The Region 4 Ratings Logo Disaster
The Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Australia Government have joined forces to create a disastrous new classi...
By now most of you would be aware of the change in classification markings from the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) in Australia. And many of you would have either heard of, or participated in, the outcry from the public regarding the change. On the whole the objections have little to do with the change in philosophy from the OFLC in regards to better educating audiences about the content of films and video games in Australia. We would all agree that there needs to be some guidance for parents and other members of the public so that they can make an informed decision in cinemas, retail outlets and rental stores. But the outcry surrounds the apparent disregard for common sense and the continuing trend for Australian governments and regulatory bodies to be completely reactionary.
Admittedly, issues such as censorship and classification are incredibly complicated, particularly in our modern litigious society where one false move can mean thousands of dollars in court for a number of parties. I don’t purport to know much more than the regular Joe on the street, but that’s the point of view organizations such as the OFLC seem to be taking with a grain of salt.
Let’s open up this can of worms and see what we come up with...
Firstly, let me get a few things straight about what we should be arguing here.
The colour change is probably inevitable. Australia has a reputation for being overly politically correct (evidenced by recent decisions to remove many Christian references in schools during Christmas time for fear of offending other religions), so when it was announced that there would be a change to the classification logos it came as no surprise. It doesn’t make them less ugly, but what’s done is done on the colour front.
There is a need to include ratings information somewhere on the packaging. While the average DVD fanatic and anyone with a sensible head on their shoulders probably doesn’t need as much guidance as we receive, there is an obligation to cater for the morons who can’t tell the difference between M and MA or want to know whether the violence in a film is “mild” or “moderate”.
No one should be disputing the age restrictions on films and video games. They are there for a reason, and assist retailers and cinemas in enforcing age restrictions with clear guidelines. That said, the fact the OFLC deem it unnecessary to include an R rating for video games is a terrible oversight, and smells of an ignorant organization who is neglecting a large market of gamers who are over 18 and have a high disposable income. But more on that later.
The OFLC commissioned a survey online which gave the general public a chance to have their say on the proposed new classification markings suggested by the board. The intention was to introduce classification logos which were “easier to understand and more informative”. Part of the reason for the change is from the general public’s input (one would argue that this translated to the “vocal minority”), which also included consumer research indicating several key issues in regards to the current classifications.
Many of the participants in the consumer research indicated they didn’t know the difference between the M and MA classifications, and weren’t aware of the restrictions on the MA rating (persons under 15 years aren’t permitted to view the content, in the strictest sense). It sounds stupid, but there are plenty of ignorant members of the general public who have no idea about anything, let alone film classifications.
Part of the reason for the change, as quoted in the OFLC press release, was because “research conducted by the OFLC, as well as feedback it has received from consumers and industry, has consistently indicated that the old classification markings often suffered from being hard to find or hard to read because they were too small or not obvious enough against the background.” Let’s pick that apart, shall we?
The previous classification logos, used for the past twenty years, were supposedly “hard to find”. They’re on the front cover, dammit!! And as for them being “hard to read...too small or not obvious enough against the background”, well that’s just getting beyond a joke. The point of the logos is for consumers to have the information available to them for guidance, not have it shoved down their throat and ranked just as important as the damn title. When will the OFLC realize that you can’t legislate against stupidity?
They were also meant to help the public understand the reasons behind the classifications by providing clear descriptions of the content. If by the word clear the OFLC means “big” then they’ve done their job, but I’m not too sure the public will understand these wordings any more or less than they did the previous incarnations. Case in point; the Batman Begins cover informs us that the film contains “moderate themes”. How is that meant to be clear? The latest Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith cover tells us that there is “moderate science fiction violence”. Fantastic. It’s a science fiction movie with violence in it, for Christ’s sake. What next? We’ll probably see Wallace & Gromit’s latest flick include “mild violence using clay puppets” or the sequel to Saw described as having “strong horror themes involving a creepy little wooden thing riding a bike.” If the size of the actual logo wasn’t bad enough, we’ve got a whole essay of descriptions on the front cover that don’t actually make any more sense than just using the words “violence”, “horror” or “sex scenes”.
The OFLC sought the help of Trout & Partners who, in between fishing expeditions, advised the board on the most effective way to implement and market the new design. In their wisdom, they came up with these absolute gems which undoubtedly have contributed to the farcical logos we have today:
[*]To attract attention, the markings should take up 20% of available space
Twenty per cent? Where the hell are you trying to attract attention from? The moon?
[*]The markings should be used for the duration of an advertisement, not just the opening or ending.
Are you serious? We haven’t even got to the stage of deciding to see the film yet, so why do we have to watch a trailer with a logo (taking up 20% of the screen, remember) plastered on it for the entire time? Luckily it seems the OFLC backed down on this one, but it doesn’t give Marlin & Friends much credence, does it?
[*]To have more impact, consumer advice should be in quotation marks.
Who are you quoting? The CEO? God? And why does it make any difference? I might not pay much attention if the rating was Frequent Coarse Language but if you mention “Frequent Coarse Language” then I’ll be putting my earmuffs on before I enter the cinema, that’s for sure.
Included in the survey were a number of proposed designs, which you can view below. The full survey can be viewed on the OFLC website, www.oflc.gov.au . These proposed designs also incorporated colour schemes (the same format of the current logos), based on all the information they had previously gathered from market research, consultants and the vocal minority who kicked up the fuss in the first place.
Initial reactions to the proposed changes weren’t all that favourable (message boards were filled with posts expressing their dislike of any of the proposed designs), which should have raised alarm bells at the OFLC from the beginning. In isolation the logos didn’t look so bad, but examples of the designs on video and DVD covers were buried online, just ambiguous enough to have most of the participants in the survey skip over what has become the major misstep in the changeover.
None of the designs proposed in the survey was actually settled on as the final version to be used on DVD covers and the like. Instead, the OFLC plonked for a hybrid version incorporating elements from every single one. So how could the survey have been useful, when the OFLC decided that none of the proposed designs in its entirety was appropriate? And the physical size of the logos on the packaging was never broached with the public, so it came as no surprise when they decided to make the classifications the most prominent feature of the cover art.
The OFLC settled on a final design and released it to the public. If they really cared what the public thought they could have taken the time (and added cost, admittedly) to test out the new logos in order to gauge public reaction. But they didn’t, and this is what we’re lumped with:
Again, in isolation they don’t look too bad. The colours might be a bit of a pain but they’re bearable. Everything looks clear and relatively concise so that consumers are well informed about the classification. On the other hand, however, are the major issues brought about by the OFLC’s penchant for over-reaction.
The size of the markings borders on the ridiculous. Firstly, with the new colours making the logos stand out more than ever before, there is no direct need to increase the physical size as well. And the descriptions can easily be transferred to the back cover without any major ramifications. Surely the word “General” is redundant, as I would defy anyone with two eyes (or even one, I suppose) to tell me they can’t recognize the triangle logo, or at least deduce that it’s a very friendly rating.
“The whole point of the survey was to receive feedback from the public before they made any decisions, so you should have been arguing back then, not now.”
Well, I did. But one lonely reviewer among the hundreds (possibly thousands, but the OFLC hasn’t disclosed how many participants there were in the survey) isn’t going to make much of a difference. And the real likelihood is that the conservatives and prudes who complained to the OFLC in the first place would have made up the majority of respondents to the survey, throwing their ill-directed weight behind the changes in order to protect us from the big, bad world outside.
The fact that the final design resembled none of the initial proposals doesn’t give you much confidence that the feedback would have been taken on board anyway. So now is the perfect time to give the OFLC a jolt to ensure that their conservatism is reined in a little so we can settle on a happy medium.
“The OFLC have put in so much time and effort with these changes that they’ve gone way too far to change anything.”
True, but they can work with what they’ve got and modify it slightly so it’s not so ridiculously over the top. If there’s enough public backlash they may be forced to make some sort of change, hopefully for the better. We’ll outline some options below, all of which don’t require any major changes in policy or basic design of the logos.
The other point is, now that we seem to be stuck with these changes, we have to speak up if they aren’t up to scratch otherwise there’s a real danger of other countries following suit. The OFLC made a specific point that they were pioneering a system which linked film and video game classifications, with other countries looking to adopt a similar model. While most other countries don’t have the same high level of conservatism as Australia, you wouldn’t want your native country trying to re-decorate your DVD covers based on the Region 4 model.
The most interesting and humorous example is the cover of Scrubs: Season One. The UK version on the right includes the quaint little logo in the bottom right corner, small and unobtrusive but obvious enough to tell you that it contains some themes which aren’t right for the kiddies. The Region 4 version, on the other hand, throws up a ratings logo which almost completely covers up the spoon in the picture. It’s almost a little ironic that it now seems Zach Braff is screwing up his face at the logo rather than what’s in the spoon.
“There needs to be some protection for parents when selecting films and video games for their children, and these new classification symbols make it more obvious.”
