Anyone hoping that 2010 was the year when they could produce smut or violence for direct release to DVD, without undergoing the tiresome process of having their work checked and classified by the British Board of Film Classification, can hit pause now. Such hopes were dashed yesterday as the House of Lords breathed fresh life …
Why do they even bother
When I were a lad ... films received an 18 rating for Arnie cutting his eye out in Terminator or a flash of boob. Now something like that is lucky to get a 15, you go to the cinema and it's full of 12 year olds chucking sweets about so why bother classifying it at all?
Also, a couple of button presses on the internet and there's someone chuffing his load in some chicks face, kids have seen it all before,
The shoot is off.
Thanks for the rehearsals though.
(In my dreams!)
wouldnt put it past them to attempt to regulate digital video, coming from other countries, off of private servers.
t now requires only the Royal Assent for it to be the law
And referring it to the EU. Perhaps they'll forget again.
How about classifying these all as R18 and only allowing them to be sold in licensed premises that children are banned from entering?
I can see why certain "music" videos should be 18 (eg Snoop Dogg) and I can see why religious videos should be kept FAR away from young impressionable minds (making them 18 certificate would help!)
One thing I can't work out though is this: the films which were given an 18 certificate in the 1980s are much tamer than the films which get 12A and 15 certificates now - will they ever be reclassified? I mean, I can see why "I Spit On Your Grave" was given the certificate it was but there are others which seem to have been classified very harshly indeed!
Other videos will continue to escape classification (hence the icon)
Good luck with that
They have the internet now I hear...
More seriously, it's high time we rejected censorship and took away from the BBFC the ability to refuse to classify something. If they want to invent a new classification to cover "we don't think anyone should watch this, ever" then fine, but beyond that they should have no power.
Maybe censorship gives people a good idea what they are going to see in a particular film. I know that I wouldn't want to take a kid to see a film I just made up called Sinderella, r18, when I actually thought it was going to be Cinerella, U. Likewise, I wouldn't want to go to what I thought was going to be some sort of action or horror film cert U, it's just not going to be that good.
You didn't make it up
Paris, because she might perform in a remake
Misread the headline.
The first thought that popped into my head was that they were going to re-classify the film '1984' - as a documentary, or something.
Wait, they forgot to what?
So the procedural error was that they forgot to inform the EU about the bill? in 1984?
The EU DIDN'T EXIST IN 1984!
Now on the face of it this is an entirely understandable mistake to make, assuming that the EU has always been the EU, but it didn't exist in 1984 even so. It was the EEC back them, still sold as a free trade area (even though it was a customs union), and didn't become the EU until 1996.
What riles me is that even back then our parliament had to "inform" the then EEC of laws it was implementing which, if it had been a free trade area, would not have had to happen. Today, in most cases, the government can't even start making policies without express permission from the EU (which is why the government has become obsessed with expanding its power in just a few tiny slices of its previous legislative authority, as everything else belongs to the EU). Why? Why should a sovereign country have to ask permission to implement laws on its own territory?
Oh wait, I forgot, we aren't a sovereign country any more.
On another note, in some senses I agree with David Hicks. Implement a system that doesn't prevent things from being published without a classification. BUT... if the contents of a film are misrepresented then the film maker should be punished just as any other producer would be punished for misrepresenting their products.
oh woes, teh EU
"Oh wait, I forgot, we aren't a sovereign country any more"
That's right, we became an American colony after WWII.
And what little of our culture and language is left to us is quickly becoming even more yankified that the yanks. I've hear even Americans complaining that London is just like USA:
Media Mowgli Madness rather than Media Mogul Magic
Here's what they are proposing in a crazy little fascist's state? ..... http://www.thestandard.com/news/2010/01/15/proposed-web-video-restrictions-cause-outrage-italy
This may have more implications......
......than the article implies. I have not read it (the bill) BUT this surely could mean a return to the bad old days of censorship. Personally I want to see a film how the director intended, not some edit that a stiff upper lip prude has been let loose on (and no, I am not talking about pron here, but what happens there..... who knows?). No I am talking of the 18 certificate..... and yes they used to make cuts.
The list of extra cuts in "adult" (not pron) movies done by classification boards is almost endless & most (if not all) are not warranted.
Still, as already pointed out in other posts, the web will hopefully moderatre their cuts as 'full' versions should easily be available for import and even download if copyright whore & puppet mandy does not get his way (what an absolute prick that man is, he is not fit to clean toilets).
The censorship laws in regard to film increasingly becoming irrelevant, I'm surprised it been amended in some way to also control the internet and imports to protect the markets of the big boys film industry.
The internet largely makes film classification irrelevant, especially when it comes to protecting children who are increasingly used to obtaining all their media over the net, through downloads or purchasing dvds from Amazon of wherever where you can buy unrated imports quite openly and "legally".
It only really protects children going into cinemas and stops UK independent film makers film makers from selling their DVDs within the UK without paying the BBFC. Classification is also a very convenient way to control legal domestic distribution. My guess is that the new digital economy laws are also going to used to control censorship and hence domestic market distribution before too long.
F.A.C.T - Anyone
Surely the movie industry must sue the bbfc for loss of revenue.
More censorship of movies will just lead more to the darkside of "Illegal Downloading" and the movie big wigs won't like that one bit.
How long before the cinema release is nothing more than those awful edits ITV used to run in the late 80's / 90's -
Ferris Bueller's Day Off ... "Pardon my French but you're an AARDVARK!'"(????)
Field of Dreams – "We were going to ask Ty Cobb to play, but none of us could stand that son of a squid"
Total Recall – "Come Back Here you Steroid."
The Big Lebowski – "This is what happens, Larry! This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps!"
Robocop – "You're gonna a bad mothercrusher..."
Lethal Weapon – "We bury the funsters!"
The Last Boy Scout – "I POPPED your wife, and later I'm gonna POP her again"
Empire Strikes Back
"Why, you stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking... nerf herder!"
I didn't see the original cinematic release - I assume it was something else.
On the other hand I used to enjoy watching Die Hard 2 progress over the years from:
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp