn't be too appropriate.

Incidentally, since you asked, the ratings in the UK are U, PG, 12A (under 12s need to be accompanied), 15 and 18. I reckon CR will be a 15, myself.

[Mister Asterix]

1) 41

2) Usually d. but with forays into the others when necessary. Casino Royale should be R-rated for the carpet beater scene for instance.

[The Richmond Spy]

1) 19
2) d

I will be 20 when Casino Royale hits theatres. If all Bond films were rated R, then CR would be the first I'd be eligible to see on the big screen.

[Gabe Vieira]

1) 17
2) C/D

I said in a post a while ago that Casino Royale should be written and filmed with the intention of it being the first R-rated James Bond movie. However, the theatrical verion should be as close to an R-rating as possible without stepping out of the PG-13 realm.

Then, the DVD of Casino Royale should be two disks; Theatrical Version, and R-rated version (NOT UN-RATED!!!) with the stuff not in theaters. Kinnd of like what DareDevil did, and the R-rated version that came out on DVD was so much better than the theatrical version, which is still a very underrated film.

[Scorpion]

Dear Kara, no investor (in this instance Eon, Sony) in their right mind would bank roll a James Bond production and allow it to have an R rating. It would be like committing financial suicide.

It will never happen. The carpet beater scene will not see the light of day and neither will all the crying and sadness associated with the final chapters of the book simply because there is a huge budget riding on the film.

Alienating their PG fan base is the last thing Eon and Sony will allow as they are already taking a risk with an unknown variable (Daniel Craig) following on the heels of diminishing profitability over the recent three film.

Hope that helps.

[Qwerty]

1. 18
2. D

Sex would annoy the US censors, and the UK ones seem more concerned with violence.

[Bon-san]

Dear Kara, no investor (in this instance Eon, Sony) in their right mind would bank roll a James Bond production and allow it to have an R rating. It would be like committing financial suicide.

It will never happen. The carpet beater scene will not see the light of day and neither will all the crying and sadness associated with the final chapters of the book simply because there is a huge budget riding on the film.

Alienating their PG fan base is the last thing Eon and Sony will allow as they are already taking a risk with an unknown variable (Daniel Craig) following on the heels of diminishing profitability over the recent three film.

Hope that helps.

So I guess that was a d) answer, then.


I'm 39 and I vote c). It isn't likely to happen (see above), but I can wish. I wouldn't like to see excessively brutal violence and gore really has no place (I thought LTK was too gory. I would like to see more of a mature edge to the films, in terms of more provacative sexuality (no venturing into soft-core porn, but an occasional boob shot would be acceptable )

[WC]

I'm 5, and if Bond is rated anything other than above a PG, my mummy won't take me to the cinema to watch it.


j/k

[Scorpion]

I'm 5, and if Bond is rated anything other than above a PG, my mummy won't take me to the cinema to watch it.


j/k

Ya? And i'm 95 and in the same vein if Bond goes R that means it likely has moments that will either make me soil my diapers or give me a heart attack.

[Loomis]

30

d.

I believe Albert R. Broccoli once referred to Bond as "sadism for the family". Note the "for the family". And I remember how narked I was as a 14-year-old unable to see LICENCE TO KILL.

Although, I can't help thinking that it might be an idea to make a special case of CASINO ROYALE, given the subject matter, Craig's "grittiness", the torture scene, etc. Go for the 15 (in the UK) rating (same as the likes of LTK and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II*) - that's still a PG-13 Stateside, no?

So, a bit undecided, but, if pushed, probably d.

*And, strange as this may seem, LAYER CAKE is a 15, too - why it's not an 18 I have absolutely no idea (and neither can I fathom exactly why M:I-2 - not exactly a festival of drugs, gore, nudity and foul language - was given a 15), but it shows that you can fill a film with all sorts of violence and unpleasantness and still end up with the same certificate as LTK.

[B007GLE]

No. Go for PG-13 in the US. THey need to open the appeal of the series not close it down.

[ChickenStu]

27
D

I'd rather the Bond movies stayed as 12A ratings, or PG-13 and the sex/violence stays as it is. For the simple reason that I want to share these films with my kids. I don't think a film needs gratiuitous sex or violence to make it good. The best films in the world have U and PG ratings in IMO.

This post has been edited by ChickenStu: 17 November 2005 - 19:47

[Qwerty]

Go for the 15 (in the UK) rating (same as the likes of LTK and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II*) - that's still a PG-13 Stateside, no?

Indeed.

PG-13 is, in my opinion, just as "friendly" to all ages as the PG rating is.

[Kara Milovy]

Dear Kara, no investor (in this instance Eon, Sony) in their right mind would bank roll a James Bond production and allow it to have an R rating. It would be like committing financial suicide.

It will never happen. The carpet beater scene will not see the light of day and neither will all the crying and sadness associated with the final chapters of the book simply because there is a huge budget riding on the film.

Alienating their PG fan base is the last thing Eon and Sony will allow as they are already taking a risk with an unknown variable (Daniel Craig) following on the heels of diminishing profitability over the recent three film.

Hope that helps.

Scorpion, I agree with your assessment of the producers, but right now I'm asking what the fans want. I'm particularly interested in the age spread and how that affects it.

[Kara Milovy]

Although, I can't help thinking that it might be an idea to make a special case of CASINO ROYALE, given the subject matter, Craig's "grittiness", the torture scene, etc. Go for the 15 (in the UK) rating (same as the likes of LTK and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II*) - that's still a PG-13 Stateside, no?

So, a bit undecided, but, if pushed, probably d.

*And, strange as this may seem, LAYER CAKE is a 15, too - why it's not an 18 I have absolutely no idea (and neither can I fathom exactly why M:I-2 - not exactly a festival of drugs, gore, nudity and foul language - was given a 15), but it shows that you can fill a film with all sorts of violence and unpleasantness and still end up with the same certificate as LTK.

Thanks for the info. LTK was PG-13 stateside, so I think 18 is equivalent to R, and I guess you don't have NC-17? (No kids no matter what.) Layer Cake was R here.

[Kara Milovy]

No. Go for PG-13 in the US. THey need to open the appeal of the series not close it down.

Okay, so that's (d). What's your age (if you don't mind my asking)?

[Loomis]

Although, I can't help thinking that it might be an idea to make a special case of CASINO ROYALE, given the subject matter, Craig's "grittiness", the torture scene, etc. Go for the 15 (in the UK) rating (same as the likes of LTK and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II*) - that's still a PG-13 Stateside, no?

So, a bit undecided, but, if pushed, probably d.

*And, strange as this may seem, LAYER CAKE is a 15, too - why it's not an 18 I have absolutely no idea (and neither can I fathom exactly why M:I-2 - not exactly a festival of drugs, gore, nudity and foul language - was given a 15), but it shows that you can fill a film with all sorts of violence and unpleasantness and still end up with the same certificate as LTK.

Thanks for the info. LTK was PG-13 stateside, so I think 18 is equivalent to R, and I guess you don't have NC-17? (No kids no matter what.) Layer Cake was R here.

DIE ANOTHER DAY was a PG-13 in the US, too, yet it doesn't have the same certificate in the UK as LICENCE TO KILL. I believe all the Bonds since LTK have 12 certificates in Britain. I think the 12 rating was created at some point in the early '90s (in response to JURASSIC PARK, if I remember correctly), and if it didn't exist I imagine that all the Bonds from GOLDENEYE onwards would have been slightly cut by the British Board of Film Classification (or, more accurately, perhaps, cut more by the BBFC) in order to get PG certificates (everything from DR. NO up to and including THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is PG, although I can't help feeling that, if rated by the BBFC today, TLD would get a 12 [relatively hard-edged violence by Bond flick standards - see, for instance, the brutal brawl between Necros and that memorably tough butler, in which the latter gets a nasty and very visible burn via a gas ring or whatever it is - as well as some very brief partial nudity [but, again, fairly strong stuff by the standards of the series], and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER's genuinely nasty opening [a woman strangled by her own bra by a Bond who really looks as though he's thoroughly enjoying the situation] would rule out a PG).

[B007GLE]

No. Go for PG-13 in the US. THey need to open the appeal of the series not close it down.

Okay, so that's (d). What's your age (if you don't mind my asking)?

Don't mind at all Kara:

I'm 42 and hoping that Casino Royale will be the first BOnd film I can take my oldest son to. He'll be 10 when it comes out. I'll tkae him to a PG-13 Bond but not an R Bond.

I'm looking for "sadism for the entire family"!

[ComplimentsOfSha...]

A little sadism never hurt anybody...give me the family version though - keep Bond the way it is (PG-13).

I'm 18 btw.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]What

[Pierce James Bon...]

1. 18

2. D

I would hate to see the Bond series shut down because of an R rating. Although Die Anthoer Day had a more visusal sex scene than in any other Bond movies.
That was one they actually had to say tone down on the sex scene. Because that almost got an R rating.

-PJB

[Righty007]

1. 16

2. C/D

Normally I would say keep them PG-13 but I think Casino Royale should get an R rating so that we can see a good carpet beater torture scene, more sex, and smoking.

[Scaramanga's...]

Age: I'll be 15 when CR comes out.
Answer to question: D. Keep it as it is. If they make it an R, the ratings will probably go down. People say that they want a Bond closer to the original Bond, and the original Bond movies were PGs. Although I don't think a PG rating would be suitable for this movie(GoldenEye got a PG rating, and I wouldn't show it to anyone under 13, just beause of Xenia Onatopp...although it said on TV guide that it was PG-13). So, keep them PG-13, Eon. Plus, there are a lot of young Bond fans out there who would be dissapointed.(like myself, although I'll probably be able to see CR no matter what the rating is, I hope...)

[Righty007]

Although I don't think a PG rating would be suitable for this movie(GoldenEye got a PG rating, and I wouldn't show it to anyone under 13, just beause of Xenia Onatopp...although it said on TV guide that it was PG-13).

GoldenEye was the second James Bond film to get a PG-13 rating. Always trust your TV guide.

Welcome to CommanderBond.net!

[Turn]

1. Age 39
2. D - I'll admit I'd be curious to see the results of an all-out sex- and violence-filled Bond epic.

But in the end, I'm not sure just what that would add. Certainly no shock value after the countless shoot-em-up and slasher films, and probably nothing new in the sex department after the envelope-pushing films of the past couple of decades. Sometimes, less is more.

Didn't most fans here recently say they wouldn't want to see a director's cut of a Bond film? Isn't that pretty much the same thing as one with an R rating?

[Kara Milovy]

For the record, I'm 44, and I want them kept PG-13. My son is 15, and he agrees. We see them as a family, and he thinks it's wonderful that Bond is multi-generational (my father took me to my first Bond film when I was nine).

My editor thought I was being a little ridiculous to suggest that teens would want the nudity (especially) kept out of Bond films, and suggested I run a poll. He thought it sounded too "mom," and it would be better if others chimed in.

[ChickenStu]

I believe all the Bonds since LTK have 12 certificates in Britain. I think the 12 rating was created at some point in the early '90s (in response to JURASSIC PARK, if I remember correctly),

Sorry to be pedantic, but the 12 rating was created in response the first Batman movie. Jurassic Park is actually rated PG and always has been.

[Scorpion]

For the record, I'm 44, and I want them kept PG-13. My son is 15, and he agrees. We see them as a family, and he thinks it's wonderful that Bond is multi-generational (my father took me to my first Bond film when I was nine).

My earliest cinematic memory is of watching You Only Live Twice (it was a re-release in the hype for Connery's return in Diamonds Are Forever) at a drive in with my parents.

More recently, after doses of Thunderball, Moonraker and Octopussy on DVD, I was able to take my then 6 year old to see Die Another Day.

You can see my line of reasoning: Put me down as "PG" for your poll. Having Bond go "R" makes no sense from any point of view. I'm prepared to debate those who thing otherwise.

[SportzStooge007]

I'm 15, and I think that the Bond films should stay the way they are.

I can watch GF with my parents and little brother without incident.

I'd be very upset if a Bond were rated R, because I don't think Bond films need to have that much sex, violence, and strong language in it.

I think it cheapens the film, and makes it like any other action film with explosions, blood, and un-needed sex scenes.

In GF, we knew Bond had sex. We didn't have to see it to believe it.


Its part of the nostalgia of Bond, you can see it with the family without your mom turning red.