Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Changes at the BBFC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Changes at the BBFC

    Everyones favourite classifications board is prepping a whole set of new charges that will be absorbed without care by major labels but will be crippling for the little guys: http://www.moviemail.com/blog/news/1...ie-DVD-labels/

    Essentially in the UK its required to have all releases rated by the BBFC which is not cheap and is already a factor that needs to be considered for borderline-profitable releases. Sounds like the BBFC is now requiring the same thing for supplementary materials. For labels like the BFI which pump out a lot of this material it could be a serious issue.
    "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

  • #2
    I like how these people operate. In an age where Everything is available online, they try to censor physical media. Good solid thinking there.
    "No presh from the Dresh!"

    Comment


    • #3
      They're taking steps toward trying to force censorship of online content. The internet has made their irrelevance plain as day and they're fighting to maintain a steady flow of revenue, while keeping up the delusion that they're actually providing a necessary public service. Vile cunts and an organisation that should have been wiped off the face of the earth years ago.

      To be fair to the BBFC though, these new changes aren't actually anything to do with them. It's the Tory Government going into a full 'protect the children' moral panic and implementing useless knee-jerk policies that don't actually address the underlying issues.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dom D View Post
        Everyones favourite classifications board is prepping a whole set of new charges that will be absorbed without care by major labels but will be crippling for the little guys: http://www.moviemail.com/blog/news/1...ie-DVD-labels/

        Essentially in the UK its required to have all releases rated by the BBFC which is not cheap and is already a factor that needs to be considered for borderline-profitable releases. Sounds like the BBFC is now requiring the same thing for supplementary materials. For labels like the BFI which pump out a lot of this material it could be a serious issue.
        Whilst I agree with Ignatius one hundred per cent, that piece on the Moviemail website is a little bit guilty of scaremongering and slightly misrepresents the issue. Many supplementary features on DVD/BD releases are already required to be classified by the BBFC. (A quick search for the word 'interview' on the BBFC's website will show this: http://bbfc.co.uk/search/releases/interview?page=1. Or likewise 'DVD Extras': http://bbfc.co.uk/search/releases/dvd%2Bextras ). There have been a couple of cases where the video classification of a film has been raised by the content of the supplementary material (JAWS is one, for example - the film itself is a 'PG', but some of the language used in one of the interviews means that the DVD/BD releases carry a '12' certificate). Some companies have skirted around this issue for a while, under the existing exemption guidelines - to that, I say bully for them, and long may they continue to do so ;)

        These changes would mean documentary features like THE ACT OF KILLING would have to be classified by the BBFC - they are currently exempt under the criteria listed on the BBFC's website: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/industry-services/video/exemption
        Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the BBFC assigns age ratings to all video works supplied in the United Kingdom unless they fall into one of the two exempt areas:

        works which, taken as a whole, are designed to inform, educate or instruct;
        works which, taken as a whole, are concerned with sport, religion or music;
        The new approach is largely owing to increasingly explicit music videos, which have managed to skirt through as 'exempt for classification' - but there have been some documentary features that have been challenging too. For example, the aforementioned THE ACT OF KILLING, which is a wonderful film but which has some very challenging material in it that, had it been classified, would almost certainly be rewarded with a '15' certificate.

        But in a perfect world, barring extreme content (pornographic or sadistic), no DVD extras would need to be classified.
        Paul L
        Scholar of Sleaze
        Last edited by Paul L; 03-19-2014, 10:02 PM.
        'You know, I'd almost forgotten what your eyes looked like. Still the same. Pissholes in the snow'

        http://www.paul-a-j-lewis.com (my photography website)
        'All explaining in movies can be thrown out, I think': Elmore Leonard

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paul L View Post
          Whilst I agree with Ignatius one hundred per cent, that piece on the Moviemail website is a little bit guilty of scaremongering and slightly misrepresents the issue. Many supplementary features on DVD/BD releases are already required to be classified by the BBFC. (A quick search for the word 'interview' on the BBFC's website will show this: http://bbfc.co.uk/search/releases/interview?page=1. Or likewise 'DVD Extras': http://bbfc.co.uk/search/releases/dvd%2Bextras ). There have been a couple of cases where the video classification of a film has been raised by the content of the supplementary material (JAWS is one, for example - the film itself is a 'PG', but some of the language used in one of the interviews means that the DVD/BD releases carry a '12' certificate). Some companies have skirted around this issue for a while, under the existing exemption guidelines - to that, I say bully for them, and long may they continue to do so ;)
          I was wondering about that. My understanding here in Australia is that our extras all need to rated right down to the commentary and our laws on this stuff usually track in line with yours. Afterreading that article I was split between suprise that extras didn't need to rated over there and a very mild form of outrage that they would change that.
          "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thankfully Code Red and the like are not UK based companies, otherwise they would have been out of business a long time ago.

