Films cut by distrubitors

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Would it be out of line to use the "report post" function to alert a moderator to the typo in the thread title?

I think that should be okay considering that there wouldn't really be any other way to alert them (unless you send a PM to an active moderator).

I don't understand why the original poster isn't able to amend the title in the forums. I tried doing that with the Jerry Lewis thread to also include Dean Martin in the title, but nope... no option to change it.

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by Aunt Peg

However, sometimes the joke is on the censors. Walerian Borowczyk's Lulu (1980) was released uncut and given a cinema release in 1982. However, the censors had no idea (neither did I at the time) and the leading lady who does plenty of nudity was under age. It's actually why the film can't be released in a number of countries on DVD/Blu Ray. But I think it is hilarious that the censors passed it uncut completely oblivious to the girls age - but then I had no idea either and I doubt anyone in Australia did.

What would be deemed "underage" though? The actress in question would have been 16 or 17 at the time of filming (I haven't seen the film myself to be able to ascertain the gratuitousness of the nudity), which is within the age of consent in most jurisdictions, but I'm not sure as to what the laws are concerning non-pornographic nudity involving those under 18 locally let alone overseas (though it seems that Europe is generally more relaxed in that regard).

Simonetta Stefanelli (who played Apollonia in The Godfather) would have been 16 and/or 17 at the time of filming and her breasts are briefly exposed at one point in the film. In the decades since, this had never been raised as an issue via the media.

[Aunt Peg]

Originally Posted by SillyG

What would be deemed "underage" though? The actress in question would have been 16 or 17 at the time of filming (I haven't seen the film myself to be able to ascertain the gratuitousness of the nudity), which is within the age of consent in most jurisdictions, but I'm not sure as to what the laws are concerning non-pornographic nudity involving those under 18 locally let alone overseas (though it seems that Europe is generally more relaxed in that regard).

Simonetta Stefanelli (who played Apollonia in The Godfather) would have been 16 and/or 17 at the time of filming and her breasts are briefly exposed at one point in the film. In the decades since, this had never been raised as an issue via the media.

The actress in question is Anne Bennett born 13 October 1963. The films earliest premier date is March 1980 according to imdB so she would have probably have been 16 when she made the film. To be honest aside from one scene in the film which didn't include her I have no memory of the film but most of Borowczyk's film from the mid 1970s onward featured plenty of nudity. No that it has anything to do with censorship but this is the only foreign language film I've ever seen that had no English subtitles on the print and the projectionist and to manually scroll them onto the screen via another machine - had never seen that before or since.

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Count Yorga

Back in the '80s, I saw the first Hellraiser in a Village Roadshow cinema, unaware until I watched it that it had been cut to avoid an R rating. It was rated M at the time.

I remember that. And then when Roadshow released the VHS not long after, it was the full 'R' rated version!

[Aunt Peg]

Ellie & Abbie (& Ellie's Dead Aunt) (Due for release next week)

Directed by Monica Zanetti / 2020 / Australia / IMDb

On 29 July 2020, an 82-minute print of ELLIE & ABBIE (& ELLIE'S DEAD AUNT) was passed with an MA15+ (Strong coarse language) rating.

The extended classification information described,
Strong impact: language
Mild impact: themes, violence, drug use, sex
None: nudity

This print went on to play at the Melbourne International Film Festival in August and Brisbane in October.

A censored version, also running 82-minutes, was passed with an M (Coarse language) rating on October 22.

The extended classification information had reduced the language to,
Moderate impact: language
Mild impact: themes, violence, drug use, sex
None: nudity

Reportedly, the uncut version included the word '****', which is now presumably removed.

In both cases, the applicant was This Is Arcadia Pty Ltd.

[Aunt Peg]

Australian Christian Lobby attempting to have the French film Cutties (2020) banned from Netflix (clearly they haven't actually watched the film for themselves):

Cuties
Directed by Maïmouna Doucouré / 2020 / France / IMDb
In August 2020, Netflix began to promote their upcoming international release of CUTIES with a poster that featured the girls posing in their dance costumes.

Following complaints, they apologised and changed the promotional artwork. This was not enough for conservative critics, who called for the film to be banned.

The controversy in the USA was picked up by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL). On September 8 they urged their followers to contact Netflix to withdraw it from their service. On the same day, it was awarded an MA15+ (Strong themes, coarse language) by the Netflix classification tool.