Yes, but how far do we go? We can’t protect parents from themselves. Many years back there was a case of a young girl becoming highly distressed when her mum rented Scream for her daughter’s slumber party. Everyone was quick to blame the film industry, the OFLC, the Government and the rental stores, basically everyone but the parent who ignored the warnings on the cover (which were in place back then, and had been for twenty years). Said parent was also present at the party but failed to realize that the film might not have been too appropriate for young, impressionable minds. Will the increased change in size and colour guard against a parenting error such as this? Doubtful. And who is to say that incidents like this won’t happen with the new logos? No one, but the point is you can’t jump at shadows and become reactionary every time a twelve year-old claps her eyes on some blood and guts, or a pair of tits.
“What’s the big deal? They’re just logos on a DVD cover! You buy DVDs for the content, not the cover.”
That may be true, but a large portion of the DVD-buying public like their covers free from intrusive ratings logos and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. They are the ones who are clued in to the ease in which one can import movies from overseas. They are the ones with the disposable income, the DVD collection of over 100, and the nous to severely affect the sales figures in Australia because of the horrid impact the logos have on DVD covers, among other things. Region 4 has often been the poor cousin to the US and UK in terms of release dates, special features and nifty packaging, most of which is out of the distributors’ control. The logos are also largely out of the control of those who produce the discs and their covers (Madman, for one, is reportedly really peeved at the drastic change) but this time the OFLC has stepped in and created another reason for cashed-up and internet-savvy consumers to head overseas for their movies and games. And why do you think websites like DVDCoverart existed? Because there were plenty of people out there who really did care about the outer casing that holds their favourite DVDs.
Governments and studios are so hell-bent on curtailing piracy, yet they neglect to see the impact an ugly cover might have on sales. Those techno-savvy DVD customers come into play again, with their cable internet access and DVD-burners able to whip off a copy of any latest release with ease. The appeal of the “official” versions is that you’ve buying a total package, with a nice-looking case to keep the disc in and hopefully a bunch of extras that you don’t usually get with the pirated versions. Why pay for the total package when the cover looks so damn ugly? Might as well just download the ripped version for free. (Note: I do not, in any way, encourage film/video game piracy. The argument is purely there to demonstrate the lack of thought the OFLC has put in regarding the consequences of the new logo designs.)
“It’s not as if you’re going to change anything by whining or boycotting Region 4 discs. And it will have a minimal impact on sales in Australia, if at all, so just learn to live with it.”
We’re not talking about a boycott, but the impact it will have on sales of Region 4 titles can’t be underestimated. If I had a choice between a Region 1 or 2 title with standard cover art and ratings logos and a Region 4 title with the same cover except for the large logo in the bottom left I’d go for the better cover every time, especially since the discs in the US and UK are often cheaper than the Australian price anyway (particularly for new releases). The ease and immediacy of buying a Region 4 title over the counter has now been overshadowed by the fact you’ll have to live with one ugly looking cover when there’s a better option elsewhere. If it means a cover that isn’t compromised by a big ratings logo then I’m happy to wait for the import to arrive.
One would suspect there are plenty more customers like me who will hit the internet retailers more often as a result. Think of the millions of Star Wars fans who have purchased the first two Region 4 discs in the new trilogy. They now have to put up with the third installment being ruined by a great big blue “M” in the corner, not to mention the description of “moderate science-fiction violence”, whatever the hell that means. You think the Star Wars fanboys won’t make an impact? If anyone wants their product free from compromise, it’s those guys. Check out the cover below (admittedly not the final product but the only thing that will change is the description) for an example of the unsightly logo having a disastrous impact on the artwork itself:
The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA) was quoted as saying “70% of video game players are aged over 18 years.” That quote alone makes the Government look incredibly foolish, not to mention stuck in a time warp when computer games were tackled only by eleven year-old boys whose most violent gaming experience was being hit by a barrel playing Donkey Kong.
At present the classification system does not include an R rating for video games. Why, you ask? Well, that’s not entirely clear. The Government and OFLC have gone to great lengths to give continuity to the classifications of films and video games, yet have neglected the R rating for games because of Australia’s constant need to be politically correct. Adult film lovers are able to enjoy movies directed solely at their age range (not without censorship in many instances, mind you) but adult gamers are cut off because misinformed and reactionary bodies such as the OFLC continue to jump at shadows and protect parents from themselves.
Some responsibility has to be placed on the parents, who should be the ones monitoring what games their children are getting their hands on. And if enough money and training is directed at the retailers and rental outlets to enforce the age restrictions, then there should be no problem including games designed solely for adults that don’t need severe cuts to fall into an MA15+ classification.
The refusal to include an R rating for video games has severe ramifications. Firstly, it undermines the efforts of the OFLC and the Australian Government to regulate the classifications themselves. Secondly, and more importantly, it closes the door to a potential gold mine of adult video game sales, considering that 70% of the gaming audience doesn’t have access to games marketed specifically towards their demographic.
Believe it or not, there are several options which can really minimize the impact of these logos yet still keep the fundamental classification guidelines in place so that legislation doesn’t need to change.
A simple change would be to include a smaller version of the coloured ratings logo on the front of the packaging, with the rest of the classification information on the back cover. It is going to take time for the public to get used to the new colours, but once they do they will be able to easily recognize the rating of each film or video game. Parents can still search out the green and yellow logos for the kiddies, and those who want more information on the contents of what they may be viewing can simply flip over the cover. Look at the example below (whipped up in two minutes using the magic of Photoshop). Which would you prefer?
Now, I’m no legal expert, but surely by using a sticker instead of printing the classification on the actual cover itself, the message is still getting across to consumers. Those who wish to remove the sticker have to go through the process of physically taking it off, thereby relinquishing any claim they have to not knowing or understanding the classification of the film. The rest of the ratings info (including another logo if need be) can still be printed on the back cover so that when you do take the sticker off the classification is still available for reference.
This seems like the easiest option, as the OFLC gets to keep their ugly and oversized logos, the distributors can use cover art which doesn’t have to feature a symbol that takes up a quarter of the space and consumers can receive the classification information without having it shoved in their face after they’ve purchased the product. But knowing Australia and some of the utterly monumental cock-ups of the past, I wouldn’t be surprised if the stickers ended up tearing the cover to shreds instead of using the new kind of sticker which is a breeze to peel off. Only time will tell...
While Madman isn’t exactly one of the largest distributors in Australia, they might just be the most important organisation if the OFLC doesn’t back down and resize the logos or use stickers on the covers. With such a loyal band of Anime devotees and film fans in general, Madman is reportedly promising to use either removable bands (as distinct from stickers) on their box set packaging or design reversible covers so customers can simply use the “B side” cover without the classification logo when they get their product home. It’s a brilliant move which will hopefully be taken up by the bigger distribution houses, but let’s not hold our breath.
Simple. What’s the point of cutting off the video games ratings at MA? Adults play video games in larger numbers than children, so having to censor violence and sex performed by tiny little pixels borders on the ridiculous. There isn’t enough pressure from gaming groups and other bodies such as the IEAA to lift the ban on R rated games. Now is the time to do something about it.
Will all this analysis and argument come to much? Probably not. Is it necessary to voice our disapproval anyway? Absolutely. Once again the Aussies have been shafted by an over-zealous Government and an OFLC that is trying too damn hard to please everyone. Put the onus back on the parents to take responsibility for their children. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, so plastering these giant logos on the front of our DVD and video game covers is completely over the top.
Spare a thought for the distributors, who had this nightmare thrust upon them and may well oppose the change as much as a lot of the public. It’s just that they’ve got no choice but to comply, and any objections from their end would have done them no favours or at the very least fallen on deaf ears.
The need for classifications and appropriate markings cannot be denied. But the way the Government has gone about it is completely out of touch with reality. It’s not too late to make changes, many of which are simple alterations that should have been considered and implemented in the first place. The public was consulted but there has been no mention of the feedback obtained in the survey, and none of the proposed examples became the final product after all.
The frustrating thing is that Australia has tried so hard to come across as a “nice” bunch of people, yet the Government sees this as a green light to make regulatory changes which are completely over the top. I’m sure the OFLC heads will sit back in their leather chairs and denounce the classification logos a complete success, safe in the knowledge that there can’t be any complaints from ignorant parents because the markings take up as much cover space as the damn title.
We’ll see just how successful this ridiculous change turns out to be. The vast majority will just grin and bear it, knowing full well that you can’t mess with pig-headed politicians and Government organizations. The rest of us will vote with our hip pockets by choosing a cover that isn’t compromised by giant coloured squares with letters in them. Or, at the very least, we’ll continue to snigger at just how much of a laughing stock Australia, and region 4 DVD in particular, continues to be.
Do you want to voice your opinion? Check out the online petition set up by one of our readers here.
Or you could go staight to the source itself and email newmarkingshelp@oflc.gov.au. And tell them I sent you...
Editorial by Pete Roberts
Admittedly, issues such as censorship and classification are incredibly complicated, particularly in our modern litigious society where one false move can mean thousands of dollars in court for a number of parties. I don’t purport to know much more than the regular Joe on the street, but that’s the point of view organizations such as the OFLC seem to be taking with a grain of salt.
Let’s open up this can of worms and see what we come up with...
The Argument
Firstly, let me get a few things straight about what we should be arguing here.
The colour change is probably inevitable. Australia has a reputation for being overly politically correct (evidenced by recent decisions to remove many Christian references in schools during Christmas time for fear of offending other religions), so when it was announced that there would be a change to the classification logos it came as no surprise. It doesn’t make them less ugly, but what’s done is done on the colour front.
