Topic: Funny Ratings Info

[Najemikon]

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."

It'd be outrageous if it wasn't so funny!

[Jimmy]

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

Jon I didn't insult you so the fact you laugh of me isn't really appreciated

So a movie, an art piece or a song must have a social value
Are we back in the fifties and I missed it

A group of non-elected people can't force fed their moral value at an entire society... maybe we can go back in time even more and let the catholic church (or the anglican one in your case) decide what is morally acceptable or aren't

[addicted2dvd]

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."

It'd be outrageous if it wasn't so funny!

I find sites like this more scary then funny.

[Najemikon]

Jon I didn't insult you so the fact you laugh of me isn't really appreciated

So a movie, an art piece or a song must have a social value
Are we back in the fifties and I missed it

A group of non-elected people can't force fed their moral value at an entire society... maybe we can go back in time even more and let the catholic church (or the anglican one in your case) decide what is morally acceptable or aren't

Jimmy, I was laughing because your last comment was absurd, implying we live under some kind of tyrannical rule. Please try and lighten up. This whole debate is ridiculous when you are getting so angry at an organisation that has no effect on your country.

You're also going way off the mark now. Religious groups actively controlled what was accepted out of a wish to control perception utterly, classification merely advises in line with laws designed to protect the innocent. The only things that get cut are those things that are largely accepted to be truly offensive or illegal when shown in a sensational manner to glamourise the act itself.

Let's say a film-maker makes a film about a girl being repeatedly raped. There's no story. It's just one room, one shot, one girl getting raped multiple times for 75 minutes. The only soundtrack is her screaming and crying. Acting? Maybe. Hard to tell. You're saying such a "film" should even be allowed to exist?

Even if I was gracious enough to agree that adults can make their own mind up, such a film being available brings several interesting points, in line with what I was trying to say before using an unsecure Internet as an example. Let's say the BBFC simply doesn't exist, the movie would find its way into a very wide public domain, limited only by money, imagination and the scruples of distributors and cinema chains. Would you really be happy for such a film to be available to anyone?

I would hope not, which means you do need organisations to limit distribution. But a public facing board of classification that only rates and doesn't actively block the worst stuff is pointless and gives out the wrong message about why they exist at all. Which bringing us full circle is why the BBFC has a reputation to be proud of because they speak for the public and represent what most people consider acceptable. They change with the changes in public perception.

[Najemikon]

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."

It'd be outrageous if it wasn't so funny!

I find sites like this more scary then funny.

I know what you mean, but here in the UK we don't have such groups to worry about so it's safe to laugh at them as some kind of weird alien! 

[Jimmy]

Let's say a film-maker makes a film about a girl being repeatedly raped. There's no story. It's just one room, one shot, one girl getting raped multiple times for 75 minutes. The only soundtrack is her screaming and crying. Acting? Maybe. Hard to tell. You're saying such a "film" should even be allowed to exist?

First a precision before I give you an answer, I take as a given the girl is a consenting young looking adult. Otherwise it would be illegal and my answer would be an obvious no...

Of course it's a film that is allowed to exist as it's a film. I ain't the one to decide what an adult can watch in his/her home (something like that would be 100% legal here and would pass the rating board with an 18 rating). Personally this isn't my cup of tea, but the society isn't based on what I find tastefull or not.  

Let's say the BBFC simply doesn't exist, the movie would find its way into a very wide public domain, limited only by money, imagination and the scruples of distributors and cinema chains. Would you really be happy for such a film to be available to anyone?

Now I've no clue of what you are talking about... The film will got a rating and only adult would see it. This is an huge difference between limiting the access to an age target and blocking the access to everyone just because a very limited ammount of people find something tasteless and offensive.

[Najemikon]

Consenting actress or not, it's my view that anyone who wanted to watch a film like that should be on medication and the director arrested. So at least we can see a conclusion to this debate!

I also, to go back to your earlier comment, do think art should demonstrate some point, responsibility and method. Thankfully uk law agrees with my view on my hypothetical example, but if it wasn't restricted, I honestly believe the mere existence of a film like that would retard film as am art form overall. Perhaps it is precisely because we have the BBFC that the British film industry has largely enjoyed a reputation as being amongst the finest in the world.

[Jimmy]

Consenting actress or not, it's my view that anyone who wanted to watch a film like that should be on medication and the director arrested.

And it's the point where you show that you lack any credibility while talking of censorship...

The fact you find something to be of bad taste had nothing to do with nothing... as long as it's done by consenting adult for consenting adult a movie like that would have no reason to be repressed. The're a ton of movies that I find offensive but I don't want them to be banned based on my own moral judgement as I said the society isn't based on what I find tastefull or not.

[samuelrichardscott]

But where is the line Jimmy? What if the hypothetical film Jon mentions above is an old man and a seven year old girl? Bearing in mind it is acted and not actually happening, and the young actress has given consent to film such a disturbing scene. Would you allow that to be available? Of course I'm 100% you would agree that the people who would make/own that would be morally disgusting and needing shot but would you censor it keeping in mind it is fictitious and not actually happening.

(by the way, under BBFC guidelines I think a film just showing a rape of an adult would pass an 18, it would only be cut if it was made to look like the female enjoyed being raped).

