BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[JamsterYT]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

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

I don't think it's that for the ones I'm talking about, I'm meaning stuff like certain animated shows such as Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokémon series with 1-3 episodes submitted by Amazon. Examples linked:
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/yu-gi...pwwc0xmdi0otm2
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/pokem...pwwc0xmdi3mdiy
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/being...pwwc0xmdi3ndg0

[ghoul-star]

Originally Posted by JamsterYT

I don't think it's that for the ones I'm talking about, I'm meaning stuff like certain animated shows such as Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokémon series with 1-3 episodes submitted by Amazon. Examples linked:
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/yu-gi...pwwc0xmdi0otm2
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/pokem...pwwc0xmdi3mdiy
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/being...pwwc0xmdi3ndg0

Oh I see that's weird. All I can think of is that maybe the distributors don't want to have to pay to get more ratings for episodes, especially since you don't seem to actually need to have a BBFC rating for Amazon Prime (The Poughkeepsie Tapes is on there with no official BBFC rating). But then that would raise the question of why any distributors would ever bother getting BBFC ratings for Amazon Prime shows.

[JamsterYT]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

Oh I see that's weird. All I can think of is that maybe the distributors don't want to have to pay to get more ratings for episodes, especially since you don't seem to actually need to have a BBFC rating for Amazon Prime (The Poughkeepsie Tapes is on there with no official BBFC rating). But then that would raise the question of why any distributors would ever bother getting BBFC ratings for Amazon Prime shows.

Yeah it's strange. Plus, Manga Entertainment already wholly submitted Yu-Gi-Oh 5Ds for DVD, and most of Manga's submissions appear to be for both home media and streaming, which means they probably didn't have to do it again for that reason also.

[aus-blu]

Wow, wasn't expecting this, but the Australian Classification Board just gave "Thunderbolts* (2025)" a PG rating. Compared to other recent lenient ratings, this time it wasn't self-classified by the distributor but rated by the actual board themselves. Only two other MCU films have gotten the PG rating, "Ant-Man (2015)" plus "Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)".

Fascinating how three different classification boards came up with the different impact levels for the violence of Thunderbolts*:

ACB = Mild Violence
BBFC = Moderate Violence
MPA = Strong Violence

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by aus-blu

Wow, wasn't expecting this, but the Australian Classification Board just gave "Thunderbolts* (2025)" a PG rating. Compared to other recent lenient ratings, this time it wasn't self-classified by the distributor but rated by the actual board themselves. Only two other MCU films have gotten the PG rating, "Ant-Man (2015)" plus "Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)".

Fascinating how three different classification boards came up with the different impact levels for the violence of Thunderbolts*:

ACB = Mild Violence
BBFC = Moderate Violence
MPA = Strong Violence

the MPAA have been seriously misusing the “strong violence” descriptor at PG-13 over the past few years, especially when they often just use the “violence” descriptor for much more graphic R movies. like there is absolutely no reason Dune or Black Adam should have that descriptor. the Christian film Jesus Revolution mentions “strong drug content” at PG-13, which makes it sound like Trainspotting or something, but obviously can’t be that strong considering it got a 12A here.

[stigdu]

Originally Posted by CatSword

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

Both. But Natasha Kaplinsky isn't replying to my emails.

[ghoul-star]

I still hate how you can't look up works by their content descriptors anymore on the website. It is rare for works to really get any unique descriptors nowadays, but it still happens occasionally

[ghoul-star]

Just watched Sinners. Amazing movie. What interests me is that the movie passed 15 whilst containing

[Show spoiler] a self inflicted vertical wrist cutting via broken bottle. I guess it's justified in context by the character doing it in order to lure vampires over to him using fresh blood in order to save his friends

.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by aus-blu

Wow, wasn't expecting this, but the Australian Classification Board just gave "Thunderbolts* (2025)" a PG rating. Compared to other recent lenient ratings, this time it wasn't self-classified by the distributor but rated by the actual board themselves. Only two other MCU films have gotten the PG rating, "Ant-Man (2015)" plus "Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)".