MA15+ confirmed
The controversial nature of the film saw the Classification Board view it themselves. On September 17, they too gave it an MA15+ rating, with the consumer advice reduced to ‘Strong themes’.

Their extended classification information described,
Strong impact: themes
Moderate impact: violence, language, drug use, nudity, sex



Push for a review
Predictably, the ACL was not impressed and called for Paul Fletcher (Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) to send it to the Classification Review Board.

On October 13, Wendy Francis from the ACL appeared on Sky's THE BOLT REPORT. She confirmed that she had just had a meeting with Paul Fletcher and he had encouraged her to make an application to the Classification Review Board.

Her Sky interview was promoted on twitter where it received the following response.

October 14, 2020
SimonInAustralia @SimonInAus
Replying to @wendyjoyfrancis @ACLobby @LyleShelton @SkyNewsAust
Yet she is silent on actual child sexual abuse within the religion she claims to represent, while claiming to be a "campaigner for the innocence of children"!

MA15+ confirmed again
The ACL's application resulted in a review being announced on October 21 and scheduled for two days later.

On October 23, a three-member panel met and unanimously found that the MA15+ (Strong themes) rating was correct.

In addition, they reduced the level of the extended classification information to,
Strong impact: themes
Moderate impact: language, nudity, sex
Mild impact: violence
None: drug use

Previously, the Classification Board had found both the violence and drug use to be ‘moderate impact’.

October 23, 2020
Members
Sue Knowles (Convenor)
Peter Price AM (Deputy Convenor)
Margaret Clancy

Applicant
Australian Christian Lobby

Interested parties
Janet Matthews, Registered Psychologist

Business
To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film CUTIES, MA 15+ (Mature Accompanied) with the consumer advice ‘Strong themes’.

Decision and reasons for decision

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) unanimously classified the film MA 15+, with the consumer advice ‘strong themes’.

2. Legislative provisions

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions.

The Review Board

Part 5 of the Classification Act outlines the provisions relevant to the Review Board and its procedures.

Section 42 of the Classification Act sets out the persons who may apply for review of a decision:

a) the Minister

b) the applicant for classification of the film, or the likely classification of the film under section 33

c) the publisher of the film, or

d) a person aggrieved by the decision.

Section 43 sets out the conditions regarding the manner and form of applications for review, including time limits. Under section 44, the Review Board must deal with an application for review in the same way that the Classification Board deals with an application for classification of a film.

Classification of films under the Classification Act

Section 9, subject to section 9A, provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. Section 9A states that a film that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.

Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include the:

a) standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults, and

b) literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film, and

c) general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character, and

d) persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

The National Classification Code

Relevantly, the Films Table of the National Classification Code (the Code) provides that:

Films (except RC films, X 18+ films and R 18+ films) that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons under 15 are to be classified MA 15+, and

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible:

a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want

b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them

c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive

d) the need to take account of community concerns about:

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and,

(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

The Guidelines

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 'Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (the Guidelines)', determined under section 12 of the Classification Act, the:

• importance of context

• assessment of impact, and

• the six classifiable elements—themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

3. Procedure

Three members of the Review Board met on 23 October 2020, in response to the receipt of an application from the Australian Christian Lobby on 16 October 2020, to conduct the review of the film, CUTIES, which had previously been classified MA 15+ (Mature Accompanied) with consumer advice of ‘Strong themes’ by the Classification Board. The Review Board determined that the application was a valid application.

The Review Board was provided a written submission from the Applicant.

The Review Board viewed the film.

The Review Board was provided a written comment from Janet Matthews, Registered Psychologist

The Review Board heard an oral submission from the Applicant.

The Review Board then considered the matter.

4. Evidence and other material taken into account

In reaching its decision, the Review Board had regard to the following:

(i) Australian Christian Lobby application for review

(ii) Australian Christian Lobby written and oral submissions

(iii) a written comment received from Janet Matthews, Registered Psychologist

(iv) the film, CUTIES

(v) Australian Christian Lobby provided various screenshots taken from the movie

(vi) the relevant provisions in the Classification Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and

(vii) the Classification Board’s report.

5. Synopsis

CUTIES is a French film about a young pre-teen Senegalese-French girl (Amy) from an immigrant traditional religious background who is on the social fringe looking for acceptance from the secular group her own age and looking to integrate into society The movie depicts her desires and ultimate realisation of what is important in life - her family.

Amy is heavily influenced by dance scenes she has seen being done by her school peers (CUTIES) and searches the internet (on a smartphone she has stolen) to find, what she believes, are similar dance moves to practice. She is also influenced by her friend (Angelica) who she sees twerking with the group. Amy is also questioning her role in the family, her boredom with religion and her aunt’s strict religious values being imposed on her.

The CUTIES practice dance moves for a competition while incorporating some sexually suggestive dance moves in the choreography. They are all heavily influenced by the internet and social media for validation and the number of ‘likes’.

Amy is shunned at school after posting online a photo of her genitals (not seen in the movie) and removed from the dance group. However, Amy’s desire to be part of the competition leads her to pushing one of the girls (Yasmine) into the river so she can replace her in the competition.

The sexually suggestive dance at the competition is met with wide disapproval from the audience. This leads Amy to think of her mother who is about to attend the wedding of her polygamous husband. Amy leaves the competition in tears mid-performance to return home.

Amy’s aunt chastises her upon her return for her skimpy outfit and attitudes.

Amy does not attend her father’s wedding, removes her skimpy dance clothing, puts on jeans and top, and goes outside to happily skip with other children in the street.

6. Findings on material questions of fact

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under various classifiable elements:

(a) Themes—The treatment of strong themes should be justified by context

The impact of this element is no higher than strong and can be accommodated at the MA15+ classification level.

All other elements can be accommodated at a lower classification category.

7. Reasons for the decision

While there is frequent suggestive and, at times, sexually suggestive dancing by pre-teen and teen dancers it can be justified in context at the MA15+ classification.

The Review Board was of the view that while a number of the images of young girls dancing and behaving in a sexually suggestive manner, there were no images of any girl naked or partially undressed. The movie also demonstrated the influence the internet and social media has on young susceptible teens who are striving to get as many ‘likes’ on social media as possible while not necessarily having the maturity or understanding of the implications of their behavior.

The strong traditional family values and discipline given to Amy eventually pulls her back to the family and her childhood.

8. Summary

The Review Board unanimously classified CUTIES at the MA 15+ classification with the consumer advice of ‘strong themes’.

The ACL fights on

Having failed in their attempt to get it banned, the ACL modified their strategy. On October 26 they called on Peter Dutton (Minister for Home Affairs) and the Australian Federal Police to investigate it as ‘child abuse material’.

Meanwhile, CUTIES remains on Netflix and the controversy means it continues to draw an audience.

[PT Ryan]

Meanwhile ANATOMY OF HELL just arrived on Stan - itself the subject of failed ACL attempt at a ban ages ago - and the people who are freaking out about CUTIES would drop dead from shock if they saw that one.

[shireguy]

Originally Posted by Aunt Peg

Australian Christian Lobby attempting to have the French film Cutties (2020) banned from Netflix (clearly they haven't actually watched the film for themselves):

once you mentioned ACL I knew immediately that there was 'trouble'.. that is this whining organisation (probably just 1 person these days - like the Pedestrian Council) had issues. Now it's just drawn this - and the post above - to my attention. Note - that they aren't 'Christians' !!

[Aunt Peg]

A film I was planning to see but will now pass on:

Penguin Bloom
Directed by Glendyn Ivin / 2020 / Australia / IMDb
On 3 November 2020, a 95-minute print of PENGUIN BLOOM was passed with an M (Mature themes) rating.

The extended classification information described,
Moderate impact: themes
Mild impact: language
None: violence, drug use, nudity, sex

Themes - A near-fatal fall is depicted, with some blood detail. Other thematic content includes recovery from trauma and family reconciliation.
Language - The film contains use of the words 'shit', 'bugger' and 'bloody'.

A censored version, also running 95-minutes, was passed with a PG (Mild themes and coarse language) rating on November 17.

The extended classification information had reduced the themes to,
Mild impact: themes, language
None: violence, drug use, nudity, sex

The 'blood detail' in the crash has reportedly been reduced in the PG version.

In both cases, the applicant was Roadshow Films.

[SillyG]

I have grown quite wary of the Classification Board giving PGs for nosebleeds and Ms for brief depiction of injuries. (seriously, they consider a bleeding nose to be a "theme")

Even "ass" and "bastard" are getting slapped with PGs nowadays (the same category that allows words like "c-ck", "sh-t", and "d--khead"). when such coarse language would typically be permitted at the G rating without issue. Now they provide consumer advice of "Very mild coarse language" for words like "jerk" and "heck". Not even the pansy censors at the U.S. flag such words as "profanity". Who the hell is even running the joint these days? No wonder parents are finding the classification categories to be rather useless when the sorts of films that would have been rated G or PG 20-30 years ago are now a category (or two) higher than they ought to be (while those films from back in the day maintain their original ratings). Maintaining the old "metric" (more or less) but with consumer advice for G rated content I think is the best option for families, because at present, most consumer advice I have seen for recently-classified G rated material has been completely useless.

