Topic: What'ya got 2007-2013?

[snowcat]

I remember my parents letting me watch both Robocop and Terminator at an early age (maybe 6 or 7)... I think ages restrictions cause film makers to censor themselves... which I think is stupid. I think if someone wants to make a film they should do it how ever they want and well screw the BBFC and the regulatory bodies. Its a good thing a person does not need a big production company or the backing of the BBFC (and everyone else) to get their work noticed on the net.

Too much censorship is happening in films these days.

[dfmorgan]

Eden of the East: The Complete Series

Will be on its way back to amazon as Disc 2 will not play.

[dfmorgan]

With some of the earlier talk about censorship I wonder what would have happened to Toy Story 3 with Mrs. Potato-Head twirling nunchucks if James Ferman was still in charge of the BBFC

A little bit of background:-

Mr. Ferman abhorred what he called imitatable weapons (nunchucks. throwing stars and the like) in films and usually had them excised completely. This led to the film Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles only having 3 fighting turtles. Enter the Dragon had its nunchuck sequences removed and these were not replaced until after Mr. Ferman left the BBFC.

[Najemikon]

I remember my parents letting me watch both Robocop and Terminator at an early age (maybe 6 or 7)... I think ages restrictions cause film makers to censor themselves... which I think is stupid. I think if someone wants to make a film they should do it how ever they want and well screw the BBFC and the regulatory bodies. Its a good thing a person does not need a big production company or the backing of the BBFC (and everyone else) to get their work noticed on the net.

Too much censorship is happening in films these days.

That's a broad and naive statement! "Screw the BBFC"? Why so angry, Emma? And too much censorship? Where?  Actually, there is hardly any censorship that I know of. I saw an interview somewhere just last week... wish I could remember where. But they were talking to the BBFC and how they come to decision; they advise on cuts needed to achieve a rating for the film to be released legally. If a film-maker is desperate to get his or her film made exactly how they want it, fine, get an X certificate and no distributor and no audience. However they showed footage from a film they couldn't pass uncut at all and it was truly depraved to the point it was unwatchable. If you want to see films like that, let alone make them, then I'm sad for you.

All the great stages in film have been made by breaking down barriers in what's acceptable. As we've so often discussed, the two key horror films of 1960 -Psycho and Peeping Tom- both pushed beyond those barriers. Thing is, Peeping Tom pushed to far and was rejected. It's quite tame now, but still cost Michael Powell his career. I love the film, but hey, I wasn't born till 1975, so I'd have been happy for Powell to wait ten years when the public would be able to stand it.

The BBFC is a barometer for filmmakers. They don't tell someone how to make a film, but they demonstrate what the general public is willing to put up with. As our perceptions change, so do the parameters of what merits a 12a or an 18. And they work with filmmakers. The reason they were being interviewed (it was probably on Film 2011) was to explain why they had relaxed a rating on Blue Valentine and not Made in Dagenham after reviewing the decision on appeal. Not exactly the faceless immovable ogre you think, eh?

[Jimmy]

But Jon the british rating board was quite heavy on the censorship not that long ago. It wasn't just a question of rating but movies cut to pieces or simply banned from the British land (with the risk of going to jail if catch with them), they even continue to confiscate a lot of movies at the border. I'm sure you know more than me about that being British. I don't even mention the incarceration of people like John Lindsay, Mike Freeman or David Sullivan for doing movies. The british rating board sound to me much more like a censorship board than a rating board.

For me the job of a rating board is to rate movie not to took decisions about what a person can or can't watch.

[Najemikon]

That attitude of the BBFC went with the last guy who was in charge, who Dave spoke of earlier. He would blanket ban certain things and saw himself as some sort of guardian.

He retired 12 years ago and since then, their basic attitude has been, advise a producer how to get a Uc, U, 12, 12a, 15, everything else is passed as 18 because you're a grown-up and you make your own decisions. The only exception I understand is scenes that break the law. So animal cruelty, for instance. To put it in perspective, I remembered the recent film that they were talking about. It's called A Serbian Film and they advised 49 cuts to achieve even an 18. That is very extreme stuff.

I can't believe there is still so much misunderstanding about this organisation. If someone sells 18 or unrated material to underage, or shows it without a licence, yes, they can be prosecuted. If you choose to sell something without a BBFC certificate, then you're more likely to be jailed for fraud more than anything else! I once had listings on Ebay removed because they were Region 1 and therefore officially not been seen by the BBFC. The stuff they have banned in recent years is likely hardcore porn, and don't tell me you defend that, Jimmy, as you're always quick to point out the difference between Adult Film and Porn. Trust me, the BBFC understand it too and if what they ban is anything like Two Girls One Cup then it needs to stay banned, thank you very much!

I can't find anything on those names you listed except David Sullivan. Wikipedia has him as a pornographer in the 70s and 80s and now a football club owner. Jimmy, the laws on porn, sex, exploitation of women are just that. Laws. And they've changed a lot over the years. I can't find anything about him being imprisoned, but if he was as you say, then he likely made something that was illegal at the time and then continued to distribute it without a certificate. That's the Government and Justice system choosing to prosecute him according to laws created with a lot more than the BBFC in mind.

They work very closely with filmmakers and in recent years, there have been more headlines about their change in attitude than anything else. Spider-Man was given a 12. There was an appeal with public support that that was too restrictive. The BBFC could not give it a PG without cuts, so they created 12A to pass it uncut.

And the recent example I mentioned before was Blue Valentine. It was hit with an 18 I believe because of the sex scenes. The director demonstrated successfully that the scenes were integral to the story, not exploitive and to give it an 18 sends the wrong message. They agreed and it's been passed.

They're advisory and flexible. Plus, the joke is a lot of stuff they have apparently cut is because the producers haven't bothered to resubmit the work. The one I remember is 4 seconds from the Matrix to ensure a 15, I think. It's still cut, even though it would likely get through, but Warners can't be bothered to resubmit it! The famous one they "banned" was A Clockwork Orange. Actually, Kubrick refused to distribute it after a Judge blamed it for influencing a crime he was trying. As far as I know, it was going to be released. But of course, the BBFC took the blame for that. Not the loony Judge.

[Kathy]

I just don't want that ugly rating on my DVD cover. 

[Najemikon]

I just don't want that ugly rating on my DVD cover. 

Oh, you meant the number! I wondered earlier. Ours aren't bad, Kathy. It's just a small circle and nothing like the German and Aussie ones. That Australian one is terrible.

[Jimmy]

The stuff they have banned in recent years is likely hardcore porn, and don't tell me you defend that, Jimmy, as you're always quick to point out the difference between Adult Film and Porn. Trust me, the BBFC understand it too and if what they ban is anything like Two Girls One Cup then it needs to stay banned, thank you very much!

Of course I won't loose any sleep for that kind of stuff if it disapear, but... If it's done by consenting adults for consenting adults, I will be one of those to defend them. It isn't a question of liking that kind of stuff for me (and believe me none of that kind crap are in my house) but a question of freedom. Like I said as long as something is done by consenting adults for adults no one had the right to tell me if I can or can't watch it. Wich doesn't mean I respect the Paul Little or Rob Black of this world. The problem is that when you give the right to an entity to ban film or book or any artistic work you never know where it will stop, but one thing we know is that someone with too much power will abuse this power.

I can't find anything on those names you listed except David Sullivan. Wikipedia has him as a pornographer in the 70s and 80s and now a football club owner.

David Sullivan was a publisher of erotic magazine and a producer of sex comedy like Come Play with Me, The Playbirds or Confessions from the David Galaxy Affair, certainly not someone I would call a "pornographer".

[Jimmy]

Ours aren't bad, Kathy. It's just a small circle and nothing like the German and Aussie ones.

To have a visual exemple of it.

Like Jon say it isn't that much of a big deal (even if I prefer the North American's way)

[Kathy]

I don't want any rating symbols on my DVDs.

Of course flaw bothers me too. When my cases get dings or the security tape ruins a tiny piece of the top...yuck!

If I get the DVD used - that's one thing. But, new DVDs should be pristine.

Those rating symbols shouldn't be necessary. People know what they are buying.

Children don't have the financial resources to get to the store or pay for the DVD without an adult. So, I really don't see how the symbol impacts the ability of children to purchase the DVD.

And, once the DVD is in the house, does anyone really think a symbol on a box is going to stop a child from putting a DVD? Only adult supervision will prevent this.

(click to show/hide)

12 posts to go for the big 30! 

[Najemikon]

Of course I won't defend or loose any sleep for that kind of stuff, but... If it's done by consenting adults for consenting adults, I will be one of those to defend them. It isn't a question of liking that kind of stuff for me (and believe me none of that kind crap are in my house) but a question of freedom. Like I said as long as something is done by consenting adults for adults no one had the right to tell me if I can or can't watch it. Wich doesn't mean I respect the Paul Little or Rob Black of this world. The problem is that when you give the right to an entity to ban film or book or any artistic work you never know where it will stop, but one thing we know is that someone with too much power will abuse this power.

I kind of agree, except we do know where it will stop. It stopped at least 12 years ago.

Still I'm happy to defend them because they have never banned anything I wanted to see, which covers a heck of a lot. I think people like to buy into the idea they are being oppressed when actually it would never affect their world. I can't remember the last time I read about a serious filmmaker being unable to distribute his work because of the BBFC. That's because the sort of directors likely to fall foul of them are so extreme they only want to shock and serious film press such as Empire aren't interested in giving them space.

I can't find anything on those names you listed except David Sullivan. Wikipedia has him as a pornographer in the 70s and 80s and now a football club owner.

David Sullivan was a publisher of erotic magazine and a producer of sex comedy like Come Play with Me, The Playbirds or Confessions from the David Galaxy Affair, certainly not someone I would call a "pornographer".
[/quote]

Well porn in general, be it proper adult film or merely a fetish, is very popular here and always has been. He must have been dealing with some weird shit!

I don't want any rating symbols on my DVDs.

Of course flaw bothers me too. When my cases get dings or the security tape ruins a tiny piece of the top...yuck!

If I get the DVD used - that's one thing. But, new DVDs should be pristine.

Those rating symbols shouldn't be necessary. People know what they are buying.

Children don't have the financial resources to get to the store or pay for the DVD without an adult. So, I really don't see how the symbol impacts the ability of children to purchase the DVD.

And, once the DVD is in the house, does anyone really think a symbol on a box is going to stop a child from putting a DVD? Only adult supervision will prevent this.

(click to show/hide)

12 posts to go for the big 30! 

Kathy, my parents worked in off licence retail all their lives which is also controlled according to age. In this country, kids as young as 10 or 12 getting cash from parents who don't care, and attempting to buy things they shouldn't, is very common, sadly.

The majority aren't like that. But enough are for it to be a problem.

[Kathy]

I agree that there is a problem Jon. I just don't see that a stamp on a DVD cover is going to stop anyone from watching a DVD.

Hell, I was always curious, still am, and I would be more likely to want to see the DVD I was not allowed to.

For arguments sake though, lets say society does needs to assume some parental duties. And, one solution is to rate DVDs. Fine.

I suggest that some type of non-obtrusive measure be used to enforce that. Something like the security piece of paper that is included in some DVDs to prevent theft.

Although the intent might be good, I don't believe that the result can be achieved.

It would be interesting to see an independent research study that looked into the cause and effect ratings details had on children. Jon? 

[Jimmy]

Still I'm happy to defend them because they have never banned anything I wanted to see, which covers a heck of a lot.

But Jon cutting a movie is kind of the same thing to me... Also take a look at the 39 movies that were ban by the rating board and tell me seriously they were worthy of this. I'm sure you have already seen some of them and to be honest it's a perfect exemple of too much power in the hands of people.

Of course, it's "old" history and I believe you when you say they don't do that anymore, but the precedent is here and we all know that history like to repeat itself.

[Jimmy]

I agree that there is a problem Jon. I just don't see that a stamp on a DVD cover is going to stop anyone from watching a DVD.

It's probably the exact contrary, remember when they start putting a sticker on the CD because of the words of the song.