View Full Version : BBFC no film with different certificates rule
can someone please tell me what the hell urged the BBFC to start such a stupid rule in the first place ?
I'm curious as to why they started this rule because i really dont see the need for it.
I remember reading something about 'Confusing the public' but come on surely people can't be that thick ?
Different versions of Die Hard 2 and The Mummy have never caused much bother before so why did they see the need to start the rule ?
Anyone know their reasoning for it ?
I think their reasoning was, if a film was released at the cinema as, say, a 15 cert after cuts, then all the advertising etc would be 'aimed' at 15+ year olds, so when it is released uncut on DVD (with an 18 cert), 15+ year olds will want to buy it anyway, regardless of the 18 cert. Or something like that. :rolleyes:
So I guess the BBFC are implying that people ignore the certificates and do what the addvertisers tell them to do. So why have these mandatory certificates in the first place? :confused:
You can always mail webmaster@bbfc.co.uk and ask - they do seem to take the trouble to reply to e-mails, despite some strange poilicies regarding film classification.
They brought in the no dual rating policy soon after they relaxed their guidelines because loads of companies started submitting uncut versions while still keeping the cut version (with lower rating) on release, this is what the BBFC didn't like (they said under age viewers may try to seek the uncut version). If you look through the BBFC policy and news pages on their wensite they have a page describing what the policy is and how it's applied.
The Mummy and Die Hard 2 were passed uncut at higher rating before the no dual rating policy was implemented.
Originally posted by Chris
They brought in the no dual rating policy soon after they relaxed their guidelines because loads of companies started submitting uncut versions while still keeping the cut version (with lower rating) on release, this is what the BBFC didn't like (they said under age viewers may try to seek the uncut version). If you look through the BBFC policy and news pages on their wensite they have a page describing what the policy is and how it's applied.
So do you feel this is a good policy Chris?
Utterly pathetic ... just when I was becoming seriously impressed with their new practices, they went and released something as draconian and ludicrous as this; totally negating my new-found respect for the board. It really is an admission of "hey, people do just ignore these stupid stickers anyhow", which we all knew already -- and will happen irregardless of whether "dual rated" relases are present in the market. It isn't even a fop to placate the Daily Mail, because as far as I can tell, they couldn't give a toss about it -- so I'm failing to see any useful purpose to this other than to infuriate film buffs, something the board seem to have a bit of a talent for ... ;)
I dunno if this is of interest to any of you but it is kind of relevant to this discussion! Before anyone has a go at me - YES I am stirring and NO I am in no way pro-censorship!
The following just highlights how daft the bbfc are!
My email to BBFC:
Dear BBFC
I have just viewed the UK Region 2 dvd of "Bridget Jones's diary", currently on general release throughout the UK.
The version of the film contained on the dvd is the same as that shown in UK cinemas - it has the following cuts (as per your information for the cinema release):
"Cuts were made by substitution The cuts were Cuts for category.
Company chose to remove the word 'beep' from the dialogue line 'ham fisted beep' in order the achieve a 15. An uncut 18 was available to the distributor.
At the time of classification U.I.P. (UK) was the distributor of this film."
Are you aware that the director's commentary (which was originally recorded for the Region 1 USA dvd release) not only contains the word 'beep' clearly audible on the film's soundtrack but also that the director alludes to the BBFC substitution for the UK and also uses the word again herself in the context of the UK cut?
It is clear that the director's commentary has not been submitted for classification along with the other dvd extra materials (as indeed a search of your online database proves).
I should point out that the inclusion of the word on the dvd does not offend me, I simply find the whole situation rather amusing!
In this case Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment ARE at fault for not supplying the commentary for classification BUT I really would have thought that after enforcing a dialogue substitution for category, the BBFC would have gone to greater lengths to ensure that their ruling was more strictly adhered to.
