BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[CatSword]

Originally Posted by Chris J

Not really a BBFC-related decision, but I wonder why Mario Odyssey got a B from CERO, the same rating as Breath of the Wild. Maybe they had the same issues with the vomiting Cookatiel as the ESRB when they gave it an E10+.

It was rated as such for "violence" and "crime". A few of the bosses are female, and violence towards women is considered stronger by CERO than the typical Mario enemy. One theory I found is that the "crime" relates to the Capture system, in making people do things against their will (even if in the most innocuous context imaginable).

CERO notably tightened their guidelines around 2013 or so, leading to scenarios like Persona 4, which was rated CERO B on the PS2, being bumped to a C for the "Golden" PS Vita edition. It's also worth noting that none of CERO's ratings are restricted other than Z (18+), meaning C and D-rated games are openly advertised during children's anime and sold to kids. Hence, Nintendo had no issue with Mario getting a B rating - though a few distributors have made edits for an A before, it's far more likely to see a Z get censored to a D, or in the case of GTA V, so it can be released at all.

[Chris J]

Originally Posted by CatSword

It was rated as such for "violence" and "crime". A few of the bosses are female, and violence towards women is considered stronger by CERO than the typical Mario enemy. One theory I found is that the "crime" relates to the Capture system, in making people do things against their will (even if in the most innocuous context imaginable).

CERO notably tightened their guidelines around 2013 or so, leading to scenarios like Persona 4, which was rated CERO B on the PS2, being bumped to a C for the "Golden" PS Vita edition. It's also worth noting that none of CERO's ratings are restricted other than Z (18+), meaning C and D-rated games are openly advertised during children's anime and sold to kids. Hence, Nintendo had no issue with Mario getting a B rating - though a few distributors have made edits for an A before, it's far more likely to see a Z get censored to a D, or in the case of GTA V, so it can be released at all.

Huh, interesting!

[Severe-Operation-347]

Originally Posted by CatSword

I understand an 18 for Prison School based on some of the imagery having clear BDSM undertones, though I would agree with a 16, and I think it's more appropriate for teens to watch than High School DxD. (I originally watched Prison School censored - it works just fine as a comedy/suspense, while DxD is little more than softcore.)

Shimoneta is one that I wrote to the BBFC about when it was first classified - while the show is a raunchy sex comedy, I felt like an 18 rating was too much for the guidelines at the time, especially as giving it a 15 rating would have also allowed for advisories for very strong language and sexual violence instead of just "strong sex references". They broke down to me that the main reason for the series getting an 18 was how young some of the characters spouting off these sexual references looked (though I'm pretty sure they're supposed to all be in high school). There's no chance of it getting downgraded under current guidelines on "pornographic" language at 15 and sexual violence, and its updated insight would likely be "strong sex references, sexual violence".

Panty and Stocking doesn't have explicit sex or even much fanservice per say, but it was the multiple C-words in the dub as well as the framing of a nose-picking like penetration that got the second disc an 18. Another one that would be perfect for a 16.

I think most cheesecake shows are fine at 15, while the ones that are running with basically no plot whatsoever than "look at these tits" (To Love Ru) should be an 18. Azur Lane got an 18 based on literally one bathing scene in which the purpose is "look at these tits", which I would disagree with. All sorts of 15-rated films have gratuitous boobage, regardless of its intended purpose. We're far from the days of Tenchi Muyo!'s fourth OVA, which spends several minutes on Tenchi and his dad trying to peep on the women's bath, Ryouko purposely flashing almost full-frontal at him to get a reaction, her arguing with Ayeka about "exhibitionism" then pulling off her towel, etc., getting a PG on VHS.

Some of the most "extreme" examples that aren't hentai, like Interspecies Reviewers and Redo of Healer, are unlikely to ever get a UK release. I think Interspecies Reviewers would likely get an 18 uncut, while Redo of Healer would at least need significant cuts to its second episode. While they have been passing a lot of pinku with sexual violence for titillatory purposes recently, the pure sadism of what a character we are supposed to see as the hero does, including (warning: matter-of-fact but graphic description of sexual violence)

[Show spoiler]breaking her fingers, threatening her with a burning metal rod that if she doesn't beg for him "they're both going in" before roughly anally penetrating her, her screaming in agony the whole time and laid out naked in a puddle of urine after,

is unprecedented, and the BBFC passing that would pretty much be a blind endorsement to all sexual violence in film. (It would also make it look even more ridiculous that they banned Reality Killers.)

Also, it seems like the BBFC cracking down on ecchi anime trickled down to the junior categories - the episode insights for series like K-On! (formerly a PG, now a 12) and Welcome to Demon School! Iruma-kun are absolutely obsessed with lines like "Some shots emphasize the physical attributes of the characters." and "The episode also contains occasional focus on the bodies of the schoolgirls..." earning them 12 ratings, but as someone who's watched both of those series, they seemed almost entirely free of fanservice. Am I just jaded?

Speaking of anime, I've always wondered what Cross Ange would've gotten had Sentai Filmworks decided to release it in the UK. My guess is a 15 for sexual threat, strong bloody violence, sexualised nudity and strong language. The sexual violence is attempted and isn't explicit in nature, and the violence while very strong doesn't dwell on injury. It's less graphic then Invincible's 15-rated episodes (doesn't show internal organs) for example.

As for K-On, I haven't seen it, but I always assumed that was a show that lacked fanservice overall, and was more supposed to be cute. It did make the "cute girls doing cute things/moe" anime genre more popular. Seems surprising the BBFC gave it a 12 for that reason.

[PurpleDynamite2]

Originally Posted by Severe-Operation-347

Speaking of anime, I've always wondered what Cross Ange would've gotten had Sentai Filmworks decided to release it in the UK. My guess is a 15 for sexual threat, strong bloody violence, sexualised nudity and strong language. The sexual violence is attempted and isn't explicit in nature, and the violence while very strong doesn't dwell on injury. It's less graphic then Invincible's 15-rated episodes (doesn't show internal organs) for example.

As for K-On, I haven't seen it, but I always assumed that was a show that lacked fanservice overall, and was more supposed to be cute. It did make the "cute girls doing cute things/moe" anime genre more popular. Seems surprising the BBFC gave it a 12 for that reason.

Cross Ange is an R18+ in Australia for sexual violence so a 15 in the UK sounds unlikely to me.

[OutlawTorn]

Novocaine is definitely a borderline 15/18, but I would probably go for 15. However there’s a torture scene involving removal of fingernails and if I remember rightly the BBFC have given an 18 for just that on its own in the past. (American Assassin & Ozark spring to mind). Maybe Novocaine is different as no pain is actually being inflicted due to the nature of the plot?

[j bird]

Originally Posted by OutlawTorn

Novocaine is definitely a borderline 15/18, but I would probably go for 15. However there’s a torture scene involving removal of fingernails and if I remember rightly the BBFC have given an 18 for just that on its own in the past. (American Assassin & Ozark spring to mind). Maybe Novocaine is different as no pain is actually being inflicted due to the nature of the plot?

Haven't seen the film yet but from the snippet of the torture scene in the trailer I can assume that the protagonists inability to feel pain and the overt comic nature of the scene serve as mitigating factors.

A similar scene of torture was passed at 15 in an episode of Peacemaker where a character has their toe dismembered, the comedic tone detracting from what is a grisly scene of violence.

[hakunamufasa]

Yeah, there's no rule which says torture scenes are automatically 18, it's just where they're exceptionally sustained and sadistic, with focus on victim's pain or evident glee/mockery from the perpetrator.

Reservoir Dogs and Wolf Creek 2 are rock-solid examples.

A silly action-comedy, where the whole joke is the victim can't feel pain so he's pretending for a laugh, comes nowhere close.

Hell you'll sometimes get torture scenes at 12A, although I believe the BBFC cuts Bond more slack because audiences know he'll escape and get the upper hand - i.e. the 'known quantity' of an action/adventure spy thriller, and the campy genre tropes of it.

the moustache-twirling baddie dangling him over a tank of sharks, and that kinda thing

The board said r.e. Casino Royale's torture scene, Bond flippantly cracking jokes - "I've got a itch down there" etc. are why they let the scene squeak through at 12A. The only dialogue they cut was more sexually threatening, and from the villain.


.

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by hakunamufasa

Yeah, there's no rule which says torture scenes are automatically 18, it's just where they're exceptionally sustained and sadistic, with focus on victim's pain or evident glee/mockery from the perpetrator.

