View Full Version : Film certificates/ratings - what do you think?
Saw Lord of the Rings this weekend. Brilliant film, better than Harry Potter. There's no way that this film should have been a PG though. It is well too scary. This brings me on to my point. How much influence do the film producers have over the censors? It's obviously in the film producers interest to have a film such as this with as low a certificate rating as possible in order to maximise bums on seats.
In my opinion, Lord of the Rings is more violent and disturbing than any of the Alien films and they were all 18. I know standards change and time goes on but what children can cope with mentally is essentially the same as it was 20 years ago if not longer.
When I started writing this I had a number of films in mind from recent years which I thought were certified low for commercial reasons but my minds now got blank. Can you think of any examples and do you agree?
ZX
neverland
14-01-2002, 09:46
Originally posted by ZX81
When I started writing this I had a number of films in mind from recent years which I thought were certified low for commercial reasons but my minds now got blank. Can you think of any examples and do you agree?
ZX
Raiders of the Lost Ark is being discussed in another thread. Jaws is another good one. Jurrasic Park was considered strong enough to include an additional warning. Is there a theme here?
Although I still think a film where a bloke snogs his sister and later on has his hand cut off by his father should be a late night episode of Springer and not a U certificate film.
I agree with your comments on certification for LOTR - some scenes were every bit as gory as some of the fight scenes in Gladiator.
I work in a cinema and its very apparent that there is no consistency in BBFC work. Harry Potter and LOTR both PG - I don't think so. Actually LOTR went out with a warning that it was not suitable for under 8s but what does such a disclaimer do to the given certificate - nothing in my experience.
There seems to be most problems with the PG and 12 ratings which seem interchangeable for no apparent reason. Last year Jurassic Park 3 was causing us problems as lots of little people were scared senesless.
wolfkiller
14-01-2002, 13:54
Lord of the Rings is clearly a fantasy and most of the violence is against fantasy creatures, unlike Gladiator.
Which is why it gets a PG instead of a 15.
We should get rid of PG, 12 and 15 and replace them with something more akin to R in the US and put the onus rightly back on the parents to decide (and accompany) which films their children see.
The onus certainly shouldn't be on a cinema to guess who is or isn't old enough - it's not as if 12 year olds have ID is it?
hookbeak
14-01-2002, 14:22
Originally posted by wolfkiller
Lord of the Rings is clearly a fantasy and most of the violence is against fantasy creatures, unlike Gladiator.
Which is why it gets a PG instead of a 15.
I think a PG was extremely unsuitable for LOTR - yes it's fantasy violence - but it is very violent indeed. The film is also very dark and adult in theme - not only would lots of kids be scared by it, many wouldn't really understand it.
When my son is old enough to watch films (he's only 7 months :)) i would have doubts about letting him watch this at a young age - i'm certain there been many nightmares about it (my wife was scared stiff and she's 29 and no wuss).
wolfkiller
14-01-2002, 15:18
Originally posted by hookbeak
The film is also very dark and adult in theme - not only would lots of kids be scared by it, many wouldn't really understand it.
....i would have doubts about letting him watch this at a young age - i'm certain there been many nightmares about it.
Hence parental guidance.
Actually I'll scrap half of what I said earlier in the thread, because looking into the US system revealed that a) Lord of the Rings is rated PG-13 over there. b) All their ratings also carry advice as opposed to ours just giving an age ruling (U and PG excepted).
Instead of scrapping 12 and 15 respectively as I stated earlier, I would amalgamate the 2 into something like the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/) rating PG-13 with also states clearly "Parents strongly cautioned"
PG could stay as it is, I don't see it in its current form being much different from the US version anyway (apart, obviously from the voluntary nature of the US system).
Yep, we don’t want to go the way of the American’s. People think they have more open-minded censorship, but hey don’t. They do have the R rating, which fair enough lets the adults decide what their children watch, but this is abused I
America by older brothers and sisters taking the siblings to see something their parents wouldn’t normally allow. The MPAA realise that children might see the R rated film and so limit the amount of adult content in it (some violence and a lot of the sexual scenes,) this is why sometimes we get an 18 certificate film that has less cuts than the R rated American version, (Eyes Wide Shut for instance.) The MPAA do have a certificate they can give a film to make sure it isn’t cut NC-17, which is for adults only, but this is rarely used as it generally knocks a film flat. The third option the film companies have is to not have a film certified (Un-rated.) But from what I hear, most cinemas won’t show these films and a lot of the big Video and Music chains won’t stock them either.
