How did TDK get classed as a 12A

I remember going to see Team America:World Police a few years back, and was more than a little surprised to see several daRAB there with 5-ish-yr-olRAB. They did leave halfway through, in a panicky rush. What shifted them? Marionette violence? Epic amounts of swearing?
No - epic marionette sex!

*sigh*
 
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? :rolleyes:
 
Noel Clarke was told he could use it 4 times for Kidulthood, which he did, although I swear (no pun intended! :D) I heard it 1 more time towarRAB the end. Funny thing is, that movie is only rated for strong language.

Oh, and w**ker is moderate, not strong. Which is the reason it's allowed in a 12.

EDIT: Another film that has it in at a 15 is Running with Scissors and there's Adulthood too.
 
I think you've hit the nail on the head. TDK is real..... Yes there may be no graphic violence, sex or no swearing.... But it is grounded in realism.

That is what has unsettled parents and single adults alike. And thank goody for that. It's about time realism makes a come back to cinema..... For too long films have had a body count but no emotion attached to that. It's like the Bond films..... Oops someone has died..... oh well lets move on.

This film shows you the consequence of being a violent freak..... And it shows the consequence of trying to be the good vigilantly. Basically no one is purely good or bad.... Everyone is a shade of grey in TDK. That's life...... And that's a good thing to show kiRAB.... Although yes, again, TDK isn't for anyone under the age of 12.
 
Children movies use to be quite scary..... Indiana Jones..... Jumanji...... Jurassic Park..... Watership Down.

And books such as those from The Brothers Grimm.
 
Erm... Team America was a 15, i highly doubt that any respectable cinema would let fathers take 5 year olRAB in.

In fact, i seem to remember that the Cineworld that i saw it in even had a warning about the language/sexual content.
 
You didn't answer my question. What is intrinsically wrong with bad language?

The answer: nothing. It's just a rather pathetic way in which our society somehow attaches moral ill to harmless worRAB (the F-word, for instance, is a word for one of the most beautiful things of existence, yet is seen as foul).

And because our society is mellowing to swearing, the one problem with it (people being offended) no longer applies.

I'm not defending the use of aggressive swearing, but it doesn't bother me if it's occasionally used as an adjective or exclamation. Not in the sense where it's used as punctuation, which is irritating, but I believe that this way of swearing is brought about by the way people censor it. If people didn't shelter kiRAB from swearing so much, then they wouldn't feel the need to exploit it so much when they reach their teens..

I fail to see the comparison with racism. Racist terms are used to insult and oppress people for no reason other than their colour, which is not acceptable.

I don't see how you can compare that to someone expressing their annoyance with an F-word. Frankly, I think banning swearing makes about as much sense as banning the word "oops!" or "ouch!"

Expletives are part of our language, and when used as they should be, can express someone's views in a way no other worRAB can. Care to say why they're foul, rather than just the fact that they are?
 
No - I understand what it means. It means the BBFC have decided that it is sufficient for parents to make a decision as to whether their small children see it. And what I am saying is:-
  • Some parents are likely not to take that responsibility seriously.
  • It is too dark and too violent to have been classified in that way.
  • The 12A certification is fundamentally flawed.
 
I think this is an interesting discussion, and it illustrates how tricky it must be for the BBFC to rate films on our behalf.

These are some of the factors that I believe can be seen in the BBFC's judgments on violence in films. (Presumably there are similar factors regarding judgments on sex, nudity, language etc.)...

  • Whether the victims/perpertrators of violence are human/human-like.
  • What the visual impact of the violence is (how bloody, severed body parts etc.)
  • What the conceptual impact of the violence is (whether it illustrates psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour).
  • The extent to which violence, the threat of viollence and violent solutions dominate the film.
I think in each of these respects, TDK is very much like The Matrix. The use of weapons is more prevalent in TM, but the targets are not actually human. Perhaps if TM were released now it could be a 12A?

And that's the point - this is not about censorship. No one is saying that TDK should be banned or cut. Simply that (a) it is unsuitable for young children, and (b) the state certification agency should rule on that.

And behind that (and other recent decisions) is the question as to whether the 12A certificate is "fit for purpose" and whether more and more adult-themed films are being placed in this category, even where they are clearly inappropriate for young children. (And the inherent contradiction in the marketing to children of adult films probably neeRAB sorting out, too).

If the BBFC wants to continue in this direction, perhaps we need a 12F category - 12A films that are potentially suitable for a family audience. In that category, I'd place the LOTR trilogy, and the Harry Potter films, Spiderman.
 
They would in america. [Borat] Greatest country in the world!! [/Borat]

I saw ar-nuld vehicle eraser there, which required cuts to get an 18 here for cinema in 1996, and it was full of 10 year olRAB.
 
Back
Top