I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
that it should not have been a 12A.  After watching it, technically
12A was too high a rating for it:  there was very little violence
actually shown, everything was slightly off-camera.  However the "off-
camera" stuff was done so well it seemed to be "on-camera"!  For
example, the Joker shoved a pencil (I think it was a 4B) through a
man's eye off-camera.  Many of the kids watching the movie did not
actually know what was happening, but a few adults winced.  Almost all
of the Joker's violence was psychological and quite nastily
psychological at that!  I'm tempted to dig up Heath Ledger and ask his
corpse how he portrayed a psychopath so vividly.

Anyway, to summarise Batman: The Dark Knight, ticks all the kid-
friendly boxes but it was clearly written for adults.  HL's joker-
smile is clearly due to his mouth being slit to the cheeks and re-
stitched.  There is no swearing and no nudity but the plot is adult.

I would like to force post-watershed-show writers (or more to the
point, post-watershed schedulers) to watch this movie to show them
where they are going wrong.  The average British-written show designed
for after the watershed will have festoons of swearing, nudity and sex
scenes squeezed in at every orifice, yet in essence it will be a kid's
show with "naughty bits" added.  Proper Adult television does not need
extra titilation as The Dark Knight proves.


Mike Hall

Mike Hall wrote:
> I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
> that it should not have been a 12A.  After watching it, technically
> 12A was too high a rating for it:  there was very little violence
> actually shown, everything was slightly off-camera.  However the "off-
> camera" stuff was done so well it seemed to be "on-camera"!  For
> example, the Joker shoved a pencil (I think it was a 4B) through a
> man's eye off-camera.  Many of the kids watching the movie did not
> actually know what was happening, but a few adults winced.  Almost all
> of the Joker's violence was psychological and quite nastily
> psychological at that!  I'm tempted to dig up Heath Ledger and ask his
> corpse how he portrayed a psychopath so vividly.
>
> Anyway, to summarise Batman: The Dark Knight, ticks all the kid-
> friendly boxes but it was clearly written for adults.  HL's joker-
> smile is clearly due to his mouth being slit to the cheeks and re-
> stitched.  There is no swearing and no nudity but the plot is adult.
>
> I would like to force post-watershed-show writers (or more to the
> point, post-watershed schedulers) to watch this movie to show them
> where they are going wrong.  The average British-written show designed
> for after the watershed will have festoons of swearing, nudity and sex
> scenes squeezed in at every orifice, yet in essence it will be a kid's
> show with "naughty bits" added.

You're talking about "Torchwood", aren't you?  ;-)



-- 
Enzo

I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

On Aug 7, 5:41 pm, "Enzo Matrix"  wrote:
> Mike Hall wrote:
> > I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
> > that it should not have been a 12A.  After watching it, technically
> > 12A was too high a rating for it:  there was very little violence
> > actually shown, everything was slightly off-camera.  However the "off> > camera" stuff was done so well it seemed to be "on-camera"!  For
> > example, the Joker shoved a pencil (I think it was a 4B) through a
> > man's eye off-camera.  Many of the kids watching the movie did not
> > actually know what was happening, but a few adults winced.  Almost all
> > of the Joker's violence was psychological and quite nastily
> > psychological at that!  I'm tempted to dig up Heath Ledger and ask his
> > corpse how he portrayed a psychopath so vividly.
>
> > Anyway, to summarise Batman: The Dark Knight, ticks all the kid-
> > friendly boxes but it was clearly written for adults.  HL's joker-
> > smile is clearly due to his mouth being slit to the cheeks and re-
> > stitched.  There is no swearing and no nudity but the plot is adult.
>
> > I would like to force post-watershed-show writers (or more to the
> > point, post-watershed schedulers) to watch this movie to show them
> > where they are going wrong.  The average British-written show designed
> > for after the watershed will have festoons of swearing, nudity and sex
> > scenes squeezed in at every orifice, yet in essence it will be a kid's
> > show with "naughty bits" added.
>
> You're talking about "Torchwood", aren't you?  ;-)

Torchwood, Tripping the Girl on Girl, anything involving Jonathon Woss
etc.


Mike Hall

Mike Hall goes:

>I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
>that it should not have been a 12A.  After watching it, technically
>12A was too high a rating for it:  there was very little violence
>actually shown, everything was slightly off-camera.  However the "off-
>camera" stuff was done so well it seemed to be "on-camera"!  For
>example, the Joker shoved a pencil (I think it was a 4B) through a
>man's eye off-camera.  Many of the kids watching the movie did not
>actually know what was happening, but a few adults winced.  Almost all
>of the Joker's violence was psychological and quite nastily
>psychological at that!  I'm tempted to dig up Heath Ledger and ask his
>corpse how he portrayed a psychopath so vividly.
>
>Anyway, to summarise Batman: The Dark Knight, ticks all the kid-
>friendly boxes but it was clearly written for adults.  HL's joker-
>smile is clearly due to his mouth being slit to the cheeks and re-
>stitched.  There is no swearing and no nudity but the plot is adult.
>
>I would like to force post-watershed-show writers (or more to the
>point, post-watershed schedulers) to watch this movie to show them
>where they are going wrong.  The average British-written show designed
>for after the watershed will have festoons of swearing, nudity and sex
>scenes squeezed in at every orifice, yet in essence it will be a kid's
>show with "naughty bits" added.  Proper Adult television does not need
>extra titilation as The Dark Knight proves.

So you're suggesting that "proper adult television" should model
itself on a movie about a superhero and an evil genius. 


-- 
AH
http://grapes2dot0.blogspot.com

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Mike Hall 
wrote:

>I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
>that it should not have been a 12A.

I can't believe that's the reason you'd go to see Dark Knight.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:38:33 +0200, Alan Hope
 wrote:

>Mike Hall goes:
>
>>I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
>>that it should not have been a 12A.  After watching it, technically
>>12A was too high a rating for it:  there was very little violence
>>actually shown, everything was slightly off-camera.  However the "off-
>>camera" stuff was done so well it seemed to be "on-camera"!  For
>>example, the Joker shoved a pencil (I think it was a 4B) through a
>>man's eye off-camera.  Many of the kids watching the movie did not
>>actually know what was happening, but a few adults winced.  Almost all
>>of the Joker's violence was psychological and quite nastily
>>psychological at that!  I'm tempted to dig up Heath Ledger and ask his
>>corpse how he portrayed a psychopath so vividly.
>>
>>Anyway, to summarise Batman: The Dark Knight, ticks all the kid-
>>friendly boxes but it was clearly written for adults.  HL's joker-
>>smile is clearly due to his mouth being slit to the cheeks and re-
>>stitched.  There is no swearing and no nudity but the plot is adult.
>>
>>I would like to force post-watershed-show writers (or more to the
>>point, post-watershed schedulers) to watch this movie to show them
>>where they are going wrong.  The average British-written show designed
>>for after the watershed will have festoons of swearing, nudity and sex
>>scenes squeezed in at every orifice, yet in essence it will be a kid's
>>show with "naughty bits" added.  Proper Adult television does not need
>>extra titilation as The Dark Knight proves.
>
>So you're suggesting that "proper adult television" should model
>itself on a movie about a superhero and an evil genius. 

No man... Don't you get it? The Dark Knight is, like, heavvvvvy dude.
It's, like, 'thoughtful' and... 'intelligent' and... 'psychological'
and... 'dark' woooooooo!

It has like, ideas an' shit.

At least, that's what a lot of idiots who rate it the best movie ever,
and the director/writers, want people to believe.

It's actually a 6/10 mindless action movie - about as enjoyable as,
but sadly much longer than, the itself too-long Die Hard 4.0 - that
wants to be 'real' and 'intelligent', yet makes no sense on any level.

