Question:
Why can't they just certify a film for the cinema and keep the same certification for home release without having to be resubmitted again?
Even if there are certain aspects of the film which may result in another certification on home release, why can't the BBFC note these when certifying the cinema release - release it as a 12A in the cinema and pre-certify it as a 15 for future home video release?
It doesn't make sense for the same films to have to be resubmitted in another 4-8 months time for the DVD release, when the exact same edit is awarded the exact same certificate.
Is it just the BBFC/govenment wanting to grab more money off the studios? I personally don't see why a mandatory Certification should be paid for by the film distributors in the first place... it's not as if they have any choice in the matter. As for certifying materials originated for and shown on TV already? Why bother?
Obviously older films have a valid reason for resubmission, as do director's cuts etc.
It's due to the fact that the BBFC has to take into account the possibility of children getting hold of the film in the confines of their own home. Where as at the cinema there's always somebody on the booth to turn away under-age youngsters.
I remember James Fermann saying about "The Exorcist" that there are so many teenagers with videos in their bedroom nowadays that the film could become a very personal, disturbing experience for children if gotton hold of by them.
I presume this is the view taken by the BBFC in general.
The main reason for VHS release is because it has been re-framed to P&S.
And for DVDs the main reason is that extras and menus have to be included in the rating before. One release I recall that used to be a U on VHS became a PG on DVD simply because of the animated menus.
Originally posted by The Karate Kid
And for DVDs the main reason is that extras and menus have to be included in the rating before. One release I recall that used to be a U on VHS became a PG on DVD simply because of the animated menus.
The film itself would not have to be reclassified if the only reason for doing that is the inclusion of extras, menu animations etc on the DVDs. Those count as separate "video works" and are classified separately, and the DVD itself would carry the certificate of the highest rated video work it contains.
As for why the BBFC don't simply give the film a video classification at the same time as a cinema certificate... I guess it might be best to ask them directly. I can't see why they can't simply allow the video to carry the same certificate as the film release (except for borderline or "problematic" titles).
I also remember reading somewhere that sometimes the BBFC uses a cinema release to gauge public reaction to a controversial classification decision before deciding what to do for a video release - apparently they refused to classify "Baise-Moi" for video release unless it had a reasonably wide theatrical release on this basis. But obviously this would only apply to a very few cases.
reason said above i believe, because videos have an easier access than a cinema, and also rewatch of the whole part or more importantly certain scenes, thus taking them out of context.
Only film i can think of that has had its rating changed is Starship Troopers which was a 15 in the cinema and an 18 on video, but i'm sure theres more
reason said above i believe, because videos have an easier access than a cinema, and also rewatch of the whole part or more importantly certain scenes, thus taking them out of context.
Yes I can understand that to a certain extent to explain changed ratings (but logically if you think about it, its really nonsense. You could class every home release as R18, and children would still be able to view and review them).
The real question is, why do they have to be resubmitted and reviewed by the panel (resulting in an cost to the distributor).
Take for instance the latest Bond film. I don't know the certiification, but lest assume its a 12A. Why do they have to give it a single certification? Why can't the paper work say something like '12A for Cinematic release, 15 for home video' or the like? Thus saving the inevitable resubmission in a few months time?
If you look a Blackstar's release list for all DVDs and VHS releases in a week, sometimes there are close to 100 titles. Assuming that 30% of these need certifiying by the BBFC because they are either new or re-edited thats hours upon hours of materical for the BBFC to watch and certify. And as I understand it, the BBFC charges a set amount by the minute.
The BBFC is a gravy train - and they seem to have no interest in stopping distributors from having to pay to resubmit identical content (which would probably help to lower the price of DVDs in the shops).
When all is said and done, the BBFC is simply collecting tax on media distributors.
Even if there are certain aspects of the film which may result in another certification on home release, why can't the BBFC note these when certifying the cinema release - release it as a 12A in the cinema and pre-certify it as a 15 for future home video release?
It doesn't make sense for the same films to have to be resubmitted in another 4-8 months time for the DVD release, when the exact same edit is awarded the exact same certificate.
Is it just the BBFC/govenment wanting to grab more money off the studios? I personally don't see why a mandatory Certification should be paid for by the film distributors in the first place... it's not as if they have any choice in the matter. As for certifying materials originated for and shown on TV already? Why bother?
Obviously older films have a valid reason for resubmission, as do director's cuts etc.
Answers:
It's due to the fact that the BBFC has to take into account the possibility of children getting hold of the film in the confines of their own home. Where as at the cinema there's always somebody on the booth to turn away under-age youngsters.
I remember James Fermann saying about "The Exorcist" that there are so many teenagers with videos in their bedroom nowadays that the film could become a very personal, disturbing experience for children if gotton hold of by them.
I presume this is the view taken by the BBFC in general.
Answers:
The main reason for VHS release is because it has been re-framed to P&S.
And for DVDs the main reason is that extras and menus have to be included in the rating before. One release I recall that used to be a U on VHS became a PG on DVD simply because of the animated menus.
Answers:
Originally posted by The Karate Kid
And for DVDs the main reason is that extras and menus have to be included in the rating before. One release I recall that used to be a U on VHS became a PG on DVD simply because of the animated menus.
The film itself would not have to be reclassified if the only reason for doing that is the inclusion of extras, menu animations etc on the DVDs. Those count as separate "video works" and are classified separately, and the DVD itself would carry the certificate of the highest rated video work it contains.
As for why the BBFC don't simply give the film a video classification at the same time as a cinema certificate... I guess it might be best to ask them directly. I can't see why they can't simply allow the video to carry the same certificate as the film release (except for borderline or "problematic" titles).
I also remember reading somewhere that sometimes the BBFC uses a cinema release to gauge public reaction to a controversial classification decision before deciding what to do for a video release - apparently they refused to classify "Baise-Moi" for video release unless it had a reasonably wide theatrical release on this basis. But obviously this would only apply to a very few cases.
Answers:
reason said above i believe, because videos have an easier access than a cinema, and also rewatch of the whole part or more importantly certain scenes, thus taking them out of context.
Only film i can think of that has had its rating changed is Starship Troopers which was a 15 in the cinema and an 18 on video, but i'm sure theres more
Answers:
reason said above i believe, because videos have an easier access than a cinema, and also rewatch of the whole part or more importantly certain scenes, thus taking them out of context.
Yes I can understand that to a certain extent to explain changed ratings (but logically if you think about it, its really nonsense. You could class every home release as R18, and children would still be able to view and review them).
The real question is, why do they have to be resubmitted and reviewed by the panel (resulting in an cost to the distributor).
Take for instance the latest Bond film. I don't know the certiification, but lest assume its a 12A. Why do they have to give it a single certification? Why can't the paper work say something like '12A for Cinematic release, 15 for home video' or the like? Thus saving the inevitable resubmission in a few months time?
If you look a Blackstar's release list for all DVDs and VHS releases in a week, sometimes there are close to 100 titles. Assuming that 30% of these need certifiying by the BBFC because they are either new or re-edited thats hours upon hours of materical for the BBFC to watch and certify. And as I understand it, the BBFC charges a set amount by the minute.
The BBFC is a gravy train - and they seem to have no interest in stopping distributors from having to pay to resubmit identical content (which would probably help to lower the price of DVDs in the shops).
When all is said and done, the BBFC is simply collecting tax on media distributors.
1 2