BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[HotRats]

The main purpose of the BBFC is perpetuating itself. An examiner is paid around £53000 pa, which is good going for a job that produces nothing. it's a makework job, where looking busy is the main aim so people don't ask what you're actually doing and whether it's value for money. So we get bans and interference in films to remind people the BBFC is actually doing something.

Horse falls are the thing that annoys me. Modern films rightly don't injure horses for entertainment (they leave that to the horse racing industry) but to appear consistent the BBFC makes itself ludicrous by censoring films that were previously uncut such as Duck You Sucker and Charge Of The Light Brigade and adds an extra helping of stupidity by censoring digitally created horse falls (Red Cliff)

In a world with the internet, censorship is moronic.

[CV19]

Originally Posted by HotRats

The main purpose of the BBFC is perpetuating itself. An examiner is paid around £53000 pa, which is good going for a job that produces nothing. it's a makework job, where looking busy is the main aim so people don't ask what you're actually doing and whether it's value for money. So we get bans and interference in films to remind people the BBFC is actually doing something.

Horse falls are the thing that annoys me. Modern films rightly don't injure horses for entertainment (they leave that to the horse racing industry) but to appear consistent the BBFC makes itself ludicrous by censoring films that were previously uncut such as Duck You Sucker and Charge Of The Light Brigade and adds an extra helping of stupidity by censoring digitally created horse falls (Red Cliff)

In a world with the internet, censorship is moronic.

I can't argue with anything you've said there. I can understand the BBFC having to decide an age category for each film, even though I may not agree with their decisions, but to actually censor a film is frankly a step too far. Why should one guy (or a group of them) decide what is unsuitable for the rest of us? But as you pointed out, they have to justify their well paid jobs.

£53,000 to sit there watching films.....clearly I need a career change.

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by HotRats

Horse falls are the thing that annoys me. Modern films rightly don't injure horses for entertainment (they leave that to the horse racing industry) but to appear consistent the BBFC makes itself ludicrous by censoring films that were previously uncut such as Duck You Sucker and Charge Of The Light Brigade and adds an extra helping of stupidity by censoring digitally created horse falls (Red Cliff)

In a world with the internet, censorship is moronic.

The BBFC can't do anything about the horse falls, that's a law that would need support from Parliament to undo. And it was passed in 1937, so there's always been animal cruelty cuts, it's just that the interpretation of the law (and maybe the actual law itself?) has been changed so that clean, quick kills are allowed but actual cruelty like horse falls aren't.

In any case, this only makes up the minority of films reviewed. The BBFC is not a makework organisation, their job is to classify films, give them an age rating and hope parents don't ignore it.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by CV19

The Blu-rays of the first 4 Alien films are rated '18', but the more recent Covenant is rated as '15'.

The Blu-rays themselves are, but I know for the fact that the Director's Cut and Special Edition of Alien and Aliens respectively are both 15.

[Agent Kay]

Starship Troopers was 15 in the cinema 18 on video
There was another at the same time, I can't for the life of me remember also
I agree with cutting actual animal violence, I don't agree with cutting anything in an 18, it's 18 leave it alone

[CV19]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

The Blu-rays themselves are, but I know for the fact that the Director's Cut and Special Edition of Alien and Aliens respectively are both 15.

That's fair enough. Now you mention it, I remember the original Alien film getting re-released a few years ago, but couldn't recall the age rating for it. The Blu-rays each have two versions of the first four Alien films, but they simply state them as an '18' rating, which I took to mean both versions of the films had the same certificate.

[drush9999]

I wish we had the ability to release unrated material in the UK (bar the obviously illegal stuff which would be prosecuted). Maybe have a volunteer 18 cert for that use.
Save a ton of money for small independent labels.

Don't think our authoritarian politicians on both sides would go for it though.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by Markgway

The last two Star Wars films should've been PG.

Giving them 12s devalues both ratings.

I mean, how can Star Wars be the same certificate as The Dark Knight and Casino Royale?

Madness.

Your comment reminds me of J.G. Ballard's contemporary review of the original 1977 Star Wars for Time Out, the one where he disparagingly calls it "Hobbits In Space" and IMO inadvertently sums up what makes it so enjoyable, expressing his puzzlement at the film's U certificate due to it containing literally billions of deaths.

Weren't Force Awakens, *** **** ****, and Rogue One 12A rather than 12 in the cinema? I agree however that the two trilogy movies should have been PG. Also as 12A (which would have made more sense called PG-12) exists in cinema it should also be adopted for home video releases as it leads to inconstancy regarding who is "allowed" to see some releases.

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

Also as 12A (which would have made more sense called PG-12) exists in cinema it should also be adopted for home video releases as it leads to inconstancy regarding who is "allowed" to see some releases.

It doesn't really. 12A is for when your child can see it if 12 or over, but if underage then they need to be accompanied by an adult. The 12 home video situation makes things simpler for retailers - do you sell a 12A to an underage kid with a parent nearby? It honestly doesn't matter too much.

I'd like to see the BBFC become optional instead of mandatory for home video, especially in an era where Netflix releases don't always get rated because the law doesn't cover them. Mandatory cinema releases is fine, but for home video let people use the cinema certificate or just have no certificate. It works for the USA. Any illegal material would surely be noticed and brought to the attention of the authorities, and anyway, it's an unlikely thing to happen in any situation.

Back on topic, I was wondering if a 15 was right for the Autopsy of Jane Doe and Silence of the Lambs. They're both Irish 18s and definitely near the top end of the 15 spectrum. I'd go with 18, at least for Silence, just because they feel more like 18 films rather than 15.

[chuffster]

Lots of Arnie films have been cut to ribbons.Eraser being one of the worst instances, with the whole train hitting the car scene being cut!I can't understand why Last Action Hero is rated 15, either!

