Will there ever be an R rated Bond film?

24

Comments

  • Posts: 12,526
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I'm guessing "15" or "18" is the equivilent in the UK.

    To be honest I hope we don't. While I know full well Bond is (or at least was) made for adults primarily, the vast majority of us first experience Bond as a kid. An "R rated" film wouldn't allow that to happen.

    Exactly Bain123. That's why i hope it does not happen. Bond can and has been alot tougher and darker, especially lately and done in such a way as to not get in my view an incorrect rating.

    Which means no one gets to miss out which is how it should be. That's why its been around for 50 years and long may it continue!

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    [quote="Creasy47No worries, I'm an American, too. I believe those are the European rating numbers, yes.[/quote]

    Over here in Belgium you're either allowed in or you aren't. Sometimes, sporadically, the limit is set at age 12 but it's mostly 16.

    That said, I don't think we need an R rated Bond film, unless the MPAA goes mad. ;-) Oh, wait. (I'm a slasher fan: I have quite a few good reasons for hating the MPAA with passion.)

    Anyway, I don't need boobies or extraviolence in a Bond film.


  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @DarthDimi, is your MPAA hate because of all the PG-13 ratings attached to slasher films these days, and we rarely get a good one?

    Some of the scariest, most intense horror films I've seen lately are R-Rated: The Descent (has to be my favorite), House of Wax, The Strangers, The Hills Have Eyes, Vacancy, etc.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    @Creasy47, the MPAA has effectively destroyed the highlight era of the slasher film: the 80s. Ordering numerous cuts before even allowing an R rating (instead of an X rating), the MPAA tarnished the legacy of Freddy Krueger, Michael Meyers, Jason Vorhees, ... It's devastating to read about all the issues people like Wes Craven, Sean Cunningham, Steve Miner and many more faced before they could finally release their films. The MPAA also inspired the 'video nasty' witch hunt in the UK, where certain cuts of the Exorcist and sometimes entire films (e.g. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) were banned for the longest time possible.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    DarthDimi wrote:
    @Creasy47, the MPAA has effectively destroyed the highlight era of the slasher film: the 80s. Ordering numerous cuts before even allowing an R rating (instead of an X rating), the MPAA tarnished the legacy of Freddy Krueger, Michael Meyers, Jason Vorhees, ... It's devastating to read about all the issues people like Wes Craven, Sean Cunningham, Steve Miner and many more faced before they could finally release their films. The MPAA also inspired the 'video nasty' witch hunt in the UK, where certain cuts of the Exorcist and sometimes entire films (e.g. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) were banned for the longest time possible.

    Unbelievable. I wish there was a way to completely watch an unrated director's cut of all films: three, four, five hours long, it would be beautiful. No cuts, deleted scenes, nothing. The Town did something to this effect, but I just wish we could see it throughout all genres, all the time. Would make me that much more excited to see a film when it is released on home video format.

    But you are right, so many horror films get butchered (no pun intended) because of massive cuts.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    In short, an R rating will never happen in the US. They don't want to go above a PG-13 because to do so would (in theory) bar everyone under 17 from seeing it without a parent. Eon wouldn't want to give up the teen audience, who are the most reliable repeat viewers.

    Even The Hunger Games, despite its violent premise, was carefully edited so as to get an PG-13 instead of an R.
  • Posts: 4,762
    I hope not, strictly because there is no reason for it to be rated R. If there has to be that much language and sex to be rated R, it's not movie at all, but just a way for people to feel cool for going to see something that is rated R and for Hollywood to cash in on many people's poor sense of morality. I thank the directors and producers of the Bond series for not ever letting it get to an R rating; I think it shows true courage and a sense of pride in being able to create fascinating films without the unnecessary junk found throughout many of today's movies.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @00Beast, that's the reason I wouldn't want one: because it would be some nudity/gore fest, and would totally take me out of the atmosphere that is a James Bond film. I've never wanted to kill to see tons of gore from Bond, or prayed that all of the Bond girls appeared nude; the Craig films today are already gritty enough, I sometimes feel like it is R-rated.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @00Beast, that's the reason I wouldn't want one: because it would be some nudity/gore fest, and would totally take me out of the atmosphere that is a James Bond film. I've never wanted to kill to see tons of gore from Bond, or prayed that all of the Bond girls appeared nude; the Craig films today are already gritty enough, I sometimes feel like it is R-rated.

    It does seem so, yes. It blows my mind that Hollywood thinks that society needs to be shown the raunchiest and grossest aspects of film in order for it to be entertaining. Since that's the way today's movie go-ers are looking like, then I doubt there is any way to turn it around. Thankfully the Bond series seems to be sticking to its guns most of the time. Even still, there are many apsects of the Bond movies where I would have cut that out, such as the sex scenes and all of the language, especially in LTK. Both are really not needed for anyone to enjoy the movie.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    even CR's PTS fight, which was quite gritty and realistic IMO, was far from being an R rated scene. I didn't see any blood flying around, or any 'gory' bruises. and IMO, that fight was about as violent as I need to see in a Bond film.

    @Creasy compare that fight with scenes from 'I saw the devil'.... you'll probably see we don't need stuff like that in Bond films (even if these scenes are awesome in non-Bond flicks), and CR was violent enough for Bond standards.
  • Posts: 4,762
    @DaltonCraig007: I was very surprised to see that you voted for Casino Royale against Dr. No! I thought you disliked Craig's 007 as well as both CR and QoS. Did you see CR in a new light recently?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    00Beast wrote:
    @DaltonCraig007: I was very surprised to see that you voted for Casino Royale against Dr. No! I thought you disliked Craig's 007 as well as both CR and QoS. Did you see CR in a new light recently?

    last time I saw DN, I thought was film was just slow, too slow. Connery is immense, yes, but the film looks cheap and has an appalling pace. I gladly take CR, which is for me the best made film in the franchise, even if I prefer Connery's performance in DN to Craig in CR.

  • Posts: 4,762
    00Beast wrote:
    @DaltonCraig007: I was very surprised to see that you voted for Casino Royale against Dr. No! I thought you disliked Craig's 007 as well as both CR and QoS. Did you see CR in a new light recently?

    last time I saw DN, I thought was film was just slow, too slow. Connery is immense, yes, but the film looks cheap and has an appalling pace. I gladly take CR, which is for me the best made film in the franchise, even if I prefer Connery's performance in DN to Craig in CR.

    So where do you rank Casino Royale, might I ask? At present, I believe it's right outside the top 10 for me, around the 11-14 margin.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2012 Posts: 15,713
    00Beast wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    @DaltonCraig007: I was very surprised to see that you voted for Casino Royale against Dr. No! I thought you disliked Craig's 007 as well as both CR and QoS. Did you see CR in a new light recently?

    last time I saw DN, I thought was film was just slow, too slow. Connery is immense, yes, but the film looks cheap and has an appalling pace. I gladly take CR, which is for me the best made film in the franchise, even if I prefer Connery's performance in DN to Craig in CR.

    So where do you rank Casino Royale, might I ask? At present, I believe it's right outside the top 10 for me, around the 11-14 margin.

    CR was 21st, but I think it may have well jumped to 19th, or even slightly higher !!

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Exactly. Both CR and QoS were very gritty, brutal, deadly films, that still managed to keep a PG-13 rating.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Exactly. Both CR and QoS were very gritty, brutal, deadly films, that still managed to keep a PG-13 rating.

    That's what I believe needs to continue happening with the series- maintain the legendary stuff we would expect and even throw in new elements of violence and dark plots but secure a PG-13 rating to allow all fans to watch the series!
  • Given that young boys are a huge part of Bond's audience I can't imagine we'll ever get a R rated film for some time. I could imagine them releasing an "unrated" DVD version of a Bond film in the next few years but really it seems unlikely. The Bond films generally don't need tinkering after the fact; I don't think that there are a *lot* of deleted scenes included in the discs, are there? The more deleted scenes made available and different versions of a Bond film would lead to "dilution of brand" where the films look a little less special - like we weren't getting the best version that we could have and that they need to be "fixed".

    That's the problem I'd have with it. My boy is 11. And while I can monitor what he watches, I'd have to take him because there is no way a Bond film can come out now without me taking him.

  • edited June 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Oops, double post, please feel free to remove this post mods
  • Posts: 4,813
    It's a good bet that Quentin Tarantino's Casino Royale would have been R rated for sure- would have been interesting hearing Pierce's Bond dropping F-Bombs and bloody headshots- surrounded by nudity 8->

    If ever there is another long hiatus like with Licence to Kill to GoldenEye in the series, then they should give an R rated movie a shot and see how it goes when they come back
  • 00Beast wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    @DaltonCraig007: I was very surprised to see that you voted for Casino Royale against Dr. No! I thought you disliked Craig's 007 as well as both CR and QoS. Did you see CR in a new light recently?

    last time I saw DN, I thought was film was just slow, too slow. Connery is immense, yes, but the film looks cheap and has an appalling pace. I gladly take CR, which is for me the best made film in the franchise, even if I prefer Connery's performance in DN to Craig in CR.

    So where do you rank Casino Royale, might I ask? At present, I believe it's right outside the top 10 for me, around the 11-14 margin.

    CR was 21st, but I think it may have well jumped to 19th, or even slightly higher !!