Might I suggest that you review your policy for the classification of dvd commentaries as this is not the first time such a mistake has gone overlooked. Recently the UK dvd release of "Rocky" was similarly affected. The disc carried a PG rating, yet the director used language on the commentary that required a 15 rating for the disc under current BBFC guidelines. When discovered the disc had to be recalled and re-lableled.
In the case of "Bridget Jones's Diary", even though a higher rating was available for a fully uncut version (for the cinema release) this situtation could have been avoided if the BBFC were to change it's policy about re-classifying previously classified works.
It seems to me that if the BBFC is going to make ratings decisions based on the extra material of dvd releases, then it should have ALL the materials made available in order to make a balanced decision. Quite obviously the film distribution companies cannot be relied on to actually check all the materials themselves!
The other option is to follow the MPAA model and officially allow all bonus dvd materials to be passed unrated as this would solve these sorts of problems, which are bound to crop up again.
Whichever way you look at it, the BBFC is made to look foolish. It does appear that the BBFC have censored a word in a feature film only to overlook the very same word (in the same context) TWICE in the dvd's bonus material. This really doesn't do the credibility of the BBFC any good at all.
their reply:
Thank you for your e.mail.
DVD audio commentaries only need to be submitted if the commentary is likely to be at odds with the classification of the work itself. In this case, as you state, the DVD audio commentary was not submitted to us.
However, it should be pointed out that the use of very strong language is not necessarily unacceptable at '15' per se. The BBFC objected specifically to the gratuitous and aggressive use of the 'c'-word within the film itself. There is no reason to suppose that a - non-aggressive use of that word in a discussion of the BBFC's decision would necessarily take the whole up to '18'. We can see the irony of the situation but do not feel there is necessarily quite the problem you imply since our objection was not in fact to the use of very strong language but the manner
of its use.
As for your suggestion of allowing extras to go out unrated, this is simply a non starter as this would be in direct contravention of the Video Recordings Act and merely act as an incentive to include cut and rejected material.
Then I got this email straight after the first!
Having re-read your e.mail, could you please clarify whether the use of very strong language is audible on the film itself (i.e. underneath the audio commentary)? At first reading your e.mail seemed to imply that the film's director uses the word when discussing the film's classification, which we would not necessarily object to. However, if you can hear the word on the film itself (underneath the audio track) there may well be a problem!
Thanks!
My reply:
I was just about to respond to your first email when your second arrived!
Yes, you can hear the word in the context that the BBFC objected to as there is no commentray at this point on the track and the audio level of the film is turned up. That was the point I was originally trying to make and I just thought that you would want to be aware of this before the net is riddled with "double standards" postings on film discussion sites!
Their reply:
OK - thanks. We'll look into it (and probably recall the disc)! We could
have lived with the director saying it on the commentary, but if it's there
in the film itself, that's unacceptable...
Thanks for pointing this out!
That's the last I've heard about this so far...
I removed the guy's name from his emails but he is one of the people who actually have a say in the classification process!
Anyway, hope that was interesting reading for you!
Richie
Originally posted by Jodrell
So do you feel this is a good policy Chris?
It's a totally stupid policy,
looks like they just created it so they didn't get overloaded with attempts to get uncut versions passed uncut now that the ratings have been relaxed (many of the films that have been cut by the no dual ratings policy could have been released uncut at higher rating, but the no dual rating policy prevents this).
OK - thanks. We'll look into it (and probably recall the disc)! We could
have lived with the director saying it on the commentary, but if it's there
in the film itself, that's unacceptable...
D'oh! Now look what you've gone and done! I bet Universal won't be best please about this... :D
What the BBFC gets up to hardly matters to me anyway as I can always get uncut R1 or R4 versions. But it does irritates me (for example) when there's a great possibility that the upcoming The Rock SE may well be cut thanks to their rules, forcing me to look elsewhere. Ah well, hopefully mainland Europe versions will be uncut.
This 'no dual rating' malarkey makes no sense whatsoever - as Byron saya it's just there to wind up film fans as far as I can see.
