Topic: What'ya got 2007-2013?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

It is,
the advertising departments of all major distributors have realized that a higher rating raises the sales. So they put an FSK-18 trailer onto a DVD with an FSK-16 film, the result is: The whole DVD gets an FSK-18. Fell into such a trap once too, bought a FSK-18 release of "Very Bad Things" and realized too late that the "Uncut"-version got an FSK-16. What in this case was even worse, the film was only in a cut version (7 minutes shorter than "Uncut"   )

[Najemikon]

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.

You must trust me on this, Jimmy, the land lies very differently now and I -having grown up in this 'cruel and merciless regime' - feel no fear that such bans will happen again. That list is very interesting though, not least because most of the ones I recognise have been released now and if they haven't it's because the distributor can't be bothered, which is a telling point in itself. They didn't affect me, because I was still watching cartoons when they were causing controversy!

The BBFC is influenced more by the public than the other way around. And for a long time many titles such as these were banned because the public responded to the awful campaigns that tabloids such as The Daily Mail did. The classic headline is "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" from them! And the public believed them and wanted to see results. Sure as 2 and 2 equal 4, the BBFC and the Government were compelled to agree.

These days, tabloids have almost zero influence due to the Internet and people are less inclined to join in witch-hunts. In fact, seeing the crap papers try to publish now is something I am always amused by. The BBFC are taking their lead from the general opinion of a much more informed audience now, so it would take the Internet on mass to be offended by Saw 7 or whatever for them to start thinking they should tighten the reins.

Britain is a democracy and if the public seriously demonstrated they didn't want any classification, it would go away. But there are too many Concerned Mothers for that to happen.

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?  

Easiest way to demonstrate how it works is with myself. I'm very proud of my family and the way I was brought up, but my mum and dads taste in film was very limited. They didn't want complicated, they wanted entertaining. Shit getting blowed up! Rambo, Commando, etc, etc. So I grew up more aware of this sort of film than any other. They restricted what I saw of them based on their own understanding of them. If First Blood came on TV, it was unlikely I'd be sent to bed, but they'd be a bit more concerned about Commando.

They had little idea about Robocop, but they understood what it probably was, hence it was a no-no. That label saying "18" made it easier. They were happy for me to see an "18" they knew about, but in an uncharted genre, that rating was essential.

And they got it right. If you think about it, Arnie and Stallone movies were cartoon violence with a strong moral code. You hurt my family, I'm going destroy the Earth, etc! Robocop by comparison is mean and cynical, with extended scenes of torture. Obviously it is the better film, but 12 year old me wouldn't have appreciated that. It was right I shouldn't see it.

I do remember my dad quietly guiding me away from Godfather a couple of times and then making a point of watching it with me when I was about 14.

Basically, they used the rating as a general guide and it worked perfectly. Now my Aunt, bless her, was very ignorant of films and I remember she took me to the video shop to choose something one day. I chose Cobra! She had no idea and took it to the counter, but the assistant refused to rent it her. So it worked there too. And I ended up with Transformers The Movie and suddenly I want to track down that assistant and shake his hand.  

So, my family who cared about what I saw simply for my own sake at the time, not because of long term mental damage (I have that anyway! ), got a lot of help from the BBFC without asking for it.

And what if I could have had Cobra that day? Or saw Robocop early with no restriction? I doubt I would have the balanced opinion of film I have today. Some form of restriction gives art of any kind value. Now, of course because these sort of things were forbidden, it made them all the more exciting and I did sneak a look at Aliens and other stuff without mom and pop knowing. It didn't harm me of course, but somehow the fact I knew it was "wrong" made me appreciate what I was seeing! Keeping the TV sound down and the lights off and jumping everytime I heard a movement upstairs is the best possible way to watch Terminator.  

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.

It is,
the advertising departments of all major distributors have realized that a higher rating raises the sales. So they put an FSK-18 trailer onto a DVD with an FSK-16 film, the result is: The whole DVD gets an FSK-18. Fell into such a trap once too, bought a FSK-18 release of "Very Bad Things" and realized too late that the "Uncut"-version got an FSK-16. What in this case was even worse, the film was only in a cut version (7 minutes shorter than "Uncut"  )

I've thought before that the BBFC system seems so balanced to other countries. It comes into our TV as well in terms of what's controlled and what isn't. Your system sounds like a mess!

[goodguy]

I don't want to get into this debate because it is one of the few topics where I can get really, really angry. So I'm just pointing to something I wrote previously.
http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6639.0.html

[Fasteddie33]

Im just replyng to the whole stickers on the DVD's article...I cant stand it either...I bought 100 new dvd cases,for just such instances...If there is a sticker or a wrinkle in the plastic,I switch to a brand new case and it looks good as new!!...I got a really good deal on them also!!..I got 100 brand new cases and shipping for $35!!..Great deal for me to make my DVD's look like new again!!