    @-) Say it ain't so! Are you pranking us today DC? Maybe had a few Vespers?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,713
    @-) Say it ain't so! Are you pranking us today DC? Maybe had a few Vespers?

    I didn't say CR was now in my top 10.... but if I updated my ranking, it would move from #21 to about #18 or #17.....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    Interesting development, this. You'll soon be one of us, DC. ;-)

    Tell me where you want the tattoo. ;-)
  • Posts: 2,341
    R rated Bond? Heck No.

    R rated films are no longer in vogue. Studios feel that the R rating cuts down on some potential "asses" in the seats.
    There was a time when R rated films were the rage (mostly 80's and 70's) but those days are behind us. the rising production costs, etc. Studios and investors want their money back and better sooner than late.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    There are a lot of moments from Bond that could have entitled the films to be rated R if they were released today.

    For example, do you really think the MPAA would be as lenient on the scene from Goldeneye where Xenia strangles the admiral with her thighs? I don't think so. That, along with LTK, CR and QOS gritty and darker style, is the closest we'll get to an R-Rated Bond film. And I say that with the view of it being a good thing.

    If Bond was rated R, it would become "just another action movie franchise."
  • Posts: 5,634
    If you look back since the start of the film franchise, has there been anything overly nefarious, horrendous, offensive, anything you can categorize etc, that any one individual on the street or viewing public would take issue with ?, not really if you think about it, even meaner or mature teenager focused releases such as License to Kill and the two recent Craig entries, there was nothing that would warrant a complaint or anyone would take issue with in terms of violence, profanities or unsuitable content. Point being, that's just how I like them, I would though, be all for an NC-17 (18) release in theaters and a global audience, but I think only as a one off, sort of what they did in 1989, but that was on a more benign degree for Daltons final apperance

    I think one man's questionable moment in any film is another man's indifferent apathy or 'what is all the furore about' kind of thing, but as of now, I said before I do feel, one day in the not too distant future, an adult themed Bond release could just happen
  • I think one man's questionable moment in any film is another man's indifferent apathy or 'what is all the furore about' kind of thing, but as of now, I said before I do feel, one day in the not too distant future, an adult themed Bond release could just happen

    There is an alternate point to consider - we always don't become more permissive in our entertainment. While not *directly* related to the MPAA look at what has happened to American television in the last few years.

    With the rise in power of social conservatives the FCC began a crackdown on what was allowed on TV and radio. People always think of exceptional incidents like the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction". But there were more disturbing incidents IMHO because they weren't as sensational.

    I can't recall how many times I had seen DAF on TV in the 80s and it was relatively uncut. But in 2002 the film was altered for the scene where Plenty is thrown off the balcony and into the pool. Her skin-coloured panties were digitally changed to black and a bra was digitally painted on to her. Here's the kicker - you never saw her breasts, the bra straps across her back were what were painted on. She wasn't even nude, it was the *idea* that she was topless that was so offensive. Seriously? It's fine to burn a man to death, but the *idea* that a woman is topless is over the line?

    Since then things have calmed down at the FCC but I think that's a indication that moral standards can change (not necessarily in the general public, but in ratings boards). Who knows what things that we think are completely harmless now could be considered taboo in the future?

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    There are a lot of moments from Bond that could have entitled the films to be rated R if they were released today.

    For example, do you really think the MPAA would be as lenient on the scene from Goldeneye where Xenia strangles the admiral with her thighs? I don't think so. That, along with LTK, CR and QOS gritty and darker style, is the closest we'll get to an R-Rated Bond film. And I say that with the view of it being a good thing.

    If Bond was rated R, it would become "just another action movie franchise."

    I don't think any Bond film would be rated R if released today, not even LTK.

    I think the MPAA has become more lenient, not more strict. We're a far way from the days when married couples onscreen had to sleep in separate beds!
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    edited November 2012 Posts: 260
    I wouldn't mind an R rated bond outing. If it was done right of course. But honestly in my opinion a movie does not have to be more serious or better just because it has an R rating. Bond can still hold a PG-13 rating and still be very dark,serious and great at the same tiime. Most R Rated movies slap the rating on sometimes just to make it look cool I think ...but anyways if Bond were to be made R someday I wouldn't mind, I'm assuming there would be more graphic nudity during the bedroom scenes, and perhaps more cursing somewhat. But a good bond movie doesn't necessarily need all that fluff. All I want is a Casino Royale 2.0, unfortunately I dont think I'll be receiving that from EON anytime soon after seeing BoreFall.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Not only do I think that we'll never see an R-rated Bond film, but after fifty years of the Bond series, I don't think it's necessary. I don't need cuss words, and I think the sex scenes between Bond and the girls are already 'spicy' enough without the nudity.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    An 'X' Bond then... ?
Sign In or Register to comment.