There is a need to include ratings information somewhere on the packaging. While the average DVD fanatic and anyone with a sensible head on their shoulders probably doesn’t need as much guidance as we receive, there is an obligation to cater for the morons who can’t tell the difference between M and MA or want to know whether the violence in a film is “mild” or “moderate”.
No one should be disputing the age restrictions on films and video games. They are there for a reason, and assist retailers and cinemas in enforcing age restrictions with clear guidelines. That said, the fact the OFLC deem it unnecessary to include an R rating for video games is a terrible oversight, and smells of an ignorant organization who is neglecting a large market of gamers who are over 18 and have a high disposable income. But more on that later.
The Survey
The OFLC commissioned a survey online which gave the general public a chance to have their say on the proposed new classification markings suggested by the board. The intention was to introduce classification logos which were “easier to understand and more informative”. Part of the reason for the change is from the general public’s input (one would argue that this translated to the “vocal minority”), which also included consumer research indicating several key issues in regards to the current classifications.
Many of the participants in the consumer research indicated they didn’t know the difference between the M and MA classifications, and weren’t aware of the restrictions on the MA rating (persons under 15 years aren’t permitted to view the content, in the strictest sense). It sounds stupid, but there are plenty of ignorant members of the general public who have no idea about anything, let alone film classifications.
Part of the reason for the change, as quoted in the OFLC press release, was because “research conducted by the OFLC, as well as feedback it has received from consumers and industry, has consistently indicated that the old classification markings often suffered from being hard to find or hard to read because they were too small or not obvious enough against the background.” Let’s pick that apart, shall we?
The previous classification logos, used for the past twenty years, were supposedly “hard to find”. They’re on the front cover, dammit!! And as for them being “hard to read...too small or not obvious enough against the background”, well that’s just getting beyond a joke. The point of the logos is for consumers to have the information available to them for guidance, not have it shoved down their throat and ranked just as important as the damn title. When will the OFLC realize that you can’t legislate against stupidity?
They were also meant to help the public understand the reasons behind the classifications by providing clear descriptions of the content. If by the word clear the OFLC means “big” then they’ve done their job, but I’m not too sure the public will understand these wordings any more or less than they did the previous incarnations. Case in point; the Batman Begins cover informs us that the film contains “moderate themes”. How is that meant to be clear? The latest Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith cover tells us that there is “moderate science fiction violence”. Fantastic. It’s a science fiction movie with violence in it, for Christ’s sake. What next? We’ll probably see Wallace & Gromit’s latest flick include “mild violence using clay puppets” or the sequel to Saw described as having “strong horror themes involving a creepy little wooden thing riding a bike.” If the size of the actual logo wasn’t bad enough, we’ve got a whole essay of descriptions on the front cover that don’t actually make any more sense than just using the words “violence”, “horror” or “sex scenes”.
The OFLC sought the help of Trout & Partners who, in between fishing expeditions, advised the board on the most effective way to implement and market the new design. In their wisdom, they came up with these absolute gems which undoubtedly have contributed to the farcical logos we have today:
[*]To attract attention, the markings should take up 20% of available space
Twenty per cent? Where the hell are you trying to attract attention from? The moon?
[*]The markings should be used for the duration of an advertisement, not just the opening or ending.
Are you serious? We haven’t even got to the stage of deciding to see the film yet, so why do we have to watch a trailer with a logo (taking up 20% of the screen, remember) plastered on it for the entire time? Luckily it seems the OFLC backed down on this one, but it doesn’t give Marlin & Friends much credence, does it?
[*]To have more impact, consumer advice should be in quotation marks.
Who are you quoting? The CEO? God? And why does it make any difference? I might not pay much attention if the rating was Frequent Coarse Language but if you mention “Frequent Coarse Language” then I’ll be putting my earmuffs on before I enter the cinema, that’s for sure.
Included in the survey were a number of proposed designs, which you can view below. The full survey can be viewed on the OFLC website, www.oflc.gov.au . These proposed designs also incorporated colour schemes (the same format of the current logos), based on all the information they had previously gathered from market research, consultants and the vocal minority who kicked up the fuss in the first place.
Initial reactions to the proposed changes weren’t all that favourable (message boards were filled with posts expressing their dislike of any of the proposed designs), which should have raised alarm bells at the OFLC from the beginning. In isolation the logos didn’t look so bad, but examples of the designs on video and DVD covers were buried online, just ambiguous enough to have most of the participants in the survey skip over what has become the major misstep in the changeover.
None of the designs proposed in the survey was actually settled on as the final version to be used on DVD covers and the like. Instead, the OFLC plonked for a hybrid version incorporating elements from every single one. So how could the survey have been useful, when the OFLC decided that none of the proposed designs in its entirety was appropriate? And the physical size of the logos on the packaging was never broached with the public, so it came as no surprise when they decided to make the classifications the most prominent feature of the cover art.
The Markings
The OFLC settled on a final design and released it to the public. If they really cared what the public thought they could have taken the time (and added cost, admittedly) to test out the new logos in order to gauge public reaction. But they didn’t, and this is what we’re lumped with:
Again, in isolation they don’t look too bad. The colours might be a bit of a pain but they’re bearable. Everything looks clear and relatively concise so that consumers are well informed about the classification. On the other hand, however, are the major issues brought about by the OFLC’s penchant for over-reaction.
The size of the markings borders on the ridiculous. Firstly, with the new colours making the logos stand out more than ever before, there is no direct need to increase the physical size as well. And the descriptions can easily be transferred to the back cover without any major ramifications. Surely the word “General” is redundant, as I would defy anyone with two eyes (or even one, I suppose) to tell me they can’t recognize the triangle logo, or at least deduce that it’s a very friendly rating.
The Arguments
“The whole point of the survey was to receive feedback from the public before they made any decisions, so you should have been arguing back then, not now.”
Well, I did. But one lonely reviewer among the hundreds (possibly thousands, but the OFLC hasn’t disclosed how many participants there were in the survey) isn’t going to make much of a difference. And the real likelihood is that the conservatives and prudes who complained to the OFLC in the first place would have made up the majority of respondents to the survey, throwing their ill-directed weight behind the changes in order to protect us from the big, bad world outside.
The fact that the final design resembled none of the initial proposals doesn’t give you much confidence that the feedback would have been taken on board anyway. So now is the perfect time to give the OFLC a jolt to ensure that their conservatism is reined in a little so we can settle on a happy medium.
“The OFLC have put in so much time and effort with these changes that they’ve gone way too far to change anything.”
True, but they can work with what they’ve got and modify it slightly so it’s not so ridiculously over the top. If there’s enough public backlash they may be forced to make some sort of change, hopefully for the better. We’ll outline some options below, all of which don’t require any major changes in policy or basic design of the logos.
The other point is, now that we seem to be stuck with these changes, we have to speak up if they aren’t up to scratch otherwise there’s a real danger of other countries following suit. The OFLC made a specific point that they were pioneering a system which linked film and video game classifications, with other countries looking to adopt a similar model. While most other countries don’t have the same high level of conservatism as Australia, you wouldn’t want your native country trying to re-decorate your DVD covers based on the Region 4 model.
The most interesting and humorous example is the cover of Scrubs: Season One. The UK version on the right includes the quaint little logo in the bottom right corner, small and unobtrusive but obvious enough to tell you that it contains some themes which aren’t right for the kiddies. The Region 4 version, on the other hand, throws up a ratings logo which almost completely covers up the spoon in the picture. It’s almost a little ironic that it now seems Zach Braff is screwing up his face at the logo rather than what’s in the spoon.
“There needs to be some protection for parents when selecting films and video games for their children, and these new classification symbols make it more obvious.”
Yes, but how far do we go? We can’t protect parents from themselves. Many years back there was a case of a young girl becoming highly distressed when her mum rented Scream for her daughter’s slumber party. Everyone was quick to blame the film industry, the OFLC, the Government and the rental stores, basically everyone but the parent who ignored the warnings on the cover (which were in place back then, and had been for twenty years). Said parent was also present at the party but failed to realize that the film might not have been too appropriate for young, impressionable minds. Will the increased change in size and colour guard against a parenting error such as this? Doubtful. And who is to say that incidents like this won’t happen with the new logos? No one, but the point is you can’t jump at shadows and become reactionary every time a twelve year-old claps her eyes on some blood and guts, or a pair of tits.
“What’s the big deal? They’re just logos on a DVD cover! You buy DVDs for the content, not the cover.”
That may be true, but a large portion of the DVD-buying public like their covers free from intrusive ratings logos and are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. They are the ones who are clued in to the ease in which one can import movies from overseas. They are the ones with the disposable income, the DVD collection of over 100, and the nous to severely affect the sales figures in Australia because of the horrid impact the logos have on DVD covers, among other things. Region 4 has often been the poor cousin to the US and UK in terms of release dates, special features and nifty packaging, most of which is out of the distributors’ control. The logos are also largely out of the control of those who produce the discs and their covers (Madman, for one, is reportedly really peeved at the drastic change) but this time the OFLC has stepped in and created another reason for cashed-up and internet-savvy consumers to head overseas for their movies and games. And why do you think websites like DVDCoverart existed? Because there were plenty of people out there who really did care about the outer casing that holds their favourite DVDs.
