Maybe because films are so much more graphic, like say if something were in a book, the person reading may not even know what this something even meant. Well that's what i think anyway. But actually maybe that doesn't work for graphic novels, being graphic and all.

Well, i think Acker has a good point... especially given new technologies and special effects, the medium of Film is vastly more graphic than books, graphic novels or anything else, because you can see everything that happens. Neither books, graphic novels, music or anything else i can think of can have such an immediate and graphic impact on a person. We are visual creatures, so visual stimulation is well, very stimulating. That combined with the thumping sound effects in cinemas today gives films alot of impact.

Having said that, i disagree with how certification is used in cinemas in this country. I don't think any piece of creative work should be censored at all by anyone and i believe anyone of legal age should be able to see whatever they want.

Certification is only necessary where children are concerned, and that's where i think 12a is such a good step in the right direction. Neither the state, the bbfc nor the cinemas have any right to say what a kid should see and what they shouldn't see. That is up to the child's parents. Before, a child under 12 would not be allowed into a 12 film, but with 12a (advisory), if they have a parent with them, they can go in. And that's how i think certifications should be. Advisory.

Every person, including men, women and children, is unique. Everyone is different, everyone grows and matures at different rates, and only a parent will know if their child is ready to see something. It is their decision.

(Edited by Maffrew 17/09/2002 21:45)

But the problem is, that puts alot of pressure on parents. If the child knows that all they have to do is bug their parents to see it, then that is what they will do. Parents will probably believe their child shouldn't see it but in the end give into him/her. At least with the certificates, they know they can't, especially if they are only 8 or 9, and woudn't be able to get in anyway.

---

by Maffrew
Well, i think Acker has a good point... especially given new technologies and special effects, the medium of Film is vastly more graphic than books, graphic novels or anything else, because you can see everything that happens. Neither books, graphic novels, music or anything else i can think of can have such an immediate and graphic impact on a person.

---

Ever heard anyone say of an adapted horror film that the book was scarier? Do not underestimate the power of the imagination. I'm reminded of something Neil Gaiman said about the medium of the graphic novel to the effect of (no doubt someone on this site will be able to find a more exact quote) the reader in a graphic novel is complicit in anything the author wishes to portray because they must fill in the blanks between frames, of which I doubt all but the youngest children are incabable of.

It's easier to get used to a distressing image than a distressing idea: an image loses its power with repeated viewing.

---

We are visual creatures, so visual stimulation is well, very stimulating. That combined with the thumping sound effects in cinemas today gives films alot of impact.

---

I have yet to hear anything in the cinema that made me jump quite so much as the sound of a gun fired when I was seated in the front row at a theatre. Violence at the theatre has greater impact on me than the equivalent in films.

Perhaps that is what some people view as the danger of film: its de-sensitising effect, though I'm not sure how one would judge that a person feels safer with a screen between them and the action than with the pages of a graphic novel or book.

---

by Acker
But the problem is, that puts alot of pressure on parents. If the child knows that all they have to do is bug their parents to see it, then that is what they will do. Parents will probably believe their child shouldn't see it but in the end give into him/her. At least with the certificates, they know they can't, especially if they are only 8 or 9, and woudn't be able to get in anyway.

---

Of course they can. My mother has lied to get my brother into 12 films. Parents must be allowed to be responsible for their own children because, let's face it, they are anyway, and if they can't exercise control over their children they'll have greater problems than what movies their children are watching.

Almost every parent has lied to get there child in, or let them see a film or whatever, that's not the point. The point is that sometimes the the child cannot get in, as he/she does not look old enough in the eyes of whoever is judgeing. This means the child CAN'T go in, there is no choice. But if the parents decide, all the child has to do is bug the parents untill they say they can go and then there is nothing stopping them.

---

by Demona
Ever heard anyone say of an adapted horror film that the book was scarier?

---

Ooh, yeah. I thought the movie of Silence of the Lambs was tame compared to the book. But how would you rate the book? "This book is for readers over the age of 18 (unless you have a crap imagination, in which case you can read it at any age coz it won't be scary)"? Tricky subject...

Have to agree with the "Imagine can be far scarier theory" I've found a lot of books I've read to have had me on the edge of my seat more than the screenplay of the same novel.

I will also say that I think a lot of parents (again agreeing) will let their children watch films that by "someone" has been deemed unsuitable for kids. In todays age of Videos and DVD'S it makes it very easy for parental control over what children can watch, in saying that however I do tend to go with what the certificate states and if its a 12 then I will make sure I watch the film first to make sure it is suitable for my children to watch

I think most children (and I say most as there is always exceptions to the rule) wouldnt be that interetsted in reading these sorts of fiction at a age younger than 12 anyways , I know my kids wouldn't.

(Edited by Sweet-Sange 18/09/2002 07:17)

Let's also note that computer games also now routinely come with age certificates, although I'm not sure if they're legally enforced? And of course, CDs come with 'Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics' stickers, while, say, newspapers don't.

---

by Maff
We are visual creatures, so visual stimulation is well, very stimulating.

---

I don't think it's necessarily to do with visuals, more to do with the dynamic nature of watching a film as opposed to looking at a painting. Which is why I think books can be scarier, because even though the reader might be frightened to read what happens next, they are the ones turning the page to find out...

Anyway, no, I can't think of a good reason.

I'm agreeing with quite a lot of the posts here in that the imagination can certainly be a lot scarier than 'real life'. Having never read anything like Silence of the Lambs' for example, I can't comment on whether the book was scarier or not. I can however see why that might be the case.

I think certification on films is necessary when it comes to children, although I'm not too sure what I think of the 12A rating. Surely thats just another term for a PG? That rating, after all states that parents may want to go with their children to see the film...feel free to correct me as I'm slightly confused by the whole thing!

/gets off soapbox

---

by In a State of Dan
And of course, CDs come with 'Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics' stickers, while, say, newspapers don't.

---

How many kids do you know who read newspapers?

---

by In a State of Dan
Let's also note that computer games also now routinely come with age certificates, although I'm not sure if they're legally enforced?

---

They are. Although to a lesser extent since anyone buying a computer game is liable to already own computer games of the same type and rating. Although this does happen with films how many times have you gone to see a film you wouldn't normally only because for example your friends suggested you go.

Hope you all understood my convulted rhetoric.

Edit - Arrgh, why are the qoutes not working?

Fixed the quotes for you

(Edited by MonSTeR 18/09/2002 18:28)

---

by Lori
(quotes)
How many kids do you know who read newspapers?

---

Eeeerrrrr...my 5 year old (going on 50 ). I try to keep it out of his way 'cos there are some things I don't want him reading about, but he always asks "What happened in the news today?"

---

by Maffrew
I don't think any piece of creative work should be censored at all by anyone and i believe anyone of legal age should be able to see whatever they want.

---

And which legal age would that be? 16, 18 or 21??? because they are all legal age barriers for something.

---

by Head2Head
I think certification on films is necessary when it comes to children, although I'm not too sure what I think of the 12A rating. Surely thats just another term for a PG? That rating, after all states that parents may want to go with their children to see the film...feel free to correct me as I'm slightly confused by the whole thing!

---

S'okay, it is a little confusing, expecially if you go into particular elements that define a films certification, but basically a PG is deemed as generally suitable for any age, but, for example, there may be some scenes that are scary for younger children so they suggest that parents watch with their children so that they aren't as scared.

The 12a rating is saying that the advisory level is 12 and above, but parents can use their judgement as to whether their 12 year old is mature enough to handle the film or not.