The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What is with censorship these days? The government still passes the law, which puts a little sticker on our videos and games, aimed at stopping people of a younger age watching or playing it. But are they outdated laws?
Lets take this down to a small-scale basis. How many of you people out there have watched a film that says "18" on it, when you are actually a little younger? And who here has played the great Perfect Dark at a younger age than 18? I'm sure a great deal of people have answered 'yes' to the above.
So I ask you, CAN these laws actually do anything? I have not witnessed many cases of police raiding houses to catch a 14 year old watching Alien! They do not seem to have any backing whatsoever, which I am not against! But honestly, am I going to see a film I like, and check to see if I'm too young first? No! And will I wait another four years to play the sensational Perfect Dark? Erm, no!
On a more serious note, recent reports seem to suggest that violent films make violent kids. Is this true? I doubt it. Who honestly will play a game like Perfect Dark, and decide to play it out in real life by grabbing a gun and killing everyone around? Who will watch a film like Gladiator and decide that they need to go round slicing people in two? I believe no one. If someone wants to rape someone they will. If they have a bloody mind, they may well commit murder, but I highly doubt it will ever be caused by video games or films.
So, what aspects are involved when classifying a film? well:-
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave the juniors. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. But, as I've argued many a time with my Mother, I was confronted with this bad language every day in year 5 onwards! I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. But a lot of violence that is given an 18 could easily be a 15 only. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, it should receive a 15. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will be OK.
But honestly, who can blame today’s films and games for violence and killing? Did the Vikings have violent films or video games? No, and they still bashed each others heads apart with metallic objects!
Today’s society if more influenced by history and the news. I’m not saying violence on the news CAUSES violence, but it is more likely to than games or films. Anyone mature will play a game or watch a film and realise it is not true, only fiction, whereas anyone not mature may see it as real. This probably still won’t cause violence!
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications.
Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e.. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
Ratings on a whole should be split. The current ratings systems should stand in cinemas, and be less restricting. This is due to the simple fact that people don’t want to watch a steamy love scene with immature children making strange noises like ‘erghhhh’! However, I think video and DVD ratings should be abolished. It is not right for anyone apart from the person themselves what they should watch in their own home. Now, obviously, parents still have control over their children, so perhaps it is up to them, not the government to make restrictions on viewing. One last summary point is that I think ratings on TV films should go. Still keep watersheds though. No ’dirty’ movies or programs before 10, and no very bad gore until 9.
As for games, I believe any person over 12 should be entitled to purchase any game. Obviously, some sort of guidance must appear, but no lawful restrictions, And I doubt many people under 12 will walk into a shop on their own and buy Conkers bad Fur Day anyway!
One other possible idea for gaming ’censorship’ is two versions of a game. The one with the toned down violence, and the proper one! Under 14’s buy the toned down ones, everyone else the original. If ratings systems aren’t abolished, I think tat any game with a 15 rating or higher should be REQUIRED to have two versions. I don’t want to go too deep into the matter of games causing violence, but I think most of my film argument applies to them.
It is clear that our current ratings systems don't work, so even if they don't change, it is obvious that people will continue to watch/play whatever films or games they like!
Therefore, I think that ratings systems should be toned down (though this still wont stop people, it may calm down their parents a bit!) or completely abolished. Obviously, you don’t want to walk into a shop, buy a DVD and discover it is porn, so maybe some other form of rating should be introduced, just for guidance, like ‘very gory’ or ‘contains pornographic content’ etc.
Though I don’t believe anything will happen in the near future, I hope that one day ratings systems will be a little closer to my ideals. But by then, I’ll be allowed to buy them all anyway, so I can just laugh at the little people who still can’t!!
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing your ideas!
Lets take this down to a small-scale basis. How many of you people out there have watched a film that says "18" on it, when you are actually a little younger? And who here has played the great Perfect Dark at a younger age than 18? I'm sure a great deal of people have answered 'yes' to the above.
So I ask you, CAN these laws actually do anything? I have not witnessed many cases of police raiding houses to catch a 14 year old watching Alien! They do not seem to have any backing whatsoever, which I am not against! But honestly, am I going to see a film I like, and check to see if I'm too young first? No! And will I wait another four years to play the sensational Perfect Dark? Erm, no!
On a more serious note, recent reports seem to suggest that violent films make violent kids. Is this true? I doubt it. Who honestly will play a game like Perfect Dark, and decide to play it out in real life by grabbing a gun and killing everyone around? Who will watch a film like Gladiator and decide that they need to go round slicing people in two? I believe no one. If someone wants to rape someone they will. If they have a bloody mind, they may well commit murder, but I highly doubt it will ever be caused by video games or films.
So, what aspects are involved when classifying a film? well:-
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave the juniors. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. But, as I've argued many a time with my Mother, I was confronted with this bad language every day in year 5 onwards! I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. But a lot of violence that is given an 18 could easily be a 15 only. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, it should receive a 15. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will be OK.
But honestly, who can blame today’s films and games for violence and killing? Did the Vikings have violent films or video games? No, and they still bashed each others heads apart with metallic objects!
Today’s society if more influenced by history and the news. I’m not saying violence on the news CAUSES violence, but it is more likely to than games or films. Anyone mature will play a game or watch a film and realise it is not true, only fiction, whereas anyone not mature may see it as real. This probably still won’t cause violence!
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications.
Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e.. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
Ratings on a whole should be split. The current ratings systems should stand in cinemas, and be less restricting. This is due to the simple fact that people don’t want to watch a steamy love scene with immature children making strange noises like ‘erghhhh’! However, I think video and DVD ratings should be abolished. It is not right for anyone apart from the person themselves what they should watch in their own home. Now, obviously, parents still have control over their children, so perhaps it is up to them, not the government to make restrictions on viewing. One last summary point is that I think ratings on TV films should go. Still keep watersheds though. No ’dirty’ movies or programs before 10, and no very bad gore until 9.
As for games, I believe any person over 12 should be entitled to purchase any game. Obviously, some sort of guidance must appear, but no lawful restrictions, And I doubt many people under 12 will walk into a shop on their own and buy Conkers bad Fur Day anyway!
One other possible idea for gaming ’censorship’ is two versions of a game. The one with the toned down violence, and the proper one! Under 14’s buy the toned down ones, everyone else the original. If ratings systems aren’t abolished, I think tat any game with a 15 rating or higher should be REQUIRED to have two versions. I don’t want to go too deep into the matter of games causing violence, but I think most of my film argument applies to them.
It is clear that our current ratings systems don't work, so even if they don't change, it is obvious that people will continue to watch/play whatever films or games they like!
Therefore, I think that ratings systems should be toned down (though this still wont stop people, it may calm down their parents a bit!) or completely abolished. Obviously, you don’t want to walk into a shop, buy a DVD and discover it is porn, so maybe some other form of rating should be introduced, just for guidance, like ‘very gory’ or ‘contains pornographic content’ etc.
Though I don’t believe anything will happen in the near future, I hope that one day ratings systems will be a little closer to my ideals. But by then, I’ll be allowed to buy them all anyway, so I can just laugh at the little people who still can’t!!
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing your ideas!
Page:
You say the lawas don't mean very much Darkness. You can walk into your local viedo or games retailer and pick up say a 15 certicated viedo. You are actually 13 years old, but you look older...You have yourself a video. There doesn't seem to be much point in puttin certificates on the videos, becuase 13 year olds dont carry ID.
You are rarely asked your age when buying a game.. Who here under 18 brought Pefect dark/ Conkers bad fur day etc and didn't get asked their age?
Well my dad brought me Perfect dark and I got CBFD from *ahem* SR, we hold you responsible, heh heh.
You are rarely asked your age when buying a game.. Who here under 18 brought Pefect dark/ Conkers bad fur day etc and didn't get asked their age?
