The problem with 12a is filmmakers often dumb down their films to make sure they are a 12a. I think ratings should be a guideline, rather than mandatory, so shoot me. Kids can see far worse on the internet these days.
I saw 'Jurassic World' about a week ago. I didn't notice any traumatised children being carried out - but I was sitting near the front, and it was an evening screening. For all that, the four 'Jurassic Park' films are all scary, and 'World' is arguably the most frightening of all. A parent who takes a child of infant school age, or even younger, to see any of them needs their head examined. Have these people never heard of babysitters?
Having made that statement, it is equally true that children often prove to be more resilient than we give them credit for. The film that triggered the introduction of the 12A certificate was 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which was way too scary and violent to be comfortable with a PG certificate - but didn't justify a 15 either. My wife and I saw it when it first came out and agreed that it would be too much for our two sons (aged nine and eleven, respectively, at the time). Eventually, however, we gave in to their pleas and took them on condition that we would walk out if either of them became distressed. In the event, they both loved every minute of it. That is the crux if the issue. They were nine and eleven, not four or five. They had grown up sufficiently to be able to identify fantasized violence on screen as the fiction that it really is, and not be upset by it. A child half their age does not have that level of understanding. That is why I agree with the OP. Films like 'Jurassic World' should have a minimum age limit. Eight sounds about right. Nobody under that age should be admitted, even escorted, and those between eight and twelve should be in the care of an adult.
Even though it was 'passed uncut' the film makers did go to the BBFC and asked what they would need to do to get it to a 12 and the BBFC gave them advice on certain scenes.
Put the willies up me and I'm far older than 12! But any scarier than a good episode of Dr Who? The 'Are you my mummy?' episode (The Dr Dances?) was along the same lines as Woman in Black for heebeegeebee-ness. (Yes, that is a word.)
There is noting wrong with the 12A certificate. There is something wrong with parents taking very young children to see 12As.
.
I went to watch Terminator Salvation at my local cinema and some total plank brought his 4 year old son along. I could see loads of people around me nudging each other and pointing out this little kid. Needless to say the kid was screaming in terror within the first 3 minutes of the film and he had to be taken out of the screening. Every eye in the packed cinema was following this pillock as he carried his kid out and he knew it.
The film that triggered the introduction of the 12A certificate was 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which was way too scary and violent to be comfortable with a PG certificate - but didn't justify a 15 either.
I'm now puzzled because I had it in my mind that 12A was introduced for the first Harry Potter film, in that it was going to be a 12 but that would've prevented lots of younger fans from seeing it. I read now that's it's a PG though.
I'm now puzzled because I had it in my mind that 12A was introduced for the first Harry Potter film, in that it was going to be a 12 but that would've prevented lots of younger fans from seeing it. I read now that's it's a PG though.
It was in my mind that it was Sam Raimi's Spiderman that contributed to the creation of 12A - but the BBFC website tells me that it didn't, it was simply re-released post 12A introduction:
It was in my mind that it was Sam Raimi's Spiderman that contributed to the creation of 12A - but the BBFC website tells me that it didn't, it was simply re-released post 12A introduction:
They actually namecheck James Bond movies, not LOTR as a contributing factor, although it seems as if it was an ongoing issue.
Sam Raimi's Spider-man was the catalyst that led to it's introduction, but IIRC they were already considering/trialling it at that point, and The Bourne Identity was the first film to receive a 12A.
I don't think Fellowship of the Rings can have been too much of a factor, because despite being resubmitted several times, including once in 2013, it's still a PG. Even Jaws is now a 12A, but FOTR isn't. That said it is undoubtedly one of the stronger PG films.
When I went to see Jurassic World there was a man and his daughter, about 7 or 8 years old, with him and they sat a few seats down in the same row as us. They arrived late, and about half way through the film they left and didn't return. At a few points I did notice that the little girl had her hands over her face and once she had her fingers in her ears and was looking at the floor. I'm surprised it took him that long to realise she wasn't enjoying the film and she wanted to leave.
I do think many films that would have been PG in the past are 12A today, it's very rare to see PG apart from a few family films which are slightly more violent or scarier than a U. Men in Black 3 was PG for example despite being PG-13 in America and having one swear word whereas World War Z and Dracula Untold was a 15 but both were PG-13 in America.
Pitch Perfect 2 is one where I think which quite a soft 12A but I'm guessing the humour is likely a tad adult for a PG.
The reason for the 12A is to allow responsible parents to judge if their children are mature enough to see the content. Just like adults, all children are different and need to be treated like individuals.
My boy is 8, I took him to see Jurassic Park last weekend and he loved every single second, didn’t get afraid once. The only time he hid is face was for the kissing in the middle of the pterodactyl scene… I found that very funny.
Sam Raimi's Spider-man was the catalyst that led to it's introduction, but IIRC they were already considering/trialling it at that point, and The Bourne Identity was the first film to receive a 12A.
I don't think Fellowship of the Rings can have been too much of a factor, because despite being resubmitted several times, including once in 2013, it's still a PG. Even Jaws is now a 12A, but FOTR isn't. That said it is undoubtedly one of the stronger PG films.
Spiderman as I recall was one of the big ones because there was an obvious appeal for kids.
The problem with 12a is filmmakers often dumb down their films to make sure they are a 12a.
The new Terminator is a prime example of this. Any series revolving around shark-eyed, relentless killer robots with metal arm blades and machine guns should be at least a 15 (like the first two are).
Genisys looks far too cartoony with the unnecessary CGI and even though T2 innovated with it's liquid metal effects, it was only used if a shot wasn't possible without it; a lot was done with puppets and practical effects, which look far better.
Mad Max: Fury Road and it's fantastic practical stunt work was the perfect antidote to the rubbish 'action' movies we're getting these days, which don't even show anything as either the camera is moving around too much or where CGI is being used when it isn't needed, making it look and feel like you're watching a Disney flick.
I do think many films that would have been PG in the past are 12A today, it's very rare to see PG apart from a few family films which are slightly more violent or scarier than a U.
Jaws, Duel and 1949 are some that got upgraded from PG to 12/12A relatively recently.
In my opinion, Raiders of the Lost Ark should be a 12 instead of PG and the original Star Wars trilogy should be PG's instead of a U, like they are in Australia and America.
12As shouldn't be seen as 'child friendly'; they aren't as strong as a 15 but they have more adult themes that parents should think about whether their child is ready.
Jaws, Duel and 1949 are some that got upgraded from PG to 12/12A relatively recently.
In my opinion, Raiders of the Lost Ark should be a 12 instead of PG and the original Star Wars trilogy should be PG's instead of a U, like they are in Australia and America.
In the Temple of Doom letter on the bbfc site James Ferman states Star Wars and E.T. were U despite having PG level content because he thought the films were well made to the point he couldn't bear to put the 'maybe unsuitable for young children' tag on them.
America is more lenient on violence but less so on sex and swearing.
No kidding; Amadeus Directors Cut is bbfc PG & mpaa R; the R rating is presumably because it has a shot of a topless woman that lasts literally less than a second.
The original 12 rating introduced for Batman should never have become 12A. It was no more than a sop to the US film industry by the BBFC.
I have no problem with 12 year olds being exposed to a few instances of "f*ck" in a decent, moderately violent adult action film, but kids of the age that are being taken in to Jurassic World certainly shouldn't be exposed to either that or people's heads being chewed off by dinosaurs.
I've never thought Jurassic Park was a PG in a million years. It was a solid 12 at minimum. But then I don't like dinosaurs. I was 18 when that came out.
What adults now get with action films at 12A, and PG13 in the US, are films that are desperately trying to be 15/R, but that have been dumbed down either by the director or by the BBFC in order to ensure a 12A. Any advice given by the BBFC in order to secure that 12 will be given in the knowledge that kids half that age will be admitted to cinemas to watch it, so in effect, the 15 is now a PG. It's a terrible shame for adults and the future of the film industry. The US box office has been tanking for years, only being supported my tent pole Marvel movies.
Totally disagree, it has to be one of the most violent PGs ever made. No idea how they got away with it. Man impaled on spikes, man shot in the head with bullet entry shown and blood pouring down his face, bloody and bone crunching punch up's, man sliced up by propeller blades (off-screen, but blood splatters), bloody melting faces and exploding heads.
It's a great film and a lot of fun, but I wouldn't show it to my young children. It should be a 12A.
