Following the public consultation exercise which takes place every four years, the BBFC has decided to make some changes to the criteria for applying its ratings to films and DVDs.

The areas to be tightened up are:
- discriminatory language
- repeated visual sexual references, or repeated verbal crude sexual references
- scenes that do not show actual gore but are frightening

Films/DVDs that contain such material are likely to receive a higher classification than in previous years.

Here's the headline-grabbing example of the use of discriminatory language: an episode of Friends (The One with the East German Laundry Detergent) has Rachel call herself a 'laundry spaz'. The use of the word 'spaz' means that the DVD boxset of the first series of Friends will now be a 12 instead of a PG certificate.

Other films which would now receive higher certificates include The Others (disturbing scenes) and Date Movie (crude sexual references). Both would now be 15 instead of 12A.

After a period of relative leniency under David Cooke, the BBFC now seems to be reverting to a stance familiar from earlier years, though the changes are apparently prompted by public consultation.

Retrograde step to unnecessary censorship or welcome opportunity to think of the children?

Story here (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6565478.ece).

Following the public consultation exercise which takes place every four years, the BBFC has decided to make some changes to the criteria for applying its ratings to films and DVDs.

The areas to be tightened up are:
...
- scenes that do not show actual gore but are frightening

Films/DVDs that contain such material are likely to receive a higher classification than in previous years.


Retrograde step to unnecessary censorship or welcome opportunity to think of the children?

I welcome this one at least. It should mean that many films that have been able to scrape into 12A will now have no chance of doing so. The 12A rating had little to do with reducing censorship and much more to do with maximising audiences in the cinema. At present the film companies target almost all their films for a 12A regardless of how violent the content may be. Violence without gore is still violence and will still scare young kids and after seeing kids as young as 3 years old at Terminator Salvation I can't help feeling that something needed to be done.

.... after seeing kids as young as 3 years old at Terminator Salvation...

:o:shocked:
3? That's daft, surely parents realise it's likely to be scary for kids? Just imagine them not sleeping for 3 days afterwards!

I'm also looking forward to the time that certificate on computer games become legally binding in same way as film certificates (remember reading it would happen but forget when plan was for).

...The 12A rating had little to do with reducing censorship and much more to do with maximising audiences in the cinema. ...
The 12A was another initiative introduced following public consultation. The notion was that due to varying levels of psychological maturity of children that age, the 12 certificate was unnecessarily restrictive when some children as young as 8 were thought able to deal with some of the themes found in a 12 certificate film (last summer's Indiana Jones film is a good example).

The initial idea, apparently, was to introduce the 12A certificate with a lower age limit of 8, but it was ultimately left to parents' own discretion. Given that some parents seem to have forgotten their responsibility to their children when it comes to vetting films, there are rumblings that the lower age limit may be applied.
...At present the film companies target almost all their films for a 12A regardless of how violent the content may be. ...
They might submit for a 12A (or a PG-13) but in the UK if the violence lingers on details of the violent act, or emphasises blood or injuries, it won't get a 12A certificate; it'll be a 15.

The issue with 12A films like The Dark Knight (can't comment on the new Terminator film as I haven't seen it) was that while the theme was dark and intense, the violence wasn't dwelt upon; for the most part it was implied as opposed to focussing on the details and the consequent injuries. The new regulations applied to the 12A certificate dealing with films like The Dark Knight that are frightening/disturbing while not explicitly and lingeringly violent in a 12A context should address such issues.

so the Politically correct leftie elite strike again . kids hear worse words than these at school:rolleyes:

so the Politically correct leftie elite . kids hear worse words than these at school:rolleyes:
Do you have that phrase as a keyboard short cut?

What's your opinion on violence in 12A certificate films?

...I'm also looking forward to the time that certificate on computer games become legally binding in same way as film certificates (remember reading it would happen but forget when plan was for).
Was just reading about that. From the pBBFC site (http://www.pbbfc.co.uk/guides_Videogames.asp):
It is illegal to supply a BBFC age rated game (‘12’, 15’, ‘18’) to anyone below the age displayed on the packaging. Sales staff can be heavily fined and even sent to prison if they are caught supplying BBFC age rated games to anyone younger than that age. Confusion can result from the fact that PEGI age ratings are not legally binding. Parents should be aware of this. So a child of any age can buy, say, a PEGI 16+ game and no law has been broken. But it is against the law to sell or rent a game with a BBFC age rating on it to anyone younger.
That will be changing (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/18/game_age_limits/) to PEGI-only certification:
Currently games can carry ratings produced either by PEGI or by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).

Just last year the Government said that it wanted to create a unified hybrid regime. Under that proposal, games would be classified by a hybrid of PEGI ratings for games for children and BBFC ratings for games for people aged 12 or over.

It has now abandoned that hybrid approach in favour of all-PEGI ratings with strengthened legal backing. In its Digital Britain report, the Government said that the new system will use the force of the law for the first time in protecting children from inappropriate content.

"[The new system] will offer improved protection for children including, for the first time, making it illegal to sell games suitable for 12 and older to underage children," said the report.
But it's not likely to come into force until next year (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/34800/PEGI-likely-to-become-law-in-2010):
The proposal to implement PEGI as the UK’s only games age classification model, overseen by the Video Standards Council, was put forward by Labour in its Digital Britain White Paper earlier this week.