Well my dad brought me Perfect dark and I got CBFD from *ahem* SR, we hold you responsible, heh heh.
POP!
Didn't you put this in the Films forum as well? Trying to win GAD and FAD on the same day eh? Cheeky.
:-)
:-)
Very good topic this Darkness. Well written too. I totally agree with you as well.
As you have said I doubt that anyoneoon here has not played Perfect Dark, a lot of them being under 18 (including me). Also i doubt that ANYONE has not played Goldeneye....which is actually a ELSPA 15 which of course no one pays any attention to what so ever as it is only a recommendation.
The fact that anyone under 12 would walk into a shop and buy conkers bad fur day is right as well. I mean I wasn't really sure about buying it myself, and I am 14. Mind you I look quite a bit older than this. I still wasn't really sure though.
I have to admit that I have bought many games which I (legally) should be unable to. Most of them 15s. Some include Turok, 2, 3, Rage Wars and Shadowman. This just goes to show that shops do not really care about the age ratings. I mean my friend who is about 15 just walked into a shop and comfortably bought Perfect Dark without any questions asked.
Sometimes the ratings do work however. My friend (14) who actually looks much older was unable to buy Parasite Eve 2 (PSX0 which is a 15 without an ID card or something that proves he is 15. This was in Eb so I am not surprised but it didn't really matter as we walked down the Highstreet straight into Gamestation and got the game.
Another way of people getting the game is by getting their parents to buy the game for them or maybe their friend who looks or is older than them. I have done this quite a few times for my friend Ricky who is 14 but does not really look even that old so I have bought the 15 games he wants. The parent thing is slightly different though. If thier parents buy the game for them, they obviously do not mind their children being exposed to the games contents. For example my friend Sams mum bought him PD as it was an 18 and he had preordered it from EB who are not leiniant with their age ratings.
An artguement I use is "but it is only a game". This is too ture. Why on earth would a game want to make me go out and spray someone with an Uzi....it just wouldn't. Why? Because as I said it is onmly a game, fictional in other words. Although a game that contains sexual references is slghtly different. If they are very blatant people may not be happy with their children playing the game (i.e Fear Effect 2). Although maybe if thy were not so obvious (to young children) for example the cog having the other cogs stuck mouth first onto his wooden stumps and the gay side of the cog enjoying the big cogs wooden pole being inserted backwards into him, it may not be as bad. Although due to the nature of the entire of CBFD I do notthink that many young childrenwill get to play it anyway.
Violence in games is something I think is not a problem. This is because they just cannot recreate a human dying that well, well not quite. It tends to be too gory or not gory enough. Say for instanmce you shot someone in the head in Turok 3 (one of the soldiers for instance) their head would blow off....even if you were just using a pistol. In real life however this is not quite true. Someone being shot in the head is sure to kill them and maybe take a chunk out of the head but it is very unlikely to blow the head clear of the shoulders. However as we approach the 128 bit era (properly GC, Ps2, X-box) we may have to become more strict.
The graphics will be getting more and more believable and this could cause people to be more influenced by the violence. Seeing a perfect replica of a human dying in a ver realistic manner may be quite disturbing to a young child but seeing a dinosaur being blow sky high can be seen as hilarious. The new graphics may mean that more and more games are going to be classified the evil 18 certificate...although I am sure this still will not stop younger children playing them.
Anyways that is all I have to say. Sorry I didn't have much to contribute to the thread Darkness 2k1.
(;o|
As you have said I doubt that anyoneoon here has not played Perfect Dark, a lot of them being under 18 (including me). Also i doubt that ANYONE has not played Goldeneye....which is actually a ELSPA 15 which of course no one pays any attention to what so ever as it is only a recommendation.
The fact that anyone under 12 would walk into a shop and buy conkers bad fur day is right as well. I mean I wasn't really sure about buying it myself, and I am 14. Mind you I look quite a bit older than this. I still wasn't really sure though.
