Invisible Crane
Adventurer
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/bw.htm#An ... ensor_3799
After what happened with Ikkitousen Dragon Destiny I'd thought I'd post this
After what happened with Ikkitousen Dragon Destiny I'd thought I'd post this
Now that is a brave move as the protagonist is a 15 year old girl who spends much of the first part naked. She is also depicted having sex with an adult, and in a flashback you see her aged 12 having sex with her father. I would assume that the "dangerous cartoons" provisions of the C&JA 2009 Section 62 would not be an issue here because of the "context" exemption granted by Section 62(4) - it's clearly an action thriller with significant sexual content rather than a porn movie with action scenes.
Because they believe it will stand up as a legitimate, artistic, movie. And it should, from everything I understand about it.Paradox295 said:Now that is a brave move as the protagonist is a 15 year old girl who spends much of the first part naked. She is also depicted having sex with an adult, and in a flashback you see her aged 12 having sex with her father. I would assume that the "dangerous cartoons" provisions of the C&JA 2009 Section 62 would not be an issue here because of the "context" exemption granted by Section 62(4) - it's clearly an action thriller with significant sexual content rather than a porn movie with action scenes.
Why.. why would you risk this one?
Oh, you.animefreak17 said:anime is art and they cut and banned art.
i know ...........AF shut upParadox295 said:Oh, you.animefreak17 said:anime is art and they cut and banned art.
ilmaestro said:Because they believe it will stand up as a legitimate, artistic, movie. And it should, from everything I understand about it.Paradox295 said:Now that is a brave move as the protagonist is a 15 year old girl who spends much of the first part naked. She is also depicted having sex with an adult, and in a flashback you see her aged 12 having sex with her father. I would assume that the "dangerous cartoons" provisions of the C&JA 2009 Section 62 would not be an issue here because of the "context" exemption granted by Section 62(4) - it's clearly an action thriller with significant sexual content rather than a porn movie with action scenes.
Why.. why would you risk this one?
that was thenmemorium said:It'll be fine, if the BBFC can pass Elfen Lied, which has a scene that strongly implies repeated sexual abuse of one of the characters, then they've got no excuse to cut this.
..and this is now.animefreak17 said:that was thenmemorium said:It'll be fine, if the BBFC can pass Elfen Lied, which has a scene that strongly implies repeated sexual abuse of one of the characters, then they've got no excuse to cut this.
?Paradox295 said:..and this is now.animefreak17 said:that was thenmemorium said:It'll be fine, if the BBFC can pass Elfen Lied, which has a scene that strongly implies repeated sexual abuse of one of the characters, then they've got no excuse to cut this.
And this is a chair.
And you have boobies.
But, anyway, that was implied. This is shown, right?
Wait, if Mardok Scramble got played in a cinema, it must have been rated, right? This is a non issue.
christor said:Wait, if Mardok Scramble got played in a cinema, it must have been rated, right? This is a non issue.
You can show stuff in cinemas (e.g. at a festival or a one off showing) without being classified by the bbfc. local councils can also override BBFC decisions for their areas. it's not the same as on home video where it's illegal to sell it without a certificate.