Discuss Film Classifications

hollydays

My 2 year old grandaughter was frightened just by the large-ish stand up poster of the baddie that was in woolworths..

JasonLVC

As has been said already, children are to be protected from certain materials and the only gatekeeper they have are their parents.

If the parents do not understand their children and cannot exercise a degree of control or censorship over them, then they should reconsider their role as parents.

It is obviously clear that this Batman movie is unlike the previous ones and all the reviews have said this so to take a 9 year old to a 12 rated movie is just stupid....or at least not to complain afterwards. A bit like going into a lap dancing bar and being outraged that there were naked women in there!.

I saw Iron Man in the cinema and there were kids as young as 4-5 and this is a fairly violent movie with darkish themes (but not as dark Batman) and you got the feeling the kids were there simply because Dad couldn't be bothered to leave his kids with someone else so took them along.

Whatever the debate, whatever the rating, poor parenting will ensure that if little Johnny can't go to the cinema, Dad will no doubt hire it from Blockbusters or buy it from Pla.com a few months from now anyway so is all self-defeating.

liza111

I worked in a cinema and have to say there is no pleasing the public. When Spiderman came out and it was given a higher rating and the whole world went ballistic. We had angry parents demanding the address for the BBFC, by public demand they made the 12a rating. Now all of a sudden everyone is moaning about their children seeing such a film. Well instead of blaming everyone else look at yourselves and realise it was your fault. Once again public demand got what they wanted and now it's come back and bit you on the bum.
Did Heath Ledger not say how much making this film disturbed him?? Is that not a warning sign to parents??

andrew82

I went to see this on the opening weekend with my wife (we're both 25) and we were horrified with the amount of under 12's there were in there with their parents. I can understand why this film had a lower rating as a lot of the violence is implied and there isn't much bad language, but surely the responsibility lies with the parents to research the film before taking their children??

There was so much press about this film, how can they not know that these new Batman films are darker than the originals?

I feel that the film should have been rated higher as parts were (I felt) not suitable for under 15s really.

Another question on a similar vain, when watching Hancock - there were two parents with a new born baby in there, is that okay?

Will_Tingle

The_Old_Bag wrote: »

Years ago I remember deciding NOT to take my son to see Jurassic Park when it first came out (showing my age now) but when he did see it on video, he thought the scene where the man was eaten by the dinosaur whilst hiding in the toilet was hilarious !!
So much for me being worried about it giving him nightmares !!

It's soooooo hard to judge what will scare a kid - I remember when I was little, I absolutly LOVED all of the Hammer movies (especially the Dracula ones), but when the Incredible Hulk's eyes turned green (in the 70's live action TV version) I was behind the sofa.

I had a freind who loved "Nightmare on Elm street" (gave me nightmares - I couldn't believe his mum had let him own a copy), but ran screeeming from the room when Grotbags appiered on "Emu"...

jsg2

Perhaps they should bring back the 12 certificate - so that nobody under 12 could see the film, even if they were with an adult.

They could still keep the 12A certificate for other, less violent and scary films where parents could take a younger child if they feel it is suitable.

golddustmedia

I thought this film was rated 12?

If so, then NO it wouldn't be appropriate to take a 9 year old.

marzi_uk

First of all I have seen the film and thought it was great :T .

As regards to the rating I believe the 12A rating was low and it should have been a 15. But the filmmakers know that achieving a lower rating increases the available audience giving bigger box office returns. I wonder how many edits were made to the final film for the BBFC to issue the 12A rating.

However parents need to take some responsibility for what there children see, all children are individuals some more sensitive than others. Two minutes online reading reviews of the film and you would soon realise it was a lot darker film than the previous Batman films.

I work in a supermarket selling DVD's and Games so I have a lot of experience dealing with ratings. People think your being a jobsworth when you refuse to sell them Grand Theft Auto rated 18 for there 10 year old. It's THE LAW, if I was seen selling to someone under age or I was given reason to believe it was being bought for someone under age I personally get fined £80 on the spot or if taken to court several thousand pound. You may think I am exaggerating about the above example but this actually happened on more than one occasion

liza111

Aslong as the film is rated 12a then anyone under 12 accompanied with an adult can go see it. We use to have people come in with a baby and see films late at night, why would you want to bring a baby in I have no idea.
Some parents are so wrapped up in treating their children like adults for everything they forget they are just children. I have a 14 year old who badly wants to see the film but I have explained to him he won't like it and i feel it will trouble him. He isn't best pleased but he understands it's him i'm thinking off. Also lets face it how uncool is it to go to school and say you haven't seen it? I bet alot of them wouldn't admit to be effected by it to their friends though

philhuff

The Dark Knight is an odd case. It's clearly a very dark and disturbing film, but there's absilutely no foul language and very little actual serious violence beyond general beatings. Everything else is implied, but implied very well. It's this that I believe is causing the problem here - you think it's far more violent than it actually is.

Of course, that maybe just as bad as proper violence, but I'm not a pshycologist so couldn't really comment.

After seeing the film, I was surprised it got a 12A rating. However, looking back at it, there's nothing in the film to warrant a higher rating, which is a credit to the filmmakers, but possibly a kick in the teeth for the BBFC.