:rolleyes:
It's a pointless rule. They should get rid of it...
However, I am currently very interested to see if Last House On The Left will pass uncut through the BBFC. If it does, it would be a question of most complete version and pic/sound quality then extras. :clap:
Tim Murphy
23-12-2001, 00:36
Actually it would be quite interesting if the BBFC recalled the current 'Bridget Jones' DVD release because of this. As it's currently such a major title, with lots of TV advertising etc, the DVD becoming suddenly unavailable may generate some publicity about how daft our censorship system still is.
Good point Tim.
I first emailed the BBFC a week after the disc had been on sale.
You'd think that if they were so concerned about all of us little people hearing such an awful word in such a terrible context that they would have jumped right on this and made Columbia recall the disc pronto but surprise! they've done nowt!
I bet anything that the disc is quietly recalled after Xmas (when everyone already owns it!) and that it gets re-pressed then. The BBFC won't make a big song and dance about it because it makes them look stupid.
That's just my theory anyway!
WHY the DVD just couldn't be an uncut 18 is beyond me - the current rules are indeed completely ridiculous. In fact the whole issue of the one word in Bridget Jones is ridiculous (but I wanted to use that to make a point)!
Richie
Originally posted by Richie
Good point Tim.
WHY the DVD just couldn't be an uncut 18 is beyond me - the current rules are indeed completely ridiculous. In fact the whole issue of the one word in Bridget Jones is ridiculous (but I wanted to use that to make a point)!
Richie
Why the disc couldn't be an uncut 15 is beyond me!!!!!11111 :rolleyes:
Holy incongruous censorship, batman!
This usurps anything I've seen thus far for sheer downright stupidity. There original argument for censoring the word in question struck me as pretty weak, but at least it was logical.
But to have no objection to the director using such language unfetted in the commentary in exactly the same context as the word removed, that's downright insane; to recall the discs because exactly the same four letters can be heard beneath the commentary -- what on earth? (Intresting the BBFC don't rate commentaries isn't it: "This is a total bad mother... of a film!" "Dude, this is Atlantis! You can't say that!" "Oh ... off asswipe, I say what the ... I like here!") If people are going to be offended when listening to the commentary, I severely doubt it'll be by the film's dulled dialouge, and not the director's use of the swear word!
Incidentally, I think including the word in the first place with so little justification considering it's extreme offensiveness and the likely audience of the film was ill-advised. But no where close to the extent of the ludicrous censorship applied here; I'd love to see the BBFC's defenders get them off the hook here (I suppose a new and inexperianced examiner could have answered, but if so, I'd like to see some clarification from Andreas Whittam Smith on the matter) -- because applying any rationality to this latest debacle looks tenuous to say the least!
Tim Murphy
23-12-2001, 12:59
Originally posted by Byron EDIT I'd like to see some clarification from Andreas Whittam Smith on the matter) -- because applying any rationality to this latest debacle looks tenuous to say the least! [/B]
Actually, despite the daft things that the BBFC continue to do at times, Andreas Whittam Smith seems like a thoughtful & pragmatic sort of chap (certainly in comparison to James Ferman).
Maybe you should ask him, his personal e-mail address is in the public domain (and is usually published along with articles he writes in The Independent) - it's aws@globalnet.co.uk
Originally posted by Tim Murphy
Actually, despite the daft things that the BBFC continue to do at times, Andreas Whittam Smith seems like a thoughtful & pragmatic sort of chap (certainly in comparison to James Ferman).
Maybe you should ask him, his personal e-mail address is in the public domain (and is usually published along with articles he writes in The Independent) - it's aws@globalnet.co.uk
It's precisely from reading said articles (I get the Indy daily) that my quandary arises. Everything he articulately writes in The Independent gives the impression of someone who's highly inteligent, thoughtful, and as you said, pragmatic.