In general I think most 12A films are far too violent. Any parent that takes 5 year olds to see them is quite simply an idiot.
Totally disagree, it has to be one of the most violent PGs ever made. No idea how they got away with it. Man impaled on spikes, man shot in the head with bullet entry shown and blood pouring down his face, bloody and bone crunching punch up's, man sliced up by propeller blades (off-screen, but blood splatters), bloody melting faces and exploding heads.
It's a great film and a lot of fun, but I wouldn't show it to my young children. It should be a 12A.
In general I think most 12A films are far too violent. Any parent that takes 5 year olds to see them is quite simply an idiot.
This is just based off personal experience that Raiders never bothered me as a child; I was far more unnerved by the library scene at the start Ghostbusters or pretty much all of Jaws, both PG's at the time.
Jaws was not given a PG certificate when it was first released in the UK. Because the PG certificate didn't exist until five years after Jaws came out.
It was however given an A certificate - which is similar to, though not identical to, what the PG certificate equated to when it came into being in 1980.
I was seven when I first saw Jaws at the pictures in 1975 - though I did go with my dad. And I loved it......
Agree with everything Kermode says. Sadly most parents simply don't understand, or don't want to take responsiblity. They want the state to take it for them.
As for the old A rating. Didn't that stand for "Adult". As an example, Star Trek II was given an A on it's cinema release in 1982, and when released on VHS, it was a 15, and it remained so until the DVD release in the early 2000s when it was reclassifed at 12. If the later introduced PG was equivelent to A, why was ST II 15 on VHS?
Comments
Having made that statement, it is equally true that children often prove to be more resilient than we give them credit for. The film that triggered the introduction of the 12A certificate was 'The Fellowship of the Ring', which was way too scary and violent to be comfortable with a PG certificate - but didn't justify a 15 either. My wife and I saw it when it first came out and agreed that it would be too much for our two sons (aged nine and eleven, respectively, at the time). Eventually, however, we gave in to their pleas and took them on condition that we would walk out if either of them became distressed. In the event, they both loved every minute of it. That is the crux if the issue. They were nine and eleven, not four or five. They had grown up sufficiently to be able to identify fantasized violence on screen as the fiction that it really is, and not be upset by it. A child half their age does not have that level of understanding. That is why I agree with the OP. Films like 'Jurassic World' should have a minimum age limit. Eight sounds about right. Nobody under that age should be admitted, even escorted, and those between eight and twelve should be in the care of an adult.
Bear in mind, in the early 90's, this Saturday morning TV show broadcast between 9am and 11.30am. Watch the clip for 5 mins and you will be shocked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2RRXuvLTzg&feature=youtu.be&t=42m16s
What's Up Doc was a work of genius.
That is why they brought in the 12 certificate to another grade between U/PG and 15.
The BBFC will say sometimes 12A but not suitable for people under 10/8.
The Woman In Black was a 'definite' 12 i.e. no one under 12 to see it and Dan Radcliffe would say in interviews it was a high 12.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/woman-black-2012-1
Even though it was 'passed uncut' the film makers did go to the BBFC and asked what they would need to do to get it to a 12 and the BBFC gave them advice on certain scenes.
Put the willies up me and I'm far older than 12! But any scarier than a good episode of Dr Who? The 'Are you my mummy?' episode (The Dr Dances?) was along the same lines as Woman in Black for heebeegeebee-ness. (Yes, that is a word.)
I went to watch Terminator Salvation at my local cinema and some total plank brought his 4 year old son along. I could see loads of people around me nudging each other and pointing out this little kid. Needless to say the kid was screaming in terror within the first 3 minutes of the film and he had to be taken out of the screening. Every eye in the packed cinema was following this pillock as he carried his kid out and he knew it.
I'm now puzzled because I had it in my mind that 12A was introduced for the first Harry Potter film, in that it was going to be a 12 but that would've prevented lots of younger fans from seeing it. I read now that's it's a PG though.
It was in my mind that it was Sam Raimi's Spiderman that contributed to the creation of 12A - but the BBFC website tells me that it didn't, it was simply re-released post 12A introduction:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/spider-man
They actually namecheck James Bond movies, not LOTR as a contributing factor, although it seems as if it was an ongoing issue.
