Cine-Shock

[moviepsycho 10]

not sure what to think about this...

 

went to see terminator salvation at the weekend, 10:30am showing on saturday. before i went to see the film though i was surprised at the 12a certificate...anyway, i was more surprised to see a screen filled with adults & their kids (of varying ages). by varying ages i mean 5 - 10 year olds!

 

now, to me this just seems wrong. have cineworld relaxed the rules? or are parents of today more relaxed?

 

i doubt it's the former, so i'm thinking it's the latter. in which case words cannot describe my anger.

 

people often get on the high horse about the media & the link to real life violence, when clearly they aren't helping!

 

sorry for the rant.

 

personnally i thought the film was good, but not great.

[Guest]

It's nothing to do with Cineworld. The 12A certificate means that children under that age can see the film if they are accompanied by an adult. Whether children younger than 12 get to see a 12A certificate is down to parental choice and judgement. From the BBFC:

12A – Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. ... Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.

Read this.

 

ETA: I don't think parents are necessarily more relaxed today. I think some parents aren't aware of/aren't overly bothered by the implications of the 12A certificate. As such, they're probably not making use of the resources put in place by the BBFC (the cBBFC, as well as the main BBFC website; both of which detail films' content in terms of the factors covered by the 12A certificate: violence, nudity, sex references etc) to allow parents to judge a film, and to assess it in terms of their own children's maturity.

 

Some 12A certificates are tough, but surely it's common sense to assume that if '12' is included in the certificate, then it's a fairly good bet that a five year old won't have the maturity to handle its theme and content.

 

The BBFC put the responsibility with the parents, as many parents had requested they do so due to the varying levels of maturity of children in the 8-12 range. Some parents have ignored that responsibility, and interpreted the certificate as a free for all. Presumably they're the first to complain when their six year old is totally wigged out by content s/he's not yet ready to see.

 

ETA again: last year's (rubbish) Indiana Jones film is a good example of a film under-12s would expect to see. The previous films had been PG in the cinema (the first one reclassified from the original A to PG) and on video. The last film was pushed over the edge from PG to 12A by focus throughout on Mutt's flick knife. Blades are a huge no-no with the BBFC:

The BBFC's Guidelines at 'PG' do not permit the 'glamorisation of realistic or easily accessible weapons', and it was felt that Mutt's fixation with his knife was sufficiently focussed upon to be better placed at '12A.'

The BBFC also described the scary sequences and violence which contributed to the 12A certificate. Now, if you've seen the previous three films, as well as the last one, you'll know that the scary scenes in question are similar in nature to the ones gone before which children under 12 might have seen on TV. On the large cinema screen, with the sound massively amplified, those scenes might have a greater impact on a young child than when viewed in the comfort of the living room. Only a parent can judge if their under-12 child will be adversely affected.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Guest

[Beakerzoid 10]

So well explained by Hecate there, that I don't feel I need to add much else, aside from confirming that some parents don't bother with checking first, and even ignore when we advise that perhaps their 5 year old shouldn't go to see Dark Knight (we had quite a few parents coming out about 3/4 into the film and wanting money back because their kid got upset at the man with half his face hanging off - then getting angry when they get told what the 12A actually meant, and that we don't refund so far into a performance when it is no fault of ours). It's a shame that so many parents see the 12A rating as meaning they don't need a babysitter.

 

I always check the contents of 12A when it comes to letting my kids see them. If this means I see Star Trek multiple times so my son can watch it (I have no issue with him watching that) then so be it. There are plenty of 12A films that I will not let my kids watch yet.

[moviepsycho 10]

i didnt think cineworld were to blame & by no means am i blaming or accussing them. thank you for explantions. to be honest, i knew the responses before you guys replied.

 

it leads to my point...

 

parents (mostly) blame the media (tv / films / music) for society & various acts of violence, but yet continue to put their own kids in front of violent media. if that isn't the single biggest act of double standards...then i wont watch another film.

 

again i'm sorry for the rant, but had to make my point. obviously this is just my opinion. i've been brought up watching films & have by no means been affected. i think it's it just an easy excuse...easy to blame something or someone else.

 

parents really need to wise up.

 

seriously.

 

anyway.......

 

cineworld, i love you. home from home.

 

peace.

[Beakerzoid 10]

 

parents (mostly) blame the media (tv / films / music) for society & various acts of violence, but yet continue to put their own kids in front of violent media. if that isn't the single biggest act of double standards...then i wont watch another film.

 

I couldn't agree more there. Take the much publicised Manhunt video game case, whereby a teen had killed another lad and the family then blame a video game. The mother of the lad even admitted that the game was rated 18, but her son was playing it, and claimed that he lacked the psycholigical maturity of an adult adn so the game made him kill!!! Seriously, she admits that he shouldn't have played it as he wasn't old enough physically or mentally, yet still let him play it, and then blames the game afterwards?!?!

 

This is just one example out of many - take a look in any video rentals shop and watch the 13 year old convince the parents to get the 18 rated action blood fest, or see witless parents pick up games for their kids that are above their maturity level. One of my neighbours was shocked at the level of violence and swearing in GTA4, yet admitted that she let her son (6 year old) play the games as "He loves driving around in them!". To say I was disgusted at that attitude is an understatement.

 

I'd like to think that I am more concientous when it comes to the materials I allow my kids to see, just as my own parents were. I admit that I began watching horror films from an early teen age, but my mother had deduced that as i was already reading Stephen King novels at the age of 11, then I could likely cope with film adaptations of them, such as Carrie. She would screen any film first to decide if the content was suitable - much as I do with my own kids.

 

So, yeah, I gladly join you on that soapbox rant against the terrible double standards some parents have.

[babybel 10]

Seems like there's the choice of:

1. Allow kids to become blood thirsty/gun popping/scared film goers

 

or...

 

2. Modify the film to complete oblivion so as not to tackle the blame of irresponsible parents.

[Beakerzoid 10]

Seems like there's the choice of:

1. Allow kids to become blood thirsty/gun popping/scared film goers

 

or...

 

2. Modify the film to complete oblivion so as not to tackle the blame of irresponsible parents.

 

or (preferably) option 3 : Kids go wild and do drugs, get into gangs, fight, etc. Parents try to blame music/film/games/Dungeons & Dragons. Newspapers pick up on neglected upbringing, domestic abuse, bad parenting in general....the parents then look like the cretins they are, and any attempts to sue bands/game creators/movie companies fall flat on their ass and are laughed out of court (see James Vance vs Judas Priest for my favourite example).

 

 

In a way I'm glad the BBFC are not as scissor-happy as they used to be, and it is rare that films recieve cuts these days.

[babybel 10]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[moviepsycho 10]

beakerzoid has got it right folks. my opinion exactly.

 

parents - wise up.

 

everyone must understand that films / games need to be certified, so why choose to then ignore them? but then aim blame at them?!?!

 

ggrrrrr.

 

till next time. keep enjoying films / games aimed at your age group.

 

moviepsycho.