Reservoir Dogs and Wolf Creek 2 are rock-solid examples.
.

Game of Thrones got away with an especially sadistic finger torture scene at 15 in an episode of season 3, where

[Show spoiler]Ramsay Bolton has Theon restrained, who he’s had captive for the whole season, and makes him play a “game” where he will mutilate his little finger as much as he can before Theon’s pain is so intense he will ask for it to be cut off. we see him cutting it in a manner that appears to be flaying it, but when Theon finally screams “cut it off”, he refuses, confessing to him that there is no point to the torture and he is only doing it because he enjoys it

. the same disc got an R18 in New Zealand partially for “sadistic violence”, and while I get portrayals of torture can sometimes be mitigated by a medieval setting due to its greater prevalence then, it’s absolutely worse IMO than the 18-rated fingernail torture scene in Daredevil, especially as that has a quicker reassuring resolution whereas the character in GOT continues being tortured for episodes after.

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by PurpleDynamite2

Cross Ange is an R18+ in Australia for sexual violence so a 15 in the UK sounds unlikely to me.

Mind Game and Kill la Kill are both examples of anime the ACB have judged as R18+ level partially for reasons of sexual violence getting 15s in the UK (the ACB's official reasoning for the former is "themes, violence and sexual references" but it's not hard to guess what scene this refers to given it was 2008 and they were bad at warning about sexual assault at the time), and the former upheld it as recently as 2022 despite the sexually violent scene in question containing an aggressive C-word and being immediately followed by a scene where

[Show spoiler]a man is shot in the rectum, though in admittedly stylised detail

. so, while it's unlikely, they do have random days where they decide to apply some leniency.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by hakunamufasa

The BBFC (rightly) doesn't judge violence by imitability now, which is probably why they take a harder line on sex, given it's an inherently more realistic interaction.

John Wick is fairly brutal and impactful, sure, but that's to be expected to justify a 'strong violence' warning - 'super gory' is overselling it a bit like it's a proper slasher horror, if you've seen the recent Halloween trilogy, which goes heavy on squishy head stomping and turning innards out in full view of the camera.

Nearly all of the violence in the former is in self-defense as he's getting hunted by assassins - even in a lower 18 like Scream 5/6, there's a much more sustained and cruel focus on specific killings,

e.g. Ghostface stabbing the same victim 20-30 times, with a heavy focus on pooling blood and suffering, in a realistic/domestic kind of context, where instead of chaotic fight scenes you're dealing with home invasions and terrorising kids with kitchen knives

I think teenagers are a realistic demographic for most violent action films, including John Wick - the full series is also 16+ over in Ireland which is spot-on - all the lore about the assassin club, live bounty rankings, bulletproof jackets etc gives it an inherent air of silliness, that only increases as the series carries on and has to up the ante

and in that context, by that age I don't think

[Show spoiler]a guy getting a pencil through the ear

in a goofy action film is gonna give you any new ideas

(even in the film it's clearly shown to hurt)
.

To be clear I personally think that John Wick Chapters 1 and 4 are fine at 15. I just think Chapters 2 and 3 focus on blood and graphic injuries much more and those moments (such as the aforementioned

[Show spoiler]pencil in the ear stabbing

in Chapter 2, and the

[Show spoiler]eye stabbing

in Chapter 3 alongside the fact that the violent scenes produce much more blood and occasional gore than 1 and 4 make 2 and 3 18 worthy in my opinion. The vast majority of action movies are fine at 15 and can still get extremely violent, but even in fantasy I believe a line has to be drawn somewhere for graphic stuff like what I've mentioned.

As for the sex thing you have a good point, seeing that kind of sh!t at 15 is awkward as hell (I know because I saw tons of sex and nudity scenes in action and thriller movies when I was 15) But I do think that brief glimpses are probably okay at 15, especially considering how strong it gets at that category sometimes. I mean, if 15 year olds are allowed to watch Monster's Ball because of "muh context" (I Don't think they should but that's another can of worms) then a brief, 2-3 second undetailed glimpse of the same thing is surely okay at 15, at least logically? Heck, The NC-17 version of Sleeping With The Enemy was also a 15 at one point (cut on Blu-Ray tho for some reason) Don't think it's quite Monster's Ball, but still I've heard it's quite strong.

All this being said, regardless of context, Monster's Ball really should've been an 18

[Severe-Operation-347]

Originally Posted by PurpleDynamite2

Cross Ange is an R18+ in Australia for sexual violence so a 15 in the UK sounds unlikely to me.

To be fair, one of the discs for Kill la Kill is an R18+ in Australia due to the "purify" bath scene

[Show spoiler]where Ragyo molests Satsuki

, but that managed to get a 15 by the BBFC.

[hakunamufasa]

Originally Posted by caib2003

I mean, if 15 year olds are allowed to watch Monster's Ball because of "muh context" (I Don't think they should but that's another can of worms) then a brief, 2-3 second undetailed glimpse of the same thing is surely okay at 15, at least logically?

In fairness BBFC decisions don't all exist in a holistic vacuum - guidelines and public attitudes are constantly changing.

It'd be like asking why MI: Fallout has headbutts and throat chops at 12A, despite the same combat techniques constantly warranting 18s in Seagal/Van Damme action films

the difference is between 2018 and the 1980s

Monster's Ball was borderline, even at the time, and also passed as a 15 certificate 23 years ago, shortly after Ferman lost power and the board underwent a public liberal overhaul.

If Passages can get an 18 for a guy's jiggling butt, like there's a couple of sex scenes, and once fully naked, but that's all the detail you see on-camera

and Y2K for a couple seconds of fake/tame porn on a computer

then there's nothing to say Monster's Ball, with way more angles and positions, wouldn't see an upgrade in 2025


.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by hakunamufasa

In fairness BBFC decisions don't all exist in a holistic vacuum - guidelines and public attitudes are constantly changing.

It'd be like asking why MI: Fallout has headbutts and throat chops at 12A, despite the same combat techniques constantly warranting 18s in Seagal/Van Damme action films

the difference is between 2018 and the 1980s

Monster's Ball was borderline, even at the time, and also passed as a 15 certificate 23 years ago, shortly after Ferman lost power and the board underwent a public liberal overhaul.

If Passages can get an 18 for a guy's jiggling butt, like there's a couple of sex scenes, and once fully naked, but that's all the detail you see on-camera

and Y2K for a couple seconds of fake/tame porn on a computer

then there's nothing to say Monster's Ball, with way more angles and positions, wouldn't see an upgrade in 2025


.

Yeah that's fair. I wonder why they were so much more lenient on sex back then considering its always been a taboo here? Even 12s like Never Let Me Go existed (undoubtedly would be a 15 now)

And I may just be saying this because I wasn't around in the 90s, but MI: Fallout having headbutts and throat chops at 12 isn't a problem imo. I take more issue with the bloody injuries and even then it's still fine as a hard 12.

While we're on the subject of Mission Impossible, the first one being a PG is surprising, especially considering it was a Ferman era rating. Meanwhile MI2 being a 15 confuses me as there wasn't anything in it to warrant the rating imo. A solid 12 methinks. (Same for the first one, I think that scene where

[Show spoiler]that guy gets impaled in an elevator, even if it cuts away,

is too much for PG.)

[caib2003]

I also watched the Riddick trilogy recently and while the directors cut of Chronicles of Riddick (2004) was very violent there wasn't anything in it to justify a 15 imo. It's not even as bad as the Bourne films which were way grittier and bloodier, and they got away with 12 ratings. The added scenes of violence didn't seem any worse than most 12 rated sci-fi fare, and the added sensuality was also perfectly 12 level and not too blatant. I mean, if the far worse sci-fi Warlock can get a 12 7 years later then surely The Chronicles of Riddick also could?

With that being said, Pitch Black and Riddick (2013) also share the same 15 rating and are much worse, and they actually justify being 15s.

[KernowKnight]

I remember being surprised at MI: Ghost Protocol's bloody headshot with clear blood spraying behind. It's the kind of bloody close up violence which typically triggers the 15 rating. I would have perhaps expected the BBFC to offer the distributors a 15 uncut with advice on cleaning that scene up a bit to get a 12A. The action/adventure vibe may have just about saved it, but it still stands out I think.

Captain Phillips though is a much harder-edged, realistic film & had even bloodier exit wounds with visible blood/brain matter splattering Tom Hanks' face, which seemed odd compared to other similar violence getting 15 rated around the same time.