Governments and studios are so hell-bent on curtailing piracy, yet they neglect to see the impact an ugly cover might have on sales. Those techno-savvy DVD customers come into play again, with their cable internet access and DVD-burners able to whip off a copy of any latest release with ease. The appeal of the “official” versions is that you’ve buying a total package, with a nice-looking case to keep the disc in and hopefully a bunch of extras that you don’t usually get with the pirated versions. Why pay for the total package when the cover looks so damn ugly? Might as well just download the ripped version for free. (Note: I do not, in any way, encourage film/video game piracy. The argument is purely there to demonstrate the lack of thought the OFLC has put in regarding the consequences of the new logo designs.)
“It’s not as if you’re going to change anything by whining or boycotting Region 4 discs. And it will have a minimal impact on sales in Australia, if at all, so just learn to live with it.”
We’re not talking about a boycott, but the impact it will have on sales of Region 4 titles can’t be underestimated. If I had a choice between a Region 1 or 2 title with standard cover art and ratings logos and a Region 4 title with the same cover except for the large logo in the bottom left I’d go for the better cover every time, especially since the discs in the US and UK are often cheaper than the Australian price anyway (particularly for new releases). The ease and immediacy of buying a Region 4 title over the counter has now been overshadowed by the fact you’ll have to live with one ugly looking cover when there’s a better option elsewhere. If it means a cover that isn’t compromised by a big ratings logo then I’m happy to wait for the import to arrive.
One would suspect there are plenty more customers like me who will hit the internet retailers more often as a result. Think of the millions of Star Wars fans who have purchased the first two Region 4 discs in the new trilogy. They now have to put up with the third installment being ruined by a great big blue “M” in the corner, not to mention the description of “moderate science-fiction violence”, whatever the hell that means. You think the Star Wars fanboys won’t make an impact? If anyone wants their product free from compromise, it’s those guys. Check out the cover below (admittedly not the final product but the only thing that will change is the description) for an example of the unsightly logo having a disastrous impact on the artwork itself:
The Incredible Video Game Oversight
The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA) was quoted as saying “70% of video game players are aged over 18 years.” That quote alone makes the Government look incredibly foolish, not to mention stuck in a time warp when computer games were tackled only by eleven year-old boys whose most violent gaming experience was being hit by a barrel playing Donkey Kong.
At present the classification system does not include an R rating for video games. Why, you ask? Well, that’s not entirely clear. The Government and OFLC have gone to great lengths to give continuity to the classifications of films and video games, yet have neglected the R rating for games because of Australia’s constant need to be politically correct. Adult film lovers are able to enjoy movies directed solely at their age range (not without censorship in many instances, mind you) but adult gamers are cut off because misinformed and reactionary bodies such as the OFLC continue to jump at shadows and protect parents from themselves.
Some responsibility has to be placed on the parents, who should be the ones monitoring what games their children are getting their hands on. And if enough money and training is directed at the retailers and rental outlets to enforce the age restrictions, then there should be no problem including games designed solely for adults that don’t need severe cuts to fall into an MA15+ classification.
The refusal to include an R rating for video games has severe ramifications. Firstly, it undermines the efforts of the OFLC and the Australian Government to regulate the classifications themselves. Secondly, and more importantly, it closes the door to a potential gold mine of adult video game sales, considering that 70% of the gaming audience doesn’t have access to games marketed specifically towards their demographic.
The Options
Believe it or not, there are several options which can really minimize the impact of these logos yet still keep the fundamental classification guidelines in place so that legislation doesn’t need to change.
Size Matters
A simple change would be to include a smaller version of the coloured ratings logo on the front of the packaging, with the rest of the classification information on the back cover. It is going to take time for the public to get used to the new colours, but once they do they will be able to easily recognize the rating of each film or video game. Parents can still search out the green and yellow logos for the kiddies, and those who want more information on the contents of what they may be viewing can simply flip over the cover. Look at the example below (whipped up in two minutes using the magic of Photoshop). Which would you prefer?
Use Stickers
Now, I’m no legal expert, but surely by using a sticker instead of printing the classification on the actual cover itself, the message is still getting across to consumers. Those who wish to remove the sticker have to go through the process of physically taking it off, thereby relinquishing any claim they have to not knowing or understanding the classification of the film. The rest of the ratings info (including another logo if need be) can still be printed on the back cover so that when you do take the sticker off the classification is still available for reference.
This seems like the easiest option, as the OFLC gets to keep their ugly and oversized logos, the distributors can use cover art which doesn’t have to feature a symbol that takes up a quarter of the space and consumers can receive the classification information without having it shoved in their face after they’ve purchased the product. But knowing Australia and some of the utterly monumental cock-ups of the past, I wouldn’t be surprised if the stickers ended up tearing the cover to shreds instead of using the new kind of sticker which is a breeze to peel off. Only time will tell...
Reversible Covers
While Madman isn’t exactly one of the largest distributors in Australia, they might just be the most important organisation if the OFLC doesn’t back down and resize the logos or use stickers on the covers. With such a loyal band of Anime devotees and film fans in general, Madman is reportedly promising to use either removable bands (as distinct from stickers) on their box set packaging or design reversible covers so customers can simply use the “B side” cover without the classification logo when they get their product home. It’s a brilliant move which will hopefully be taken up by the bigger distribution houses, but let’s not hold our breath.
An R Rating for Video Games
Simple. What’s the point of cutting off the video games ratings at MA? Adults play video games in larger numbers than children, so having to censor violence and sex performed by tiny little pixels borders on the ridiculous. There isn’t enough pressure from gaming groups and other bodies such as the IEAA to lift the ban on R rated games. Now is the time to do something about it.
Conclusion
Will all this analysis and argument come to much? Probably not. Is it necessary to voice our disapproval anyway? Absolutely. Once again the Aussies have been shafted by an over-zealous Government and an OFLC that is trying too damn hard to please everyone. Put the onus back on the parents to take responsibility for their children. Ignorance is no longer an excuse, so plastering these giant logos on the front of our DVD and video game covers is completely over the top.
Spare a thought for the distributors, who had this nightmare thrust upon them and may well oppose the change as much as a lot of the public. It’s just that they’ve got no choice but to comply, and any objections from their end would have done them no favours or at the very least fallen on deaf ears.
The need for classifications and appropriate markings cannot be denied. But the way the Government has gone about it is completely out of touch with reality. It’s not too late to make changes, many of which are simple alterations that should have been considered and implemented in the first place. The public was consulted but there has been no mention of the feedback obtained in the survey, and none of the proposed examples became the final product after all.
The frustrating thing is that Australia has tried so hard to come across as a “nice” bunch of people, yet the Government sees this as a green light to make regulatory changes which are completely over the top. I’m sure the OFLC heads will sit back in their leather chairs and denounce the classification logos a complete success, safe in the knowledge that there can’t be any complaints from ignorant parents because the markings take up as much cover space as the damn title.
We’ll see just how successful this ridiculous change turns out to be. The vast majority will just grin and bear it, knowing full well that you can’t mess with pig-headed politicians and Government organizations. The rest of us will vote with our hip pockets by choosing a cover that isn’t compromised by giant coloured squares with letters in them. Or, at the very least, we’ll continue to snigger at just how much of a laughing stock Australia, and region 4 DVD in particular, continues to be.
Do you want to voice your opinion? Check out the online petition set up by one of our readers here.
Or you could go staight to the source itself and email newmarkingshelp@oflc.gov.au. And tell them I sent you...
Editorial by Pete Roberts
Advertisements
Existing Posts
WTF with super large classification logos on the front covers?
@#%#%@ bull****!
@#%#%@ bull****!
One can only hope they're not gonna put c**p on the cover of American DVDs.
I am completely fucking pissed off with the god-damn new classification logos! they completely ruin the dvd covers! I'd like to admire my dvd without looking at the ugly logos! I now order my dvds from the US off amazon.com
they bloody hell ruined the dvd covers for the Titanic 2-Disc Special Edition and the 4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition... and the 4-Disc is a boxset with a slipcase that folds out!
Thats why I ordered the 3-Disc Special Collector's Edition off amazon.com and it doesnt have any bloody crap logo on it! jus a small font 5 PG-13 I'm so pissed off! take a look
2-Disc Special Edition - without the logo
2-Disc Special Edition - with the logo
4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition - without the logo
4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition - with the logo
this is why I bought the 3-Disc Special Collector's Edition instead... it looks beautiful without any classification logo... take a look
3-Disc Special Collector's Edition
as a fan of the movie I really am pissed off that the OFLC screwed us up as always! can't they just make out DVD's the same as the US ones? or are they too busy with a stick up their ass to care? bastards! I wish they change it before its released in 2 weeks on November 30th...
one question since the Titanic Deluxe Edition comes in a boxset and a slipcase will I be able to take the logo off the dvd boxset itself? and on the slipcase? if so please tell me the best way to do it...
cheers
Jordan
they bloody hell ruined the dvd covers for the Titanic 2-Disc Special Edition and the 4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition... and the 4-Disc is a boxset with a slipcase that folds out!
Thats why I ordered the 3-Disc Special Collector's Edition off amazon.com and it doesnt have any bloody crap logo on it! jus a small font 5 PG-13 I'm so pissed off! take a look
2-Disc Special Edition - without the logo
2-Disc Special Edition - with the logo
4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition - without the logo
4-Disc Deluxe Collector's Edition - with the logo
this is why I bought the 3-Disc Special Collector's Edition instead... it looks beautiful without any classification logo... take a look
3-Disc Special Collector's Edition
as a fan of the movie I really am pissed off that the OFLC screwed us up as always! can't they just make out DVD's the same as the US ones? or are they too busy with a stick up their ass to care? bastards! I wish they change it before its released in 2 weeks on November 30th...
one question since the Titanic Deluxe Edition comes in a boxset and a slipcase will I be able to take the logo off the dvd boxset itself? and on the slipcase? if so please tell me the best way to do it...
cheers
Jordan
Quote: Originally posted by Nick Watts
Complete package?
You're buying a FILM. Everyone here seems to think what their DVDs look like is more important than what's on them. It is absurd.
not at all nick. i just happen to like my films packaged nicely, as do many others.
Complete package?
You're buying a FILM. Everyone here seems to think what their DVDs look like is more important than what's on them. It is absurd.
not at all nick. i just happen to like my films packaged nicely, as do many others.
I'veonly ever got 2 Australian dvds and they are
the
Batman SE
Batman Returns SE
because they were cheap
the
Batman SE
Batman Returns SE
because they were cheap
Complete package?
You're buying a FILM. Everyone here seems to think what their DVDs look like is more important than what's on them. It is absurd.
You're buying a FILM. Everyone here seems to think what their DVDs look like is more important than what's on them. It is absurd.
Quote: Originally posted by Nick Watts
It's a cover. I can't believe the outcry about this.
there's an outcry because the cover is part of the 'complete package'... but really, it's just icing on the cake. our region 4 dvds are usually more expensive, contain fewer special features and have cheaper packaging. the classification logos were the last straw for me.
i recommend www.dvdboxoffice.com for those looking at importing region 1 dvds. the pricing is quite reasonable (ie, you can pre-order the SERENITY dvd for $26.63aud) and best of all, shipping is free!
It's a cover. I can't believe the outcry about this.
there's an outcry because the cover is part of the 'complete package'... but really, it's just icing on the cake. our region 4 dvds are usually more expensive, contain fewer special features and have cheaper packaging. the classification logos were the last straw for me.
i recommend www.dvdboxoffice.com for those looking at importing region 1 dvds. the pricing is quite reasonable (ie, you can pre-order the SERENITY dvd for $26.63aud) and best of all, shipping is free!
I agree that they suck, but we all really need to get over it. They make the COVERS of the DVDs look awful, but the film itself is not impaired in any way.
It's a cover. I can't believe the outcry about this.
It's a cover. I can't believe the outcry about this.
Quote: Originally posted by Aaron Woodford
Hey Mike D, i've removed the sticker from the batman begins collectors edition cover and it didn't tear it, but it did leave some of the glue so just be prepared to rub for a while.
thanks for the reply aaron... the sticker left some glue on my cover also. i used some blu-tac to dab/roll it off. it looked a little oily at first, but after doing that a 2nd time, it came up fine.
did i mention that i hate the OFLC?
Hey Mike D, i've removed the sticker from the batman begins collectors edition cover and it didn't tear it, but it did leave some of the glue so just be prepared to rub for a while.
thanks for the reply aaron... the sticker left some glue on my cover also. i used some blu-tac to dab/roll it off. it looked a little oily at first, but after doing that a 2nd time, it came up fine.
did i mention that i hate the OFLC?
I just got the Batman Begins Collectors Edition (above)and the offending M sticker on the front cover just peels right off with no damage at all. I was well chuffed !
Okay, after buying Star Wars today, the rating logo on the spine isnt too bad, but the rating on the front is vile. God damn why werent fox nice and put the logo as a sticker. whats even worse is that this is the only star wars movie that doesnt have a slip case. the spines are good because the numbers all line up (I, II, and III) BUT there is one other problem. The Gold colour that they have used for all the writing is different to the gold they used for I and II. Its darker. But other than that the transfer is AMAZING! Yoda landing on Dagobah should have been left in.
Just wanted to add that, while I honestly don't give a crap about the new Australian ratings logos myself, I *am* constantly offended that there is no R18+ rating for games in this country - partly because we're adults down here too and deserve to play more mature games if we want to, and also because there are a lot of games out there (GTA, for example) that really need to be R18+ and aren't appropriate for the MA15+ ratings they have now.
Batman begins cover sticker
Quote: Originally posted by Mike D
great article pete... but wasn't my petition supposed to be included? :D
anyway, for those who want to sign the ever-growing petition, please visit:
here
i have only bought 1 dvd with the new classification logos... the batman begins 3-disc collector's edition. i only bought it because 1) it's not available elsewhere (to my knowledge) and 2) the logo on the front cover is a sticker. i haven't taken it off yet though as i'm worried it may damage the digipak. has anyone else tried?
Hey Mike D, i've removed the sticker from the batman begins collectors edition cover and it didn't tear it, but it did leave some of the glue so just be prepared to rub for a while.
great article pete... but wasn't my petition supposed to be included? :D
anyway, for those who want to sign the ever-growing petition, please visit:
here
i have only bought 1 dvd with the new classification logos... the batman begins 3-disc collector's edition. i only bought it because 1) it's not available elsewhere (to my knowledge) and 2) the logo on the front cover is a sticker. i haven't taken it off yet though as i'm worried it may damage the digipak. has anyone else tried?
Hey Mike D, i've removed the sticker from the batman begins collectors edition cover and it didn't tear it, but it did leave some of the glue so just be prepared to rub for a while.
The new logos are a worry for things to come and there are a few inconsistancies in the new ratings.
For example, went down to my local Electronics Botiques the other day, and saw that a lot of games had a sticker with the logo on it, and while no one was looking I tried peeling the sticker off. I got to half way but then someone sort of looked at me funny. So i told the 4-year old, to piss off.
2nd of all, the OFLC are bunch of knob heads. In many countries GTA, The Getaway, etc are given an 18 in many countries. However still fall under a MA15+ here. Same can apply to movies.
WEDDING CRASHERS was out a couple of months ago, originally Rated MA15+, Roadshow appealed and had the rating reduced to an M. So the constant use of the f-word is ok for kids to here without parental supervision. It is becoming quite common, that a lot of R-rated films in the US are given only a recommend rating, which is what the M rating means. Only once in the last 5 years has the PG-13 rating led to an MA-rating here. The movie was 'The Ring'. And it may have happened again, LEGEND OF ZORRO was rated PG in the US, meaning it was good for the whole family, suitable for all ages. Yet it has been given an M-rating here. So the consistency is a joke. Also looking at local horror gem, WOLF CREEK. It has been given an R-rating here. Yet THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (remake) was given a MA-rating, and let me tell you, the was more blood and gore in that film. (BTW, the latest game to be banned in Australia is 50 cents' BULLETPROOF)
3rd thing to worry about is the Family First Party. A bunch of right-wing christain fundalmentalist that wants every consumer in Australia, to suffer. These people should be bombed. I mean it. They tried very hard to get MYSTERIOUS SKIN banned. Yet they hadn't seen it in the first place. And one of the reasons they cited for the banning, was the film was a "how-to" guide for paedophiles. WTF!!! Common sense prevailed and the movie survived. The film was mediocre if that, anyway.
The new wording maybe a joke, but has anyone seen some of the US wording. "Partying scenes, thematical elements" WTF! Also the old wording was another confusing element for consumers according to the OFLC. There were sometimes "high-level violence" on a M-rated film, but on a R-rated film had "medium level violence". Maybe the only valid excuse the OFLC can come up with, but "moderate science fiction violence", "mild cartoon violence". WTF, seriously.
For example, went down to my local Electronics Botiques the other day, and saw that a lot of games had a sticker with the logo on it, and while no one was looking I tried peeling the sticker off. I got to half way but then someone sort of looked at me funny. So i told the 4-year old, to piss off.
2nd of all, the OFLC are bunch of knob heads. In many countries GTA, The Getaway, etc are given an 18 in many countries. However still fall under a MA15+ here. Same can apply to movies.
WEDDING CRASHERS was out a couple of months ago, originally Rated MA15+, Roadshow appealed and had the rating reduced to an M. So the constant use of the f-word is ok for kids to here without parental supervision. It is becoming quite common, that a lot of R-rated films in the US are given only a recommend rating, which is what the M rating means. Only once in the last 5 years has the PG-13 rating led to an MA-rating here. The movie was 'The Ring'. And it may have happened again, LEGEND OF ZORRO was rated PG in the US, meaning it was good for the whole family, suitable for all ages. Yet it has been given an M-rating here. So the consistency is a joke. Also looking at local horror gem, WOLF CREEK. It has been given an R-rating here. Yet THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (remake) was given a MA-rating, and let me tell you, the was more blood and gore in that film. (BTW, the latest game to be banned in Australia is 50 cents' BULLETPROOF)
3rd thing to worry about is the Family First Party. A bunch of right-wing christain fundalmentalist that wants every consumer in Australia, to suffer. These people should be bombed. I mean it. They tried very hard to get MYSTERIOUS SKIN banned. Yet they hadn't seen it in the first place. And one of the reasons they cited for the banning, was the film was a "how-to" guide for paedophiles. WTF!!! Common sense prevailed and the movie survived. The film was mediocre if that, anyway.
