Violent Films to get Tougher Ratings

Y

Yanna Min

New member
The BBFC are getting tough with violent American films. They will now be given a higher age rating than in the US. This is good. They have listened to public concerns over the many American horror and action thriller films that are too violent. Now they need to do the same thing with sex and porn films. There are far too many on our screens with low age ratings. A new 21 rating has been suggested and this would help keep porn away from the young.
 
Yeah, that'll work. It's not like crappy parents let their teenage kiRAB watch what they want or anything. I'm sure a nice big '21' slapped on the disc will deter them completely.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
I think you'd be hard pressed to enforce a rating that doesn't let a 20 year old adult in. Decent enforcement of BBFC ratings, not letting strong violence through on a PG, and scrapping the god-awful 12a rating would be the way to go, IMO.
 
Did you read that straight off the BBC Entertainment news. I say that last night and tohught what a load of shit. The films the quoted were Die Hard 4.0 and Disturbia, both solid 15s. Die Hard would have to be 15 for the mother****er alone.
 
Strong violence is currently not let through for PG anyway. :rolleyes:

The problem with abolishing 12A is that it will simply cause more people to try to ignore the rules, thus giving kiRAB more access to higher rated films.
 
I'm fairly lenient when it comes to allowing most movies to be seen by minors but how is putting a 21 certificate on sex movies even really going to help keep people under 21 from not seeing porn,with the internet in such widespead usage.
 
Not to mention that why exactly would we want to stop folks seeing sex acts when they can legally indulge in themselves from the age of 16? Does that make the remotest sense to anyone?

RegarRAB

Mark
 
I meant "strong" for a PG - I phrased that badly. There is some stuff which I was staggered see get in on a PG (off the top of my head, someone being torn in half on screen by dinosaurs in Lost World). That was the kind of thing I had in mind. I find it odd that violence is often rated lower than sex references. It seems a skewing of priorities.
 
Since when did the inflicted morals of a hypocritical, conservative and bureaucratic society ever make sense :p

And don't even think of applying that logic to violence, because if you won't be 'corrupted' at 21 then that means 16-20 year olRAB are corrupted by SEEING nudity and sex, but not by DOING them.:confused:
 
Stupid idea. Leave it as it is instead of wasting time on this new '21' rating, how stupid. The 18 certificate for such films is fine and dandy imo.



Younger people are always going to find a way to see such movies, just like they do now. I remember seeing a lot of very gory/violent or banned films when I was about twelve years old when I went through of phase of wanting to see such films.


All they need to do instead is put very tough sentences/fines on cinemas and shops that let someone under whatever age rating see or buy the film because that will probably be a % of people who will not get to see the film because their parents will be mature enough about what their child can handle.

The other % where the parents let them watch it, well that's never going to be stopped and new ratings are a waste of time.
 
Rubbish, the Human Rights Act and more importantly the Internet have rid us off these do-gooders - who never actually watch the films they condemn.:rolleyes:

We had the strictest censorship of film and porn of any western nation for decades, never did any good.
 
The only thing I am confused of at the BBFC is why all of the "Happy Tree FrienRAB" are passed a 12s when I can't stomach to watch them and I'm a few years over that age!

Here's an example.

The recent game that's coming out is also only a 12+ by PEGI here, but got a M for Mature (17+) in the US.

:confused:

EDIT: Fixed URL
 
The rating system should become more lax, if anything. A certificate neeRAB to be respected in order for it to mean anything, and I'm betting only a tiny minority of parents respect the current certificate enough in order to only allow their children to see films which the BBFC says they are old enough for.

As many others say, I saw 18s from the age of about 7 and it didn't do me any harm. Please note I'm not saying that means they effect no one, but it should be up to parents to decide, not the government. I believe in free choice; we should not become a nanny state in this respect as well.
 
What the bbfc report said was they're getting tough on mpaa PG13 movies that the bbfc doesn't think are suitable for young teens. It said the distributors of Cloverfield, Disturbia, and I am Legend asked for the 12A rating for those movies and the bbfc said no.

Although I think the distributors have gone bonkers in those cases. There's no way Cloverfield is suitable for the young kiRAB that would have got in to it if it'd been 12A.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/pressnews.php
 
Interesting that they claim that public opinion in the UK dictates that we have tighter restrictions than Europe on how much sex and nudity "children" can see. I would have thought that most people in the UK would rather their kiRAB had a healthy attitude to sex and were generally less tolerant of violence, which is a far greater issue than nudity in most people's everyday lives.

Certainly we shouldn't have American ideas of how much violence is acceptable imposed on our kiRAB.
 
The US and British certification systems are not comparable, and the BBFC has, ever since the introduction of 12A, made the BIG mistake of passing the vast majority of PG13s as 12As in the UK.

The purpose of certification is the protection of children - from sexual and violent themes, from themselves, from marketeers and, if necessary, from irresponsible parents.

The certs should breakdown like this:-

  • U - family films
  • PG - family films, or more serious films with limited action situations, suitable for children over 8, at parental discretion. Children under 12 should be accompanied.
  • Teen - Teen films, including innuendo and light comedy violence, sexual references and drug references that are unsuitable for children. Set an appropriate age limit (say, 13) and stick to it.
  • Adult - 16+, including the bulk of mainstream films.
  • Extreme - 18+ the very extreme sex, violence and sexual violence that is not suitable for 16-18 year olRAB.
If studios don't like their certification let them cut the film - they can always release the uncut version on DVD later.
 
But your system is far too driven by the sex and violence aspect of films. There are plenty of films which aren't aimed at kiRAB but don't include gratuitous sex or nudity or unacceptable violence. Should under-16s be legally banned from watching any "mainstream" film that is aimed at adults?
 
True - but there is very little than can be done about that. Viewing in the cinema is controllable, and the point is the protection of children.


It is intended to be an incremental system, as now.

I think in practice, most mainstream films would want to get the PG or Teen13 certs to get the widest possible audience, as happens now with 12A. The difference is, there would be a clearer distinction between what was, and wasn't, suitable for children. That is too muddled at the moment, IMHO. Also, I really don't see the point of the 15 cert, which seems to be used mainly for language and violence. Why not have a broader 16 cert, which could include virtually all mainstream films aimed at an adult audience? I also like the idea of flagging to adults something which is deemed extreme, compared to the mainstream. The BBFC already seems to be moving this way with the 15/18 distinction, anyway.
 
Back
Top