Really surprised that one got snuck into the 12A rating. But then around that time even stronger stuff like Kite Runner was bizarrely getting 12A, so I guess they were still in that phase of random low ratings.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by KernowKnight

I remember being surprised at MI: Ghost Protocol's bloody headshot with clear blood spraying behind. It's the kind of bloody close up violence which typically triggers the 15 rating. I would have perhaps expected the BBFC to offer the distributors a 15 uncut with advice on cleaning that scene up a bit to get a 12A. The action/adventure vibe may have just about saved it, but it still stands out I think.

Captain Phillips though is a much harder-edged, realistic film & had even bloodier exit wounds with visible blood/brain matter splattering Tom Hanks' face, which seemed odd compared to other similar violence getting 15 rated around the same time.

Really surprised that one got snuck into the 12A rating. But then around that time even stronger stuff like Kite Runner was bizarrely getting 12A, so I guess they were still in that phase of random low ratings.

I've seen Captain Phillips and can confirm it actually deserves a 15 rating

As for The Kite Runner I haven't seen it but looking at the parents guide and what you guys have said about it, it sounds more like an 18 to me. I don't think anything like that should be shown in a 12, and only should it be implied at 15. In fact I'm surprised it didn't get hit by the POCA

Quite possibly the only 12 in existence that I think should be an 18 based on hearsay. Regardless of context. Implying it in a movie or talking about it in education is one thing, but showing it happening? That goes too far imo.

All this being said, I'm aware I'm stricter than most here, so I'm unsure if I'll get any agreement, but either way it is an opinions board ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by hakunamufasa

It'd be like asking why MI: Fallout has headbutts and throat chops at 12A, despite the same combat techniques constantly warranting 18s in Seagal/Van Damme action films

I did understand the BBFC's issue with throat chops/punches. It's a potentially lethal technique, unlike headbutting. Not sure allowing them at the 12 rating is any improvement.

[SixteenthDentist]

I'm surprised Memories of Murder got a 15 when released. It's a high 15 now, but in 2004 not long after Ferman I could well see it at an 18. Especially considering Lost in Translation got a 15 for a mild scene of nudity in the same year.

[PurpleDynamite2]

Originally Posted by caib2003

I've seen Captain Phillips and can confirm it actually deserves a 15 rating

As for The Kite Runner I haven't seen it but looking at the parents guide and what you guys have said about it, it sounds more like an 18 to me. I don't think anything like that should be shown in a 12, and only should it be implied at 15. In fact I'm surprised it didn't get hit by the POCA

Quite possibly the only 12 in existence that I think should be an 18 based on hearsay. Regardless of context. Implying it in a movie or talking about it in education is one thing, but showing it happening? That goes too far imo.

All this being said, I'm aware I'm stricter than most here, so I'm unsure if I'll get any agreement, but either way it is an opinions board ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Having seen The Kite Runner, it definitely isn't 18 level. The rape is disturbing but super undetailed. It is too strong for a 12A though.

[hakunamufasa]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I did understand the BBFC's issue with throat chops/punches. It's a potentially lethal technique, unlike headbutting. Not sure allowing them at the 12 rating is any improvement.

A generic punch in the face can genuinely be just as lethal - partly for the impact, but also the victim falling and smacking their head on concrete, causing a brain bleed or coma.

There was a safety campaign in Australia to rename sucker punches/king hits to "coward punches", as the victim is caught off-guard with no fair time to react.

This public awareness started a decade ago (inc. with soap storylines on Neighbours), but a similar case cropped up last month in Sydney breaking a man's jaw, so clearly still relevant.

I can understand brutal/personalised techniques pushing a film up to 15 - e.g. the

[Show spoiler]throat chop over a hardback book, to break the man's neck

in John Wick 3

but a quick incidental in an action fight scene I think you need to be proportionate about, and (just checked) in the MI: Fallout bathroom fight the throat chop is very brief and instantly moved on from.

It's pretty crunchy and intense, a lot of punching and wall-slamming, but that's to be expected if the 12 part of 12A justifies a purpose, similar to that Bourne/Bond/Batman ballpark which are notably more 'realistic' than PG family-friendly violence (at least when it was used properly e.g. for Zorro and Narnia).

Agent Cody Banks, a kid's spy thriller rated PG uncut in the US, which would've been a 15 here without cutting a double ear clap, is the kinda patronising nonsense I'm glad we've gotten past.


.