View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
TheMorry
Joined: 08 May 2014
Posts: 660
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:36 pm
|
|
|
One word: pointless. Who cares? You think anyone will return it because of that dumb error?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blanchimont
Joined: 25 Feb 2012
Posts: 3532
Location: Finland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:42 pm
|
|
|
Very much doubt there'll be any repercussions just ignoring this despite the wording, after all as the article said, the on-disc content isn't the problem.
|
Back to top |
|
|
zrdb
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:19 pm
|
|
|
Shit, I wouldn't even bother for such a trivial insignificant matter.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nilrem
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 145
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:24 pm
|
|
|
TheMorry wrote: | One word: pointless. Who cares? You think anyone will return it because of that dumb error? |
They're almost certainly hoping that no one does (as it'll cost them more money), but it's a legal requirement that the BBFC rating be present and correct so they have to put out the recall even if not one person takes them up on it, but at the same time retailers will have to return unsold stock as it's an offence to sell it with the wrong (lower) rating*.
The request for people to return the disks but noting that there is no issue with the disk content basically tells you it's a box ticking exercise to fulfil the legal requirements.
The only issue for customers is if you ever go to sell them on to a second hand retailer like CEX where if they're aware of the issue they may give you even less than the normal pittance they offer.
*I'm not sure if it's against the law to slap a higher rating on the disk than it's been given by the BBFC, as logically a higher rated label would still fulfil the legal requirements by restricting the sale/rental.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Honeyman
Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 135
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:58 am
|
|
|
There's something hilarious to me about the distributor getting the classification wrong for this. Five minutes with an episode from the show would make anyone realise how raunchy it gets and that its not fair a young audience. In any case it is what it is (maybe I'll watch a few episodes one day of I get the spare time).
|
Back to top |
|
|
Just Passing Through
Joined: 04 Apr 2011
Posts: 277
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:24 am
|
|
|
Honeyman wrote: | There's something hilarious to me about the distributor getting the classification wrong for this. Five minutes with an episode from the show would make anyone realise how raunchy it gets and that its not fair a young audience. In any case it is what it is (maybe I'll watch a few episodes one day of I get the spare time). |
It was previously released a few years ago by Anime Limited, and at the time, the BBFC had rated it 15.
I don't know why Manga resubmitted it for certification, as it could have just been released on the previous rating as that would have still been valid. It was just a waste of money to go through the process again.
I guess it was their Funimation overlords ticking the boxes without thinking about the cost.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|