4 ms·

The same has been the case in the UK for at least the last 20 years with games requiring BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) or VSC (Video Standards Cou

by iam-TJ 4y ago

The same has been the case in the UK for at least the last 20 years with games requiring BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) or VSC (Video Standards Council) [0] ratings. As of 27th July 2012 [1] UK enacted a Statutory Instrument "The Video Recordings (Labelling) Regulations 2012" [2] ... > From today, it is a criminal offence to sell video games with a “12” rating to those younger than that age. ... manadated VSC as the sole organisation... > The new law ends the dual system, gives legal backing to PEGI 12, 16 and 18 ratings and will result in clearer, unambiguous guidance about the suitability of games content for specific age groups. ... with responsibility for PEGI (Pan European Games Information)[3] ratings. > PEGI provides age classifications for video games in 38 European countries. The age rating confirms that the game is appropriate for players of certain age. PEGI considers the age suitability of a game, not the level of difficulty. [0] https://videostandards.org.uk/RatingBoard/about-history https://videostandards.org.uk/RatingBoard/about-history [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-better-protect-children-from-inappropriate-video-game-content https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-better-prote... [2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1767/contents/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1767/contents/made [3] https://pegi.info/ https://pegi.info/

OJFord 4y ago
Is the outcome ever a refusal to classify them at all though? I think even when some films (e.g. Clockwork Orange at first I believe?) were banned they were still rated by the BBFC, it was councils that banned cinemas from showing them locally?
- implements 4y ago
  The BBFC is a non-government organisation nevertheless required by the government to view and rate all films. Councils licence cinemas (originally for fire safety) and require cinemas to only show rated material to the public, but they also have a discretionary power to rate and therefore ban films themselves. As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely. (For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Yes, but what I'm saying is do they ever refuse to rate a film? Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.
    - alexwlchan 4y ago
      Apparently so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_British_Board_of_Film_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_... I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.
      - OJFord 4y ago
        Huh, thanks for that. I had heard about requesting cuts now you mention it. (And this is also done to target a rating, if they want to get a 12A but as-is it's a 15 for example.) I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though. > The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons. Porn, or rather it somehow going too far, seems to be a big one based on a lot of the titles there.
        implements 4y ago
        Some films are so grim that if they cut out all the unacceptable stuff there’d be no film left worth seeing. Porn gets an R18 rating - provided it’s not dangerous, violent, illegal or obscene - and can shown at specially licensed sex cinemas.
- boygobbo 4y ago
  It wasn't banned in the UK & the BBFC passed it uncut. Stanley Kubrick himself requested it be withdrawn from distribution after some copycat incidents.

by iam-TJ 4y ago

OJFord 4y ago

Is the outcome ever a refusal to classify them at all though? I think even when some films (e.g. Clockwork Orange at first I believe?) were banned they were still rated by the BBFC, it was councils that banned cinemas from showing them locally?

implements 4y ago
The BBFC is a non-government organisation nevertheless required by the government to view and rate all films. Councils licence cinemas (originally for fire safety) and require cinemas to only show rated material to the public, but they also have a discretionary power to rate and therefore ban films themselves. As an example, Life of Brian (1979) was only an “AA” (14 years+) but a moral panic made 28 councils raise to an “X” (18+) and 11 actually banned it completely. (For clarity, a film is de facto banned when either the BBFC or a local council refuses to rate it. It can still be shown privately (eg at a film society) provided it doesn’t contain illegal material (ie it’s not obscene))
- OJFord 4y ago
  Yes, but what I'm saying is do they ever refuse to rate a film? Life of Brian was another example I was thinking of, and as you say, same as I described there - rated, then banned.
  - alexwlchan 4y ago
    Apparently so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_British_Board_of_Film_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_... I’m surprised by how long the list is; I thought it was much rarer and more exceptional. The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Huh, thanks for that. I had heard about requesting cuts now you mention it. (And this is also done to target a rating, if they want to get a 12A but as-is it's a 15 for example.) I wonder if the ones never released are just because they didn't want to cut enough, preferring to abandon the project though. > The only time I’d heard of them rejecting a film was when it showed unsimulated animal cruelty, but I guess there must be other reasons. Porn, or rather it somehow going too far, seems to be a big one based on a lot of the titles there.
      - implements 4y ago
        Some films are so grim that if they cut out all the unacceptable stuff there’d be no film left worth seeing. Porn gets an R18 rating - provided it’s not dangerous, violent, illegal or obscene - and can shown at specially licensed sex cinemas.
boygobbo 4y ago
It wasn't banned in the UK & the BBFC passed it uncut. Stanley Kubrick himself requested it be withdrawn from distribution after some copycat incidents.