94 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

for me, Eva Green is the new vıagra

[bond_girl_double07]

for me, Eva Green is the new vıagra

This thread is going to a creepy place

[Skudor]

for me, Eva Green is the new vıagra

You are far to young to be needing vıagra harkers. But I do have to agree.

[bond_girl_double07]

for me, Eva Green is the new vıagra

You are far to young to be needing vıagra harkers. But I do have to agree.

To think I kept myself from making any comment whatsoever about naked tortured DC the other day.. sigh, all the "thread of shame" comments that could have been

[stamper]

Just bring november 17 NOW !

[Jack Spang]

Shame really. It should be rated for those aged atleast 15 years and over otherwise they shouldn't have shot it so graphic in the first place! It ruins it a little when parts have been cut in post. Is PG13 the same rating that License to Kill got? If not, then I think they made a mistake. It should have the same rating as LTK or else as I said not been so graphic in the first place.

What I can say is that I would much prefer to see the BRITISH version than the AMERICAN. Atleast in the British version you know that it is ONLY the torture sequence that has been touched. In the American version there are parts scattered throughout the film that have been cut which is frustrating to think of.

I'm not up with all the censorship laws. What about other countries? Will they either get the British or Amercian version and then cut even more if they feel it is necessary or will they receive the original uncut version and then decide what they will cut if anything?

Edited by Jack Spang, 14 October 2006 - 10:00 PM.

[richyawyingtmv]

Is PG13 the same rating that License to Kill got? If not, then I think they made a mistake. Eon/Sony trying to pander to the biggest market possible. :roll: It should have the same rating as LTK or else as I said not been so graphic in the first place.

It IS the same rating as LTK. That got a PG-13.

Edited by richyawyingtmv, 14 October 2006 - 10:21 PM.

[Loomis]

CASINO ROYALE was submitted to the BBFC, but some minor tweaks had to be made before resubmission (to the torture scene, specifically).

I find that very, very easy to believe. Keep trusting your insider.

As I've said before, you can get away with a hell of a lot in a 12A, for example Minority Report, the Bourne films, Terminator 3, Batman Begins, War Of The Worlds.

Also MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III. I find it very odd that that's a 12, but the rather tamer M:I-2 is a 15.

And I'm amazed that T3 managed to get a 12.

[Jackanaples]

I work at the Los Angeles Public Library. One of my regular patrons happens to a member of the MPAA. I like talking to him about movies because he has seen them all ahead of time.

He came in this morning purposely to tell me that he has seen CASINO ROYALE. Briefly, he told me that it was fantastic, the best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER. He said Daniel Craig's Bond was, "tough, sinewy, unpredictible, unreadable. He's volatile and no one to mess with."

He also mentioned that the movie is 180 degrees away from lightweight quippy entries in the series. He also singled out the chase sequences and the main titles as very creative and amazing. Sorry, but I didn't have time to ask about the music, the poker game, or anything else.

Edited to add: A couple months ago, he mentioned having to watch TLD and LTK again to re-rate them. He said it was a real chore, as they were "insipid." I mention this because some were wondering if CR was going to be like the Dalton films. My guess from what he told is no, they're going to be something completely new and cool.

Edited by Jackanaples, 14 October 2006 - 11:44 PM.

[Vauxhall]

Phew! "Best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER" - that would be unbelievable!! The most optimistic I'm allowing myself to become at the moment is best since THE SPY WHO LOVED ME or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but even if it got to that level, I would be astounded and greatly pleased. Thanks for that little insight Jackanaples. Gradually getting closer now and the excitement builds every day.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Casino Royale Secures A PG-13 Rating

_{'Intense scenes of action violence, a scene of torture, sexual content, and nudity'}

[Jack Spang]

I find it a little worrying that DAD and the other Brosnan movies also received a PG 13 rating. They barely even had any blood present. Casino Royale sounds alot more violent and graphic than the Brosnan installments. Have they cut out that much?!

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 October 2006 - 01:38 AM.

[Qwerty]

I find it a little worrying that DAD and the other Brosnan movies also received a PG 13 rating. They barely even had any blood present. Casino Royale sounds alot more violent and graphic than the Brosnan installments. Have they cut out that much?!

...but this particular Bond film sounds like it has a very 'hard' PG-13.

[kneelbeforezod]

He came in this morning purposely to tell me that he has seen CASINO ROYALE. Briefly, he told me that it was fantastic, the best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER. He said Daniel Craig's Bond was, "tough, sinewy, unpredictible, unreadable. He's volatile and no one to mess with."

Fascinating! You need to grill this guy further, we need a full review!

A couple months ago, he mentioned having to watch TLD and LTK again to re-rate them. He said it was a real chore, as they were "insipid." I mention this because some were wondering if CR was going to be like the Dalton films.

It always bugged me when people on these forums would claim that any attempt to make a more serious film than DAD would inevitably result in something like TLD, an average film at best. Glad to hear CR is proof that isn't the case.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 15 October 2006 - 02:21 AM.

[Jack Spang]

Sweet. I guess there are different levels within a rating Qwerty, which is good.

Do you know about censorship in other countries? Will other countries either get the British or American version or will they receive the original uncut version and then censor parts of it they deem necessary or maybe not even touch it and possibly give it a higher rating?

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 October 2006 - 02:23 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

I find it a little worrying that DAD and the other Brosnan movies also received a PG 13 rating. They barely even had any blood present. Casino Royale sounds alot more violent and graphic than the Brosnan installments. Have they cut out that much?!

Stop worrying about violence and gore!

[Jack Spang]

It's not the violence and gore I'm worried about. It's the trimming of scenes. The film doesn't look as good as it could when stuff has been trimmed back. If they wanted the film to be more tame, they should have shot more tame scenes in the first place so they didn't have to chop parts out of the film.

[Qwerty]

Sweet. I guess there are different levels within a rating Qwerty, which is good.

Do you know about censorship in other countries? Will other countries either get the British or American version or will they receive the original uncut version and then censor parts of it they deem necessary or maybe not even touch it and possibly give it a higher rating?

From what I've heard the MPAA (US) and the BBFC (UK) create an interesting problem at times for Bond films in that the US often flips out over the sex, but hardly cares as much about the violence, whereas it is the exact opposite in the UK.

If talking about what other countries will rate the film, I'd suggest looking at the international certificates for Die Another Day (as Casino Royale will probably get the exact same ones):

Certification: Canada:PA (Manitoba) / Canada:AA (Ontario) / Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) / USA:PG-13 (certificate #39340) / Canada:14A (Alberta/British Columbia) / Canada:13+ (Quebec) / Malaysia:U / Argentina:13 / Australia:M / Brazil:14 / Finland:K-15 / Germany:12 / Iceland:12 / Ireland:12 / Netherlands:12 / New Zealand:M / Norway:15 / Peru:14 / Philippines:PG-13 / Portugal:M/12 / Singapore:M18 / Singapore:PG (cut) / Spain:13 / Sweden:11 / Switzerland:14 (canton of Geneva) / Switzerland:14 (canton of Vaud) / Switzerland:14 (canton of the Grisons) / UK:12A (original rating) / UK:12 (video rating) (2003)

[Jack Spang]

Thanks. I hope to see a version more in line with the British one. Not because of the sex but because they will only trim the torture scene. In the American verison they have left this intact but various other parts of the film have been trimmed back. It's frustrating not knowing what they are. Though I guess if it is only sex and nudity, I'd rather see the Amercian version.

Edited by Jack Spang, 15 October 2006 - 02:58 AM.

[Harmsway]

Thanks. I hope to see a version more in line with the British one. Not because of the sex but because they will only trim the torture scene. In the American verison they have left this intact but various other parts of the film have been trimmed back. It's frustrating not knowing what they are. Though I guess if it is only sex and nudity, I'd rather see the Amercian version.

The sex scene edit for DIE ANOTHER DAY was seamless - and sometimes, it's not cutting stuff per se, it's replacing shots with alternate ones.

Though I guess if it is only sex and nudity, I'd rather see the Amercian version.

You and me both. My source stated that edits in the American version were absolutely minute (as in the DIE ANOTHER DAY sex scene-edit minute). So I don't think we in the USA are missing out on much, and I'd much rather have an untouched torture scene than an untouched sex scene.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm happy. I was taken to see Bond by my parents when I was 6, 8, 12, etc.

My own has been brought up on Thunderball/Moonraker/Octopussy d.v.d.s and on Die Another Day in the theatre 4 years ago.

Bonds are family entertainment and i'm happy i'll be able to take my 10 year old to Casino Royale.

A few micro seconds of cuts are insignifanct when you have the spine of a Fleming being adapted for the first time since 1973. That's the most important thing.

We dont need graphic violence and full frontal nudity to appreciate Casino Royale and i'm glad the Eon crew is maintaining long standing tradition regarding family entertainment.

[Harmsway]

We dont need graphic violence and full frontal nudity to appreciate Casino Royale and i'm glad the Eon crew is maintaining long standing tradition regarding family entertainment.

The PG-13 move is purely financial (it's better for success than an R), not one of honoring family entertainment. CASINO ROYALE is anything but "fun for the family" - it's dark, violent, intense, and in places gruesome. Despite a PG-13 rating, I wouldn't bring any children to this film in good conscience.

[HildebrandRarity]

We dont need graphic violence and full frontal nudity to appreciate Casino Royale and i'm glad the Eon crew is maintaining long standing tradition regarding family entertainment.

