criterionforum.org

The BBFC receives a record number of complaints regarding TDK rating.

It blows my mind how it has a PG-13 rating, but it's so smart if you think about it. Blow up a hospital, yes, but it's empty anyway. Cut someone's mouth open, yes, but it's not seen anyway. All the way down the line... Of course, say fuck a few times in a beautiful film like Once, and you're Rated R....

Oh, can someone do a fake criterion cover of Dark Knight with the image of the Joker looking away, holding out a joker card?

Antoine Doinel wrote:The BBFC receives a record number of complaints regarding TDK rating.

I suppose it is kind of understandable since the media here is currently ultra-sensitive about urban knife crime at the moment. The Daily Mail, predictably, has been in the midst of a crusade against the film's rating for the last couple of days. Today they've started bringing up the old chestnut of 'why aren't these privileged BBFC members representative of/accountable to public opinion?' (i.e. the Daily Mail readership) that they fought the Crash issue on.

This quote from the Mail's article was classic:

Accountant Suzanne Prinz, 31, who took her seven-year-old son Simon to see the film in Bristol, 'instantly' regretted it.

'We came out before the end because it was much more violent than I thought it would be,' she said.

If your best argument against a film is the comments from someone taking an obviously underage kid into the theatre then....well, I'm at a loss for words.

colinr0380 wrote:

Accountant Suzanne Prinz, 31, who took her seven-year-old son Simon to see the film in Bristol, 'instantly' regretted it.

'We came out before the end because it was much more violent than I thought it would be,' she said.

If your best argument against a film is the comments from someone taking an obviously underage kid into the theatre then....well, I'm at a loss for words.

You tell me the last time a PG-13 film was obviously not suitable for underage kids like this film... I'd say Jaws, and that was PG.

'tis a bad argument, but not necessarily a bad parent.

I don't know how much advertising she'd seen, etc. but think about. Parent takes her child to the theatre, sees there's a new Batman movie (rated 12 like a lot of Batman movies) it seems reasonable to assume it would be 'ok' for children.
Sure, maybe a tad violent. (I imagine even the first Tim Burton Batman could be pretty darn traumatic for some kids)

This whole issue has me kind of on the fence. On the one hand, I really support Nolan pushing the envelope, etc. And, I can appreciate the BBFC letting this get through (after all, it's not so much a question of "what should we rate it?" as it is "what should we get Nolan to hack out out of this film for a 12A?"
The studios are more obvious villians here, I suppose.
It's always been the nature of studios that they'll trim quality right down, to get as broad an audience as possible. And, with a concept like realistic Batman, it's really up to the studios to take a stand and either make it 'officially' a movie for older viewers (ie. none of those toys, etc.) or make it 'officially' a movie for younger viewers (not necessarily 'dumb,' but losing all the potential audience that wants a gritty, serious Batman)
As it is, they're playing to both, and annoying both. (Well, not so much the 'older' viewers in this case. Just because they happen to have a rating system corrupt enough to permit R rated violence in a PG13 movie with a big enough budget.)

exte wrote:Oh, can someone do a fake criterion cover of Dark Knight with the image of the Joker looking away, holding out a joker card?

Oh please. there's nothing R rated about the violence in the film. Pg-13 or 12a is more than adequate for the movie.

I would go as far as to say that the violence pushes the envelope a little bit, but it's definitely not, say as gruesome as Peckinpah. As pointed out earlier, there's no blood. That in and of itself is genius that you're never taken out of the film because there isn't any, despite it's realistic nature.

I think what would worry me more, as far as how this plays to younger audiences, is the menace factor. A few of The Joker's scenes in the film would be truly frightening, as they were in this film, in any hard R thriller I can think of. And taking that in as a young child would be really frightening, I imagine.

Just to play devil's advocate, what about when Batman is repeatedly beating the Joker, or Rachel is blown up, or half of Harvey Dent's face is burned off, or he threatens a young child with a gun near to his head? Is that OK for younger kids to see?

Banana #3 wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, what about when Batman is repeatedly beating the Joker, or Rachel is blown up, or half of Harvey Dent's face is burned off, or he threatens a young child with a gun near to his head? Is that OK for younger kids to see?

The beating was bloodless and tamed. The explosion was just fire. Dent's face was grotesque, but it should be; it didn't reach the level of a Clive Barker film or anything (someone mentioned the Mummy, and that seems about right, minus the garish CGI).

How young are we talking about. It may be too much for some 5 year olds, but the film is rated PG-13/12. Anyone at that age should have no problem with the film, and with the rating, parents shouldn't be bringing younger children to the film without properly gouging whether there mature enough to watch a film for 13 year olds or older.

Plus, I'm uneasy as to the sheltering of children, and how far to take it. What are the movies for at that age if not a little trauma?

My own comments are largely based on comparison to other 'R' or '15' films, without really getting into the question of what actually is and isn't suitable for children.

(The Clive Barker reference is interesting, because Two Face' evil half looks exactly like something out of Hellraiser (but with much better effects) For those who don't recall, most of Hellraiser I and II involved skinless demon type people (played semi-convincingly by really skinny actors in make-up)

When it comes to ratings, I would even argue for a totally abstract set of numbers; say 1 - 5 (maybe different sets for sex and violence. (There's all this, in my opinion, silly criticism about standards for sex vs standards for violence; there's absolutely no way to compare the two.)
The whole area of what is and isn't suitable for children is so vague, simply because children can be so easily de-sensitized (they're like that. They adapt quickly (beautifully illustrated in Gilliam's 'Tideland')) show a child 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre' a few times, and they'll evetually stop being bothered by that kind of thing.