[Jimmy]

Guys you have no idea how I feel you tried to make me look like someone I ain't just because I'm against censorship

But where is the line Jimmy?

Easy. The line is in the legality...

What if the hypothetical film Jon mentions above is an old man and a seven year old girl?

See this is where I feel you tried to catch me with a non-sense exemple that would never happen...

Bearing in mind it is acted and not actually happening, and the young actress has given consent to film such a disturbing scene. Would you allow that to be available?

But as you ask...
No and yes. No if the scenario is 100% the same as before. Yes if the scene is part of a child kidnapping story.

Of course I'm 100% you would agree that the people who would make/own that would be morally disgusting and needing shot but would you censor it keeping in mind it is fictitious and not actually happening.

As long as something is fictional, consentual and legal there is absolutly no reason to censor it. The fact I find it disgusting or immoral is irrevelent.

[Najemikon]

(by the way, under BBFC guidelines I think a film just showing a rape of an adult would pass an 18, it would only be cut if it was made to look like the female enjoyed being raped).

Considering the Straw Dogs issue, even that would get through. It's all about how the story deals with it.

Easy. The line is in the legality...

See this is where I feel you tried to catch me with a non-sense exemple that would never happen...

No and yes. No if the scenario is 100% the same as before. Yes if the scene is part of a child kidnapping story.

Who would check any of those three points, Jimmy? Remember you've said there's no justification for censorship, but now you're setting margins and boundaries according to your own perception.

There are people out there who would happily try and make the extreme kind of film Sam described. More likely though it would be a form of terrorism. Someone could choose to make a film as despicable as what we have suggested, simply to cause offence and undermine certain organisations.   

The basic fact that a censorship board exists at all creates a culture where boundaries are only tested (stuff like A Serbian Film). Without the BBFC's shadow, much, much worse would be flooding the market unchecked and the vulnerable in society would have no protection.

Once again, I also ask you to consider how open the BBFC are to consultation. In 2011, 1% of all submissions were cut, and the bulk of those was to achieve a lower certificate. Of 18 certificate films, just 1 had to be cut. I have no idea which, but ask me again when their report is released. They always make for interesting reading and demonstrate the organisations accountability. They cut two 18 films in 2010 and I think you might appreciate what they had to say about that: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/download/annual-reports/BBFC_AnnualReport_2010.pdf

[Jimmy]

Remember you've said there's no justification for censorship, but now you're setting margins and boundaries according to your own perception.

I don't set any limitation... I've always said that if something is legal anything goes. By exemple here as long it isn't real child pornography or degradation (and this is rarely used to ban something), you won't see something doesn't get a rating from our rating board or get a request to change how it was made (our board don't do that, they rate movie don't censor them). The legality of something isn't my perception but the governement perception.

There are people out there who would happily try and make the extreme kind of film Sam described.

As I said it countains nothing illegal so why not? I would make a film like that without hesitation personally, doesn't sound different to me that any extreme crime films or special effects extreme showcase film. Sure it would be a tasteless film and so what it's legal???

Without the BBFC's shadow, much, much worse would be flooding the market unchecked and the vulnerable in society would have no protection.

OMG |"/$%!$ think of the children and the deficient

Sorry but that argument is a load of crap. Can I ask for a rap music ban because some people took the words seriously? Can I ask for a ban of Grand Theft Auto because someone could tried to drive and hit pedestrians? Can I ask for a rat poisons ban because some people used this to kill other? Can I ask a meat saw ban because some people used this to disposed of a murdered body? Can I ask an internet ban because some people made violent threat on it?

See how it is ridiculous? Your argument sounds as ridiculous to me...

[Najemikon]

Right, that's it. I give up. You took my last statement and twisted it. Fine, if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, at least have the decency to read the Director's Statement in the PDF I linked to. At least have the decency to acknowledge the facts of exactly what they did over the last couple of years. Two films cut in 2011. Hardly oppressive.

As I said it countains nothing illegal so why not? I would make a film like that without hesitation personally, doesn't sound different to me that any extreme crime films or special effects extreme showcase film. Sure it would be a tasteless film and so what it's legal???

Legal? But damn if we aren't going to push those limits! Hey, it's all pretend! You know what I largely think of the exploitation genre, but I've always looked to you as an indicator for the stuff that has some value. But you'd make a film that contained explicit child rape? Sorry! "Pretend".  Bloody hell. I can't take that seriously. 

[Jimmy]

Right, that's it. I give up. You took my last statement and twisted it.

Sure and rightly so... You have wrote countless non-sense statements in this thread, so I don't see the problem of showing how rubbish it is as an argument.

Legal? But damn if we aren't going to push those limits! Hey, it's all pretend! You know what I largely think of the exploitation genre, but I've always looked to you as an indicator for the stuff that has some value. But you'd make a film that contained explicit child rape? Sorry! "Pretend".  Bloody hell. I can't take that seriously. 

How many times do I need to wrote the fact that something is tasteless and hurt someone feeling is irrevelent? If this is legal this is legal... End of the line.

I guess In a Glass Cage, Sleepers, A Time to Kill and Mystic River are offensive, are ban worthy and was done by director deserving to be shot in your world. As all those movies like countless others deal with child rape.

[Najemikon]

Not with an explicit scene acted by a "consenting" seven year old, they don't.