            Comment


            • #7
              I was under the impression that extra features weren't subjected to scrutiny by the BBFC, but it seems I'm wrong on that. I took the main point of the issue being that each time something is presented to the BBFC they charge for that process, and therefore it means that if companies such as Arrow want a decent amount of extras on their releases (to differentiate themselves above other companies) they will have to pay a hell of a lot more for the priviledge, and its something they just cant afford to do.

              Whatever the main issue is, this right royally pisses me off. Not because I don't understand the Governments intentions, but just because its a knee jerk reaction and they think they are doing it for the good of the country, without actually looking into the consequences for businesses. They are supposed to be helping small businesses so its kind of hypocrisy. And finally and what annoys me the most is that the Government seem to be forgetting in the process to ask what the people in the Uk actually want and just go ahead anyway.
              Lalala76
              Senior Member
              Last edited by Lalala76; 03-20-2014, 05:39 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lalala76 View Post
                I was under the impression that extra features weren't subjected to scrutiny by the BBFC, but it seems I'm wrong on that.
                I think it's sometimes dependent on context, and there's probably been a slightly lackadaisical approach to this over the past few years. For example, audio commentaries (and alternate language tracks) should apparently always be scrutinised by the BBFC - but some companies (and good on them!) have somehow managed to skirt round this issue. The BBFC's new website is particularly frustrating for finding information, but I don't remember having ever seen listings for alternate audio tracks or commentaries for some of Arrow's releases, for example. There may be some sort of 'gentleman's agreement' between the BBFC and some of the independent labels - I don't know. For the record, I don't think contextual material (unless pornographic or sadistic) should need to be submitted for examination, but the article posted on Moviemail slightly misrepresents the issue and I think some smaller companies have for a while been skirting around loopholes in the existing legislation (and, like I said, bully for them!)

                Multiple audio, language and subtitle tracks

                If the work is a foreign language production and will be released in the UK with English subtitles, then this will need to be submitted for classification.
                If the work is also available in a dubbed English version, this will also need to be classified.
                If the work is an English language production it is not necessary to submit foreign language tracks or foreign language subtitles which may be featured on a DVD or Blu-ray. These are submitted they will be ignored.
                If a work is to be released with subtitles for the hard of hearing then these do not need to be classified but the BBFC will include them if they are present.

                Audio commentaries and other alternate audio tracks also require classification. The only exceptions are audio descriptive tracks (e.g. for the visually impaired) which involve very simple and short descriptions of the action on screen.

                There are no particular restrictions on audio formats, although surround sound audio tracks will generally be ignored unless this is the only audio track present.
                'You know, I'd almost forgotten what your eyes looked like. Still the same. Pissholes in the snow'

                http://www.paul-a-j-lewis.com (my photography website)
                'All explaining in movies can be thrown out, I think': Elmore Leonard

                Comment


                • #9
                  Those rules you post there on audio are totally insane and I believe the same as we're living under in my country. I guess it's just revenue raising but art should really be immune from this sort of thing.

                  Off topic but slightly related and what the hell, I find it interesting: Here in Oz Salo can ONLY be released on DVD. No cinema screenings or anything else. Why? Because it needs to be presented with the contextual material provided by the extras on the DVD to make sense of it. Not sure if you're committing a crime if you just dump the second disc as I did.
                  "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The history of Salo and Aussie censorship is totally fucked to say the least. In 1993 it got an R18 on the grounds that it was only screened in cinemas and not released on DVD, now it's the opposite. The whole sordid history is covered in great detail by Refused Classification. Basically it boils down to people in high places hating the film and fighting vociferously to get it suppressed to this day.

                    Yeah, and the forced classification of commentaries is fucked up, particularly since I believe it essentially doubles the cost of classifying a film. Though the BBFC have certainly justified it by requiring commentaries on both Tomb Raider and The Simpsons to be censored in the past. In Tomb Raider it was because a sound effect they had censored in the film itself was audible on the commentary. Totally fucking absurd.

                    In terms of the recent changes, the Government did consult a local industry body (I forget which one) but none of the small releasing companies are represented by it so the gesture turned out to be pointless in the long run.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ignatius View Post
                      I'd never heard of that site until reading your post. Fascinating and infuriating stuff. I can see myself losing a bit of time in the near future going through all the content. Along with Salo, two other cases interest me, Baise-Moi and Ken Park, the later in particular due to Margaret Pomeranz actually being detained for attempting to screen the film.

                      LA PASIÓN ESPAÑOL: THE EROTIC MELODRAMAS OF VICENTE ARANDA (1991-1999)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        An online petition is being circulated to amend the planned changes to the Video Recordings Act: sign the petition here
                        It's all in the reflexes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Signed this yesterday.
                          'You know, I'd almost forgotten what your eyes looked like. Still the same. Pissholes in the snow'

                          http://www.paul-a-j-lewis.com (my photography website)
                          'All explaining in movies can be thrown out, I think': Elmore Leonard

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X