The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

Vinegar Syndrome, Deaf Crocodile, Imprint, Cinema Guild, and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#276 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:29 pm

I have just checked on Amazon and, yes, Series 2 of Poldark, which contained the scene that caused a fair amount of controversy in the tabloid press recently is rated 12, as is the boxset of the series so far. So that's something.

I guess The Perks of Being A Wallflower, rated 12 currently, might get classified up in the future also.

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#277 Post by Boosmahn » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:10 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:29 pm
I guess The Perks of Being A Wallflower, rated 12 currently, might get classified up in the future also.
That's surprising.
SpoilerShow
In addition to drug and suicide references, the main character has a mental breakdown and is revealed to be a victim of sexual abuse by his aunt.
Great movie, though. It ranks among some of my favorite coming-of-age stories.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#278 Post by furbicide » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:31 pm

Yes, and I think many, say, 13 and 14 year olds might well feel the same way. A shame if it'd now be considered a bit rich for them, because ... why? It's bad for them to know sexual abuse exists?
colinr0380 wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 4:11 pm
The BBFC to rule out any depiction of sexual violence in films classified lower than 15. Honestly I am surprised that they were passing films under that age with that content anyway, although I suppose the line between 'potential sexual threat' and 'actual depictions of assault' allowed certain films, like The Duchess mentioned in the article, to be classified lower?
Yeah, a little sceptical about the motivations here. Obviously anything with a violent rape scene should be 15+ (at least), but slapping such a rating on a film that deals with sexual assault even peripherally – despite discussion of sexual consent being an issue that really ought to be understood by and at least somewhat familiar to kids well under that age – seems more like prudishness than anything.

Also, am I the only one depressed by this last part of the article?
Little or no change is being made to guidelines around swearing or non-sexual violence.

David Austin, the BBFC’s chief executive officer, said: “We know that people are more comfortable with issues such as action violence, if it’s in a way that they are expecting – such as a Bond or Bourne film.”
Just reminds me of what Susan Sontag said about America (but applies pretty much everywhere in the Anglospheric West): "Everything pertaining to sex has been a 'special case' in our culture."

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#279 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:57 pm

And rather ironic since many Bonds (since the 15 rating of Licence To Kill limited its audience) have been pre-submitted to, and even then edited by, the BBFC to ensure a 12 rating.

User avatar
Boosmahn
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#280 Post by Boosmahn » Wed Jan 16, 2019 7:18 pm

furbicide wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:31 pm
Yes, and I think many, say, 13 and 14 year olds might well feel the same way. A shame if it'd now be considered a bit rich for them, because ... why? It's bad for them to know sexual abuse exists?
I'm not arguing for or against its rating; I just found the fact that BBFC gave it a 12 to be surprising.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#281 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:57 pm

Just using this as a convenient general BBFC thread: I have to say that I am not too fond of the new single colour background BBFC rating logo compared to the old one which features the repeated "bbfc" text inside the logo's background. It feels a lot less distinctive than it used to, just like censorship logos of any other country now.
Image
Last edited by colinr0380 on Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#282 Post by HJackson » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:16 pm

They are absolutely gopping.

User avatar
rapta
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:04 pm
Location: Hants, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#283 Post by rapta » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:40 pm

Look at the newest Criterion titles with the new logos...horrendous. I have full confidence in saying this: it is entirely clear they did not consult any independent home media producers when making any decisions on design or colour-scheme. In fact this small but noticeable change will make them even more unpopular amongst cinephiles across the country. I certainly won't defend these ratings logos anymore, whereas the traditional ones I was used to and found endearing (and indeed, colour-wise they were far less imposing on overall design...pink and orange, not so much).

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#284 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:46 pm

When I was not sure whether I was looking at the age rating for The Portrait of a Lady on Fire or a 15 mph speed limit sign in miniature that had somehow made it onto a disc cover, something has gone horribly wrong! Also I am not too much of a fan of the rounded corners on the U, PG and R18 logos either, which only emphasises the 'road sign' nature of the new look.

The 18 rating symbol probably fares the best since that was already quite a bright red already, but I still prefer it with the text background even there.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

David M.
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#285 Post by David M. » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:47 am

colinr0380 wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:57 pm
It feels a lot less distinctive than it used to, just like censorship logos of any other country now.
Well with any luck, their mandatory home video ratings will also follow in the footsteps of any other country, and be killed off.

User avatar
Altair
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: England

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#286 Post by Altair » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:16 am

Yes, not only do these look like road signs but they remind one of the ghastly ratings which would appear on VHS releases of the late '80s. What a disaster. If the ratings didn't have to be on the spine and front cover of the release though, and only had to be displayed on the rear, it wouldn't be so bad though.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#287 Post by TMDaines » Thu Jul 02, 2020 5:25 am

I imagine they are a lot easier to read for those who have poorer eyesight and are easier to spot for those pearl-clutchers who really care about them. Can see how they swung through a focus group.
Last edited by TMDaines on Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#288 Post by colinr0380 » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:21 am

I wonder if it may also have been done to help people who are colour blind?