[Aunt Peg]

From the 'Refused Classification' website:

Now that cinemas have reopened, the trend of films being cut for lower classifications appears to be back. First up is Sony’s LYLE, LYLE, CROCODILE (2022) which was initially PG-rated. A second submission saw it classified G, which indicates Australian audiences may be getting a censored version when it opens on December 26.

Australian distributors are sometimes willing to censor a movie in their search for a more child-friendly classification. The most infamous case was the cuts that Roadshow made to Disney’s THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996). More recently, the word ‘crap’ was removed from SMALLFOOT (2018).

[SillyG]

The animated film Riki Rhino has been cut from an M to PG likely due to the intended target audience of children. I had alerted Max from Refused Classification of this a few days ago. Here's more or less what I had e-mailed him...

The original submission, dated the 10th of October 2022, received an M classification for “Occasional coarse language”, citing “an instance of implied strong coarse language”, as well as uses of the word “screwed” (though the latter can be accommodated at the G classification when used in a non-sexual context). They were oddly vague about what this “implied” word was, as the ACB are usually more specific when providing extended classification information. Fortunately, the BBFC provides more specific information as they have issued a similar 12 classification to the film for “implied strong language”, and they cite a single use of the word “flucking” in a matter that can be construed as implied use of the word “f***”.

The second submission to the ACB, dated the 27th of October 2022, received a PG classification for “Mild themes and animated violence”. Both cuts are 88 minutes.

Due to current issues with the ACB website, I am unable to see the breakdown of the individual classifiable elements (and whether there is any coarse language noted in the PG cut), as the extended classification information for the PG cut does not cite any uses of coarse language at all (not even “screwed”), which implies that perhaps the distributor also opted to remove uses of the word “screwed” as an unnecessary precaution.

So there you have it. "Flucking" is enough to get you an M rating nowadays. But even more amusing is the possibility that use of the word "screwed" may have also been censored in error. Flucking hell!

[RossyG]

Sounds like the English dub included innuendo unsuitable for the child audience.

Obviously flucking isn’t the same as ****ing, but if you have a film aimed at young kids where characters say flucking hell or fluck off, then it’s obvious what they’re referring to and more obvious that parents won’t like it and will complain.

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by RossyG

Obviously flucking isn’t the same as ****ing, but if you have a film aimed at young kids where characters say flucking hell or fluck off, then it’s obvious what they’re referring to and more obvious that parents won’t like it and will complain.

I'm not aware of the context. All that the BBFC mentions is that the word "flucking" is used in a manner that can be construed as a use of a stronger term. I'd have to see/hear it for myself to make up my mind on it, but it still seems a little silly to go so far as to give it an M classification.

To cite other examples of such innuendo, there was an episode of Celebrity Letters and Numbers a few months ago that featured several uses of "forking" and the show was rated PG (I don't recall "coarse language" being flagged either).

There was also an anime DVD, School Rumble: Second Semester Part I which included occasional use of the word "flunking", sometimes as an innuendo for a stronger term, and it was classified M for "Animated violence, themes and coarse language". I did some snooping because I generally watch anime with the original Japanese audio (which contained no such innuendo), but I was curious as to why "coarse language" was flagged, as the entire first series was rated PG, and the fact that the supposed "coarse language" wasn't flagged as being "infrequent" also made me wonder if one of the dubbed episodes contained multiple uses of uncensored profanity for some reason. In this particular instance though, I thought flagging for "coarse language" was unnecessary. I would be more understanding in the case of Riki Rhino given its target audience of children as opposed to School Rumble which is aimed at older audiences.

[Rick Grimes]

Originally Posted by SillyG

I'm not aware of the context. All that the BBFC mentions is that the word "flucking" is used in a manner that can be construed as a use of a stronger term. I'd have to see/hear it for myself to make up my mind on it, but it still seems a little silly to go so far as to give it an M classification.

To cite other examples of such innuendo, there was an episode of Celebrity Letters and Numbers a few months ago that featured several uses of "forking" and the show was rated PG (I don't recall "coarse language" being flagged either).