More consultation will now take place between stakeholders PEGI, the VSC and the Department of Culture, Media And Sport to ‘fine tune’ the bill, which will eventually alter the the Video Recordings Act – last tweaked back in 1994.

Following this, it will have to be approved by Parliamentary procedure, which is not likely to be completed until 2010.

The use of the word 'spaz' means that the DVD boxset of the first series of Friends will now be a 12 instead of a PG certificate.

Anyone buying a box set of Friends needs more than BBFC guidance. They need mental help.

Anyone buying a box set of Friends needs more than BBFC guidance. They need mental help.
I've often thought that the BBFC should apply certificates on that sort of criteria. For example, films like Little Man, Norbit and the Pirates trilogy could receive a WC rating ('Worthless Crap: no one should see this film').

Anyone buying a box set of Friends needs more than BBFC guidance. They need mental help.

:thumbsup: Spot on :D

I've often thought newer films were often above the rating and only made 12a's to keep the public access open i.e Batman. There appears to be no real difference in films content any where between 12a and 18.

...There appears to be no real difference in films content any where between 12a and 18.
You're kidding.

Do you think you'd find this in a 12A film?:
The film contains many scenes of strong bloody violence, many of which breach the BBFC Guidelines at ‘15’ which state that ‘violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury’ and that ‘the strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable’. In the assault on the teenage girls, which includes a graphic stabbing and shooting, and in the scenes where the parents get their revenge, there is extended focus on the actual process of the infliction of wounds and the resultant blood loss. These scenes include a bullet being shot through a woman’s eye, a man’s arm being caught in a waste disposal unit and a man’s head exploding after being put in a microwave.
That's part of the BBFC's assessment of the 18 certificate Last House on the Left remake.

Compare that with the BBFC's criteria for violence in a 12A certificate film:
Moderate violence is allowed but should not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood, but occasional gory moments may be permitted if justified by the context. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated, and must have a strong contextual justification.
and how it's applied to the 12A certificate new Transformers film:
The moderate action violence occurs at many points throughout the work, but is almost all robot-to-robot, and with any personalised human violence containing only well masked blows, or generic type explosions with people flying through the air, but no injury details beyond some cuts and bruises. At one point, a main character appears to have been killed, and requires resuscitation. It was considered that this frequent, but very undetailed, action type of violence is acceptable under the BBFC Guidelines at '12A', which direct that 'Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood ... Sustained moderate threat and menace are permitted'.

I could have bet £500 somoene would reference either My Bloody Valentine or Last HOuse regarding gore etc.

However compare that with the Strangers and the violence was way more sadistic in my opinion and only a 15. and yet Funny Games was rated 18 with nothing in comparison.

LAst hOuse on the Left is a very good remake and far superior to the banned original.

Batman was 12a and had more complaints than all the above about it's content.There may not have been actual gore but the acts of violence were pyschopathic in the extreme.

I could have bet £500 somoene would reference either My Bloody Valentine or Last HOuse regarding gore etc. ...
I quoted Last House on the Left because it was the first 18 certificate film I came to on the BBFC's page of recent decisions for films now open.
...However compare that with the Strangers and the violence was way more sadistic in my opinion and only a 15. and yet Funny Games was rated 18 with nothing in comparison.
In your opinion. My recollection of reviews is that the consensus was the opposite. The BBFC states that while both films were relatively moderate in terms of explicit focus on gore and such like, the latter had an intense focus on sustained terrorisation and sadistic humiliation, something which isn't allowed at 15 certificate:
It [Funny Games] was passed '18' due to sustained terrorisation of the family with an associated strong sense of threat, sadism and humiliation. This contravenes the BBFC Guidelines at '15' which state that violence 'may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury'. Hence an '18' was required despite the fact that the occasional strong violence in the film is notable for its lack of visual detail.

The Strangers was far more sustained and brutal IMHO - which isn't everyones. Funny Games was actually pathetic. imho.

I could easily reference others where i wouldn't let children watch - but would let them watch such films as Role Models.

But we're at the mercy of the inept imho.

...I could easily reference others where i wouldn't let children watch - but would let them watch such films as Role Models. ...
Children? As in 12 year olds, or younger?

Batman was 12a and had more complaints than all the above about it's content.There may not have been actual gore but the acts of violence were pyschopathic in the extreme.

Thing is, most of the complaints were from people who took their 6 year old kid to see it, and the kid got upset. Most 12 year olds would be fine with Dark Knight (heck, I would have been fine when i was 10). Thus the 12A rating was right when applied to the letter (a 15 would be too high, with 12 being about right for a recommendation of age). If parents were not so stupid that they believed that 12a means "ideal for the wee nippers and we don't need a babysitter" then it wouldn't have been an issue.

12A, after all, does actually mean that if they are under 12 then they maybe shouldn't be watching it.

