Jaws was an A certificate when it came out at the pictures. Which meant anyone could go see it, though kids needed their parents' permission, or preferably to be accompanied by an adult. I was eight, my brother was five, we went to see it. It was scary as f**k, especially that bit with Ben Gardner's head coming out of the boat - but we enjoyed it.
When Jaws was first shown on telly some parents were saying it should have an AA (15) or even an X (18) rating it was so scary. Bollox - it was scary, but it was fun too. They ended up showing Jaws 2 on at six in the evening on Christmas Day one year, so that obviously wasn't considered very scary.
A lot of them are 15, to the point where it can be hard to see what you have to do to get 18. However, they also tend to be clearly fantasy. The difference can be as much about atmosphere and attitude as what you actually see.
Which is how TDK is so disturbing. There's a scene in which the Joker inserts a knife into his victim's mouth while talking about slashing sideways through the cheeks. It seems it gets a 12A certificate because we don't actually get to see the cutting, but the way in which it is filmed is very dark and adult and real. The atmosphere is very much a strength of the film, and a fine artistic achievement given the lack of gore, but it's very success raises the question of whether it deserved a tougher classification. (If the classifications are to mean anything, which arguably they don't.)
(Admittedly, this scene may have affected me more than most because it pushes my buttons, me having an oral fixation in my nightmares. Other people may have been left undisturbed. On the other hand, I don't think the effect has much to do with the recent publicity about knife crime. The scene would stand out had it been released at any past time.)
I agree with the BBFC that the film passes as the criteria are written, but perhaps the criteria should be reviewed to be less literal.
PG-13 rated films are a mix of 12 and 15 here in the UK really, I have seen PG-13 rated films that are a 15 certificate here in the UK.
There are some differences though, mainly regarding sexual content: Amadeus: The Director's Cut was R there and PG here, The Ethan Hawke version of hamlet was 12 here, R there and probably most famously Terminator 3 was R there and 12A here.
Anyone else read the story about why the film got a 12A and thought that the BBFC didn't really 'get' it.
BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark said the certification was partly down to the fact that the movie was based on a comic book.
"Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face," she said.
How is the Joker not realistic? In this film he's just a man. A very crazy man at that but there's nothing particularly unrealistic about him. The same with Batman - they've taken great steps to make his abilities as realistic as possible.
Clark added that giving the film a 15 rating would prevent the majority of the Batman fan base from watching it.
"Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it," she explained. "We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't."
Excuse me? I wouldn't say in the slightest that younger teens are the majority fanbase. In fact in the packed out screening I saw there seemed to be very few under 18's there, let alone under 15's. I get the impression that the people who are mostly seeing this film are young adults, not 13 year olds.
Not that I feel the film deserves a higher rating, but I too was surprised by the BBFC's comments today. I didn't realise it was their job to appease the fan base by classifying films for a perceived target age. Surely they should just stick to rating a film based on it's content, not who they think wants to watch it.
Not that I feel the film deserves a higher rating, but I too was surprised by the BBFC's comments today. I didn't realise it was their job to appease the fan base by classifying films for a perceived target age. Surely they should just stick to rating a film based on it's content, not who they think wants to watch it.
The BBFC's comments are down to a classic case of it having been caught with its trousers around it's ankles after getting in to a naughty little "maximum box office receipts" relationship with Warner when it really should've know better.
It seems the BBFC clearly got the certificate wrong for this film while under pressure from Warner to let families with kids in so as to maximise the film's receipts. Desperate not to have another Spiderman episode, the BBFC have let everyone in to a film which shouldn't have been viewed by anyone under 15.
Today's comments from the BBFC muppet which amount to "It's a children's film based on a comic book, so the violence doesn't matter", are laughable.
The BBFC has become a lot more tolerant over the last few years because it thinks the public has become more tolerant. I think this belief has just bitten the BBFC on the arse.
You have to laugh when they cut a shot of the end of dangling rope from Casino Royale, but let TDK go through uncut.
i think 12A was the right rating to be honest...fair enough the two scenes with the joker and his knife stories pushed the boundries but Harvey reminded me of Imhotep from the Mummy movies which were PG's
i can see that people are worried about the two knife scenes and fair enough with the current state of knife crime in the UK but i dont think those scenes in any way glorified knives because the Joker is clearly insane and in no way "cool" when he's threatening the people
I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, but I'm sick of parents complaining how bad some 12A films are and if they had known how violent or scary the film was they wouldn't have taken little Timmy to see it. :rolleyes:
If you want to take an under 12 child to see a 12A film then what the hell do you expect? If your child is traumatised after seeing violent and scary scenes in a film then that's not the fault of the BBFC, the cinema or the film distributor, its yours!
If a film is a 12A, then it most probably will contain strong language, violence or/and nudity.
At the beginning of a 12A film, there is a warning informing you about the potential content of the film and clearly states that the film is not suitable for under 12's and responsibility lies with the parent/guardian who allows there under age child to view that film.
Just because the film is about a superhero or something that could attract a child's attention doesn't mean it could be suitable for kids, especially when the clue about its content is the rating its been given and the warnings on the advertisements. :rolleyes:
Btw, yes I've got a kid and no I wouldn't take her to see a film unless I had seen it first or I am fully aware of the film's content.
Actually, The Mummy (1999) is a 15. It's 2 sequels are 12's. They were certainly not PG's.
Paddy
This was a 12 in cinemas but was cut to obtain that certificate. It was later released uncut on DVD/Video as a 15. Sorry for being picky. I need a coffee fix. Getting grumpy now.
I can't believe we're still talking about this!:yawn:
The fact of the matter remains it IS a 12A so just deal with it and move on!
The discussion is about whether the BBFC made the correct decision (and broader themes of BBFC certification). We are all perfectly aware of what that decision actually was, thanks all the same for your two posts highlighting it.
What I find funny is someone from the 'Bubblewrap Kids Society' commented that he wouldn't take his 11yo daughter to see it. Well hurray for film classifications. If they didn't take their kid along, then obviously the classifications work as they exercised their parental discretion for a film that advises just that very thing.
Keith Vaz MP of the Home Affairs Select Committee told The Independent: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight, to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."
Quit bitching about it and just buy some more bubble wrap, you obviously haven't wrapped her up tightly enough; if she is wanting to see it.
i get annoyed when parents take their kids to films like this - they are so disruptive sometimes
i get annoyed when parents take their kids to see films like this because a lot of the time they don't actually take into account they might be going to see something particularly violent, or that their child might try to copy something he/she sees in the film.
If you want to take an under 12 child to see a 12A film then what the hell do you expect? If your child is traumatised after seeing violent and scary scenes in a film then that's not the fault of the BBFC, the cinema or the film distributor, its yours!
exactly right. so many parents simply don't care - as long as it means their child doesn't bug them, they cave in.
when I worked at my local video shop, I used to get so many parents come in to rent 18 certificate films for their children. I started saying to them "i've been told that if it's clear that the rental is for a minor, then i'm not allowed to let you have it".
i lost count of the number of times I was told "oh, i didn't know - he wanted to see it. what's it about then ?"
Keith Vaz MP of the Home Affairs Select Committee told The Independent: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight, to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."
I love that quote from Keith Vaz! He just shows what an idiot he really is. One, his daughter can't go on her own as it's a 12A, so if he doesn't want to take her, that's fine (and shows the classification is working). If he really thinks that his morality is *the* morality, and that it should be enforced on everyone, then a 12 would be the correct certificate to prevent an 11year old watching it, not a 15. :rolleyes:
I am confused as to why parents complain about the BBFC certifying TDK incorrectly.
The film was classified 12A, meaning that it was originally for 12 year olds and above (if the old system was still in place). But thanks to cinema wanting to make the most money out of movies they created this ridiculous '12A'. Why would a parent take their child who is under 12 to a 12A in the first place, do they not relise it was simply introduced to increase the audience and therefore profits?
If a parent does want to take in thier child to a 12A then they should view the film themselves and use their own discretion as to whether it is suitable enough for their own indiviual child. Just don't go blaming the BBFC when you don't like it.
TDK certainly doesn't deserve to be 15 certificate but I also don't think it should be 12A.
IMO I think they should just scrap 12A altogether and go back to the solid 12 because obviously some parents cannot use their own judgement well enough when it comes down to it.
IMO I think they should just scrap 12A altogether and go back to the solid 12 because obviously some parents cannot use their own judgement well enough when it comes down to it.
I agree 100% (and started a thread suggesting just that some months ago).
My screening had a family who brought all their kids, the youngest about 5, and the two youngest (second youngest mustve been 8 or 9) were balling their eyes out before the end at the joker. It should definitely be a 12 rating at least, not a 12a, I've always thought the 12a is a stupid system anyway.
I would have rated it 12. Maybe 15 but not 12A, because parents dont seem to understand the rating --- they think it means anybody can go, when really it means its best suited for 12, but you can take your kids if they're mature enough.
there was a four year old in there when I went to see it, screaming and crying through it because it was scary. The parents didnt take her out though, not throuhg the whole film. Not just mean to the poor child who shouldn't be sitting through a film as dark as Batman, but also damn annoying for people trying to enjoy the film.
Comments
That's how I've always seen the ratings compared to American ratings.
When Jaws was first shown on telly some parents were saying it should have an AA (15) or even an X (18) rating it was so scary. Bollox - it was scary, but it was fun too. They ended up showing Jaws 2 on at six in the evening on Christmas Day one year, so that obviously wasn't considered very scary.
Which is how TDK is so disturbing. There's a scene in which the Joker inserts a knife into his victim's mouth while talking about slashing sideways through the cheeks. It seems it gets a 12A certificate because we don't actually get to see the cutting, but the way in which it is filmed is very dark and adult and real. The atmosphere is very much a strength of the film, and a fine artistic achievement given the lack of gore, but it's very success raises the question of whether it deserved a tougher classification. (If the classifications are to mean anything, which arguably they don't.)
(Admittedly, this scene may have affected me more than most because it pushes my buttons, me having an oral fixation in my nightmares. Other people may have been left undisturbed. On the other hand, I don't think the effect has much to do with the recent publicity about knife crime. The scene would stand out had it been released at any past time.)
I agree with the BBFC that the film passes as the criteria are written, but perhaps the criteria should be reviewed to be less literal.
There are some differences though, mainly regarding sexual content: Amadeus: The Director's Cut was R there and PG here, The Ethan Hawke version of hamlet was 12 here, R there and probably most famously Terminator 3 was R there and 12A here.
BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark said the certification was partly down to the fact that the movie was based on a comic book.
"Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face," she said.
How is the Joker not realistic? In this film he's just a man. A very crazy man at that but there's nothing particularly unrealistic about him. The same with Batman - they've taken great steps to make his abilities as realistic as possible.
Clark added that giving the film a 15 rating would prevent the majority of the Batman fan base from watching it.
"Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it," she explained. "We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't."
Excuse me? I wouldn't say in the slightest that younger teens are the majority fanbase. In fact in the packed out screening I saw there seemed to be very few under 18's there, let alone under 15's. I get the impression that the people who are mostly seeing this film are young adults, not 13 year olds.
The BBFC's comments are down to a classic case of it having been caught with its trousers around it's ankles after getting in to a naughty little "maximum box office receipts" relationship with Warner when it really should've know better.
It seems the BBFC clearly got the certificate wrong for this film while under pressure from Warner to let families with kids in so as to maximise the film's receipts. Desperate not to have another Spiderman episode, the BBFC have let everyone in to a film which shouldn't have been viewed by anyone under 15.
Today's comments from the BBFC muppet which amount to "It's a children's film based on a comic book, so the violence doesn't matter", are laughable.
The BBFC has become a lot more tolerant over the last few years because it thinks the public has become more tolerant. I think this belief has just bitten the BBFC on the arse.
You have to laugh when they cut a shot of the end of dangling rope from Casino Royale, but let TDK go through uncut.
The fact of the matter remains it IS a 12A so just deal with it and move on!
i can see that people are worried about the two knife scenes and fair enough with the current state of knife crime in the UK but i dont think those scenes in any way glorified knives because the Joker is clearly insane and in no way "cool" when he's threatening the people
Paddy
what we should really be talking about is how was the mummy a 15!?!?
If you want to take an under 12 child to see a 12A film then what the hell do you expect? If your child is traumatised after seeing violent and scary scenes in a film then that's not the fault of the BBFC, the cinema or the film distributor, its yours!
If a film is a 12A, then it most probably will contain strong language, violence or/and nudity.
At the beginning of a 12A film, there is a warning informing you about the potential content of the film and clearly states that the film is not suitable for under 12's and responsibility lies with the parent/guardian who allows there under age child to view that film.
Just because the film is about a superhero or something that could attract a child's attention doesn't mean it could be suitable for kids, especially when the clue about its content is the rating its been given and the warnings on the advertisements. :rolleyes:
Btw, yes I've got a kid and no I wouldn't take her to see a film unless I had seen it first or I am fully aware of the film's content.
This was a 12 in cinemas but was cut to obtain that certificate. It was later released uncut on DVD/Video as a 15. Sorry for being picky. I need a coffee fix. Getting grumpy now.
Keith Vaz MP of the Home Affairs Select Committee told The Independent: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight, to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."
Quit bitching about it and just buy some more bubble wrap, you obviously haven't wrapped her up tightly enough; if she is wanting to see it.
i get annoyed when parents take their kids to see films like this because a lot of the time they don't actually take into account they might be going to see something particularly violent, or that their child might try to copy something he/she sees in the film.
exactly right. so many parents simply don't care - as long as it means their child doesn't bug them, they cave in.
when I worked at my local video shop, I used to get so many parents come in to rent 18 certificate films for their children. I started saying to them "i've been told that if it's clear that the rental is for a minor, then i'm not allowed to let you have it".
i lost count of the number of times I was told "oh, i didn't know - he wanted to see it. what's it about then ?"
I love that quote from Keith Vaz! He just shows what an idiot he really is. One, his daughter can't go on her own as it's a 12A, so if he doesn't want to take her, that's fine (and shows the classification is working). If he really thinks that his morality is *the* morality, and that it should be enforced on everyone, then a 12 would be the correct certificate to prevent an 11year old watching it, not a 15. :rolleyes:
The film was classified 12A, meaning that it was originally for 12 year olds and above (if the old system was still in place). But thanks to cinema wanting to make the most money out of movies they created this ridiculous '12A'. Why would a parent take their child who is under 12 to a 12A in the first place, do they not relise it was simply introduced to increase the audience and therefore profits?
If a parent does want to take in thier child to a 12A then they should view the film themselves and use their own discretion as to whether it is suitable enough for their own indiviual child. Just don't go blaming the BBFC when you don't like it.
TDK certainly doesn't deserve to be 15 certificate but I also don't think it should be 12A.
IMO I think they should just scrap 12A altogether and go back to the solid 12 because obviously some parents cannot use their own judgement well enough when it comes down to it.
I don't see any particular reason why they can't have both.
12A was a perfectly rating for Spiderman.
12 would have been better for The Dark Knight.
there was a four year old in there when I went to see it, screaming and crying through it because it was scary. The parents didnt take her out though, not throuhg the whole film. Not just mean to the poor child who shouldn't be sitting through a film as dark as Batman, but also damn annoying for people trying to enjoy the film.