The PG-13 move is purely financial (it's better for success than an R), not one of honoring family entertainment. CASINO ROYALE is anything but "fun for the family" - it's dark, violent, intense, and in places gruesome. Despite a PG-13 rating, I wouldn't bring any children to this film in good conscience.

Sure it's financial. It's always been financial, Harmsway, at least since strinking the vein with Goldfinger.

As for dark, violent, intense and in places gruesome, so was Lord Of The Rings and Revenge of the Sith...so Casino Royale has no exclusivity about it other than it's set in the here and now with no dark lords using magic/force, etc.

You can make the argument that CR's version of dark, violent, intense and grusome may be 'real' but that's what's selling and that's what kids like/want. I dont know if you are a parent, Harmsway, but Casino Royale will appeal to a 10 year old. No question in my mind. And the kids are smart enough to know that, in the end, it's a popcorn flick. It's popcorn entertainment.

Dont kid yourself about it being anything other wise. Eon aren't in the business of producing art house films with 'depth' and realism for realism sake. They are catering to a mass audience including the kids because that's where the multiple viewership resides.

Bottom line is that I can do for my child what my parents did for me while going to see Sean and Roger as Bond at the same age and i'm happy with it.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 15 October 2006 - 03:40 AM.

[Harmsway]

As for dark, violent, intense and in places gruesome, so was Lord Of The Rings and Revenge of the Sith...so Casino Royale has no exclusivity about it other than it's set in the here and now with no dark lords using magic/force, etc.

Honestly, I think CASINO ROYALE is worse. Not only is it set in a real world with real people dying (instead of orcs and stuff), it has a brutal, extended torture sequence, of which neither of those things have anything to compare to. Just to give you an idea of what's in this film:

Spoiler

Bond stabs a thug through the neck with a wooden stake during one fight scene.

I dont know if you are a parent, Harmsway, but Casino Royale will appeal to a 10 year old. No question in my mind. And the kids are smart enough to know that, in the end, it's a popcorn flick. It's popcorn entertainment.

Depends on what you want to expose your kids to. I wouldn't do it, just like I wouldn't take a 10-year-old to THE BOURNE IDENTITY or THE BOURNE SUPREMACY.

[Arch Stanton]

Thanks. I hope to see a version more in line with the British one. Not because of the sex but because they will only trim the torture scene. In the American verison they have left this intact but various other parts of the film have been trimmed back. It's frustrating not knowing what they are. Though I guess if it is only sex and nudity, I'd rather see the Amercian version.

I'm guessing, like DAD, that the only cut is going to be a quick second or two in one of the sex scenes. I doubt there will be cuts throughout the whole movie, though. And the PG-13 rating has a VERY WIDE range of extremes, so don't worry about this not being a "hard" PG-13 if there are films with the same rating that aren't as extreme.

[JimmyBond]

When I was eight years old, my dad and I saw the movie Robocop 2. It was a dark, violent (and ultimately, bad) movie. And I loved it because of that, I ate up the excessively violent scenes, the dark nature, and the sadistic characters. Kids love that stuff, I know I sure did.

[Harmsway]

Kids love that stuff, I know I sure did.

It's not a matter of kids loving that stuff, IMO - it's a matter of judgement as to whether it's a smart thing to desensitize children to violence and influence them with what I consider to be an extremely hazy moral sense when they don't quite know how to process it.

But hey, I don't want to get into an argument about how kids should be raised - *I* wouldn't take any 10-year-olds to CASINO ROYALE and that's all I'm saying, no more.

[JimmyBond]

But hey, I don't want to get into an argument about how kids should be raised - *I* wouldn't take any 10-year-olds to CASINO ROYALE and that's all I'm saying, no more.

And I'm sure many people at the time said: "I'd never take a ten year old to see that new Robocop film." I'm really not trying to start a debate here (my ideas on how to raise a kid vs. your ideas would probably make a great debate...but not here), just pointing out that some kids can handle that imagery and still lead a normal life.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

When I was eight years old, my dad and I saw the movie Robocop 2. It was a dark, violent (and ultimately, bad) movie. And I loved it because of that, I ate up the excessively violent scenes, the dark nature, and the sadistic characters. Kids love that stuff, I know I sure did.

I know the feeling. Reminds me of seeing T2 on the big screen with my grandfather when I was four.

[Harmsway]

I'm really not trying to start a debate here (my ideas on how to raise a kid vs. your ideas would probably make a great debate...but not here), just pointing out that some kids can handle that imagery and still lead a normal life.

Oh, I'm hardly in the camp that thinks it would turn a kid into something other than a "normal" human being or cause serious problems... but still, there are many people who are "normal" that I wouldn't want to see my children raised to be.

But that's all I'm going to say on the subject.