http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/battle-girls ... ox-video-0
Looks like our chances of To Love Ru coming over get slimmer by the day...
'
Looks like our chances of To Love Ru coming over get slimmer by the day...
Battle Girls: Time Paradox cut by the BBFC
- Thread starter Kirito
- Start date
SunlightHeart
Student Council President
I dont really recall anything that would merit cuts...
Maybe i'm desensitized...
Maybe i'm desensitized...
Animefreak17
Godhand
I never buy a anime that the BBFC has touched...thank you region 1s
black1blade
Thousand Master
Is anyone really going to miss that footage. Everyone who loved the series enough to care probably would have imported it now. I find it funny that knk6 is an 18 because of the preview to knk7.
Baggie_Saiyan
Thousand Master
I am racking my brain trying to remember what scene they are talking about, from what I remember the show was quite clean.
black1blade
Thousand Master
Has there ever been anything that has been rejected?
Rosencrantz
Dragon Knight
Silanda said:
The BBFC does appear to have some wiggle room but the major problem seems to be the community doesn't understand what is and isn't a problem.
Everyone seems to think nudity and young characters = BBFC cuts. Strike witches and other shows demonstrate this is just not true, they are interested in the context of the scene. Knowledge of a characters proper age also seems to make people lean towards cuts yet it seems clear the BBFC don't put a lot of stock in supposed age and go by appearance more than anything. Certain aspects of the law mean you can't justify someone is not a child if they look like a child by saying they are robot, vampire etc. so it'd make sense if it swung the other way to a certain degree allowing a character that the show might technically say is young to not attract BBFC attention.
Asia and Koneko are not flat chested and I'd suspect that's why they didn't get picked up by the BBFC as a problem.
Consider also that Issei is the same age as Asia yet I've never seen a member of the community single him out as being a potential BBFC cut. If Asia might warrant a BBFC cut Issei's antics with Rias most certainly do, seems like we just overlook that aspect.
As for what Josh said, yes I too now want to see those 8 seconds so I can determine if it's a good or bad call. The BBFC listing appears to be slightly borked, I think it's one from 1-7 rather than 1-17 that's been cut. Maybe I can narrow it down from the episode durations.
I remember the big fuss back when The Simpsons Movie came out and people were complaining about the PG rating, due to Bart's penis being visible very briefly. The BBFC basically said that context matters more than anything.
. I think it's down to breasts being more visible on a woman than any of the physiological changes are on men, as well as an assumption that a flat or small chested female character is prepubescent.
Looking it up, considering that Asia is in the same class as Issei, who is a second-year high school student, I'd actually say that it's likely that she is of legal age. I'm going off what Wikipedia says in regards to Japan's education system (so please tell me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't that mean that Issei and Asia would be roughly 17 years old? So yeah, they'd actually be legal here.
A case of #EverydaySexism no doubt
. I think it's down to breasts being more visible on a woman than any of the physiological changes are on men, as well as an assumption that a flat or small chested female character is prepubescent. Looking it up, considering that Asia is in the same class as Issei, who is a second-year high school student, I'd actually say that it's likely that she is of legal age. I'm going off what Wikipedia says in regards to Japan's education system (so please tell me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't that mean that Issei and Asia would be roughly 17 years old? So yeah, they'd actually be legal here.
Rosencrantz said:
Or they're just wildly inconsistent, and I say this as someone who's paid close attention to the BBFC's history of censorship. Let's be honest here, fan service material is, generally speaking, not inserted for some greater artistic purpose, it's either eye candy or it's humourous, yet the way it's treated is not consistent even given context. Most is given a pass yet the BBFC seem to randomly get all hot under the collar about certain innocuous scenes. The one second Code Geass cut is the most obvious example: they've let worse pass (they've let worse pass in actual live action films with young actors too) but all of a sudden this one second moment is "likely to encourage an interest in underage sexual activity". Really, and just what in depth research are they basing this on? Oh that's right, none. They had absolutely no evidence to support that whatsoever and it was entirely based on their own subjective opinions. The Dragon Destiny cut had the same issue: a humourous scene that is going to turn us all into raging paedophiles, or so say our betters anyway. I have a problem with this, a big problem. A classification body should classify, not censor based on vague guidelines that are unsupported by research or legal necessity. In the Battle Girls case I don't believe it was a legal necessity as they quoted their guidelines and the VRA, which gives those guidelines power, as the reasons for the cut rather than the Protection of Children act or any other relevant legislation.
Just to add as well, if they are basing their decisions at least partially on the breast sizes of the characters involved, then these decisions are some of the most sexist and insulting things to come out of a public body in a long time. Yep, nice going BBFC, keep furthering the idea that a woman must have big tits to be a real woman. Such a progressive view in 2015, I don't think. Though this wouldn't really be too much of a surprise, based on some of the things censored in porn and the BBFC's refusal to even consider changing their guidelines, they already appear to have a somewhat Victorian view of female sexuality.
ayase
State Alchemist
That appears to be exactly what's happening.Silanda said:
Censorship of fiction, i.e events and people who are not real, do not exist and never did is always a bad call, I challenge anyone who claims to value freedom of expression to argue otherwise.Rosencrantz said:
That's what the guy from the BBFC kept saying when I saw a talk which consisted of him vainly trying to justify their unnecessary work - "Context is key". If it isn't real, anything should be allowed in any context, if they must exist at all the worst the BBFC should be able to do is give something an 18 rating. Mandatory cuts to fictional content is telling ADULTS that there are other adults who posses a higher moral authority than them and can tell them what fiction they can and can't consume. Which is not only elitist but in fact little better than the likes of the North Korean regime trying to "cut" The Interview.people said:
Just Passing Through
The Wildcard
Could be the hand-panties scene in episode 3, the frontal close-up lasts about 8 seconds, although the reverse view afterwards looks worse. It's about 8:06 in http://www.crunchyroll.com/battle-girls ... den-574386
although the checkdisc version (issued prior to the BBFC rating) doesn't have the extra mist, cutaways, and alternate angles for that scene.
As for context. It's not sexual at all, it's just one character trying comedically to preserve another character's modesty in the bath.
Unless they mean the peeking dog with a nosebleed afterwards...
although the checkdisc version (issued prior to the BBFC rating) doesn't have the extra mist, cutaways, and alternate angles for that scene.
As for context. It's not sexual at all, it's just one character trying comedically to preserve another character's modesty in the bath.
Unless they mean the peeking dog with a nosebleed afterwards...
Rosencrantz
Dragon Knight
ayase said:
The law very much disagrees with you, in fact they strengthened it a while back to account for people that were hiding child abuse/pornography behind illustrations, claiming it's not real is not a valid excuse to do what ever you want.
If you had your way all sorts of horrific things could be portrayed as long as it was 'not real' with just a mere 18 sticker.
I'm not going to say the BBFC get every call right and they clearly have too much red tape but the bashing they get is tiresome and always seems to come from a poorly thought out viewpoint.
--
Just Passing Through said:
Probably not that scene for the reasons you give. I randomly skipped through a few episodes and it does seem like the show has some potentially dodgy spots. One part I spotted had a girl stripped naked by bandits, saved by the dog and then the implication of what the dog wanted her to do to thank him could be a possible cut. Another has 2 girls in bed, then switches to show a 3rd young girl in the bed before showing another 5 girls about to join/leap in.
Doesn't the fact that we're now brainstorming what the obscene content could have been rather render the BBFC's work as guardians of our morality redundant?
As for me, that illogical Code Geass cut was the last straw. I have no interest in underage cartoon characters whatsoever but the people doing the censoring are clearly making it up as they go along. The only way that Geass cut made sense is if you subscribe to the sexist, schoolboy logic that breast size correlates with a woman's age because the context was completely ignored in favour of that bra cup measurement.
It makes no sense to have humans in some countries subject to restrictions that their fellow human beings elsewhere are not. Anime can never be 'child abuse' because no children were involved in the process. It can be obscene, sure, but that label seems to be handed out completely inconsistently under the guise of a vaguely-worded law. The day they get their talons into streaming and ruin that industry for us too is the day I leave this place for good. Outside of work actually aimed at children, the BBFC seems to be doing more for encouraging piracy and evasion than improving morality.
People from the future are going to laugh so much seeing the harmless stuff that was considered obscene in our time, much as the uncensored violence from old films ends up being viewed as acceptable later on.
Edit: Seriously, why are the BBFC even being paid in this case? They charge the distributors for a service which is mandatory, then despite being made up of adults vulnerable to the twisted allure of pervy anime, they decide that other adults aren't capable of watching it without becoming criminals. Meanwhile, the uncensored version is readily available from hundreds (if not thousands) of places, legally and illegally, and actually thousands of people in the UK have already seen it anyway. Hardened lawbreaking paedophiles will have been all over the rips on an illegal torrent site months and months ago. How many borderline criminals see that something has been cut by a few seconds and decide that actually, they don't find underaged smut sexy after all? What is the point in what the BBFC are doing?
If they want to be taken seriously why don't they come up with a way to update the system that doesn't treat the people of this country like infants whilst speeding the local film distributors to an early grave?
R
As for me, that illogical Code Geass cut was the last straw. I have no interest in underage cartoon characters whatsoever but the people doing the censoring are clearly making it up as they go along. The only way that Geass cut made sense is if you subscribe to the sexist, schoolboy logic that breast size correlates with a woman's age because the context was completely ignored in favour of that bra cup measurement.
It makes no sense to have humans in some countries subject to restrictions that their fellow human beings elsewhere are not. Anime can never be 'child abuse' because no children were involved in the process. It can be obscene, sure, but that label seems to be handed out completely inconsistently under the guise of a vaguely-worded law. The day they get their talons into streaming and ruin that industry for us too is the day I leave this place for good. Outside of work actually aimed at children, the BBFC seems to be doing more for encouraging piracy and evasion than improving morality.
People from the future are going to laugh so much seeing the harmless stuff that was considered obscene in our time, much as the uncensored violence from old films ends up being viewed as acceptable later on.
Edit: Seriously, why are the BBFC even being paid in this case? They charge the distributors for a service which is mandatory, then despite being made up of adults vulnerable to the twisted allure of pervy anime, they decide that other adults aren't capable of watching it without becoming criminals. Meanwhile, the uncensored version is readily available from hundreds (if not thousands) of places, legally and illegally, and actually thousands of people in the UK have already seen it anyway. Hardened lawbreaking paedophiles will have been all over the rips on an illegal torrent site months and months ago. How many borderline criminals see that something has been cut by a few seconds and decide that actually, they don't find underaged smut sexy after all? What is the point in what the BBFC are doing?
If they want to be taken seriously why don't they come up with a way to update the system that doesn't treat the people of this country like infants whilst speeding the local film distributors to an early grave?
R
Rosencrantz said:
And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with treating adults as adults and letting them watch, read, or play whatever the hell they want as long as no-one is harmed to produce it or it can be proven with relative certainty that it causes harm? The only things that should matter when it comes to censorship are facts. Censorship can only be justified by demonstrable harm, not by politicians crusading against moral turpitude, and certainly not by a classification board's inconsistent readings of public opinion.
ayase
State Alchemist
And the BBFC protect real children from abuse and people trading traced child porn how, exactly? It's pretty obvious anime characters are not real people. All sorts of horrific things are already allowed with an 18 certificate - Ever seen a movie with murder, torture or rape in it? There are plenty. Adults can generally tell fiction from reality, we don't normally presume people were raped and murdered in the course of making a movie.Rosencrantz said:
The law does indeed disagree with me, and I disagree with the law. Because in this case the law is protecting no-one.
black1blade
Thousand Master
Just give it an 18 rating and be done with it. The first 13 episodes of code geass is a 12 and it has the masturbation scene for gods sake.
That's true, End of Evangelion is what, a 15? And that depicts a minor doing lewd things which heavily imply an interest in underaged sexual activity - technically in the presence of another minor, at that.
(Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with a young person doing what comes naturally to young people, personally, but this is the same BBFC which thinks fully developed girls grabbing one another as a joke is a sexual act. They'd have had a heart attack at some of the public baths and school changing rooms I've been to.)
R
(Of course, I don't think there's anything wrong with a young person doing what comes naturally to young people, personally, but this is the same BBFC which thinks fully developed girls grabbing one another as a joke is a sexual act. They'd have had a heart attack at some of the public baths and school changing rooms I've been to.)
R
Last edited by a moderator: