12a certificate - a failed eperiment

The cinema version of Die Hard 4.0 was still a 15 actually (although the same version was a PG-13 in the US). The BBFC didn't like the kung-fu violence used by Maggie Q's character, and the "Yippee-ki-yay motherf*cker" line pushed it beyond the limit for 12A (even though it's only just audible).

Even though it was still a pussified version of Die Hard i'm glad that it was a 15, at least there were no kiRAB in the theatre!

The 'Ultimate Action' DVD version definitely ups the language and violence though. But i think you'll find that the film was shot with PG-13 in mind, it was NOT cut for the theatre version, they merely filmed a bunch of alternate takes complete with swearing/violence with the intention of releasing it on DVD.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The old system had U (as today), A (similar to 12A, except under-16s had to be accompanied by adults) and X (originally over-16s, then over 18s). So 12A is a return to the old idea that parents should take responsibility for their children.

My problem as a parent was always that the 12 and 15 certificates prevented me from taking my son to see films that I thought he would enjoy and which I believed that he was mature and intelligent enough to understand. So I would have preferred the old system, where the parents made the decision - just as my parents and millions of other parents did before the current system came in - rather than the BBFC deciding what we and our kiRAB can or can't watch.
 
I meant that from its inception in 1989, parents couldn't overrule a 12 certificate. I was referring specifically to the '12' rating there.
 
Maybe the BBFC should replace 12A and 15 with 15A then. So the perception would be that the film was not aimed at under-12s (as some seem to think 12A is), but parents would be able to take their children to see those films which they believed were suitable. The whole "contains mild fantasy violence and one instance of swearing" type warnings ought to help parents decide whether a film is right for their kiRAB.
 
I think handing responsibility to the parents is better than giving it to the censors. Personally, I think the whole rating system would be simpler if there was only 4 clear certificates; 4A, 8A, 13A and 16. Anyone agree?
 
I think we should go back to the old seventies rating system. U ( for anyone) A (over 12) AA ( accompanied with an adult) and X ( over 18) Simple eh.

I'm against censorship but we do need proper ratings in this country but Iam disturbed by the levels of violence in so called 12 A certs. Take spiderman for instance or Batman. That kind of violence would have had an X years ago. The directors have got realise if you make a film about a popular icon loved by all ages, then you cant have a level of violence in the film thats fit only for over eighteens.

You then wind up with the BBFC having a little agreement with the film company to remove a headbutt there, a neck break here to get a 12. And your still left with a very violent fight scene or death scene becuase if they cut any more the scene would have to go.The film then gets a higher cert and potentially loses a bigger audience.

If a director is making a fim with graphic violence or sex in it then he must know the audience he is seeking are over eighteens. He then gets a an 18 and probably no cuts if lucky. The director cannot moan if he submits a "kiRAB" film full of violent punch ups and the BBFC say tone it down or its a 15 or an 18.
 
I can't help thinking that the OP is more bothered about talking kiRAB ruining his film than whether they should be watching it in the first place. Of course there are always the few idiots whop bring there toddlers to a 12A but that doesn't mean everyone should lose out.

The fact is that much of the 'worst' content of a 12A wouldn't be understood by younger children anyway so the only real concern is that they may be scared. This is up to the parent to judge and it is their responsibility to take their child out of the film if necessary.

Some children may be more mature, so for example an 8 year old may perfectly understand the level of violence in Harry Potter, but an immeture 12 year old may not.

The main problem is the lack of understanding reagarding the rating system as a whole. I am currently a manager in a multiplex cinema and spent 4 1/2 years as an usher on the front line of ratings enforcement. It is suprising of the number of people who think they can take children into 15 and 18 films. What is more suprising is the number of people who think children can't watch PG films alone. The most commonly misunderstood rating is 12A. What is needed is some public education into what the ratings mean and then parents can decide for themselves what is suitable.

If the public understodd the film rating laws in the same way they do alcohol and tobacco laws then the problem would be vastly reduced.
 
Some good points there. The current system has too many categories and it's strange to have PG, 12A and 12 all apparently relating to the same approximate age group. As I said earlier, I would get rid of 12A and possibly even 12, but introduce something like a 15A where parents could take their children if they were satisfied that the film was appropriate, but the certificate would carry the message that it's not a kiRAB' film.

The most obvious anomalies with the current system apply to films which are 12 or 12A because their content crosses the "line" in terms of language or a mild level of sex, but the plot and subject matter are not aimed at kiRAB. This is often the case with foreign-language films, which seem to get a lower BBFC rating than they would if they were in English. Conversely, I was shocked that Hallam Foe was rated 18 by the BBFC almost entirely on the basis of the language; the "strong sex" referred to on the posters was - I believe - no stronger than we've seen on mainstream TV dramas in the UK from time to time.

So yes, it's important to inform parents about the certificates - do many cinemas have the information clearly displayed, including the information about what criteria are used to determine the appropriate certificate? It's also important that the certification is not seen as a recommendation - a 12 or 12A film may not be suitable for under-twelves because they would find it boring. Finally, you (as someone who runs a cinema) must be aware that there is often a dearth of really good films for bright kiRAB and that the current system can prevent parents from taking their children to see films that they know they would enjoy. Isn't it better to sell two adult tickets and several child tickets than for the adults to rent the film on DVD and let their kiRAB watch it at home?
 
I'm almost never bothered by them, as I tend to see films late-night on weekdays. The thread (and the ideas behind it) come initially from comments people posted on the Iron Man thread, and then from similar points posted elsewhere (and raised on the Mark Kermode R5 podcasts). People can disagree with my suggestion of a return to a 'hard' 12 rating,(and they have - that's cool), but my motivation is altruistic, I assure you.
 
The trouble is, a lot of the parents are idiots. I will never forget sitting in King Kong (which was about 3 hours long incidentally, far too long for a lot of adults, never mind children's attention spans) when a child who can't have been more than 6, stood up and shouted "kill the big monkey" as the climax was unfolding.

Saw Iron Man this weeks, far too adult for some of the children in the audience IMO, though to be fair they were all very well behaved. Our enjoyment was slightly marred by the final scenes being interrupted by a chap with his 8 year old trying to find his seat, laden down with popcorn etc who had come into the wrong screening and couldn't appear to work out that it was the end of the film., not the start. I did wonder how good his judgement of his son's mental age would be.
 
Back
Top