As for the (very sadistic) violence, I disagree that it's offscreen.
What's offscreen is the _consequences_ of it. That only makes it
worse, IMHO.

I think the movie is inappropriate for kids to see, but the rule seems
to be anything goes so long as nobody says "fuck" (unlike every 12
year old on the country) and there's no tits.

Yet here's what the BBFC, among other things, says about 12A:

"Occasional gory moments only."

Like extensive shots of a guy with half his face burned off?

http://photos.bravenet.com/272/478/925/3/7B9798ADA2.jpg

"Dangerous techniques [...] should not [...] appear pain or harm
free."

Almost all the action and violence in TDK appears pain and harm free,
including a particularly sadistic scene where the Joker is beaten.

"Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised."

Like the Joker's frequent use of knives? Yup, knife crime among young
people ain't already enough of a problem. 

And I've lost count of the number of people using "Why so serious?"
online, in case anybody doubts who the real 'hero' of TDK is.

Given some of the titles on this list of 12A movies (meaning kids
_under_ 12 can see them, if they're with an adult), I'm beginning to
wonder how a movie gets an 18 (or at least 15) these days:

http://www.imdb.com/List?certificates=UK:12A&&heading=14;UK:12A

12A is about fattening Hollywood pockets and nothing else.

In <489c3fbc$0$13862$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, Froot Bat 
wrote:

>Given some of the titles on this list of 12A movies (meaning kids
>_under_ 12 can see them, if they're with an adult),

*Some* kids. You may have misunderstood the 12A rating - just in case: 12A
means, as Mark Kermode reminds us every week, "12, unless you have a
particular reason to believe that your 9/10/11-year old is unusually
mature for their age and can handle it". By definition, not many of them
can be unusually mature! It does *not* mean "fine for everyone over
7/8ish, just come with an adult and you're sorted".

The fact that very irresponsible parents take immature kids into 12A films
is down to those stupid parents, not the BBFC.

>I'm beginning to
>wonder how a movie gets an 18 (or at least 15) these days:
>
>http://www.imdb.com/List?certificates=UK:12A&&heading=14;UK:12A
>
>12A is about fattening Hollywood pockets and nothing else.

Standards change; most horror films that were 18 just a decade ago would
be 15 now. If those 12A films were rated 15, the first alternative, then
that penalises 13/14 year olds, who certainly are more mature than the
average 9 year old and don't deserve to be penalised because of some
idiotic parents taking children into 12A films. Or - worse - if those
films were CUT for a PG rating, I and most free adults would be mightily
annoyed at what would certainly be censorship to fatten Hollywood pockets.

In article , nospam@nospam.com 
says...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Mike Hall 
> wrote:
> 
> >I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
> >that it should not have been a 12A.
> 
> I can't believe that's the reason you'd go to see Dark Knight.
> 
> 
Yes, he was sat in an empty auditorium at no.12, until someone told him it was 
in the granny flat.
-- 

Dom Robinson	  Gamertag: DVDfever      email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1185 DVDs, 377 games, 451 CDs, 114 cinema films, 56 concerts, music & news
/* bourne conspircay, gta 4, waz, city of heroes, heavenly creatures, blade 3
             New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
               Youtube - http://uk.youtube.com/user/DieHardDom

In article , {$mrtickle$}
@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
> In <489c3fbc$0$13862$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, Froot Bat 
> wrote:
> 
> >Given some of the titles on this list of 12A movies (meaning kids
> >_under_ 12 can see them, if they're with an adult),
> 
> *Some* kids. You may have misunderstood the 12A rating - just in case: 12A
> means, as Mark Kermode reminds us every week, "12, unless you have a
> particular reason to believe that your 9/10/11-year old is unusually
> mature for their age and can handle it". By definition, not many of them
> can be unusually mature! It does *not* mean "fine for everyone over
> 7/8ish, just come with an adult and you're sorted".

In an ideal world, but...

> The fact that very irresponsible parents take immature kids into 12A films
> is down to those stupid parents, not the BBFC.

that is exactly what happens.

