This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- BTEC’s being scrapped
- Sign this petition to scrap 2025 gcses - legit govt petition sign pls
- Btec
- Will i hace enoufg funding left
- Advice for application for medicine 2025
- Urgent tsa oxford question
- A-level Trig Help
- Do you think holistic assessments should return to the GCSE Curriculum? Why/why not?
- DJCAD Dundee room available
- Why Scrapping the Two-Child Benefit Cap Could Save the UK's Future – A Real Left-Wing
- University tuition fees rising to £9,535 in England next year
- ATAS certificate Urgent query
- Should I apply for care experienced through UCAS?
- Barbie movie thoughts
- Study at the same level?
- Gap year into Pharmacy
- The Environmental Benefits of Scrap Recycling
- Contextual offer EPQ: trying to prove result
- Lost GCSE certificate
- Equivalency testing certificate not received yet
Should the 12A certificate be scrapped?
I have been working in a cinema for the past 5 months and have noticed the amount of parents taking in 6, 7 or 8 year old children (although younger and older children may still be too young to see the film) into 12A films regardless of the suitability of the film for children. Today, I saw a girl of no more than 9 come out of Poisidon shaking because she was so scared only to have her mum take her back in about 5 minutes later, despite telling us she was going to call her father and get him to pick her up. This girl then came out a second time, in an even worse state alone and had to be sat with for the remainer of the film because her mum did not seem concerned enough to come out and see to her. This got me thinking about the actual merit of the 12A certificate beyond a money maker for film makers who did not want their films pruned to fit into the PG criteria.
For example, I have seen a huge number of under 12s being taken into the Davinci code, a film that I for one would not expect a child that age to be able to understand and, because of certain scenes, remain undisturbed.
While it is true that some parents will be very careful as to what films they let their children see, film series such as Harry Potter are going to be thought of as OK, despite the fact the films have got considerably more adult since the first film, with a graphic murder scene shown in the latest one. I have also noticed that the number of PG rated films being released has dropped considerably, with the only two films released within the last couple of months that would appeal to children (good night and good luck was a PG but would not interest a child in any way) was Zathura and Big Momma's house 2.
This leads me to think that most film makers that want to make a film aimed at children are deciding to either make a U or a 12A, since there isn't really much point restraining themselves with the PG guidelines when just as many customers can go and see a 12A.
My main point is that since most parents I have seen taking small children into 12As really do not seem to be worried about the way the film may effect a small child (I would not expect any good parent to take an 8 year old into see date movie, but saw it happen on several occassions), but rather seem intent to see the film themselves and just could not find anyone to take care of the child when they went. Should the 12A certificate be scrapped and the old 12 rating be reintroduced to safeguard against parents who do not care what their children watch?
For example, I have seen a huge number of under 12s being taken into the Davinci code, a film that I for one would not expect a child that age to be able to understand and, because of certain scenes, remain undisturbed.
While it is true that some parents will be very careful as to what films they let their children see, film series such as Harry Potter are going to be thought of as OK, despite the fact the films have got considerably more adult since the first film, with a graphic murder scene shown in the latest one. I have also noticed that the number of PG rated films being released has dropped considerably, with the only two films released within the last couple of months that would appeal to children (good night and good luck was a PG but would not interest a child in any way) was Zathura and Big Momma's house 2.
This leads me to think that most film makers that want to make a film aimed at children are deciding to either make a U or a 12A, since there isn't really much point restraining themselves with the PG guidelines when just as many customers can go and see a 12A.
My main point is that since most parents I have seen taking small children into 12As really do not seem to be worried about the way the film may effect a small child (I would not expect any good parent to take an 8 year old into see date movie, but saw it happen on several occassions), but rather seem intent to see the film themselves and just could not find anyone to take care of the child when they went. Should the 12A certificate be scrapped and the old 12 rating be reintroduced to safeguard against parents who do not care what their children watch?
Scroll to see replies
no - it is the parents choice what they expose their children to, in the same way that it is, and should be, the parents choice when to introduce their children to alcohol. Something like a bond film is a good example - can you think of one of those which would be unsuitable for a kid?
bikerx23
no - it is the parents choice what they expose their children to, in the same way that it is, and should be, the parents choice when to introduce their children to alcohol. Something like a bond film is a good example - can you think of one of those which would be unsuitable for a kid?
Quite easily. Lisence to kill is a lot more cold blooded and shocking than any other bond film.
So are you telling me that if you saw an 8 year old on the street being made to drink alcohol or being made to smoke even if they did not really want to, you would be fine with that?
It would be considered child abuse if a parent did that to their children, yet they can let them go and see a film that will:
a) scare them enough to make them cry/ shake/be sick/have nightmares.
b) let them pick up ideas such as sex and violence before they understand self control and discretion.
c) introduce them to a whole range of swear words and phrases they would not otherwise hear.
d) be completely uninteresting to them, which may mean they play up and disturb the rest of the audience.
Point a could very easily be construed as abuse since if it effects them that much and the child didn't have a choice to go and see the film.
sorry but if the parents are like that then the child will see films like that at home anyway so whats the difference? this way sensitive children will (usually) not see the film while children who would enjoy the films still can.
Licence to Kill is rated a 15, so that is a different matter - infact the only bond film which is.
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
bikerx23
Licence to Kill is rated a 15, so that is a different matter - infact the only bond film which is.
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
I am not suggesting locking them in a cacoon at all, I am merely stating that I have seen children come out of 12A films very scared on various occasions. You told me to tell you a bond film, you did not specify.
If you want to be pedantic though, try the opening of Die another day, which shows Bond being tortured quite graphically.
high priestess fnord
sorry but if the parents are like that then the child will see films like that at home anyway so whats the difference? this way sensitive children will (usually) not see the film while children who would enjoy the films still can.
The difference is that in the cinema the entire experiance is a lot more immerise and realistic. At home you may be staring at a 21" TV screen with sound just coming from the internal speakers, but at the cinema you have a huge screen in near enough total darkness with high quality surround sound. At home, a child can easy just go to another room and do something else if they don't like what they are being shown, or can just fast forward the scary or disturbing parts, in a cinema they cannot. A child is a lot more likely to get scared in a cinema than at home.
sorry but if someones that bad a parent then the child will be exposed to things they shouldnt anyway. its not the film makers job to protect children. they recomend that children under the age of 12 dont watch it unless the parent thinks it suitable. thats all they should do. its social services job keep an eye on vulnerable kids.
bikerx23
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
The law states that children from aged 5 upwards are allowed to drink alcohol with a meal when supervised by an adult, hence whether I would be fine with it or not is irrelevant - its the law, in certain circumstances.
'If it is lawful then it is right'. Do you agree?
bikerx23
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
You shouldn't be so wet and liberal regarding this - some people seem to think locking kids in a little cocoon is what is needed so they protect them from what can potentially be the real world for longer, and it results in a load of ignorant, lazy children who aren't willing to do a good days work.
Forcing a child to watch a film which is unsuitable to them can, as the thread started explained, considerably harm them. Should not a child be protected from harm?
If parents are unable or unwilling to protect their children from that which is considered inappropriate and harmful to their development, then someone has to care enough to protect them.
A parent is not automatically a responsible and caring parent simply by the fact of giving birth. Many don't know how to parent as they had inadequate parents themselves.
You would think that the instinct to protect their offspring is inherent in every parent - unfortunately for our society it is not and that is why we have so many 'damaged' individuals.
I'm 100% with the OP on this.
A parent is not automatically a responsible and caring parent simply by the fact of giving birth. Many don't know how to parent as they had inadequate parents themselves.
You would think that the instinct to protect their offspring is inherent in every parent - unfortunately for our society it is not and that is why we have so many 'damaged' individuals.
I'm 100% with the OP on this.
Isn't it an inderpendant organisation (bbfc) who decides on the cirtificate of the film not the film makes themselves. The introduction of the 12A cirtificate to a film means that the bbfc feel that this film would not be wholely unsuitable for children under 12 and they want parents imput because generally the parent knows the child and what they can cope with better than others. You say that you have see children come out of the cinema scared and that is a reason not to let them see films but I clearly remeber when I was a child one of the scarest things that i ever saw which really did stop me from sleeping was on TV. You can't stop children from seeing these things you can just hope that responsible parents won't expose their children to things that they can't handle.
I think any system based on the discretion of a child's guardian is going to better than one based on the biases of a group of people who most likely have never and will never know the child in question. Certification is always going to be a hit and miss business. I first watched Top Gun around the age of 6 or 7 and I've never found it disturbing or shocking - its a generally fun film that hasn't led me to become some form of wild degenerate without any concept of self control or discretion. Top Gun is of course a 15. Now around the same age, probably a little younger, I remember watching the Transformers Movie, a PG. Now I can tell you the death of Optimus Prime disturbed me far more than Top Gun. 
Yes, some children may be disturbed by seeing an 'adult' film, others will be able to handle it.
Yes, some children may be disturbed by seeing an 'adult' film, others will be able to handle it.Biker, while it may make your ears bleed to hear this, you are the one defending liberalism here!
I do think the old 12 rating is better, some parents just don't honestly care if their kids are seeing something they may not like or may scare them but just feel that because they're parents they can do what they like. 10 and 11 year olds will still be able to sneak their way into 12s (I know I did) so it's not that bad, plus small children only bother people around them in 12+ films.
Take for example, I went to see X-Men 3 this week and someone felt the need to bring a boy who must have been around 5/6 to the film and he was sat not far behind me. So for the whole running time I could hear behind me "Why's that man blue?" (he actually asked 5 times before the mom actually chose to answer) "Why does he wear glasses?" "Why does he have wings?" - the mom just decided to let him keep going without actually trying to shut him up.
It's not so much a bother what kids watch at home to me, hell I was watching 18 horrors when I was no older than 6 (and I found them all oddly funny) but that was in my own home.
Take for example, I went to see X-Men 3 this week and someone felt the need to bring a boy who must have been around 5/6 to the film and he was sat not far behind me. So for the whole running time I could hear behind me "Why's that man blue?" (he actually asked 5 times before the mom actually chose to answer) "Why does he wear glasses?" "Why does he have wings?" - the mom just decided to let him keep going without actually trying to shut him up.
It's not so much a bother what kids watch at home to me, hell I was watching 18 horrors when I was no older than 6 (and I found them all oddly funny) but that was in my own home.
I think that the old 12 rating was better... To me, the new 12A is basically just the same as PG.
dita_parlo
I think that the old 12 rating was better... To me, the new 12A is basically just the same as PG.
I totally agree. I've never understood what the 12A rating was for. To me, Its just the same as a PG in that kids can go and see the film in the company of a parent or guardian. I think its sad aswell that there isn't a 12 certificate anymore, and so you have to now wait until 15 when you can go into a film for your age + and there is no possibility of having annoying kids there. I know when I was 11 I was so looking forward to be 12 so I could see a film at the cinema which people younger than me couldn't see
The 12A certificate to me feels like the film industry are saying 'ok people think this film contains adult concepts and scenes that children won't understand, but the look of the film and characters are childlike anyway, so why don't we make it so children can see it with parents, but put it as a 12 so it looks like its advertised as a more adult film'
This is the case with the Harry Potter films. The fourth film 'Goblet of Fire' is much darker than the previous 3 and teenage & adult fans said that this might not have been suitable for young children. However the BBFC decided to give it a 12A probably because they thought the concepts of wizardry was childish and kids had loved the previous films, so all the Harry Potter films should be accessible to them
Grr it makes me annoyed!
Bring back the PG and 12 certificates!!!
I don't think it should be scrapped - kids are different - some will be completely unfazed by a film like The Da Vinci Code or Poseidon. It's the parent's responsibility to decide whether a 12A film is suitable for their <12 children. I've noticed that the BBFC have got a bit more liberal with the 12A rating though - I'm surprised the Da Vinci Code got away with a 12A given the amount and intensity of violence in it, but again, it didn't affect me and wouldn't have affected me when I was 8 either.
What I DO think is that they should get rid of the 18 certificate. 15 is an old enough age to decide whether a film is going to be suitable for you or not, and I haven't seen an 18 that would have disturbed me more at 15 than it does now...
What I DO think is that they should get rid of the 18 certificate. 15 is an old enough age to decide whether a film is going to be suitable for you or not, and I haven't seen an 18 that would have disturbed me more at 15 than it does now...
It should definitely be scrapped. I don't see why having a parent with you changes the content of the film and suddenly makes it suitable for you. I don't think that The Da Vinci Code should be shown to someone who is six, for example, purely because a parent is with them. I agree with all of the certificates except 12A. If an under-12 can watch a film rated above their age with a parent, why can't a 15 year old watch an 18 rated film with a parent? It's pretty illogical.
Related discussions
- BTEC’s being scrapped
- Sign this petition to scrap 2025 gcses - legit govt petition sign pls
- Btec
- Will i hace enoufg funding left
- Advice for application for medicine 2025
- Urgent tsa oxford question
- A-level Trig Help
- Do you think holistic assessments should return to the GCSE Curriculum? Why/why not?
- DJCAD Dundee room available
- Why Scrapping the Two-Child Benefit Cap Could Save the UK's Future – A Real Left-Wing
- University tuition fees rising to £9,535 in England next year
- ATAS certificate Urgent query
- Should I apply for care experienced through UCAS?
- Barbie movie thoughts
- Study at the same level?
- Gap year into Pharmacy
- The Environmental Benefits of Scrap Recycling
- Contextual offer EPQ: trying to prove result
- Lost GCSE certificate
- Equivalency testing certificate not received yet
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Mums furious after photo firm offers to delete kids in wheelchairs from school picsLast reply 2 months ago
Poundland drafts in advisors amid discounter crisis
