Posted by Kromey at 5:25pm Aug 6 '08I'll tell you what, there's no end to the absurdities in politics.
At least they considered the 15 certificate ("rating" to those of us stateside). I don't quite buy it, though - even the previews I've seen (disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet) seem to be more than what I'd take any pre- or early-teen to.
But Keith Vaz MP... was concerned by The Joker's use of a knife in the film.
Wait, what??? You've got to be kidding! Although it is logical - British politicians have succeeded in vanquishing the boogeyman that is legal handguns, so now they have to invent a new one to keep their constituents scared and voting for 'em.
[Vaz] told The Independent newspaper: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."
Uh.... okay... you do realize that a '12A' means no-one under 12 without parental consent, right? And you do realize that 11 is less than 12, right? Apparently not, but, hey, at least he understands that 11 is less than 15, so he's not completely lost on math.
Wait, what??? You've got to be kidding! Although, in her defense, that 12-to-15 demographic is absolutely voracious about writing complaint letters.
I think someone's pockets got a little extra padding from Warner Bros.
Note to self: Create porno starring Spongebob and the Power Rangers, and the BBFC will give me the coveted PG because they won't want to deny "the very people who are going to love it"!!
People are so stupid.
The BBFC has justified giving The Dark Knight a 12A certificate after getting more than 80 complaints about the Batman film's disturbing content.
The film regulator's spokeswoman Sue Clark said the sequel was a fantasy movie with only implied violence.
...
The film contains a scene in which The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger, is beaten repeatedly by Batman in a police cell.
The BBFC ruled that the blows were "masked from the camera" and there was "no sign of injury".
It conceded that there was a "good deal of violence" in the movie, but said it adhered to the rules of the 12A certificate.
At least they considered the 15 certificate ("rating" to those of us stateside). I don't quite buy it, though - even the previews I've seen (disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet) seem to be more than what I'd take any pre- or early-teen to.
But Keith Vaz MP... was concerned by The Joker's use of a knife in the film.
Wait, what??? You've got to be kidding! Although it is logical - British politicians have succeeded in vanquishing the boogeyman that is legal handguns, so now they have to invent a new one to keep their constituents scared and voting for 'em.
[Vaz] told The Independent newspaper: "The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I certainly would not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 certificate."
Uh.... okay... you do realize that a '12A' means no-one under 12 without parental consent, right? And you do realize that 11 is less than 12, right? Apparently not, but, hey, at least he understands that 11 is less than 15, so he's not completely lost on math.
[Ms Clark replied] that a 15 certificate would have denied an important part of the superhero's fan base the chance to see the film.
"Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it.
"We would have ended up with far more complaints from people who wanted to see the film and couldn't," said Ms Clark.
Wait, what??? You've got to be kidding! Although, in her defense, that 12-to-15 demographic is absolutely voracious about writing complaint letters.
I think someone's pockets got a little extra padding from Warner Bros.
Note to self: Create porno starring Spongebob and the Power Rangers, and the BBFC will give me the coveted PG because they won't want to deny "the very people who are going to love it"!!
People are so stupid.