Too Dark for kids?

[The Guard]

Sorry, but you are an irresponsible person. You have a 4 year old kid and you show him BB everyday during a week, is just embarrassing. These movies are not cartoons, see the difference? Letting children (under 7 years old) watch this type of movies is not good for their psychological development, go ask any psychologist, you should be ashamed of yourself.
What do you do for a living? Do you have any culture, education? I ask you because what you do with your son is something ignorant people do. TDK is for teenagers and adults, not little children, think about it.

Are you serious?

[Naite22]

I've got an 11 year old son who is dying to see this. So far, a couple reviewers have stated that this film is a PG-13 stretched to the limit and perhaps should even be R rated. One critic even said that kids below 14 should not see it. Period.

My kid is pretty thick-skinned but I'll probably see it on my own first.

What about the rest of you?

I'd see it ones without your son before taking him! This is by no means a kids movie... and we already know that really gross and scary things will happen in this movie. I already wanna bet, without seeing it, that this movie is way too complex for the younger ones.

[TheBatman072]

Are you serious?


I hope so.


Makes it all the more funny.

[sandmjuggalos]

wait wait wait, dark knight aside can you tell me why your 3 year old son owns the dvd for halloween? and is it the original or the rob zombie one? because if its the remake you should be extra ashamed. that movie was a travesty.

I assure you it is the original. :cwink:

I had an answer for you but apparently my comp. is being a jerk and keeps deleting my last 7-8 lines. Home calls, I shall be back tomorrow to further answer this question.

[Dark Knight]

This poster is too dark for children under 4...

http://www.whysoserious.com/stupidbats/images/stupidbats_a.jpg

and a three year old is going to bored in this movie.



This poster is awesome by the way.....

[deathfromabove]

I assure you it is the original. :cwink:

I had an answer for you but apparently my comp. is being a jerk and keeps deleting my last 7-8 lines. Home calls, I shall be back tomorrow to further answer this question.

thank goodness:cwink:

[BatoutofHell]

I think the people talking about gross and scary on this board are saying so because they want it to be like that. Face it guys, it isn't going to be gross. Most of the deaths are going to be off screen. Its PG13.

[weezerspider]

I agree. I , also, saw Saving Private Ryan in elementary school because my parents wanted me to learn the same thing. The only thing that happened to me was that I had recurring nightmares about people with their guts spilled out over the ground screaming for their mothers until I was 15. But, so what? I learned a valuable life lesson. :o

Heh. I suppose that was funny. I never said all elementary schoolers need to see it. I saw it in 5th grade and I'm not really the squemish type. My parents knew that, and wanted me to see it.

[bruindanielson]

Sorry, but you are an irresponsible person. You have a 4 year old kid and you show him BB everyday during a week, is just embarrassing. These movies are not cartoons, see the difference? Letting children (under 7 years old) watch this type of movies is not good for their psychological development, go ask any psychologist, you should be ashamed of yourself.
What do you do for a living? Do you have any culture, education? I ask you because what you do with your son is something ignorant people do. TDK is for teenagers and adults, not little children, think about it. You are gonna be the kind of parent that hides your kid from reality. Everyone had the friend who's parents only let them watch pg movies, went to bed at 7, and could never eat sugar. Would get grounded for life oif they were caught drinking in highschool. Those are the kids that go crazy in college and lash out. My brothers sisters and I were allowed to watch whatever and play whatever games we wanted and we are all just fine. My son will learn whats reality and whats not. What is right and whats wrong. That's being a good parent

[saberewok]

As much as I wonna shelter kids forever they are too smart to be treated that way. They find ways to learn anyway if not from home.
I recall many kids that saw 300. Look at the video games of kids nowadays when TDK pales to their violence.

[Dark Knight]

I would suggest you watch the film first with your wife/girlfriend or your pals first before you take any under 13 or 12 year olds.

Then you can decide for yourself after viewing whether your kid should watch the film or not. If he can handle it take him to see it....if you think he can't handle it, don't let him see it for awhile.

^ Use this advise when it comes to allowing your kids that are 12 and under to watch this film or not.

Other than that....who cares about this topic....

[ironwez20]

i have a great idea guys, you go to the movie theater with your kids or your imaginary kids whatever and as soon as a bad part comes on do what any parent does cover his eyes otherwise.

father
johnny im sorry but the dark knight is to violent for kids, i read in a article that joker actually kills a man

johnny
but dad its batman and ive been waiting soo long please dad please

father
sorry son but im going with the rest of the family, ill hire a babysitter to bad your birthdays not til october or ill have to make an exception


johny kicks his father in the balls.


so worse case scenario dont ruin the batman experience for kids.

[Fanticon]

I would hate my parents if I was 11 or 12 and they didn't take me to see this...j/k:woot:
but don't risk not bringing them just in case they do hate you forever...:cwink:
also...if they are the first kids to see it out of all their friends...braggin rights and cool factor go way up...just think about it and think of what that meant to you as a kid...and remember its Batman not friggin' Hostel.

[Ibn]

Welp. I saw BR when I was about 7, and the only thing that really got to me was the end. And that was a REALLY dark movie. So I don't really know what to tell you.

[james283126]

hell my son is 4 and a half and he's going,lol my son watches horror flicks and everything, he kind of comprhends them aswel

[Nivek]

hell my son is 4 and a half and he's going,lol my son watches horror flicks and everything, he kind of comprhends them aswel

Stay in school kids. and please, dont smoke the angel dust.

[james283126]

Stay in school kids. and please, dont smoke the angel dust.
wat the hell s that suppose to mean? r u questioning my parenting?? because i say why sheild them from the real world and just let them adapt

[Figs]

Stay in school kids. and please, dont smoke the angel dust.


LOL...agreed!

[DAMU RYDER]

I would hate my parents if I was 11 or 12 and they didn't take me to see this...j/k:woot:
but don't risk not bringing them just in case they do hate you forever...:cwink:
also...if they are the first kids to see it out of all their friends...braggin rights and cool factor go way up...just think about it and think of what that meant to you as a kid...and remember its Batman not friggin' Hostel.

lol so true

[combusticator]

My wife is prego with a boy on the way, and I personally think he will be able to handle what I handled. I watched Temple of Doom when I was six, watch guys' hearts being pulled out and I survived, yeah I was a bit freaked out lol (but I thought it was really cool). If my boy really wants to watch it I will probably watch a movie like that WITH him, so if I can tell he's gettin' too freaked just fast-forward and explain what's going on and how the good guys win, blah blah.

But whenever I saw more "serious" types of violence, or crimes against innocent people, that was harder to watch as a kid. I just think it's kinda relative. I think it's disturbing for a kid to see some cruel crime done against an innocent woman or child, but if it's Aragorn and Legolas cutting down orcs, whoopadie doo.

Some out there say that's hypocritical, but I honestly do think there's a difference. On something like this Dark Knight and it were my 11 or 12 year old I'd let them see it, but younger then that I'd probably double check it first to make sure that its ok.

Oh, and just my opinion, to each their own, but showing little kids movies full on torture-porn type movies is pretty sick and disgusting.

[SonikDeath]

I dont think this movie will be too violent, im sure kids 12 and over will be fine.

[Spider-Vader]

hell my son is 4 and a half and he's going,lol my son watches horror flicks and everything, he kind of comprhends them aswel

Same with my brother he loves movies with guns & crap. Though he got a little bored mid-way through BB & returned for when BM finally came on screen.

I think it's smart not to bring kiddies in the theater, but a rental might be suitable. Depends on how easily scared the kid gets.

[Boom]

I'm going to send my 3-year-old nephew to the film first, to see if it's too scary for me :csad:.

[james283126]

Same with my brother he loves movies with guns & crap. Though he got a little bored mid-way through BB & returned for when BM finally came on screen.

I think it's smart not to bring kiddies in the theater, but a rental might be suitable. Depends on how easily scared the kid gets.
yea he's generally quite in the theaters and he dosent really get scared it jus rolls off his back,,lol

[ABleedingCorpse]

I think kids could enjoy TDK, if only they could sit through all the non-action scenes quietly without getting to anxious. It won't be too scary, but it may be a bit darker for their own liking. It's not Iron Man or Incredible Hulk, so nothing too bright and shiny will be popping off to their attention.

I know that my two nephews can't sit still watching 'Begins without getting bored. So I duno. It may just be a bit more grown up is all. I'll compare it this way, would little kids sit down and watch The Godfather? Well....I take that back. They might if The Joker is involved. I can only see The Joker being the eye catcher for kids.

[BatmanFanatic]

OMG there are some really idiotic arguments being thrown around this thread.

"My 3 year old needs to learn about reality instead of being shielded from the world, so I let him see rated R movies all the time!"

Oh, well gold star of parenting for you then. Because 3 year olds really need to learn "about reality." No, sorry, 3 year olds need to learn HOW TO TIE THEIR SHOE-LACES. 3 year olds can't even make themselves a PBJ sandwich. 3 year olds can't read the back of the cereal box. But they need to learn about the reality of murder, torture and rape? Uh.... NO.

I mean why stop there? Why not just send the 3 year olds off to Iraq? I know they don't have the physical dexterity to handle adult weapons yet, but maybe we can make some really small guns for them. It would be great for teaching them about "reality." I'm sure they'll be fine. :whatever:

And what was that second dumb argument? “Rules and parental guidelines = fascism… Lay off my freedom to do whatever I want to my kid and mind your own business!” Oh yes, of course. Because why not let any dumb f*** do whatever they want to their progeny… whore out their grade school daughters and give joints to the toddlers, after all, “it’s none of my business.” Let's follow that train of thought and see where it leads. Complete lawlessness is such a successful system of living after all. Lets not be a responsible society and just hope for the best – surely anyone who can ejaculate into a fertile woman is automatically guaranteed to be a competent parent. Right? Hmmm.

Like it or not, there are laws and there are rules, and you have to abide by them. There are even laws and rules against stupid parents because children don’t know what is in their own best interests, and apparently sometimes neither do their equally clueless parents. You can’t let your kids drink or smoke before a certain age, it is illegal. There is a certain age for sexual consent in which a child is considered legally mature enough to make that decision. There is a movie rating where people under 17 can not get in, even if their parent is determined to take them. There are also rules about what you can and can not say or show on television before a certain hour – again – to protect children from inappropriate content, because we as a society have decided that this is important. Apparently though, there are still going to be some sick people out there who instead of reading fairy tales to their 3 year old at bed time and enchanting them with stories of Santa Claus decide that this tiny child needs to be seeing rated R movies instead. Really disturbing.

In case anyone can’t get a visual for just how young three years old is…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/images/madeleine.jpg


… does she need to see graphic violence? Rape? Sex? Burned off, deformed faces? Pencils being pulled out of people's brains? Men beating the living $#!t out of each-other? A woman in tears talking to her lover on the phone before being blown to smitherenes? Is that really what you want her thinking about at this age? For goodness sakes, anyone who would do that to a tiny child like that is disturbed, and it's even sicker if their own parents would allow them near those sorts of things.


For my part I just wish there was a hard 12 rating, where you simply do not get in under the age of 12 no matter who is taking you. It would protect at least a few children from their ignorant caretakers.

[omerhead]

What if they show Batman breaking a criminals arm with kung fu skills in TDK.

[nickyg641]

OMG there are some really idiotic arguments being thrown around this thread.

"My 3 year old needs to learn about reality instead of being shielded from the world, so I let him see rated R movies all the time!"

Oh, well gold star of parenting for you then. Because 3 year olds really need to learn "about reality." No, sorry, 3 year olds need to learn HOW TO TIE THEIR SHOE-LACES. 3 year olds can't even make themselves a PBJ sandwich. 3 year olds can't read the back of the cereal box. But they need to learn about the reality of murder, torture and rape? Uh.... NO.

I mean why stop there? Why not just send the 3 year olds off to Iraq? I know they don't have the physical dexterity to handle adult weapons yet, but maybe we can make some really small guns for them. It would be great for teaching them about "reality." I'm sure they'll be fine. :whatever:

And what was that second dumb argument? “Rules and parental guidelines = fascism… Lay off my freedom to do whatever I want to my kid and mind your own business!” Oh yes, of course. Because why not let any dumb f*** do whatever they want to their progeny… whore out their grade school daughters and give joints to the toddlers, after all, “it’s none of my business.” Let's follow that train of thought and see where it leads. Complete lawlessness is such a successful system of living after all. Lets not be a responsible society and just hope for the best – surely anyone who can ejaculate into a fertile woman is automatically guaranteed to be a competent parent. Right? Hmmm.

Like it or not, there are laws and there are rules, and you have to abide by them. There are even laws and rules against stupid parents because children don’t know what is in their own best interests, and apparently sometimes neither do their equally clueless parents. You can’t let your kids drink or smoke before a certain age, it is illegal. There is a certain age for sexual consent in which a child is considered legally mature enough to make that decision. There is a movie rating where people under 17 can not get in, even if their parent is determined to take them. There are also rules about what you can and can not say or show on television before a certain hour – again – to protect children from inappropriate content, because we as a society have decided that this is important. Apparently though, there are still going to be some sick people out there who instead of reading fairy tales to their 3 year old at bed time and enchanting them with stories of Santa Claus decide that this tiny child needs to be seeing rated R movies instead. Really disturbing.

In case anyone can’t get a visual for just how young three years old is…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/images/madeleine.jpg


… does she need to see graphic violence? Rape? Sex? Burned off, deformed faces? Pencils being pulled out of people's brains? Men beating the living $#!t out of each-other? A woman in tears talking to her lover on the phone before being blown to smitherenes? Is that really what you want her thinking about at this age? For goodness sakes, anyone who would do that to a tiny child like that is disturbed, and it's even sicker if their own parents would allow them near those sorts of things.


For my part I just wish there was a hard 12 rating, where you simply do not get in under the age of 12 no matter who is taking you. It would protect at least a few children from their ignorant caretakers.
Who said TDK involved rape and sex?