There was also an anime DVD, School Rumble: Second Semester Part I which included occasional use of the word "flunking", sometimes as an innuendo for a stronger term, and it was classified M for "Animated violence, themes and coarse language". I did some snooping because I generally watch anime with the original Japanese audio (which contained no such innuendo), but I was curious as to why "coarse language" was flagged, as the entire first series was rated PG, and the fact that the supposed "coarse language" wasn't flagged as being "infrequent" also made me wonder if one of the dubbed episodes contained multiple uses of uncensored profanity for some reason. In this particular instance though, I thought flagging for "coarse language" was unnecessary. I would be more understanding in the case of Riki Rhino given its target audience of children as opposed to School Rumble which is aimed at older audiences.

Should go with the word Frack. Worked nicely on Battlestar Galactica, to get around the puritanical US basic cable stance of no F-bombs before 10pm, although the show was still violent.

The US basic cable TV landscape is ridiculous, with it allowing extreme graphic violence (enough to initially ban The Walking Dead S1 Ep 2-5 in Germany), but finding that F-bombs are unacceptable.

The AMC network has made Negan a caricature of his comic book persona in many scenes of The Walking Dead IMHO, with his continual need to say “Screwing”, “Goddam” etc. instead of letting fly with F-bombs, like a bikie on crank. Even a “What the shit?” they tried, as a replacement for WTF simply sounded ridiculous.

Even back in the Season 4 finale of TWD, an iconic line from the comic had to be neutered when they changed “f*cking” to “screwing”. At least they fixed this on the Blu-Ray (and Negan’s intro on Blu-Ray had 20-something F-bombs). The showrunner promised more uncut F-bomb episodes on Blu-Ray, but since the S6 BD, we got pretty much nothing. They did try to drop an F-bomb in S9Ep4, with a thumb click muting the word slightly. Lame. So pathetic, considering the source material had plenty of F-bombs.

And speaking of bikies, I’ve passed on bothering to watch Sons of Anarchy once I heard it was absent any F-bombs and almost absent any profanity. Having a bikie gang not say the word “f*ck” is too much of a “suspension of disbelief” for me to accept.

Back on topic, the ACB’s decisions around some of these films getting M ratings when they really should be PG is ridiculous. I still think an additional rating in between M and PG is necessary to allow some of these lightly bloody scenes to pass by censors. When films like Aliens and Beverley Hills Cop gets the same rating as an uncut Bumblebee, Instant Family and now Penguin Bloom, there is something clearly wrong with the current system. Fracking sick of these cuts that are requested by the ACB to take a film from M to PG. Looks like they are not going to stop, so a new category should be considered.

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

When films like Aliens and Beverley Hills Cop gets the same rating as an uncut Bumblebee, Instant Family and now Penguin Bloom, there is something clearly wrong with the current system. Fracking sick of these cuts that are requested by the ACB to take a film from M to PG. Looks like they are not going to stop, so a new category should be considered.

I still disagree, because if a new category is introduced, then we run the risk of family films that are typically rated PG being rated even more harshly with a hypothetical Young Adult rating (given the Board's already questionable judgement at present), and the guidelines haven't changed in any meaningful way for the Board to be classifying certain films so harshly in recent years, so this is more of an internal issue than a systemic one (which explains why the Review Board frequently make decisions that are more sound, which reflects the quality of the members of the Review Board as opposed to the main Board). If anything, more detailed consumer advice (especially surrounding themes) would be more useful to the average joe than yet another category that will diminish the usefulness of the PG and M ratings merely because the current Board are shit at their jobs.

I agree with you that what was G in the 80s/90s/00s is/was still overwhelmingly fine for general audiences today and so on for the other categories. Perhaps older films can be dropped a category due to violence that appears unrealistic/dated by modern standards, but the Board ought to be operating with some degree of objectivity with respect to what their standards are (as classifications from 30+ years ago are still binding today), and ensure that the guidelines are applied as uniformly as possible, irrespective of who is on the Board.

A new category ultimately won't stop G-worthy films from being slapped with PGs, and films with a single use of the c-word being slapped with an MA15+. The current Board needs to reconsider the manner in which they assess material so that it better reflects the expectations of each classification level. I have very little doubt that the likes of Penguin Bloom, Bumblebee, Lady Bird, and countless children/family films would be knocked down a category had the Review Board taken a look at them, but the costs are often prohibitive or otherwise unjustifiable for a market our size (costing at least $10,000, and if I understood correctly, apparently requiring legal representation too ). I can't help but suspect that the Board often classifies work harshly in order to try their luck and see who takes the bait. If Rocketman is fine with a single c-word at the M level, then why do other applicants continue to suffer?

