View Full Version : Trash the 12 certificate!

05-05-2004, 00:35:28
Or its equivalent in the US/wherever you live!

After a number of recent films, I can't help thinking that the majority of 12 cert movies are aimed entirely at 12 year olds!

Where have all the cool big budget action movies gone!!?

Since Batman it seems to me that all the big budget movies have been 'dumbed down' for this audience in the name of the rampant commercialism of merchandising to spotty brats.

If it wasn't for this shitty 12 cert, I have a feeling that Van Helsing might have actually lived up to some of its hype if it had been at least a 15.

I'm sick of being treated like a 12yo, even if your average moviegoing sheep appears happy to do so...:shoot:

23-05-2004, 19:46:26
Pity post :D

actually i do agree with you, but i'm against movie certification period.

As far as i can see, movie certification basically only helps people who are either too lazy to read film reviews, or too frightened that they might see something naughty or unpleasant. In other words, people i have no time for.

i'm sure the parents of the world might like the idea that their kiddies won't be allowed to rent a video or see a film at the cinema that contains naughty or unpleasant things but that is a load of old tits really. censorship is the last sad hangover of the victorian sensibility.

Scabrous Birdseed
23-05-2004, 19:51:31
So you think a five-year-old should, in principle, be allowed to go see any film he pleases? Or a thirteen-year-old rent hardcore porn?

23-05-2004, 19:55:38
in principle yes

i'll take any perceived psychological damage on the chin versus the nanny state bullshit we have now

23-05-2004, 19:59:40
to put it another way, there's a gross hypocrisy in the fact that a married 16 or 17 year old couple aren't legally allowed to watch a sexy movie

Gramercy Riffs
23-05-2004, 21:50:35
The little tag lines they now to give are more annoying.

"Three scenes of a sexual nature, one use of crass language, one specific drug reference, one non-specific drug reference, two scenes of nudity" etc.

The best one yet is for The Day After Tomorrow.
"Contains scenes of extended peril"

23-05-2004, 22:06:52
Presumably for The Phantom Menace it says something like "Contains one long unbelievably fucking shite and offensive film"

Gramercy Riffs
23-05-2004, 22:14:05

Or "Contains the most annoying character in any film ever"

Scabrous Birdseed
24-05-2004, 07:54:34
Can we allow our children to come under the evil influence of Jar Jar Binks?! I ask!

24-05-2004, 08:25:34
I require more warnings on TV shows, like 'Magnum is, in fact, gay'

24-05-2004, 11:41:06
Originally posted by Gramercy Riffs
The little tag lines they now to give are more annoying.

"Three scenes of a sexual nature, one use of crass language, one specific drug reference, one non-specific drug reference, two scenes of nudity" etc.

The best one yet is for The Day After Tomorrow.
"Contains scenes of extended peril"

They are useful. If it says "Contains continued use of bad language, frequent nudity and frequent drug references" I know it's probably going to be good. :D

24-05-2004, 12:12:21
Yaaay for extended peril. Yaaay.

26-05-2004, 11:14:27
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
So you think a five-year-old should, in principle, be allowed to go see any film he pleases? Or a thirteen-year-old rent hardcore porn?

hey SB i thought you were gearing up for a scrap when you posted this, but you seem to have slunk away from the thread. Was my response too ridiculous or too sensible?! And out of interest, how would you answer your own question?

Scabrous Birdseed
26-05-2004, 11:35:47
Well I'm all for stopping kiddies watching stuff that'll make them violent/sexually predatorial/American. Not least because it defuses the normal conservative argument of "we're letting our kiddies see this filth, let's ban it!"

26-05-2004, 11:43:22
by kiddies do you mean minors?

so you would have (in this country at least) a 16 certificate?

the problem with advocating any kind of regulated censorship is that you then have to answer questions like the one i'm asking and provide a good reason for it.

The problem with the current classification is that it doesn't seem to be based on any kind of reasonable logic at all. I would actually have more time for a 16 certificate, at least it would avoid the ridiculous problems with the 18 certificate that i mentoned above.

Scabrous Birdseed
26-05-2004, 12:44:46
Here we've got an 18 certificate only for Hardcore porn. Which I think is reasonable.

26-05-2004, 12:46:44
I'd rather have an 18 certificate for anything featuring violent death and a much younger one for porn. Why should sex be less tolerable than violence?

26-05-2004, 16:07:40
I don't see why 18 is mentioned when 16 is the bar for minors. Would someone please explain why you think someone should be able to get married and have sex but not be able to watch a porno.

Scabrous Birdseed
26-05-2004, 16:25:15
Because porn isn't "normal" sex. Nudity, sex scenes, whatever, put at seven or eleven or no level at all, Porn, no.

Scabrous Birdseed
26-05-2004, 16:25:46
I wouldn't want my children growing up thinking bukkakke was a normal, healthy activity.

26-05-2004, 16:31:56
But it's fine for them to think that shooting people in the face is a normal healthy activity.

26-05-2004, 17:27:07
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
I wouldn't want my children growing up thinking bukkakke was a normal, healthy activity.

who mentioned children?

16's and above aren't children, they are adults

and you also metioned 7 and 11, what makes these ages special?

26-05-2004, 22:51:49
My main reason is selfish, if you scrap the 12 cert producers would no longer be able to pander to snotty brats in the greedy pursuit of ever more profits and merchandising. Without the 12 cert even they would not be able to water down mainstream action movies down enough to pass PG standards...

Take Troy as a 15. I actually enjoyed that (7/10) despite the wholesale raping of a book I haven't actually read, even the blatant pandering to the female audience was tolerable for the rest of the movie - imagine how utterly shit it would have been if it had been tailored to the childish minds of 12 year olds?

Personally I think they should scrap 15 & 18 as well and just have a catch-all 16 cert. As K_G says why can't you watch porn if you're allowed to shag? 16 is an adult, think of what Alexander the Great was up to at aged 16!

Scabrous Birdseed
27-05-2004, 16:48:34
16 year olds aren't adults. I wasn't an adult when I was 16.

Nothing makes 7 and 11 special, but if you're for limits you've got to have them somewhere. Your answer practically invites the Sorites paradox.

27-05-2004, 19:13:12
whatever the fuck it is, bring the soirites paradox on

i'd love you to tell me why not discriminating at all is better than discriminating nonsensically. I told you that your problem was going to be justifying any age limit you decided to pick, now you justify it.

you haven't started well - 16 yr olds aren't adults but 18 yr olds are? Now how are you measuring adulthood then scabby? In the UK 16 year olds are legally adults.

you plucked 7 and 11 out of the air because any number is better than none? how about 8 and 12 then? are they better or worse?

So far you're not making any cohesive argument at all.

Scabrous Birdseed
27-05-2004, 19:40:24
The sorites paradox is the argument of the heap, classic greek philosophical problem.

Imagine you've got a single grain of sand. You couldn't possibly call this a heap of sand. Nor are two grains, three grains, etc.

Now, to argue as you do (the equivalent of "there's no single point at which a certain amount of sand is not a heap, and that amount of sand plus one grain is a heap") leads to the ultimate conclusion that no amount of sand can make a heap. Not even a million. Because if three grains don't make a heap and it cannot be that n+1 grains make a heap (where n is a number of grains that doesn't make a heap), then four grains don't make a heap. And so on ad infinitum.


I'm setting arbitrary limits (8 and 12 are also fine... I'm just using the swedish system as an example) because I think the alternative is not very nice. If you acknowledge that (a) there are some ages that are psychologically damaged by a certain film and should be banned from viewing it, and (b) that there are certain ages that aren't and shouldn't, then assuming the sorites premise (there's no age such that a child is psychologically damaged at that age but is not psychologically damaged at that age plus one day) will result in a contradiction of either (a) or (b) if we allow the sorites argument/paradox.

By your argument this would lead us to strike argument (a), using a pretty classic sorites argument as the basis ("we can't know where it becomes bad, therefore we need to scrap limits altogether"). However, most philosophers agree that permitting the sorites argument leads to a number of rather unpleasant conclusions, among which are that stuff doesn't actually exist. :)

While I would be all for introducing second-order vagueness and supervaluation at the box office, I think most people would just find it a headache.

Immortal Wombat
27-05-2004, 20:14:15
Sixteen-year olds may be legally adults, but I don't think they can in any way qualify as grown-up. However, I think that by the age of sixteen they will already be as fucked up as any movie can make them. A single 16-rating certificate would be ok by me. It's not like hardcore porn is difficult to get hold of these days. And most are probably numb to violent deaths as well.

27-05-2004, 20:14:49
ah ok, i know the argument, never heard it called that. Well at least this been worth something :D

you're spot on, i am terribly afraid of getting into any argument where the sorites paradox could be brought into play - been there too many times before.

but i find there something crushingly unsatisfying about setting a limit and not having a decent justification for it. I suppose i will admit that if i had to, i would be happy with 16 (the uk legal boundary between minor and adult) is a reasonable dividing line between things which are considered acceptable and things which are considered too grossly offensive for minors to watch.

But offense itself is a huge can of worms, as is your notion of what 'normal' sex constitutes, as is the argument about the potential psychological damage the celluloid image can cause.

In short, this is a nightmare topic to discuss in message board format :D

28-05-2004, 22:37:53
So what we need is a consensus then...

And consensus seems to be three for 16 and one vague.

As for vagueness and headaches, my proposal scraps the 12, 15 & 18 certs and replaces them with just the 16.:)

28-05-2004, 22:50:49
What is an adult?

Biologically it is when you are capable of procreation - which is younger than 16...

This sounds like the sorites paradox all over again, define adulthood...

When I was 16 I'd left school and was working, going to the pub etc - though I was still living at my mum's.

Are you an adult when you leave home?

Two of my schoolfriends still live at home and they're 33 - are they not adults yet?

When Alexander the Great was 16 his dad left him in charge of the kingdom and he had to crush a rebellion by taking the rebels' largest city...

It's all relative.

23-06-2004, 22:44:05
considering Parliament are seriously debating giving 16 year olds the vote, it would be churlish to expect them to vote and then refuse them entry to their local hostelry and then off to the cinema for some Debbie does Dallas, but I do think theres a casefor stopping young children watching porn, mainly because a) it can portray things which aren't 'normal' eg rape, donkey sex etc and could be damaging to a childs psychology
b) itwould be a perfect inroad for adults to start grooming kids.
whatyou define as kids, adults, ageof consent and normality are open to debate.
Plus recently 12 films are more like the old 15's. Harry Potter scared the shit out of me.

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-06-2004, 07:30:12
A "12" certificate is attached the "Walkabout", the most erotic film ever made. They showed us the film while I was at school. Fwarrrrrrrr.

25-06-2004, 16:16:19
Ah memories... walkabout... I'm fairly sure that was where I saw my first full frontal nude female. Ah... Jenny :D * sigh *

Lazarus and the Gimp
25-06-2004, 22:59:46
I suspect that the greatest cause of tennis elbow in the young is the film career of Jenny Agutter.

26-06-2004, 10:20:33


27-06-2004, 02:04:41
Jenny Agutter


27-06-2004, 02:09:27
Sweet Jenny, first saw her in Logan's Run in the cinema when I was 5 - I remember I liked her even then, but it took me a few more years to figure out exactly why!:D

28-06-2004, 02:02:42
if she is the woman I think she is, you lot are fucking weirder than I thought

28-06-2004, 10:00:13
you must be thinking of someone else then

28-06-2004, 18:11:30
if she is the woman I think she is, you lot are fucking weirder than I thought A quick search in Google for pictures (http://members.eisa.net.au/~johben57/jennyaggphotos2.html)

Contains nude pictures - obviously - but artfully done ;)

Lazarus and the Gimp
28-06-2004, 20:33:31
It was a seminal moment in many a young man's development.

28-06-2004, 20:43:30
thats exactly who I was thinking of but she's much younger there so I will let you off. I've still never heard of that film.

And hasn't she ever heard of a Brazilian? She's got a pubic afro!

Lazarus and the Gimp
29-06-2004, 16:24:15
It was the 1970's, when women were allowed to look like they should. Some of us still prefer them that way.

29-06-2004, 17:49:23
yeah yeah and I bet you'e crazy for hairy legs and armpits too