I have to admit that I have bought many games which I (legally) should be unable to. Most of them 15s. Some include Turok, 2, 3, Rage Wars and Shadowman. This just goes to show that shops do not really care about the age ratings. I mean my friend who is about 15 just walked into a shop and comfortably bought Perfect Dark without any questions asked.
Sometimes the ratings do work however. My friend (14) who actually looks much older was unable to buy Parasite Eve 2 (PSX0 which is a 15 without an ID card or something that proves he is 15. This was in Eb so I am not surprised but it didn't really matter as we walked down the Highstreet straight into Gamestation and got the game.
Another way of people getting the game is by getting their parents to buy the game for them or maybe their friend who looks or is older than them. I have done this quite a few times for my friend Ricky who is 14 but does not really look even that old so I have bought the 15 games he wants. The parent thing is slightly different though. If thier parents buy the game for them, they obviously do not mind their children being exposed to the games contents. For example my friend Sams mum bought him PD as it was an 18 and he had preordered it from EB who are not leiniant with their age ratings.
An artguement I use is "but it is only a game". This is too ture. Why on earth would a game want to make me go out and spray someone with an Uzi....it just wouldn't. Why? Because as I said it is onmly a game, fictional in other words. Although a game that contains sexual references is slghtly different. If they are very blatant people may not be happy with their children playing the game (i.e Fear Effect 2). Although maybe if thy were not so obvious (to young children) for example the cog having the other cogs stuck mouth first onto his wooden stumps and the gay side of the cog enjoying the big cogs wooden pole being inserted backwards into him, it may not be as bad. Although due to the nature of the entire of CBFD I do notthink that many young childrenwill get to play it anyway.
Violence in games is something I think is not a problem. This is because they just cannot recreate a human dying that well, well not quite. It tends to be too gory or not gory enough. Say for instanmce you shot someone in the head in Turok 3 (one of the soldiers for instance) their head would blow off....even if you were just using a pistol. In real life however this is not quite true. Someone being shot in the head is sure to kill them and maybe take a chunk out of the head but it is very unlikely to blow the head clear of the shoulders. However as we approach the 128 bit era (properly GC, Ps2, X-box) we may have to become more strict.
The graphics will be getting more and more believable and this could cause people to be more influenced by the violence. Seeing a perfect replica of a human dying in a ver realistic manner may be quite disturbing to a young child but seeing a dinosaur being blow sky high can be seen as hilarious. The new graphics may mean that more and more games are going to be classified the evil 18 certificate...although I am sure this still will not stop younger children playing them.
Anyways that is all I have to say. Sorry I didn't have much to contribute to the thread Darkness 2k1.
(;o|
What is with censorship these days? The government still passes the law, which puts a little sticker on our videos and games, aimed at stopping people of a younger age watching or playing it. But are they outdated laws?
Lets take this down to a small-scale basis. How many of you people out there have watched a film that says "18" on it, when you are actually a little younger? And who here has played the great Perfect Dark at a younger age than 18? I'm sure a great deal of people have answered 'yes' to the above.
So I ask you, CAN these laws actually do anything? I have not witnessed many cases of police raiding houses to catch a 14 year old watching Alien! They do not seem to have any backing whatsoever, which I am not against! But honestly, am I going to see a film I like, and check to see if I'm too young first? No! And will I wait another four years to play the sensational Perfect Dark? Erm, no!
On a more serious note, recent reports seem to suggest that violent films make violent kids. Is this true? I doubt it. Who honestly will play a game like Perfect Dark, and decide to play it out in real life by grabbing a gun and killing everyone around? Who will watch a film like Gladiator and decide that they need to go round slicing people in two? I believe no one. If someone wants to rape someone they will. If they have a bloody mind, they may well commit murder, but I highly doubt it will ever be caused by video games or films.
So, what aspects are involved when classifying a film? well:-
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave the juniors. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. But, as I've argued many a time with my Mother, I was confronted with this bad language every day in year 5 onwards! I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. But a lot of violence that is given an 18 could easily be a 15 only. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, it should receive a 15. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will be OK.
