BBFC Possible Ratings and Questions

F

frostythebudgie

Brigade Leader
I'm here to ask for your opinion on a couple of BBFC-related matters.

First of all, if Haganai were to get a UK release, what would it's rating be?
ItemDescription


My guess is 15 for Strong sex references, language, and moderate nudity.


Next question. How on EARTH did Elfen Lied pass with a 15 certificate but Baccano! had to be rated 18?

Finally, why is the 22nd episode of Lucky Star a 15? Apart from a couple of mild lolicon references, I saw nothing wrong with it.
 
Elfen Lied got a 15 because the violence was fantastical and it fit the context of the show (being a sci-fi horror/fantasy). To get an 18 for violence, the emphasis usually has to be on lingering shots of inflicting pain and stuff like that. I haven't seen Baccano yet (I know! I'll fix that eventually) so I can't comment, but perhaps it's due to it not being a fantasy series, which does make a difference to a BBFC rating.

Haganai in it's TV form would be an easy 15. Errr...having seen some shots of the uncensored BD, it might be a bit more problematic. Depends if they interpret Kobato and Maria's nude scenes as not in violation of the Protection of Children act due to "natural nudity" :p

No clue about Lucky Star unfortunately, haven't seen it.

EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ath said:
Elfen Lied got a 15 because the violence was fantastical and it fit the context of the show (being a sci-fi horror/fantasy). To get an 18 for violence, the emphasis usually has to be on lingering shots of inflicting pain and stuff like that. I haven't seen Baccano yet (I know! I'll fix that eventually) so I can't comment, but perhaps it's due to it not being a fantasy series, which does make a difference to a BBFC rating.

Haganai in it's TV form would be an easy 15. Errr...having seen some shots of the uncensored BD, it might be a bit more problematic. Depends if they interpret Kobato and Maria's nude scenes as not in violation of the Protection of Children act due to "natural nudity" :p

No clue about Lucky Star unfortunately, haven't seen it.

EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the welcome message, lots of interesting and region 2 dvd-related discussion here. I love it!

I get what you mean with Baccano. Having seen it, while not extremely strong, the violence is realistic and cringe-worthy.

Haganai would probably be cut, but would easily achieve a 15.

Also, anyone want to expand on the conversation and tell us what rating High School DxD would get? My guess is 15.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
frostythebudgie said:
Ath said:
Elfen Lied got a 15 because the violence was fantastical and it fit the context of the show (being a sci-fi horror/fantasy). To get an 18 for violence, the emphasis usually has to be on lingering shots of inflicting pain and stuff like that. I haven't seen Baccano yet (I know! I'll fix that eventually) so I can't comment, but perhaps it's due to it not being a fantasy series, which does make a difference to a BBFC rating.

Haganai in it's TV form would be an easy 15. Errr...having seen some shots of the uncensored BD, it might be a bit more problematic. Depends if they interpret Kobato and Maria's nude scenes as not in violation of the Protection of Children act due to "natural nudity" :p

No clue about Lucky Star unfortunately, haven't seen it.

EDIT: Also, welcome to the forums!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the welcome message, lots of interesting and region 2 dvd-related discussion here. I love it!

I get what you mean with Baccano. Having seen it, while not extremely strong, the violence is realistic and cringe-worthy.

Haganai would probably be cut, but would easily achieve a 15.

Also, anyone want to expand on the conversation and tell us what rating High School DxD would get? My guess is 15.
Click to expand...

Probably. It seems to take some pretty strong content in a show to get an 18. One dead cert for that will be the third Berserk film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also Baccano shows the graphic torture and murder of a child. That alone was probably enough to get an 18 even without all the other stuff.
 
Oh they are much, MUCH more lenient than in the past. You wouldn't believe how ridiculous the censorship was up until James Ferman left in the late 90's and we could have things the The Exorcist, A Texas Chainsaw Massacre and all those lovely Bruce Lee films left intact. We used to have the most draconian censorship of video in any western country. Stuff might get passed with an 18 when we think it doesn't deserve it, but it least it gets passed. And I'd rather have stuff passed with an 18 so adults can watch it than have the tabloids bleating on about kids watching Driller Killer because there was no rating system at all in place during the early VHS years, leading to the massive overreaction by the government and BBFC that we then had to put up with for nearly two decades.
 
The BBFC are also miles more accountable than the MPAA. The BBFC clearly break down their decisions and explain their reasoning, while the MPAA are vague, secretive and baffling. While they still have quite a few policies I disagree with, the BBFC are miles better than they were in the Mary Whitehouse era. Considering we still live in a country where the Daily Mail exists, it's a miracle the BBFC have actually become more lenient in our lifetimes.
 
Yeah, growing up as a horror fiend and martial arts movie buff in the 80's and 90's. Finally being able to see and buy all those "video nasties" and shredded kung fu flicks still feels like a breath of fresh air. I'd rather have cautious age ratings than heavy handed censorship... with cautious age ratings on top - the worst of both worlds. One thing I do appreciate is their fierce attitude towards animal violence, but that's more of a martial arts movie issue than anime obviously.
 
It involved a child. There seem to be three hot button issues still for the BBFC, harm to children, harm to animals and eroticised sexual violence. I don't agree with the decision over Paranoia Agent myself, but I can understand why it was made. The reason I guess Paranoia Agent got cut and Baccano passed albeit with an 18 rating is the tone of the shows. PA looks on the surface quite kid friendly, while Baccano would set alarm bells ringing in any adult from episode one. It'd only take one kid allowed to watch PA, hanging themselves and you have a tabloid anti-anime fatwa on your hands. So they played it safe.
 
Mr Vile said:
It involved a child. There seem to be three hot button issues still for the BBFC, harm to children, harm to animals and eroticised sexual violence. I don't agree with the decision over Paranoia Agent myself, but I can understand why it was made. The reason I guess Paranoia Agent got cut and Baccano passed albeit with an 18 rating is the tone of the shows. PA looks on the surface quite kid friendly, while Baccano would set alarm bells ringing in any adult from episode one. It'd only take one kid allowed to watch PA, hanging themselves and you have a tabloid anti-anime fatwa on your hands. So they played it safe.
Click to expand...

According to the BBFC website it looks like their hands were tied as it was a compulsory cut required by law.

BBFC said:
Cuts information
Cuts required (on potential harm grounds) to the sight of a child attempting to hang herself, and accompanying subtitles. Cuts in accordance with the Video Recordings Act 1984
Click to expand...
 
So owning the previous disc with that very part that was cut out intact in the previews makes either me or Beez a criminal ;p

Unless this was one of those vague "context" things...
 
Haha, I have a compilation film released in the 1980's called "Terror In The Aisles" which contains graphic clips from films like The Exorcist, Ms. 45 and Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc which were all fully banned until the end of the 1990's. Moral Gaurdians tend to miss clips. When the BBC edited the exploding head out of the end of an episode of Star Trek: TNG, the next season had a flashback that showed the asploding head in full. Makes a joke of censorship really.

Context as a reason makes it worse as showing a death out of context like the aforementioned clips do, means it's just a shock for shocks sake, not part of a carefully constructed narrative. It's things like that which used to make me facepalm the BBFC a lot.
 
robot monkey said:
According to the BBFC website it looks like their hands were tied as it was a compulsory cut required by law.
Click to expand...

No, not as far as I can tell. The VRA does not specify what should or shouldn't be cut; the BBFC cut in accordance to the powers given to them by the VRA but the cut itself was to follow their own policy. They are not innocent at all here as they did it because, after all these years, they still have this stupid hard on against imitable techniques.
 
Mmmm that's always been one of the less clear bits about BBFC guidelines, the whole 'can it cause harm' part. They often err on the side of caution there, since the only way to test whether something borderline breaches say the Obscene Publications act is to go to court I think? Which is waaaaaaay too expensive usually.
 
Maybe they have a point about inimitable stuff. When nunchucks were finally unbanned I bought myself some and proceeded to knock one of my teeth out trying to pull off a Bruce Lee technique. Had to have some epic bridgework put in to rectify that. OK though I was 25 at the time, so really I was a) stupid b) shouldn't have bought wooden nunchucks. Heh.
 
I sent a complaint email to the BBFC when I was 16 about their imitable techniques policy when it came to Batman Returns :p The examiner then sent me a very polite reply explaining their reasoning in detail which was interesting. This was in 2005 though, the policy has changed now and it's now completely uncut.
 
Silanda said:
robot monkey said:
According to the BBFC website it looks like their hands were tied as it was a compulsory cut required by law.
Click to expand...

No, not as far as I can tell. The VRA does not specify what should or shouldn't be cut; the BBFC cut in accordance to the powers given to them by the VRA but the cut itself was to follow their own policy. They are not innocent at all here as they did it because, after all these years, they still have this stupid hard on against imitable techniques.
Click to expand...

But considering all the recent news stories around young people committing suicide and the calls from some people & elements of the press for the blocking of sites that may well help or encourage this, you can see why they would have cut something like this even now.
 
robot monkey said:
Silanda said:
robot monkey said:
According to the BBFC website it looks like their hands were tied as it was a compulsory cut required by law.
Click to expand...

No, not as far as I can tell. The VRA does not specify what should or shouldn't be cut; the BBFC cut in accordance to the powers given to them by the VRA but the cut itself was to follow their own policy. They are not innocent at all here as they did it because, after all these years, they still have this stupid hard on against imitable techniques.
Click to expand...

But considering all the recent news stories around young people committing suicide and the calls from some people & elements of the press for the blocking of sites that may well help or encourage this, you can see why they would have cut something like this even now.
Click to expand...

No I don't. To me this issue is quite clear: unless something can be proven to cause harm, or its publication would be illegal, there is no justification for censorship. This is my main problem with the BBFC: they make policy decisions based on public/personal opinion rather than evidence, and when they do take studies into account they seem to give more weight to ones that back their existing policy, even if those studies have been discredited. Not only that, but the logic behind this type of cut tends to be that a scene is dangerous because a child might copy it. This should not be a consideration in something with an 18 rating unless they're admitting that the rating system is completely ineffectual, but if that's the case then it's really time to get rid of the system altogether and replace it with something advisory.

"Because the press/politicians/single issue group of the week don't like it" is no good reason to ban something and harks back to the bad old days of the video nasties scare.
 
Back
Top