So Whats The Next "I Can't Believe This Got An Uncut BBFC Rating" Anime That Has No UK Release Yet

Invisible Crane

Adventurer
After watching Monster Musume (got the UK release) and noticing some real "how did this get past the BBFC!?!" moments. I was wondering what is out there that people will think people would think the BBFC would have issues with but then it turns out they don't. Obviously it's fanservice heavy titles but I hear Netflixs Devilman Crybaby (which also got an uncut 18) has some "BBFC let this uncut?!?" moments too
 
I think it was made clear in Monster Musume that characters like Papi weren’t underage so it shouldn’t be a problem but there were definitely a few moments I had to think about, namely a couple on (DVD) Disc 3 involving Rachnera or Papi.

I was surprised some underage nudity on DxD got passed uncut, nevermind with a 15 rating.
 
I think the issue is people are ignorant about the BBFC. They will only cut stuff that's harmful and/or illegal, so I think it says a lot about what we think of anime when we act surprised something passes.
 
But what about the infamous Paranoia Agent and Code Geass R2 examples?
Paranoia Agent was cut because the BBFC determined depictions of a child engaging in an easily imitable suicide technique were harmful.

Code Geass was cut because the BBFC determined images of underage looking girls encouraging sexual activity were harmful. (I'm sorry, but I don't buy many in the anime community's claims that she doesn't look underage, she really does.)

But the guidelines have changed since then, and I suspect both would now be passed uncut or have their cuts substantially reduced. You're talking about titles that were submitted over a decade ago now.
 
Paranoia Agent was cut because the BBFC determined depictions of a child engaging in an easily imitable suicide technique were harmful.
And why would children be watching an 18-cert title? o_O

As for the Code Geass example, shall we offer that one up to @ayase?

I think the issue is people are ignorant about the BBFC.
I think not. I think people are already all too aware of the BBFC's position of absolute power and the wasteful, money-draining effect they have.
 
And why would children be watching an 18-cert title? o_O

As for the Code Geass example, shall we offer that one up to @ayase?

No, the idea is that "even a child can commit suicide using technique", and if a child can you can! That's what they don't want people doing, seeing a suicide technique that's "so easy a child can do it".

I think not. I think people are already all too aware of the BBFC's position of absolute power and the wasteful, money-draining effect they have.

"Absolute power" that can be overruled by a Local Council, an exemption and an appeals process involving a separate body, the Video Standards Council? "Absolute power" that they voluntarily relinquished to PEGI. Please don't even try and tell me you guys are giving them a fair crack of the whip because you aren't.

A "wasteful" effect appreciated by parents and cinemagoers.

As for "money-draining" you know why the BBFC charges? Because if they were government funded, they'd be a government censorship body. (Presently they're an independent body with statutorily enforced authority.) Which I think we can all agree is an actively worse situation...

I don't agree with all of their decisions, but this desire to cast them as Darth Vader or Dio is ridiculous. I know we're anime fans, but it's way more nuanced than not being allowed to watch cartoons.
 
Last edited:
You're very passionate about the BBFC, aren't you, @Buzz201? Let's pick through this.

Aha, dragging somebody else in to try and shout me out? Mature.
Not in the slightest. @ayase is somewhat passionate about this topic. I'm sure he could argue the point better than I could.

A "wasteful" effect appreciated by parents and cinemagoers.
Generalising much? I'm a cinemagoer and have never expressed any such appreciation, so feel free to retract that part.

As for "money-draining" you know the BBFC charges?
I know you meant "why" they charge, but what about what they charge: £7 per minute of submitted footage. Care to help justify that for them?
 
You're very passionate about the BBFC, aren't you, @Buzz201? Let's pick through this.
I feel there's a lot of ignorance involved, and it irritates me that people I thought better of are so ill-informed.

Generalising much? I'm a cinemagoer and have never expressed any such appreciation, so feel free to retract that part.

No, because the amount of people that ask for advice about the suitability of films on Kermode and Mayo's show is huge. Maybe it doesn't apply to you, but it's certainly not as exclusive as you wish to believe.

I know you meant "why" they charge, but what about what they charge: £7 per minute of submitted footage. Care to help justify that for them?

You genuinely think running the BBFC is cheap, doing outreach, paying for both admin and classification staff, and thoroughly reviewing it. If the BBFC aren't sure they'll review it twice, without charging more. They have no other sources of income, so yes I can justify it for them.

As it happens, they looked into charging less for indies (and more for majors to make up for it) and were told they could only do it if the entire industry agreed and of course that was never going to happen.
 
@Buzz201: I won't be able to change your opinion any more than you'll be able to change mine, so shall we agree to disagree on this one?

I'm not so sure we disagree as much as you think, I have concerns about "potential to harm" cuts people with regards to what are fairly obvious suicide techniques. I have concerns about the charges they implement and whether or not it is excluding some releases. However, I also understand the BBFC's point of view and that we live in a world where, unfortunately, a BBFC-type body is necessary. As far as classification bodies go, my opinion is that the BBFC are the best and most honest in the world and that's something we should fight to preserve. I guess I would say we're so focussed on the philosophical arguments we miss the wood for the trees and the practical arguments of the BBFC's success.

I am aware I expressed myself rather poorly earlier, I was hoping to edit it before you noticed, I failed, and I apologise for my inappropriate comments.
 
You don't need to apologise for anything, @Buzz201. This is the whole point of a discussion forum after all!

I personally have no problem with there being a body to advise on the suitability for audiences of film content whatsoever.

The thing I do have a big issue with, however, is when that body also seeks to arbitrarily influence the actual content of film and dictate what we're permitted to watch. (Italics overload, there.)

I mean, to this day there is no age-classification system for song lyrics, so why is video content singled out?
 
I mean, to this day there is no age-classification system for song lyrics, so why is video content singled out?

I would maybe stop asking questions like that? The Aussies do classify albums too, let's not give anyone any idieas :p
 
Last edited:
I hold my hands up and admit that I didn't even know that! :p

In all seriousness, though, wow. That seems like a bit of a slippery slope to be on.


Again, though, to play devil's advocate with my own argument here, there must be a mechanism in place to monitor video content. Otherwise we'd end up with snuff films on the shelves of HMV.

For me, though, the cuts to those clearly satirical scenes in Paranoia Agent are outrageous.

Where should the boundary lie?
 
No, the idea is that "even a child can commit suicide using technique", and if a child can you can! That's what they don't want people doing, seeing a suicide technique that's "so easy a child can do it"

Just a thought, I imagine that anyone over the age of 18 could kill themselves if they really wanted to in some way, I don't think cutting a scene of a child hanging is going to stop anyone. Hell, there are probably far easier ways, I wouldn't even begin tying a noose, and it's not like the scene in question was an instructional guide.
 
Again, though, to play devil's advocate with my own argument here, there must be a mechanism in place to monitor video content. Otherwise we'd end up with snuff films on the shelves of HMV.

For me, though, the cuts to those clearly satirical scenes in Paranoia Agent are outrageous.

Where should the boundary lie?

I'm not sure I buy satire as a bulletproof excuse? I think we can all agree that the scenes of baby rape in A Serbian Film are not needed in pleasant society. (Spoiler to mask disturbing content rather than spoilers.)

Obviously, it should be taken into account, something like "Blame Canada" from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut shouldn't be considered as racist as The Birth of a Nation, but then I'm not sure the satirical nature of a horror movie would deplete the impact of its violence.

Just a thought, I imagine that anyone over the age of 18 could kill themselves if they really wanted to in some way, I don't think cutting a scene of a child hanging is going to stop anyone. Hell, there are probably far easier ways, I wouldn't even begin tying a noose, and it's not like the scene in question was an instructional guide.

That's my issue with it. I understand why they cut it, but I don't agree. Anybody that wants to commit suicide isn't going to be (solely) inspired by an episode of a TV show.
 
it's not like the scene in question was an instructional guide.
Exactly, it's clearly satirical.

I mean, the episode where a group of strangers who only know each other in text form over the Internet meet up in real life to commit suicide together is the series' comedy episode? I think that in itself flags up that there's some kind of point being made here, that being the sheer ludicrousness of the situation itself.
 
I'm not sure I buy satire as a bulletproof excuse? I think we can all agree that the scenes of baby rape in A Serbian Film are not needed in pleasant society. (Spoiler to mask disturbing content rather than spoilers.)

I have yet to actually watch A Serbian Film (I don't know if I even plan on, but I have been tempted) but I'm pretty sure I saw something floating around that the whole thing is meant as some sort of allegory. I don't know if said scenes are crucial to the film-makers broader meaning, but would you count that under satire?
 
Back
Top