Sam Raimi's Spider-man was the catalyst that led to it's introduction, but IIRC they were already considering/trialling it at that point, and The Bourne Identity was the first film to receive a 12A.
I don't think Fellowship of the Rings can have been too much of a factor, because despite being resubmitted several times, including once in 2013, it's still a PG. Even Jaws is now a 12A, but FOTR isn't. That said it is undoubtedly one of the stronger PG films.
Pitch Perfect 2 is one where I think which quite a soft 12A but I'm guessing the humour is likely a tad adult for a PG.
My boy is 8, I took him to see Jurassic Park last weekend and he loved every single second, didn’t get afraid once. The only time he hid is face was for the kissing in the middle of the pterodactyl scene… I found that very funny.
Spiderman as I recall was one of the big ones because there was an obvious appeal for kids.
Genisys looks far too cartoony with the unnecessary CGI and even though T2 innovated with it's liquid metal effects, it was only used if a shot wasn't possible without it; a lot was done with puppets and practical effects, which look far better.
Mad Max: Fury Road and it's fantastic practical stunt work was the perfect antidote to the rubbish 'action' movies we're getting these days, which don't even show anything as either the camera is moving around too much or where CGI is being used when it isn't needed, making it look and feel like you're watching a Disney flick.
In my opinion, Raiders of the Lost Ark should be a 12 instead of PG and the original Star Wars trilogy should be PG's instead of a U, like they are in Australia and America.
In the Temple of Doom letter on the bbfc site James Ferman states Star Wars and E.T. were U despite having PG level content because he thought the films were well made to the point he couldn't bear to put the 'maybe unsuitable for young children' tag on them.
I think Raiders is fine at PG though.
No kidding; Amadeus Directors Cut is bbfc PG & mpaa R; the R rating is presumably because it has a shot of a topless woman that lasts literally less than a second.
I have no problem with 12 year olds being exposed to a few instances of "f*ck" in a decent, moderately violent adult action film, but kids of the age that are being taken in to Jurassic World certainly shouldn't be exposed to either that or people's heads being chewed off by dinosaurs.
I've never thought Jurassic Park was a PG in a million years. It was a solid 12 at minimum. But then I don't like dinosaurs. I was 18 when that came out.
What adults now get with action films at 12A, and PG13 in the US, are films that are desperately trying to be 15/R, but that have been dumbed down either by the director or by the BBFC in order to ensure a 12A. Any advice given by the BBFC in order to secure that 12 will be given in the knowledge that kids half that age will be admitted to cinemas to watch it, so in effect, the 15 is now a PG. It's a terrible shame for adults and the future of the film industry. The US box office has been tanking for years, only being supported my tent pole Marvel movies.
Totally disagree, it has to be one of the most violent PGs ever made. No idea how they got away with it. Man impaled on spikes, man shot in the head with bullet entry shown and blood pouring down his face, bloody and bone crunching punch up's, man sliced up by propeller blades (off-screen, but blood splatters), bloody melting faces and exploding heads.
It's a great film and a lot of fun, but I wouldn't show it to my young children. It should be a 12A.
In general I think most 12A films are far too violent. Any parent that takes 5 year olds to see them is quite simply an idiot.
This is just based off personal experience that Raiders never bothered me as a child; I was far more unnerved by the library scene at the start Ghostbusters or pretty much all of Jaws, both PG's at the time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/entries/fd47eb28-5231-4c9c-890c-9715f803b851
Jaws was not given a PG certificate when it was first released in the UK. Because the PG certificate didn't exist until five years after Jaws came out.
It was however given an A certificate - which is similar to, though not identical to, what the PG certificate equated to when it came into being in 1980.
I was seven when I first saw Jaws at the pictures in 1975 - though I did go with my dad. And I loved it......
Agree with everything Kermode says. Sadly most parents simply don't understand, or don't want to take responsiblity. They want the state to take it for them.
As for the old A rating. Didn't that stand for "Adult". As an example, Star Trek II was given an A on it's cinema release in 1982, and when released on VHS, it was a 15, and it remained so until the DVD release in the early 2000s when it was reclassifed at 12. If the later introduced PG was equivelent to A, why was ST II 15 on VHS?