How did TDK get classed as a 12A

Content-wise, I don't think it's too gruesome. Except for a certain face, and another moment or two (won't go into details). I think the threat of the violence is more disturbing than most of what they actually show. But I agree, I'd keep the kiRAB away from this one if I was a parent.


That's interesting because in the original script he was supposed to spit out a tooth during that scene. I also remember reading about him laughing whilst bleeding. Guess that was one scene they had to change.
 
If parents actually taught their children right from wrong, instead of just leaving it to society to teach them; then we wouldn't need ratings like 12A.

Having seen TDK tonight I can clearly see why I did get a 12A rating. There is little I could see that would require a 15 rating. Yes it is a little gruesome (Harvey Dent), but nothing that I would call mind altering to the point that a kid becomes a psychotic killer or mentally disturbed as some people would believe. What surprised me the most was that most of the visibly violent scenes were perpetrated by the 'good guys' - Batman/Joker holding cell. The truly disturbing scenes that centred around the Joker, where never really shown - pencil/mob scene, Chelsea Smile, etc.

I seriously think parents who show up with a child under 12, should be stopped at the ticket counter; asking them why they feel their child should be allowed in to see it. For their own good and the good of other cinema users, who may have to later put up with screaming kiRAB and disruption of the film.
 
This is 2008 guys. We are a free country, we can be a bit more leniant with things. Anyone seeing trailers or footage of this film knows its not a kiRAB film. So there should be no people going into this movie blind. You cant please everyone, youll always get people who will insist on moaning about everything. The BBFC have guidlines for their ratings, the dark knight ticked all the boxes suitable to require a 12A rating....its as simple as that.
 
I wouldn't right your comment off as lightly as the previous poster, however you can't take one extreme example and use it as evidence.

There are thousanRAB of violent films made every year which children have access to viewing, yet hardly any turn to violent crime as a result? There is no correlation.

Even in a case like Thompson and Venables, there are other factors in place. Children who will take something violent they see in a film and replicate it are likely to have deeper psychological problems at the route of it. Most children are able to distinguish fictional violence and what is acceptable in society.

Unfortunately it is indicative of our society that we allow films, TV etc to carry the weight of responsibility for the sins of society, allowing bad parenting to yet again fall under the radar.

The simple fact is TDK was not intended as a kiRAB film, it has not been presented as a kiRAB film. People just make the assumption because Batman is a character that appeals to kiRAB, that all incarnations are aimed at children. This is utter nonsense. From the earliest comics back in the 1940s, Batman was not intended as a character aimed at young children. As I said in a previous post, there are numerous versions of the character for kiRAB to enjoy, such as cartoons of TV and action figures. Parents have to be responsible, not play ignorant and not complain about a film's content after viewing it. There are plenty of reviews and enough information for them to get a good enough picture of what a film's content will be like. To say 'I didn't know' is just another sign of how some parents want to be aliviated from responsibility for an easy life.
 
I can't honestly see anything wrong with the BBFC issuing a certificate tag-line that says a particular 12A is unsuitable for under-10s. The weakness stems from the particular characteristics of the 12A certification.

It could be worse... we could have the US "R" rating - over 17s unless accompanied by an adult. Many of our 15 cert films are "R" rated in the US.

For the films we have been discussing, the US certificates are:

  • The Matrix UK:15 US:R
  • Heat UK:15 US:R
  • Die Hard 4.0 UK:15 US:PG-13
  • T3 UK:12A US:R
  • Bad Boys 2 UK:15 US:R
 
You do know there's hardly any difference between the 12A and the 12 rating, right? 12A means doesn't mean it's suitable for under 12's, it means it's suitable for 12's and over, but under 12's can go with an adult.

If you really want to complain about things like that, go to America and complain about their R rating (suitable for over 17's but under 17's can get in with an adult). ;)
 
12A doesn't mean it is for everyone to see.

It means its a movie that should be viewed by anyone over the age of 12........ However, someone below that age can view the film accompanied by an adult. But they should ONLY view the film if the ADULT IS 100% SURE that the child can cope with the mature themes.

It's just like the PG 13 rating in the US.

It's up to the parents at the end of the day.
 
Yet another person has offered their opinion on this 'issue': http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kelvin_mackenzie/article1524223.ece

I saw Hancock recently, which has the same rating as TDK, is a superhero flick, etc. and was shocked by the amount of swearing in it, as well as the crudeness of some of the gags. I didn't know you could get away with so much 'cursing' in a 12A rated movie.

TDK meanwhile, featured almost no swearing and no sex. All it had was glimpses of bloodless violence and that face. I've seen comic book films with a lot more sustained violence than in TDK and yet there wasn't this fuss, why? Is it because TDK was given a more realistic treatment, is that what's unsettled people? Watching the trailers should have given people an idea of what to expect.
 
Having seen TDK and thought it was a brilliant film I'm inclined to think a '12' would have been spot on for it.

I think the parental discretion of 12A is simply ignored to the point where it is almost irrelevant.
 
PG and 12A exist basically as a guide for parents. 15 is like 'no kiRAB' full stop. If people are so bothered they should read the BBFC warning which particularly regarding The Dark Knight is QUITE clear. If you want to take your 7-year-old to a film that has violence and 'sustained threat' then by all means do so. All I know is that my parents wouldn't have when I was that age.

Regarding why TDK didn't receive a 15, there is cleverly no language or blood in the film (aside from maybe when it shows Bruce's body after he's been attacked by the dogs, but even then its nothing major). It was a scary film in places but for the love of god many Disney films are scary to kiRAB! Films being scary is a very good thing and I hope that never changes due to things being sanitized.

Interestingly enough, older people probably find parts of The Dark Knight more disturbing than kiRAB because you understand certain things more clearly. e.g. The Joker's video of the guy tied up, as an adult you have more of an idea of what that means and what's gonna happen to him, but kiRAB would just think of someome tied up in a cartoon. KiRAB don't expect the worst.
 
I thought Hancock had quite strong language for a 12A too. TDK is quite brutal for a 12A but then it does cut away from
the Joker cutting smiles in peoples faces
. Casino Royale was strong for a 12 also.
 
Yes, their equivalent to an 18 is the dreaded NC-17, which is 17 or over and if a film get's that, it cuts out a very big chunk of the movie going audience so most films that get it either appeal to get an R instead if they can justify it or they cut the movie to get it down to an R.

Code: 
UK     /    US

U        =   G
PG      =   PG
12(A)  =   PG-13
15       =   R
18       =   NC-17

There you go, all cleared up!

But if you wanna get really technical, you should see Ireland's classification system for cinema films!

G = same as U
PG = same as PG
12A = same as 12A
15A = same rule as a 12A, but under 15's can get in with an adult
16 = no-one under 16 gets in at all - usually only given to films that contain a little more violence/language than allowed at 15
18 = no-one under 18 gets in at all

Paddy :D
 
Interestingly I remember Simon Pegg saying that the BBFC told him they could only use the c-word once in Shaun of the Dead otherwise their rating would be upped to an 18.
 
I thought Two Face was fine. Children might find it scary, but that's a good thing. It's like Dr Who - part of the point of it is to give children nightmares. They should be watching from behind the sofa. They know it's not real.

I didn't really object to any of the visuals. For me the issue is one of tone.
 
The Dark Knight IS a 12A rating, so just deal with it and get over it!

All this drama and fuss, why so serious? :D:cool:

The Joker's not out to get you so calm down! :D
 
Back
Top