12a certificate - a failed eperiment

L

LovelyTragedy111

New member
Further to a discussion in the Iron Man thread about irresponsible parents bringing their little darlings to films which are patently not suitable for them, I'm positing this:

The BBFC have tried 12a, and it has failed. The British public had their shot, and many have repeatedly demonstrated themselves too irresponsible actually to look into 12a films before bringing their small children to them. They either don't understand that it means that a film is NOT suitable for under 12s unless the parent thinks there is a damn good reason to override this, or they simply don't care.

IMO, the BBFC neeRAB to just scrap it and bring back 12 to cinemas.

Opinions?

(PS. 'scuse the typo in the title. :o)
 
i couldn't agree more. all the 12a cert has done has allowed noisy kiRAB into films that they shouldnt be seeing in the first place.

for example Iron Man is a great movie but there is a fare bit of violence and innuendo that I dont think is suitable for, say a 10 year old, with or without a parent.
 
I reckon 12 means as much as PG these days in the minRAB of many folk and has therefore become redundant. The BBFC should have stuck with PG, 15 and 18.
 
12A is supposed to be the equivalent of the American PG-13, which was partly created to appease people after they were 'horrified' at parts of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being too much for younger kiRAB.

There is a plus side to this rating, the Lord of the Rings trilogy being a great example. It allowed Peter Jackson to create the perfect content level and not present us with a sanitized vision. However, the MAJOR downside is when we're now getting very tame action films. They're afraid to make a proper action flick these days in case it bombs due to the higher rating. It makes me upset to see Die Hard 4, Alien vs Predator, Terminator all lamed by the focus being on box office and not being faithful to the legacy of the classic films they're following.
 
It's the parent's decision. It's up to them how they bring up their kiRAB, not the BBFC. There has to be reasonable restrictions, of course, such as 18.

We need to get away from the Nanny State, not make it more of one.
 
The parents didn't have the choice until 2001. In the seven years since then they have proven again and again that a decent proportion of the are incapable or unwilling to use that choice responsibly as parents. They still (thankfully) have no power to override a 15 or 18 certificate - so what makes a 12 a viable exception? Unless you are arguing against any film certification at all under your suggestion of an inherent "nanny state" (please note that the BBFC is not part of any state - it is a part of the film industry's own self regulation) - in which case that is a separate argument to be had.
 
The cinema release was an edited version of the film to gain a 12a rating, with the language and more graphic violence cut out. The Ultimate Action Edition on DVD reinstated all these cuts and therefore pushed the rating up to a 15.
 
I tend to agree also.

I seen Made of Honour a few weeks ago which was a 12a I believe, and a couple of women brought in a couple of five year-olRAB, the film definitely wasn't suitable for them, they wouldn't even have understood any of it!
 
The only way I am "inflicting" my views is by sharing them. I'm just a movie punter - not a politician or a BBFC member. There are several threaRAB on the front page where people have mentioned that parents have taken very young children to thoroughly inappropriate films which have been rated 12a (see #14 as an example). The BBFC states that as 12a is unsuitable for under 12s - and yet many parents seem not to take any notice of that and assume it is the same as a PG. Which is really isn't. I suggest that this is not through making an informed decision, but through ignorance about what the new certification means, or (most likely, IMO) simply not caring.

I see from your comment that you think it's okay for an 8 year old to see an 18 rated film. That's fine, and there are arguments to be made for this - although I don't agree. If you think that is the case, then my argument that the system worked better with 12 (rather than 12a) is irrelevant - as you deem all enforced film certification unnecessary. My point - and my only point - is that I think the system was better pre 2001. Bear in mind the BBFC was set up by the film industry to make sure there was no government censorship of films. If the certification system starts to fail (as I believe the 12a is doing) do we not run the risk of government intervention in this? Surely that's a bad thing. The BBFC systems need to work - and be seen to work.
 
The way I see 12A is:

"This film contains some scenes of violence/swearing/sex/nudity/whatever that is probably perfectly safe for children, but as every parent has their own standarRAB of censorship for their child, we abdicate responsibility to them"

Children attempting to watch the film on their own are stopped, and if a parent deems the film to be bad for the child, they can either leave the cinema or the parent can help the child interpret what they saw.

What you are suggesting is either a: parents must watch the film on their own first, so that they can decide whether it's suitable for little Jimmy, or b: nobody under the age of 12 shall see this film, even if it would be perfectly suitable for the majority. I see both of these as worse than the current situation and as such see no problem with maintaining the 12A certificate.
 
As a note to one of your points there, BBFC don't deem a 12a to be "suitable for the majority". They specifically state they only deem it suitable for ages 12 and over. They just allow, in the case of 12a, parents to override that. That is a good thing in principle, but in practice - at least to my experience - it has been an unmitigated failure.

Would you like to see 15 and 18 replaced with similar "parental overrides" as the 12 got?
 
Yes.

I wonder how many teenagers would want to go to the cinema with their parents though! :cool:

EDIT: Bah, you edited!

I've never read the "official" BBFC stance on 12A, but there's no way they can say with any authority "unsuitable for persons under the age of X" as all children have different life experiences and mature at different rates.
 
the only reason we have so many certificates (Uc, U, PG, 12, 12A, 15, 18, 18R) is simply because this country has to watch the british public like hawks - i.e. the not so great british public try to sue everyones ass for that precious little thing...MONEY!

Im ashamed to be british in all honesty. mainly due to consumers, complainers, and typical british people.
 
BBFC have been certificating films since 1912 - so I don't think the fear of "being sued" is the motivation for anything. It was the fear of being censored by government that made the British film industry set it up.
 
Back
Top