How did TDK get classed as a 12A

18 films are not really the same as NC17. We usually have a decent amount of 18 rated films coming out, whereas no studio will release an N17 film in America, and basically cut it down. Basically 12A and 15 are PG13, and R rated films are a mix of 15 and 18 films, depending on the content.

On topic, yes I did feel this film was a little extreme in parts for younger children. However, I still took my 9 year old cousin to watch it as he is a huge batman fan, and was bugging me. He is mature enough to understand violence in a fantasy world is not normal in real life, and he certainly won't be copying it. On the other hand, I wouldnt have taken him if I knew he had violence issues at school for example; at the end of the day you should have enough responsibility over your kiRAB to see what is and is not appropriate for them.

I follow certificates pretty closely, and so far I felt Dark Knight and My Super Ex Girlfriend were the two films that were borderline 15 material in some parts. My Super Ex Girlfriend had scenes where Uma Thurman was doing some stuff you wouldnt want younger children to see.
But again I'm glad the parents or guardians can decide what they feel is suitable. Don't blame films, games and music for crime; blame bad parenting.

I remember watching the terminator films when I was about 7. I watched pretty much every film that was on tv as a young child (18 rated films when I was 8 years old...) by setting the VHS recording without letting my parents know. So I wouldnt have a problem letting my children watch most things (some obvious exceptions...). Censorship is a bad thing, we just need better parenting.
 
Went to see it again last night and I've got to say the 12a rating is spot on.

The worst aspects of the violence is shown off camera (ie the Joker slicing the guys face early on). The burning of Harvey Dent is only briefly shown. All these things are acceptable within a 12a rating. Two Face's burnt half straddles the boundary somewhat, but again they hide that face a number of times, and it never crosses a line.

The film is perfectly acceptable for 12 year olRAB and above to enjoy, and if a parent believes a younger child is capable of handling the darker aspects then that is what the 'a' is for, for parental discression. The rating has a warning attatched to it that some scenes may not be suitable for younger children, and the problem for a lot of parents is that they have either ignored that warning, or ignored the rating completly 'because their child wants to see the Batman'. If a parent has done this and their child has been scared then the blame lies entirely with the adult who should have known better.

People have also suggeted that is too strong for 'some' 12 year olRAB and should therefore be a 15. I am sorry but that is utter rubbish. That sort of thing will happen it cannot be avoided, but these people are in a minority, a 12 year old is also capable of making the decision as to whether they want to see it, and I'd say any 12 year old who can't handle it probably doesn't want to see the film anyway. Also I know people in their 30's who are disturbed by the violence in 18 films but we're not going to announce a '40' rating are we?.

It doesn't help either that people who haven't seen the film are jumping on the 'moral' bandwagon and condeming it with no evidence to back it up.
 
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.
 
I disagree.



All that stuff would have earned an 18 a few years ago. I don't believe it is 'progression' that 5 year olRAB can now see faces being burnt off, people being threatened with knives, people being beaten and kicked and stamped on, people being casually shot.



It should be a 12 then.



I am sure you realise that a great deal of parents are as thick as pig-****. The cinema I went to even had extra signs up warning of the violence and horror.

But still 4 and 5 and 6 year olRAB were in there, getting increasingly distressed. The very thought of the 'chelsea smile' makes me cringe!



Agree.




But how come you absolve the BBFC of responsibility on 12A ? What if this was a 15?

And they don't know better do they? The higher ratings are imposed to 'protect' people from unsuitable content - why does this one give responsibility to the parents? 95% of the time, the parents haven't actually seen the film to make judgement and it seems a lot of them were shocked.



The 1989 Batman is currently a 15 on DVD and that is not as violent or disturbing as Dark Knight



Some '18' films are a lot less violent than Dark Knight - the typical Van Damme film for example.



Well, I've seen it twice.

While I am not usually one to believe in the 'influence of films and games on the young, I couldn't help feel uncomfortable with the knives and beatings when we currently have a British tradition among young people of beating and stabbing people to death at the weekend.

Then there are other matters - how much of the film are young children going to understand? This blatantly isn't a film aimed at kiRAB. A 5 year old might get excited about Batman gliding over the city but is he going to get the thematic and character elements, the woven plot threaRAB, the motivations for the actions etc...

I wonder the purpose of the BBFC when 5 year olRAB are allowed to see the kind of violence in this film.
 