But honestly, who can blame today’s films and games for violence and killing? Did the Vikings have violent films or video games? No, and they still bashed each others heads apart with metallic objects!
Today’s society if more influenced by history and the news. I’m not saying violence on the news CAUSES violence, but it is more likely to than games or films. Anyone mature will play a game or watch a film and realise it is not true, only fiction, whereas anyone not mature may see it as real. This probably still won’t cause violence!
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications.
Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e.. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
Ratings on a whole should be split. The current ratings systems should stand in cinemas, and be less restricting. This is due to the simple fact that people don’t want to watch a steamy love scene with immature children making strange noises like ‘erghhhh’! However, I think video and DVD ratings should be abolished. It is not right for anyone apart from the person themselves what they should watch in their own home. Now, obviously, parents still have control over their children, so perhaps it is up to them, not the government to make restrictions on viewing. One last summary point is that I think ratings on TV films should go. Still keep watersheds though. No ’dirty’ movies or programs before 10, and no very bad gore until 9.
As for games, I believe any person over 12 should be entitled to purchase any game. Obviously, some sort of guidance must appear, but no lawful restrictions, And I doubt many people under 12 will walk into a shop on their own and buy Conkers bad Fur Day anyway!
One other possible idea for gaming ’censorship’ is two versions of a game. The one with the toned down violence, and the proper one! Under 14’s buy the toned down ones, everyone else the original. If ratings systems aren’t abolished, I think tat any game with a 15 rating or higher should be REQUIRED to have two versions. I don’t want to go too deep into the matter of games causing violence, but I think most of my film argument applies to them.
It is clear that our current ratings systems don't work, so even if they don't change, it is obvious that people will continue to watch/play whatever films or games they like!
Therefore, I think that ratings systems should be toned down (though this still wont stop people, it may calm down their parents a bit!) or completely abolished. Obviously, you don’t want to walk into a shop, buy a DVD and discover it is porn, so maybe some other form of rating should be introduced, just for guidance, like ‘very gory’ or ‘contains pornographic content’ etc.
Though I don’t believe anything will happen in the near future, I hope that one day ratings systems will be a little closer to my ideals. But by then, I’ll be allowed to buy them all anyway, so I can just laugh at the little people who still can’t!!
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing your ideas!
Lets take this down to a small-scale basis. How many of you people out there have watched a film that says "18" on it, when you are actually a little younger? And who here has played the great Perfect Dark at a younger age than 18? I'm sure a great deal of people have answered 'yes' to the above.
So I ask you, CAN these laws actually do anything? I have not witnessed many cases of police raiding houses to catch a 14 year old watching Alien! They do not seem to have any backing whatsoever, which I am not against! But honestly, am I going to see a film I like, and check to see if I'm too young first? No! And will I wait another four years to play the sensational Perfect Dark? Erm, no!
On a more serious note, recent reports seem to suggest that violent films make violent kids. Is this true? I doubt it. Who honestly will play a game like Perfect Dark, and decide to play it out in real life by grabbing a gun and killing everyone around? Who will watch a film like Gladiator and decide that they need to go round slicing people in two? I believe no one. If someone wants to rape someone they will. If they have a bloody mind, they may well commit murder, but I highly doubt it will ever be caused by video games or films.
So, what aspects are involved when classifying a film? well:-
"Sex Scenes"
Ok, I can understand young people not being allowed to watch scenes of this nature. But why should a film with a steamy sex scene in it be 18? I don't wish to be crude, but people can HAVE sex at 16, but aren't allowed to watch it until they are 18? A little strange? And there is also the case that pornographic material is readily available on the internet, for free. If a young person is denied watching a film because it has sex in it, they may just find another way to watch it anyway.
Also, people are shown 'sex education' before they leave the juniors. Just because of this, mild scenes of sex should carry only a 15, or maybe a new 16 (look at reasoning above) certificate.
"Bad language"
Ok, to start with, I can understand that young people. I.e. under 10's may not be allowed to hear this language. But, as I've argued many a time with my Mother, I was confronted with this bad language every day in year 5 onwards! I honestly don't think *children* should have to be restricted from hearing what they hear at school already! It's not as if there is this attitude "Some action hero on a film told a bad guy to "rot in hell you ****** **** ***" so I have to do it everyday" is there?
Some stronger language should receive a "13" certification, but most should be no more than a 12.
"Violence"
Right, here is a tester. Should younger children be allowed to watch violence? This is one case where I think They've nearly got it right. Some violence does warrant an 18. But a lot of violence that is given an 18 could easily be a 15 only. Its not as if a child will copy everything they see on TV or a game is it?
"Theme"
I can understand that a film about a psycho who kills everyone, even if the violence/language only warrants a 12, and there's no sex, it should receive a 15. Not because younger people will copy, but it may distress them, and they may be scared, thinking such things happen normally. But other films, i.e.. scary ones will rate themselves. If a small child is watching a scary film, and they don't enjoy it they will not watch it!
It's all about enjoyment. If a squeamish 18-year-old hates violence, they should not watch violent movies. If a mature 12 year old, who can handle violence watches one of the same movies, they will be OK.
But honestly, who can blame today’s films and games for violence and killing? Did the Vikings have violent films or video games? No, and they still bashed each others heads apart with metallic objects!
Today’s society if more influenced by history and the news. I’m not saying violence on the news CAUSES violence, but it is more likely to than games or films. Anyone mature will play a game or watch a film and realise it is not true, only fiction, whereas anyone not mature may see it as real. This probably still won’t cause violence!
I honestly think that the ratings systems are far too harsh, even after the latest 'easing up' of the classifications.
Perhaps instead of Uc, U, PG, 12, 15 and 18, we should have Children, teens, and adults. Or maybe a rating system which classifies films in classes i.e.. Very gory, and leaves the viewer to decide whether it is suitable.
Ratings on a whole should be split. The current ratings systems should stand in cinemas, and be less restricting. This is due to the simple fact that people don’t want to watch a steamy love scene with immature children making strange noises like ‘erghhhh’! However, I think video and DVD ratings should be abolished. It is not right for anyone apart from the person themselves what they should watch in their own home. Now, obviously, parents still have control over their children, so perhaps it is up to them, not the government to make restrictions on viewing. One last summary point is that I think ratings on TV films should go. Still keep watersheds though. No ’dirty’ movies or programs before 10, and no very bad gore until 9.
As for games, I believe any person over 12 should be entitled to purchase any game. Obviously, some sort of guidance must appear, but no lawful restrictions, And I doubt many people under 12 will walk into a shop on their own and buy Conkers bad Fur Day anyway!
One other possible idea for gaming ’censorship’ is two versions of a game. The one with the toned down violence, and the proper one! Under 14’s buy the toned down ones, everyone else the original. If ratings systems aren’t abolished, I think tat any game with a 15 rating or higher should be REQUIRED to have two versions. I don’t want to go too deep into the matter of games causing violence, but I think most of my film argument applies to them.
It is clear that our current ratings systems don't work, so even if they don't change, it is obvious that people will continue to watch/play whatever films or games they like!
Therefore, I think that ratings systems should be toned down (though this still wont stop people, it may calm down their parents a bit!) or completely abolished. Obviously, you don’t want to walk into a shop, buy a DVD and discover it is porn, so maybe some other form of rating should be introduced, just for guidance, like ‘very gory’ or ‘contains pornographic content’ etc.
Though I don’t believe anything will happen in the near future, I hope that one day ratings systems will be a little closer to my ideals. But by then, I’ll be allowed to buy them all anyway, so I can just laugh at the little people who still can’t!!
Thanks for reading, and I look forward to hearing your ideas!
Page: