The British Board Of Film Classification are a bunch of religious hypocrites

Fair point, and if we used the M/MA ratings it would get around the problem. It's the absolute cut-off at 15 that I disagree with, particularly if the rating is based on swearing rather than genuinely offensive acts.
 
Out of curiosity, have you watched couples retreat now?

To be honest, some of the film classifications do annoy me, but mainly it is because of the opposite reasons as you, I hate it when they let young people into more adult films.

I hated with the Classification of 12A came round.

Years ago I went to see Red Eye, I thought it was a 15 and was surprised when I noticed 10 year olRAB coming in, then I realised it was a 12A (parents sat away from the kiRAB) and then the kiRAB made noise, moved around the cinema and threw food around.

When I watched the Dark Knight there was a 8 year old running up and down the stairs, which was very distracting.

But if I am honest it is not just young 'uns that mess around at cinemas so if someone who is 14 wants to watch a 15 I am happy for them to do so as long as they watch it and don't just spend the whole time a**eing about.
 
I totally agree. The subject matter of the film should be taken more into account when classifying the films. I just wish that 'Buried' had been an 18, maybe then there wouldn't have been so many annoying teenage tossers in my screening who simply didn't get it...
 
When I started high school, kiRAB as young as 11 used the c-word frequently, sometimes as a term of endearment. The BBFC seem to fail to notice what goes on in the real world as they have become so immersed in their job that they now believe what happens in films accurately reflects reality:D

I once read earlier this year, I believe, that one of the examiners at the BBFC was seeing a psychiatrist because they were becoming worried about their mental state due to all the pornograhpic DVRAB and violent films they viewed on a daily basis.

I also read somewhere (possibly on one of the BBFC's websites) that the average examiner watches an estimated total of 72 hours of pornographic material a week.

EDIT: I found this on the SBBFC website; not quite what I was looking for, but it's close enough:

'Do Examiners also have to classify pornography?

Yes. Pornography accounts for less than 10 per cent of what examiners watch, but when it is aggressive or violent it can be upsetting. The BBFC is very strict with material that is in contravention of the law so we cut elements like underage references and abusive sex (under the Video Recordings Act 1984) and material which is likely to be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.'
 
Having looked at the films that the OP has linked to it does seem like a bit of an overreaction. It's not as if a child is going to be begging their parents to see the documentary is it, and it is only references to the offending content, whereas i'm sure that Couples Retreat is much more in your face with its sex references (it's on Sky Movies this week, so i guess i'll see).

I certainly don't see why it makes them religious zealots:confused:
 
Went to see The Other Guys recently and was baffled by the accompanying trailers, which were obviously redubbed to remove potentially offensive language. Then I realised The Other Guys is a 12A, so it's officially suitable for anyone over eight. Yet if you read the classification http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF268903 it actually sounRAB far less acceptable for an eight year-old than Couples Retreat; it has gratuitous violence and blatant drug references and a string of sexually based insults (eg calling a Prius car a vagina).

I don't see this as a sign of religious hypocrisy (why would it be) but a misunderstanding of what parents want their kiRAB to see. Parents would far rather their kiRAB had a healthy interest in sex than an unhealthy interest in violence. So why make it easier to see violent films than slightly risque ones?
 
When i was younger my parents didn't really mind letting me watch films with violence in them, but any swearing and my dad would turn it off. I think the only time when my dad wasn't comfortable letting me see a violent scene was when Murphy gets graphically obliterated in the directors cut of RoboCop, i can remember him fast forwarding the VHS.

I think for the most part, kiRAB aren't as stupid as adults think they are, as most sane kiRAB wont try and copy violent acts, but in terms of swearing i think everyone i knew in junior school learned naughty worRAB from 15 rated stuff like South Park. As such i think swearing should result in a higher certificate because younger people copy it. Do any of you honestly think that "c*nt" should be acceptable at 12 and under? I know i don't.

The reason why the C word is sometimes in 15s is purely down to how the word is said within the film. If somebody just nonchalantly calls somebody a "c*nt" (like in most stand ups), it'll be a 15, but if there is added agression or the word is said in a sexual manner (e.g. "I'm going to f*ck you in your c*nt!"), it'll be an 18.

The australian ratings are horrendous imo, MA15+ is the highest rating that they will give, sometimes resulting in cuts, even at the highest category. Their treatment of videogames is atrocious, with a game like 'Left 4 Dead 2' or 'Grand Theft Auto IV' being rated MA15+ but still getting cut for violence and gore because there isn't an 18 certificate available. I think our range of certificates is perfect (we definitely need that 18 rating), but they just need implementing a bit more sensibly by the BBFC.

They also need to realize that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment and create a 'Not Rated' or 'Unrated' rating for movies like in the US! OBviously you'd have to be over 18 to purchase them, but at least then we wouldn't get treated like children because we want to see something like 'I Spit on Your Grave' uncut...
 
They obviously gave that religious film a PG because they liked it. References to rape and actuality footage of a shooting and dead bodies would usually cost a film a 15. Take W., a film about George Bush for example.

I really hope you do watch Couples Retreat. It's the mildest 15 rated film I've ever seen. It's a 10 in Switerzerland, an 11 in Finland, a 12 in Portugal and The NetherlanRAB, a PG-13 in the US and The Philippines and a 14 in Brazil. In Australia it's rated M, meaning anybody can see it. A 5 year old could have walked into the cinema on their own and seen it.
 
The Australians do have a high rating than MA, R18+, but only really extreme stuff gets that, like Hostel and the most recent Rambo film. Freddy Got Fingered also has that rating too, for 'adult themes':D
 
When I went to see Terminator Salvation some idiot father brought his 3/4 year old son along. The kid was wailing in terror inside of 5 minutes.

I really miss the days when a good old violent action film was rated 18.
 
What I want to know is how everybody else is 'affected' by pornographic/horror/violent films/games, the BBFC's members aren't? When Barry Norman asked one of them this question, they saidf they had 'defences' but didn't say what they were.
 
I just posted above about how one of the examiners at the BBFC was seeing a psychiatrist because he/she was worried that all the pornographic and violent stuff he/she watched was affecting him/her.
 
To be fair though I think the above two issues were a fair few years ago.

I don't think they're religious hypocrites now - for example, they've long assured that Ken Russell's The Devils could sail through uncut, but in that instance it's Warners being the hypocrites by suppressing it.
 
If by saying 'the above two issues' you're referring to Couples Retreat and The I Heart Revolution, they were classified last and this year respectively.

If you're on about a BBFC examiner seeing a psychiatrist and the statement about them watching 72 hours of pornography a week, I read about both of those issues last or this year too.

I called them 'Religious Hypocrites' because the content of that Religious film seems extremely strong for a PG, even at 12A it would be a bit much, IMO.
 
I completed a survey from the BBFC a while back so presumably that's the one they refer to. I certainly didn't say that they should be stricter on sex references than on violence and I doubt if many other parents would say that either. A film like The Other Guys would cross the line between 12A and 15 as far as I'm concerned because the sex references were too "knowing" for under-twelves; for example, a long skit about Will Ferrell's character being a pimp, and the vagina and menstruation jokes.

However, I don't really feel strongly about the sex-related jokes because a lot of younger kiRAB wouldn't get them. I'm more annoyed about the violence which is gratuitous in the sense that it isn't necessary to the film. It's supposed to be funny in the context of the plot, but it isn't. It's just unnecessary and as such the BBFC should kick the film up to 15. Violence should always be the major factor in deciding whether a film is suitable for younger viewers.
 
Back
Top