|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Prohibiting the Showing of Trailers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/534a.jpg)
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-28-2000 05:52 PM
In the UK, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) examines and certificates features, trailers and commercials as being either U (Universal - suitable for all) Uc (especially suitable for children), PG, 12, 15, 18 or 18R (18R is for porn films which should only be shown in premises to which under 18s are never admitted).By a quirk of British law, these certificates do not have legal force for cinema exhibition. By law, cinemas only have to have a licence from the local government authority (e.g. town or city council). However, almost all such authorities make it a condition of the license that the BBFC certificates are observed, e.g. no under 15s admitted to a 15-cert film. This law dates back to 1909 - the law which brought in the licence system was designed to ensure that cinemas took adequate precautions against nitrate fires, and that they could be closed down if they didn't. But local authorities then started using this law to impose censorship (e.g. 'if you show violent films to under 15s, then we'll take away your licence') and so the BBFC was founded in 1913 to try and standardise the chaos, i.e. to end the situation whereby a film could be banned in one town but shown in the next one. To this day, however, the BBFC remains a self-financing, self-regulating body (although its decisions do have legal force for home video classification). So if I showed 'Crash' to a load of schoolkids in a cinema, I wouldn't actually be breaking any law! The way most authorities deal with the trailer issue is that the 'programme' rather than an individual feature has a rating, so if a complete performance is billed as being 15, then no commericals or trailers of with a higher classification can be shown during it. Trailers are given individual certificates according to their content even if the feature hasn't been examined yet. I've never received or shown a trailer without a certificate and I doubt if anyone would attempt to distribute one.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frank Prete
Film Handler
Posts: 55
From: Victoria, Australia
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 09-30-2000 06:21 AM
To expand more on what Paul said, our classifation system is similar to the US system. We have G (general), PG (parental Guidance recomended), M (recomended for 15 plus) M15+ (must be over 15 or accompanied by a parent or gardian) and then R (restricted 18+). Maybe someone could match up the corresponding ratings for the states.With regard to trailers, our classification board rate the trailers as well as the films. Generally the trailer receives the same rating as the film. A traile cannot run with a lower rated film (eg R18+ cannot run with an M rated film). Trailer can receive exceptions which allows them to run with a film that is classified one step lower (eg M trailer, PG film). It is up to the cinemas to enforce this. Lets face it, we are the ones who put the trailers in. We are the one who are responsible for checking suitability of content. Same goes for ads as well. I was recently in the situation where I was being asked to run a Club X ad with Big Mommas House. Sorry, no can do was the answer to the advertising company. Frank.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Wilson
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/269.jpg)
Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-30-2000 06:32 AM
>>With regard to trailers, our classification board rate the trailers as well as the films. Generally the trailer receives the same rating as the film. A traile cannot run with a lower rated film (eg R18+ cannot run with an M rated film). Trailer can receive exceptions which allows them to run with a film that is classified one step lower (eg M trailer, PG film).<<Frank, Do you know this for certain? I have never heard that the board censors the trailers. If that is the case, why can't we run what we want to run with what? The trailers are the same version as the US on the most part and they get a 'all audiences' rating also for the most part although the tag at the head does state the movie's real censorship also. The censor issue with trailers here is so undefined that it might as well not exist. It only does exist because a few years back some dip at a multiplex in Sydney decided that running a trailer for Ghost (complete with Patrick Swayzee's covered in blood) would be the ideal trailer to run with the latest Disney film. Sheesh! If we could get a 'this film has been classified for all audiences...the feature has been classified...' etc tag intead of those stupid things that are on there now, we would be able to advertise films to their group audiences (eg: action movies) instead of having to just match them because of their ratings. The only reason they get a run at my theatre is so I can show off how clean they are thanks to Filmguard. ![](http://209.164.109.192/ubb/wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/30f.jpg)
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-30-2000 09:06 AM
If anyone figures out how to enforce this policy (doutful) and actually attempts to do so (more doutful), this will have the unpleasant side effect of hurting the NC-17 rating and making it even less of a viable option for film producers. This, of course, will result in even more pressure for the MPAA to grant "R" ratings to films that really should be "NC-17" (which, of course, happens already because various newspapers refuse to accept advertising for NC-17 movies.)
What about "unrated" films? Many of these are foreign films or limited-distribution films and don't necessarily have offensive content in them. Take the example of a Canadian production from 1994: "Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould"; this is an absoutely brilliant film which, except for some veiled drug references, is totally nonoffensive and would be entirely appropriate for any age group. Would this new MPAA "policy" prohibit showing trailers for something like this just because it happens to be "unrated"?
The whole thing sounds pretty silly if you ask me, but then I tend to think that the whole US ratings system, in its present form, is pretty silly...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|