Darth Lavender wrote:(The Clive Barker reference is interesting, because Two Face' evil half looks exactly like something out of Hellraiser (but with much better effects) For those who don't recall, most of Hellraiser I and II involved skinless demon type people (played semi-convincingly by really skinny actors in make-up)

I still think its quite a bit a ways from this.

Today's wacky Daily Mail page devoted to the film has an article on "How seeing movies like this can turn our children violent" by an apparent psychologist Dr Aric Sigman and a rant that The Dark Knight has a more restrictive rating outside Britain - despite their fact box trumpting Denmark's 15 rating while acknowledging it is a voluntary classification that allows children as young as 7 to be accompanied by an adult! And Ireland's advisory 15 rating...and the USA PG-13, despite it being a very similar classification and, yes, again advisory.

And another in the queue of 'shocked' cinemagoers:

Businessman Mog Hamid, 43, said he regretted taking his son Daniel, nine, to see the film just yesterday.

He said: "It was just too violent for someone as young as Daniel, he had his hands over his face a lot of the time because he was scared."

Why didn't they leave then?

So we now have 'businessmen' to add to 'accountants' as having done a worrying lack of research into a film they were going to see. What aparently respectable and intelligent group of society will take their obviously underage kids to a well publicised as 'dark' film "just 'cause they can" and complain afterwards next?

Didn't they see the posters? The Joker looks scary enough in my opinion. Let alone the scenes with Two Face, or half face as my girlfriend says. I wouldn't advise anyone I know with children to take any under 12s. And that was before I saw the film.

Yeah, the advertising and trailers made it pretty clear this was more of an adult film and not one for the kiddies. That said, there are still some parents out there who are oblivious to such things. I remember coming in to work the weekend after the film opened, and talking to someone who took their seven-year old to the film on the Saturday and said his child was then plagued with nightmares and wasn't able to sleep since.

I'm also amazed that for people who do inadvertently bring small kids to the film, that the bank heist at the beginning of the film wasn't a tipoff that it might not be appropriate for small children.

colinr0380 wrote:And another in the queue of 'shocked' cinemagoers:

Businessman Mog Hamid, 43, said he regretted taking his son Daniel, nine, to see the film just yesterday.

He said: "It was just too violent for someone as young as Daniel, he had his hands over his face a lot of the time because he was scared."

Why didn't they leave then?

Bad parenting. Maybe some WB employee should counter this by reporting him to the child protection agencies.

Not to stir this crock again, but I found this evaluation of all the other evaluations of the film's "politics" and found it rather convincing and intelligent. Do grab a cup of coffee for it, though.

In case you were wondering why there is no TDK video game on the horizon, here's the reason.

Cold Bishop wrote:The beating was bloodless and tamed. The explosion was just fire. Dent's face was grotesque, but it should be; it didn't reach the level of a Clive Barker film or anything (someone mentioned the Mummy, and that seems about right, minus the garish CGI).

Antoine Doinel wrote:I'm also amazed that for people who do inadvertently bring small kids to the film, that the bank heist at the beginning of the film wasn't a tipoff that it might not be appropriate for small children.

After Two-Face's face, the two scenes that might have bothered me the most if I saw this as a 7-12+ year old :

1)The guy in jail the Joker used his phone call on.

Spoiler

I probably would have been too distracted by the glowing cell phone light to notice the crude, jagged sutures so I might have been confused why the station blew up. Once it would've been explained to me, god help the interns or orderlies who would've had to hold me down to sedate me if I had to go in and have my appendix removed.

2)The disappearing pencil trick - I can imagine it now. Sadistic School Bully performs step one of the trick. "Hey come here, no, I'm not REALLY gonna do it. Just come here. Come here!" (Yes, ironic considering my avatar, I know.)

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Not to stir this crock again, but I found this evaluation of all the other evaluations of the film's "politics" and found it rather convincing and intelligent. Do grab a cup of coffee for it, though.

Definitely the best take on the film I've read so far. Thanks for bringing it up, it definitely clears up quite a bit of the muddle, at least for me

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Not to stir this crock again, but I found this evaluation of all the other evaluations of the film's "politics" and found it rather convincing and intelligent. Do grab a cup of coffee for it, though.

Deception - of the masses by the elite - is integral to this account of virtue: what is 'protected' is not the masses' security but their belief (in Harvey Dent's campaign).

ahhhhhhhhhhh....

There are rumors floating about, that the BluRay disc of the film will be the first with BD-Live, a largely useless feature that will allow you to simultaneously watch the film "live" with a few other people and chat or talk about the film as it plays.

That may be the dumbest invention I've ever heard of.

Cold Bishop wrote:That may be the dumbest invention I've ever heard of.

I'd nominate 'Digital Copies'

If I'm going to devote two hours of my life to rewatching a movie, I'm going to do it properly. What did I buy a home-theatre for?

A little unclear on wether studios are charging extra for this 'feature' like Warner and Universal did with the 'combo' disks. (Of course, with Warner, the difference was obvious. HDDVDs cost $5 more than the single-sided Blu-Rays)

Antoine Doinel wrote:a largely useless feature that will allow you to simultaneously watch the film "live" with a few other people and chat or talk about the film as it plays.

D: Why not just release a bonus audio track with people talking over the important parts to truly replicate the theater experience?