I had a discussion with another user regardingthis type of information, found on some British releases:



Two questions arose:
a) Does this info come from the BBFC, or from the media company.
b) Can it be used as rating details?

My understanding of the rules is that the rating details should be the ones given by the rating authority, and that this info is not that. So my answer would be no and no.

But the rules are really not clear on this, so what do you all think?

It's the old form in which British rating details were being displayed. This format hasn't been used in years, so this must be a rather old disc, but yeah, I've still got a number of them as well.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
a) Does this info come from the BBFC, or from the media company.

I believe that the information actually did come from the BBFC - but it's being presented in a clunky, not-very-practical format.

Quote:
b) Can it be used as rating details?

That's the question, indeed. They're presented in a format that isn't really suited to our "Rating Details" field, and certainly the "Other" section, with words like "Comedy" and "air traffic controllers", really don't belong there.

What I've done, personally, is to *not* regard this block as BBFC's official rating details. And when there are no rating details on the cover, then the contribution rules allow us to take them from the locality's official ratings information website, in this case bbfc.co.uk. So that's what I've been doing: while I do see those blocks, I simply do not consider them the actual rating details, which allows me to go to https://bbfc.co.uk/, look up the title, and copy the rating details shown there. Most of the time, they're pretty similar - for instance, if that block says "LANGUAGE: Occasional, strong", then chances are that bbfc.co.uk wil list something along the lines of "Occasional Strong Language". So that's what I've been doing with these, although in cases where other users have contributed the rating details as taken from the cover, from that block, no matter how convoluted that looks, then I've left that alone, and kept my bbfc.co.uk rating details local. But in my local database, the "Rating Details" field for all these older UK discs with a block like this on the back cover, has consistently been filled with the rating details as shown on bbfc.co.uk.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
For this title (Pushing Tin [1999]) they list "Passed '15' for strong language".

So I would refer to that and put "Strong Language" in the rating details field. Seeing as the current profile has no rating details listed, apparently nobody has felt that there are actual rating details on the cover, in which case the contribution rules direct us to "Filmratings.com, or the equivalent region-specific ratings information website", which, for the UK locality, is bbfco.co.uk. So it would be perfectly acceptable to use that. I would (very much!) prefer that over listing something clunky like "LANGUAGE: Occasional, strong, SEX / NUDITY: Infrequent, mild, VIOLENCE: Infrequent, mild, OTHER: Comedy, air traffic controllers".

Hello.  I’m the person who’s had this discussion with GSyren, with respect to my addition of the rating details for Season 1 of Spooks; (the BBC TV series).  In this case the information is:

Bad Language: Some Mild, Infrequent Strong.
Sex/Nudity: Some, Moderate.
Violence: Some Moderate, Some Strong.
Other: Strong Torture Scene.

This is (hopefully) a link to the BBFC website for Spooks Season 1.

It rates each of the six episodes individually rather than as a whole season.  It doesn’t give any rating info for any episode except for episode 6, which has a 12 certificate; (the Season 1 box set itself has a 15 certificate).  (Well I think it’s episode 6 anyway; the details are a bit different to the other five, but if I'm wrong then there doesn’t seem to be a sixth episode listed anywhere on the site.)

There do seem to be a very large number of entries that have been accepted into the online database that use a sleeve's ‘long form’ details; (plus plenty of Not Rated US releases that have had information from the sleeve accepted that are also presumably no more ‘official’ than the long form UK info.)  This suggests to me that the screeners are content for them to be included in the online database and therefore they're valid.

Would it really be helpful to suggest they ought to be updated, especially as in some cases the BBFC site doesn’t actually give any ratings info that could be used instead?  More generally, I’m rarely in favour of having to expect people to do research on a routine basis to allow them to complete a submission to the online database; it just makes things more difficult and probably reduces the overall number of submissions made as it puts people off doing them.

Thanks.

Here's how I see it, based on the rules:

Quote:
Enter rating details as shown, excluding the rating itself and trailing period. e.g. "Rated R for sci-fi violence and brief language." is entered as "Sci-fi Violence and Brief Language". Obtain the rating details in order of preference from:

  • DVD case, usually on the bottom rear
  • Rating page displayed on-screen
  • Filmratings.com, or the equivalent region-specific ratings information website

The highlighted parts clearly reference official details from the rating authority. The only part that possibly leaves room for interpretation is this:

Quote:
DVD case, usually on the bottom rear

However, "usually on the bottom rear" must mean that Ken refers to some specific data. If it's any data that describes the content of the movie, then why should it be located at a specific place?

Nope. First preference is from the case. And if the case states something like “ Violence: mild, frequent “ that for me is a rating detail, so no need to look further. So I will not vote No to someone contributing that. I do understand your view also though.