Digital Spy

SNEEZY · 29-07-2008, 19:43

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.

Saigo · 29-07-2008, 20:23

It means that ANY age can see it. My cinema even put up warning notices telling about the violence in the film...

...yet the screening I went to was full of 5 year olds and up.

I am shocked at the rating. Should be a 15.

-GONZO- · 29-07-2008, 21:16

We took our 10 year old girls.
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.

JCR · 29-07-2008, 21:20

Official bbfc reasoning from bbfc.co.uk:

"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.

-GONZO- · 29-07-2008, 21:40

Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert.

DavidB6937 · 29-07-2008, 21:42

It was dark, but it wasn't overtly violent or anything.

Pretty much one of those suggestive all-in-the-mind type deals.

be more pacific · 30-07-2008, 00:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert.

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.

JCR · 30-07-2008, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by be more pacific

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!

L34HC1M · 30-07-2008, 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert.

The first 12a was The Bourne Identity in 2002

Nattie01 · 30-07-2008, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickLFC

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.

claire2281 · 30-07-2008, 09:11

I'm going to see it tonight (so no spoilers please!

) but having already seen some photos of a certain someone's face I wonder how it gets a 12A as well. Also, considering the reviews I've read it doesn't seem like the type of film younger children will find interesting anyway.

simon69c · 30-07-2008, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by -GONZO-

Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert.

As has been pointed out, Batman (89) was a 12 at the cinema, and the first to receive that certification. When it went to video the closest applicable rating was 15 (as 12 didn't exist for home video until 2002).

12 has since been replaced by 12A at cinemas, as mentioned earlier.

Paddy C · 30-07-2008, 10:06

Actually, 12 didn't exist for home video until 1994, not 2002.

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

stud u like · 30-07-2008, 10:16

My friend's 11 year old grandson went to see it with his mother and I. He did not bat an eyelid and I cowered a lot through it especially with the Joker's pencil trick.

simon69c · 30-07-2008, 10:17

D'oh - that'll teach me for using wikipedia and not double-checking on the BBFC site!

minimalistmatt · 30-07-2008, 10:34

I am surprised it passed as a 12.

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

... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO.

30-07-2008, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by minimalistmatt

I am surprised it passed as a 12.

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

... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO.

Kids are tougher these days.

Histeria · 30-07-2008, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoGirl

Kids are tougher these days.

Is that necessarily a good thing, though?

L34HC1M · 30-07-2008, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nattie01

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.

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!

Histeria · 30-07-2008, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by MickLFC

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!

I found Nattie01's link interesting, and worth posting. I don't think it was "snooty" either - just informative. Not every thread is about one-upping people, even on DS, and I don't think that was Nattie01's intent.

SteveOwen · 30-07-2008, 12:14

Content-wise, I don't think it's too gruesome. Except for a certain face, and another moment or two (won't go into details). I think the threat of the violence is more disturbing than most of what they actually show. But I agree, I'd keep the kids away from this one if I was a parent.

Quote:

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.

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.

lala · 30-07-2008, 14:53

12A doesn't mean it is for everyone to see.

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.

zoton2 · 30-07-2008, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by lala

It's just like the PG 13 rating in the US.

There's also the R rating where anyone under 17 can go in with an adult. That's right, isn't it?

Paddy C · 30-07-2008, 15:23

Yes, their equivalent to an 18 is the dreaded NC-17, which is 17 or over and if a film get's that, it cuts out a very big chunk of the movie going audience so most films that get it either appeal to get an R instead if they can justify it or they cut the movie to get it down to an R.

Code:

UK     /    US

U        =   G
PG      =   PG
12(A)  =   PG-13
15       =   R
18       =   NC-17

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

L34HC1M · 30-07-2008, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Histeria

I found Nattie01's link interesting, and worth posting. I don't think it was "snooty" either - just informative. Not every thread is about one-upping people, even on DS, and I don't think that was Nattie01's intent.

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?

29-07-2008, 19:43	#1
SNEEZY Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 32	How did TDK get classed as a 12A 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.

30-07-2008, 15:23	#24
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,885	Yes, their equivalent to an 18 is the dreaded NC-17, which is 17 or over and if a film get's that, it cuts out a very big chunk of the movie going audience so most films that get it either appeal to get an R instead if they can justify it or they cut the movie to get it down to an R. Code: UK / US U = G PG = PG 12(A) = PG-13 15 = R 18 = NC-17 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

29-07-2008, 20:23	#2
Saigo Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,776	It means that ANY age can see it. My cinema even put up warning notices telling about the violence in the film... ...yet the screening I went to was full of 5 year olds and up. I am shocked at the rating. Should be a 15.

29-07-2008, 21:16	#3
-GONZO- Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 7,926	We took our 10 year old girls. 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.

29-07-2008, 21:20	#4
JCR Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Posts: 14,106	Official bbfc reasoning from bbfc.co.uk: "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.

29-07-2008, 21:40	#5
-GONZO- Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Kent Posts: 7,926	Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert.

29-07-2008, 21:42	#6
DavidB6937 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,764	It was dark, but it wasn't overtly violent or anything. Pretty much one of those suggestive all-in-the-mind type deals.

30-07-2008, 00:06	#7
be more pacific Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,161	Quote: Originally Posted by -GONZO- Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert. 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.

30-07-2008, 00:48	#8
JCR Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Posts: 14,106	Quote: Originally Posted by be more pacific 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!

30-07-2008, 08:01	#9
L34HC1M Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 368	Quote: Originally Posted by -GONZO- Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert. The first 12a was The Bourne Identity in 2002

30-07-2008, 08:42	#10
Nattie01 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 991	Quote: Originally Posted by MickLFC 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.

30-07-2008, 09:11	#11
claire2281 Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 14,105	I'm going to see it tonight (so no spoilers please! ) but having already seen some photos of a certain someone's face I wonder how it gets a 12A as well. Also, considering the reviews I've read it doesn't seem like the type of film younger children will find interesting anyway.

30-07-2008, 09:25	#12
simon69c Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Glasgow Posts: 1,177	Quote: Originally Posted by -GONZO- Batman (89) was 12A at the cinema and the VHS and DVD are a 15cert. As has been pointed out, Batman (89) was a 12 at the cinema, and the first to receive that certification. When it went to video the closest applicable rating was 15 (as 12 didn't exist for home video until 2002). 12 has since been replaced by 12A at cinemas, as mentioned earlier.

30-07-2008, 10:06	#13
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,885	Actually, 12 didn't exist for home video until 1994, not 2002. 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

30-07-2008, 10:16	#14
stud u like Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Sunny Side Of The Street Posts: 38,109	My friend's 11 year old grandson went to see it with his mother and I. He did not bat an eyelid and I cowered a lot through it especially with the Joker's pencil trick.

30-07-2008, 10:17	#15
simon69c Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Glasgow Posts: 1,177	D'oh - that'll teach me for using wikipedia and not double-checking on the BBFC site!

30-07-2008, 10:34	#16
minimalistmatt Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NW Posts: 6,593	I am surprised it passed as a 12. 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 ... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO.

30-07-2008, 10:59	#17
IndigoGirl Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally Posted by minimalistmatt I am surprised it passed as a 12. 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 ... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO. Kids are tougher these days.

30-07-2008, 11:25	#18
Histeria Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 11,843	Quote: Originally Posted by IndigoGirl Kids are tougher these days. Is that necessarily a good thing, though?

30-07-2008, 11:49	#19
L34HC1M Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 368	Quote: Originally Posted by Nattie01 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. 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!

30-07-2008, 12:08	#20
Histeria Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Nottingham, UK Posts: 11,843	Quote: Originally Posted by MickLFC 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! I found Nattie01's link interesting, and worth posting. I don't think it was "snooty" either - just informative. Not every thread is about one-upping people, even on DS, and I don't think that was Nattie01's intent.

30-07-2008, 12:14	#21
SteveOwen Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: In the Wind Posts: 27,184	Content-wise, I don't think it's too gruesome. Except for a certain face, and another moment or two (won't go into details). I think the threat of the violence is more disturbing than most of what they actually show. But I agree, I'd keep the kids away from this one if I was a parent. Quote: 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. 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.

DS Forums

How did TDK get classed as a 12A

30-07-2008, 14:53	#22
lala Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 20,166	12A doesn't mean it is for everyone to see. 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.

30-07-2008, 15:03	#23
zoton2 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Norfolk, England Posts: 1,785	Quote: Originally Posted by lala It's just like the PG 13 rating in the US. There's also the R rating where anyone under 17 can go in with an adult. That's right, isn't it?

30-07-2008, 15:29	#25
L34HC1M Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 368	Quote: Originally Posted by Histeria I found Nattie01's link interesting, and worth posting. I don't think it was "snooty" either - just informative. Not every thread is about one-upping people, even on DS, and I don't think that was Nattie01's intent. 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?