Topic: Funny Ratings Info

[samuelrichardscott]

So, the UK has some blinders about but what is some of the funniest ratings info you've seen?

Just about to do scans for Mr. Beans Holiday and noticed the rating info says:
PG - Contains irresponsible behaviour.

  Best not let kids watch it then.

[Achim]

Kermode and Mayo occasionally quote a few funny lines from the ratings of the movies they review.


But, from what I can tell, not only from Jon promoting them , the BBFC has become one of the best rating boards around, especially in regards tro explaining why things received a particular rating.

[samuelrichardscott]

the BBFC has become one of the best rating boards around, especially in regards tro explaining why things received a particular rating.

I actually e-mail them often to get details for www.dvdcompare.net and always receive very helpful replies within 24 hours. The BBFC are, dare I say it, awesome. They are an organisation that will never win the hearts of the public of course as nobody likes censorship, but at least they go about it in an excellent manner when it comes to explaining themselves and their recent studies they funded to look at people's perception's of their decisions. Baring in mind, cuts are now extremely rare and generally only to animal cruelty or made by distributors to obtain a low rating, I do honestly believe the BBFC are the best ratings board out there. Do I agree with their decisions? Rarely. Do I respect the way they are happy to help any e-mail request? Absolutely! (recent years anyway, not the Mary Whitehouse years;))

Anyway, another I have just come across...

Buddy - Occasional animal rage.

 

[Jimmy]

I do honestly believe the BBFC are the best ratings board out there.

No our are. A rating board isn't a censorship agency, its only fonction is to rate a film to know who can watch it and this is what our rating board do. It doesn't cut movie it rates them, guess our governement thing that we are bright enough to know what is ok for us...

As I've wrote previously here everything is fine as long as it isn't child pornography and, I think, bestiality. Something degrading can see its rating request denied sometimes but it isn't frequent (the last time was with Bum Fight, some trash worthy of a ban).

[DJ Doena]

I do honestly believe the BBFC are the best ratings board out there.

No our are. A rating board isn't a censorship agency, its only fonction is to rate a film to know who can watch it and this is what our rating board do. It doesn't cut movie it rates them, guess our governement thing that we are bright enough to know what is ok for us...

Neither the British BBFC nor the German FSK actually cut movies. They are presented with material and they rate it. If the rating is too high in the eyes of the publisher it's the publisher who asks what has to be cut out to get a lower rating.

Basically a post-filming process similar to what is happening right now with Expendables 2 where Chuck Norris insisted on a PG rating for him to participate.

I'd rather have an R rated E2 without him.

[Jimmy]

Sorry but the BBFC cut the movie and censor them that way...

If you don't do what they want you can't release a film and for me this is censorship. Here the board don't do that at all and act as a rating board and not a censor board.

[goodguy]

If you don't do what they want you can't release a film and for me this is censorship.

This. To decide whether something deserves a 15 or an 18 rating is one thing, but the BBFC will occasionally refuse *any* rating if the material isn't cut according to its suggestions. And since a rating is legally required for distribution, this indeed equals censorship. Due to my interests, I don't encounter such cases very often, but I ranted here about the Marketa Lazarova case a while ago.

[samuelrichardscott]

I do honestly believe the BBFC are the best ratings board out there.

No our are. A rating board isn't a censorship agency, its only fonction is to rate a film to know who can watch it and this is what our rating board do. It doesn't cut movie it rates them, guess our governement thing that we are bright enough to know what is ok for us...

As I've wrote previously here everything is fine as long as it isn't child pornography and, I think, bestiality. Something degrading can see its rating request denied sometimes but it isn't frequent (the last time was with Bum Fight, some trash worthy of a ban).

Methinks you've completely misread what I was getting at. I mean they are the best out there for responding to queries, taking time to reply to people on a personal level. I've contacted the equivalent places for many countries and only ever received a standard response if any at all. Yes, I disagree with censorship, but it happens whether we like it or not (we can always import on the extremely rare occasion something is cut), and I'm glad the BBFC are happy to give full details rather than say "It's cut because we said so".

I know I posted here some figures for cuts not that long ago. It really doesn't happen as often as people would like to think.

[Najemikon]

Sam, you might as well talk to the wall! We've been through all this before. 

What fascinates me is that we're both from the UK and don't have a problem!

To decide whether something deserves a 15 or an 18 rating is one thing, but the BBFC will occasionally refuse *any* rating if the material isn't cut according to its suggestions.

Wrong. They work with film-makers and discuss proposed changes, often coming to understand the producers point of view and not cutting at all. Such discussions are usually more focused on achieving a particular rating without cutting anyway. Distributors will consider editing to ensure a 15 rather than 18, etc.

As for the Marketa Lazarova example, it really doesn't deserve discussion. The cut of 3 seconds was because of animal cruelty. Why maim a snake for real, just for a bloody film? It deserved to be cut.