Fascinating how three different classification boards came up with the different impact levels for the violence of Thunderbolts*:

ACB = Mild Violence
BBFC = Moderate Violence
MPA = Strong Violence

Only PG-13 film I can think of that was given the strong violence descriptor that actually deserved it was Vanguard with Jackie Chan. 15 here for the same reason.

[JamsterYT]

Watched Pineapple Express yesterday, would that get through with a 15 uncut now? Seeing as the upgrade reason was for drug use by children, and Cocaine Bear had a scene containing that.

[hakunamufasa]

Originally Posted by Withnail74

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.

Deserving 12s have always had that edge of intense fisticuffs - think of The Bourne Identity, Batman, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones you get the point.

Only difference is the lack of injury or blood - specifically personalised/brutal violence like arm breaks can still get
a 15, as the Once Upon a Deadpool re-edit proved.

2004/5 was the period it basically stopped, given Batman Begins had several headbutts at 12A.

A funny example to have squeaked under the old policy is
the pilot episode of Kung Fu ("King of the Mountain") in 2004,
given a 15 solely for a double ear clap but only PG in Ireland.


.

[j bird]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

Just watched Sinners. Amazing movie. What interests me is that the movie passed 15 whilst containing

[Show spoiler] a self inflicted vertical wrist cutting via broken bottle. I guess it's justified in context by the character doing it in order to lure vampires over to him using fresh blood in order to save his friends

.

Funny how it wasn't noted in the 'suicide and self-harm category' Its still a moment that would be useful for them to point out, despite the context it is pretty graphic.

Similarly If Daredevil: Born Again S1 is ever classified I wonder how they would react to the scene in episode 7 where

[Show spoiler] Muse cuts Heather's arm vertically in order to collect her blood obviously being in a violent/macabre context rather than a suicidal one

[Necrom-99]

I saw that Dangerous To Know (1938) has gotten a 12 for a "suicide scene" (it was rated A by the BBFC back then). Other than the original version of A Star is Born being upped from U to 12 recently, does anyone know of any other American films from the Joseph Breen Production Code era (1934-1954) that have gotten a 12 or potentially higher from the BBFC at some point?

[CatSword]

Originally Posted by aus-blu

Valmont (1989) [Originally 15, re-rated 12 in 2007]

The fact that Valmont ever got downgraded to 12 is insane. Besides the main theme of the film being sexual coercion, there's an extended lead-up to Valmont raping a 15-year-old girl - you don't see it happen, but the extended focus on him kissing up her legs to her bare buttocks and telling her not to stop writing is almost more disturbing than actually seeing it. It's clear that what happened was rape, not just because of her age either, as she says "I kept saying no." The advisory only says "Contains moderate sex and nudity".

I've thought Cruel Intentions might go up to an 18 for the sheer amount of sexually abusive antics going on, but considering the remake series got a 15 they might not.

[Chris J]

The Big Sleep (1946) and 3 Godfathers (1948) were both given 14A in Canada, with the former having a PG cert recently.

[GaryCouzens]

Originally Posted by Necrom-99

I saw that Dangerous To Know (1938) has gotten a 12 for a "suicide scene" (it was rated A by the BBFC back then). Other than the original version of A Star is Born being upped from U to 12 recently, does anyone know of any other American films from the Joseph Breen Production Code era (1934-1954) that have gotten a 12 or potentially higher from the BBFC at some point?

The von Sternberg/Dietrich The Scarlet Empress is a 12. That was on the cusp of pre-Code and PCA and it contains some definitely pre-Code material such as fleeting nudity, but it was approved by the PCA and released in September 1934, after the Code had been enforced. Cut by the BBFC for an A, unsurprisingly.

[GaryCouzens]

Originally Posted by CatSword

The fact that Valmont ever got downgraded to 12 is insane. Besides the main theme of the film being sexual coercion, there's an extended lead-up to Valmont raping a 15-year-old girl - you don't see it happen, but the extended focus on him kissing up her legs to her bare buttocks and telling her not to stop writing is almost more disturbing than actually seeing it. It's clear that what happened was rape, not just because of her age either, as she says "I kept saying no." The advisory only says "Contains moderate sex and nudity".

Fairuza Balk was fifteen when this was made, but there were no POCA issues with the film. The nudity referred to involved a bottom double.

[KernowKnight]

Yeah, Valmont was right in that 00's post-Ferman phase. So the very lenient re-rating makes sense, it's one of many.

It would get a 15 now for the sex/nudity alone, even before considering the child sexual abuse.

[Necrom-99]

Originally Posted by Chris J

The Big Sleep (1946) and 3 Godfathers (1948) were both given 14A in Canada, with the former having a PG cert recently.

The Ontario board (and presumably also the Manitoba board) supposedly used a survey to classify home video/non-theatrical releases. This sometimes led to some pretty wild results. On the Ontario board's old website, they would list few if any observations for video releases as opposed to the many for theatrical releases. It is an interesting find, though I really don't think either would have gotten a 14A if they were actually viewed by the board. 14A is where most films rated R by the MPAA were (and are under the still functioning Alberta and British Columbia boards).
https://highimpactclassification.wor...-at-the-wheel/

On a related note the theatrical cut of Beowulf was 14A from the Ontario boards (as well as the other Canadian boards other than the separate Quebec board which gave it its equivalent). The Director's Cut was given an 18A by the Ontario board (the overall video rating was 14A, though I remember the 18A for Beowulf Director's Cut being listed on the Ontario board's website before it was shut down). The BBFC gave both versions a 12 (they gave the Director's Cut a 12 hysterically after the theatrical cut was their most complained about film of 2007). Are there any other instances of the BBFC giving something a 12 and any of the Canadian boards giving it an 18A. The BBFC would defiantly not give either version of Beowulf a 12 now (they've cosigned much less severe animated violence into the 15 category in the past several years).

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by Necrom-99

The Ontario board (and presumably also the Manitoba board) supposedly used a survey to classify home video/non-theatrical releases. This sometimes led to some pretty wild results. On the Ontario board's old website, they would list few if any observations for video releases as opposed to the many for theatrical releases. It is an interesting find, though I really don't think either would have gotten a 14A if they were actually viewed by the board. 14A is where most films rated R by the MPAA were (and are under the still functioning Alberta and British Columbia boards).
https://highimpactclassification.wor...-at-the-wheel/

On a related note the theatrical cut of Beowulf was 14A from the Ontario boards (as well as the other Canadian boards other than the separate Quebec board which gave it its equivalent). The Director's Cut was given an 18A by the Ontario board (the overall video rating was 14A, though I remember the 18A for Beowulf Director's Cut being listed on the Ontario board's website before it was shut down). The BBFC gave both versions a 12 (they gave the Director's Cut a 12 hysterically after the theatrical cut was their most complained about film of 2007). Are there any other instances of the BBFC giving something a 12 and any of the Canadian boards giving it an 18A. The BBFC would defiantly not give either version of Beowulf a 12 now (they've cosigned much less severe animated violence into the 15 category in the past several years).

the one Albertan example I can think of with an 18A and 12A is the documentary The English Surgeon, where the issue at hand was real footage of brain surgery. there are a handful of 15-rated films that got R in Alberta too, like Deathgasm (excessive comedic gore, some of which is sexualised), Palindromes (strong themes of paedophilia and abortion, usually played for dark comedy but definitely unsettling at times), and Born in Flames (I’m pretty sure the R is just for a brief shot of a condom being put on an erect penis during a montage). Falcon Lake was R in Alberta because of a brief graphic image of bestiality on a mobile phone, but the UK 15-rated version apparently cuts this scene so that doesn’t quite count.