Anyway, I would think of bringing a 3 year old to an "R"-rated movie, probably not even a PG-13 movie. But at age, say, 9 or 10, depending on the kid, I think they could probably handle TDK. Or a mild "R"-rated movie. By then, they're no longer scared of the boogeyman. They know the Joker isn't hiding under their bed.

[omerhead]

What if they show Batman breaking a criminals arm with kung fu skills in TDK.

[BatmanFanatic]

Who said TDK involved rape and sex?

No one said that. The discussion was 3 yr olds at rated R movies, and as we know, TDK isn't rated R. The further examples of disturbing material were actually straight from TDK and why it's a strong PG-13... ie, if they're far younger than 13 don't take them!


Anyway, I would think of bringing a 3 year old to an "R"-rated movie, probably not even a PG-13 movie. But at age, say, 9 or 10, depending on the kid, I think they could probably handle TDK. Or a mild "R"-rated movie. By then, they're no longer scared of the boogeyman. They know the Joker isn't hiding under their bed.

Typo?

If so I say that this is a sensible position. 10+ for a PG 13 movie if the parents are aware of the content and/or have seen it first should be fine. It's the tales of 4,5,6 year olds seeing rated R films that really bother me, and so of course just to top it all off someone proudly announces how they feel they are a fantastic parent and are taking a THREE year old.

What's next, let's take suckling infants? Are you just too broke for a babysitter or what - this is just ridiculous! What 3 year old even has the attention span to sit still for 2 and 1/2 hours and pay attention? I mean what a sad, sick joke.

[combusticator]

OMG there are some really idiotic arguments being thrown around this thread.

"My 3 year old needs to learn about reality instead of being shielded from the world, so I let him see rated R movies all the time!"

Oh, well gold star of parenting for you then. Because 3 year olds really need to learn "about reality." No, sorry, 3 year olds need to learn HOW TO TIE THEIR SHOE-LACES. 3 year olds can't even make themselves a PBJ sandwich. 3 year olds can't read the back of the cereal box. But they need to learn about the reality of murder, torture and rape? Uh.... NO.

I mean why stop there? Why not just send the 3 year olds off to Iraq? I know they don't have the physical dexterity to handle adult weapons yet, but maybe we can make some really small guns for them. It would be great for teaching them about "reality." I'm sure they'll be fine. :whatever:

And what was that second dumb argument? “Rules and parental guidelines = fascism… Lay off my freedom to do whatever I want to my kid and mind your own business!” Oh yes, of course. Because why not let any dumb f*** do whatever they want to their progeny… whore out their grade school daughters and give joints to the toddlers, after all, “it’s none of my business.” Let's follow that train of thought and see where it leads. Complete lawlessness is such a successful system of living after all. Lets not be a responsible society and just hope for the best – surely anyone who can ejaculate into a fertile woman is automatically guaranteed to be a competent parent. Right? Hmmm.

Like it or not, there are laws and there are rules, and you have to abide by them. There are even laws and rules against stupid parents because children don’t know what is in their own best interests, and apparently sometimes neither do their equally clueless parents. You can’t let your kids drink or smoke before a certain age, it is illegal. There is a certain age for sexual consent in which a child is considered legally mature enough to make that decision. There is a movie rating where people under 17 can not get in, even if their parent is determined to take them. There are also rules about what you can and can not say or show on television before a certain hour – again – to protect children from inappropriate content, because we as a society have decided that this is important. Apparently though, there are still going to be some sick people out there who instead of reading fairy tales to their 3 year old at bed time and enchanting them with stories of Santa Claus decide that this tiny child needs to be seeing rated R movies instead. Really disturbing.

In case anyone can’t get a visual for just how young three years old is…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/images/madeleine.jpg


… does she need to see graphic violence? Rape? Sex? Burned off, deformed faces? Pencils being pulled out of people's brains? Men beating the living $#!t out of each-other? A woman in tears talking to her lover on the phone before being blown to smitherenes? Is that really what you want her thinking about at this age? For goodness sakes, anyone who would do that to a tiny child like that is disturbed, and it's even sicker if their own parents would allow them near those sorts of things.


For my part I just wish there was a hard 12 rating, where you simply do not get in under the age of 12 no matter who is taking you. It would protect at least a few children from their ignorant caretakers.

Very well put! I DO think a lot of people that say that sorta stuff on here are those that don't have kids--just sayin' it. But if they do, uggghhh...yeah I feel bad for their kids. I'm not saying it will PERMANENTLY SCREW up a kid who sees crap they shouldn't be seeing yet, but as a parent, you want to LESSEN those chances, not INCREASE them.

That whole "parents protecting kids = fascism" is seriously a bunch of bull shiz!

I think there is a large area for interpretation of what's right or not for kids (I'm more open to showing a pg-13 movie to my boy than others would be--I saw T2 when I was like 11 and loved it), and that's why they leave it open for people to interpret it as they see best.

But I agree there should be a HARD RESTRICTION that no kid under 10 or something should be allowed into a movie that's more like torture-porn like Hostel or whatever...that's just sick. Stuff like that can hurt a little kid, traumatize them. 99.9% of people agree that emotional and verbal abuse is bad for children, I would relate torture-porn or other way-too-strong of stuff to visual abuse. So to all of you saying "I want to show my 3 year old how the real world is," I wouldn't be surprised if you use that same sort of rationale by excusing what you say to your kids (i.e. "My welfare check doesn't pay me enough and people say I'm stupid, so I'm gonna tell my 3 year old son he is").

[batpawn]

since the dark knight isn't supposed to be seen by young kids and many critics mentioned that it is pretty hard and disturbing for a pg-13 rating, i wouldn't take someone under 13 to this movie. although the dark knight is going to be 16+ in austria, which means it isn't allowed to be watched by an audience under 16 years old.

[nickyg641]

No one said that. The discussion was 3 yr olds at rated R movies, and as we know, TDK isn't rated R. The further examples of disturbing material were actually straight from TDK and why it's a strong PG-13... ie, if they're far younger than 13 don't take them!



Typo?

If so I say that this is a sensible position. 10+ for a PG 13 movie if the parents are aware of the content and/or have seen it first should be fine. It's the tales of 4,5,6 year olds seeing rated R films that really bother me, and so of course just to top it all off someone proudly announces how they feel they are a fantastic parent and are taking a THREE year old.

What's next, let's take suckling infants? Are you just too broke for a babysitter or what - this is just ridiculous! What 3 year old even has the attention span to sit still for 2 and 1/2 hours and pay attention? I mean what a sad, sick joke.
Yeah, typo. I'm not saying younger kids can't see a PG-13 movie. I think it depends on the movie (after all Batman & Robin was PG-13), but some of the more extreme aren't for little kids.

[SonikDeath]

I wouldnt take a kid under 12 to see this movie, i mean batman smashing joker during the interrogation and then harvey turning into two face, hes gonna be screaming the entire time, pretty intense stuff.

[bruindanielson]

Once again all kids are different . My 4 yr old will be able to handle no problem but there is no way in hell my 7 yr old nephew would ever be able to handle it. My son is really smart and can handle it. I let him be a kid... He has every damm disney movie you can think of but also loves violence. Taking a 4 yr old girl is a little weird but it's okay for certain boys.. It puts hair on their chest:bh:

[ABleedingCorpse]

Once again all kids are different . My 4 yr old will be able to handle no problem but there is no way in hell my 7 yr old nephew would ever be able to handle it. My son is really smart and can handle it. I let him be a kid... He has every damm disney movie you can think of but also loves violence. Taking a 4 yr old girl is a little weird but it's okay for certain boys.. It puts hair on their chest:bh:
You sir, are a fool.

[Nivek]

Once again all kids are different . My 4 yr old will be able to handle no problem but there is no way in hell my 7 yr old nephew would ever be able to handle it. My son is really smart and can handle it. I let him be a kid... He has every damm disney movie you can think of but also loves violence. Taking a 4 yr old girl is a little weird but it's okay for certain boys.. It puts hair on their chest:bh:

Anyone else think we have some either very young, very inexperienced parents? Or just some people just pulling some legs and having a little too much fun here? Put hair on the chest? C'mon...

[ABleedingCorpse]

Anyone else think we have some either very young, very inexperienced parents? Or just some people just pulling some legs and having a little too much fun here? Put hair on the chest? C'mon...

Prolly just another high school drop out who had a kid and works at the checkout line.

[batpawn]

Once again all kids are different . My 4 yr old will be able to handle no problem but there is no way in hell my 7 yr old nephew would ever be able to handle it. My son is really smart and can handle it. I let him be a kid... He has every damm disney movie you can think of but also loves violence. Taking a 4 yr old girl is a little weird but it's okay for certain boys.. It puts hair on their chest:bh:

you seriously disgust me.

[bruindanielson]

Prolly just another high school drop out who had a kid and works at the checkout line. It's funny that the hippie with the bong is the first person to judge. People take these post a little to seriously sometimes.. People need to settle down. IT'S A PG 13 MOVIE. It's batman.. Give me a break

[Nivek]

Be a damn parent and stop posturing here like your going to impress anyone here (that is, if your not some 13 year old yourself).

[raxor]

I guess two-face scene is the only one which might be scary to kids..
I doubt explosions or fight scenes are gonna affect them.. i remember watching movies with explosions and fights ever since i was 8...

[RavenX]

TDK too dark for kids??? all the better for me......:woot:

[Bat-Mite]

It's funny that the hippie with the bong is the first person to judge. People take these post a little to seriously sometimes.. People need to settle down. IT'S A PG 13 MOVIE. It's batman.. Give me a breakYou can get away with a lot in a PG-13 movie nowadays. I remember when I went to go see War of the Worlds (the Spielberg one) in theaters. There was cussing (the 'S' word being shouted ad nauseam) all over the place, people shooting each other for no good reason, people getting vaporized, a bloody gelatinous substance all over the ground, a man getting stabbed and having his bodily fluids drained from him... and a couple there had a THREE YEAR OLD WITH THEM. He was screaming and crying the whole time about how scared he was. Frankly, I regret not going to the management and complaining about it. Not because it was such a distraction (it was, though), but because that kid obviously couldn't handle what he was seeing. Saying that it's just a PG-13 movie doesn't cut it these days, considering that the line between a PG-13 and R rating is getting blurred more and more as time goes on.

[CFE]

It's a matter of individual preference really. You as a parent should know the level of your child's viewing habits.

If you feel "TDK" will be okay, then take them.

Personally, I don't think ANY child below the age of 10 (maybe 9) should be taken to see this.

Actually if I want to get technical, being a theatre-going viewer...no one below the age of 15 should be taken to see this unless they can sit their without being loud and making obnoxiously stupid comments about the film.

"OMG Thatz teh BATMAN...Da na na na na na na na BATMAN!!!"

I really have a low tolerance for stupidity, especially stupidity that is so tremendous it has to be shown in public.

That said, no one below the age of 30 should be taken to see it unless you can prove you have common sense, theatre manners and true knowledge of the subect material.

Sorry, I'm just ranting...I'll go back and simply say:

"Go see "TDK" and determine whether or not your child can handle it."

----

CFE

[omerhead]

I agree, stabbing and shooting blood is acceptable nowadays in some PG-13 films.

[raxor]

It's a matter of individual preference really. You as a parent should know the level of your child's viewing habits.

If you feel "TDK" will be okay, then take them.

Personally, I don't think ANY child below the age of 10 (maybe 9) should be taken to see this.

Actually if I want to get technical, being a theatre-going viewer...no one below the age of 15 should be taken to see this unless they can sit their without being loud and making obnoxiously stupid comments about the film.

"OMG Thatz teh BATMAN...Da na na na na na na na BATMAN!!!"

I really have a low tolerance for stupidity, especially stupidity that is so tremendous it has to be shown in public.

That said, no one below the age of 30 should be taken to see it unless you can prove you have common sense, theatre manners and true knowledge of the subect material.

Sorry, I'm just ranting...I'll go back and simply say:

Go see "TDK" and determine whether or not your child can handle it."

----

CFE


I agree.. or you should have a special screenin for kids and people who behave like kids only.. :)

[JayCaz]

If they could handle Batman Returns, The Dark Knight should be fine.

[omerhead]

I agree.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

It's a matter of individual preference really. You as a parent should know the level of your child's viewing habits.

If you feel "TDK" will be okay, then take them.

Personally, I don't think ANY child below the age of 10 (maybe 9) should be taken to see this.

Actually if I want to get technical, being a theatre-going viewer...no one below the age of 15 should be taken to see this unless they can sit their without being loud and making obnoxiously stupid comments about the film.

"OMG Thatz teh BATMAN...Da na na na na na na na BATMAN!!!"

I really have a low tolerance for stupidity, especially stupidity that is so tremendous it has to be shown in public.

That said, no one below the age of 30 should be taken to see it unless you can prove you have common sense, theatre manners and true knowledge of the subect material.

Sorry, I'm just ranting...I'll go back and simply say:

"Go see "TDK" and determine whether or not your child can handle it."

----

CFE

Damn right! lol I 100% AGREE WITH THIS!!

[Keymaker]

That said, no one below the age of 30 should be taken to see it unless you can prove you have common sense, theatre manners and true knowledge of the subect material.
You're joking, right? :whatever:

[Bat-Mite]

You're joking, right? :whatever:I don't think he was. Rude behavior in the theater has become a problem in recent years with people not turning their cell phones off during the film (even after messages at the beginning of the movie politely ASK them to). And people diddling around with their ipods (the light from the little screens is distracting), and people continuously talking during the film. I could go on and on. Really, if people are going to behave that way, I don't understand why they don't just stay home and watch a DVD. If you're so bored with a movie that you're playing around with an ipod or cell phone the whole time that it's playing, you should just get up and leave.

[Nivek]

You're joking, right? :whatever:


hey, I wish that was a stipulation for going to Genre films. No comments like "It's stupid that the Hulks pants stay on" or "Joker wearing make-up makes him more messed up and relatable".

