Violent Films to get Tougher Ratings

If the only way they can make money is by peddling unsuitable material to minors and selling rip-off food & drink, then I have little sympathy.
 
I don't care what the hell they do, as long as they don't censor anything.

If they do, I'll just import from the US anyway!
 
I agree. When the 12A certificate was introduced, we were told it was because parents were complaining that they could not take younger children to see action-adventure films (Spiderman was the example, at the time).

I don't have a problem with that. I suspect parents are more than able to take a judgment on the suitability of action films for their children, and potential psychological harm is slight at worst.

Unfortunately we've now got a lot of teen comedies in 12A as well. Many of these contain sex references (and, in the case of St. Trinian's 2007, drug-references) that I don't think are suitable for younger children.

To be fair, this isn't necessarily a new phenomenon. Many Carry-on films were "A" certificate, as were the dire "On the Buses" movies. These arguably had equally unhealthy sex references. The difference, though, they were always about adults, not teenagers.
 
Our rating system seems quite a good one to me. I don't understand the American system though, on reading some movie forums like IMDB with people remininscing about films, some of them are like "oh yeah, I remember going to see Freddy vs Jason when I was about 12". Do they release different versions of films in the cinemas over there with different ratings?

:confused:
 
No one knows what sex is like until they've tried it, do they? Movies won't change that, and unless they are explicit and depict scenes of sexual violence or morally unacceptable behaviour they won't influence kiRAB attitudes to sex. If a film is explicit or its content is morally unsuitable for kiRAB then of course it should have a higher certificate. But I'm pretty sure that the UK has a higher rate of teenage pregnancy than countries where sexual content is permitted in films with a younger certificate than the UK; in which case although it would be wrong to say that movies engender a healthy attitude to sex and nudity, it might be correct to say that a more tolerant attitude to sex and nudity in films reflects a healthier attitude to sex in real life.
 
No, not really. The US system has an R certificate, which allows essentially adult films to be viewed by minors, with "parental guidance". Examples of "R" rated films: Alien, Apocalypse Now, Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The Hills have eyes 2. But also: The 40-year old virgin, Bridget Jones 1&2.

I've never looked at US certs in this much detail before, and at first sight it seems quite bizarre.

Does this reflect greater US tolerance of violent films, and does that explain why so many are made? Or is it more indicative of relative prudishness about sexual themes?
 
As far as US home market goes: there's no need for a compulsory rating or cuts.

You could not release a movie or a porn movie totally unrated over here in the UK, for instance. There has to be a certificate.
 
Back
Top