[Markgway]

If all four Alien films were submitted fresh they would be '15's.

But because of isolated scores, commentaries, trivia tracks, etc., it becomes difficult to ascertain what's been downgraded and what hasn't.

It's possible that all the 'extra feature' editions are '15' but the actual video only classifications (which the board don't need to re-watch) are still technically '18's.

If that makes sense...?

[DeathlyGeneral]

Originally Posted by Markgway

If all four Alien films were submitted fresh they would be '15's.

But because of isolated scores, commentaries, trivia tracks, etc., it becomes difficult to ascertain what's been downgraded and what hasn't.

It's possible that all the 'extra feature' editions are '15' but the actual video only classifications (which the board don't need to re-watch) are still technically '18's.

If that makes sense...?

Nothing about this makes sense. The BBFC need to streamline their operations a bit.

I think the original theatricals are 18 and haven't been resubmitted, but the extended editions are 15 as they had to be submitted for the 2003 DVD boxset.

Trailers, commentaries, etc. is just more confusion on top of all the confusing confusion we already have. The MPAA don't do this kind of nonsense!

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

Back on topic, I was wondering if a 15 was right for the Autopsy of Jane Doe and Silence of the Lambs. They're both Irish 18s and definitely near the top end of the 15 spectrum. I'd go with 18, at least for Silence, just because they feel more like 18 films rather than 15.

I have a suspicion that the BBFC downgrade certain films just to make a point.

That's the only explanation I can muster for the downgrading of Silence.

When Silence came out there was actually some controversy about it's content.

This is almost like the BBFC's way of saying 'oh, that was in the past. These films aren't troublesome anymore'.

[Fnord Prefect]

Originally Posted by DeathlyGeneral

It doesn't really. 12A is for when your child can see it if 12 or over, but if underage then they need to be accompanied by an adult. The 12 home video situation makes things simpler for retailers - do you sell a 12A to an underage kid with a parent nearby? It honestly doesn't matter too much.

I'd like to see the BBFC become optional instead of mandatory for home video, especially in an era where Netflix releases don't always get rated because the law doesn't cover them. Mandatory cinema releases is fine, but for home video let people use the cinema certificate or just have no certificate. It works for the USA. Any illegal material would surely be noticed and brought to the attention of the authorities, and anyway, it's an unlikely thing to happen in any situation.

Back on topic, I was wondering if a 15 was right for the Autopsy of Jane Doe and Silence of the Lambs. They're both Irish 18s and definitely near the top end of the 15 spectrum. I'd go with 18, at least for Silence, just because they feel more like 18 films rather than 15.

An opt in system for both cinema and home video is ideal. However we know that's not going to happen.

Silence of the Lambs is IMO deserving of an 18.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by chuffster

Lots of Arnie films have been cut to ribbons.Eraser being one of the worst instances, with the whole train hitting the car scene being cut!I can't understand why Last Action Hero is rated 15, either!

My guess is that the sinister scene in which the boy is threatened by the knife-wielding intruder was a mitigating factor. It's not a fantasy sequence. It's a real world (and realistic) sequence that's likely to upset children being left home alone by parents at work.

I also think there's a neck break in a fight scene later.

[CV19]

Originally Posted by chuffster

Lots of Arnie films have been cut to ribbons.Eraser being one of the worst instances, with the whole train hitting the car scene being cut!

I remember getting the DVD which was rated '15' and had substantial cuts made to it like you say, yet Sky showed the complete '18' rated version some years ago now. Thankfully, the Blu-ray appears to be uncut.

[drush9999]

The Eraser cuts were annoying because they cut the villains getting hit by the train and ruined the end. I remember being disappointed after seeing it at the cinema which got a cut 18 and then the completely butchered 15 rated vhs.

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by Fnord Prefect

Your comment reminds me of J.G. Ballard's contemporary review of the original 1977 Star Wars for Time Out, the one where he disparagingly calls it "Hobbits In Space" and IMO inadvertently sums up what makes it so enjoyable, expressing his puzzlement at the film's U certificate due to it containing literally billions of deaths.

Weren't Force Awakens, *** **** ****, and Rogue One 12A rather than 12 in the cinema? I agree however that the two trilogy movies should have been PG. Also as 12A (which would have made more sense called PG-12) exists in cinema it should also be adopted for home video releases as it leads to inconstancy regarding who is "allowed" to see some releases.

Rogue One was even tamer than The Last Jedi. The only Star Wars film I feel would upset younglings (sorry) is Revenge of the Sith. Which is very dark and quite violent compared to the others. Also the best of the prequel trilogy IMO.

[professorwho]

Originally Posted by SymbioticFunction

Surprised because it should have been a '12' or surprised because it should have been a 'U'' release?

I thought it would be '12'. There's some very graphic violence and scary imagery that might be too much for younger viewers. Not to mention it has a PG-13 rating in the US.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by CV19

That's fair enough. Now you mention it, I remember the original Alien film getting re-released a few years ago, but couldn't recall the age rating for it. The Blu-rays each have two versions of the first four Alien films, but they simply state them as an '18' rating, which I took to mean both versions of the films had the same certificate.

No worries. They don't exactly make it clear on the packaging, as Markgway's post makes clear:

Originally Posted by Markgway

If all four Alien films were submitted fresh they would be '15's.

But because of isolated scores, commentaries, trivia tracks, etc., it becomes difficult to ascertain what's been downgraded and what hasn't.

It's possible that all the 'extra feature' editions are '15' but the actual video only classifications (which the board don't need to re-watch) are still technically '18's.

If that makes sense...?

Yeah, I think it's a combination of bonus features and the theatrical cuts not having been re-submitted, which means the home video releases are still 18 overall.