I don’t wanna see a guy stick his dick in an Apple pie
[quote=“LukeMovieMan, post:79, topic:348”]Are they trying to get a younger audience watching?[/quote] If they are, they’re going about it the wrong way, have you seen the stuff kids watch on YouTube!
And again tonight…
They aired “Spider Man 2” (M on DVD) at 7:30pm.
Classified PG tonight, with the violence edited to “mild” (i.e.) that operating theatre secne
The old AV15+ classification. The most pointless classification ever. AV15+ is exactly the same as MA15+. About time they scrapped it a few years ago
Didn’t know AV15+ has gone. There is something showing on SBS Perth now and my EPG says AV15+
SBS never used AV. They had their own MAV classification instead, as the public broadcasters have their own codes of practice and classifications.
I believe that the AV classification was axed as part of a few commercial TV classification changes (I think the changes to how they’re allowed to do viewer advice was another one of them) on December 1 last year.
Something I picked-up in the EPG.
7Flix are airing the 2001 movie “Hannibal” (Anthony Hopkins") on Friday night at 11pm.
The film was actually classified R18+ “high impact violence” by the classification review board, after a request 15 years ago. That was the final classification. The DVD thereafter had that classification
But for some reason the DVD re-release around 2005/2006 onwards, has accidently been using the INCORRECT "MA15+ “high level violence” classification from before the review.
The classification review boards report is here: http://www.classification.gov.au/About/Documents/102+-+34th+Meeting+-+15th+22nd+February+2001.pdf
Ch 7’s classification department have classified the film “MA15+ - strong violence”.
So it will be interesting to see what version (classification board - incorrect or classification review board - correct) of the classification report Ch 7 have used to assist them in making that decision (as all networks use to assist in classifying films).
Because if the “high impact” (R18+) scenes in the film are intact & broadcast free-to-air (as the review board made the final decision in 2001)…
Ch 7 are in breach of the FTA code! 
(This is what happens when home entertainment/DVD distributors stuff-up the correct classification on the cover).
Let me guess Luke…you’re going to be watching 7Flix’s airing of “Hannibal” tomorrow night and filing an ACMA complaint if you find anything that’s a breach of the ACMA Commercial TV Code of Practice? 
Of course not. I just thought it was worth a mention. For all I know Ch 7 probably picked it up & have edited the movie.
The Blu-ray of what is referred to as the ‘Original’ so presumably it is uncut was classified MA 15+ in 2009. So I doubt there is any problem??
You could forgive Ch 7 for being a bit confused…
Well that just makes the Classification Board look amateur! Review board gave the original version R18+ (after being classified MA15+) & in 2009 they classify the film again with MA15+ 
I know if happens a lot (with banned films being submitted for re-classification) but this instance it weird.
NB/
Remember, in Australia, all “Blu-Ray” editions are classified seperately to the original classification for DVD anyway. Has always seemed to be the case.
So if there wasn’t a Blu-Ray edition, there wouldn’t have been a new classification & it should still be R18+?
Standards change over time - certain things that would be too high impact for MA decades ago would be fine now. Sometimes it even goes in the other direction - ever since the R rating for video games was introduced, content that previously would get MA ratings has increasingly ended up in R.
Classifying again is a cost, but there can be a sales difference between MA and R - particularly as some retailers don’t stock R rated material, or need to stock it in different areas - hence a push for getting the lower rating on borderline titles.
Absolutely 
(e.g.)
“Man With No Name” (Clint Eastwood western trilogy) from the 60s, Dirty Harry films from the 70s, some of Martin Scorsese’s films, etc.
BUT… Not a fairly recent film from 2001!?
It was 15 years ago.
Well, compared to ~45 years ago?
Standards are constantly changing. What wasn’t acceptable in 2011 is now etc. You can’t view it through 2001 eyes.
Yeah that situation with video games and no R rating was ridiculous. Even now, Game of Thrones airs on Foxtel with an MA15+ but always ends up with an R rating by the OFLC for Blu-ray/DVD. Both versions are apparantely identical and I doubt blu-ray/DVD extras cause the R rating.
They wouldn’t be identical.
Networks’ classification officers are trained to clearly know the difference between content that is ‘strong in impact’ (MA) & ‘high in impact’ ®.
(e.g.)
Network Ten had to edit an episode of "American Horror Stor"y earlier this year, because it contained a couple of scenes that were R18+ (high impact), which they determined theirselves. And the DVD / blu-ray season obviously hadn’t been made or classified yet, as it is a television show (new episode).
As with all new television episodes on all networks.
According to lifehacker, TV and blu-ray/DVD versions are identical.
Foxtel broadcasts Game of Thrones “live”, so they can’t edit premiere episodes. If someone wanted to be a real arsehole, they could probably make a complaint to ACMA and stop GoT from being live fast tracked. How archaic would that make us look. Hopefully exemptions exist for ‘live’ content.