Is there anything that would stop a company from using the older version of the logo so long as one is present? Or is it one of those situations where everyone has to go with the hideous new logo (seriously, I did not realise how much difference a drop shadow on the text made until these new 'flat' versions!) or else they would be breaking the law? In my latest order I got a mix of both types (new logos for The Invisible Man, Portrait of a Lady On Fire and Star Blazers 2199; the old logo for the Takeshi Kitano Collection and the Arrow releases of the month), but that might just be a transitional thing.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#289 Post by Orlac » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:24 am

I seem to recall similar logos back in the 80s on BBC tapes, back when they were not compulsory.

Orlac
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#290 Post by Orlac » Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:13 pm

88 Films submission of GESTAPO'S LAST ORGY rejected by BBFC

https://reprobatepress.com/2021/01/26/g ... s-censors/

=

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#291 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:20 am

The third season of highly sexualised anime series High School DxD which was originally classified as 15 in 2016 has been re-classified by the BBFC up to 18 in its re-release this year based on their new guidelines, that apparently necessitated a product recall by Manga Entertainment.

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#292 Post by Calvin » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:05 pm

Why did Manga even resubmit it?

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#293 Post by colinr0380 » Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:27 pm

I am not too certain and the reports do not seem to mention a particular reason. I think the BBFC only reclassify titles when they get resubmitted, and I would perhaps hazard a guess that it may have something to do with runs of anime titles often being even more limited than on other titles. Lots of premium limited collector's box sets with artbooks and suchlike before a more affordable cut down release comes along a few years later. So maybe by putting a new edition of the title through the BBFC it got flagged and its rating upped. It sounds as if Manga Entertainment was caught by surprise by the change and probably had to recall any remaining copies of the previous 15 rated version that may have remained on shelves(?)

Calvin
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:12 am

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#294 Post by Calvin » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:57 pm

I've always thought that for works that have already been classified by the BBFC for your purpose (i.e. home video or theatrical) they don't have to watch it again but can simply reissue the previously awarded certificate? You can submit it again if you want a different outcome, but there doesn't seem to have been a good reason in this case as far as I can see...

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#295 Post by MichaelB » Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:41 pm

If the film is identical to the previously-classified version in terms of both length and framing (not in the ultra-anal Caps-a-holic comparison sense, but a pan-and-scan and 2.35:1 version of the same film would need separate classifications), and in the same medium (i.e. theatrical or video), it does indeed not need to be resubmitted.

There've been a couple of cases where I wouldn't have minded resubmitting - for instance, the 18 certificate for Don Siegel's The Killers I find utterly baffling (back in 1964, it effectively only got a 16, as that was the X-certificate age limit back then), but I wasn't about to spend several hundred pounds of Arrow's money putting this to the test, not least because the 18 might have stood and it would have been a complete waste of money. And in any case they weren't targeting the teenage market, so it made little difference.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#296 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:09 am

An interview with current BBFC executive David Austin to tie in with the release of video nasty-related horror film Censor.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#297 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:50 pm

This isn't an 'independent label' but it is regarding the BBFC: apparently Warner Bros. release of the latest in the The Conjuring series, The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It has had a suicide scene cut out of the 15 rated DVD and Blu-ray versions but the scene remains in the uncut 18 rated UHD version of the film.

I remember something similar to this occurring back in the early 2000s at the dawn of DVD when the Brendan Fraser Mummy film was released in a cut version on VHS for its hanging scene but was made available in an uncut 15 rated version on DVD because at that time DVD was apparently considered as more of a 'collector's medium' with presumably a more limited audience. It is interesting to see UHD being apparently treated much the same way, at least in the early stages of the format.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#298 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:27 pm

Not the BBFC, but something like that also happened in the U.S.: Boden and Fleck's Sugar was released theatrically with an R rating, but for the DVD release they recut and resubmitted it for a PG-13, while the theatrical cut came out unrated on Blu.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#299 Post by MichaelB » Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:43 pm

I suspect it’s economically essential for the same UHD discs to be released in as many countries as possible, to achieve the maximum possible economies of scale. And if this means no longer going along with previous BBFC agreements and resubmitting, so be it.

User avatar
Thornycroft
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

#300 Post by Thornycroft » Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:00 am

It wasn't uncommon in the past decade for films that suffered category cuts to their cinema releases to only be released uncut on Blu-Ray, with DVD consumers being stuck with the cut theatrical version. The practice seems to have carried through to UHD discs - John Wick 2 also suffered category cuts to suicide detail for a 15 certificate at the cinema, with that version appearing on DVD/Blu-Ray. Only the UHD has the 18-rated uncut version. Unfortunately this means the BBFC cuts have trickled through to other territories, with Australia and New Zealand home video releases matching those released in Britain.

The BBFC used to have a strict policy preventing different ratings of a work existing at the same time, but this appears to have been phased out sometime in the early-mid 2000s. There were only a few notable exceptions while the policy was still active, along with the DVD release of The Mummy metioned above by colinr0830 the BBFC allowed an uncut release of Terminator 2 on laserdisc back in 1992.

Post Reply