A YA rating isn't suddenly going to stop films being slapped with undeserved PG, M, MA15+ or R18+ ratings for stupid arbitrary reasons (especially the game-specific rules around sexual violence). And where would it end? A category between G and PG? MA15+ and R18+? We don't need new categories. We either need to dump the Board and/or change the guidelines/rules so that they make fewer stupid decisions that do not adequately serve the needs of the community that they are paid (far too generously) to represent.

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

Should go with the word Frack. Worked nicely on Battlestar Galactica, to get around the puritanical US basic cable stance of no F-bombs before 10pm, although the show was still violent.

Veronica Mars paid homage to this by occasionally using the euphemism "frack" too. Euphemistic language generally when the context would otherwise demand uncensored profanity pisses me off, and I say this as somebody who generally refrains from profaning if I can help it. Even the streaming-exclusive revival of VM didn't include any M-worthy naughty words (though the movie included a single f-bomb, though they easily could have done without it), and the first season finale included a single use of "piece of S".

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

And speaking of bikies, I’ve passed on bothering to watch Sons of Anarchy once I heard it was absent any F-bombs and almost absent any profanity. Having a bikie gang not say the word “f*ck” is too much of a “suspension of disbelief” for me to accept.

Some of the seasons cite "coarse language" at the MA15+ level. Could it be that you were watching a censored broadcast cut? Either way, I wouldn't be able to suspend my disbelief with such a show either, and I've always found it unbelievable how "clean" the language is in cop shows generally (particularly Law & Order: SVU) given the general character of these shows, and when the strongest insult that a murderer/rapist can utter is "bi***".

[Rick Grimes]

Originally Posted by SillyG

I still disagree, because if a new category is introduced, then we run the risk of family films that are typically rated PG being rated even more harshly with a hypothetical Young Adult rating (given the Board's already questionable judgement at present), and the guidelines haven't changed in any meaningful way for the Board to be classifying certain films so harshly in recent years, so this is more of an internal issue than a systemic one (which explains why the Review Board frequently make decisions that are more sound, which reflects the quality of the members of the Review Board as opposed to the main Board). If anything, more detailed consumer advice (especially surrounding themes) would be more useful to the average joe than yet another category that will diminish the usefulness of the PG and M ratings merely because the current Board are shit at their jobs.

I agree with you that was G in the 80s/90s/00s is/was still overwhelmingly fine for general audiences today and so on for the other categories. Perhaps older films can be dropped a category due to violence that appears unrealistic/dated by modern standards, but the Board ought to be operating with some degree of objectivity with respect to what their standards are (as classifications from 30+ years ago are still binding today), and ensure that the guidelines are applied as uniformly as possible, irrespective of who is on the Board.

A new category ultimately won't stop G-worthy films from being slapped with PGs, and films with a single use of the c-word being slapped with an MA15+. The current Board needs to reconsider the manner in which they assess material so that it better reflects the expectations of each classification level. I have very little doubt that the likes of Penguin Bloom, Bumblebee, Lady Bird, and countless children/family films would be knocked down a category had the Review Board taken a look at them, but the costs are often prohibitive or otherwise unjustifiable for a market our size (costing at least $10,000, and if I understood correctly, apparently requiring legal representation too ). I can't help but suspect that the Board often classifies work harshly in order to try their luck and see who takes the bait. If Rocketman is fine with a single c-word at the M level, then why do other applicants continue to suffer?

A YA rating isn't suddenly going to stop films being slapped with undeserved PG, M, MA15+ or R18+ ratings for stupid arbitrary reasons (especially the game-specific rules around sexual violence). And where would it end? A category between G and PG? MA15+ and R18+? We don't need new categories. We either need to dump the Board and/or change the guidelines/rules so that they make fewer stupid decisions that do not adequately serve the needs of the community that they are paid (far too generously) to represent.

I agree that these films that are questionable M’s and need one cut to pass as PG should simply have an “brief realistic injury detail” advice or something like that, but they appear to not be able to get their shit right, so maybe an additional rating is required. If the ACB can’t sort their shit out and stop having multiple films being rated M for the most inane reasons, and then dizzy’s make cuts to get ‘em to fit, then an additional rating may be the answer. Especially if there is just one F-bomb, then it shouldn’t push a movie into the M territory. That’s why you have parental guidance. When watching the film, when the character uses the one F-bomb, they can turn to their child and say “You shouldn’t use that word” or talk about it’s use later. I think these days coarse language is a mute point, especially when you can hear the word on broadcast TV after 8.30 or during the day, if it’s covered by a TV M.

