BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[SixteenthDentist]

How on earth was the vanishing passed as a 12 originally? And by FERMAN of all people? Every single revision since then has passed it as a 15 including within the last ten years. Its a mid 15, absolutely no way I could ever see it as near appropriate for a 12.

[KernowKnight]

Originally Posted by SixteenthDentist

How on earth was the vanishing passed as a 12 originally? And by FERMAN of all people? Every single revision since then has passed it as a 15 including within the last ten years. Its a mid 15, absolutely no way I could ever see it as near appropriate for a 12.

There was still the occasional lenient rating under Ferman, although nowhere near as many that followed in the 00's once he left. Dances With Wolves originally got a 12 despite some really harrowing violence, but got rated 15 each time since for strong violence, as recently as 2010.

Also, Besieged got its PG in 1998 under Ferman despite having what I think would now be considered borderline 15-rated sex/nudity, going on the recent guideline changes. It didn't even get a 12 which was available to them.

Although Ferman himself was pretty open about making under-rating errors. He admitted Prince of Thieves was a huge error at PG for example. Shame he couldn't have had the same view on films he'd over-rated (or censored).

[stigdu]

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 has been given a PG certificate by the BBFC.

I agree with this decision.

Carry on.

[j bird]

Mile 22's '18' rating is baffling, nothing stands out as being '18' worthy as the level of violence never exceeds what is normally passed in the John Wick series or a Jason Statham film at 15.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by j bird

Mile 22's '18' rating is baffling, nothing stands out as being '18' worthy as the level of violence never exceeds what is normally passed in the John Wick series or a Jason Statham film at 15.

This I fully agree with, I saw the film years ago and thought the same thing, I also saw a kill count of it a couple years later and then the kill count for Eliminators (Scott Adkins) which is a 15 and they were both pretty much identical in terms of how graphic the violence was. I've seen both movies in full too so I can say they're both comfortably higher end 15s. Also the fact that Mile 22 is a 15 in Ireland is telling.

[GaryCouzens]

Originally Posted by SixteenthDentist

How on earth was the vanishing passed as a 12 originally? And by FERMAN of all people? Every single revision since then has passed it as a 15 including within the last ten years. Its a mid 15, absolutely no way I could ever see it as near appropriate for a 12.

There were complaints about the 12 at the time, which no doubt contributed to its being upped to 15 the next time it was submitted. I don't know if there was any actual research then, or if it was simply anecdotal, but there was a quote saying the film was actually more disturbing to adults than it was to children, because of the implications of the film's finale. There is no graphic detail but plenty about the process of what goes on (no spoilers).

The remake - which notoriously changes the ending - was a 15 as well. I only saw it the once, when it came out, and have no wish to see it again (it's a bad film, with that rare thing a poor performance from Jeff Bridges). If I remember rightly, the 15 is due to some violence and language, nothing out of the ordinary for other films passed 15 then.

[GaryCouzens]

Yesterday morning I finally got to see King of Kings on BBC2 - I had the morning to myself due to a convention not starting until the afternoon and I didn't have to fit in two and a half hours on BBC Iplayer afterwards. The film is a U, last submitted in 1999, but I did wonder if it would be PG now. From early scenes of some priests being speared with shots of blood on their robes afterwards, to John the Baptist condemning Herodias for incest with her own brother, to the not-graphic crucifixion. I wondered if the Bible story being so well known might mean the censor being more lenient on it...though that didn't stop The Passion of the Christ getting an 18.

Back in 1961, the BBFC cut the film at U - John the Baptist's condemnation was reduced and so were shots of Jesus being lashed before the crucifixion. The cuts were waived for a U on video in 1993. The 1927 silent version was banned outright by the BBFC due to the then taboo on portrayals of Jesus. Back then, several local authorities overruled the Board and issued their own local certificates. By 1961 that certainly wasn't an issue.

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by GaryCouzens

Yesterday morning I finally got to see King of Kings on BBC2 - I had the morning to myself due to a convention not starting until the afternoon and I didn't have to fit in two and a half hours on BBC Iplayer afterwards. The film is a U, last submitted in 1999, but I did wonder if it would be PG now. From early scenes of some priests being speared with shots of blood on their robes afterwards, to John the Baptist condemning Herodias for incest with her own brother, to the not-graphic crucifixion. I wondered if the Bible story being so well known might mean the censor being more lenient on it...though that didn't stop The Passion of the Christ getting an 18.

Back in 1961, the BBFC cut the film at U - John the Baptist's condemnation was reduced and so were shots of Jesus being lashed before the crucifixion. The cuts were waived for a U on video in 1993. The 1927 silent version was banned outright by the BBFC due to the then taboo on portrayals of Jesus. Back then, several local authorities overruled the Board and issued their own local certificates. By 1961 that certainly wasn't an issue.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it even went up to 12A considering episodes of the show The Chosen that’s basically only geared at American evangelicals routinely get 12, including the recent theatrically-released Last Supper for (shock horror) brief sight of an imagined stabbing and people on fire (“moderate violence”) and uh, Jesus overturning the merchants’ tables (“moderate threat”).

[Number 28]

Originally Posted by stigdu

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 has been given a PG certificate by the BBFC.

I agree with this decision.

Carry on.

Yes, a carry on for the BBFC making cash. For over a grand to pay the BBFC for a media rating, then another fee to give approval of the artwork, just in case there were any pictures of nude women sneaked out in the artwork by Paramount.

Sonic 3 already has PG ratings for the cinema, money for old rope for the BBFC for the media rating.

