A Good Day To Die Hard is a 2013 USA action thriller by John Moore.
With Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch.
UK: Passed 12A for strong language and violence after advised category cuts were implemented for:
The film will be shown uncut in the US with an R rating (would be called 17A in Britain). No doubt most of the western world will see this uncut version too.
The BBFC commented:
During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission
This work was originally seen for advice in an unfinished form. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a 15 certificate but that their preferred 12A classification could be achieved by making a
number of cuts to both language and visuals. When the finished version of the film was submitted for formal classification, edits had been made:
to reduce the number of uses of strong language (both fuck and motherfucker) and
to reduce sequences of bloody violence, including blood sprays when characters are shot in the head, and punches to restrained individuals.
The formal submission was consequently rated '12A'.
Comment: So 20th Century
14th February 2013. See article
Bleeding Cooll website asked 20th Century Fox why they censored the upcoming cinema release of A Good Day to Die Hard . This was studio's response:
Everyone at Fox is excited that John McClane is back on the big screen in the latest installment of the Die Hard franchise, this time with his son and on foreign soil in Russia.
We can confirm that working with the BBFC some minor cuts were made in order to achieve a 12A certificate.
We believe the movie will delight the Die Hard fans and the 12A certificate, similar to Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall , will allow both adults and teenagers to enjoy the latest movie in the franchise.
Comment: Proper Censorship
14th February 2013. From David
Ah, fuck. The director's so proud of making sure it's a proper R-rated movie this time, so naturally in the UK it gets cut down to be a 12A instead of a 15. I guess I'll be waiting for the inevitable harder cut DVD to see A Good Day To Die Hard.
And they better fucking not pull that 12 DVD, uncut 15 Blu-Ray shit.
Comment: Proper Censorship
14th February 2013. From Andrew
There's a lot of heat over this disgraceful decision to give us a butchered Die Hard 5 , and a lot of talk as to why the UK seems to get lumped with snipped versions STILL.
It seems to me that the BBFC's choice to offer a cuts advice service is to blame (as well as, of course, the studio for being happy to give UK audiences a neutered product). Do other censorship bodies from other countries offer to coordinate with
the studio during the editing phase over exactly what cuts are needed to achieve a desired rating?
Do other countries not end up with so many butchered films because they don't offer this service, or to the same degree?
Well Germany, which tends to be the other European country most likely to cut films has decided that the will screen the uncut R Rated version. So maybe this Doe Hard fiasco will be just us.
Comment: A Good Day to Die Soft
15th February 2013. From MichaelG
This current trend for cutting films for the cinema (to make them available to a wider audience, naturally) is something of a paradox when you look at the situation once the film hits DVD and the film companies can't wait to get Extended Harder Cut
or Uncut Version screaming at you from the cover of the box ('Taken 2' and Savages are the two latest examples I can recall). Anyone else think this is odd? They seem to be alienating the audience the film was intended for at its cinema
release, but then clamouring to get them back for the DVD release, probably knowing full well (even though the BBFC don't seem to) that a younger audience are still going to watch an uncut version on DVD. Times have certainly changed since a cut cinema
release would be further cut again for home viewing...
Comment: A Good Day to Blame Fox
15th February 2013. From Andrew N
Ok, first up, let me stress that i am in no way condoning any previous (Ferman era especially) BBFC decisions. HOWEVER, the current net trend of slating them, everytime something gets watered down, is pretty dumb. Seeing as the they are simply ADVISING
distributors of what would need TO BE done, to get an inappropriate film, into an appropriate rating. I (like you) don't rate censorship in any way, shape, or form. HOWEVER, this is not about censorship. It's about the almighty Dollar.
Read the answer Fox gave to Bleedingcool.com, they completely dodged the question, and went straight for the sale. Familiar character, you all watched the last one yadda yadda yadda.
The thing is, John McClane has now become a caricature of the original character. He's not the dude from Die hard, he's an all American hero who can't be killed. And just to prove that, they put him in more and more ludicrous situations. Sadly, these
situations are very appealing to young boys. Ticket buying, money spending young boys. And Fox knows this. Because despite the flood of net nerds digitally bashing the 4th movie, it did amazing business. Which means somewhere in the U.S. (the UK played
at 15, regardless of the cut ) 10's of millions of people flocked to the local multiplex to see it.
And Fox knows this. Why wouldn't they?
So why the 12? Or to be more exact the 12A . Well it's the A that's Fox's ace in the hole. You see in the UK, ANYONE can see any film 12A or below. Providing they're with an adequate guardian. However, in the U.S. ANYONE can see an R rated film
(again, providing they're with an adequate guardian). The only difference being that the R rating carries an age restriction of 17, not 12. So anyone under 17 can go and see McClane jumping out of windows into a questionable CGI drop. And here's where
the line blurs, and the bean counters take notice.
Because that 5 year gap (12 - 17) is the EXACT demographic of today's Die hard fan. And while a BBFC 15 falls right in the middle, no parent in the UK can legally take a nagging 11 year old to see it. And those nagging 11 year olds spend a shit load of
money, on tickets, concessions, and more to point, they always travel in groups.
Die hard is an adult film, would anyone really have objected to ANOTHER 15 rated Die hard movie in the UK (baring in mind, 3 out of the first 4 now carry this rating, and it's only a case of time before Die hard 2 is dropped to it)?
Yes they would've. But all of those people work for Fox, and couldn't give two shits about your viewing pleasure, as long as you (and more importantly your kids) keep paying.
Oh and as a final note, watch out for the (guaranteed) HARDER CUT on home video. As once again, Fox try to sell you something you should've already been privvy too.
Chances are, you'll buy it too.
In these cases of cutting adult films for kids, lay of the BBFC, and go for the money hungry distributors. They're the ones cutting your films. No one else.
Offsite: Do Newspaper film critics reckon Die Hard 5 is best left to the 12 year olds?
15th February 2013. See article