BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[Martoto]

Words aren't offensive. Their usage, and the underlying reasons for how and why and when certain words are a matter for discussion.

Who could possibly be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to causally invoke the crusades in such an offhand and gratuitous manner in Shrek 2?

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Words aren't offensive. Their usage, and the underlying reasons for how and why and when certain words are a matter for discussion.

Who could possibly be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to causally invoke the crusades in such an offhand and gratuitous manner?

I totally agree with this post... minus the sarcasm.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by Markgway

It's worth pointing out that the last crusade was about 600 years (unless you count the one in 1989).

Too soon?

Seriously, I'm not sure who was supposed to be offended by it?

I'm biting my tongue trying not to get too political, but this sums it up for me.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by drush9999

I'm biting my tongue trying not to get too political, but this sums it up for me.

Do you know what the point being made is then?

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Quite right. It's not set in middle ages Europe. In fact it's not set in reality, never mind history. We should recognise that carelessly throwing around words like "crusade" for fun is not necessary. Why not just have the character idly complain about injuries received while "committing the holocaust" or "raping Nanking". Would be as meaningful as the "crusade" line is to the film and just as insensitive.

You're being sarcastic, right?

EDIT:

Apparently not...

Originally Posted by Martoto

No it isn't. It is only what those that use it to mean that would like to think because European society long considered holy war of conquest and plundering lands of non Christians was an inherently noble cause. Thanks to its antiquity, the actual meaning and context has become overlooked by many and misused for years. By white Europeans of course.

If you are going to use the excuse of default acceptability through usage that is often assumed, then what is the king trying to say that he's using word "correctly" for? He was wounded crusading for better equipment in public schools, or crusading to prevent a traffic light system being introduced at the roundabout going on to the town ring-road? That's the kind of rubbish that people feel they need to use the word crusade for.

You could use the unreality of a movie to excuse the casual use of of any word which may or may not be offensive to utter so casually and without any thought except the assumption that most people find it acceptable, and only through ignorance.

If this forum had a facepalm emoji I'd add it here.

EDIT: Got a bit too political there, deleted a couple of paragraphs.

As interesting as this bullshit is it's off topic anyway.

[RossyG]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Words aren't offensive. Their usage, and the underlying reasons for how and why and when certain words are a matter for discussion.

Who could possibly be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to causally invoke the crusades in such an offhand and gratuitous manner in Shrek 2?

So what if they are offensive to some? No one has the right not to be offended.

And if people are offended, what's the worst that can happen to them? Self-pity and... nothing else.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Words aren't offensive. Their usage, and the underlying reasons for how and why and when certain words are a matter for discussion.

Who could possibly be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to causally invoke the crusades in such an offhand and gratuitous manner in Shrek 2?

I honestly don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to casually invoke the Crusades in such an offhand manner, then again I don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision to casually invoke them either.

Are you a Muslim who is personally offended by such a joke? As horrible as the Crusades were, I don't know of anyone who is personally touched by such an ancient event to even give a joke about them much thought to be honest. You can't really equate the Crusades with the Holocaust as that is an event that is so recent that there are still living survivors.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I honestly don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to casually invoke the Crusades in such an offhand manner, then again I don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision to casually invoke them either.

Are you a Muslim who is personally offended by such a joke? As horrible as the Crusades were, I don't know of anyone who is personally touched by such an ancient event to even give a joke about them much thought to be honest. You can't really equate the Crusades with the Holocaust as that is an event that is so recent that there are still living survivors.

History is a whole endless series of conquests and religious wars. I mean how does Martoto think Muslims came by the 11th century to be in possession of the Holy Land and East Mediterranean or for that matter much of the Indian subcontinent, Asia, Middle East and Africa? Yet somehow it's different when done by white Europeans.

[UpsetSmiley]

I think about films and their ratings quite a lot, probably more often than necessary. Apart from some odd stances on language and their tendency to be over protective when it comes to classifying films which should be at U as PG and PG as 12, there are many BBFC decisions I defend.

I found the controversy surrounding Kick-Ass at the time of release to be very OTT, it's quite risque but the violence is mostly stylised and comic booky to the point where it feels like a cartoon. I feel the BBFC got it right with the 15 cert.

I thought the violence in The Dark Knight Rises, especially at the cinema (a record breaking four timer for me!) to be especially intense. Most of the violence/injury is shielded from the camera but it's still very crunchy and threatening, Bane makes a lot of it feel very personal and sadistic. For me, it was stronger than The Dark Knight and much more so than any other 12A fantasy films out today.

Psycho is another one I wonder about, it's a 15 for "strong violence" but the violence is fairly infrequent, two scenes which lack focus on the violence being carried out but show the grisly aftermath up close. Now that I think of it, maybe a very tame 15. The sort of film most under 15's watch in English class.

I saw the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey at VUE recently, and it holds up very well, especially the eerie score which accompanies a large chunk of the film. It probably won't appeal to young 'uns but still this is a PG through and through. If I saw this as a child it would've spooked me that's for sure, baring in mind the haunting sound of the VCI/BBC idents at the beginning of VHS tapes was enough to scare the heebie jeebies out of me.

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I think about films and their ratings quite a lot, probably more often than necessary. Apart from some odd stances on language and their tendency to be over protective when it comes to classifying films which should be at U as PG and PG as 12, there are many BBFC decisions I defend.

I found the controversy surrounding Kick-Ass at the time of release to be very OTT, it's quite risque but the violence is mostly stylised and comic booky to the point where it feels like a cartoon. I feel the BBFC got it right with the 15 cert.

I thought the violence in The Dark Knight Rises, especially at the cinema (a record breaking four timer for me!) to be especially intense. Most of the violence/injury is shielded from the camera but it's still very crunchy and threatening, Bane makes a lot of it feel very personal and sadistic. For me, it was stronger than The Dark Knight and much more so than any other 12A fantasy films out today.

Psycho is another one I wonder about, it's a 15 for "strong violence" but the violence is fairly infrequent, two scenes which lack focus on the violence being carried out but show the grisly aftermath up close. Now that I think of it, maybe a very tame 15. The sort of film most under 15's watch in English class.

I saw the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey at VUE recently, and it holds up very well, especially the eerie score which accompanies a large chunk of the film. It probably won't appeal to young 'uns but still this is a PG through and through. If I saw this as a child it would've spooked me that's for sure, baring in mind the haunting sound of the VCI/BBC idents at the beginning of VHS tapes was enough to scare the heebie jeebies out of me.

Psycho, I totally agree with. It's a 12, come on. Not only is there very little detail in the killings, but there's very little "horror" or the atmosphere of horror running throughout the entire film (a la Insidious, Sixth Sense and other PG-13 horrors that got hit with a 15), the horror is limited to several sequences and the film plays out like a drama/thriller for the most part. The shower scene makes the decision to give it a 15 plausible, though. B&W blood is still blood and Marion is quite viciously attacked.

Interestingly, 2001 is a U for "some mild horror". The BD is a 12 because of the bonus features, but the film itself is a U. Not seen it yet, but I'm unconvinced it's a PG, eerie music ain't really the BBFC'S definition of "horror". While they do pay attention to the tone and theme of the film, they can't just slap restrictive ratings on films that might scare audiences, especially as kids can get scared by almost anything.

[RossyG]

There's a fairly violent fight between apes in 2001, which I'm guessing accounts for the "mild horror". No gore, but a lot of snarling and brutality. It's probably a borderline U/PG. I'd have gone with PG, but nothing wrong with a U really, so they were probably right. Not that those ratings make much difference. It's a film that would bore most children under 12.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

Psycho, I totally agree with. It's a 12, come on. Not only is there very little detail in the killings, but there's very little "horror" or the atmosphere of horror running throughout the entire film (a la Insidious, Sixth Sense and other PG-13 horrors that got hit with a 15), the horror is limited to several sequences and the film plays out like a drama/thriller for the most part. The shower scene makes the decision to give it a 15 plausible, though. B&W blood is still blood and Marion is quite viciously attacked.

Interestingly, 2001 is a U for "some mild horror". The BD is a 12 because of the bonus features, but the film itself is a U. Not seen it yet, but I'm unconvinced it's a PG, eerie music ain't really the BBFC'S definition of "horror". While they do pay attention to the tone and theme of the film, they can't just slap restrictive ratings on films that might scare audiences, especially as kids can get scared by almost anything.

2001 has quite a creepy tone throughout as well as some threat so a PG for scary moments/threat seems apt, but I won't go into it as don't wish to spoil it for ya . The 4K will be out in October which would be a perfect opportunity to check it out and I highly recommend it!

The Sixth Sense is a good call, it doesn't seem like a 12 or a 15 but somewhere in the middle. If I had to choose, it would be a 12, it's very similar to Signs which is a 12. Insidious is purely a 15 because of the tone and jump scares, can't recall any other classification issues that would warrant a 15. Ireland gave it an 18 on video!

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

2001 has quite a creepy tone throughout as well as some threat so a PG for scary moments/threat seems apt, but I won't go into it as don't wish to spoil it for ya

Pretty much what I was going to say. There's nothing really in it that individually warrants a PG but taken as whole and coupled with the feeling of unease that permeates the second half of the film I'd have played it safe and given it the a PG.

That said, any child that can sit through and enjoy this film be they 3 or 13 should be encouraged. It's a work of art and a (somewhat open ended) intellectual exercise as much as entertainment, as such in this case the choice of certificate is IMO of little relevance.

[moviegeek1992]

IIRC doesn't the BBFC's examiners only view parts of a film, no one examiner views a complete movie? So Examiner 1 will view 30 minutes and make notes which then get passed onto Examiner 2 who views another 30 minutes? If that's correct then couldn't it be argued that when viewing a movie out of context an examiner may find certain violent scenes more harsh etc and the end rating could even be a result of miscommunication between the two viewers.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by moviegeek1992

IIRC doesn't the BBFC's examiners only view parts of a film, no one examiner views a complete movie? So Examiner 1 will view 30 minutes and make notes which then get passed onto Examiner 2 who views another 30 minutes? If that's correct then couldn't it be argued that when viewing a movie out of context an examiner may find certain violent scenes more harsh etc and the end rating could even be a result of miscommunication between the two viewers.

I Imagine they would both work to same guidelines/laws
probably tick list, check sheet, how many F.Bombs, C.Bombs, violence, nudity etc
3 or more C.Bombs=18

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

History is a whole endless series of conquests and religious wars. I mean how does Martoto think Muslims came by the 11th century to be in possession of the Holy Land and East Mediterranean or for that matter much of the Indian subcontinent, Asia, Middle East and Africa? Yet somehow it's different when done by white Europeans.

So "whataboutism" regarding the behaviour of 12th century Muslims is you argument for why the makers of Shrek 2 can't voluntarily revise the tone or content of their movie.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I honestly don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision not to casually invoke the Crusades in such an offhand manner, then again I don't know of anyone who would be offended by the filmmaker's decision to casually invoke them either.

Are you a Muslim who is personally offended by such a joke? As horrible as the Crusades were, I don't know of anyone who is personally touched by such an ancient event to even give a joke about them much thought to be honest. You can't really equate the Crusades with the Holocaust as that is an event that is so recent that there are still living survivors.

No I'm not offended. I just don't adopt an inappropriate "all censorship sucks" position on the decision the filmmaker's took. I'm certainly not offended by their apparent policy to not unduly offend anyone or to perpetuate holy war as a lark in a children's movie.

It's not about insensitivity towards living victims or people personally affected. It's about awareness raising of the actual meaning and its implications.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

I think about films and their ratings quite a lot, probably more often than necessary. Apart from some odd stances on language and their tendency to be over protective when it comes to classifying films which should be at U as PG and PG as 12, there are many BBFC decisions I defend.

I found the controversy surrounding Kick-Ass at the time of release to be very OTT, it's quite risque but the violence is mostly stylised and comic booky to the point where it feels like a cartoon. I feel the BBFC got it right with the 15 cert.

I thought the violence in The Dark Knight Rises, especially at the cinema (a record breaking four timer for me!) to be especially intense. Most of the violence/injury is shielded from the camera but it's still very crunchy and threatening, Bane makes a lot of it feel very personal and sadistic. For me, it was stronger than The Dark Knight and much more so than any other 12A fantasy films out today.

Psycho is another one I wonder about, it's a 15 for "strong violence" but the violence is fairly infrequent, two scenes which lack focus on the violence being carried out but show the grisly aftermath up close. Now that I think of it, maybe a very tame 15. The sort of film most under 15's watch in English class.

I saw the 50th anniversary of 2001: A Space Odyssey at VUE recently, and it holds up very well, especially the eerie score which accompanies a large chunk of the film. It probably won't appeal to young 'uns but still this is a PG through and through. If I saw this as a child it would've spooked me that's for sure, baring in mind the haunting sound of the VCI/BBC idents at the beginning of VHS tapes was enough to scare the heebie jeebies out of me.

At the end of the day, an adult watches the film and decides for themselves how appropriate or not it is for their child, regardless of rating. Or they don't. I've never thought about classification beyond watching it except where something took me by surprise that the classification hadn't prepared me for. But that rarely happens, which is sort of the point of classification.

Although I did watch Jaws with a six year old recently and it was rather uncomfortable even though I've seen it a zillion times since starting at the same age. I always get the feeling with certain movies that you are continually letting a child down about how dangerous the world is. Not that it really is for most of us. Just that movies ordinarily dwell on stuff like that, for entertainment. Which then means you have to face the fact that adults, and children alike, are happy for violence, calamity, cruelty and mayhem to happen, as long as it's not to us. I guess classifications are sometimes an indicator of the nature of the audience as much as the film.

[Markgway]

Surprised to see some suggestion for PSYCHO being a '12'.

It's clearly a '15' for infrequent strong violence and moderate horror (my consumer advice).

Aside from the pervasive menacing tone of the film's second half and twisted subtext (young man dresses up as his dead mother to murder women that turn him on) the two scenes of violence are still brutal, if undetailed.

The shower scene shows only one actual stab, but the death is prolonged, the effect very intense, and it's unlikely any scene in which a naked, vulnerable woman is butchered with a bread knife is getting anything less than a '15'.

The second murder shows the knife strike the victim's face.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by Martoto

So "whataboutism" regarding the behaviour of 12th century Muslims is you argument for why the makers of Shrek 2 can't voluntarily revise the tone or content of their movie.

Well no, I was making a statement regarding history in general. I was also expressing the pointlessness of such a petty bit of revisionism. After all who is gong to be offended by such a reference? As far as I can tell a small entitled percentage of the Muslim "community" who to be frank you really wonder why they stay here in Europe if they're triggered by such things (well we know why) and the sort of people who compare historic retaliatory wars fought to retrieve land and populations from invaders to 20th century atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre and The Holocaust. I could go on but I'm wary of getting to political and getting another ban.

Plus as I said, as interesting as all this is it is off topic.

To get back on subject:

Hitchcock's Psycho despite it's occasionally dated appearance/FX is IMO definitely 15 material for violence and psychological horror.