How did TDK get classed as a 12A
[Deleted User]
Posts: 34
Forum Member
✭
I found it very disturbing in parts as well as really violent throughout. There is no way I would let a 12 yr old see it and had I unwittingly taken a 12yr old with me I would have been pretty angry.
0
Comments
...yet the screening I went to was full of 5 year olds and up.
I am shocked at the rating. Should be a 15.
I was a bit worried before we went after reading some say it was too scary for young kids, but had already got the tickets.
We explained to them both that just remember that its only a film and not real as they are only acting.
They both laughed at some of the jokers antics and had their hands ready to cover their eyes if anything looked like it may be scary.
Overall they both loved it and wanted to see it again and they havent been turned into 2 young psychopaths that are gonna want to blow up hospitals and give everyone chelsea smiles.
And I dont think they will even try to do the pencil trick when they go back to school either.
My 8 year old boy on the other hand didnt go to see it.
"THE DARK KNIGHT tells the story of Batman’s continuing war on crime and in particular his personal battle with the psychotic Joker. It was passed ‘12A’ for moderate violence and sustained threat.
The BBFC Guidelines at ‘12A’ state that ‘violence must not dwell on detail’ and that ‘there should be no emphasis on injuries or blood’ and whilst THE DARK KNIGHT does contain a good deal of violence, all of it fits within that definition. For example, in one of the stronger scenes, Batman repeatedly beats the Joker during an interrogation. The blows however are all masked from the camera and despite both their weight and force; the Joker shows no sign of injury. There are also scenes in which the Joker threatens first a man and then a woman with a knife and whilst these do have a significant degree of menace, without any actual violence shown they were also acceptably placed at ‘12A’. In the final analysis, THE DARK KNIGHT is a superhero movie and the violence it contains exists within that context, with both Batman and the Joker apparently indestructible no matter what is thrown at them.
THE DARK KNIGHT also contains some special make up effects that whilst clearly not real, have the potential to be moderately frightening."
They raised 30 days of night's rating from 15 to 18 on dvd because they got complaints about it, and it wouldn't surprise me that much if TDK ended up a 15 on dvd.
Pretty much one of those suggestive all-in-the-mind type deals.
IIRC, Batman was the reason why the BBFC introduced the 12 rating (for cinema) in 1989. Likewise, the MPAA introduced their PG-13 rating for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Money talks when a major studio is set to lose half the audience of its summer blockbuster.
Nope, made a common mistake there my friend. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has always been a mpaa PG. The PG-13 was introduced because there was a backlash to how violent it was, and a feeling that the mpaa were just giving Spielberg/Lucas/Paramount the rating they wanted no matter what the content of the film. But TOD will likely always be a mpaa PG.
And yes, I am a ****ing pedant!
The first 12a was The Bourne Identity in 2002
The 89 Batman was the first 12 certificate film, i.e. no one under the age of 12 admitted. 12A, where children under 12 are admitted as long as they are with an adult, followed later.
Whilst the Bourne Identity was the first 12A film, it was actually the film Spiderman, that largely led to the introduction of the 12A certificate. You can read about it here.
12 has since been replaced by 12A at cinemas, as mentioned earlier.
Batman (1989) was the first film to get a 12 rating at the cinema, but as the 12 rating was not introduced for videos at that time, was given a 15 on video instead of cutting it and releasing it as PG.
Paddy
I know the 89 Batman was, and that seems quite tame compared to the new one. There were some scenes where I just couldn't look, and the Joker talking about why he uses a knife :eek: ... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO.
Kids are tougher these days.
I love it when snooty people on here start lecturing, particularly when they are incorrect and have missed the point. You have quoted me as if to correct me when how am i wrong?. -GONZO- incorrectly said that Batman(89) was a 12a and i pointed out that Bourne Identity was!
That's interesting because in the original script he was supposed to spit out a tooth during that scene. I also remember reading about him laughing whilst bleeding. Guess that was one scene they had to change.
It means its a movie that should be viewed by anyone over the age of 12........ However, someone below that age can view the film accompanied by an adult. But they should ONLY view the film if the ADULT IS 100% SURE that the child can cope with the mature themes.
It's just like the PG 13 rating in the US.
It's up to the parents at the end of the day.
There you go, all cleared up!
But if you wanna get really technical, you should see Ireland's classification system for cinema films!
G = same as U
PG = same as PG
12A = same as 12A
15A = same rule as a 12A, but under 15's can get in with an adult
16 = no-one under 16 gets in at all - usually only given to films that contain a little more violence/language than allowed at 15
18 = no-one under 18 gets in at all
Paddy
i wasnt commenting on the link part of the post, it was more the start which had me annoyed. And it did SEEM a bit snooty e.g. "Batman was the first 12 certificate film, i.e. no one under the age of 12 admitted" O' Rly? :rolleyes: