A bit belated, I know but I have been away.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7540292.stm
There was also a bit of letter writing fervour in the Times concerning this last week started off by Iain Duncan Smith, no less. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4505599.ece for full discussion
Oh that's all right then.Ms Clark emphasised the fantasy nature of The Dark Knight and its basis in comic books.
"Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face."
Transformers, Fantastic Four and Iron Man were certificated 12A and I had no qualms taking my six year old to see two of them. The Dark Knight, however, is a different matter.
It is also interesting to note that Michael Keaton's Batman was certificated 15 on DVD. The mind boggles and it is a wonder what criteria censors actually use to rate films.
Last edited by median; 12th August 2008 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Additional link added
Batman can't fly.Batman can jump off buildings and fly and The Joker is not a realistic character and bounces back with a smile on his face
[/fanboy pedantry]
To be fair, neither the 12 nor the 12A certificates existed at the time of Michael Keaton 'Batman'. At the time, if the BBFC thought it was too strong for a PG, they had no option but to go for a 15.Originally Posted by median
Mike
You're correct but of course there's mroe to the stroy than that.
The 12 certificate existed for theatrical release when Batman came out in 1989. In fact it was the first 12 certificated film. I remember sneaking my little brother in.
However at the time it didn't exist for videos. Prior to 1984, apart from R18, video certificates were/are pretty meaningless. If a retailer chose not to enforce them it was no big hairy deal. The act only came inot force in 1985 and then films already in existaence had 3 years to apply for classification. In 1989 there was only one prosecution for selling or renting a classified video to an underage customer.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...rittens-3.html
The BBFC tells me that 12a in cinemas and 12 for home media were only introduced in 2002.
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide...?t=Legislation
Before that retaillers pretty much used their to discretion to decide if a particular video was suitable for an individual 13 year old considering the 15 classification as a guildline.
Given the stuff I recall seeing and reading in my teens, and I turned out ok(ish), I am not certain that there is any real role for censorship ("classification") unless it is for very young children (ie, under 12s).
However, as I am attracted to the idea of keeping teenagers out of cinemas on the sole basis that they are likely to be loud and annoying, the current system suits me for films which are unlikley to hold teenagers' interests...
For the record, I don't think there should be any ratings system, unless it is meant simply as a guideline and not enforced at all. Firstly, no matter how much you try to enforce it, you can't. Children are going to see whatever films they want, whether you try to stop them or not, and if parents want to let their children see films they consider inappropriate for them, that's their lookout and nothing to do with me. There's also an argument that since young people tend to be the most prolific downloaders, if you let them just watch films legally, they won't download them illegally as much. Finally, the argument that they can see just as much violence in the news is an old one, but still perfectly valid. The recent conflict in Georgia gives a perfect example, with extremely graphic pictures plastered across newspapers for days. How can it make sense to prevent children seeing some stylised violence in a comic, and then fill shops with much more gruesome violence?
However, given that we do have a ratings system, it has to be consistent, and I really can't agree that The Dark Knight was a 12. Sure, times change and films today tend to be more graphic and get lower ratings than they used to, but The Dark Knight isn't even on a par with contemporary 12s. How can something like Buffy possibly be considered worse than the Dark Knight?
I can't agree with Batman's rating, not because I don't think it's appropriate for children, but because it's wildly inconsistent with other ratings. Either we need a ratings system that actually works or we need to get rid of it. No matter what your views on censorship, either way would be better than the nonsensical, haphazard system we have at the moment.
Not forgetting the rating system for video games needs work as well.
Two ratings systems, one is voluntary (PEGI) within the industry and the other is legally enforceable (BBFC) but you'll only get a BBFC rating if the game rates a 15 or higher classification AND throw in the fact that games are generally judges much more harshly than movies it all gets a bit messy
...developing my idea further, I would prefer these as cast-iron alternatives:
"BT" - Boring for Teenagers
"BTc" - Boring for Teenagers (unless Clever)
"BEp" - Boring for Everyone (unless Pretentious)
Don't forget these as well...
CF - Chick Flick
COAA - Children Of All Ages
WOD - Wait For DVD
PAH - Puerile American Humour
NGB - Not as Good as the Book
TA - Trilogy Advisory. Off the back of a very sucessful movie two sequels have been commissioned. In fact only one story has been written and split into two films. This first sequel follows the tired formula of a predictable down ending and/or cliff hanger. You may wish to wait until the final part is available before bothering with this.
I'd like to add:
WTF: incomprehensible; except to people who want to sit around and chat about it with nerds on the internet
HM?: How much did I just spend on this ticket to watch a film I've just hated?
CG: 90%+ computer generated. See also GL.
GL: Anything by George Lucas.
RoFF: Remake of a foreign film. Guaranteed to not be as good as the original, but if you can't be bothered with subtitles...
Good one. I sat through first two Matrix films, and first two Star Wars films (latest ones) and never bothered with third film in either series. I'm sure there is a third example that escapes me at the moment.....does that prove your point even further?
ROM - rom-com, somewhat worse than a CF
The 12 certificate for home video was introduced in 1994. It became home video only in 2002 following the introduction of 12A into cinemas.
IIRC the 12A certificate wasn't introduced on home video, as the rules it enforced were effectively identical to the existing home video rules for a 12.
Yeah the Matrix is a good example. Part II and III shot back to back. REally it's just one sequal but you have to pay twice to see it and get a whole year to buy ice cream in the interval.
Thake the pirates of the Caribean, the second part of which I watched purely for Keith Richards' cameo only to find that he wasn't in it until the third installment a year later. When I did finally see the Stone himself it was clear that his role had been incongruously tacked on as and might as well have had "afterthought." in flashing neon letters above his head.
LOTR doesn't quite fit the mould being a trilogy from the outset rather than having two sequals commissioned off the back of the original. However part two still a down ending and we had to wait a year for the resolution. IT[d ratehr they split that trillogy into half a dozen or so episodes and released them on a bi monthly basis. Still, that wouldn't have won them so many oscars.
The foirst I rememebr was the Back to the future sequels. Parts II and II shot back to back long after the original movie. Cinema goers had to wait a year for the resolution of the cliff hanger at the end of Part II. I didn't bother I watched them both on rental years later.
It's seems you're right. My Mistake
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks