Mary Poppins film age rating raised

Jonathangus · February 26

When I was about 13, our Latin teacher showed us Life of Brian.

For the graffiti scene, of course.

Philly_Q · February 26

In school we saw Polanski's film of Macbeth. I can't remember if they took us to the cinema or screened it in the school gym, but either way I don't think the teachers had vetted it first. There's violence and nudity. And a lot of mud.

WezV · February 26

The film needs a warning about Dick Van Dyke's accent

Kittyfrisk · February 26

WezV said:

The film needs a warning about Dick Van Dyke's accent

Cultural appropriation

Kurtis · February 26

Offset said:

Not sure what the BBFC is trying to achieve here.

It tells you in the article

Kittyfrisk · February 26

Philly_Q said:

In school we saw Polanski's film of Macbeth. I can't remember if they took us to the cinema or screened it in the school gym, but either way I don't think the teachers had vetted it first. There's violence and nudity. And a lot of mud.

We weren't allowed mud in the school gym, although the sex & violence is still triggering...

merlin · February 26

Philly_Q said:

In school we saw Polanski's film of Macbeth. I can't remember if they took us to the cinema or screened it in the school gym, but either way I don't think the teachers had vetted it first. There's violence and nudity. And a lot of mud.

AND a naked Keith Chegwin.

Hootsmon · February 26

Some things you can see on the regular telly that are much ,much worse for sensitive souls like myself

That Vietcong guy and the head shot and the blood as he lands on the ground, I saw that on TV when I was a child it it messed me up big time....newsreader talking to an innocent bystander in a war who was trussed up like a pig,pleading for his life, and shot with a rifle for the benefit of the TV/ show reporter.......the monster who shot the farmer was later executed and we got to see that also....lovely

That,and the Cheggers nude show presentation

Philly_Q · February 26

merlin said:

Philly_Q said:

In school we saw Polanski's film of Macbeth. I can't remember if they took us to the cinema or screened it in the school gym, but either way I don't think the teachers had vetted it first. There's violence and nudity. And a lot of mud.

AND a naked Keith Chegwin.

My mind must have blocked that out.

Cols · February 26

Cheggers plays, pop?

fretmeister · February 26

Cols said:

fretmeister said:

Timcito said:

Utterly absurd. By the the time they've finished cleaning up and canceling the films from the past that fail to meet exacting present-day wokeist standards, there'll be bugger all left.

They've upped it to a PG. Everybody is still able to watch it at any age. A child can still watch it or even buy it.

They have not edited the film in any way.

Please explain how and what has been cancelled here?
.

I can give you an example.

Before half term, my youngest child (8 years old) went off on his very residential trip with school. Each child was allowed to bring a DVD with them for the class to watch in the evening (I believe there was a class vote on which movies actually got chosen).

Nothing above a U rating was permitted to be brought. The school can show PG films, but only after seeking permission from the parents of every child in the class.

So there was a system in place for the parents to decide what their kids could watch?

The film remains available for watching at home for all the parents who said yes?

The system doesn’t interfere with parental choice or actual availability of the film.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of false equivalency. It is nowhere near cancelling.

Cols · February 26

fretmeister said:

Cols said:

fretmeister said:

Timcito said:

Utterly absurd. By the the time they've finished cleaning up and canceling the films from the past that fail to meet exacting present-day wokeist standards, there'll be bugger all left.

They've upped it to a PG. Everybody is still able to watch it at any age. A child can still watch it or even buy it.

They have not edited the film in any way.

Please explain how and what has been cancelled here?
.

I can give you an example.

Before half term, my youngest child (8 years old) went off on his very residential trip with school. Each child was allowed to bring a DVD with them for the class to watch in the evening (I believe there was a class vote on which movies actually got chosen).

Nothing above a U rating was permitted to be brought. The school can show PG films, but only after seeking permission from the parents of every child in the class.

So there was a system in place for the parents to decide what their kids could watch?

Not in this case. Each child brought along a DVD, and then the class democratically decided which ones they watched. The only parental involvement was what their own child brought along. So one child could bring (for example) E.T. and, if it was a popular choice, that's what went on the telly. The teachers weren't phoning round everyone's parents to check if that was okay and no-one had any bizarre objection.

The film remains available for watching at home for all the parents who said yes?

It wouldn't happen. The kids weren't allowed to bring any PG films, because no teacher in their right mind is going to go to the hassle of seeking parental permission from 30 sets of parents because the class wants to watch Jurassic Park over their toasted marshmallows.

The system doesn’t interfere with parental choice or actual availability of the film.

No. It does, however, interfere with a child's ability to share a great film with their classmates during a school trip. And if a teacher wants to show it in class, they now have to write to all of the parents to seek permission and provide justification.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of false equivalency.

I don't understand this comment. What am I drawing an equivalence with?

Offset · February 26

Kurtis said:

Offset said:

Not sure what the BBFC is trying to achieve here.

It tells you in the article

It tells you why, but not what they're trying to achieve.

CavemanGrogg · February 26

Jaycee said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68402362

Hottentot ........... I had to look it up,

So did I, and for some reason, probably to do with how the word sounds when said aloud, I actually originally thought that it was a derogatory term for a Spurs fan, before Google told me otherwise.

Bellycaster · February 26

The word is used in Shakespear's Sister song "I don't care" as well. I had no idea what it meant until now. I guess Radio Stations will be bleeping it out from now on.

Kurtis · February 26

Offset said:

Kurtis said:

Offset said:

Not sure what the BBFC is trying to achieve here.

It tells you in the article

It tells you why, but not what they're trying to achieve.

fretmeister · February 26

Cols said:

fretmeister said:

Cols said:

fretmeister said:

Timcito said:

Utterly absurd. By the the time they've finished cleaning up and canceling the films from the past that fail to meet exacting present-day wokeist standards, there'll be bugger all left.

They've upped it to a PG. Everybody is still able to watch it at any age. A child can still watch it or even buy it.

They have not edited the film in any way.

Please explain how and what has been cancelled here?
.

I can give you an example.

Before half term, my youngest child (8 years old) went off on his very residential trip with school. Each child was allowed to bring a DVD with them for the class to watch in the evening (I believe there was a class vote on which movies actually got chosen).

Nothing above a U rating was permitted to be brought. The school can show PG films, but only after seeking permission from the parents of every child in the class.

So there was a system in place for the parents to decide what their kids could watch?

Not in this case. Each child brought along a DVD, and then the class democratically decided which ones they watched. The only parental involvement was what their own child brought along. So one child could bring (for example) E.T. and, if it was a popular choice, that's what went on the telly. The teachers weren't phoning round everyone's parents to check if that was okay and no-one had any bizarre objection.
The film remains available for watching at home for all the parents who said yes?

It wouldn't happen. The kids weren't allowed to bring any PG films, because no teacher in their right mind is going to go to the hassle of seeking parental permission from 30 sets of parents because the class wants to watch Jurassic Park over their toasted marshmallows.

The system doesn’t interfere with parental choice or actual availability of the film.

No. It does, however, interfere with a child's ability to share a great film with their classmates during a school trip. And if a teacher wants to show it in class, they now have to write to all of the parents to seek permission and provide justification.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of false equivalency.

I don't understand this comment. What am I drawing an equivalence with?

Nothing has been cancelled. Parents have exercised their right to decide what their kids can watch.

Rules within a specific and limited setting are not examples of cancellation.

The venue specific rules cease to apply 1mm outside the school building.

Even when simple logistics of not wanting to call 30 sets of parents mean some choices are limited within a school that is not cancelling.

It doesn’t even prevent kids from sharing the film outside the school boundaries.

Parents making choices that have a side effect of temporarily limiting choice for others within a specific venue is not cancelling. The parents are not an official body or unit and as positive permission is usually required to allow PGs it is not even possible to guess what reasons any particular parent has or even if some just forgot to respond.

It’s just not an example of cancelling.

Philly_Q · February 26

I was aware of the word Hottentot, I had probably read it in an old book somewhere. I thought it was a term for a particular ethnic group and didn't realise it was considered offensive... but I know now. So fair enough, Mary Poppins gets a PG. That's preferable to censorship.

Dominic · February 26

I preferred Chitty Chitty Bang Bang anyway
........and that is an abomination....a car that can fly over the pathetic LTN closed roads and even evade the Ulez cameras
maybe even exceed the ridiculous 20mph council cash -cow tollgate

Cols · February 26

fretmeister said:

Nothing has been cancelled. Parents have exercised their right to decide what their kids can watch.

Ah! You’d just like parents to exercise their right to decide what their kids can watch.

Dead easy. Just make all films PG as a minimum, problem solved.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Mary Poppins film age rating raised

Comments