So the American Way, is not a good idea as far as I can see. The Danish have a much better way of dealing with film censorship, there isn’t any. All films are classified either for children, young teenagers or 16 year olds upwards, and there is never any cuts made to films.
Originally posted by wolfkiller
We should get rid of PG, 12 and 15 and replace them with something more akin to R in the US and put the onus rightly back on the parents to decide (and accompany) which films their children see.
Sorry, but you can't let parents decide cos their are a lot of dumb parents out there. When I went to see LOTR the parents behind me let their kids sit right down the front. Half way through the dad had to go and sit on the floor next to them cos they were terrified.
ZX
Paul Bennison
14-01-2002, 18:36
Surely the whole system is a bit screwed up?
Headbutts:
We see one on (family?) Eastenders 4pm Christmas day and in (kids?) Shrek.
But the headbutts in 18 Cert. Fight Club and 15 Cert. Matrix are cut.
Errr.... I don't get it?
Kit_Taylor
14-01-2002, 18:50
Call me a cynic, but I'm sure the film would have been rated 12 if that bracket had been replaced by the PG-12 certificate the BBFC are currently trialling in Norwich.
Roll on PG-12!
I would disagree. As I have stated before, I took my four year old brother to see both Harry Potter and LOTR (which he has since seen for a second time). The only time he jumped was when the troll's head comes out from behind Frodo (the bit in the trailer). While he does appreciate the entire story, he knew what was going on and could explain to me after all about the Rings and Sauron and why it was so important/dangerous to Frodo on his quest.
Just as someone said, not all parents are responsible, neither are all children stupid or easily scared. PG was a suitable certificate as far as I'm concerned (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was much more gory and frightening).
Chris
AQUALUNG
14-01-2002, 19:21
Great points from Bamse and ZX81 about the the disadvantages with adopting the american certification system.
I worked in cinemas for 12 years in various jobs and saw some ridiculous situations like a parent bringing his four year old daughter to see Robocop and not seeing any harm in that. Yes, I know it was more comedic than nightmarish but who knows what damage it could do to a young child.
When I saw The Evil Dead at the age of 16 (yes, underage I know) at the cinema, it gave me nightmares for a long time afterward and still can't watch it now.
On the other hand, art(y) films that carry a PG, the number of times that children were brought in to see them but were so bored they annoyed the rest of the patrons. An unhappy cinemagoing experience for them, its happened to most everybody.
In a way its not the certificates that are the problem but the film censors. Inconsistancey causes problems, as previously mentioned by alot of members here.
Louise
I'm no child psychologist, but is scaring a child likely to actually 'harm' them? In other words would films that are 'scary' (but doesn't contain other objectionable material) actually cause the child long term psychological harm?
A good example is The Sixth Sense - very little violence as such and virtually no bad language or sex (if I remember correctly) - but is still rated '15.'
I'm not sure if LOTR would be harmful to under-12s but going by previous BBFC decisions it probably should've been a 12, if they're being consistent.
But saying it's at least as violent as Gladiator or any of the Alien films (particularly #4) is a bit OTT in my opinion.
And as for the MPAA system - it's better than the BBFC's in principle, and it's failure is largely due to the studios', cinema chains' and retail chains' holier-than-thou attitude, together with the public misconception that NC-17 means XXX (which it blatantly doesn't).
Originally posted by sampath
I'm no child psychologist, but is scaring a child likely to actually 'harm' them? In other words would films that are 'scary' (but doesn't contain other objectionable material) actually cause the child long term psychological harm?
I'm not one either. Some of the consequences - short term disruption is pretty bad. Loss of sleep - unable to concentrate at school. Loss of self confidence. Insecurity. Fear of the dark - that can last a lifetime. You can't protect the little people forever but why not up to just 12!
ZX
i think australia & the UK should scrap our ratings and just let people watch whatever the f--k they goddamn wanna watch
all you need to do is putting warning labels on the poster and video case to warn of what they might end up seeing.
"the film/video feature may contain lurid violence, sex scenes,nudity, horror and adult themes-this is at your discretion"
Gary Couzens
14-01-2002, 21:44
Originally posted by Bamse
The third option the film companies have is to not have a film certified (Un-rated.) But from what I hear, most cinemas won’t show these films and a lot of the big Video and Music chains won’t stock them either.
That's not an option for major studios, which are signatories of the MPAA and have to use their ratings. Generally, if a film is likely to earn a NC-17 rating, they'll cut it. Occasionally they'll release a film with a NC-17, a prominent example being <i>Showgirls</i>. Another option, as Miramax did with <i>Kids</i>, is to release the film through a subsidiary company unaffiliated with the MPAA.
So the American Way, is not a good idea as far as I can see. The Danish have a much better way of dealing with film censorship, there isn’t any. All films are classified either for children, young teenagers or 16 year olds upwards, and there is never any cuts made to films.
Not actually true - films are still cut by their distributors to get a lower classification. Examples include <i>Ghost</i> and <i>Gremlins 2</i>. However, in Denmark you do have the option of not submitting your film for classification - in which case it will be released uncut for over-16s only.
This is what I think should happen
U
PG
PG-13
16
Something like Indiana Jones or LOTR would be PG13, so parents can decide. 15 and 18 certs should be rolled into one, and be allowed to over 16s. Legally people are allowed sex at 16, so I think they should be allowed to see any film they want.
Originally posted by nc
This is what I think should happen
U
PG
PG-13
16
Something like Indiana Jones or LOTR would be PG13, so parents can decide. 15 and 18 certs should be rolled into one, and be allowed to over 16s. Legally people are allowed sex at 16, so I think they should be allowed to see any film they want.
They may be able to have sex but they can't vote or buy alcohol. If your not mature/responsible enough to vote until 18 then for sure you should not be allowed view 'any' film!
I have the same problem with your PG13 rating - Parents should not be allowed to decide.
ZX
I quite like the look of the Australian system - films that The Matrix got an uncut 'M 15 +' certificate there.
System:
"G" - General audiences.
"PG" - General audiences, but some scenes may not be suitable for persons under 15 years.
"M" - A stronger warning than "PG".
"MA" - You must be 15 or over or have a parent or guardian with you when you want to buy/rent/see this film.
"R" - A bit like the BBFC's "18" certificate. You must be 18 years or over to see this film.
"X" - Hardcore pornography.
"RC" - Refused Classification (Banned in Australia)
;)
Michael Mackenzie
15-01-2002, 11:40
Originally posted by ZX81
They may be able to have sex but they can't vote or buy alcohol. If your not mature/responsible enough to vote until 18 then for sure you should not be allowed view 'any' film!
I have the same problem with your PG13 rating - Parents should not be allowed to decide.
ZX I can sort of see your point here, but I think alcohol is a bad example. You can show the drinking of alcohol and smoking of tobacco in ANY age category if I remember rightly, you just can't glorify it. Well, The Lord of the Rings was a PG and featured near-constant pipe-smoking and beer-drinking in certain scenes, including one where Gandalf and Bilbo blow interesting smoke-rings. If that's not glorifying it, I don't know what is.
I don't think that just because they can't legally do something, they shouldn't be able to see it. Many 15-rated films show sex scenes, some in a fair amount of detail, yet you can't legally have sex till you're 16. I mean, they show you sex-ed tapes at school when you're 11, for crying out loud!
My main line of thought is that your average teenager has heard about far worse things than go on in the average 18. In my opinion, the playground is a far more "damaging" place for kids than the cinema. (And I don't consider anything in any movie I have ever seen to actually be "damaging".) With that in mind, I'd be in favor of the following classifications:
A merged U and PG - there's so little difference. Let's look at Toy Story: how on EARTH is that a PG, when the likes of The Iron Giant, which deals with nuclear war and has a bit of very mild cussing, is a U??