[doomgen]

season 3 episode 8 of My Brilliant Friend has an absolutely absurd 18 for “strong injury detail”, which refers to a shot in a dream sequence of a woman in the sea holding out her bloody wrists. while the streaks of blood seem to be in a vertical pattern, if you look closer there doesn’t appear to be wounds at all, only blood (which looks quite fake, likely intentionally given it’s a dream sequence), plus the scene is shot from afar.

I’m glad these are the people the public entrust to determine what should be given the same age restriction as porn and gambling!

[Withnail74]

Haven't seen King of Kings but some of these big historical epics seemed to be rather edgy for their U certificates back then. I watched Cromwell for the first time a few years ago - severed ears and at least one use of bastard, classified U in 1970 - although always the slightly more fitting PG on video.

More recent stuff - watched the 2004 Hellboy last night and it seemed rather knifey and head-kicky for a 12 given they were still cutting 12s for such things back thing.

[ghoul-star]

Originally Posted by doomgen

season 3 episode 8 of My Brilliant Friend has an absolutely absurd 18 for “strong injury detail”, which refers to a shot in a dream sequence of a woman in the sea holding out her bloody wrists. while the streaks of blood seem to be in a vertical pattern, if you look closer there doesn’t appear to be wounds at all, only blood (which looks quite fake, likely intentionally given it’s a dream sequence), plus the scene is shot from afar.

I’m glad these are the people the public entrust to determine what should be given the same age restriction as porn and gambling!

I find it stupid how anything that has to do with vertical wrist cuts is an auto 18 (other than the one Family Guy joke that got the pass). It leads to the most mild images getting lumped into the same category as the extremely graphic suicide scene from Lords of Chaos. If they think that teenagers are seriously that impressionable, then how on God's earth did Family Guy get away with an explicit joke about it at 15, which I find to be way more potentially harmful than any actual images

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

I hate how anything that has to do with vertical wrist cuts is an auto 18 (other than the one Family Guy joke that got the pass). It leads to the most mild depictions getting lumped into the same category as the extremely graphic suicide scene from Lords of Chaos

the shot in Terrifier 3 that’s basically identical to the one that was compulsorily cut at 18 from The Rules of Attraction they decided to justify not mentioning anywhere in even the long insight in an email to me by saying that the character was undead, rather than just admitting that what happened was there was so much extreme violence that the examiner forgot that was in there and overlooked it. that justification feels especially bizarre when films with much less detailed supernatural self-harm have been brought to 18, like Conjuring 3 or the PG-13 rated Down a Dark Hall.

The Royal Tenenbaums is lucky to have the 15 it does considering

[Show spoiler] after Richie’s suicide attempt he shows his sewn-up scars to Margot, which are clearly vertical

. it’s a very mild 15 just brought to that level by that plot point, as the rest of the film is a solid 12A to me.

[ghoul-star]

Originally Posted by doomgen

the shot in Terrifier 3 that’s basically identical to the one that was compulsorily cut at 18 from The Rules of Attraction they decided to justify not mentioning anywhere in even the long insight in an email to me by saying that the character was undead, rather than just admitting that what happened was there was so much extreme violence that the examiner forgot that was in there and overlooked it. that justification feels especially bizarre when films with much less detailed supernatural self-harm have been brought to 18, like Conjuring 3 or the PG-13 rated Down a Dark Hall.

The Royal Tenenbaums is lucky to have the 15 it does considering

[Show spoiler] after Richie’s suicide attempt he shows his sewn-up scars to Margot, which are clearly vertical

. it’s a very mild 15 just brought to that level by that plot point, as the rest of the film is a solid 12A to me.

If I remember correctly,

[Show spoiler]the wrist cutting in Terrifier 3 was done by the entity possessing the host in order to kill off the host and fully possess her body, so she wasn't actually undead before that.

. I feel like the BBFC were outright rewriting the plot there because they know they messed up not including an extra content descriptor, or even just mentioning it in the advisory

[stigdu]

There's some foreign film called Flow about animals on a boat coming out soon, and the British Board of Film Censorship have given it a 'U' certificate.

I agree with this.

[ghoul-star]

Recently there seems to be a lot of YouTubers' stuff getting rated by the BBFC. Is their content also on Amazon Prime?

[JamsterYT]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

Recently there seems to be a lot of YouTubers' stuff getting rated by the BBFC. Is their content also on Amazon Prime?

Yeah it is, when browsing I've spotted a lot of stuff like Game/Film Theory for example on there.

[JamsterYT]

Also, speaking of Prime, I notice that some of the shows they get that the BBFC classify only have a few episodes listed, rather than the full series. Not sure why this is. And with streaming on topic, most of Apple's submissions are blank in terms of content advice and insight for some reason.

[CatSword]

Originally Posted by stigdu

There's some foreign film called Flow about animals on a boat coming out soon, and the British Board of Film Censorship have given it a 'U' certificate.

I agree with this.

Are you trying to shag someone at the BBFC or make a very silly point about the thread title?

[ghoul-star]

Originally Posted by JamsterYT

Also, speaking of Prime, I notice that some of the shows they get that the BBFC classify only have a few episodes listed, rather than the full series. Not sure why this is. And with streaming on topic, most of Apple's submissions are blank in terms of content advice and insight for some reason.

My guess is that missing episodes might be the BBFC still trying to work out what to rate them. With Season 3 of Invincible for instance, the season finale was the first one to get an rating, since it was a very solid 18. It took a week after that for episodes 4 and 7 to recieve 18 ratings, because they sat right on 15/18 borderline (personally, I think they could've been 15s given how violent and gory other 15 rated episodes have been). The Bondsman currently has episode 6 missing, but honestly I can't remember the show well enough to recall whether it leans 15 or 18 so will have to wait and see