Originally Posted by SillyG

Veronica Mars paid homage to this by occasionally using the euphemism "frack" too. Euphemistic language generally when the context would otherwise demand uncensored profanity pisses me off, and I say this as somebody who generally refrains from profaning if I can help it. Even the streaming-exclusive revival of VM didn't include any M-worthy naughty words (though the movie included a single f-bomb, though they easily could have done without it), and the first season finale included a single use of "piece of S".



Some of the seasons cite "coarse language" at the MA15+ level. Could it be that you were watching a censored broadcast cut? Either way, I wouldn't be able to suspend my disbelief with such a show either, and I've always found it unbelievable how "clean" the language is in cop shows generally (particularly Law & Order: SVU) given the general character of these shows, and when the strongest insult that a murderer/rapist can utter is "bi***".

I have reliably been informed by fans of SOA that it is mostly profanity free and definitely no F-bombs. I think the coarse language may have either been added by mistake or was referring to “shit” or “as$hole”, but the MA15+ comes from the violence.

Reminds me of the crux of the plot in South Park where Kyle’s Mum reminds everyone why they’ve fought a war with Canada “Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words”.

And that also sums up how FX used to handle coarse language, and unfortunately how AMC still does. Refusal to use F-bombs (as AMC solely owns the rights to The Walking Dead), has been the approach that the TV series and it’s spin-offs (with the exception of two F-bombs in Season 3 of Fear the Walking Dead), has sadly taken, despite the graphic novel having graphic language.

FX’s Sons of Anarchy, Homeland and even the American Horror Story franchise, was absent F-bombs for it’s first few seasons. Apparently AMC and FX don’t want to upset advertisers. Now, FX don’t give a f*ck. Prime example, the comedy “What we do in the Shadows”. Hilarious show that I pray to the gods will one day find it’s way to Blu-Ray, has no issues with the use of language.

Link to SOA vs. Mayans MC (spin-off) and the use of F-bombs on FX: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...8-1129163/amp/

[SillyG]

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

I agree that these films that are questionable M’s and need one cut to pass as PG should simply have an “brief realistic injury detail” advice or something like that...

Yes, and that would have more than sufficed. I mean, for crying out loud, the PG rating has gotten away with a fair bit of violence/blood over the years. Brief non-graphic depiction of an injury surely should have been permissible if justified by the story (which it was). All they had to do was flag it as "Mild themes, coarse language and brief injury detail" and call it a day. The "Mature themes" descriptor at the M level over a brief depiction of a freaking injury doesn't help the audience ascertain the film's content, nor is it the sort of content that most parents would take exception to (particularly if the consumer advice is adequately descriptive).

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

I think these days coarse language is a mute point, especially when you can hear the word on broadcast TV after 8.30 or during the day, if it’s covered by a TV M.

M rated content can be broadcast on FTA from 7.30pm and this has been the case for a few years now (previously, it was exclusive to multichannels and only feature films on primary channels, but now applies to all content across all channels), and likewise for MA15+ content from 8.30pm on. The AV15+ rating has been abolished as it no longer serves a purpose, as AV15+ content was restricted to 9.30pm as opposed to MA15+, which used to be restricted to 9.00pm.

Shows with M-rated coarse language routinely air from 7.30pm, such as Married At First Sight and Celebrity Letters and Numbers, but networks continue to exercise prudence in this regard by still censoring primetime shows at this timeslot for a PG rating if they typically appeal to family audiences (such as Masterchef, The Voice, The Masked Singer etc.).

Originally Posted by Rick Grimes

I have reliably been informed by fans of SOA that it is mostly profanity free and definitely no F-bombs. I think the coarse language may have either been added by mistake or was referring to “shit” or “as$hole”, but the MA15+ comes from the violence.

Interesting. Some of the seasons have flagged "coarse language" at the MA15+ level, so in that case, I assume that any strong profanities would be isolated to the special features rather than the episodes themselves...

Season 1: MA15+ - Strong themes, violence and sexual references
Season 2: MA15+ - Strong violence, sexual references and coarse language
Season 3: MA15+ - Strong themes, violence, coarse language and sexual references
Season 4: MA15+ - Strong violence, themes and sex scenes
Season 5: MA15+ - Strong violence, themes, sexual references, sex scenes and drug use
Season 6: MA15+ - Strong sexual violence, bloody violence, themes, sex scenes, drug use and coarse language
Season 7: MA15+ - Strong bloody and sexualised violence, sex scenes, themes and coarse language

Due to issues with the ACB website at present, I cannot check the classification breakdown for each season (in terms of where the elements fall with respect to their "impact"), but while the ACB usually only mentions the content that warranted the marked classification in the consumer advice, sometimes they will also flag a classifiable element that was at the borderline between two categories in the consumer advice as an added precaution, and so it's quite possible that the "coarse language" in some of those seasons could have been accommodated at the M level (at least among those where "coarse language" was listed last).

[Rick Grimes]

Originally Posted by SillyG

Yes, and that would have more than sufficed. I mean, for crying out loud, the PG rating has gotten away with a fair bit of violence/blood over the years. Brief non-graphic depiction of an injury surely should have been permissible if justified by the story (which it was). All they had to do was flag it as "Mild themes, coarse language and brief injury detail" and call it a day. The "Mature themes" descriptor at the M level over a brief depiction of a freaking injury doesn't help the audience ascertain the film's content, nor is it the sort of content that most parents would take exception to (particularly if the consumer advice is adequately descriptive).



M rated content can be broadcast on FTA from 7.30pm and this has been the case for a few years now (previously, it was exclusive to multichannels and only feature films on primary channels, but now applies to all content across all channels), and likewise for MA15+ content from 8.30pm on. The AV15+ rating has been abolished as it no longer serves a purpose, as AV15+ content was restricted to 9.30pm as opposed to MA15+, which used to be restricted to 9.00pm.

Shows with M-rated coarse language routinely air from 7.30pm, such as Married At First Sight and Celebrity Letters and Numbers, but networks continue to exercise prudence in this regard by still censoring primetime shows at this timeslot for a PG rating if they typically appeal to family audiences (such as Masterchef, The Voice, The Masked Singer etc.).



Interesting. Some of the seasons have flagged "coarse language" at the MA15+ level, so in that case, I assume that any strong profanities would be isolated to the special features rather than the episodes themselves...

Season 1: MA15+ - Strong themes, violence and sexual references
Season 2: MA15+ - Strong violence, sexual references and coarse language
Season 3: MA15+ - Strong themes, violence, coarse language and sexual references
Season 4: MA15+ - Strong violence, themes and sex scenes
Season 5: MA15+ - Strong violence, themes, sexual references, sex scenes and drug use
Season 6: MA15+ - Strong sexual violence, bloody violence, themes, sex scenes, drug use and coarse language
Season 7: MA15+ - Strong bloody and sexualised violence, sex scenes, themes and coarse language

Due to issues with the ACB website at present, I cannot check the classification breakdown for each season (in terms of where the elements fall with respect to their "impact"), but while the ACB usually only mentions the content that warranted the marked classification in the consumer advice, sometimes they will also flag a classifiable element that was at the borderline between two categories in the consumer advice as an added precaution, and so it's quite possible that the "coarse language" in some of those seasons could have been accommodated at the M level (at least among those where "coarse language" was listed last).

Apparently they would say the Cock, Pus$y, Shit, As$hole, and use the N-word countless times (as well as other derogatory racial slurs). It is questionable which is more profane, the N-word or the F-bomb, and a lot of Reddit and other blogs point the former out specifically, as well as some of the graphic violence. I can’t find anywhere, even with parents groups warnings, where an F-bomb was used. That could have changed on the Blu-Ray, but even with the Blu-Ray, no one is saying they dropped any F-bombs.

I know that Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul have a few F-bombs that are uncensored on BD, since Sony owns the show. But on US AMC broadcasts (Aussie Foxtel broadcasts had the uncut versions), the F-bombs are censored with silence, rather then a bleep.
There is one time in The Walking Dead (S5Ep4 or Ep5), where Daryl says “F*ck the way it was”, but you don’t even notice it missing on the broadcast, since it comes out as a pause from the last sentence before he says “The way it was”.

Since I did add it as an afterthought in my last post, here is an article from the creator stating Mayans MC, the Sons of Anarchy Spin-off, would have F-bombs, since FX had changed their stance on not having any F-bombs on FX broadcasts.

Link to SOA vs. Mayans MC (spin-off) and the use of F-bombs on FX: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...8-1129163/amp/