[Keymaker]

I understand, but...come on...30? That's a pretty bold statement.

[CaptainClown]

I know a lot of 20-30 people who don't shut up. Also they drink so they are twice as obnoxious.

[Nivek]

I understand, but...come on...30? That's a pretty bold statement.


No, it's pretty accurate. 30 is the new 25.

[CRABBAH HUK!]

I once had a neighbor who would force his 6 yr old son to watch hard R rated flicks and full-on porno movies with him and his buddies. They thought it was funny as hell. The kid tried to go along with it...I guess to make his dad proud.

But every chance he had he'd come over to watch cartoons with my son as they were never on at his house. One of the saddest kids I ever knew.

But I'm sure he was an isolated case...most kids should be exposed to filth as soon as possible. It is our primary duty as parents to see to it that they are not sheltered, isn't it?

:dry:

[CFE]

I don't think he was. Rude behavior in the theater has become a problem in recent years with people not turning their cell phones off during the film (even after messages at the beginning of the movie politely ASK them to). And people diddling around with their ipods (the light from the little screens is distracting), and people continuously talking during the film. I could go on and on. Really, if people are going to behave that way, I don't understand why they don't just stay home and watch a DVD. If you're so bored with a movie that you're playing around with an ipod or cell phone the whole time that it's playing, you should just get up and leave.

Exactly. It's beyond absurd. Why the hell would you PAY MONEY to see a film if you're just gonna talk through it and be rude?

If anything, wait to Netflix it or something...that way you're being obnoxius in the comfort of your own home and you're not ruining the movie for other people.

CFE

[Dr.Omega]

LOL@ you people still writing essays, this sums up just about every argument in this thread:

It's a matter of individual preference really. You as a parent should know the level of your child's viewing habits.

If you feel "TDK" will be okay, then take them.


close thread.

[Solidus]

Exactly. It's beyond absurd. Why the hell would you PAY MONEY to see a film if you're just gonna talk through it and be rude?

If anything, wait to Netflix it or something...that way you're being obnoxius in the comfort of your own home and you're not ruining the movie for other people.

CFE

Yea its amazing in the past like 8 years how horrible its become. I'm 24, and even when I was a teen, I had respect, never ever talked during a movie. People do it now, because they need the attention.

When I went to Indy IV, there was some girl dressed like Indy and said she was a huge fan, but she talked through the whole thing. Until I told her to shut up. I never come unglued, unless its in the movies. I never let people get away with it. I'll go grab the managers and have them taken out.

The biggest problem, is no one does anything about it. People are too afraid to so more so and more so people talk.

But I never do, I always get on them, tell them to be quiet, or else I'll get them thrown out. 99% of the time people be quiet.

But yea I have no idea why civility has left the movies, it never use to be like that. People just go there to be a clown, and try and be funny, and sadly no one is laughing.

[DAMU RYDER]

Originally Posted by COMICFILMEXPERT
It's a matter of individual preference really. You as a parent should know the level of your child's viewing habits.

If you feel "TDK" will be okay, then take them.


^^ i agree wit dat

[Nivek]

LOL@ you people still writing essays, this sums up just about every argument in this thread:



close thread.


:whatever: We'll get right on that Boss...

[Dr.Omega]

seriously what more is there to say that hasnt already been posted. Now it just sounds like were nitpicking at every little scene that we think this film might warrant an R rating.

[Nivek]

Actually, most of this thread has been more about pointing out other posters bad parenting skills by doing things like taking a 3 yr. old to see a PG-13 film that is described as scary and borderline R.

[comic_book_guy]

so that explains your name ;)
haha xD

[The Joker]

The guy who did the video movie review for TDK on The Movie Blog website answered alot of questions about the movie. Someone asked him if he thought the movie was too disturbing for kids, and he said yes it certainly was, and he wouldn't recommend taking your kids to it.

Link: http://www.themovieblog.com/2008/06/the-dark-knight-review

Just scroll down, his posts are in black.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I know a lot of 20-30 people who don't shut up. Also they drink so they are twice as obnoxious.

I hate putting up with that so much!

[CaptainClown]

I hate putting up with that so much!
they are usually bros also, a bunch of muscle heads that are itching to fight so you can't do anything it.

[sandmjuggalos]

Actually, most of this thread has been more about pointing out other posters bad parenting skills by doing things like taking a 3 yr. old to see a PG-13 film that is described as scary and borderline R.

Indeed. I fully endorse this message.:bow:

[Captain Planet!]

An 11 year old will be fine.

[Question]

this is my view take your kids if you know they can handle it.If not crazy things will happen. I was in Spiderman 3 and when eddie b turned into venom kids all around were crying and one threw up his nachos.

[turtlefocker]

The guy who did the video movie review for TDK on The Movie Blog website answered alot of questions about the movie. Someone asked him if he thought the movie was too disturbing for kids, and he said yes it certainly was, and he wouldn't recommend taking your kids to it.

Link: http://www.themovieblog.com/2008/06/the-dark-knight-review

Just scroll down, his posts are in black.

thanks for the link. He says it's too disturbing for children.

[sandmjuggalos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by deathfromabove http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=15166178#post15166178)
wait wait wait, dark knight aside can you tell me why your 3 year old son owns the dvd for halloween? and is it the original or the rob zombie one? because if its the remake you should be extra ashamed. that movie was a travesty.

I assure you it is the original. :cwink:

I had an answer for you but apparently my comp. is being a jerk and keeps deleting my last 7-8 lines. Home calls, I shall be back tomorrow to further answer this question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Further answer: My 3 yr. old owns Halloween because he happened to catch it on a movie marathon around Halloween time and he digs it. Of course, being collectors of the vital cult classic movies, he needed to have his own instead of throwing ours across the room. He apparently has a high tolerence for movies like that. It is not that we introduce them to him on a daily basis, but if he seems interested, i'll let him run with it.

See, i'm sure i'll get bashed again...nonetheless, I see movies as media that is WAY tamer than the REAL newscasts and such that my M-I-L watches the entire day while we're at work. Again, we are talking about TDK here and not all scary/horror/gore/adult type films. If I am seen as a bad parent because I teach my child values, morals, the difference between faux and reality and then let him watch a PG-13 movie even though "internet reviews said not to take my child" then label me as such.

What a world we live in these days...........................

[Professor Joker]

With my nephews and niece(6,5, and 6) we taught them "thearter rules" every since the first trip to the movies. You don't talk, you sit down just watch the movie. Got to go pee you tell one of us. No standing up, no talking, etc. I'd say 95% of the movie they're perfect. There's always at least one scene they say something to us a bit to loud. During the Hulk, when he destroyed the sound wave cannons one of them said "whoa that was awesome!" in a normal voice and not a whisper.


I think it's importance to teach kids theater manners. To enjoy film the way it was suppose to be enjoys from a young age and to respect other people's experience as well as your own.

I'll take the 2 boys to see it. 6 and 5, they've seen blade 1 so this shouldn't be too bad. They're smart kids.

[SonikDeath]

People should be shot for talking in a cinema, luckily when i went to see Iron man, the only ones in there were me and my 2 friends and 1 other guy up the front, and he didnt talk at all during the whole thing. :D

[aturner]

With my nephews and niece(6,5, and 6) we taught them "thearter rules" every since the first trip to the movies. You don't talk, you sit down just watch the movie. Got to go pee you tell one of us. No standing up, no talking, etc. I'd say 95% of the movie they're perfect. There's always at least one scene they say something to us a bit to loud. During the Hulk, when he destroyed the sound wave cannons one of them said "whoa that was awesome!" in a normal voice and not a whisper.
Well I just gotta say.... thank you :cwink: You are one of the rare ones because half the time I see kids climbing over seats, yelling etc and parents sit there and do nothing! Good to see someone out there is teaching their kids some etiquette. I know they aren't going to be perfect, but it really bugs me when you actually have to say something before the parent takes action. If they're letting them run around, why the hell did they take them to a movie in the first place - why not a park!!! :huh:

[DV8]

I've watched R-rated movies my whole life and I turned out fine...

LMAO!! good one ;)

[Dr.Omega]

you all need rikki lake

[Professor Joker]

Well I just gotta say.... thank you :cwink: You are one of the rare ones because half the time I see kids climbing over seats, yelling etc and parents sit there and do nothing! Good to see someone out there is teaching their kids some etiquette. I know they aren't going to be perfect, but it really bugs me when you actually have to say something before the parent takes action. If they're letting them run around, why the hell did they take them to a movie in the first place - why not a park!!! :huh:



lol. DOn't thank me. It's purely because if they did talk and stand up and be annoying brats they'd ruin MY movie viewing experience :D

[aturner]

Hey, I don't care what your motivation is! If I can watch the film in peace, it's all good with me :word:

[bkey]

People should be shot for talking in a cinema, luckily when i went to see Iron man, the only ones in there were me and my 2 friends and 1 other guy up the front, and he didnt talk at all during the whole thing. :D

Oh gosh when I saw Iron Man there were two kids and their mom in front of us, and the mom kept trying to cover the younger kid's eyes during several scenes, but of course that made the kid mad and he would complain and she would start "whisper yelling" at him. It was so annoying.

[HappyCat]

**** the children, not literally, I'm not interested if it's "too dark for kids". I'm sick of "superhero" movies being watered down for the little bastards. You're worried that The Dark Knight is too long, too violent, too intelligent, too tough for your kids? THEN STAY AT HOME AND WATCH BATMAN AND ROBIN WITH THEM while the adults enjoy themselves.

[SonikDeath]

Oh gosh when I saw Iron Man there were two kids and their mom in front of us, and the mom kept trying to cover the younger kid's eyes during several scenes, but of course that made the kid mad and he would complain and she would start "whisper yelling" at him. It was so annoying.

I am so sorry, i feel for you, i definitely enjoy a movie more when people shut the hell up. :woot:

[XxDarkRebelXx]

I watched IT when I was six, I didn't really get scared.

[SonikDeath]

I watched IT when I was six, I didn't really get scared.

i watched IT when i saw 18 and i thought it was pretty scary, clowns are scary. :wow:

[Kaizer104]

I watched IT when I was six, I didn't really get scared.
Seriously? I think I'll take my neighbor's 5 year old to The Dark Knight, then. Just because YOU didn't get scared. :dry:

[rubyhope]

**** the children, not literally, I'm not interested if it's "too dark for kids". I'm sick of "superhero" movies being watered down for the little bastards. You're worried that The Dark Knight is too long, too violent, too intelligent, too tough for your kids? THEN STAY AT HOME AND WATCH BATMAN AND ROBIN WITH THEM while the adults enjoy themselves.

couldn't agree more

[rubyhope]

**** the children, not literally, I'm not interested if it's "too dark for kids". I'm sick of "superhero" movies being watered down for the little bastards. You're worried that The Dark Knight is too long, too violent, too intelligent, too tough for your kids? THEN STAY AT HOME AND WATCH BATMAN AND ROBIN WITH THEM while the adults enjoy themselves.

couldn't agree more

[Yurka]

"There is no way this movie can be marketed towards kids"
-Jim Lee


Awesome.

[SonikDeath]

When did he say that ?

[Yurka]

When did he say that ?


Today :cwink:

[Ama Zing]

Today :cwink:
Source? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

[Yurka]

Source? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

No written source.
He said it today.

[SonikDeath]

Today :cwink:

OK. :D

[Ama Zing]

Oh, alright. Cool beans.

[Spider-Vader]

yea he's generally quite in the theaters and he dosent really get scared it jus rolls off his back,,lol

Opposite of my brother. I don't think he could be quiet during a movie in the theater.

[Angel_Faerie]

Since the rest of you guys are talking about movie experiences, I'll tell some of mine.

When I was about 18 months old, one of the Friday The Thirteenth movies came on TV. I laughed my head off the entire time. Now before you call my mom a bad parent, she didn't know that it had come on until sometime later. She was in the kitchen cooking dinner with a friend of hers.

Mask of The Phantasm came out when I was 3. The Phantasm scared the living **** out of me and we had to go home after the first few minutes. I was tired anyway. I didn't disturb anyone else during my freak out because it was at the drive-in. My mom didn't start taking me to actual theaters until I was about 5 or 6. I was a very loud, hyperactive toddler.

I accidentally saw pieces of IT when I was 8. I was changing into my Halloween costume while my mom watched IT on tv. We were both in her bedroom. I was a black cat that year. I seriously freaked out and have been scared of clowns ever since. Don't ask me why I didn't change in another room. I don't know why. I guess I just wanted to be near my mom.

[BatSpider]

Oh, alright. Cool beans.
Ama! :woot:

[SonikDeath]

I was scared of edward scissorhands and chucky the doll (who wouldnt be).....its a crazy killer doll.

I havent been to the theater in a while, last movie i watched was iron man..i wish tickets werent so expensive. :(

[XxDarkRebelXx]

Seriously? I think I'll take my neighbor's 5 year old to The Dark Knight, then. Just because YOU didn't get scared. :dry:
They might be scared, don't go by me....

[Yurka]

I'm not sure if I would say scared is the best word, I would rather say disturbed.

[Mr.Jigsaw]

Some of my experiences....

1. I watched friday the 13th when I was 4 because my cousin told me it stared "Jason" and in my 4 year old mind "Jason"=Power Rangers. I had to walk home in the dark and I live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by forrest.

2. I learned about "Life and Death" and the "Birds and the Bees" at the same time from the same movie. The Terminator

3. I also learned at a tender young age that if you look at strange lights you face will melt and/or explode. Thank you Raiders of the Lost Ark.
p.s. I doubt The Dark Knight will have anything \ more "disturbing" to a young child a Nazi face melting and that seems to be a movie parents love showing to kids.

[nickyg641]

I'm not sure if I would say scared is the best word, I would rather say disturbed.
Is it just me or is "disturbing" a word that gets thrown around an awful lot? It must just be me, because I'm rarely ever actually "disturbed" by a movie. I saw movies like The Silence of the Lambs by the time I was twelve, and I didn't bat an eye. Maybe I've just got thicker skin than the average person.

[Yurka]

Is it just me or is "disturbing" a word that gets thrown around an awful lot? It must just be me, because I'm rarely ever actually "disturbed" by a movie. I saw movies like The Silence of the Lambs by the time I was twelve, and I didn't bat an eye. Maybe I've just got thicker skin than the average person.

Im guessing you just have thicker skin, the cops skin hanging from Lector's cell disturbs me to this day and I'm 20 :o

[nickyg641]

Im guessing you just have thicker skin, the cops skin hanging from Lector's cell disturbs me to this day and I'm 20 :o
I suppose that disturbed be, but, other than that, and maybe seeing Bill's "woman suit", it wasn't a huge deal. Great movie, though. I'd read the first three Hannibal books before I was 14.

[SonikDeath]

I havent seen that movie in a while, i hope they show it on tv. :D

[Batteen87]

I accidentally saw pieces of IT when I was 8. I was changing into my Halloween costume while my mom watched IT on tv. We were both in her bedroom. I was a black cat that year. I seriously freaked out and have been scared of clowns ever since. Don't ask me why I didn't change in another room. I don't know why. I guess I just wanted to be near my mom.

Are you scared of this guy? :hoboj:

[Yurka]

I suppose that disturbed be, but, other than that, and maybe seeing Bill's "woman suit", it wasn't a huge deal. Great movie, though. I'd read the first three Hannibal books before I was 14.

I have yet to read any of the books, I've always wanted to, I've just never had the time to. :o.
With regards to "disturbing movie experiences", like many, I watched IT when I was around 7-8, and it scared the freaking **** out of me and gave me not only a phobia of clowns, but of showers, bathroom sinks, sewers and others. About 2 years ago, I found IT in a $4.99 bin at Circuit City and picked it up, and I am truly stunned that a piece of **** like that could have scarred me the way it did.

[nickyg641]

I never got why people were so horrified of the movie "It", either. Tim Curry is scary, but how many people have actually watched the whole thing? Not exactly pants-pissing material.

[Yurka]

I never got why people were so horrified of the movie "It", either. Tim Curry is scary, but how many people have actually watched the whole thing? Not exactly pants-pissing material.

Now, I would agree with you, 12 years ago, I would have disagreed.

[nickyg641]

Now, I would agree with you, 12 years ago, I would have disagreed.
I think I'd only seen bits of it at that age, but even now, people my age talk about it like it's burnt from the disc drive of Lucifer himself.

[Yurka]

I think I'd only seen bits of it at that age, but even now, people my age talk about it like it's burnt from the disc drive of Lucifer himself.

lol, maybe they haven't seen it since they first watched it, because it truly is a tremendous piece of ****. :o

[Mr.Jigsaw]

Only a few scenes can even qualify as scary, most are just surreal acid trip kinda things (blood balloons in the library for example). Besides, all the "terror" the could have built around IT goes out the door the second you learn it isnt a "Clown" because its true form is to horrifying for any human to see and even have a chance of surviving through but is actually a ****ty crab/spider puppet that they kill with a F@#KING SLINGSHOT!

[Mr.Jigsaw]

double post

[XxDarkRebelXx]

Are you scared of this guy? :hoboj:

:lmao:

[Batteen87]

Pennywise rules all!!!

[Batteen87]

:lmao:

I try

[XxDarkRebelXx]

Pennywise rules all!!!

Yup...."They all Float!" :wow:

[raxor]

clowns are creepy.. and so are dolls!!

[Batteen87]

clowns are creepy.. and so are dolls!!

I've never been afraid of clowns or dolls, unless they were from a horror film and were made to look creepy.

[raxor]

I've never been afraid of clowns or dolls, unless they were from a horror film and were made to look creepy.

Im not afraid.. im just saying they look creepy...

[Batteen87]

Im not afraid.. im just saying they look creepy...

Okay, I got you.

[Conebone69]

I doubt TDK will be scary for kids that are 10 and above

[Kaizer104]

I don't think scariness is QUITE the problem we're outlining.. It's moreso the factor of how disturbing certain images may be to kids.

[raxor]

well what would you says is disturbing to kids?

[Kaizer104]

Under the age of 10? Here's a few examples:

-Magic pencil
-Two-Face
-Joker's explanations of his scars (then again, some may think this one is cool)

[raxor]

magic pencil--- that wont be disturbing..
two face -- yeah..
Joker's explanation of the scars -- i doubt it....

[Nivek]

I remember kids getting phobias from all kind of horror films in the 80's, Poltergeist (the clown doll) and It (Pennywise) are the two main ones that stuck with people.

Oh, I love that some of you are defending taking children to something many reviewers have stated may not be okay for children. Are you the same type of cool parent that lets a 4 yr. old ride in the front seat as well, and smoke and drink before they are 18?

[raxor]

I remember kids getting phobias from all kind of horror films in the 80's, Poltergeist (the clown doll) and It (Pennywise) are the two main ones that stuck with people.

Oh, I love that some of you are defending taking children to something many reviewers have stated may not be okay for children. Are you the same type of cool parent that lets a 4 yr. old ride in the front seat as well, and smoke and drink before they are 18?

Im not a parent.. but i don't see the harm here in taking a anyone 10 yrs and above.. theres nothing scary and nothing disturbing.. except maybe the scene of two face.. Every parent knows his kid.. If the kids cant handle it they won't take their kid.. but somehow or the other their kids will end up watching the movie.. hey its the age of the internet..

[CRABBAH HUK!]

**** the children, not literally, I'm not interested if it's "too dark for kids". I'm sick of "superhero" movies being watered down for the little bastards. You're worried that The Dark Knight is too long, too violent, too intelligent, too tough for your kids? THEN STAY AT HOME AND WATCH BATMAN AND ROBIN WITH THEM while the adults enjoy themselves.

So...what do you want? R rated super hero movies? "**** the children?" Most people become super hero fans when they're children. If it wasn't for most of us becoming Batman fans as kids, there would be no demand for TDK. Do you know how absolutely stupid it would be if the studios made super hero movies that kids couldn't get into? Most kids today don't read comic books. DC and Marvel know that so they make sure the movies can be enjoyed by both kids and adults...otherwise there won't be a fanbase for Batman in the future...and I would like these characters to live long after I do. That said, that doesn't mean they have to make their movies like Batman and Robin or Power Rangers...You can have a gritty and dark super hero movie...but I don't need it amped up to a hard R to enjoy it (unless its the Punisher). Plenty of R rated movies out there already.

BTW I saw to it that my son isn't a "little bastard". I'm sorry if you were.

I'm not one to force my parental standards upon others or demand that the world makes itself ideal for my kid, but I'm sick and tired of all these child-hating d**che-bags.

[Darknightnomis]

Find a babysiter. Leave the little ones at home.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Find a babysiter. Leave the little ones at home.

thats how I feel about it, it is an adult film, not a childrens film!

[ActuallyRobin]

If you're a parent and think your child could handle it, take them, if not, leave them at home, simple.

[Nivek]

It's not a kid safe world, that why parents need good judgement. This movie is a strong case for it. Unfortunatly, WB may have screwed something up because it is heavily marketed towards children. Thats not on Nolan, but the WB's marketing team.

[TheCaptain]

Under the age of 10? Here's a few examples:

-Magic pencil
-Two-Face
-Joker's explanations of his scars (then again, some may think this one is cool)

whats so scary about the pencil?

[ActuallyRobin]

whats so scary about the pencil?

apparantly it

dissapears into someone's head

[omerhead]

It's probably intense shootouts, throat stabbing and disturbing crime scenes.

Examples of violent PG-13 movie scenes.

Daredevil: Bullseye kills Kingpins guards with a pencil in the throat.
The Da Vinci Code: Dead body lying on the crime scene.
I Am Legend: The dogs fur shedding off and mans head smashing on the car window.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: mans head melting.
The Return of the King: Heads being thrown from the roof of the castle.

[batzilla]

There was this one time in Iron Man where this couple brought their Baby into the movie and it cried almost all the damn time and instead of taking it out and trying to calm it down they just let him keep crying so I went out and talked to the employee's there and they gave me a free pass and they talked to the people.

There is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING!! more annoying and flat out RUDE than some jackass parent(s) taking their whining, crying, screaming, talking little kid(s) to an adult movie!

When I saw SW:EP 1 I remember there was this woman who had a screaming, kicking, crying little brat with her and she didn't do anything. SEVERAL people starting saying things out loud for her to get her kid under control but she did nothing. So, after about 15 EXCRUCIATING minutes of listening to this crap I finally went out in the lobby and found an employee and told him. It was GREAT because this kid was about 16 (probably his first job) and he went in the theater and gave that woman HELL right in front of everyone! It was CLASSIC! He said "LADY, get your kid and get out of this theater! People dont want to listen to your loud obnoxius kid. They came here to see a movie and paid good money for it so please get out!" (not verbatim but very close) She was 2 rows in front of us and I got to hear the whole thing and it was also obvious that it was I who "told" on her : ) because as I past her I turned and pointed her out and she just looked up at me with this puzzled look.

It was GREAT! Several people clapped LOL! The woman FREAKED and got up and never came back in. I bet she gave the manager an earful but I saw the employee after the movie and thanked him and he just smiled and gave me a thumbs up and said "Not in my theater" LOL!

If ANYTHING like that happens during TDK I will KILL the people involved! Seriously! So, you all may hear about me on CNN on July 18 (midnight showing baby!!) :woot:

[batzilla]

whats so scary about the pencil?

It's not a No. 2 and the teacher CLEARY stated to bring a No. 2 pencil so things get a little out of hand and the teacher cuts off the kids head and eats it.

[Banquet]

apparantly it

dissapears into someone's head

I just have to say, I love your avatar. :up:

[Yurka]

David Goyer said he might not even take his 13 year old niece to see it.
http://www.incontention.com/?p=667

[darkseid26]

i think my ten year old brother can handle he's seen worse(i think), has anyone notice they rarely air TDK tv spots on networks like nickelodeon and cartoonnetwork

[DAMU RYDER]

David Goyer said he might not even take his 13 year old niece to see it.
http://www.incontention.com/?p=667

13 years old is old enough. By that age ur in the 8th grade.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I dont get why this thread is still going isnt the answer an obvious one?

[Yurka]

13 years old is old enough. By that age ur in the 8th grade.

How are you so sure?
People who have seen it, and reviewed it, and people who were involved in making it think 13 is too young. Many reviews are saying they were very surprised it was PG-13, they say it felt much more like an R.

[TheGraphicsGuy]

Too Dark for kids?

I freakin' hope so!! :)

[ironwez20]

no freakin kid in the world will miss a chance to see freakin batman, maybe superman but not batman. i dont care how dark it is if the childs wants to see batman thiers no stopping him but if a child wanted to see a horror movie then thier is stopping him.

[Crook]

no freakin kid in the world will miss a chance to see freakin batman, maybe superman but not batman.
:funny:

SR, maybe. But not a film done right on the character. :o

[gwynplaine]

Kids love that s**t, it's good for them otherwise fairytales wouldn't be populated with witches, wolves, ogres and other scary creatures.

[Nightwatcher11]

Well after hearing the cast, writers claiming to not even take their 10 year olds or even their 12 year olds to this movie I might take their advice. Damn I can't imagine all the stuff they put into this...

[Banquet]

It's been said a hundred times, but it really depends on the kid. I've known a 3 year old that did't even flinch at Jaws, and another kid who got scared of it at 7. It is really a matter of how much you want your kid exposed to a gritty, crime-driven view of life.

[Nightwatcher11]

yea I know totally. I have a strong stomach but get scared easily from anything with ghosts and demons stories, anything you never know if its real or not, but my brother got scared at spidy 3. So he's pissed I'm not taking him, after a whole year of me talking non-stop of this movie, he's really excited but pissed at me for not seeing it. lol

[XxDarkRebelXx]

I went to go see Iron Man and just the trailer for Hulk made this kid scream of horror and she left with the kid. Every kid is diffrent. but don't take your kid if he or she will be screaming cause they think it's scary(it annoys alot of people, like me). That's why they invented trailers, so you know what it's about....its Pg-13....so use your judgement and go with it.

[Punisher RULES]

My 7 year old nephew might get a bit uneasy with the mature nature this film seems to have taken but the action stuff should please any kid who digs that kinda thing but as far as it being too dark? I love that its going to be all end all of Batman movies and if kids get startled, well , that might make me enjoy it even more.

[Why So Serious?]

I've got some strong opinions when it comes to exposing children to content they're too young to handle. But I don't feel like getting into a big debate about it. So all I'll say is this:

If you're thinking about bringing a child to see this, screen it yourself first. Films have ratings for a reason.

-WsS?

[Banquet]

Oh but I'd love to get into a big debate about it. This thread makes me think about how I may have reacted to this film if I were say, 10. I would probably love it, like I loved Jurassic Park even though it scared me (I was super sensitive).

Being exposed to "adult" content is actually extremely impactful on children no matter how frightened or not frightened they are of it.
I wouldn't think that "should my kid see this" should be based soley on whether or not it will frighten them, but how it will impact them in general.

I remember scenes from movies when I was a kid that didn't scare me but deeply disturbed me anyway because it was alien to my daily view of the world. Even though that kind of television or film can be good for teaching children new things and broadening their interests etc, if the "alien" view is of murder or experiences that parents protect children from in life, why wouldn't they protect their children from "experiencing" it vicariously though tv and film?

It's strange to me that it would even have to be questioned, but I know a lot of kids grew up watching R rated movies and such so I know other people do disagree with censoring. The people I've known personally had very negligent parents though, anyway so...

my cat just puked on the floor...

[Ace of Knaves]

i think maybe kids will appreciate the action sequences but my main thinking for is it suitable for kids is will they actually understand the true meaning of the film. from interviews ive seen it is a study of the phycological impacts terroism has on society and how people have changed since the attacks. i just dont think kids will get it and i dont think they will enjoy it if there isn't loads and loads of action which i dont think there will be.

[Why So Serious?]

Being exposed to "adult" content is actually extremely impactful on children no matter how frightened or not frightened they are of it. I wouldn't think that "should my kid see this" should be based soley on whether or not it will frighten them, but how it will impact them in general.

I absolutely agree with this. It isn't just the exposure to the violence, language, disturbing behavior, etc.. Or if they would, or would not be frightened by it. Most people here seem to be thinking in those terms. But that's the wrong way to approach these types of situations. It doesn't matter if a child can handle the film without being frightened. It's how it will impact them in the long term. It's what kind of lasting effect it will have on the child and his/her perceptions of right and wrong. Children are a blank slate. And what they experience in films, games, etc. directly impacts the way they will act and think for the rest of their lives. Which is exactly why they need to be shielded from certain types of content until they've reached an age where they can fully understand it on their own.

That's perhaps the most important aspect of the decision as to whether or not films like the Dark Knight are appropriate for kids. And it also seems to be the aspect that is more often than not, never taken into consideration. Which is unsettling, to say the least.

my cat just puked on the floor...

charming.

-WsS?

[RavenX]

wow......maybe TDK was too dark.......FOR YOUR CAT!!! lol.

anyways....hope your cat feels better.......I miss my kitty.....:(

[RavenX]

the whole "psychological impact of terrorism on society" is one aspect of TDK that I'm looking forward to. I just hope that it's done "tastefully" without making any "political" statements.....

but.....I do want my Batman films dark......so if it's too dark for kids.....all the better for me!!! :woot:

[terry78]

It's already obvious that the studio has geared a lot of this movie towards kids, look at commercials on Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc. TDK toys, action figures, kids meals, ads plastered all over cereal and food, and so on. They're expecting kids to see this, so whatever showing you attend, there will be kids.

[Nivek]

It's already obvious that the studio has geared a lot of this movie towards kids, look at commercials on Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc. TDK toys, action figures, kids meals, ads plastered all over cereal and food, and so on. They're expecting kids to see this, so whatever showing you attend, there will be kids.


I see your point, thats where a good deal of concern comes from. I was in my teens when Batman Returns came out, and I remember all the hub-bub about that film being too dark for children, and having too much sexual innuendo and S&M imagery, and Penguin targeting children.

But TDK has the opportunity to rise above it, and be the champ of comic adoptions. Unfortunately, it has to get past ALOT of stupid parents who should know if you pay for your under 13 kid to watch the movie, you have 0 right to complain.

[Street Vendor]

I saw JAWS when I was nine. I practically peed my pants, but I did love it. I think most kids would have the same reaction to TDK.

[Nivek]

I'm more worried about bad parents bringing a kid that may get frightened because they dont want to miss seeing the movie. "Oh, my kid can watch it" is one thing, except that said parent is more like "theres no way I'm not going to see it opening weekend. You have a week to get over your fear of clowns and loud noises, my cowardly child. cause Daddy has seen every Batman film opening weekend".

[Ace of Knaves]

I absolutely agree with this. It isn't just the exposure to the violence, language, disturbing behavior, etc.. Or if they would, or would not be frightened by it. Most people here seem to be thinking in those terms. But that's the wrong way to approach these types of situations. It doesn't matter if a child can handle the film without being frightened. It's how it will impact them in the long term. It's what kind of lasting effect it will have on the child and his/her perceptions of right and wrong. Children are a blank slate. And what they experience in films, games, etc. directly impacts the way they will act and think for the rest of their lives. Which is exactly why they need to be shielded from certain types of content until they've reached an age where they can fully understand it on their own.

That's perhaps the most important aspect of the decision as to whether or not films like the Dark Knight are appropriate for kids. And it also seems to be the aspect that is more often than not, never taken into consideration. Which is unsettling, to say the least.



-WsS?
while i agree on what most you have said there i have to disagree with the part that ive put in bold. i think thats a cop out. i hate hearing all this crap about films and games affecting people and making them do silly ****. i remember a few years ago about the game manhunt someone hammerd their friend to death and this game was linked to it. what a load of tosh!! if you play a violent game or watch a violent film and you think its okay to copy that then the person must be gone in the head anyway. i could play GTA and go on a mad killing spree and everyone would say its because of the game.........i think not.

[Why So Serious?]

while i agree on what most you have said there i have to disagree with the part that ive put in bold. i think thats a cop out. i hate hearing all this crap about films and games affecting people and making them do silly ****. i remember a few years ago about the game manhunt someone hammerd their friend to death and this game was linked to it. what a load of tosh!! if you play a violent game or watch a violent film and you think its okay to copy that then the person must be gone in the head anyway. i could play GTA and go on a mad killing spree and everyone would say its because of the game.........i think not.

apparently, you've never seen the effect GTA has on a 8 year old with idiot parents.

[The Guard]

IT remains one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. It's not the effects, or the gore. I recognize that it's cheesy as hell. But it's the idea that a demon clown could come out of your shower drain and think nothing of it...it's "We float...". Shiver. Maybe it's because I read the book when I was nine and then saw the movie, and I have some lasting impressions from both.

That said, I don't believe in sheltering children. I'm all about exposing them to new ideas, broadening their horizons, etc. And doing it in a responsible manner. In general, kids reach a certain age and they aren't all clueless anymore. To me, this is about seven or eight years old. At this point, they're able to be manipulative, so to me, they're old enough to understand basic concepts and themes. At this point, they will understand if you say "Now this movie is going to have scary parts", and they will understand if you say "Now you understand that this is just a movie".

I'm not sure how a movie itself impacts children. Just because monkey sees doesn't mean monkey has to do. That's an individual decision. I loathe the "violent movies and videogames cause violence" argument.

Which is exactly why they need to be shielded from certain types of content until they've reached an age where they can fully understand it on their own.

While I agree to a point. I'm curious as to what age you think this is. You don't just suddenly "get" ideas and concepts. You learn them in stages as you grow.

As for the whole "Will kids get it?". Since when did little kids care about the true "meaning" of a movie beyond what they know? That's hardly a valid argument for kids not seeing this movie. Kids will likely enjoy THE DARK KNIGHT for the same reason they enjoy movies like SPIDER-MAN, because it's action-packed good VS evil, Batman VS The Joker, and because of the simpler themes involved, like the secret identities, etc. To them, that tends to be enough. I don't see anything so dark in this movie that the average 10 year old wouldn't be able to handle it. Seven, eight, nine year olds, you'll probably need to know your kids before deciding whether or not its appropriate. Some kids get nightmares from damn near anything. Some don't.

[Joker8906]

alright ladies and sirs,
this question comes from my aunt who will not allow me to take my 12 year old cousin 2 the midnight showing (we went to begins together) if Joker like carves a smile onto some one and its on screen anyone know if thats all off camera or what? (I personally hope it is as much as I wanna take him)

[Ace of Knaves]

apparently, you've never seen the effect GTA has on a 8 year old with idiot parents.

well a 8 year old shouldn't be playing GTA. i was just saying i hate it when people attribute violence to games a films i think its the biggest cop out ever.

[Mikelus]

I'm more worried about bad parents bringing a kid that may get frightened because they dont want to miss seeing the movie. "Oh, my kid can watch it" is one thing, except that said parent is more like "theres no way I'm not going to see it opening weekend. You have a week to get over your fear of clowns and loud noises, my cowardly child. cause Daddy has seen every Batman film opening weekend".

You nailed it, those parents are more selfish than anything else. Then people complain about how much violence there is in society, in the United States is even worse with school shootings and psychopaths opening fire at universities, shopping malls, public spaces....very sad indeed the US is so violent, but with so many people thinking "violence is cool", then you have what you got, more violent kids than in other parts of the world. Parents are responsible for their children's well-being, kids are first, not their immature desires of watching a movie.

[magus]

apparently, you've never seen the effect GTA has on a 8 year old with idiot parents.

Notice the bold. Maybe it isn't the game itself that is the problem but the lack of proper context, sense of right and wrong, and differentiation between fantasy and reality provided by said idiot parents. There were plenty of violent people before violent videogames, so the whole "blank slate" thing doesn't hold any ground.

[Why So Serious?]

well a 8 year old shouldn't be playing GTA. i was just saying i hate it when people attribute violence to games a films i think its the biggest cop out ever.

I agree. But I'm talking about children. Not the people out there that have done horrible things and blamed it on videogames and films. Yes, 8 year olds should not be playing GTA and watching violent films. But there are idiot parents out there that let them. And it most definitely affects these children negatively. Because they are too young to realize that these things they are doing and seeing are wrong.

[Joker8906]

Parents need to learn a very SIMPLE WORD


ya ready ya ready

"NO" its awesome my mom said it to me ALL the time when i was growing up.

[Why So Serious?]

Notice the bold. Maybe it isn't the game itself that is the problem but the lack of proper context, sense of right and wrong, and differentiation between fantasy and reality provided by said idiot parents. There were plenty of violent people before violent videogames, so the whole "blank slate" thing doesn't hold any ground.

the hell it doesn't. these children are allowed access to this media from their idiot parents. and nine times out of ten, these parents don't bother teaching these children that what they're seeing or doing isn't something that they should be doing. but that doesn't change the fact that young children are like blank slates. it doesn't matter how said children gain access to content that would be considered inappropriate. what matters is that they have access to it. and without proper guidance, this content will have a negative effect on them in the long run.

-WsS?

[magus]

You nailed it, those parents are more selfish than anything else. Then people complain about how much violence there is in society, in the United States is even worse with school shootings and psychopaths opening fire at universities, shopping malls, public spaces....very sad indeed the US is so violent, but with so many people thinking "violence is cool", then you have what you got, more violent kids than in other parts of the world. Parents are responsible for their children's well-being, kids are first, not their immature desires of watching a movie.

Sure it's all the US's fault. I mean there weren't just 3 separate multiple stabbings in Japan (center of Tokyo no less), increased gang violence in the UK, and the same 2000 year old violence in the middle east; of course it is GTA and Manhunt that are to blame and not the people themselves.

We want to be able to blame movies and videogames for the human condition because that would be easy but that isn't reality; reality is that some people have ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be completely ****ed up.

[The Guard]

the hell it doesn't. these children are allowed access to this media from their idiot parents. and nine times out of ten, these parents don't bother teaching these children that what they're seeing or doing isn't something that they should be doing.

What gets me, what I've always found odd, is that so many places that people see violence paint it as something you shouldn't be doing as well. And people still do it. Actions speak louder than words and all that.

[AgentGraves!]

"Is The Dark Knight Too Dark For Kids?"

Why on earth are we questioning this???


The film is rated PG-13 which means PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.

The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

But if you look at the Rating on the poster and the website the film is rated

"PG-13: PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED: SOME MATERIAL MY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 13 : INTENSE SEQUENCES OF INTENSE VIOLENCE AND SOME MENACE"

is what the posters and the websites and the tv ads and trailers have on them which then means:

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.


SO! with that warning slapped onto the film there should be NO QUESTION weather the film is "Too Dark" for kids. You should not be bringing the young anyway, the first clue to that is the first visual of the Joker when the trailer came along.

Given that the film is a STRONG PG-13 I think that they may even allow one of the curse words in it...The Ring was labeled with a Strong PG-13 and they dropped the F bomb. As well as a few other films over the past 4 years, some even have dropped the F bomb 2 times! now will the F bomb be in THE DARK KNIGHT? Maybe, Maybe not...If anything I believe you'll hear the S bomb. Oh Yeah.

So with that said - The Question is Mute because all in all what it comes down to is the Parent doing their job and Looking into the things that there kid wants to see.

I would sure as Hell NOT give my 10 year old a copy of GTA! And depending on how I did as a farther I may or may not bring him to see THE DARK KNIGHT. I would have to feel confident that I did a good job in showing him the Difference between what's real and whats reel. The Difference between whats Right and whats Wrong.

Knowing the information given by the MPAA on this film One should have NO questions on weather it will be too Dark and Too Intense for young viewers.

Even the Title should have been a clue: the DARK knight.

And the thing that really gets my water boiling - - -


You damn well know that once this film hits the screens A MASS of Parents are gunna ***** and moan "Oh it was too dark for my little one" "that movie was horrible, I can't beleave that they would do this..." and BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......

It happens all the time with stuff like this, and it's fustrating because you Just know that a parent doesn't do the job given. A kid of 6 wants GTA4 or wants to see SAW 47 and the parent is all like, sure let's go...and then the partent sees it then trashes the thing to death because of the content.

WELL MA AND PA maybe you should do your home work, just because your an adult doesnt mean that you don't have any home work to do any more..

AND WHILE I AM ON IT....

Lets talk about those parents whom "strangle" there kid by being TOO home work savy.

I mean those parents who are like "Tom & Jerry? no I don't want my kid growing up and thinking it's alright to beat the crap out of each other"

WTF!!!

Look lady, I grew up on Tom and Jerry, The Loony Tunes and Comic books and am I running around beating up TomJoe? NO!!! the reason, I had good parents who taught me that not everything you see on TV is real and not everything you see in the Moives is real...

I know a guy who has NEVER read Alice in wonder land...because his parents though that it was too "emotionaly damaging and violent"

REALLY?

What about dad? hasn't he grown up watching James Bond films? why isn't he running around shooting and sleeping around?

oh thats right he had parents who did their job...

Its like those parents who drop there kids off at the mall for 9 hours on the weekends...oh I don't want to deal with my kid so I'll let them hang out at the mall all day while i go and read US weekly. while the kids run a muck at the mall.


AH! GODS DAMN it!!!

I have to go I am getting to wound up over this....


DISCUSS.

[magus]

the hell it doesn't. these children are allowed access to this media from their idiot parents. and nine times out of ten, these parents don't bother teaching these children that what they're seeing or doing isn't something that they should be doing. but that doesn't change the fact that young children are like blank slates. it doesn't matter how said children gain access to content that would be considered inappropriate. what matters is that they have access to it. and without proper guidance, this content will have a negative effect on them in the long run.

-WsS?

How do you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote? You can't simultaneously say that the media is inherently bad and that parents are to blame for exposing their kids to the content. The media is appropriate for people with a certain level of experience, knowledge, and a proper context--this is distinct from age. Recommended ages are given on ratings as they are approximations of when a child may have said life experience but it varies greatly with parenting, genetics, and the culture around the child.

A child who has a proper sense of right and wrong and is taught how to manage media can handle almost anything; a parent just has to step in and put everything into context. To say that there is certain media (especially out of the popular media being discussed) that kids CANNOT be exposed to under any and all circumstances (in regards to violent content; sexual is a completely different beast) lest they become violent themselves is unfounded.

Kids are never a "blank slate." People are genetically predisposed to many things and even if they were, a parent is unable to manage every individual media that a child experiences. School and the relationships it provides accounts for a huge amount of a child's development and parents are not free to completely manipulate their "blank slate" of a child by their selves.

[Knives and Lint]

Sure it's all the US's fault. I mean there weren't just 3 separate multiple stabbings in Japan (center of Tokyo no less), increased gang violence in the UK, and the same 2000 year old violence in the middle east; of course it is GTA and Manhunt that are to blame and not the people themselves.

We want to be able to blame movies and videogames for the human condition because that would be easy but that isn't reality; reality is that some people have ALWAYS and will ALWAYS be completely ****ed up.

The violence is crazy today, it really is.
I have had 2 lock downs go on for my college and last year 4 for my high school. You know there was a dead body in a car on the same street as my house that's been there for months - what's crazy there was a car accident right next to the area where I was helping with first aid.
And the video of that Virgina tech kid is horrible, it's true, there are too much violence exposed to kids. I've never had so many lock downs in school ever since that shooting. After reading to posts on here as well as reading spoilers about the violence (the joker pencil thread), kids shouldn't see the movie. Kids these days are very immature and most of them are emo (not saying Goths, emos are pussies that can't handle **** and are so emotional all the time).

[SuperBatman]

It's not like theaters really enforce the PG-13 rating. I mean all PG-13 seems to mean that Parents are strongly cautioned. It's nothing like Rated R where you have to be 17 to see it. So kids can go see it no matter what age they are they don't have to be 13 to see it they can just buy a ticket.

[Nivek]

This isn't about ratings as much as parents being logical and not selfish. Kids will see it and parents/aunts/uncles will take them, but it's a matter of bringing a 8-12 year old, or some of the bad parents bringing a 3-8 year old. It's not a matter of if a child that young "Can take it", it's more of a matter if you want to take the chance of viewing the film and the kid freaking out, surrounded by audience members who want to beat the living s#!t out of you for disturbing their first time viewing experience.

[Patty]

after seeing the way the
bomb looked in the guys stomach

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXLtd3mB5c
about 1:07
i agree this flick shouldnt be seen by kids.

ugh. f**king CREEPY.

[Joker8906]

i was so happy 2 see this footage again and yea two face looks different than he did last year lol thank u post production.

[The Senator]

There is no doubt in my mind that this isn't a movie for kids. That being said, parents will bring their children anyway, and some of them will piss and moan about the level of violence/ disturbing content in the film. It happens all the time; why should this be any different?

[magus]

This isn't about ratings as much as parents being logical and not selfish. Kids will see it and parents/aunts/uncles will take them, but it's a matter of bringing a 8-12 year old, or some of the bad parents bringing a 3-8 year old. It's not a matter of if a child that young "Can take it", it's more of a matter if you want to take the chance of viewing the film and the kid freaking out, surrounded by audience members who want to beat the living s#!t out of you for disturbing their first time viewing experience.

Well I'd argue that if your kid "can take it" that he wouldn't freak out (though some kids are overanxious and will be loud at anything, especially if the like it) but you have a point. I honestly don't care what mental damage your kid does/does not suffer as long as he shuts the hell up while I enjoy the movie.

[magus]

There is no doubt in my mind that this isn't a movie for kids. That being said, parents will bring their children anyway, and some of them will piss and moan about the level of violence/ disturbing content in the film. It happens all the time; why should this be any different?

It certainly doesn't look as kid-friendly as Batman and Robin. I think any parent should heavily investigate (watch the movie) before thinking their 9 year old can watch it. But as you said, many won't and will ***** about the content as if they weren't properly warned by the ratings, trailer, promotions, etc.

[Joker8906]

There is no doubt in my mind that this isn't a movie for kids. That being said, parents will bring their children anyway, and some of them will piss and moan about the level of violence/ disturbing content in the film. It happens all the time; why should this be any different?


here here man I was pissed off when kiddies screamed when Anakin got torched in Revenge of the Sith CAN'T WAIT 2 SEE THEM LOOK AT 2 FACE

[terry78]

I think once you have kids your mentality changes. If you're still acting the same way you did before you had kids when you have them, something is wrong. I can say my parents did **** for me when i was younger and I turned out fine, but my own kids are not me, some guys don't seem to get that.

[Punisher RULES]

Like most of you, I was terrified when I saw Jaws at age 8 but now I'm 18 and it's one of my favorite films ever. Maybe the kids who are frightened at this will learn to appreciate it in the future.

[Why So Serious?]

How do you not see the contradiction in what you just wrote? You can't simultaneously say that the media is inherently bad and that parents are to blame for exposing their kids to the content. The media is appropriate for people with a certain level of experience, knowledge, and a proper context--this is distinct from age. Recommended ages are given on ratings as they are approximations of when a child may have said life experience but it varies greatly with parenting, genetics, and the culture around the child.

I have no idea where you came up with this. I never once said media was evil. In fact, I don't think that it is. Not for someone old enough to realize that it is, in fact, only entertainment. But I do believe that parents should be held accountable for the content they allow their children to be exposed to. Especially when the material isn't age appropriate.

A child who has a proper sense of right and wrong and is taught how to manage media can handle almost anything; a parent just has to step in and put everything into context.

Exactly. But I'm not talking about responsible parenting, am I? If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

To say that there is certain media that kids CANNOT be exposed to under any and all circumstances lest they become violent themselves is unfounded.

This isn't necessarily true. Take for example the recent plot that was masterminded by a classroom of third graders. They created and nearly carried out an elaborate plot to kill their teacher. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful. But what if it had been? Would have learned more in regards to where this motivation to kill their teacher had come from? Most certainly. But since the plot wasn't successful, it faded out of the spotlight before such motivations could be established.

Now, here's the question: Where the hell do third graders learn how to kill their teacher? Is it from their genetics? Doubtful. Parents? Again, unlikely. Media? Definitely a possiblity. What other explanation could there be? I'm not saying it's the only explanation. But it's more than likely, one of these children watched something, or played something, that they shouldn't have. Took this information, and applied it to their life in the form of a plot to kill their teacher.

Here's the next question: Why did the rest of the class decide to go along with this plot? Because they were all evil children that had been abused by their parents? Not likely. Because the devil told them to? Probably not. Because children are impressionable? I think so.

Which ties into:

Kids are never a "blank slate." People are genetically predisposed to many things and even if they weren't, a parent is unable to manage every individual media that a child experiences. School and the relationships it provides accounts for a huge amount of a child's development and parents are not free to completely manipulate their "blank slate" of a child by their selves.

What a bunch of crap. You can play the genetics angle all you want. But a newborn baby is a blank slate in the most literal sense of the word. The child knows nothing of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. It's the responsibility of their parents to teach them these things over the course of the next several years. To give them context. To provide them with the guidance they need to learn for themselves the difference between right and wrong. To tell them when something they're doing is wrong. To screen what they watch and play. And if a parent ignores these needs, the child learns these things from wherever it can, television, film, games, neighbors, friends, etc. And that's when problems arise. Because it is not the needs of the child that are being directly addressed, the chances of the child learning the wrong lessons is all to likely.

Take this film for example.

You have a Parent/Guardian, we'll call him Tom, that decides to bring a child, we'll call him Jerry, to see the Dark Knight.

Tom is a lousy parent. Never spends that much time with Jerry. Doesn't pay much attention to him. Doesn't screen the television he watches or the games he plays. He's too busy with his own life to worry about that sort of thing. But decides that because Jerry likes Batman, he's going to bring him to see this movie, in an effort to be a "good dad." Well, Jerry loves the movie. It's a little to omuch in spots. But hey, it's BATMAN! Problem is, because the kid was never taught that beating people up isn't something that you should do, he decides to beat his friend up the next time they're playing. "Well hey! Batman beat the tar out of the Joker, so why can't I beat up my friend? He's playing Joker, I'm playing Batman!"

You see where I'm going with this?

-WsS?

[XxDarkRebelXx]

I have no idea where you came up with this. I never once said media was evil. In fact, I don't think that it is. Not for someone old enough to realize that it is, in fact, only entertainment. But I do believe that parents should be held accountable for the content they allow their children to be exposed to. Especially when the material isn't age appropriate.



Exactly. But I'm not talking about responsible parenting, am I? If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



This isn't necessarily true. Take for example the recent plot that was masterminded by a classroom of third graders. They created and nearly carried out an elaborate plot to kill their teacher. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful. But what if it had been? Would have learned more in regards to where this motivation to kill their teacher had come from? Most certainly. But since the plot wasn't successful, it faded out of the spotlight before such motivations could be established.

Now, here's the question: Where the hell do third graders learn how to kill their teacher? Is it from their genetics? Doubtful. Parents? Again, unlikely. Media? Definitely a possiblity. What other explanation could there be? I'm not saying it's the only explanation. But it's more than likely, one of these children watched something, or played something, that they shouldn't have. Took this information, and applied it to their life in the form of a plot to kill their teacher.

Here's the next question: Why did the rest of the class decide to go along with this plot? Because they were all evil children that had been abused by their parents? Not likely. Because the devil told them to? Probably not. Because children are impressionable? I think so.

Which ties into:



What a bunch of crap. You can play the genetics angle all you want. But a newborn baby is a blank slate in the most literal sense of the word. The child knows nothing of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. It's the responsibility of their parents to teach them these things over the course of the next several years. To give them context. To provide them with the guidance they need to learn for themselves the difference between right and wrong. To tell them when something they're doing is wrong. To screen what they watch and play. And if a parent ignores these needs, the child learns these things from wherever it can, television, film, games, neighbors, friends, etc. And that's when problems arise. Because it is not the needs of the child that are being directly addressed, the chances of the child learning the wrong lessons is all to likely.

Take this film for example.

You have a Parent/Guardian, we'll call him Tom, that decides to bring a child, we'll call him Jerry, to see the Dark Knight.

Tom is a lousy parent. Never spends that much time with Jerry. Doesn't pay much attention to him. Doesn't screen the television he watches or the games he plays. He's too busy with his own life to worry about that sort of thing. But decides that because Jerry likes Batman, he's going to bring him to see this movie, in an effort to be a "good dad." Well, Jerry loves the movie. It's a little to omuch in spots. But hey, it's BATMAN! Problem is, because the kid was never taught that beating people up isn't something that you should do, he decides to beat his friend up the next time they're playing. "Well hey! Batman beat the tar out of the Joker, so why can't I beat up my friend? He's playing Joker, I'm playing Batman!"

You see where I'm going with this?

-WsS?
I do, very well put. On my note, as I said before it depends on the kid. If you have seen them scared for clowns and other explosions, DONT TAKE THEM, if you want to see it and force your kids to see it, then same on you for being selfish. Show the kids the trailer first then see if they want to show them tv spots....see if they can handle it first.

[magus]

I have no idea where you came up with this. I never once said media was evil. In fact, I don't think that it is. Not for someone old enough to realize that it is, in fact, only entertainment. But I do believe that parents should be held accountable for the content they allow their children to be exposed to. Especially when the material isn't age appropriate.



Exactly. But I'm not talking about responsible parenting, am I? If I were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



This isn't necessarily true. Take for example the recent plot that was masterminded by a classroom of third graders. They created and nearly carried out an elaborate plot to kill their teacher. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful. But what if it had been? Would have learned more in regards to where this motivation to kill their teacher had come from? Most certainly. But since the plot wasn't successful, it faded out of the spotlight before such motivations could be established.

Now, here's the question: Where the hell do third graders learn how to kill their teacher? Is it from their genetics? Doubtful. Parents? Again, unlikely. Media? Definitely a possiblity. What other explanation could there be? I'm not saying it's the only explanation. But it's more than likely, one of these children watched something, or played something, that they shouldn't have. Took this information, and applied it to their life in the form of a plot to kill their teacher.

Here's the next question: Why did the rest of the class decide to go along with this plot? Because they were all evil children that had been abused by their parents? Not likely. Because the devil told them to? Probably not. Because children are impressionable? I think so.

Which ties into:



What a bunch of crap. You can play the genetics angle all you want. But a newborn baby is a blank slate in the most literal sense of the word. The child knows nothing of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. It's the responsibility of their parents to teach them these things over the course of the next several years. To give them context. To provide them with the guidance they need to learn for themselves the difference between right and wrong. To tell them when something they're doing is wrong. To screen what they watch and play. And if a parent ignores these needs, the child learns these things from wherever it can, television, film, games, neighbors, friends, etc. And that's when problems arise. Because it is not the needs of the child that are being directly addressed, the chances of the child learning the wrong lessons is all to likely.

Take this film for example.

You have a Parent/Guardian, we'll call him Tom, that decides to bring a child, we'll call him Jerry, to see the Dark Knight.

Tom is a lousy parent. Never spends that much time with Jerry. Doesn't pay much attention to him. Doesn't screen the television he watches or the games he plays. He's too busy with his own life to worry about that sort of thing. But decides that because Jerry likes Batman, he's going to bring him to see this movie, in an effort to be a "good dad." Well, Jerry loves the movie. It's a little to omuch in spots. But hey, it's BATMAN! Problem is, because the kid was never taught that beating people up isn't something that you should do, he decides to beat his friend up the next time they're playing. "Well hey! Batman beat the tar out of the Joker, so why can't I beat up my friend? He's playing Joker, I'm playing Batman!"

You see where I'm going with this?

-WsS?

It is always about the parenting, not the content. It isn't as simple as "kids shouldn't see this content." The scenario wasn't: "the kid shouldn't have been exposed to this," it is, "the kids should have been talked to and explained the context of the movie."

Your example of third graders, which I read about, is null. It isn't watching the film or tv or whatever you are suggesting that is the problem, it is the lack of a proper frame of reference to place it in. What you are saying when you state that children got the idea from television is either:
1. the kids were given both the will and the way to hurt their teacher through watching something or
2. the kids had the motivation to hurt their teacher and were provided a method by television.

Both are laughable. There is no conclusive proof that tv/film makes any normal (if they aren't normal in this case then they are predisposed) person do anything they don't already want to do and if the children already wanted to hurt their teacher, then how exactly did tv make a difference?

How can you NOT be talking about responsible parenting? The entire argument is contingent upon how the child was raised. You can't just say that all children exist in a vacuum filled with nothing but media and upon watching it they will be influenced; all children have influence from their parents, school, and the media.

You can't talk about the influence of media on a child without talking about the environment (and the people in it) around him. You say you aren't talking about the influence of parents but it is absolutely vital to your argument and you spend quite a while talking about it--you even agree with me that it is the context that is important and not necessarily the content. In a way I am really just further specifying what you are saying, which is: it isn't just screening what a child watches or does that is important but having the child know why and helping them understand the media's place in the world.

[nightwing06]

From what i have been reading this is definitely not for children.
Last week they actually carded my brother when we went to see Wanted and he's 27.
Then right behind us there was a family with small children who all looked under 5 and they sat right in the front row.

[starscream]

the movie is rated 16 here in holland. i did not expect that.
so kids prob wont get in.
and it means i have to take my id card with me when i go see it :(

[Banquet]

For everyone saying "of course children shouldn't see it if it's PG-13!" I think we're forgetting that this film is being marketed to children through toys and games and because it's BATMAN. So it's not just irresponsible parents in this case, but the executives that are milking the franchise as well.

It is always about the parenting, not the content. It isn't as simple as "kids shouldn't see this content." The scenario wasn't: "the kid shouldn't have been exposed to this," it is, "the kids should have been talked to and explained the context of the movie."

Your example of third graders, which I read about, is null. It isn't watching the film or tv or whatever you are suggesting that is the problem, it is the lack of a proper frame of reference to place it in. What you are saying when you state that children got the idea from television is either:
1. the kids were given both the will and the way to hurt their teacher through watching something or
2. the kids had the motivation to hurt their teacher and were provided a method by television.

Both are laughable. There is no conclusive proof that tv/film makes any normal (if they aren't normal in this case then they are predisposed) person do anything they don't already want to do and if the children already wanted to hurt their teacher, then how exactly did tv make a difference?

How can you NOT be talking about responsible parenting? The entire argument is contingent upon how the child was raised. You can't just say that all children exist in a vacuum filled with nothing but media and upon watching it they will be influenced; all children have influence from their parents, school, and the media.

You can't talk about the influence of media on a child without talking about the environment (and the people in it) around him. You say you aren't talking about the influence of parents but it is absolutely vital to your argument and you spend quite a while talking about it--you even agree with me that it is the context that is important and not necessarily the content. In a way I am really just further specifying what you are saying, which is: it isn't just screening what a child watches or does that is important but having the child know why and helping them understand the media's place in the world.

It's interesting to note that the children in that 3rd grader case were in a special ed class.

What I'm wondering is why reactions have to be extreme to warrent attention. For example, kids probably won't go blow someone's head off with their dad's shotgun just because they saw it in GTA. But that doesn't mean it's not going to effect their view of weapons, murder and human life in conjunction with entertainment.

Just because a child is in an environment that doesn't facilitate personal violent behavior, why would it make it any more okay to expose them to characters acting violently against others through a video game (or any other media)? It's really sending a mixed message, if anything. It makes the explaination of media's "place in the world" more complicated than it should be for children.

I mean, many adults have difficulty with these things; moral contradictions, fantasy and reality. It is unfair to demand that children deal with these issues like adults do. Childhood is all about living in a world fantasy and possiblity. With movies like TDK being so widely visible, it makes it hard for parents to allow their children's imaginations run wild without risking dangerous behavior.

Another thing is, children are not usually that dim. Even if some material in film and tv will go over their heads, other material that many adults think they won't understand is still picked up on. I can only speak personally on this from my own childhood, but I distinctly remember instances when adult themes hovered in movies that my parents didn't think I'd notice, and those themes drew me in specifically for that reason.

It can, even though not soley, add a "weight" to childhood that is really unneccessary because it wouldn't have happened if it weren't for media.

So saying simply that it's more than just media that effects children, or that kids don't understand these things anyway, or it's obvious that the movie isn't for kids, is overlooking a lot of factors.

[The Guard]

Just because a child is in an environment that doesn't facilitate personal violent behavior, why would it make it any more okay to expose them to characters acting violently against others through a video game (or any other media)? It's really sending a mixed message, if anything. It makes the explaination of media's "place in the world" more complicated than it should be for children.

At what point do you teach children that violence exists and that some people find it entertaining? Ten bucks they've already learned this via cartoons.

I mean, many adults have difficulty with these things; moral contradictions, fantasy and reality. It is unfair to demand that children deal with these issues like adults do. Childhood is all about living in a world fantasy and possiblity. With movies like TDK being so widely visible, it makes it hard for parents to allow their children's imaginations run wild without risking dangerous behavior.

You can't shelter them forever. You have to teach them the difference between cinematic violence and real violence at some point.

[Octoberist]

it's true on what you just said Guard.

It's just knowing what's right and wrong; fantasy from reality...

[Banquet]

At what point do you teach children that violence exists and that some people find it entertaining? Ten bucks they've already learned this via cartoons.







You can't shelter them forever. You have to teach them the difference between cinematic violence and real violence at some point.



Cartoons do not show real violence, or show how it really exists. Children learn automatically that it exists, anyway.



An important part of telling the difference between fantasy and reality is having the knowledge of what reality is. Kids just haven't lived long enough to see as many aspects of reality, and ideally as a child grows they will. So understanding the difference between cinematic violence and real violence would be a slower process than just expecting a child to get it if you tell them enough times, and the intake of fantasy that mimics reality would ideally be regulated as the child gets older and becomes an adult. Is that unreasonable?

[magus]

So saying simply that it's more than just media that effects children, or that kids don't understand these things anyway, or it's obvious that the movie isn't for kids, is overlooking a lot of factors.

That makes no sense. How is saying that there is more than just the media that affects children overlooking other factors? Saying that there is more than just the media that influences children specifically points out that there are other factors.

At some point a kid has to learn about the role of violence in our society--hopefully learning that it has little place in the real world but can be worth exploring in fiction. You can't simply "at this age this person can handle this." Everyone develops at a different pace and some kids understand the value of life very young and some never ever do. We have to play it by ear and use our best judgment but simply burying our kids' heads into the sand until they reach a certain arbitrary age is not the best way to go about things; we need to be able to assess our own children and while we want to protect them, they have to be prepared to defend themselves from the many tribulations they will face.

[magus]

Cartoons do not show real violence, or show how it really exists. Children learn automatically that it exists, anyway.



An important part of telling the difference between fantasy and reality is having the knowledge of what reality is. Kids just haven't lived long enough to see as many aspects of reality, and ideally as a child grows they will. So understanding the difference between cinematic violence and real violence would be a slower process than just expecting a child to get it if you tell them enough times, and the intake of fantasy that mimics reality would ideally be regulated as the child gets older and becomes an adult. Is that unreasonable?

No it isn't unreasonable, but who is to say at what point a child can handle anything? Bruce Wayne is fictional, but he obviously stopped being a child when he was 8 years old. Many others never grow up and are never able to face reality.

I don't advocate forcing young kids to watch potentially disturbing things but neither should we pretend they don't exist. Part of being a parent is knowing when the time is right and if you don't help your child learn early, someone or something else, including reality (your untimely accidental death, for instance), will do it for you.

[Banquet]

That makes no sense. How is saying that there is more than just the media that affects children overlooking other factors? Saying that there is more than just the media that influences children specifically points out that there are other factors.

In your previous posts it sounded like you were disregarding the effects of media because there are other factors involved, which would be disregarding media as a factor itself.

At some point a kid has to learn about the role of violence in our society--hopefully learning that it has little place in the real world but can be worth exploring in fiction. You can't simply "at this age this person can handle this." Everyone develops at a different pace and some kids understand the value of life very young and some never ever do. We have to play it by ear and use our best judgment but simply burying our kids' heads into the sand until they reach a certain arbitrary age is not the best way to go about things; we need to be able to assess our own children and while we want to protect them, they have to be prepared to defend themselves from the many tribulations they will face.

Totally agree. Like I said, the level of experience with reality would effect how well a kid can distinguish it from fantasy, and that's different for every person. But there are averages that can be used as guidelines, which is where ratings come from. I'm not saying it is cut and dry, I'm saying that a lot of this "wisdom" is disregarded by a many parents, and I'm also saying that it's not just things that frighten children that parents should look out for, but things that will effect their understanding of the world in other ways, too.

No it isn't unreasonable, but who is to say at what point a child can handle anything? Bruce Wayne is fictional, but he obviously stopped being a child when he was 8 years old. Many others never grow up and are never able to face reality.

I don't advocate forcing young kids to watch potentially disturbing things but neither should we pretend they don't exist. Part of being a parent is knowing when the time is right and if you don't help your child learn early, someone or something else, including reality (your untimely accidental death, for instance), will do it for you.

I agree again, except maybe for the part about "prepping" your child for your own death (unless you have a terminal illness or something). Don't want yer kids to be paranoid do ya? :oldrazz:

[Banquet]

doublepost

[omerhead]

The Dark Knight is probably hard PG-13 because of this bomb scene.


http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l41/shipwrecks09/Picture6.png

[DACrowe]

I haven't seen it, but I'm going to guess anyone older than 7 could probably handle it. I mean I doubt it is that much darker than Burton's Batman movies or LOTR or other strong PG-13 movies. But there are some kids who are more easily scared than others (when growing up a friend of mine couldn't handle Ghostbusters at the age of 13). You'll know your child best and how they handle violent or intense material. If they have seen something like Revenge of the Sith and were unscathed, they probably can watch TDK.

[redfirebird2008]

Abso-freakin-lutely it's going to be too dark for kids. Some of the reviews have said it's basically PG-13 in name only and is really a Rated R movie. Screw the kids. This should be incredible.

[bullets]

Abso-freakin-lutely it's going to be too dark for kids. Some of the reviews have said it's basically PG-13 in name only and is really a Rated R movie. Screw the kids. This should be incredible.


when i was a 12 year old kid i read a batman comic that had nudity in it .

[terry78]

This thing is not gonna scare any kids. Unless they're like under 7, they should be good to go. It's ****ing Batman, they all know Batman has bad guys and always wins for the most part at the end.

[redfirebird2008]

when i was a 12 year old kid i read a batman comic that had nudity in it .

Good for you. I saw B89 in the theater as a 3 year old, T2 as a 5 year old, and Batman Returns as a 6 year old. :woot:

[alexdunn]

My first R rated movie was Star Ship Troopers and it had boobies in it!:woot:

[TheBatman072]

Every time I see this thread, I roll my eyes so hard.

[SonikDeath]

This thing is not gonna scare any kids. Unless they're like under 7, they should be good to go. It's ****ing Batman, they all know Batman has bad guys and always wins for the most part at the end.

Batman never wins when hes up against the Joker, he simply delays Jokers next destructive rampage. :woot:

[Banquet]

Every time I see this thread, I roll my eyes so hard.

Don't hurt yourself.

[TheBat812]

IMO, just because a kid is scared doesn't mean he isn't loving it. A lot of movies I loved as kids scared the **** out of me.

[omerhead]

Batman never wins when hes up against the Joker, he simply delays Jokers next destructive rampage. :woot:

In most of The Joker storyline in the comic books, Batman always beats the f**k out of The Joker.

[chamber-music]

IMO, just because a kid is scared doesn't mean he isn't loving it. A lot of movies I loved as kids scared the **** out of me.

Exactly when I was a kid I watched Tim Burtons Batman films. I also watched the Nightmare on Elm Street Movies, Friday the 13th, Terminator, Evil Dead, RoboCop movies and all kinds of movies over PG.

Pretty much every kid I knew growing up watched a so called scary or violent movie growing up.

[Why So Serious?]

I can't believe how cavalier some of you people are being about taking kids to see this film. What the hell are you people thinking? Have you been paying any attention to what people have been saying about just how dark this film is?

The filmmakers themselves have said this film is not for kids. Even Nolan said he had to scale back the appearance of Two-Face because he didn't want the adults that will be seeing it turn away so long that they miss something.

Seriously. Just go see the ****** movie first. That's the least you could do for these kids that you seem to think won't have a problem with it. And for the rest of us that don't want a bunch of terrified, screaming children in the theaters that we're trying to watch the movie in.

-WsS?

[terry78]

If kids could sit through the LOTR series, which was borderline 1980s sword and sorcery R-rated at times, they can probably sit through this. If it's as bad as they claim, there may be some grown people that can't handle it if that's the case.

[RavenX]

I saw Batman Returns in the theater when I was 9......I liked it!

but...then again....my parents were very open about letting me see scary/violent movies and games when I was little. However, they made sure that I knew what was right and wrong, and that what I saw in the movies and games was made-up / fantasy, and that I COULDN'T do that violent stuff in real life without serious consequences........

[Hole Shot]

I don't advocate forcing young kids to watch potentially disturbing things but neither should we pretend they don't exist. Part of being a parent is knowing when the time is right and if you don't help your child learn early, someone or something else, including reality (your untimely accidental death, for instance), will do it for you.

So parents should indoctrinate their children with violent films early just in case one day mommy or daddy slip into the bathtub carrying a plug in toaster?

[magus]

So parents should indoctrinate their children with violent films early just in case one day mommy or daddy slip into the bathtub carrying a plug in toaster?

No. I was just getting the point across that parents shouldn't over shelter the kids so that when reality does eventually kick their ass (a parent's death is an example), they aren't completely ill-prepared to handle it. That means a lot more than letting a child watch a violent movie: establishing a line between fantasy and reality, imbuing a moral code; movies can play a role in that.

[Die Laughing]

No. I was just getting the point across that parents shouldn't over shelter the kids so that when reality does eventually kick their ass (a parent's death is an example), they aren't completely ill-prepared to handle it. That means a lot more than letting a child watch a violent movie: establishing a line between fantasy and reality, imbuing a moral code; movies can play a role in that.

Why not just let reality do it then? Prolong innocence until the difference is made naturally?

(playing Devil's Advocate out of boredom)

:hoboj: - Ahahahahaha!

[magus]

Why not just let reality do it then? Prolong innocence until the difference is made naturally?

(playing Devil's Advocate out of boredom)

:hoboj: - Ahahahahaha!

Incoming wall of text.

You think you are playing Devil's Advocate, but in a way you are really saying part of what I am trying to get across. The argument seems to be that there is media out there unsuitable for children until they reach a certain point of maturity and that if kids are exposed to it with no moral and societal context they will be influenced negatively (will become scared, violent, etc.). A parent's job is to provide context through their relationship to the child: moral guidance, and a safe, nurturing atmosphere. Rather than simply playing ostrich and pretending certain media doesn't exist, we should be allowing our kids to experience reality (and the media within it), which isn't necessarily opposed to innocence.

The idea that keeping kids in a complete fantasy world where everything is bubblegum and Mickey Mouse is detrimental; they can experience a fulfilling childhood that isn't depressing without the need to maintain this mostly American ideal of "innocence."

There are limits of course. I am not advocating showing hardcore pornography to 6 year olds or the like, but rather suggesting that parents should know their children well enough to be able to confront media by either watching it with their children or disallowing it for NON-ARBITRARY reasons and having those reasons be known to their children. Children that are blindly and authoritatively told "NO" will only rebel when they get the chance: going crazy when they turn 21 because a parent was afraid to discuss alcohol; getting pregnant at 16 because nobody would explain how to or why to use a condom; shooting up people at work because there has been no provided appreciation for the value of life.

Responsible and thoughtful communication with a child is the key to having them grow up able to face reality. I am not saying parents have to (or should) let their kids see ANY media; I am suggesting that parents know what their children are viewing/playing or want to view/play and truly think about the consequences without blindly allowing or disallowing it.

[BMM]

If the movie is too scary for kids, that's fine by me. I don't particularly want to share the theater with them. They're annoying. Then again, the same can be said for the obnoxious teenagers who often act like a bunch of jackasses at midnight showings. :cmad:

[ironwez20]

actually i like when people react to with oooh and aaaaaahs and laughter, and clapping, the thing i cant stand is a 4yr old kid that wont shut up but who could blame them right its the adults fault for not putting a hold on thier kid. plus theres plenty of violent shows out thier for kids like naruto dbz, i remember when power rangers was considered very violent and a whole lot of other i cant think of





and barney lol jk.

[CaptainClown]

naruto? dbz? violent? HAHAHHAHA

[Styl3s]

I've watched R-rated movies my whole life and I turned out fine...
yeah ive been watching R rated movies since i could remember.. its pg13, hes 2 years under the suggested age, long as hes mature i guess.. i think the raiting system is complete ********

your the parent, its your decision, do you THINK your kid is mature enough to see it?

[LastSunrise1981]

My two cents is I feel people are worrying over nothing. There's no denying that The Dark Knight will be one of the darkest Batman film. However, I remember George Lucas saying "Revenge of the Sith isn't for children. It's too hard, too dark, and too violent". And we all saw how ROTS wasn't that much different from the first two prequels. Darker yes, but more violent and too hard for children? Please.

Kids today are watching shows like Niptuck, CSI, Bones, and etc that are far more violent than what they see in the theater. Kids are also watching films like SAW, The Ruins, Hostel, Devil's Rejects, and so on that are far more gruesome in their violence matter than The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight will probably be the most violent/darkest of the Batman films. It's box office revenue will not suffer at all as it's selling out like hotcakes right now. I stand by my prediction that Iron Man, Indy, and The Dark Knight will be the biggest money makers of this year and so far I've been right.

[CaptainClown]

Kids are watching Nip Tuck? first i heard of that.

[magus]

yeah ive been watching R rated movies since i could remember.. its pg13, hes 2 years under the suggested age, long as hes mature i guess.. i think the raiting system is complete ********

your the parent, its your decision, do you THINK your kid is mature enough to see it?

That is absolutely the simplest and most concise way to sum up the last few pages of ranting (including mine).

[Angel_Faerie]

I remember George Lucas saying "Revenge of the Sith isn't for children. It's too hard, too dark, and too violent". And we all saw how ROTS wasn't that much different from the first two prequels. Darker yes, but more violent and too hard for children? Please.

I dunno about it being not too much for kids. I mean, it shows Anakin getting burnt to a crisp pretty graphically. I dunno if that's something that some kids can handle.

[Hole Shot]

My two cents is I feel people are worrying over nothing. There's no denying that The Dark Knight will be one of the darkest Batman film. However, I remember George Lucas saying "Revenge of the Sith isn't for children. It's too hard, too dark, and too violent". And we all saw how ROTS wasn't that much different from the first two prequels. Darker yes, but more violent and too hard for children? Please.

That's sorta apples and oranges because of genre and how obviously not real Star Wars is



Kids today are watching shows like Niptuck, CSI, Bones, and etc that are far more violent than what they see in the theater. Kids are also watching films like SAW, The Ruins, Hostel, Devil's Rejects, and so on that are far more gruesome in their violence matter than The Dark Knight.

We're talking about small kids here, first graders. I know pre-teens get a chance to view those but if an 7-year-old can handle TDK because they've be desensitized from watching SAW and Hostel there are some bigger problems to worry about.

[LastSunrise1981]

That's sorta apples and oranges because of genre and how obviously not real Star Wars is




We're talking about small kids here, first graders. I know pre-teens get a chance to view those but if an 7-year-old can handle TDK because they've be desensitized from watching SAW and Hostel there are some bigger problems to worry about.

Truthfully I saw a lot of kids at Rob Zombie's Halloween. Parents take their kids to R rated gorefests and hard PG-13 films these days, so The Dark Knight really has nothing to worry about honestly.

[Crook]

Kids are watching Nip Tuck? first i heard of that.
Those kids know fresh poontang when they see it. :funny:

[BatoutofHell]

Anyone saying TDK will be too dark for the crowd that normally sees any other PG-13 is trying to convince themselves the movie will be darker than it is. Yeah, Two Face, Joker, sure, but its not going to be anything people haven't seen before in a PG-13 film.

[AgentGraves!]

Sir, I would have to report, I NEVER EVER SAW SOMEONE WITH A CELL PHONE IN THERE CHEST in a pg-13 moive EVER!

[LastSunrise1981]

Kids are watching Nip Tuck? first i heard of that.

Yeah, from personal experience I know a lot of families in my area who let their kids watch Niptuck, Shield, CSI, and Bones. It's just one of those things were parents will let children watch disturbing material.

My first R rated movie growing up was Predator and I've been watching R rated films ever since then. But I think we all can agree that PG-13 is essentially R these days because they can get away with a lot.

[BatoutofHell]

Sir, I would have to report, I NEVER EVER SAW SOMEONE WITH A CELL PHONE IN THERE CHEST in a pg-13 moive EVER!

Well, I'll list a few things worse than a cell phone under a fellows skin.

First, under the skin, you've seen the Mummy, right?

Ok, past that, heres a few from PG-13 movies.

-A man is sealed in a pressure chamber, and his head expands and blows up on screen. (LTK)

-A man is tied to a chair naked and savagely beaten with a knotted rope. (Casino Royale)

-As far as Two Face goes, Anakin in Ep.3 was burnt up pretty good. As it turns out, its not shocking because we've seen it all before.

You could find a ton more, thats just all fresh from watching those movies.

Now I'm the biggest fan of TDK you are going to find. Trust me, I'm almost camping out. I just don't think people are being realistic trying to convince themselves this is going to be some shocking film in terms of darkness.

*Disclaimer: I didn't watch Episode 3 lately.

-

[Vile]

Lets not forget he killed younglings.


=)

[BatoutofHell]

Lets not forget he killed younglings.


=)

Ha! Thats my point. On paper it sounds pretty bad, some emo slaughtering kids, but in a PG-13 movie, its not that bad.

Don't get me wrong, TDK will be darker than ROTS, but each year people get more and more accustomed to that sort of thing, and it won't be a big deal.

[Caladbolg]

There are some source material that have potential for 2 tones. One directors vision may be campy, the other straight faced. I think the public just needs to accept that for this franchise right now, many consider the serious style to be much more beneficial for it.

They took hulk AWAY from the serious style, so its even.

[Why So Serious?]

If the movie is too scary for kids, that's fine by me. I don't particularly want to share the theater with them. They're annoying. Then again, the same can be said for the obnoxious teenagers who often act like a bunch of jackasses at midnight showings. :cmad:

That's why I'm glad the theater I'm going to for the midnight screening has a policy of no one under the age of 18 past 10pm. Not even with a guardian. It's wonderful.

-WsS?

[Why So Serious?]

Anyone saying TDK will be too dark for the crowd that normally sees any other PG-13 is trying to convince themselves the movie will be darker than it is. Yeah, Two Face, Joker, sure, but its not going to be anything people haven't seen before in a PG-13 film.

You're looking at it in terms of graphic content only. I think what many people are ignoring is the darker nature and tone of the film. Nolan himself said that at the end of this film, Batman is in a very bad way. Not physically, but mentally. The entire ordeal with the Joker takes him to a very dark place in his own mind.

Seeing a superhero like Batman on the edge of becoming the villain. The fine line between good and evil, and what can push a person over the edge is what I think this movie is really about. And that's something that kids won't be able to understand, or appreciate.

-WsS?

[Nivek]

My two cents is I feel people are worrying over nothing.

After the Batman Returns backlash 15 years ago, I dont think this is nothing. There is a set president set of parents who think Batman should be kid friendly, and if the movie is too dark, they will let WB know it. Thats how we got Nipples and Neon last time.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Thats how we got Nipples and Neon last time.

So, THIS is how I got my nipples!
I was wondering myself for many years now

[chamber-music]

After the Batman Returns backlash 15 years ago, I dont think this is nothing. There is a set president set of parents who think Batman should be kid friendly, and if the movie is too dark, they will let WB know it. Thats how we got Nipples and Neon last time.

I was a 11 years old when Batman and Robin came out. Probably around the age of the target audience of the film and even I thought it sucked. Tim Burtons movies where alot darker and I watched his two movies which where rated 12A in the UK (PG13) and they where not shocking or scary at all to me. If you don't think your kid can handle watching the movie then don't let him or her watch it.



From now on I will only refer to the movie Batman & Robin as 'Nipples & Neon' :funny:

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Kids are watching Nip Tuck? first i heard of that.

LOL I dont know why they would be, that show is awful.

[magus]

That's why I'm glad the theater I'm going to for the midnight screening has a policy of no one under the age of 18 past 10pm. Not even with a guardian. It's wonderful.

-WsS?

That is a fantastic policy. It would have sucked for me when I was a teen, as I went to midnight screenings all the time, but now that sounds great. Someone needs to snatch all Nextels too. All I remember from when I saw Silent Hill was:

*chirp*
Yo. Where U at?
*chirp*
I'm watching Silent Hiiiiiilllll, *****.
*chirp*
OH ****. That some scary ****.
*chirp*
GET DOWN *****!!! She just got skinned.
*chirp*
DAAAMMMNNNN

I wish I could say I was just playing on stereotypes but that is how it really went down. **** Nextels (by which I mean the rude people that decide to keep their phone on during the movie)

[Joker8906]

LOL I dont know why they would be, that show is awful.


agreed, the Shield and Rescue me are where its at on FX.

[LastSunrise1981]

After the Batman Returns backlash 15 years ago, I dont think this is nothing. There is a set president set of parents who think Batman should be kid friendly, and if the movie is too dark, they will let WB know it. Thats how we got Nipples and Neon last time.

Meh, like I said we're living in a different timeframe now. When Batman Returns came out parents were expecting a kid friendly Batman in that particular era. We're living in a lifetime where kids are watchin CSI, Bones, Niptuck, Shield, and certain movies can be shown uncensored on different channels.

I definitely don't think we'll have a repeat of complaints involving The Dark Knight. People realize this will be a dark film, but it's not going to be dark in terms of seeing Joker eat dead babies or anything. It won't be anything we haven't seen already. I think the only things that might disturb some people is The magic trick with a pencil, the bomb in the stomach, and Dents disfigurement.

I work at a theater myself as a doorman/box office/manager(on some days) and parents brought their kids to see SAW, Hostel, Rob Zombie's Halloween, Dewey Cox(not violent I know, but lots of cussing, sexual innuendos, and male genital shots), and etc. So The Dark Knight doesn't have anything to worry about in terms of its content.

Other than that I don't think we'll have a repeat of Batman Returns and the WB has learned their lesson.

[ironwez20]

i think harvey dents face will scare the crap outta kids.