Then again, any certificate wouldn't have got rid of the 30-something cunts 
during Indiana Jones who kept whooping and hollering whenever anything 
happened.
-- 

Dom Robinson	  Gamertag: DVDfever      email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1185 DVDs, 377 games, 451 CDs, 114 cinema films, 56 concerts, music & news
/* bourne conspircay, gta 4, waz, city of heroes, heavenly creatures, blade 3
             New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
               Youtube - http://uk.youtube.com/user/DieHardDom

In , Dom Robinson
 wrote:
>In article , {$mrtickle$}
>@nospam.demon.co.uk says...
>> In <489c3fbc$0$13862$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, Froot Bat 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Given some of the titles on this list of 12A movies (meaning kids
>> >_under_ 12 can see them, if they're with an adult),
>> 
>> *Some* kids. You may have misunderstood the 12A rating - just in case: 12A
>> means, as Mark Kermode reminds us every week, "12, unless you have a
>> particular reason to believe that your 9/10/11-year old is unusually
>> mature for their age and can handle it". By definition, not many of them
>> can be unusually mature! It does *not* mean "fine for everyone over
>> 7/8ish, just come with an adult and you're sorted".
>
>In an ideal world, but...
>
>> The fact that very irresponsible parents take immature kids into 12A films
>> is down to those stupid parents, not the BBFC.
>
>that is exactly what happens.

Indeed it does happen, and it's entirely the fault and (irr)esponsbility
of the parents in question.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:35:37 +0100, Mike Henry
<{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In <489c3fbc$0$13862$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, Froot Bat 
>wrote:
>
>>Given some of the titles on this list of 12A movies (meaning kids
>>_under_ 12 can see them, if they're with an adult),
>
>*Some* kids. You may have misunderstood the 12A rating - just in case: 12A
>means, as Mark Kermode reminds us every week, "12, unless you have a
>particular reason to believe that your 9/10/11-year old is unusually
>mature for their age and can handle it". By definition, not many of them
>can be unusually mature! It does *not* mean "fine for everyone over
>7/8ish, just come with an adult and you're sorted".

Well perhaps the BBFC should say that instead of saying:

"No-one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a cinema unless
accompanied by an adult."

>The fact that very irresponsible parents take immature kids into 12A films
>is down to those stupid parents, not the BBFC.

Rubbish. You can hardly call people stupid for going off what the
_BBFC_ says about its own rating.

>Or - worse - if those
>films were CUT for a PG rating, I and most free adults would be mightily
>annoyed at what would certainly be censorship to fatten Hollywood pockets.

That is exactly what does happen with the 12A rating (aside from major
studios pressuring the BBFC to rate 12A what would have been 15 in the
past), 'adult' movies are self-censored to become more 'kid friendly'.

You can't have it both ways; arguing a movie is suitable for 12 year
old kids _and_ claiming the same movie is an 'uncut' adult movie.

In article <489cc0f5$0$13846$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, me@privacy.net 
says...
> That is exactly what does happen with the 12A rating (aside from major
> studios pressuring the BBFC to rate 12A what would have been 15 in the
> past), 'adult' movies are self-censored to become more 'kid friendly'.

One point of the 12A rating is babysitter-avoidance.  Parents get to 
drag their children off to see films that are completely irrelevant to 
them (the kids, that is) because the tickets cost less than the 
babysitter would.

12A was invented for Spiderman.  It got a 12 certificate, but most of 
the merchandising was aimed at kids younger than that.  Hordes of small 
children, along with their parents, were turned away from the film.  
Cinemas put special notices on their doors pointing out that no-one 
under 12 could be admitted.  Someone had enough clout with the BBFC to 
get the classifications re-done, and they effectively re-released the 
film a few weeks later.
-- 
SAm.

On Aug 8, 8:19 pm, Dom Robinson  wrote:
> In article , nos...@nospam.com
> says...> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Mike Hall 
> > wrote:

> > >I recently went and saw the Batman film, because people were saying
> > >that it should not have been a 12A.
> > I can't believe that's the reason you'd go to see Dark Knight.
> Yes, he was sat in an empty auditorium at no.12, until someone told him it was
> in the granny flat.

I had nothing else to do at the time except watch a movie so that I
could report my disgust on the Internet.  I'm living in Daily
Mailville, Surrey at the moment so the auditorium was empty apart from
a couple of kids, who were apparently attempting to play truant in the
school holidays.

Btw Frootbat, I think you got caught up in the optical illusion
created by the director.  There was less visual of the violence than
is shown in the Sunday repeats of EastEnders.  The classic much-quoted
scene where the Joker performs a "magic trick" in front of the crime
bosses was just has a thud in the background, and quickly established
that the guy was a psychopathic lunatic.  A similar scene in
EastEnders had Phiw Mitchell holding Ian Beale's head over a birthday
cake.  This is the difference between a kid show and a true adult
movie.  Kid movies are pornographic Sun newspaper-type affairs with
subtlety abandoned lest they confuse pre-teen minds.  True adult shows
don't make any attempt to insult your intelligence and in fact use
your mind to create a richer experience.  For further examples of the
opposite watch the next Guy Ritchie movie, which will no doubt have a
muppet being graphically beaten up by a Saville Row-suited mockney
whilst being jabbed in the genitals by a 4F pencil..

This is why The Dark Knight caused a rumpus.  It was a show about a
billionaire playboy who dresses up like a raven (he looks absolutely
nothing like a bat!) in the evening being accepted as an anti-crime
measure by the locals - and it was good!  Torchwood, which was given
as an example, is a kid's show with bisexual porn thrown in.

I also watched the new Mummy movie, which is so bad that I commend
Rachel Weisz for keeping well clear of it!


Mike Hall

Sam Nelson wrote:

> 12A was invented for Spiderman.

And coincidentally, wasn't the 12 invented for the first Batman film?

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:04:03 +0100, Sam Nelson  wrote:

>In article <489cc0f5$0$13846$8a667849@news.ak47.org>, me@privacy.net 
>says...
>> That is exactly what does happen with the 12A rating (aside from major
>> studios pressuring the BBFC to rate 12A what would have been 15 in the
>> past), 'adult' movies are self-censored to become more 'kid friendly'.
>
>One point of the 12A rating is babysitter-avoidance.  Parents get to 
>drag their children off to see films that are completely irrelevant to 
>them (the kids, that is) because the tickets cost less than the 
>babysitter would.
>
>12A was invented for Spiderman.  It got a 12 certificate, but most of 
>the merchandising was aimed at kids younger than that.  Hordes of small 
>children, along with their parents, were turned away from the film.  
>Cinemas put special notices on their doors pointing out that no-one 
>under 12 could be admitted.  Someone had enough clout with the BBFC to 
>get the classifications re-done, and they effectively re-released the 
>film a few weeks later.

And that is why Mike is wrong to blame "stupid" parents. 

Batman is, I think, assumed by most people who are not comic-book
nerds to be a kids character. If there are parents of a 9 year old who
wants to go and see The Dark Knight after seeing the massive publicity
everywhere, and the BBFC says its okay for under 12s, and the cinema
has no problem with it (because the BBFC says its okay), then it's not
the fault of the parents if the kid is then freaked out or disturbed
because the movie isn't really suitable for young kids at all.

The movie can't have it both ways - wanting to be 'darker' and more
'adult' than the Burton movies but still wanting to retain the
kid-friendly rating those 'lighter' Batman movies had, for financial
reasons. (Well it can, and does, but it shouldn't.)

Nolan's pre-Batman movies - Insomnia, Memento and Following - were all
classified as 15, so he is not a director of 'kiddie' movies.

Likewise, almost every movie the adult Bale has starred in (ie,
received a high billing, as opposed to simply appeared in) before
Batman was rated 18 - Shaft, American Psycho, Laurel Canyon, Velvet
Goldmine, Metroland - or 15 - Harsh Times, The Machinist, Equilibrium,
Captain Corelli's Mandolin, All the Little Animals.

12A should be a replacement for 12; right now it's a replacement for
15 for major, big budget Hollywood movies. If TDK was a smaller or
'independent' movie, starring pre-Batman Bale, and pre-Batman Nolan,
it would have received a 15.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 03:46:58 -0700 (PDT), Mike Hall 
wrote:

>Btw Frootbat, I think you got caught up in the optical illusion
>created by the director.  There was less visual of the violence than
>is shown in the Sunday repeats of EastEnders.  The classic much-quoted
>scene where the Joker performs a "magic trick" in front of the crime
>bosses was just has a thud in the background, and quickly established
>that the guy was a psychopathic lunatic.  A similar scene in
>EastEnders had Phiw Mitchell holding Ian Beale's head over a birthday
>cake.  This is the difference between a kid show and a true adult
>movie.  Kid movies are pornographic Sun newspaper-type affairs with
>subtlety abandoned lest they confuse pre-teen minds.  True adult shows
>don't make any attempt to insult your intelligence and in fact use
>your mind to create a richer experience.  

If it's a true adult movie, why isn't it rated 18 or at least 15?

>This is why The Dark Knight caused a rumpus.  It was a show about a
>billionaire playboy who dresses up like a raven (he looks absolutely
>nothing like a bat!) 

I thought he looked like somebody else during the scene in the NCP. :P

Can you guess who, kiddies?
http://i35.tinypic.com/2ijgeno.jpg

>in the evening being accepted as an anti-crime
>measure by the locals - and it was good!  

Except that in the movie he wasn't accepted, he was rejected. 

Suddenly, without credible reason or explanation. Just one example why
TDK was not intelligent and made little sense, despite what some
people have tried to claim.

>Torchwood, which was given
>as an example, is a kid's show with bisexual porn thrown in.

So vague allusions to sex is bad for kids; pencils through eyes is
fine for kids. That's an interesting sense of 'morality'.

In article , Sam Nelson  wrote:
>>12A was invented for Spiderman.

no it wasnt, sorry its just been a pet hate of mine reading that in the 
papers this past week :)

the 12A had been in the pipeline for a couple of years by the time 
Spider-Man came out, the BBFC had trialled it successfully the previous 
summer and it was expected to be introduced around 2002/03 once the 
industry had accepted it.

so the BBFC gave Spider-Man a 12 rating, though the distributors had asked 
for a PG, but local authorities have the power to apply their own ratings, 
and many did so (under pressure from parents/cinema chains or whoever) 
giving it a PG or PG12 that had similar conditions (kids under 12 had to 
be accompanied by an adult) to the 12A that we've come to know,

which kind of showed there was no point delaying introducing the 12A 
anymore and as it happens the first BBFC 12A rated film was the Bourne 
Identity, then from about Aug/Sept of that year the 12A automatically 
replaced the 12.


Aw

On Aug 9, 6:57 pm, Froot Bat  wrote:

> If it's a true adult movie, why isn't it rated 18 or at least 15?

The rating system does not distinguish between adult movies and child
movies.  It's just a measure of sexual and violent pornography.  For
example Casablanca is obviously not a child movie, yet is rated as a
U.


Mike Hall

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:43:02 -0700 (PDT), Mike Hall  wrote:

>On Aug 9, 6:57 pm, Froot Bat  wrote:
>
>> If it's a true adult movie, why isn't it rated 18 or at least 15?
>
>The rating system does not distinguish between adult movies and child
>movies.  It's just a measure of sexual and violent pornography.  For
>example Casablanca is obviously not a child movie, yet is rated as a
>U.

I don't recall any sexual and violent pornography in Casablanca. Are you
referring to a holiday experience or the film. Play it again, Sam? Yes, I know.
-- 

Martin