I would have rated it 12. Maybe 15 but not 12A, because parents dont seem to understand the rating --- they think it means anybody can go, when really it means its best suited for 12, but you can take your kiRAB if they're mature enough.

there was a four year old in there when I went to see it, screaming and crying through it because it was scary. The parents didnt take her out though, not throuhg the whole film. Not just mean to the poor child who shouldn't be sitting through a film as dark as Batman, but also damn annoying for people trying to enjoy the film.
 
Essentially they are the same rating, though - with the BBFC stating that the films are unsuitable to under 12s. The only difference is that - when they replaced the 12 with the 12a (12 isn't really used in cinema anymore) - they allowed parents and guardians to override this rating.

However, it seems a decent proportion of parents are either too indifferent or too stupid to use it properly. BBFC certification neeRAB to work, and be seen to work, to avoid censorship from other sources (i.e. government) and the 12A simply doesn't work, IMO.
 
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 olRAB and up.

I am shocked at the rating. Should be a 15.
 
No. I believe TM had a lot of foul language in it... did it not? Especially one or two uses of the F-word.

I could be wrong..... But that could have pushed it from possibly being a 12 to a 15 when it was released.

I think a better rating..... instead of a 12A might simply be a 'C' rating- or a 'Caution' rating...... A rating that is self explanatory... A child can only view the film if accompanied by an adult.

Then you could have a 12, 15 and an 18 after that.

It seems pretty clearly that a lot of people, no matter how many times it is explained..... Will never get the 12A rating.
 
I'm surprised the rating was so low. Apparently my nephew who is 9 didn't bat an eyelid either, he just found it a bit boring.

At the end of the day the content probably bothers adults more than the kiRAB. There was also plenty of information about the film about besides the 12A rating so parents should have been well informed.
 
Jaws was an A certificate when it came out at the pictures. Which meant anyone could go see it, though kiRAB needed their parents' permission, or preferably to be accompanied by an adult. I was eight, my brother was five, we went to see it. It was scary as f**k, especially that bit with Ben Gardner's head coming out of the boat - but we enjoyed it.

When Jaws was first shown on telly some parents were saying it should have an AA (15) or even an X (18) rating it was so scary. Bollox - it was scary, but it was fun too. They ended up showing Jaws 2 on at six in the evening on Christmas Day one year, so that obviously wasn't considered very scary.
 
This argument has been going on since the movie came out. There was a whole report in the Daily Mail about the 12A cert, and how the reporter thought it should have been a 15. To me that argument makes too many assumptions. It assumes that some how, watching a movie will in some way warp a child's mind and turn them into serial killers. Even in the short term, if a child is frightened by a movie, they will have forgotten about it by the time they arrive home.

Then there are those who say that the movie glorified knife crime. That couldnt be further from the truth. The message the movie was giving out is the classic "Crime Does Not Pay".

To me, this whole thing is an attempt by those pro censorship people, to start a debate on our rating system. There was an attempt a few months ago, to get a new law passed in parliament, which would have given anyone, the right to appeal against a movie rating. This, in affect, would have given right wing, pro censorship groups like "The Christian Voice", or "Media Watch", the right to appeal to the House of Commons to have a movie scene's cut, or there ratings increased. As that bill failed, it seems that the next course of action for these people is to assault each movie individually.

I am very much anti censorship, but if we are to have censorship, then i think we in the UK, with the BBFC, have struck the correct balance between "protecting" children, and giving adults the right to watch whatever they want. As soon as we have one group of adults dictating what other adults can watch, we are on a slippery slope.
 
Yes, I'm sure all that is true - except the bit about censorship. As I've already said, this isn't about censorship - adults can see what they like. It's about the state making adequate provision for the protection of children. The general order of things would have changed not one bit if TDK had been rated 15. I just think it would have been more appropriate, and would have sent a more satisfactory message to the studios to consider for the future.

I have a number of issues with the violence in TDK:-
  • It's frequency and severity throughout the film.
  • The savagery (both close-up and grand-scale)
  • The imagery - for me this is the "disappearing pencil" and the close-ups of Two Face - both of which would have earned TDK a 15, or even 18 cert in the past.
Once upon a time, we had a clear distinction between PG and 12 (or A and AA before that). I just think that was a better way to handle this issue.
 
OOpps, Blimey what a fuss ive caused with some of the posts over an incorrect 12A:o
I was only 13 when Batman came out so forgive me for not accurately remembering something from 19 years ago.
All I remebered was that I thought I was never gonna see Batman at the cinema due to the 15cert until the rating got changed to a 12.
 
Back
Top