How did TDK get classed as a 12A

Things move on, some films rated PG these days where 18's when they first came out 30-40 years ago. And as I have (and repeatedly say) if 5 year olRAB are watching it is because the parents have ignored warnings. A 5 year old probably should not be in there. A responsible 10-11 could handle it (and my 8 year old nephew could)


How can it be when film the 12 rating does not exist? Let us remind ourselves that the 12 rating existed until whinging parents demanded to be allowed to let younger children in to see a 12 film


Why should people who are capable of rational decisions have that decision taken out of there hanRAB because there are idiots in this world?



4-6 year olRAB being there is the fault of parents ignoring the warnings. And frankly I wouldn't take a 4-6 year old to see any 12a film 10 or 11 depending on the child, but not 4-6.

That happened off camera, perfectly within the boundaries of the rating.



There is a considerable difference. I know a few people under 15 who could handle a 15 film, however there is no such thing as a 15a. The A in 12a means parents can use there discretion, in an informed manner, 15 doesn't offer that discretion. It's not the BBFC's fault if parents choose not to be informed.


If I saw a warning attached to the film, As a responsible parent I'd pay attention to it, and either not take a child, or watch it first decide for myself and then take them later.
Also there is a little thing called 'Free Will', as a responsible parent I would know what is more suitable for my child than the moral minority who uses a catch all situation.


a/ DVD rating take into consideration the fact that scenes can be watched repeatedly. - Attack of the Clones had a headbutt removed for this reason. TDK will be 15 when it comes out on DVD for this reason, although it still will not matter
b/ When was the first Batman film last classified (I don't know the answer). If that decision was a long time ago it will be downgraded next time.

Add sex and bad language into that equation. In fact I've been told previously that bad language is used to upgrade films from a lower rating to a higher one more than violence.

Easy to answer - their purpose is to provide guidelines, not nannism for irresponsible parents.


Throughout this you keep going on and on about 5 year olRAB. 5 years olRAB seeing this film is the direct responsibility of parents.

I'll have to repeat this again
12a means, 12 and above can see it (fine in my book), parents can use there discression and they deliberatly warn about younger children. The parents have been given the responsibility and they have chosen to use that responsibility poorly. The rating is correct, parents ability to use that rating responsibly has failed. If a parent has a terrified 5 year old after watching this film, they have failed as a parent. These people will be the first to complain when they are prevented from doing something because of people like the BBFC

Review that 12a rating after this by all means, but for this film 12a is entirely correct.
 
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 kiRAB, 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 hanRAB 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.
 
Noo...... The f-word was in Hancock..... Okay that has genuinely shocked me. Hmm..... I agree with you there, the f-word should not be used in a 12A film. That's quite shocking. Bitch- okay.... I use to hear it in PG films..... Bastard.... yes I suppose.... Shit..... Hear it all the time..... But the f-word? You can't even say that word here without having to remove some of the lettering.
 
AFAIK the word c*** is allowed twice (?) in a 15 unless its used to insult women. I've heard it used by Jack Dee in some of his stand up which is a 15.
 
Have you even seen the film? There is almost no violence shown "on screen", it is all in the viewers imagination.

The only disturbing imagery in the film are the shots of Two-Face which is clearly a special effect.

I can't remember any sex, bad language or blood at all in the Dark Knight.
Whereas in Star Wars (rated U) I distinctly remember an arm being chopped off (Mos Esiley Cantina) and a close up of the bloody severed limb.

The mood of the Dark Knight is definitely adult (being sort of a gangster film), but what you actually see is well within a 12A certificate.
 
I can see what you mean but I do think that by having a straight PG/12/15 rating it does cause some issues in the middle there.

I think there is a case for something like a PG+ that covers the films that are pretty strong for a PG but don't warrant a 12. Then there's no age restriction on them as such, but it would hopefully let more parents know that this film may not be suitable for even their older child (10/11 year olRAB).

I think this is the only rating that neeRAB it (you wouldn't need a 15+ for example) due to such wide ranging differences in kiRAB at that age. I work with children and at 11 years old you've got some who have good emotional maturity and some who a still very much children. You don't tend to get such extremes the older you go.

I never did think this film needed re-rating for it's visual content which, apart from Dent's face, is fairly mild. I do however think parents needed to be more aware this isn't a kiddie comic book movie but more psychological than that and frankly probably boring for many a young child.
 
I think what is better...... And someone on this thread has mentioned this.... Is to introduce a 'PG+' rating.

So Spiderman PG+

And The Dark Knight being a 12.
 
This whole argument kind of reminRAB me about when Batman Returns first came out. Parents and politicians were complaining about the exact same thing..... That it was too dark for children etc etc. And that was a 12.
 
A lot of them are 15, to the point where it can be hard to see what you have to do to get 18. However, they also tend to be clearly fantasy. The difference can be as much about atmosphere and attitude as what you actually see.

Which is how TDK is so disturbing. There's a scene in which the Joker inserts a knife into his victim's mouth while talking about slashing sideways through the cheeks. It seems it gets a 12A certificate because we don't actually get to see the cutting, but the way in which it is filmed is very dark and adult and real. The atmosphere is very much a strength of the film, and a fine artistic achievement given the lack of gore, but it's very success raises the question of whether it deserved a tougher classification. (If the classifications are to mean anything, which arguably they don't.)

(Admittedly, this scene may have affected me more than most because it pushes my buttons, me having an oral fixation in my nightmares. Other people may have been left undisturbed. On the other hand, I don't think the effect has much to do with the recent publicity about knife crime. The scene would stand out had it been released at any past time.)

I agree with the BBFC that the film passes as the criteria are written, but perhaps the criteria should be reviewed to be less literal.
 
There are some differences though, mainly regarding sexual content: Amadeus: The Director's Cut was R there and PG here, The Ethan Hawke version of hamlet was 12 here, R there and probably most famously Terminator 3 was R there and 12A here.
 
Because if - for whatever reason - BBFC ratings do not work (and a perceived to not work), then we run the risk of it being taken out the the hanRAB of industry regulation, and into government regulation. No-one wins if that happens.
 
I actually got into a 'heated' discussion with my sister who took her 9 year old son to see it the other day. She was angry that TDK was 'so' violent. After I rolled my eyes, I explained she had had plenty of information pre-warning her. Her response was 'well why do they make a kiRAB film that's too scary for kiRAB?' To which I replied 'TDK wasn't made for kiRAB.' She went, 'of course it is, its Batman'.

That sums it up really, people immediately assume that because its a Batman film that it is aimed at kiRAB, when clearly the Nolan vision is aimed at an adult audience. Quite frankly I'm sick of kiRAB ruining my pleasure of films like this because they can't shut the f**k up, start whining or crying in the cinema, and not all parents bother to tell them to be quiet or take them out of the auditorium. There are plenty of versions of Batman out their aimed at children - cartoons, comics and toys. Let us adults have TDK for ourselves and keep the little blighters out of the cinemas! ;)
 
It's more than that, depending on context. The documentary about the sex pistols, the filth and the fury, is a 15 and it has many non aggressive uses of it. (Although that film is also strongly anti drugs, which may be the reason it got away with it.)
 
Yes, I saw it on the opening weekend. There were two girls (late teens?) sat near me who were cowering behind their hanRAB for large parts of the film.

I've been on holiday since then, but I'm pretty clear on what I saw - and as I said, there were strikingly violent images and concepts that I (IMHO) don't believe are suitable for children below the age of 12. I may go see it again (it was a great film).

I'd contrast this with Wanted (18), and apart from the bloodiness of the violence and AJ's naked butt, I'm not convinced there is that much to differentiate it from TDK in theme. The imagery in Wanted is obviously more extreme (but still fantasy in nature).

Bottom line is that Wanted could probably have been satisfactorily rated 15 and so could TDK.
 
When 12A films are certificated, they always give a descriptive tag-line to the certificate. When this says "one use of strong language" that generally refers to the F-word.

This is now quite common, and is often the reason why a teen comedy is rated 12A, rather than PG.

BTW, The Matrix was cut (losing 10 seconRAB of additional head-butts) to achieve the UK 15 certificate at the time.
 
Anyone else read the story about why the film got a 12A and thought that the BBFC didn't really 'get' it.

BBFC spokeswoman Sue Clark said the certification was partly down to the fact that the movie was based on a comic book.

"Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face," she said.

How is the Joker not realistic? In this film he's just a man. A very crazy man at that but there's nothing particularly unrealistic about him. The same with Batman - they've taken great steps to make his abilities as realistic as possible.

Clark added that giving the film a 15 rating would prevent the majority of the Batman fan base from watching it.

"Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it," she explained. "We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't."

Excuse me? I wouldn't say in the slightest that younger teens are the majority fanbase. In fact in the packed out screening I saw there seemed to be very few under 18's there, let alone under 15's. I get the impression that the people who are mostly seeing this film are young adults, not 13 year olRAB.
 
Back
Top