PG-12 - Basically the current 12, but I do think the silly contraint of only being able to use the f-word once should be dropped. If any "damage" is done by saying it once, surely saying it again (and again) hardly changes anything.
16 - 15 and 18 rating merged to a 16.
R16 - drop down the hardcore sex rating from 18 to 16. You can do it, why not watch it?
18 - A *new* 18 for the more extreme stuff, things like The New York Ripper which are currently banned. (I *think* The New York Ripper is currently banned. Even if it isn't, I think you'll get the point.)
Michael Mackenzie
15-01-2002, 11:43
Originally posted by Paul490
I quite like the look of the Australian system - films that The Matrix got an uncut 'M 15 +' certificate there.Didn't they give Final Fantasy an M15+?
Talk about crazy! :nuts:
Mr whiggles, don't get me wrong. I don't want to stop adults viewing any film. If anything I think the system needs to be changed so we can view anything.
My only problem is with the ratings for films for under 18s. I think the system for under 18s is more or less right but I don't think it is be implemented as intended.
ZX
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 12:50
<B>18 - A *new* 18 for the more extreme stuff, things like The New York Ripper which are currently banned. (I *think* The New York Ripper is currently banned. Even if it isn't, I think you'll get the point.)</B>
Bear in mind that "the more extreme stuff" (extreme sexual violence, unsimulated animal cruelty or child sex scenes) comes under the criminal law - so the BBFC can't do anything about it. The uncut version of <I>The New York Ripper</I> arguably breaches the Obscene Publications Act, and the BBFC has to take this on board.
Since the BBFC revised its guidelines, the only cuts to 18 certificate films are generally to material that causes legal problems. In cases like this, their hands are tied - they <U>have</U> to cut this material, otherwise the film cannot legally be distributed here.
Michael Mackenzie
15-01-2002, 13:30
Yes, I see your point, Mr. Brooke. The Obscene Publications Act is another matter entirely, and I don't think I'll start on that now.
I'm surprised the Daily Mail hasn't been banned under the OPA. "Material that is likely to corrupt and deprave." :D
I have the same problem with your PG13 rating - Parents should not be allowed to decide.
How do u get thatoriginally posted thing? Anyway, this was ZX81's response to my suggestion of a PG13 (or PG12)classification. Well, I think you're totally wrong. I'm not saying parents should be allowed to take their children to see a 15 or 18, but something which is a 12 now, and deemed a tad unsuitable. Isn't that what this thread is about? If LOTR was a PG13, that would be deemed a suitable classification in most people's eyes.
Michael Brooke
15-01-2002, 14:30
For the record, the BBFC is actively considering something along the lines of an advisory 12 certificate - they're currently in consultation with their various focus groups over its introduction.
What I’d have:
U – nothing “questionable” whatsoever.
PG – mild swearing dependent on context, mild violence/sexual references ect.
PG-12 – only most aggressive swearing precluded (like the recent Bridget Jones’s Diary example), sex/violence dependent on context.
PG-16 – any swearing, strong sex/violence dependent on context.
16 + - over 16 only; anything permitted providing no one’s be harmed in the making of the film (or perhaps if exceptional evidence can be provided in a court of law of its “danger” to society).
The “PG” ratings would require someone over 16 to accompany anyone under that age, and clear warnings of a films content would be given. I’d also staunchly support the lowering of the age of majority to 16, incidentally. And the Obscene Publications Act: “Deprave and corrupt”, please. This puritanical nonsense should have been repealed a long time ago.
I'd also have no one younger than 12 allowed into a "PG-16", incidentally.
craig@rewind
15-01-2002, 14:38
Apparently the BBFC really like LOTR and wanted to give it a PG if they could. If the blood had been red, then it would have been a 12/15.
Gary Couzens
15-01-2002, 17:49
Originally posted by Paul490
I quite like the look of the Australian system - films that The Matrix got an uncut 'M 15 +' certificate there.
Ironically, if you talk to many Australian filmmakers they consider their censor to be backward, even compared to the BBFC. <i>Salo</i> is still banned over there (after previously being passed R 18+) - last I heard, a film festival was going to defy the ruling and show the film (which, don't forget is available on DVD in the UK and has been shown on subscription TV), but I haven't heard any follow-up to that.
The government recently overruled the censor (OFLC) by raising the rating of <i>Hannibal</i> from a MA to a R, about a fortnight after the film had opened.
As I say in another thread, <i>Romance</i> was initially refused classification as it's not pornography but the R rating didn't allow unsimulated sex. (<i>The Idiots</i> was cut, for example.) The guidelines for R were changed, <i>Romance</i> was passed - which meant that <i>Ai no corrida</i> could finally be given a rating (R, uncut). <i>Baise moi</i> has recently been passed R uncut as well.
With some modifications, obviously. ;)
Michael Mackenzie
15-01-2002, 20:11
Originally posted by craig@rewind
Apparently the BBFC really like LOTR and wanted to give it a PG if they could. If the blood had been red, then it would have been a 12/15. Boromir bleeding to death from multiple arrow wounds -- that red enough for ya?? ;)
Originally posted by ZX81
Some of the consequences - short term disruption is pretty bad. Loss of sleep - unable to concentrate at school. Loss of self confidence. Insecurity. Fear of the dark - that can last a lifetime.
ZX
But then every child is different, and only a certain proportion of small kids will react in the way you mention after seeing LOTR - which is where 'parental guidance' comes in. After all I'd expect there are no better judges of what a particular child can or cannot handle than the parents; they certainly should be in a better position than the 'experts' at the BBFC.
I think the way forward is to make certificates advisory rather than mandatory (probably with the exception of the 18 cert), but to have more information on why the certificate was awarded to the film in question. For example it would've been useful for the advertising of LOTR to contain something along the lines of "rated PG for frequent fantasy violence and moderate horror" rather than simply "rated PG - may not be suitable for under 8s." This sort of consumer advise appears regularly on the BBFC website, but they should also appear in advertising, posters etc more frequently.
neverland
16-01-2002, 09:08
Originally posted by Whiggles
A merged U and PG - there's so little difference. Let's look at Toy Story: how on EARTH is that a PG, when the likes of The Iron Giant, which deals with nuclear war and has a bit of very mild cussing, is a U??
I'm guessing that the problem with Toy Story is that it shows a child playing with fireworks. In fact, given some of the ludicrous "imitable technique" decisions, I'm half-surprised it got away with a PG.
Anyway, interesting as some of your ideas about changing certification are, I think you're needlessly confusing things. Here's the system I'd have.
18 - Anything that doesn't breach existing obscenity / animal cruelty etc. laws. No-one under 18 admitted.
Er, that's it. If you're under 18, you can stay at home, and play with your ******* mobile phone there.
Michael Mackenzie
16-01-2002, 12:56
Originally posted by neverland
Here's the system I'd have.
18 - Anything that doesn't breach existing obscenity / animal cruelty etc. laws. No-one under 18 admitted.
Er, that's it. If you're under 18, you can stay at home, and play with your ******* mobile phone there. Well, yeah, I guess that's one way of handling the situation. Kind of defeats the purpose of the rating system though. ;)
Personally I think Film Classification is really important and I'm not particularly happy with it as it stands at the moment. How Disney's Tarzan got a 'U' ( parents get slaughtered and Clayton hangs himself etc ) is quite beyond me - seems if you animate violence it's ok for kids :rolleyes: I also think LOTR was underated - my 9 yr old was fine with it but had I taken my five yr old ( which I theoretically could have done ) he would have been having bad dreams for months....
Originally posted by cat
Personally I think Film Classification is really important and I'm not particularly happy with it as it stands at the moment. How Disney's Tarzan got a 'U' ( parents get slaughtered and Clayton hangs himself etc ) is quite beyond me
Now I'm OK with Tarzan being classified 'U'. I don't think it was scary and my 4.5 year old was not scared by it either. There are issues we can discuss - for example it's not a good idea to hang yourself. Oh and baddies always get trounced.
ZX
I've just seen Lord Of The Rings tonight, and I have to say that the film is nothing like a 'PG' certificate at all. It's not a borderline decision either. It's clearly a '12' certificate film.
Inconsistency is the BBFC's problem here...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.