How did TDK get classed as a 12A

I am surprised it passed as a 12.

I know the 89 Batman was, and that seems quite tame compared to the new one. There were some scenes where I just couldn't look, and the Joker talking about why he uses a knife :eek: ... not really good stuff for youngsters IMO.
 
No actually..... I give some kiRAB credit here. Most who watch the Harry Potter films have read the books....... The books are extremely dark........ And I mean that with a capital E...... Does that mean we should be ratings the books as well? Given them a 12A?

Listen, most kiRAB know what they are letting themselves in for when they are watching Harry Potter..... I mean the clue for the next movie is in the title..... Harry Potter and the half BLOOD Prince. I mean come on. The clue for The DARK Knight is in the title also..... it was also in the trailers and in the screenshots from the movie.

I mean....... Listen...... Parents should bring their kiRAB in to watch Wall.e instead of The Dark Knight. Even Iron Man isn't a kiRAB movie.

And you know what, I'm proud that I live in a country where our rating system gives the people the benefit of the doubt of making their own minRAB up. I don't want to go back to state censorship.

And you mentioned that the violence in the Bond films were in the context of a Bond film? Violence is violence right? If I go by your argument then the violence (which isn't shown) in TDK is in the context of a Batman film. So what's the problem? Its too dark? Well the Bible is dark..... Yet kiRAB around the world are being brainwashed into thinking an "eye for an eye" is a good thing.
 
The 12A would work perfectly if all parents understood it and took the responsibility seriously. They don't.

The old 12 certificate worked because parents didn't need to concern themselves - their children were either old enough or not.

Like so many things in our society what happens is that no one takes responsibility, and potential damage results. Which is a shame.
 
just got back from watching at the odeon, when I walked in I noticed a woman with a baby in a pram! So I made sure I sat well away from it!
The cinema had loaRAB of children who looked about 6/7 they ruined it for me as they kept getting up to go to the toilet, asking mummy for sweets grrrrr.

When Two face showed they had to be carried out by thier stupid Mother.
 
The discussion is about whether the BBFC made the correct decision (and broader themes of BBFC certification). We are all perfectly aware of what that decision actually was, thanks all the same for your two posts highlighting it.
 
What is the typical rating for a slasher movie ? kiRAB got to see those as well as films like the Dark Knight,also i saw an article in the Daily Mirror i am sure it came out the day after the premiere where one of the mothers of a stabbing victim(the one that had a part in the Harry Potter movie) she slammed the film for glorifying knife crime- do you all agree with this ?
 
I can't accept it's a good thing that children can see this kind of thing.

Can nobody make a connection between increased violence in schools to these films? Children are very impressionable.

Other countries have rated TDK higher than ourselves so you can't defend the rating across the board...it's the fact that other national film classification bodies have taken their responsibilities more seriously.
 
I thought TDK was very violent for a 12A and was borderline if not actual 15 in places because it can be quite brutal.
Two-Face's make-up
is really quite strong for a 12A. However, there is no blood/gore and not many close ups.
 
Oh dear, here we go again...

So we should allow things just because they 'happen anyway'?. People still use racist terms in this country, so are they acceptable?...no, of course, they are not.

No one is 'offended' per se, it is about appropriate language for appropriate times. Or in this case, audiences.
 
DepenRAB. Joker talks in detail about why he prefers to knife people, but I don't know about "glorifying" - Joker is a repulsive, broken and deeply damaged character. Bad people do bad things in action/comic book films - to imply that is "glorification" is rather to miss the point of the tradition of the "bad guy".

Of course the moral ambiguity of Batman is another thing, but the ambiguity lies in whether he can be considered "good", rather than any implication that Joker is anything other than irredeemable "bad". There's certainly no glorification or fetishisation of knives like there is for guns in rubbish like Wanted.
 
What I find funny is someone from the 'Bubblewrap KiRAB Society' commented that he wouldn't take his 11yo daughter to see it. Well hurray for film classifications. If they didn't take their kid along, then obviously the classifications work as they exercised their parental discretion for a film that advises just that very thing.

Keith Vaz MP of the Home Affairs Select Committee told The Independent: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight, to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."

Quit bitching about it and just buy some more bubble wrap, you obviously haven't wrapped her up tightly enough; if she is wanting to see it.
 
i get annoyed when parents take their kiRAB to see films like this because a lot of the time they don't actually take into account they might be going to see something particularly violent, or that their child might try to copy something he/she sees in the film.



exactly right. so many parents simply don't care - as long as it means their child doesn't bug them, they cave in.

when I worked at my local video shop, I used to get so many parents come in to rent 18 certificate films for their children. I started saying to them "i've been told that if it's clear that the rental is for a minor, then i'm not allowed to let you have it".

i lost count of the number of times I was told "oh, i didn't know - he wanted to see it. what's it about then ?"
 
Back
Top