I'm glad, in a way, that the rules have been tightened. The 'Movie' series (Epic, Date, other such generic pants) caused issues due to the gross out sexual nature of the so-called gags. I'm pleased that these are possible examples of those to hit the 15 rating instead (I didn't think them suitable for 12 year olds regardless of the 'a' ). The only worry is that we will end up with studios now cutting films in order to secure the lower rating again for the UK market. Be interesting to see how many films get this treatment over the next few years.

Children? As in 12 year olds, or younger?

Roles Models was gross but frank. A tale of dysfunctional families with crudity. So it's like a day in the real world. I'd let my 9 year old grand daughter watch it.

Do you have that phrase as a keyboard short cut?

What's your opinion on violence in 12A certificate films?

Pushing your luck there, eh, Hecate? Thought through opinions are difficult when ones knee wont stay still.

Back OT, I agree with the post that as many parents don't seem to be bothered about the concept of parental responsibility, then more age enforcement for films is probly a good idea

Roles Models was gross but frank. A tale of dysfunctional families with crudity. So it's like a day in the real world. I'd let my 9 year old grand daughter watch it.
Haven't seen it. Letting a nine year old watch a 15 certificate film is a bit dubious, especially with what the BBFC describes as 'various verbal and visual sex references' which are 'strong and sometimes crude'. I don't think a child of that age is ready for such themes.

I welcome this one at least. It should mean that many films that have been able to scrape into 12A will now have no chance of doing so. The 12A rating had little to do with reducing censorship and much more to do with maximising audiences in the cinema. At present the film companies target almost all their films for a 12A regardless of how violent the content may be. Violence without gore is still violence and will still scare young kids and after seeing kids as young as 3 years old at Terminator Salvation I can't help feeling that something needed to be done.

How is this the fault of the film company?

The 12A certificate was brought in to give parents the ability to judge for themselves whether a film was suitable for younger children. Initially the BBFC had wanted a blanket ban on under eights seeing 12A classified films but yielded to the pressure and agreed that it should be entirely the discretion of the parents.

I've often thought newer films were often above the rating and only made 12a's to keep the public access open i.e Batman. There appears to be no real difference in films content any where between 12a and 18.

I think there is a mistake there. There is most definitely a difference in the content, themes and nature between a 12 and an 18. The 12A certificate for a start limits the use of strong swearwords to only one instance and even the context a particular swearword is used can alter the certification of a film.

The difference is much narrower between a 15 and an 18. However predatory sexual violence is automatically an 18 rated subject as is prolonged torture and torture for sexual gratification, within the film obviously not for the audience.

If you genuinely feel there is no difference between what is passed as a 12(A) and an 18 then I am afraid you are mistaken.

Rich

EDIT: Having read a little further down the previous page. The reason Last House on the Left is an 18 is because it contains sexualised violence.

EDIT: Having read a little further down the previous page. The reason Last House on the Left is an 18 is because it contains sexualised violence.

The last house on the left is an excellent example of the way censorship has become relaxed - i have a copy of the original. IMHO the new one is much worse.

...EDIT: Having read a little further down the previous page. The reason Last House on the Left is an 18 is because it contains sexualised violence.
It would still have been an 18 certificate without the sexualised violence. Yes, that alone would place it squarely in the 18 certificate category, but in its absence that film would still be an 18 certificate.

Haven't seen it. Letting a nine year old watch a 15 certificate film is a bit dubious, especially with what the BBFC describes as 'various verbal and visual sex references' which are 'strong and sometimes crude'. I don't think a child of that age is ready for such themes.

Its defo crude - but the vulgarity is in context and not done in a sexual manner. Unless you call obsession with breasts from a 12 (?)year old(in the movie) sexual - but then again just a typical boy thing, so why stop boys seeing it.

I'd rather a 9 year old watch that than the crap that is Shameless on tv.

Its defo crude - but the vulgarity is in context and not done in a sexual manner. Unless you call obsession with breasts from a 12 (?)year old(in the movie) sexual - but then again just a typical boy thing, so why stop boys seeing it.
Typical 12 year old boys probably think about stuff far more suitable for a 18R certificate film than a 12A film. That's hardly an argument for allowing them to see one.

Typical 12 year old boys probably think about stuff far more suitable for a 18R certificate film than a 12A film. That's hardly an argument for allowing them to see one.

I never said it was - i was stating my opinion that the censorship on some films is in the extreme. You take normal 12 year old behaviour and censor it.
I wouldn't let a 9 year old watch lAST hoUSE but i would have no problem with The Descent for instance.

As i said on another thread censor the film for joking about boobies to 12 year olds - then play adverts for alcohol before the film starts on 12a rated films. Some point.

...I'd rather a 9 year old watch that than the crap that is Shameless on tv.
Not having seen Role Models, I can only go on what the BBFC says about its content and on comparisons with similarly-themed 15 certificate films like American Pie.

However, I really can't ever imagine a situation in which I would allow a 9 year old to see a 15 certificate film, and especially one thus described.

...You take normal 12 year old behaviour and censor it. ...
Normal 12 year old behaviour might be to snigger over big brother's stash of porn mags, but that doesn't mean that a film depicting sexual crudity and themes suited to a 15 certificate are appropriate cinema viewing for the 9-12 year old range.