If you don't do what they want you can't release a film and for me this is censorship. Here the board don't do that at all and act as a rating board and not a censor board.

Ridiculous. The BBFC spokespeople have in the past expressed frustration at distributors that don't bother discussing the advice with them, especially in regards to re-issues. As Sam has been trying to say, they are very open about their decisions. Have you seen their website lately? They even do podcasts and educational material. Quite frankly, what doesn't get through these days would have to be abhorrent and therefore pointless anyway.

[Jimmy]

The BBFC spokespeople have in the past expressed frustration at distributors that don't bother discussing the advice with them, especially in regards to re-issues.

and on what ground they can decide what people can or can't watch? On what ground they can tell the distributor what he can or can't have on a film?

A rating board is there to give a rating not to censor... Any adult is able to decide what is or isn't for him.

The fact they discuss their decisions don't make them less of a censorship board. Even the american rating board who isn't a good exemple of freedom and equality (I know it isn't a governemental board) don't force anything, if you don't agree with their request you release the movie non rated...

[Najemikon]

The BBFC spokespeople have in the past expressed frustration at distributors that don't bother discussing the advice with them, especially in regards to re-issues.

and on what ground they can decide what people can or can't watch? On what ground they can tell the distributor what he can or can't have on a film?

Moral and law. Protecting sections of society, even from their own ignorance. Society owes itself the ability to maintain standards because while a person can intelligently consider their own limits, people cannot. They are stupid and reactionary (amazing how much mileage I get out of that Men In Black quote! Tommy Lee Jones is explaining to Will Smith why they can't reveal there are aliens).

Why do you think it would be ok to even want to make a film that breaches the BBFC's generous guidelines? Rape, murder, cruelty (animal or otherwise) and exploitation can all be shown so long as the narrative supports it. As soon as it's being sensationalised, then it's a problem. Then it's perverse. I'm a staunch opponent of the idea that media can influence anyone to commit a crime, but that's far harder to defend if the material itself excessively exploits such themes without any kind of story behind it. Because without a culture of censorship, that's what we'd have by now.

Film has always been and always will be a balance between art and business. It has to be sold in a particular way, regardless of how artistic it is, and it's certification and effective censorship that protects it as a progressive art form. Go back to the very beginning of the film industry and see why censors and control were introduced at all. The only reason Hollywood is where it is was because of the film-makers that were running away from gangster controlled cameras in New York! And then some of the stuff being made was -at least for the time- perverse, propaganda or both.

The industry couldn't be trusted and being corrupted too easily. No way would it have survived. Of course, it's easy to think now that we can all be trusted, so why do we still need to be told what we can and can't watch? Especially when regulators can surely be just as easily corrupted and work to an agenda.

Same reason we can't be trusted with the Internet which is proving to be an effective mirror of what people can achieve without regulation. Anyone can create a website promoting any idea at all, which in principle is great most of the time. The problem is there is no restriction at all on who can access it, but for the efforts of search engines, ISPs and firewalls. Spend two minutes on Chatroulette without throwing up and tell me why such a situation is absolutely acceptable. It's supposed to be a fairly innovative twist on social networking and it's full of teenagers taking advantage of that freedom. Shame that every other user is actually an adult male openly masturbating precisely because young girls are watching them. To me, that's sickening, and it's impossible to justify and even harder for society to self-regulate. Just as you wouldn't be allowed to rent a school to use as a brothel, so there needs to be a degree of control online too.

Not directly relevant to film, I know, except the film industry as it stands today, full of variety, colour and intelligence, only exists because of the ever developing work of people like the BBFC. Without them, film would have fallen into severe disrepute years ago.

[Najemikon]

Now, trying to get back to the funny of the thread title...  Have any of you seen http://www.capalert.com/ ?

I love it. It's unintentionally the funniest site on movie ratings you could hope to see. It's a thorough site of movie reviews from a fiercely religious perspective. Think of your favourite, most innocent kids film and look it up. I can virtually guarantee it will still get a slating and probably a big flashing red alert symbol!

[samuelrichardscott]

Have any of you seen http://www.capalert.com/ ?

Wow.

From The Smurfs:
"Neil Patrick Harris is a self proclaimed practitioner of homosexuality. Thus it is no surprise that in the rolling credits one of the Smurfs would repeatedly be stereotypically made to look like Elton John another self-proclaimed practitioner of homosexuality."

[Jimmy]

Now, trying to get back to the funny of the thread title...

You're right, so we stop here by respect for Sam. But I sure don't agree with your reply (kind of non related BTW), but if you are happy to have a non elected censor board to tell you what you can or can't watch more power to you. In my case I'm more than happy that here in my province the rating board do its job and don't treat us like child, retarded people or mindless psychopath waiting for the occasion to snap and go on a killing spree because we have seen a bug crushed on a movie...

[Najemikon]

 

Yeah whatever, Jimmy. Like anything of value has been stopped in the past 20 years anyway, I don't think.