Yeah there’s no way that (terrible) movie is R18
1 Like
I noticed Warner Bros Discovery (unsure if from LA or an Australian arm) applied to the Australian Classification Board last year for several re-classifications.
The category is new too: “Decision made by broadcaster”. Guessing it’s related to HBO Max. But usually if not a standard ACB classification panel manually reviewing submitted content, the category will instead be one of “API external approved decision / Netflix tool” or “svod / external approved classifier decision” or parties who provide the application on behalf of a distributor like “Spherex”. So wondered about the different wording, perhaps it’s because they were already originally classified for DVD post-2005 with the same title and a file and classification number, but HBO Max have insisted on a re-classification to the ACB, maybe slightly modified somehow?
eg. Rome Season 1: https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/rome-season-1
Interestingly, Disclosure (on iView) from Warners, I had a quick check the other week but it didn’t appear to be edited. Also an R18+ title, previously aired and cut on both Nine and Seven.
Perhaps the difference is, the former last had a re-rating in modern times (2009) and it up-held the R, whereas the latter was last classified for early DVD way back in 1998.
Despite the current system largely dating back to early 1993, SBS and ABC (who do have different Codes to CFTA) sometimes do disagree with the original film OFLC / ACB decisions and either opt for unedited R or even a lower classification, especially if from the 90s or certainly prior to 1993. But Seven, Nine and Ten have never usually done that and I’d say are too nervous to.
Shaping a modern National Classification Scheme
The Albanese Government is working to deliver a modern National Classification Scheme that helps Australian families make informed decisions about what they read, hear, watch and play.
Government is consulting on recommendations made by the Social Research Centre and Mettlesome to improve the classification framework, including:
- Introducing a PG13 category and adjusting the classification of MA15+ to MA16+
- Developing clearer content and theme descriptions
- Providing more details on the reason for classifications to ensure Australians are better informed
Industry and public feedback is sought on these recommendations by May 4.
Read the consultation paper and have your say here.
Quotes attributable to Minister for Communications, Anika Wells:
“It’s important people have their say on modernising the National Classification Scheme, which helps support Australians with trusted and reliable information about whether content is appropriate for themselves and their families.
“People have a choice about what they consume but it’s important they have easy to understand information to make that decision.”
“This consultation brings us one step closer to delivering a classification scheme that reflects evolving community sentiment and I encourage people to share their views so deliver an improved classification scheme for all Australians.”
3 Likes
Why not have it:
G - general
PG - 10-13 years old
M - 13-16
MA16+ - 16-18
R18+ - 18+
X18+ - 18+
2 Likes
But PG is basically 12+ so you’re letting younger children access it. And M has always been 15+ so again you’re giving access to younger teens.
They could simplify it like this:
G
PG 13+
MA 16+
R 18+
X 18+
2 Likes
I’ve always seen PG as that tween audience where it’s not quite teenage but they’re not babies either
I’d align it with the social media rules.
E - exempt from classification.
G - suitable for all audiences.
PG - parental guidence recommended for people under 16. Highly recommended that people under 13 should be in the company of an adult.
MA - cannot be viewed by people under 16 but can be viewed by under 16s if someone over 18 is with them.
R - cannot be viewed by people under 18 and cannot be viewed by under 18s, even if someone over 18 is supervising them.
X - pornography - cannot be viewed by people under 18.
RC - not allowed access into Australia, penalties apply. Some exceptions granted (film festivals and the like) but only under specific circumstances and with approrirate action taken similar to a R rating.
3 Likes
What does this mean for our network’s current rules of daytime blocks - are we to see changes in that space as well as content rules are classified differently
Logistically a nightmare for all present classified material, I mean hundreds of thousands of video entertainment titles alone.
Wonder if they’d bother or if it’d just affect new and upcoming? Re-badging DVDs would be a waste of time, streaming and 4K perhaps more important to focus on.
It would be a major change though, first in over 20 years since the colour-coded film/TV classifications came in and there were some alterations to descriptions and terms. And really in over 30 years since the early 1990s when MA was brought in to bridge M and R (where many titles often exceeded what was allowed at the upper end of M and had no choice but to go to R).
They don’t care what gets put to air. As long as it gets them some revenue.
If you must, you could split up my G and PG ratings and reorganise them into G and 13:
G - suitable for all auidiences
13 (or PG, same thing) - parental guidence recommended for children under 13. Highly recommended that people under 13 should be in the company of an adult.
1 Like
Sounds more confusing
2 Likes
It does seem a lot like ACCM’s recommendation back in 2011, which consists of:
G = general
G8+ = mild impact
G13+ = moderate impact
MA16+ = strong impact legally restricted to those 16 and over
R18+ = high impact legally restricted to those 18 and over
1 Like
I think the most sensible thing to do would be to put a line in the sand as to when the new ratings come into effect, all existing titles and their ratings stay in place unless they apply to be reclassified.
For example, let’s say that any title released after July 1 are subjected to the new ratings, and that they are reviewed using the new standards. Any title released up to and including June 30 are subjected to the old ratings and reviewed using the old standards. I don’t know when movies and shows and games get submitted to the Classififcation Office, but I assume it’s a few months before release? Gives them a bit of time to get sorted and know what they’re up to.
1 Like
I just finished the Accreditation training for classifying films - gee I hope they don’t introduce any new classification levels. There is already a fine line between some of the content allowed in G to PG to M, I dont think a new rating would be helpful - nor do I think what some of the suggestions posted in this thread are valid either.
A G13 is a silly rating, the use of the “G” and then adding an age number next to it is a bad idea. G should always be G, there should be no age attached to it
The guidelines in the training explicitly say that existing ratings will always stand unless there is a need (from distributor, for example) for a review. Ditto with the content advice - which has changed over time with the removal of the use of words (ie the M rating no longer has to say “moderate” - it just needs to mention the content ie: Violence and Coarse Language)
4 Likes
Looking at the consultation paper, there’s also an attempt to clarify through icons why the ratings are as such.
You may also be able to make accounts for self & dependants to set the ratings you’re comfortable with.
In any case, I do think they need to raise the M and MA to 16 to match the social media rules.
1 Like
Wow the icon system is dumb - alteast align it to PEGI if they want to do that
What is that rated MA for? A person needing to pee and some dance moves?
4 Likes
Nudity I believe
Yep, that and violence.