The new wording maybe a joke, but has anyone seen some of the US wording. "Partying scenes, thematical elements" WTF! Also the old wording was another confusing element for consumers according to the OFLC. There were sometimes "high-level violence" on a M-rated film, but on a R-rated film had "medium level violence". Maybe the only valid excuse the OFLC can come up with, but "moderate science fiction violence", "mild cartoon violence". WTF, seriously.
Quote: Originally posted by Wilson Bros
God, whatever happened to any arguement in the land of Oz being solved over a crumb cutlet and a can of VB?
Try a shrimp instead of a cutlet...
God, whatever happened to any arguement in the land of Oz being solved over a crumb cutlet and a can of VB?
Try a shrimp instead of a cutlet...
Strewth!
Quote: Originally posted by Bran MacEachaidh
They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
WTF ????!!!!
I can't believe that someone actually gets paid to sit and write replies like the one I received, while they indulge their own thuggish and arrogant messiah complex.
As I said, I was shocked.[/b]
God, whatever happened to any arguement in the land of Oz being solved over a crumb cutlet and a can of VB?
We ordinarily buy R4 editions of movies if the UK copies are censored (The Mummy Returns - don't ask why - Attack of the Clones, etc) or unavailable over here (Alvin Purple, Hoges' TV shows) but given the really hideous logos these have been saddled with now, unless the dvds are exclusively on sale Down Under, it's time to dust off the old Stars & Stripes.
We know a number of other UK importers who are as annoyed about this as we are, and as the Australian economy has been in the toilet for a number of years (a friend went back home last year and was distressed to find the economy like "being in a third-world country" ) so any foreign money coming in would obviously be welcome, and to put them off by doing this is crazy.
The PAL/NTSC divide has never been more narrow, thanks to improved technology, and with our current equipment, the difference is so negligable that R1 will probably be the way to go for uncut status or cheaper prices.
Sad but true.
They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
WTF ????!!!!
I can't believe that someone actually gets paid to sit and write replies like the one I received, while they indulge their own thuggish and arrogant messiah complex.
As I said, I was shocked.[/b]
God, whatever happened to any arguement in the land of Oz being solved over a crumb cutlet and a can of VB?
We ordinarily buy R4 editions of movies if the UK copies are censored (The Mummy Returns - don't ask why - Attack of the Clones, etc) or unavailable over here (Alvin Purple, Hoges' TV shows) but given the really hideous logos these have been saddled with now, unless the dvds are exclusively on sale Down Under, it's time to dust off the old Stars & Stripes.
We know a number of other UK importers who are as annoyed about this as we are, and as the Australian economy has been in the toilet for a number of years (a friend went back home last year and was distressed to find the economy like "being in a third-world country" ) so any foreign money coming in would obviously be welcome, and to put them off by doing this is crazy.
The PAL/NTSC divide has never been more narrow, thanks to improved technology, and with our current equipment, the difference is so negligable that R1 will probably be the way to go for uncut status or cheaper prices.
Sad but true.
I wouldn't mind if the BBFC introduced another certificate which would be an X certificate which would mean that anyone over the age of say like 21 can only rent or buy that film.
Then that way at least we could have the hardcore horror or action movies released that are still cut.
What amazes me is that the BBFC still cuts the scene in Batman Returns where Catwoman puts two aerosols in the microwave.
Yet we can see all kinds of things being put in microwaves and see them explode on Sky one's Brainiac, not only that they have a DVD released which is an uncut 12!!!
What they should do is have a warning at the start saying that this film contains a scene where catwoman puts two cans in the microwave, these are done by highly trained experts, so do not try this at home.
Then at least we can have an uncut movie. Same as they have a facination of cutting headbuts out they should either put a warning or better still a disclamer saying we're not responsible for your stupid behaviour.
Then that way at least we could have the hardcore horror or action movies released that are still cut.
What amazes me is that the BBFC still cuts the scene in Batman Returns where Catwoman puts two aerosols in the microwave.
Yet we can see all kinds of things being put in microwaves and see them explode on Sky one's Brainiac, not only that they have a DVD released which is an uncut 12!!!
What they should do is have a warning at the start saying that this film contains a scene where catwoman puts two cans in the microwave, these are done by highly trained experts, so do not try this at home.
Then at least we can have an uncut movie. Same as they have a facination of cutting headbuts out they should either put a warning or better still a disclamer saying we're not responsible for your stupid behaviour.
Quote: Originally posted by Worst Nightmare
Shows the others how backward Australia can be sometimes....
It often surprises me how prudish Australia's government is. Whenever you hear about a videogame having a problem or a movie being banned or something, it's always down under.
Hmmmmmmm.
Must be from eating one too many dingo's
Shows the others how backward Australia can be sometimes....
It often surprises me how prudish Australia's government is. Whenever you hear about a videogame having a problem or a movie being banned or something, it's always down under.
Hmmmmmmm.
Must be from eating one too many dingo's
I really hate that everything is blamed on terrorists and sexual predators. You know, they aren't good people, but they really aren't responsible for ALL of modern society's problems.
It's a lame and tired excuse. People who feel obligated to force their personal moral berometer upon others use these excuses as if they're actually protecting us. It's all a power stuggle.
Follow this link to more tragic news of the future state of free Art and Entertainment: LINK
At this point I'm even bored hearing myself talk, so I'll reiterate that I hate censorship (there are exceptions, but very few), and think that most major ratings systems are like Communism: They look good on paper and mean well, but end up creating dictators and losing their own purpose.
It's a lame and tired excuse. People who feel obligated to force their personal moral berometer upon others use these excuses as if they're actually protecting us. It's all a power stuggle.
Follow this link to more tragic news of the future state of free Art and Entertainment: LINK
At this point I'm even bored hearing myself talk, so I'll reiterate that I hate censorship (there are exceptions, but very few), and think that most major ratings systems are like Communism: They look good on paper and mean well, but end up creating dictators and losing their own purpose.
Quote: I hate the UK rating becasue you have to be 18 to buy some movies and I think the USA has it spot on.
True but many 15 rated UK films such as the American Pie series you have to be 17 to see in the States, unless you have an adult of course.
They're very inconsistent too you can show the most extreme violence and under 17's can see it (R rating) but any form of nudity oh no that must be cut.
Quote: It still annoys me how American R rating is usually equivalent to our MA rating... So we cop the MPAA censorship when uncut it could easily fit under our R18+ rating.
Yeah I know.
We get the same in the UK; the unreleased NC-17 cut would often just as easily be 18 rated, as the R rated cut is.
Sometimes we get it though, in the case of Basic Instinct it's always been uncut in the UK (and Australia I think) but was cut to an R rating in the States. Hence the NO RATING Unrated DVD.
Quote: Bran, feel free to post the response here if you've still got it and are willing to share...
Yeah please do Bran.
True but many 15 rated UK films such as the American Pie series you have to be 17 to see in the States, unless you have an adult of course.
They're very inconsistent too you can show the most extreme violence and under 17's can see it (R rating) but any form of nudity oh no that must be cut.
Quote: It still annoys me how American R rating is usually equivalent to our MA rating... So we cop the MPAA censorship when uncut it could easily fit under our R18+ rating.
Yeah I know.
We get the same in the UK; the unreleased NC-17 cut would often just as easily be 18 rated, as the R rated cut is.
Sometimes we get it though, in the case of Basic Instinct it's always been uncut in the UK (and Australia I think) but was cut to an R rating in the States. Hence the NO RATING Unrated DVD.
Quote: Bran, feel free to post the response here if you've still got it and are willing to share...
Yeah please do Bran.
Quote: Originally posted by Mark Smith
I agree with you all the way, those new logos have already stopped me buying R4 DVDs.
Me too!
I agree with you all the way, those new logos have already stopped me buying R4 DVDs.
Me too!
Quote: Originally posted by Bran MacEachaidh
3) They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
Terrorists. Funny if that's genuine.
3) They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
Terrorists. Funny if that's genuine.
But that's the whole point of a ratings system, Ian. It's meant to keep those who are judged to be unsuitable for a particular movie from purchasing or renting the title. While there may some arguments as to the rating itself being too harsh in some instances, for the most part they get things right.
The argument isn't about the ratings themselves but the way they are implemented. I heard someone mention today that the focus needs to be more on policing the restrictions than shoving them down our throats when not necessary.
The argument isn't about the ratings themselves but the way they are implemented. I heard someone mention today that the focus needs to be more on policing the restrictions than shoving them down our throats when not necessary.
I hate the UK rating becasue you have to be 18 to buy some movies and i think the USA has it spot on.
A lot of the best films are 15 and 18.
A lot of the best films are 15 and 18.
thanks for adding the links pete.
i'm surprised that you actually got a reply bran... i sent an email when the markings were first introduced (essentially featuring the same points raised in the petition), but i never received a reply.
this makes it difficult for consumers such as ourselves to take them seriously... totally unacceptable and completely unprofessional.
i'm surprised that you actually got a reply bran... i sent an email when the markings were first introduced (essentially featuring the same points raised in the petition), but i never received a reply.
this makes it difficult for consumers such as ourselves to take them seriously... totally unacceptable and completely unprofessional.
Bran, feel free to post the response here if you've still got it and are willing to share...
OFLC's response
No, I'm not from the OFLC.
But I did write to them complaining about the new logos (and more to the point their size and placement, which is what I really object to), stating what an excessive expression of authority I think they are and what an affront to aesthetics I believe them to be, and I got what I consider to be a shocking reply.
Now, I was perfectly polite and courteous, no abuse, no whining, simply stating my objection as a member of the public and one who is now inclined in direct response to this new campaign to take my purchasing overseas. I find the new logos not only incredibly ugly, but I object to their infantilising approach and domineering nature.
I got an incredibly snotty reply saying:
1) I had had my chance to comment during the public consultation period, and it was inappropriate now to be complaining. (Well, I did comment then, but as has been pointed out above, what they've gone for wasn't in any way one of the options the public was asked, or allowed, to comment on ! I did say that in my letter, but that point was completely ignored.)
2) They asserted they were legally entitled to do anything they want as far as the logos were concerned (and they quoted the legislation at me in detail). Well, I never said they weren't, but I do question both the taste and appropriateness, not to mention the effectiveness, of what they have chosen to do. They don't appear to understand that having the authority to act doesn't necessarily make absolutely any action they take acceptable.
3) They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
WTF ????!!!!
I can't believe that someone actually gets paid to sit and write replies like the one I received, while they indulge their own thuggish and arrogant messiah complex.
As I said, I was shocked.
But I did write to them complaining about the new logos (and more to the point their size and placement, which is what I really object to), stating what an excessive expression of authority I think they are and what an affront to aesthetics I believe them to be, and I got what I consider to be a shocking reply.
Now, I was perfectly polite and courteous, no abuse, no whining, simply stating my objection as a member of the public and one who is now inclined in direct response to this new campaign to take my purchasing overseas. I find the new logos not only incredibly ugly, but I object to their infantilising approach and domineering nature.
I got an incredibly snotty reply saying:
1) I had had my chance to comment during the public consultation period, and it was inappropriate now to be complaining. (Well, I did comment then, but as has been pointed out above, what they've gone for wasn't in any way one of the options the public was asked, or allowed, to comment on ! I did say that in my letter, but that point was completely ignored.)
2) They asserted they were legally entitled to do anything they want as far as the logos were concerned (and they quoted the legislation at me in detail). Well, I never said they weren't, but I do question both the taste and appropriateness, not to mention the effectiveness, of what they have chosen to do. They don't appear to understand that having the authority to act doesn't necessarily make absolutely any action they take acceptable.
3) They asserted that it is their authority's responsibility to protect the public, in this era of terrorists and sexual predators. They stated that their own responsibility to society overrode any other considerations. They clearly implied that if I wasn't supportive of their chosen solution, I was inherently part of the problem, or at least that it was attitudes like mine that allowed such problems to exist.
WTF ????!!!!
I can't believe that someone actually gets paid to sit and write replies like the one I received, while they indulge their own thuggish and arrogant messiah complex.
As I said, I was shocked.
It still annoys me how American R rating is usually equivalent to our MA rating... So we cop the MPAA censorship when uncut it could easily fit under our R18+ rating.
Quote: Many of the participants in the consumer research indicated they didn’t know the difference between the M and MA classifications
This isn't really surprising the certificate is so similar in name.
It would've made much more sense to simply rename the certificates.
* M becomes 12 (I presume what they mean by mature?)
* MA 15+ becomes 15
* R 18+ becomes 18
It's how the BBFC logos look in the UK and trust me no one is confused. That said some people are confused by our 12a rating (children under 12 if accompanied by an adult, cinema only certificate). You can't please everyone.
They did it in America, X became NC-17. It turned out in this case to be a pointless exercise as most people still think NC-17 must mean porn.
This isn't really surprising the certificate is so similar in name.
It would've made much more sense to simply rename the certificates.
* M becomes 12 (I presume what they mean by mature?)
* MA 15+ becomes 15
* R 18+ becomes 18
It's how the BBFC logos look in the UK and trust me no one is confused. That said some people are confused by our 12a rating (children under 12 if accompanied by an adult, cinema only certificate). You can't please everyone.
They did it in America, X became NC-17. It turned out in this case to be a pointless exercise as most people still think NC-17 must mean porn.
For those who don't know surely:
R 18 +
X 18 +
Look like the same certificate? I'd have no idea based on the description one is higher than the other. Defeating the whole purpose.
Personally I think the UK has got it about right.
The US certificate are dangerously hard to find, a tiny R with no idea of why it got that rating or even what R means is far to flimsy and then of course the US has those crazy Unrated DVDs that I presume a 5 year old could buy? Fat lot of help those are to parents. All because the NC-17 is a completely useless rating, it's about time it was used for the purpose it was intended.
The UK has a small unobtrusive logo on the front and another on the back. The Australian logos were to big before but at least they didn't stick out like a sore thumb.
R 18 +
X 18 +
Look like the same certificate? I'd have no idea based on the description one is higher than the other. Defeating the whole purpose.
Personally I think the UK has got it about right.
The US certificate are dangerously hard to find, a tiny R with no idea of why it got that rating or even what R means is far to flimsy and then of course the US has those crazy Unrated DVDs that I presume a 5 year old could buy? Fat lot of help those are to parents. All because the NC-17 is a completely useless rating, it's about time it was used for the purpose it was intended.
The UK has a small unobtrusive logo on the front and another on the back. The Australian logos were to big before but at least they didn't stick out like a sore thumb.
To think that some members even went to town on the Irish ratings(since they started printing on the DVD sleeves) should count their lucky stars that at least they don't look as ridiculous as the Australian ratings.
I think the quick description is good but should not be on the front with the rating but reserved for the back like they do here in the Uk and Ireland.
I think the quick description is good but should not be on the front with the rating but reserved for the back like they do here in the Uk and Ireland.
Quote: Originally posted by Malcolm Campbell
Just wondering, is the X rating like the BBFC R18 where they can only be sold in licensed premises?
If they are going to use ages in the symbols then they may as well drop the letters.From memory, you can only buy X from either internet, mail order, or the Australian Capital Territory in licensed premises...
Just wondering, is the X rating like the BBFC R18 where they can only be sold in licensed premises?
If they are going to use ages in the symbols then they may as well drop the letters.From memory, you can only buy X from either internet, mail order, or the Australian Capital Territory in licensed premises...
Quote: Originally posted by Pete Roberts
I covered that exact argument in the article, Grant. My thoughts are that it is another mark against the reasons to buy locally. If you can get an imported version for the same money and don't have to compromise the packaging then why wouldn't you head overseas instead? The vast majority of regular DVD buyers probably won't bother, but it's the internet-savvy film lovers with large collections and deep pockets who may end up making a difference.
I just despise the fact that the logo is so damn huge! If I have to buy Region 4 then I will, but if there's a better looking cover overseas for the same price then I'll happily wait for it to arrive.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Much appreciated. Always interested to hear your thoughts on these issues. And apologies for not including the petition, Mike. Let's hope it makes a difference, though I won't hold my breath.
I'm with you Pete. All my dvd's are Region 1 because of the bloody stupid looking classification logos, not to mention the CHEAP DVD packaging! I also heard that there has even been complaints about the discs themselves, like picture and sound are not as good as they should be.
I covered that exact argument in the article, Grant. My thoughts are that it is another mark against the reasons to buy locally. If you can get an imported version for the same money and don't have to compromise the packaging then why wouldn't you head overseas instead? The vast majority of regular DVD buyers probably won't bother, but it's the internet-savvy film lovers with large collections and deep pockets who may end up making a difference.
I just despise the fact that the logo is so damn huge! If I have to buy Region 4 then I will, but if there's a better looking cover overseas for the same price then I'll happily wait for it to arrive.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Much appreciated. Always interested to hear your thoughts on these issues. And apologies for not including the petition, Mike. Let's hope it makes a difference, though I won't hold my breath.
I'm with you Pete. All my dvd's are Region 1 because of the bloody stupid looking classification logos, not to mention the CHEAP DVD packaging! I also heard that there has even been complaints about the discs themselves, like picture and sound are not as good as they should be.
Just wondering, is the X rating like the BBFC R18 where they can only be sold in licensed premises?
If they are going to use ages in the symbols then they may as well drop the letters.
If they are going to use ages in the symbols then they may as well drop the letters.
I completely agree about the ridiculous and pretentious language used on DVD ratings logos lately. I mean, exactly what are they trying to say with ‘moderate themes’? It’s totally fucking meaningless. It reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons with Poochie the dog, where the animator says that proactive and paradigm are just buzz words that stupid people use to sound intelligent…
One other thing I find odd is having both an R18 and an X rating if they’re both ‘over 18 only’. What’s the point in that? Bit like our dumb R18s. On the whole I think you lot have been shafted. I don’t like the BBFC logos, let alone these monstrosities. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy buying R1. Why do the logos even need to be on the front of the covers at all? They’re placed discreetly on the back of R1 discs and it works fine.
I got the Aussie release of Ultimate Spider-Man the other day because it was less than half the price of the UK equivalent, and the logo on that is hideous. It all but ruins the cover and is totally unnecessary. I used to admire the old logos because they blended with the colour schemes of the packaging, but these are just ridiculous. When will people learn to take responsibility for themselves rather than expecting an ‘official’ body to think for them?
One other thing I find odd is having both an R18 and an X rating if they’re both ‘over 18 only’. What’s the point in that? Bit like our dumb R18s. On the whole I think you lot have been shafted. I don’t like the BBFC logos, let alone these monstrosities. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy buying R1. Why do the logos even need to be on the front of the covers at all? They’re placed discreetly on the back of R1 discs and it works fine.
I got the Aussie release of Ultimate Spider-Man the other day because it was less than half the price of the UK equivalent, and the logo on that is hideous. It all but ruins the cover and is totally unnecessary. I used to admire the old logos because they blended with the colour schemes of the packaging, but these are just ridiculous. When will people learn to take responsibility for themselves rather than expecting an ‘official’ body to think for them?
Pulp Fiction SE was the first DVD I saw with the new logo... and it's on the *slipcase*! Grrr
Thanks guys. I've added those links to the bottom of the article...
also, if anyone would like to complain directly to the OFLC, email them at this address.
newmarkingshelp@oflc.gov.au
newmarkingshelp@oflc.gov.au
thanks pete
when i first saw a dvd with this new rating system on sale i was so mad. i live in nz and we used to get our own ugly stickers that i could just peel off but these are even worse. i had no idea they were going to be changing the rating logo and wanted to complain but didn't know where to go to. i am so glad you have spoken out and i agree 100% with everything you have said. i will be buying Region 2 dvds until this is changed either to stickers or something good. perhaps back to the old way.
Quote: Originally posted by Grant Watson
Not wanting to be rude, but I think anyone who refuses to buy Region 4 DVDs because of a classification warning on the packaging really needs to adjust their priorities.
I mean, are you buying a movie or are you just wanting to buy the packaging?
I covered that exact argument in the article, Grant. My thoughts are that it is another mark against the reasons to buy locally. If you can get an imported version for the same money and don't have to compromise the packaging then why wouldn't you head overseas instead? The vast majority of regular DVD buyers probably won't bother, but it's the internet-savvy film lovers with large collections and deep pockets who may end up making a difference.
I just despise the fact that the logo is so damn huge! If I have to buy Region 4 then I will, but if there's a better looking cover overseas for the same price then I'll happily wait for it to arrive.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Much appreciated. Always interested to hear your thoughts on these issues. And apologies for not including the petition, Mike. Let's hope it makes a difference, though I won't hold my breath.
Not wanting to be rude, but I think anyone who refuses to buy Region 4 DVDs because of a classification warning on the packaging really needs to adjust their priorities.
I mean, are you buying a movie or are you just wanting to buy the packaging?
I covered that exact argument in the article, Grant. My thoughts are that it is another mark against the reasons to buy locally. If you can get an imported version for the same money and don't have to compromise the packaging then why wouldn't you head overseas instead? The vast majority of regular DVD buyers probably won't bother, but it's the internet-savvy film lovers with large collections and deep pockets who may end up making a difference.
I just despise the fact that the logo is so damn huge! If I have to buy Region 4 then I will, but if there's a better looking cover overseas for the same price then I'll happily wait for it to arrive.
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Much appreciated. Always interested to hear your thoughts on these issues. And apologies for not including the petition, Mike. Let's hope it makes a difference, though I won't hold my breath.
Great article!
I totally agree on everything you said. Especially about the piracy. I could easily get bootlegs, but I prefer to have the complete package, especially when it comes to boxsets. The artwork and packaging is a big influence on my decision.
I don't think people will 'refuse' to buy R4 because of the logo, but I'm sure there's alot of people like myself that will add this to the list of reasons not to buy certain R4 releases, and continue to have R1/R2 as a preference.
Other reasons include no extras, censored, and fullscreen transfers *cough* ROADSHOW!! *cough*) to name a few.
If I'm going to spend my cash on a decent edition of my fav movie, I'll buy the best version available... Which in most cases is R1
I totally agree on everything you said. Especially about the piracy. I could easily get bootlegs, but I prefer to have the complete package, especially when it comes to boxsets. The artwork and packaging is a big influence on my decision.
I don't think people will 'refuse' to buy R4 because of the logo, but I'm sure there's alot of people like myself that will add this to the list of reasons not to buy certain R4 releases, and continue to have R1/R2 as a preference.
Other reasons include no extras, censored, and fullscreen transfers *cough* ROADSHOW!! *cough*) to name a few.
If I'm going to spend my cash on a decent edition of my fav movie, I'll buy the best version available... Which in most cases is R1
Not wanting to be rude, but I think anyone who refuses to buy Region 4 DVDs because of a classification warning on the packaging really needs to adjust their priorities.
I mean, are you buying a movie or are you just wanting to buy the packaging?
I mean, are you buying a movie or are you just wanting to buy the packaging?
Great Article Pete!
You are right about Madman hating the new logos. On some of their releases, such as Voltron, they have placed the classification logo on card and wrapped it around the digipack. I just wish more distribution companies would follow Madman's lead.
You are right about Madman hating the new logos. On some of their releases, such as Voltron, they have placed the classification logo on card and wrapped it around the digipack. I just wish more distribution companies would follow Madman's lead.
Glad US distributors aren't doing this...yet.
Good job Pete. I also agree.
Awful logos
Great article and I agree 100%
I have stopped buying R4 DVDs because of the new classification logos and my decision wont change unless they reduce the size of those "things" or start using stickers.
I have stopped buying R4 DVDs because of the new classification logos and my decision wont change unless they reduce the size of those "things" or start using stickers.
What i think was funny about these horrendus things are when i got the Batman Special Editions they came with a slipcover with amarays inside, the slipcover had sticker on them while the thing was printed on the amaray cover
petition
great article pete... but wasn't my petition supposed to be included? :D
anyway, for those who want to sign the ever-growing petition, please visit:
here
i have only bought 1 dvd with the new classification logos... the batman begins 3-disc collector's edition. i only bought it because 1) it's not available elsewhere (to my knowledge) and 2) the logo on the front cover is a sticker. i haven't taken it off yet though as i'm worried it may damage the digipak. has anyone else tried?
anyway, for those who want to sign the ever-growing petition, please visit:
here
i have only bought 1 dvd with the new classification logos... the batman begins 3-disc collector's edition. i only bought it because 1) it's not available elsewhere (to my knowledge) and 2) the logo on the front cover is a sticker. i haven't taken it off yet though as i'm worried it may damage the digipak. has anyone else tried?
In my opinion, they should make the rating logo smaller and on the back of the box not to ruin the art on the cover.
Great stuff Pete! Shows the others how backward Australia can be sometimes....
I wish for removable (that's easily removeable) stickers but I can dream.....
They should have advertised the changes and allowed public comment before they thrust these upon us!
I wish for removable (that's easily removeable) stickers but I can dream.....
They should have advertised the changes and allowed public comment before they thrust these upon us!
I agree with you all the way, those new logos have already stopped me buying R4 DVDs.
I agree!
I can't agree with you more. But am i the onyl person who recons that the new jargon attached to the ratings logos is now more complicated than the original.
Before we used to fave "Low, Medium or High Level Violence". Now we have mild, moderate, and a mix of different ones. I just hope that fox is nice enough to us all and put a sticker on the cover for star wars. they were smart enough to do it it with the homer head for simpsons s6 (imagine having a PG plastered over homers mouth).
An R rating also needs to be introduced for games desperately. For gods sake I can import GTA from the UK, and it costs exactly the same, and unsensored.
The next thing that people need to stop is splitting tv shows seasons into PART 1 and PART 2 (im talking to you FOX!)
Before we used to fave "Low, Medium or High Level Violence". Now we have mild, moderate, and a mix of different ones. I just hope that fox is nice enough to us all and put a sticker on the cover for star wars. they were smart enough to do it it with the homer head for simpsons s6 (imagine having a PG plastered over homers mouth).
An R rating also needs to be introduced for games desperately. For gods sake I can import GTA from the UK, and it costs exactly the same, and unsensored.
The next thing that people need to stop is splitting tv shows seasons into PART 1 and PART 2 (im talking to you FOX!)
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Released Soon
Blind Woman’s Curse
UK - BD RB
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
UK - BD RB
Sullivan’s Travels
UK - BD RB
The Slumber Party Massacre
US - BD RA
Kill Your Darlings
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Award Winning
Creature Comforts: Series 2 Part 1
UK - DVD R2
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
UK - BD
Hot Fuzz: Ultimate Edition
US - BD
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
UK - BD
Shrek the Third
US - BD
Latest Reviews
Winnie the Pooh: Springtime with Roo
US - BD RA
Stuff, The
UK - BD RB
Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The
US - BD RA
Grandmaster, The
US - BD RA
Adventure Time: Season 3
US - BD RA
Most Talked About
Oldboy (2013)
US - BD RA
Alexander: The Ultimate Cut
US - BD RA
Grandmaster, The
US - BD RA
The Wolf of Wall Street
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Shadow: Collector's Edition, The
US - BD RA
