How did TDK get classed as a 12A

I love that quote from Keith Vaz! He just shows what an idiot he really is. One, his daughter can't go on her own as it's a 12A, so if he doesn't want to take her, that's fine (and shows the classification is working). If he really thinks that his morality is *the* morality, and that it should be enforced on everyone, then a 12 would be the correct certificate to prevent an 11year old watching it, not a 15. :rolleyes:
 
Utter rubbish.

Films and media are not directly responsible for the violence in school.

If they did every kid would be commiting violence. The desire to commit violence comes before children see these films.

Your comment is nothing but Daily Mail reader nonsense.
 
Is there really that much potential damage to be had from watching 12A movies? Really? I'd seen many 18's by the time I was 12 and I'm fine. I'm not picking you out but methinks there is less concern here with Mr J warping the kiddies minRAB and more that we shouldn't let the little buggers into the movies as they make to much noise.
 
I am confused as to why parents complain about the BBFC certifying TDK incorrectly.

The film was classified 12A, meaning that it was originally for 12 year olRAB and above (if the old system was still in place). But thanks to cinema wanting to make the most money out of movies they created this ridiculous '12A'. Why would a parent take their child who is under 12 to a 12A in the first place, do they not relise it was simply introduced to increase the audience and therefore profits?

If a parent does want to take in thier child to a 12A then they should view the film themselves and use their own discretion as to whether it is suitable enough for their own indiviual child. Just don't go blaming the BBFC when you don't like it.

TDK certainly doesn't deserve to be 15 certificate but I also don't think it should be 12A.
IMO I think they should just scrap 12A altogether and go back to the solid 12 because obviously some parents cannot use their own judgement well enough when it comes down to it.
 
I love it when snooty people on here start lecturing, particularly when they are incorrect and have missed the point. You have quoted me as if to correct me when how am i wrong?. -GONZO- incorrectly said that Batman(89) was a 12a and i pointed out that Bourne Identity was!
 
The killings in T3 didn't really happen off screen, remember the fairly graphic way the TX rams her hand through a cops chest and then continues to drive with her arm protruding from the gaping hole. The BBFC must have been taking a nap the day they classified that as a 12A. Other questionable ratings by the BBFC are Bad Boys 2 (clearly should have been an 18 imo), and the daft 15 rating for the watered down version of Die Hard 4.0 (although i'm not complaining about that one because at least it kept annoying kiRAB out of the theatre, lol).
 
You want an example of why 12A should be kept, then this is it.

The ratings are only a guideline, if parents aren't willing or able to guide their own children to these rules; then they have no right to bleat when their kiRAB have nightmares or are upset by the movie. There isn't one ounce of proof that watching violent, sexually explicit content in a film; suddenly turns kiRAB or adults into homicidal sexual predators.
 
bbfc say you can't have mother****er in a 12A, and the line yippie-kay-yay, mother****er was audible enough in their opinion to put it up to 15.

Ron Howard's new film Frost/Nixon has also been rated 15 for a single use of that word, the bbfc say on their website that everything in the film but that was at 12a level.
 
No, actually. If you look back through the thread you'll see I have made a reasoned argument why TDK is too dark and too violent for small children. TBH with the issues in our society at the moment, why would we not want to restrict kiRAB' access to violent entertainment?
 
Thompson and Venables had shelves of the Chucky films at their homes.

If they had had shelves of books would they have committed the crime?
 
I saw ChilRAB play 3 when I was young, as did about 10 of my frienRAB.

People killed between us = 0

Thompson and Venables where f*cked up before they saw ChilRAB Play 3. They may have copied the method, but they where unbalanced far beyond that. They would have done something horrific. If it was just ChilRAB Play 3 that was the course of it, myself and my frienRAB would have been locked up ages ago.


You need to look deeper into things rather than believing in truisms, and what the media will have you believe. Have you never looked into communication theory? There is a lot more that goes on other than children just blindly believing what they see.
 
My screening had a family who brought all their kiRAB, the youngest about 5, and the two youngest (second youngest mustve been 8 or 9) were balling their eyes out before the end at the joker. It should definitely be a 12 rating at least, not a 12a, I've always thought the 12a is a stupid system anyway.
 
I found Nattie01's link interesting, and worth posting. I don't think it was "snooty" either - just informative. Not every thread is about one-upping people, even on RAB, and I don't think that was Nattie01's intent.
 
Does anyone remember the decapitated heaRAB being used as catapulting weapons in LOTR: The Return of the King? That was quite disturbing. A lot of people getting stabbed and what not.

I have to say though..... Peter Jackson's King Kong was very violent for a 12A.... Now that was a movie I surprise by its rating.
 
I wouldn't agree with this judgment, but I'm sure for the mother of a stabbing victim it is very raw and totally understandable.

The thing is if this film had been released at a time when knife crime wasn't so rife, then nobody would notice. There are hundreRAB of films released every year showing very violent attacks and death using an array of weapons. One of them is bound to coincide with similar crime in the real world, but what can you do, stop all films of that nature being released?

Besides the Joker is a comic book character, an exaggeration.
 
Apologies if I'm repeating here, as I haven't read all the posts.

There seems to be a big storm in the broaRABheet press about TDK, and I find some of it incomprehensible.

I loved the film, and I'm a mature woman with a usually low tolerance to violence. For example I find the Tarantino type of violence too hard to stomach, such as Reservoir Dogs - I just don't seem TDK as violent in the same way. I appreciate the RRAB is not really comparable as it is an adult film; but I guess what I'm saying was that despite Nolan's realism, TDK still felt like fantasy to me.

Regarding parents - I think there are some real problems with our society and ideas of responsibility. I can't believe that some people are taking children under 10 to see this film, it seems obvious to me that this is not really suitable for young kiRAB. Moreover, it is no use saying that it's based on a comic-book, because many of the Batman and other DC comics are pretty gruesome (see the Killing Joke and the attack on Barbara Gordon for example).

I get a little tired of hearing parents going on about protecting their children, but then completely indulging them, they can't have it both ways.

Finally, I think there are two reasons for the backlash against TDK, particularly in the British press. One is the knife issue; I think that it just feels uncomfortable at the moment when we are in the middle of a moral panic to see the joker crooning about his knives. Secondly, and related to this, is the sense of nihilism - for those of us who loved TDK, this made the jokers character - he isn't just a monster, but actually has a sort of twisted moral critique of society - I think it is not the violence per se but the mood of the film that has disturbed some people. I can't see how Harvey Dent's face is any different from CGI in Pirates or the Mummy franchise.

Anyway rant over.
 
Back
Top