Options
BBFC to scrutinise impact of horror films
StrmChaserSteve
Posts: 2,728 Forum Member
✭✭✭
BBFC to scrutinise impact of horror films
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25684461
My thoughts:
The article quickly veers off and starts talking about
sexualisation of young women in film and music videos
That is not specific to the Horror Genre
Thing is, pretty much every movie in existence, can be found online, with a simple search.
The age ratings can be enforced at the cinema
These age ratings are only good in so far as it goes.
If parents do not monitor what their kids access online, then it's all a bloody waste of time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25684461
My thoughts:
The article quickly veers off and starts talking about
sexualisation of young women in film and music videos
That is not specific to the Horror Genre
Thing is, pretty much every movie in existence, can be found online, with a simple search.
The age ratings can be enforced at the cinema
These age ratings are only good in so far as it goes.
If parents do not monitor what their kids access online, then it's all a bloody waste of time
0
Comments
The 12A rating has clearly been a complete shambles and has ended up being viewed the same as PG by parents being hassled to take their kids to the cinema.
If they had kept the original 12-rating and not messed around with it, a lot of these problems wouldn't have come in I think.
Not one I've ever heard before, not outside a 70's sitcom anyway.
The Puritans are back.
The swearing might of, but I'd suspect the candle up the arse scene would still be 18 even under new guidelines.
Yeah, at least we got a couple of decades where horror films where left alone.
Besides the whole brew-ha-ha about The Woman In Black and the complaints it got is partly because you had kids wanting to see "Harry Potter" in his next film no matter what that film actually was.
The Mail are idiots, you can get away with any number of f words in any context at a 15, it's the c words they limit. And it's the c words you'll be able to get away with more of.
So for example, Ken Loach complained in the past that he was only allowed 8 c words at a 15, even though most of them were friendly and unaggressive, it sounds like now they will only be paying to attention to context, unless there's one every 5 minutes or something else that's a bit OTT, you'll be able to get away with using the c word at a 15.
You're making something out of nothing IMO.
On the news report yesterday they were talking about how a U rated film had the word "crap" in it, as if, oh no, hearing the word will corrupt our children. Of course, it was immediately followed by a representative from mumsnet, which says everything- they think everything should be banned because they can't be bothered to bring their kids up themselves.
Now we have this tangled mess where the BBFC are trying to find ways to tone down the 12A content even more, or start upping films to 15 which would have fit in the original 12 rating.
They've put themselves in a really awkward spot with this rating.
E.T. has had two 'shit''s in it for 30 years at the U rating. Doesn't seem to have affected people too much.
Both parental ignorance and the (typical) attention-seeking blather from mumsnet point to the same thing: handing personal responsibility to governing bodies. Thus, the BBFC get more aggressive, ISPs get more aggressive etc, etc.
True, 12 was probably the better, clearer certification. But does 12A sell more tickets?
Indeed. IIRC, 'More Tea, Vicar?' is an old gag one would repeat after breaking wind. See also: 'Better out than in.'
The recent furore around the second Hunger Games movie had this choice quote in one report:
"Pippa Smith of the Safer Media campaign said: ‘The film industry puts too much responsibility on parents. It isn’t fair they should have to make the decision whether they take their child or not."
Presumably it isn't fair that parents should have to make the decision whether little Johnny should run with scissors or drink bleach either.
If you look at her organisation's blog site (http://www.safermedia.blogspot.co.uk/) you'll see what Safer Media is really all about. Hint: the word "pornography" appears 45 times on the first page.
That's retarded, and the BBFC provides detailed information on it's website about the contents of a film, just because she can't arsed to google it doesn't mean we should all suffer censorship...
Not to mention many Britons worry about kids saying stuff
in front of the preacher/priest/ rabbi/ iman etc....
Yeah. It's the parents job to monitor their kids'
viewing, not the UK government's.
But....it isn't just the initial rating that matters!! What happens when a film gets out on DVD and can be just picked up and watched by anyone who can work a TV remote?
Ok so my kids are older now, but I used to get so frustrated when they were younger, from about 10-15, when they would go round a friends house for a sleepover and have unrestricted access to any film from their friends parents and older siblings DVD collection. It never seemed as if other parents were scrutinising anything the kids were watching at these informal parties.
Which put me in a horrendous and very difficult position. At home I would be enforcing age restrictions, whilst outside the home, my kids could see anything. And there seemed to be nothing like the excitement of an 18 film on a sleepover.
Should I have been banning my kids from going to anyone's house in their teens in case they saw something unsuitable, or was it better to try and at least keep an open dialogue going, so that at least they were willing to tell me what they had been watching?