Yet despite vast improvements under his directorship, the board continues to periodically lapse into Farman madness (editing ear-claps from 18s, for another example) though admittedly they are but lapses; we're a long way from the dark days of the 80s & most of the 90s.
The sort of insanity evinced above only helps to perpetuate the board's image as an international joke, which I'm loathed to see given the vast amount of useful work they do -- it's one of the reasons why I'm so dissapointed by things such as this. To be blunt, Andreas Whittam-Smith really needs to stop ******** like this coming out in the board's name; unless he supports such madness of course, though I'd be genuinely dissapointed if this was the case.
Anyhow, I'd certainly be happy to send him an e-mail -- it's only fair to let him speak for himself over this -- but perhaps Richie would be better suited to do it as he originally raised the matter.:)
Oh, and on a side note, the Indy (which Andreas Whittam Smith used to edit) published the word in question here in it's full and very naughty unexpurgated form today ... how's that for coincidence.:D
DeadKenny
24-12-2001, 00:20
Completely daft rule. MGM were convinced they'd get away with uncut 15 cert versions of Goldneye and Tomorrow Never Dies and all the margeting was done with '15' cert logos, until this thing. The stupid thing is it's just made us all go seek out uncut foreign versions instead. Most the kids don't give a toss anyway so would never have noticed the higher rating (and I very much doubt many 12 year olds would be buying Bond DVDs. They may go see it at the cinema, but it's going to be the 18+ group who will bother buying DVDs like this).
:mad::mad:
Oh well, this was their loss and France's gain :D (though at extra cost to me because French discs are damn expensive :().
I just wish the BBFC would grow up about bloody head-butts though.
Tim Murphy
24-12-2001, 13:00
Yeah, it is all a bit wierd. I thought the rule was that there couldn't be two different certificate vids/DVDs of the same film on release at the same time.
So, I would guess that with the Bonds, MGM could withdraw the current '12' versions completely meaning there is no current DVD/vid release, then shortly afterwards re-submit as a completely new release the same films unedited for a '15'? Or maybe not.
As you say, it's really stupid, particularly when films can be re-submitted to have cuts removed but retain the same certificate - eg 'Enter The Dragon'.
It's daft and makes you wonder what sort of person sits down and comes up with these complicated pointless rules.
Michael Brooke
24-12-2001, 14:22
<B>However, I am currently very interested to see if Last House On The Left will pass uncut through the BBFC. </B>
I wouldn't bet on it - extreme sexualised violence is still beyond the pale as far as the BBFC is concerned.
StuBruise
27-12-2001, 10:47
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I've seen some DVDs with a small note on the back explaining that the film was originally rated 12, but the content of the extras means that the DVD is rated 15 (or whatever). Where does all this fit in with the dual-rating guidelines, or were they produced before they came into effect?
~~stu
Originally posted by StuBruise
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I've seen some DVDs with a small note on the back explaining that the film was originally rated 12, but the content of the extras means that the DVD is rated 15 (or whatever). Where does all this fit in with the dual-rating guidelines, or were they produced before they came into effect?
I see what you mean - pretty sure the DVD of Jaws carried such a warning.
But in this case I'm pretty sure the documentary or whatever that is rated higher than the main feature would count as a seperate entity and the BBFC can't do anything to stop a disk carrying two different works with different certificates. It's no different to boxed sets with two or more films with different certificates - e.g. Godfather or Robocop (in bothe cases 1&2 are 18, 3 is a 15), or in the case of two films on one disk (e.g. El Mariachi is a 15, Desperado is an 18).
I wonder what would happen if for example Columbia decided to release a 'stronger' version of Jaws that would merit a 12 certificate, bearing in mind the DVD is a 12 anyway due to the extra material? Or even if they decided to include an 18 rated 'extra gory' cut of El Mariachi alongside Desperado? :confused:
The BBFC would refuse it I bet, as otherwise it gives the DVD makers a way around this dumb rule - package the film with some 18 rated extras and they'd be sorted!
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.