[Dr. Hasslein]

DVDs I've purchased recently:

The Wire Season 3
Taken
The Machinist
The Wire Season 4
A Single Man
Step Brothers

[Achim]

I see the discussion has mainly run it's course (with enough having been said, I mean), but I would like to add:

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.

Mark Kermode put himself through this film and explained one particular scene:

(click to show/hide)

Apparently a baby is getting raped in the film.

Interestingly, the BBFC didn't cut the (some of) the scenes entirely, but only tried to make sure they are more disgustung and revolting then in the original version, by removing cuts that could be felt to eroticise the situation.

I have been listening to Mark Kermode for more than 2 years now and he time and again hails the decisions by the BBFC, and also how detailed (and therefore spoiler-ridden ) their reports are. He is same the same things as Jon, that the times have defineitely changed.


As for Germany, in my opinion their are still too many things being banned or cut (where a age rating should suffice), but I don't live there anymore (and hopefully won't ever again). As I said before, the German board is smart enough though not to publish a list of the banned items, they are aware that that would be advertisement

EDIT:
Just noticed the spoiler was malformed and didn't work. Sorry about that.

[Jimmy]

It's because we are asleep

Is it possible that it's more hype than anything else? I remember reading a lot of weird stuff before watching some movie and after it was clear that it was more hype and PR than anything else...

But to be honest the synopsis make it quite clear that it isn't a film for everybody 

"An aging porn star agrees to participate in an "art film" in order to make a clean break from the business, only to discover that he has been drafted into making a pedophilia and necrophilia themed snuff film."

It looks like the American hard to find release is also cut (4 minutes wich is sure a lot, since censorship isn't a common practice here. I supposed it's self-censorship from the distributor)

I sure got a good laugh when I check this movie at imdb and see the good old "Is this suitable for my son to watch" topic in the movie forum...

[Kathy]

This is my last post on this topic too - I enjoy observing debates much more than participating in them.

Jon, your post about your parents reinforces my belief that it is parenting that is needed and not a rating label.

If a DVD had no rating your parents would have made an effert to insure the movie was appropriate for their children.

I know that when my niece and nephew are at my house they do not get to watch a DVD unless I have seen it and felt it was acceptable for them to see based on each of the children's needs.

I don't need or trust anyone else's judgment but my own on what I want these kids to watch.

[Najemikon]

Commendable, but in these days of new media, impossible. It's easier for you because you have invested so much time in films that you have a better idea of what's out there. If there was no rating system, my parents and especially my aunt would have to have banned the TV until I was 12!

But it isn't about them being bad parents -which they certainly were not-just that the BBFC has always been here and taken for granted.

Anyway, how can you possibly be sure of every cinema release? Or computer game? How can anyone possibly have the time? Age plays a part too. It's easy to be in full control for under tens, but once teen years approach there's an avalanche of stuff kids want to see and do, some of it illegal!

It's only a guide, not in lieu of parenting and subscribing to it can be seen as paranoia.

Is it possible that it's more hype than anything else? I remember reading a lot of weird stuff before watching some movie and after it was clear that it was more hype and PR than anything else...

I saw the clips from A Serbian Film and the BBFC will have a full and clear report on their website. Might make interesting reading from what Achim has described!

[kahless]

Today:



Moon

[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.

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?

Film makers censor themselves all the time because of the rules of censorship organisations. After all.... why make a film with something you know will get removed? Documentaries are probably hit the worst.

[Tom]

	The Proposal (Amazon.co.uk) The price finally dropped.
	Leap Year (Amazon.co.uk) Cheap blind buy.
	The Tournament (Amazon.co.uk) I have seen this at the FantasyFilmFest and I liked it.
	Knight and Day (Amazon.de) Blind buy.

[Jimmy]

As Kathy I've said what I have to say on the subject, but the last thing I will say is that it was nice to have a good discussion about film related subject as we use to do. All this in a very mature and civil way

BTW Jon the discussion made me put the film in question in my amazon UK wishlist, so maybe when I will order it we will be able to resume the discussion.

edit : thanks to the others to let us go a little bit off-topic

[snowcat]

Knight and Day (Amazon.de) Blind buy.

Prepare to be a little surprised Tom! I watched this expecting an action movie, I was surprised to see it was actually a pretty funny comedy.

[DJ Doena]

With this I have exactly 3,000 profiles in DVD Profiler:


(The Good Wife: Season 1)
28 Jan - 18.62€ (14.80£) @ Amazon.co.uk


(How I Met Your Mother: Season 5)
28 Jan - 18.69€ (14.86£) @ Amazon.co.uk

( Robin Hood)
28 Jan - 12.82€ (9.91£) @ Amazon.co.uk