How did TDK get classed as a 12A

My friend's 11 year old granRABon went to see it with his mother and I. He did not bat an eyelid and I cowered a lot through it especially with the Joker's pencil trick.
 
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

Not everyone can see a 12A........ It is a rating that says...... it's for 12 years and over..... But a child can be brought in IF accompanied by an adult. So it is up to stupid parents to decide. And I use the word stupid, because a lot of parents seem to think...... Ah its batman..... so it must be for kiRAB.... lalalalalalalalalala!
:rolleyes:

Batman Begins had all the themes you just mentioned....... So did Batman Returns...... Remember the fuss made about that one? Jaws also caused a problem in the 70's..... Parents thought it was too violent for kiRAB.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire had a scene in which a man cuts off his own hand at the end. It's not shown but it is implied.

Casino Royale was rated 12A......... Yet there was no fuss made about that....... And that was MORE VIOLENT..... It had a scene in which a man literally gets a bollocking! But I guess its a "British" franchise..... so why chastise it right?:rolleyes:

So there are tones and tones of examples throughout movie history of movies people think should not be shown to kiRAB.

And don't forget...... It is because of simpering parents that we have got the bloody 12A certificate in the first place..... All because they wanted their little precious angels to go and watch Spiderman. So blame yourselves, quite frankly. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
 
Technically... Anyone can see a 12A film, but if you are under 12, you have to nag an adult to take you.

I accept all the examples you have given. I think the issue with TDK (and probably with Harry Potter, too) is that kiRAB expect to be able to see "kiRAB" films. And therefore the issues of unsuitability are genuinely different between:
TDK ... very dark, violent, and perceived as a comic book film.
It's a Boy/Girl Thing ... inappropriate sexual content, but not geared at young kiRAB
Casino Royal ... violent, but in context for a Bond film
​
I do think the BBFC have a tricky job to do... but I also think that they are limiting their ability to do it well by not having the necessary range of certification available. Perhaps we can have a 12C certificate - where parents are specifically cautioned that content is unsuitable for under 12s? Or perhaps we cut out the middle-man and go back to PG and 12?
 
What is in there in Harry Potter that a 12, 13 or 14 year old could not handle? Seriously?

14 year olRAB are studying stuff in school which has more violence than many 15-rated movies.
 
But that is just absolving parents from any responsibility. The 12a certificate clearly states some content will be unsuitable for children under 12. I am a firm believer that parents are ultimately responsible for what their children see or do not see. If some parents are stupid enough to think 12a means a film is suitable for all ages then that is their problem, the film makers and classification board should not be hauled over the coals. There is no excuse for ignorance, the information is there for parents to make an informed decision.

Its as bad as parents saying 'such and such sex or swearing was shown to close to just after the 9pm watershed.' The watershed is the watershed, you know it is 9pm therefore you know that your kiRAB might see or hear something inappropriate for them.
 
I dont know about other parents, but this didnt apply to us.
We left our 8 year old boy at his nans and took our two 10 year old girls who didnt know they were going and both loved it.
Usually with a 12A we view it first to descide whether or not the kiRAB can see it or not.(which is what we did with the last 2 Harry Potter films)
We discussed it first and knew that our girls were mature enough to see this movie.(how things have changed since one of them screaming her head off at the ghost at the beggining of Scoobi-Doo the Movie a few years ago)
There is no way that our 8 year old son would be able to watch it as hes not able to handle this type of film.
So the only Batman films hes allowed to watch is Batman Forever and Batman & Robin.(poor sod would also love to see how Anakin becomes Darth Vader, but knows he's not old enough to find out just yet)

So at the end of the day its down to the parents to decide what they think their kiRAB on an individual basis should be watching.
Obviousley there are parents that don't give a damb what their kiRAB watch, but there are also others that know what their kiRAB can handle and what they cant.
 
I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, but I'm sick of parents complaining how bad some 12A films are and if they had known how violent or scary the film was they wouldn't have taken little Timmy to see it. :rolleyes:

If you want to take an under 12 child to see a 12A film then what the hell do you expect? If your child is traumatised after seeing violent and scary scenes in a film then that's not the fault of the BBFC, the cinema or the film distributor, its yours!

If a film is a 12A, then it most probably will contain strong language, violence or/and nudity.

At the beginning of a 12A film, there is a warning informing you about the potential content of the film and clearly states that the film is not suitable for under 12's and responsibility lies with the parent/guardian who allows there under age child to view that film.

Just because the film is about a superhero or something that could attract a child's attention doesn't mean it could be suitable for kiRAB, especially when the clue about its content is the rating its been given and the warnings on the advertisements. :rolleyes:

Btw, yes I've got a kid and no I wouldn't take her to see a film unless I had seen it first or I am fully aware of the film's content. :p
 
Scrap 12A!! I just doesn't work. Yes it will be a shame for mature 10 and 11 year olRAB and I would never want them to miss such a great film such as TDK, but idiotic parents bringing children ranging from 4 to 9 year olRAB is just ignorant. As is the excuse that they assumed it was for children 'becuase it is Batman'.



This was an exception that probably could have been a PG but for Mary Jane's nipple probably :rolleyes:

The old solid system worked perfectly well.
And if producers want their film to fall within a certain certificate, they know how the BBFC marks films, they have been doing it for years now. If they want to make more money and reach a wider audience, then don't make the film voilent.

I hope TDK opens some parents' eyes about reading warnings and using common sense when overuling something they have been warned about before hand.
 
Well the BBFC seem to agree with you. Their distinction is based on agressive use of language as much as on the language itself.

TBH we got a bit side-tracked on the language issue. It's quite clear that this is not an issue in TDK, and its the theme and the violence that concern people.
 
Stars questioning the rating is just hyperbole. The bbfc are in a no win situation, it is fair to say if TDK was a 15 they'd be getting more complaints than they are now, it's understandable they've said it's up to the parents. And if the parents don't care, it's not like the kiRAB aren't going to see the dvd anyway, even if it had been a 15.
 
Back
Top