Thread: Movie Ratings/ Outdated?

Tweet

I have seen a number of movies advertised in a way that makes them look kid friendly (8+ crowd), and some movies get a PG-13 rating and parents take their kids and realize after the movie starts that it isn't so, and the parents get offended/angry.
A good portion of the time the parent has every right to be upset, but there are times when a little research could have spared their child a 'traumatic' movie experience like seeing blood gush out of a wound or an pencil where it shouldn't be.

going on week three in theaters and The Dark Knight is under fire for being PG-13 and not R. Several other movies have had this complaint when the shouldn't because the trailers and reviews state the films are 'dark', 'twisted' or 'disturbing'.

in all fairness Dark Knight wasn't all that graphic, you dont see many people actually die because the shot pans away, there is no blood (or very little that i overlooked) and (maybe its the Halloween thing) i didn't find the makeup all that frightening. you hardly saw the bad half of two-face (save a scene or two) and it was usually in shadow. and while the Joker was scary, it was the personality, not the makeup.

back to the point, Should movie ratings be changed to include a wider range of categories or should some people just make better judgment calls when considering taking their kid to a movie?

As someone who is very protective of children I say research is absolutely necessary. The movie ratings system isn't perfect, it's a guide only. You can't count on the rest of the world to look out for your children. There are plenty of movie review sites to look up. I say USE THEM.

Over here, the Dark Knight rating is 12A, which means ANYONE under the age of 12 may see it, if with someone over the age of 18.
I, very unfortunately, haven't gotten around to seeing this film yet, though from the reviews I have read, a 15 certificate(which in case anyone is unaware is the next up from 12A in England) ...(PS I STILL hate the 12A rating-it should have stayed a straight 12!!), would have been more suitable to this film, due to quite a few scenes which would be unsuitable for young kids. (Again, I reason why I hate the 12A rating - this is the case in a lot of films, yet when they come out on DVD, they are 12, so kids can't buy them.....despite having seen them at the cinema!)

I think veiwer discretion should be strongly posted in cinemas and all forms of movie media to make sure the audience is suitable for the film. It's easy to rate a film, and have kids disturbed for parents not doing their research on the film(a case on "whats on now?...Oh we'll watch that then"), but if it is advertised well enough as possibly unsuitable for young 'uns, chances of this are rare.

man it sounds like maybe there should be a sign attached to movies saying:
'you must be this old to watch: regardless of parental supervision'

so far here in the states all the rating systems seem to either be so messed up that no one can understand them (like which is worse PG or PG-13) or nobody knows about what rating means what. it's on games, t.v., movies, music, almost everything in entertainment.

i have seen the attempts at encouraging parents to understand the ratings better but it doesn't seem to be working, maybe we need a reformed ratings system that is easy to under stand and applies universally to all media.

When I saw The Dark Knight, the theater was packed with families, and a lot of those families had 8-10 year olds with them. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have taken an 8 year old to see that film, no matter the rating. The rating system has always been a little out of wack; that's why you have to do the research and decide for yourself. I remember thinking that the Matrix movies (all of which were rated R) were much less gorey than the Lord of the Rings films (all of which were rated PG-13). Just because the severed head is an orc's and black blood spouts out of its neck instead of red, doesn't mean that its more suitable for kids.