Discuss Film Classifications

Woodyrocks

Great article. I haven't come across the bbfc classification site before and have just check out details for Get Smart which I am taking my 7.5yr old to see tomorrow even though it is a 12A. I know it says 3 rude words but tbh my DD wouldn't understand the 'W' or the 'D' word and as for the 'A' word she will titter at the first 3 letters and that is about it so it is a greenlight for me. She has seen the trailer and is excited to see it because that is her kind of slapstick humour!

The_MoneySavingKid

Xenos wrote: »

I would not take a 9 year-old, but I have NO sympathy for any parent that does. It's rated 12. That means no child under 12, unless you are absolutely sure your child will be ok with it. And to make that decision you have to have visited the BBFC website or read/listened to one of the many reviews available. If you haven't, and you take your 9 year-old to see the Dark Knight, then in my opinion you are an irresponsible parent.

I thought it was 12A????

IanBroadhurst

The only reason Dark Knight was a 12A was to cream off some summer cash.
IMO, I felt that the film was just the best movie I've seen for a long time, but some of the continuity issues caused by the lack of blood was just irritating...the bit I'm thinking of is "you know how I got these scars" "no, but I know where you got these", next scene all is well and nothing.

Now Im not all into gory movies or someone that demands violence in its films, but i think that to show violence and not show the results is in many cases worse than doing it 'correctly' - sends confusing messages to kids.

Most movies around summer are rated based on the fact kids are available to watch them and are in many cases editted in order to secure the biggest ratings as quickly as possible.....when the directors cut dvd appears, the film is alot better

sticher

Well I took my 3 boys to see this when it first came out - no discussion about the violence around then. They were fine - it was me that was disturbed! I couldn't look at some parts and this did spoil the film for me, but they loved it - and my youngest is 9 (10 in September). They have had no bad effects from it - nightmares or the like and haven't even talked about it that much.

However, if your child is disturbed by violence (mine are obviously yobs in the making, lol) then I would stay away.

I do think the rating should be higher though as I wasn't really happy that my boys saw it at the time.

mikewebs

I went to our local Odeon yesterday with my kids (11 + 9) to see the Mummy movie which is a 12A. 4 out of the 8 adverts were for alcohol and all had U ratings - surely something like !!!!!! adverts wouldn't carry a similar rating yet booze kills more (young) people in Brtain than !!!!!! does - isn't the rating system wrong? My kids went home thinking that Russian Standard Vodka, Carling , Coors and one other were cool! I had to tell them different. Come on BBFC & cinemas, set an example.

blue_monkey_2

I have not read all of this thread but wanted to 'moan' about something along the same lines. We hardly go to the flicks but last time we did was for a Saturday morning kids club to see cartoons, the kids (then 3 and 4) had to walk past a variety of 18 rated posters and cut out, one of which was for one of the SAW films with a blokes head having been cut off.

My kids were really disturbed about it and (maybe it is just me) but why do they have posters and cut outs showing stuff like this for 18 rated films? Is it necessary? Surely the fact it states it is an 18 film is enough? Every time they came out for food to to use the loo this huge cut out was there.

blue_monkey_2

hypnoguy wrote: »

just because a child isn't quivering with fear in the corner, does not mean they are not affected or traumatised. Even if a child finds it funny to see graphic scenes and they are mature for their age, they can exhibit behavioural problem eg sleep problems, unexplained nervousness etc also the real shocker is that they can suffer with post traumatic stress disorder PTSD similar to soldiers, only with repetitions of graphic scenes repeating in their heads. SO before you give in to them begging to go and see eg Batman, consider that you could well be inadvertantly traumatising them, it's more common than you think, I should know, I treat it in both adults and kids.
films are rated for a reason, what do you hope to gain from ignoring them?

I have to agree with this. Someone I know lets her kids (3 and 5) run around and sit on the sofa while they are watching 18 rated films because they are 'fine with them'. Next thing she is moaning that they do not sleep in their own beds, wet the beds and won't go to bed on their own...... er yeah, I wonder why!!

I agree, ratings are there for a reason so even in the home they should be respected. Even if as a parrent you do disagre with them, you cannot get inside a childs mind to know what they are thinking at the end of it!!

Xenos

It's funny it's always superhero movies that cause these controversies isn't it? 12 was introduced for the first (1989) Batman movie, and 12A was introduced for Spiderman.

I suppose the problem is that comics are perceived as being for young children, when actually some of them are very dark, and they usually deal with violence and crime, which aren't really very child-friendly issues.

Mind you, it makes me think of some of the fairy tales I read as a kid. The Little Mermaid, ooh, if you've never read the ORIGINAL story and you're easily traumatised I suggest you give it a miss. Knives, unbearable pain, murder and suicide all feature! And then there's The Red Shoes, which is as nasty a tale as you could think of. Not to mention Bluebeard the Pirate (decapitation anyone?). Even Little Red Riding Hood is quite graphic. And people used to read these to kids all the time.

blue_monkey_2

've been told by a couple of people that Kung Fu Panda has not been suitable for their children (under 6) and they wish they had not taken them. I've not seen it but I certainly would have assumed that it was aimed at kids being a cartoon and because to toys are in the macdonalds meals and there are soft toys available.

MegS

My 8 year old has pestered us to see Batman but we refused after hearing about the darkness and violence. I personally am more annoyed at the marketing people as they bring out all the toys aimed at the under 10s for these movies and then put 12A certificates on them. They shouldn't be allowed to market toys for the under 10s if the movie clearly isn't suitable for that age group. I was shocked at The Mummy movies being on ITV over the last couple of weeks and thought they were totally unsuitable for time of night. I know that probably makes me a wuss but I thought they were quite scary. I also went to see Mamma Mia last week, it was a 1910 showing and was surprised to see a girl who looked no more than 6 there. I thought it was unsuitable for a kid her age. Fantastic movie though, going to see it again next week!!! Was actually surprised Kung Fu Panda was a PG, perhaps Batman and the like should have been. My son went to see all three of the Pirates movies and loves them, personally I thought they were a bit much but with all the marketing he just kept saying its obviously a kids movie, after the first one I sent my husband as he thought they were fine.