Dan & Phil Part 78: have the courage to exist.

[hello9217]

Is there a reason I see some people saying phil's up north? Is it just because he said in the mukbang video that he planned on visiting his family soon and people are just assuming? I mean I personally hope that he's up north this weekend so he doesn't go to another event that is probably happening this weekend but I was just wondering.

[rizzo]

I'm gonna put my unpopular opinion out there and say that I don't think Dan and Phil value October 19th quite as much as phandom does. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure they remember it, get sentimental, and in some instances, plan content for this holy of days, but I don't think it's that important to them personally.

I'm sure they have other anniversaries they celebrate in a grander fashion. The day they became official. Maybe for funsies, the day they even started talking. But I feel like maybe today isn't as big of a deal for them as it is for us.

[alittledizzy]

I think it's more of a fandom holiday than something Dan and Phil go out of their way to celebrate, but I also think it's ridiculous that Dan would be mean-spirited enough to do anything as a 'fuck you' to fans who are celebrating Dan and Phil meeting. I guess I'm between the extremes, I don't think they have that callous a view of things so to be annoyed or bothered by it. I think they obviously understand why people appreciate the day that began Dan and Phil. This is our origin of Dan and Phil, even if it isn't theirs.

[glitterintheair]

Is there a reason I see some people saying phil's up north? Is it just because he said in the mukbang video that he planned on visiting his family soon and people are just assuming? I mean I personally hope that he's up north this weekend so he doesn't go to another event that is probably happening this weekend but I was just wondering.

I saw people saying the same thing on tumblr and I don't know where they are taking those infos from? I do think Phil's gonna go up north this weekend but whether he's already there it's another story.

I agree that most probably they don't see this day as their anniversary anyway. It's a special day because it's when everything started and we get all sappy about it and that's great (by the way, I don't agree that Dan or Phil would be annoyed about that because?? Why? I honestly think they hold this particular day dear to their hearts as much as us and they appreciate people celebrating it)but I feel like they have another special day just for them that we will never know about.

[alittledizzy]

In case anyone missed all the lovely art ig stories:



(also casual #spon that @Catallena is still an mvp who is uploading these compilations daily to our youtube channel)

[flarequake]

The BBFC exists to classify films, etc. The description of a few things like that is to let people know if anything specific stands out and those are the few things, alongside the whole thing passing as a 12, that people might want to know about before they or their kids watch. When I see people getting upset over stuff in a film, I tend to think I'd be less bothered, kids aren't necessarily so sensitive to everything, but it depends what it is (eg violence would bother me, but not something sexual, unless it was really graphic). I don't think they're being hypocritical or extrapolating that the UK's saving the kids until their army days, they're just giving information. I was reading their FAQ, which is surprisingly open in just how they write it, they have to watch some nasty stuff since you've got true crime etc.

[lesterchuu]

first and foremost, happy phannie day yall!!! heres a good reminder to use the hashtag #thankyoudanandphil to let them know our appreciation. (also i saw #internationalphannieday and im cackling...its our official holiday)

on that note...

I think it's more of a fandom holiday than something Dan and Phil go out of their way to celebrate, but I also think it's ridiculous that Dan would be mean-spirited enough to do anything as a 'fuck you' to fans who are celebrating Dan and Phil meeting. I guess I'm between the extremes, I don't think they have that callous a view of things so to be annoyed or bothered by it. I think they obviously understand why people appreciate the day that began Dan and Phil. This is our origin of Dan and Phil, even if it isn't theirs.

+1 to this. they could be celebrating it or not, but what i know is that its the day we celebrate by showing them how much we love them. they could choose to give it a nod or not, but its still a cute sentiment.

[Stakhanov]

I looked up on the site of the BBFC what they are required to do (their explanation under spoiler). First thing i find remarkable is that they really have a legal obligation to review a classify movies that are shown in theatres, but also dvd's and anything that can be watched at home. So I guess that's why our bois just can't escape them. I thought at first that they were maybe forced to undergo the process because they were working with the BBC. But appaz they would get reviewed anyway even if you just buy their dvd on their own site as a citizen.

An explanation on why the listing (besides just being hilarious) is hypocritical and leaves me with a sour taste under spoiler tag.

The main reason I find this hypocritical and ridiculous is because there should be no legislation governing what could be released on video. Aside from things that constitute a criminal offense of course (think snuff, child porn, torture,...).
That's just a fundamental liberal view I hold. It's hypocritical, because a liberal, permissive state as such (which liberal democracies are supposed to be) should be neutral towards what constitutes good or bad taste. What could be harmful and what people would like to watch should be decided by adults themselves or parents.
The BBFC is an illiberal institution, because the it review every movie, dvd, blueray etc for 'harm', a very broad concept and forces a rating (with very serious impact). What constitutes harm? How do they define it and on what objective grounds are they saying what is harmful or offensive (for children)? The BBFC acts contradictory to the freedom of citizens to decide their own viewing experience, and that's hypocritical if you proclaim to be a liberal state.
It's also hypocritical in the sense that a lot of the things they now categorize and restrict movies on are very much part of reality and I think rather than insisting that in fictional movies all these things are handled with great care to prevent 'harm', the government has a damn obligation to combat violence, racism etc. It's very cynical and hypocrtical to me that the same Margaret Tatcher that fights a nationalistic war for the Falklands introduces the Video Recordings Act to make sure we're all aware of the violence in movies...
You only need to look at the news, or experience some of these (very selective) harms first hand, to see that it's reality that should be explained and restricted rather than whatever (social realist) movie that deals in more serious or sensual themes.

The BBFC is required to consider whether material submitted for classification is in conflict with the law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence.

Licensing legislation lies behind the BBFC's powers to regulate film in the UK while the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 is the basis upon which the BBFC applies the test of whether a work is suitable for viewing in the home (taking into account the potential for under-age viewing).

Linked with this is the consideration of potential harm, whether to the viewer, or to society through the viewer's behaviour. In particular, works involving the depiction of criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent or horrific behaviour and human sexual activity are given special regard under the 'harm' test. All digital works that are submitted to the BBFC for age rating are subject to the same level of scrutiny under the VRA as DVDs and Blu-rays.

Other legal considerations include indecent images of children, animal cruelty, obscenity, racial hatred and human rights. BBFC Examiners analyse and make recommendations on the legality of a scene or work in the first instance. Then, if a particular legal question requires a more sophisticated and professional analysis, the BBFC may seek external expert advice.

If a work is found to contain material which falls foul of UK law, then it will be cut from the work. If the work as a whole is found to be in breach of the law, then it may be denied a certificate and rejected.

[alittledizzy]

I looked up on the site of the BBFC what they are required to do (their explanation under spoiler). First thing i find remarkable is that they really have a legal obligation to review a classify movies that are shown in theatres, but also dvd's and anything that can be watched at home. So I guess that's why our bois just can't escape them. I thought at first that they were maybe forced to undergo the process because they were working with the BBC. But appaz they would get reviewed anyway even if you just buy their dvd on their own site as a citizen.

An explanation on why the listing (besides just being hilarious) is hypocritical and leaves me with a sour taste under spoiler tag.

The main reason I find this hypocritical and ridiculous is because there should be no legislation governing what could be released on video. Aside from things that constitute a criminal offense of course (think snuff, child porn, torture,...).
That's just a fundamental liberal view I hold. It's hypocritical, because a liberal, permissive state as such (which liberal democracies are supposed to be) should be neutral towards what constitutes good or bad taste. What could be harmful and what people would like to watch should be decided by adults themselves or parents.
The BBFC is an illiberal institution, because the it review every movie, dvd, blueray etc for 'harm', a very broad concept and forces a rating (with very serious impact). What constitutes harm? How do they define it and on what objective grounds are they saying what is harmful or offensive (for children)? The BBFC acts contradictory to the freedom of citizens to decide their own viewing experience, and that's hypocritical if you proclaim to be a liberal state.
It's also hypocritical in the sense that a lot of the things they now categorize and restrict movies on are very much part of reality and I think rather than insisting that in fictional movies all these things are handled with great care to prevent 'harm', the government has a damn obligation to combat violence, racism etc. It's very cynical and hypocrtical to me that the same Margaret Tatcher that fights a nationalistic war for the Falklands introduces the Video Recordings Act to make sure we're all aware of the violence in movies...
You only need to look at the news, or experience some of these (very selective) harms first hand, to see that it's reality that should be explained and restricted rather than whatever (social realist) movie that deals in more serious or sensual themes.

The BBFC is required to consider whether material submitted for classification is in conflict with the law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence.

Licensing legislation lies behind the BBFC's powers to regulate film in the UK while the Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 is the basis upon which the BBFC applies the test of whether a work is suitable for viewing in the home (taking into account the potential for under-age viewing).

Linked with this is the consideration of potential harm, whether to the viewer, or to society through the viewer's behaviour. In particular, works involving the depiction of criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent or horrific behaviour and human sexual activity are given special regard under the 'harm' test. All digital works that are submitted to the BBFC for age rating are subject to the same level of scrutiny under the VRA as DVDs and Blu-rays.

Other legal considerations include indecent images of children, animal cruelty, obscenity, racial hatred and human rights. BBFC Examiners analyse and make recommendations on the legality of a scene or work in the first instance. Then, if a particular legal question requires a more sophisticated and professional analysis, the BBFC may seek external expert advice.

If a work is found to contain material which falls foul of UK law, then it will be cut from the work. If the work as a whole is found to be in breach of the law, then it may be denied a certificate and rejected.

Dan and Phil's stage show isn't being censored. It's release isn't being hindered. It's been rated and classified, and I don't think a classification system is some kind of anti-liberal agenda. Censorship is bad, but issuing a rating to a film and clarifying what made the film earn the rating allows viewers to make an educated choice about what they choose or choose not to watch. I do the same thing voluntarily every time I check out doesthedogdie.com before I watch something on Netflix. Some people find it very valuable to be able to view potential warnings and content that might be inappropriate for themselves or the company in which they want to watch something. It doesn't make me hypocritical not to want to subject myself to some themes when I'm indulging in casual entertainment. I don't care if it's a reality of life, I don't want to watch an animal die or a movie with a graphic rape scene. I want to know in advance that's going to happen so I can make my own adult, informed decision as to whether I feel like it. Sure, there are some flaws in the system; queer themes shouldn't be rated higher than their straight counterparts, etc. But if I'm going to sit down with my ninety six year old grandmother and watch a movie, I want to know if it's got an explicit sex scene in it.

But to stay on topic: I'm unsure why you're extrapolating all of this from Dan and Phil's very clearly not censored, obviously available for worldwide release stage show. The BBFC is not stopping anyone from getting their hands on this show that wants it. Yeah, it's a bit funny and silly to see them list out exact terms that they're deeming as potentially questionable but I admire that level of transparency. I'd rather see a list of phrases I can immediately deem for myself would not bother me than just see a vague 'sexual language' that leaves me not knowing exactly what they're considering sexual.

[knq]

Recent Twitter like from Dan. A game with a misty fantasy universe, beautiful ambient sound, and a dog. All Dan's boxes are checked.

[flarequake]

The BBFC reviews everything released in the cinema and on DVD in the UK, it’s nothing to do with being released by the BBC, they are totally different organisations doing different things (making tv and film vs reviewing it) they just share the word British in their names and the other words starting with B and C are different. They also do rate anything sexual and queer in the same way they do for heterosexual stuff, btw.

[sparkle]

Re: BBFC - at 18 level, virtually anything is allowed without cuts. It's purpose isn't to control, but to inform.

With what constitutes harm? The biggest example is suicide. They've worked with The Samaritans to avoid harming vulnerable people by showing gratuitous details. I personally cannot watch anything with graphic self harm and I'm glad that it's something I don't HAVE to do because you know, BBFC ratings.

Re: Dan, Phil, BBFC - Iconic. Absolutely iconic.

[fancybum]

Is the concept of films being rated really a new concept to some people (“some”),,,, have you ever looked at the back of a dvd,, or are dvds not available under rocks

[alittledizzy]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

[sparkle]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

Demon phannie.

Is anyone surprised

[glitterintheair]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

I got Not Paid Enough Phannie and I agree. Give me the money, Dan and Phil. It's time for you to give back.

[flarequake]

I took that and was a bit annoyed, tbh, I got not really a phannie, so sod my curiosity for what interesting result it might have been. The rest of the results very sound funny, though.

[liola]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

I got Dan, as If I needed to be reminded just how much we relate on loving Phil

[autumnhearth]

I got a drama phannie which is probably the furthest from the truth. (Retook with my second choices for the ones I was torn on and got demon phannie, much better!)

I was guessing Phil/and Dan would visit the Lesters this weekend. It’s still possible, but I don’t think Dan would watch Attack on Titan without Phil. That definitely seems like one of their rituals.

That review is hilarious in its details!

[thestigdrivesamini]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

I got Not Paid Enough Phannie and I agree. Give me the money, Dan and Phil. It's time for you to give back.

Same! It was scarily accurate. I’ve been here entirely too long

[obsessivelymoody]

I got drama phannie and I'm not here for it lol. As an indecisive person I took it again with some of my alternate answers (does anyone else do this? just me? okay) and got demon phannie, which uh, is quite accurate. I do wish I didn't have to see the beard edits again though.

[anime_is_not_cool]

This is amazing. Please take it and share your results.

I got Dan, as If I needed to be reminded just how much we relate on loving Phil

lol i got "fake phannie"... i created and posted a moon room layout, went to ii 3 times and have completely devoted my life to those rats......... im hecking offended and need a refund

[yeetussy]

@liola I got Dan as well, does this mean we can finally cash in as Phil Trash #1

[Ablissa]

I got art hoe phannie. I kind of want demon phannie though... But re-taking the test got me het phannie, which is not right at all

The beard edits will haunt me in my dreams for the next 10 years

[Stakhanov]

Dan and Phil's stage show isn't being censored. It's release isn't being hindered.

To be clear I never said Dan and Phil were being censored. My point in the spoiler tag of the post you quote was a general one over the BBFC and what they are legally required to do with any movie or dvd

It's been rated and classified, and I don't think a classification system is some kind of anti-liberal agenda. Censorship is bad, but issuing a rating to a film and clarifying what made the film earn the rating allows viewers to make an educated choice about what they choose or choose not to watch. I do the same thing voluntarily

That's great i voluntarily check IMDB too at my leasure but this is totally irrelevant to what the BBFC does as it is not a voluntary procedure and they can, in fact, censor movies. As it is stated on their site and ohter the other spoiler tag: "If a work is found to contain material which falls foul of UK law, then it will be cut from the work. If the work as a whole is found to be in breach of the law, then it may be denied a certificate and rejected. " If rejected, that means it is not even deemed suitable for home viewing. So this has no comparison with any of us looking up our own information out of choice.
I invite you to read their own 'history' page (https://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resour ... rdings-act) which sheds some light about how horror movies like Cannibal Holocaust lay at the basis of what first was a voluntary rating scheme within the industry, to a legally required one which uses all kinds of criteria and debatable exemptions. You might support this regulation but I think it's clearly illeberal in that it takes away the freedom of citizens to define their own 'suitable viewing' and gives that power to institution, the BFFC, which uses their own norms, which can be pretty vague and problematic.


every time I check out doesthedogdie.com before I watch something on Netflix. Some people find it very valuable to be able to view potential warnings and content that might be inappropriate for themselves or the company in which they want to watch something. It doesn't make me hypocritical not to want to subject myself to some themes when I'm indulging in casual entertainment. I don't care if it's a reality of life, I don't want to watch an animal die or a movie with a graphic rape scene. I want to know in advance that's going to happen so I can make my own adult, informed decision as to whether I feel like it. Sure, there are some flaws in the system; queer themes shouldn't be rated higher than their straight counterparts, etc. But if I'm going to sit down with my ninety six year old grandmother and watch a movie, I want to know if it's got an explicit sex scene in it.

But to stay on topic: I'm unsure why you're extrapolating all of this from Dan and Phil's very clearly not censored, obviously available for worldwide release stage show.

I'm not sure what you think i'm extrapolating because I never said Dan and Phil were not censored or weren't available?


The BBFC is not stopping anyone from getting their hands on this show that wants it. Yeah, it's a bit funny and silly to see them list out exact terms that they're deeming as potentially questionable but I admire that level of transparency. I'd rather see a list of phrases I can immediately deem for myself would not bother me than just see a vague 'sexual language' that leaves me not knowing exactly what they're considering sexual.

That's fine I'm all for having information out there, what I'm objecting to is that it is a compulsory measure, grounded on subjective criteria that go much further than just criminal acts, and with a reach that is ridiculously broad. It's not only about at what age people can go watch something at movie theaters, it even attempts to regulate what is viewable at home and I think that's quite rich.

@flarequake K thanks for that info. That the BBC had nothing to do it became clear to me the moment I saw the powers of the BBFC. Before that I thought that 'maybe they were related' in the sense that maybe the BBC voluntarily submitted themselves to industry regulation and labeling. Because that's how it used to work with Hollywood movies (there's some interesting docu's about the history of rating boards and legislation) and that's no doubt how it still works (if not legally then at least in practice) in a lot of countries now. But looking into the UK system and the BBFC i'm thinking regulatory frameworks are probably as varried as what themes and words are(n't) considered offensive in every country

Also, I am left to guess who you're talking about Fancybum but I think everybody here knows of the concept of 'rating systems' and has looked at the back of a dvd. Even if someone hadn't, it's not really nice to imply these people 'live under rocks'. I would rate that a poor ad hominem and would rather you listed a meaningful argument, if you feel inclined to contribute.