How did TDK get classed as a 12A

I saw the dark knight last week and I wouldn't recommend anyone under the age of 10 see it. Some parts are very gruesome i.e two face. The parts where the joker talks about how he likes to use a knife are somewhat disturbing esp for kiRAB. The pencil trick imo is unsuitable for young children. If people took their young kiRAB to see this film and they never batted an eyelid at anything in it, I would be a little worried about what else you let your kiRAB watch.

Quite frankly it should be a 12. They should have never have gotten rid of the 12 rating because there is a huge difference between a 14 year old and a 4 year old. Yet they are only able to see the same films :confused:

Also, would like to add I am not sqeemish at all, I've watched all the saw films, hostel etc etc and I enjoy them.
 
Yeah and what happened there? They lightened it up and we got Batman Forever! At least Nolan won't sell out like that.

If TDK has done one thing it has highlighted how robbed we have been in previous Batman films. As much as I like Tim Burton's two movies (especially Returns), TDK is leagues a head.
 
I'm not supporting censorships (I think the 12A rating was fine) but I was pretty disgusted the other day when I saw that Burger King had The Dark Knight as the current face of their kiddy meals! :eek:
 
Ati87:

Spot on.

Amusing to see so many here defend a certificate which was nothing but the most shameless money-making creation. When even major Hollywood stars whose films are in that certificate question its validity, you have to stop and think.

12A is allowing scenes which, lets all be honest, would have been 15's otherwise.

12A should be scrapped. Hell, I'd question whether we ever needed 12 in the first place, let alone 12A.
 
I personally wonder how Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was rated PG back in the 80's...... That was a very gruesome film.
 
Not that I feel the film deserves a higher rating, but I too was surprised by the BBFC's comments today. I didn't realise it was their job to appease the fan base by classifying films for a perceived target age. Surely they should just stick to rating a film based on it's content, not who they think wants to watch it.
 
Fair point.

Although with the perceived to not work we have to be careful that it's just a vocal minority spoiling it, and the media taking this as a truism. (The latter day Mary Whitehouses I'm thinking of here)


I'm all for a review of the ratings. I like the idea of a PG+ and a 12 rating. I just think they got it right for this film.



Slightly off topic, but doesn't this attitude just annoy the hell out of you? In this country most people dismiss The Simpsons as a childrens programme just because it's a cartoon
 
You know what the most disturbing thing about that is? That's pretty similar to what the BBFC spokesperson said! Part of their response of why it was given it's rating was basically 'well it's a comic book movie so it should be rated low'...
 
It is a dark film and it might be too scary for young children.But certainly its fine for a 12 year old.Any younger than 8 and i would say no.And im not just saying it for this film.Unless it was U rated i wouldnt take anyone under 8, simply because i dont think they would have the attention span to stay interested in a 'film' or take in whats going on, and understand it.
With a true comic book film,its done very childlike and very glamorous.The Dark Knight is a comic book film,but its more 'film' than 'comic book'.Theres a lot to take in and understand,a lot of characters doing many different things and you need to be able to sit and take it all in.
 
IIRC, Batman was the reason why the BBFC introduced the 12 rating (for cinema) in 1989. Likewise, the MPAA introduced their PG-13 rating for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Money talks when a major studio is set to lose half the audience of its summer blockbuster.
 
My son was watching the first 5 minutes of The One Show last week and it had an image of a man with a tattoo on his neck that said 'cut here'. I find that harder to explain than a comic book action film with actors and special effects.

I agree the knife scenes were very threatening and it was getting both of us worried as to the outcome but in the end there was no visible outcome - we all tend to think too much like an adult - as far as my son was concerned the joker let the man go. It is probably no different to the sustained violence and beheading in Prince Caspian which I actually found a more unsuitable film and a disgrace it was a PG (I do have standarRAB - honest!)

As for Two Face my son covered his eyes when he was first revealed but with a smile on his face - it was gruesome but you could say the same for the new Davros (who has half his head missing and opens his chest up!) - but in both cases he just sees a cool special effects.
 
Okay you have clearly not seen this film.

There is no close-up of the violence.... The dissappearing pen trick takes only a second and there is no blood....... In fact there is hardly any blood in the film whatsoever.

This film would in no way earn itself a 18 in the past.... What the hell are you talking about...... There is hardly any swearing..... no extreme violence or sexual activity.

Jurassic Park had a scene where a man gets eaten while on the toilet........ JP3 has a scene in which a dinosaur cracks a human beings neck....... They were both rated PG...... Back in the time where there was no 12A.

So please don't paint this cosy picture of the past. You are in a film forum..... Most people here know their stuff.
 
Maybe people in the 80s were less outraged? Or deemed it suitable for the younger ages?

I've seen TDK twice and the second time icould not stop laughing at the joker. Evil. But my friend has a FOUR year old sister who enjoyed it. Not scared, no lingering fear of clowns etc.. Maybe its certain people?
 
The point is that it has mature themes. There is no way a four year old is going to get those.
Mind you... seems there's some adults don't get it either.
;)

Oh and there was 'outrage' at the Temple of Dooms certificate in the 80's.
 
Yeah, am I right in thinking that you're not allowed head-butts in a film lower than a 15? I seem to recall Star Wars Episode II having to be cut in the UK because of one incident of a head-butt (which would have caused it to get a ridiculous rating of a 15 if kept in).
 
Nope, made a common mistake there my friend. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has always been a mpaa PG. The PG-13 was introduced because there was a backlash to how violent it was, and a feeling that the mpaa were just giving Spielberg/Lucas/Paramount the rating they wanted no matter what the content of the film. But TOD will likely always be a mpaa PG.

And yes, I am a ****ing pedant!
 
The BBFC's comments are down to a classic case of it having been caught with its trousers around it's ankles after getting in to a naughty little "maximum box office receipts" relationship with Warner when it really should've know better.

It seems the BBFC clearly got the certificate wrong for this film while under pressure from Warner to let families with kiRAB in so as to maximise the film's receipts. Desperate not to have another Spiderman episode, the BBFC have let everyone in to a film which shouldn't have been viewed by anyone under 15.

Today's comments from the BBFC muppet which amount to "It's a children's film based on a comic book, so the violence doesn't matter", are laughable.

The BBFC has become a lot more tolerant over the last few years because it thinks the public has become more tolerant. I think this belief has just bitten the BBFC on the arse.

You have to laugh when they cut a shot of the end of dangling rope from Casino Royale, but let TDK go through uncut.
 
Back
Top