Didn't push the limits of the PG-13 rating.

[CelticPredator]

Something that always bugs me...people keep saying TDK really PUSHED the limits of the rating. How? In what way? The film has zero blood. Even when blood SHOULD be there, it's not. There's zero cursing. Every death is pretty much off screen...

Yes. It's a dark film. It has it's moments that are creepy, and a bit disturbing. But nothing on the level of Seven or something.

But what Nolan did, was trick all of you into thinking the film is violent, and super dark. He used suspense, and your imagination to make you think something is far worse then what is going on, on screen. That, and tone. He created this feeling of dread almost throughout the film.

Tobe Hooper did this for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. There's almost no blood in that flick. Yet...everyone thinks there is.

Now look at Captain America...it's a very bloody film. People get shot, blood explodes out of them. People get stabbed, and get set on fire too. All in camera. No cuts. Not to mention the propeller. But no one really notices that because the tone is light.

Interesting.



So discuss.

And don't say Two Face. He's no worse then The Mummy. It was a charred face. Not bloody or that gory.

[SymbioticToxin]

I think people expect it more with Batman because he is a dark character, the people he fights are dark and the world he's in is dark. So when stuff like that happens we immediately think the worse and, like you said, our imagination makes us think something is worse because of it. Same with Cap, except people don't expect all the blood so it's almost like it doesn't really seem noticeable.

[GothamAlleys]

Its not just visuals. Implied violence and imagery also constitutes for rating R. Its not just graphic violence, its THE STORY as well. For example, you cant say it shouldnt be R because theres no red liquid, yet the scene shows a guy smashing someones head against the window to reveal where the victims are. That alone is traumatic for little kids with or without red paint. Same with the hero actually loosing the loved ones. Same with sudden pen in the skull trick. Same with Joker's stories about killing people slowly to see them suffering in their last minutes. Theres a guy pointing gun at a little kid in front of his crying parents telling them he'll die. Thats horrific and traumatic for young audience wiithout swearing, boobs or red paint. Anyway - http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/201...ntroversy.html

[bullets]

I think implied violence can be just as disturbing. When Pulp Fiction came out people thought it was really graphic but several things were actually out of frame. So people had the perception of witnessing more than they actually saw. TDK was much darker than people were expecting and some were caught off guard bringing their kids to it.
The MPAA is inconsistent with what they will accept. I think the tone of Captain America definitely helped that propeller scene slip in without much a fuss. I was kinda shocked by that scene , even though I loved it.

[Bruce Malone]

It was pretty much as far as it could go while being pg-13. Thematically it was very close to r rated the lack of blood was pretty much the thing that kept it from being rated r.

The bank robbing scene about 5 guys are shot in the head in the opening scene. What the audience at first assumes is a pipe bomb is shoved in a guys mouth.

The joker telling his scar story while holding a blade to bishops mouth before slicing him. Remember the music and the tension of that scene?

the pencil through the head etc.

What other pg-13 batman film prior has come close to these levels?


ps. who even insinuated this film was anything close to seven? Most r rated films aren't even close to seven.

[Mister Meddle]

Originally Posted by CelticPredator

But what Nolan did, was trick all of you into thinking the film is violent, and super dark. He used suspense, and your imagination to make you think something is far worse then what is going on, on screen. That, and tone. He created this feeling of dread almost throughout the film.

I think it's just fine like that. I don't see the need for films to be so graphic nowadays. Not in a Batman movie. IMO it's the story that makes or breaks a film. I heard some people say "omg no blood in teh movie!" but I think it's ridiculous for people to think it hurts the films in any way. When Joker stabs somebody I don't expect to see the knife going inside of somebody with blood rushing out of the wound. And I don't expect to see somebody blown into a thousand pieces from a cell phone bomb. Whatever Nolan is doing obviously works and that's all what matters. If it happens then that's just a bonus but there are ways to work around it if the director chooses not to show that kind of stuff while maintaining the proper tone for the film.

[CelticPredator]

You all kinda missed the point of what I was saying.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be R. I'm saying it wasn't even close.

And it's not. That was my point.

It's a PG-13 film. Not a HARD OH GOD ALMOST R RATED PG-13 film.

[CelticPredator]

Originally Posted by bullets

I think implied violence can be just as disturbing. When Pulp Fiction came out people thought it was really graphic but several things were actually out of frame. So people had the perception of witnessing more than they actually saw. TDK was much darker than people were expecting and some were caught off guard bringing their kids to it.
The MPAA is inconsistent with what they will accept. I think the tone of Captain America definitely helped that propeller scene slip in without much a fuss. I was kinda shocked by that scene , even though I loved it.

And i'm not saying it isn't a dark film...it's just not an R-Rated film. It's not even close. It has moments that are disturbing...but PG-13 is allowed to have disturbing scenes. I mean...look at The Ring, or Drag Me To Hell. Both those movies have some seriously messed up stuff. Those I think pushed the rating more so. But I digress.

And on to Pulp Fiction...most of the violence was on screen, and the numerous F-Bombs. That's what made it a R.

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

It was pretty much as far as it could go while being pg-13. Thematically it was very close to r rated the lack of blood was pretty much the thing that kept it from being rated r.

The bank robbing scene about 5 guys are shot in the head in the opening scene. What the audience at first assumes is a pipe bomb is shoved in a guys mouth.

The joker telling his scar story while holding a blade to bishops mouth before slicing him. Remember the music and the tension of that scene?

the pencil through the head etc.

What other pg-13 batman film prior has come close to these levels?


ps. who even insinuated this film was anything close to seven? Most r rated films aren't even close to seven.

It could've gone farther if it had too. But I don't think itneeded too.

The Bank Robbing scene is no worse then any James Bond movie. There was nothing special or groundbreaking about how that scene played out. And the pipe bomb thing? It would've been offscreen anyway. The X-Files movie had a scene where a bomb exploded in front of a man, ON SCREEN, and killed him, and countless others. Still got a PG-13.

Scar story? It's a story. There was nothing R-Rated about them. Gremlins had Pheobe Cats telling the tale of how her father dressed up as Santa, and got stuck in the chimney, and basicly rotted until she found him weeks later. That's more disturbing. Still got a PG (borderline PG-13 before they invented it).

Pencil? Uh...Green Lantern did the same thing. Except they showed it. Still PG-13.

Originally Posted by Mister Meddle

I think it's just fine like that. I don't see the need for films to be so graphic nowadays. Not in a Batman movie. IMO it's the story that makes or breaks a film. I heard some people say "omg no blood in teh movie!" but I think it's ridiculous for people to think it hurts the films in any way. When Joker stabs somebody I don't expect to see the knife going inside of somebody with blood rushing out of the wound. And I don't expect to see somebody blown into a thousand pieces from a cell phone bomb. Whatever Nolan is doing obviously works and that's all what matters. If it happens then that's just a bonus but there are ways to work around it if the director chooses not to show that kind of stuff while maintaining the proper tone for the film.

I never suggested this film should be R. It shouldn't be. It's BATMAN. Not Darkman. (). It can be INTENSE. But it doesn't need to be a gory violent mess.

Which is why the film worked. It did everything within the boundries of a PG-13 rating. And Nolan used tricks to make things seem more intense then they actually are.

But, my problem is, people calling TDK the hardest PG-13. It's not. Casino Royale is 10 times more intense, and violent. That was a borderline R. Even the Pirates flicks almost cross that boarder many times.

[Bruce Malone]

First of all tdk is a comic book film and it is very much hard pg-13 when compared to other comic book films. The point you're missing is that its not the amount of blood shown that makes something dark or menacing its the theme and feeling of the film.

It had the feel of an r rated film more so than a spider-man 2 or ff etc. Spider-man had a cut bloody arm in part 1 so what? the feel of that whole movie was very light. If you had seen bishops bloody mouth after joker told him that story tdk would have gotten an R. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Even with the james bond films just prior to craigs the theme was very light despite lots of ppl getting shot.

[Lasirius]

It was darker than expected, that's for sure. The movie did deserve a PG-13 rating, not really pushed the limits of the rating itself.

[CelticPredator]

Thank you. That was my entire point.

[SymbioticToxin]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

First of all tdk is a comic book film and it is very much hard pg-13 when compared to other comic book films. The point you're missing is that its not the amount of blood shown that makes something dark or menacing its the theme and feeling of the film.

It had the feel of an r rated film more so than a spider-man 2 or ff etc. Spider-man had a cut bloody arm in part 1 so what? the feel of that whole movie was very light. If you had seen Gambol bloody mouth after joker told him that story tdk would have gotten an R. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Even with the james bond films just prior to craigs the theme was very light despite lots of ppl getting shot.

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

It was pretty much as far as it could go while being pg-13. Thematically it was very close to r rated the lack of blood was pretty much the thing that kept it from being rated r.

The bank robbing scene about 5 guys are shot in the head in the opening scene. What the audience at first assumes is a pipe bomb is shoved in a guys mouth.

The joker telling his scar story while holding a blade to Gambol mouth before slicing him. Remember the music and the tension of that scene?

the pencil through the head etc.

What other pg-13 batman film prior has come close to these levels?


ps. who even insinuated this film was anything close to seven? Most r rated films aren't even close to seven.

Fixed. Get the characters right next time.

Originally Posted by Lasirius

It was darker than expected, that's for sure. The movie did deserve a PG-13 rating, not really pushed the limits of the rating itself.

Well, at least one person understand what the point of this is. *thumbs up to you, good sir.*

[CConn]

The only very minor disappointment I've ever had on the rating or the level of mature content in TDK is this...

I wish more attention was drawn to the fact that Lao is on the top of the pile of money that Joker lights on fire. I'm not hankering for gore or screaming or whatever, but it's just dumb how they like totally cut the audio as soon as the fire really gets going.

[SymbioticToxin]

They didn't need to have you hear his screams or see him catch fire. You saw him on the pile the once time before it's lit, so you know that he's gettin' charred to the extreme with the money too.

[CConn]

Yes, I've watched the scene. Multiple times.

I'm saying it was too subtle.

[CelticPredator]

I agree. Even some charred remains from an obscure perespective would've sufficed.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by CConn

The only very minor disappointment I've ever had on the rating or the level of mature content in TDK is this...

I wish more attention was drawn to the fact that Lao is on the top of the pile of money that Joker lights on fire. I'm not hankering for gore or screaming or whatever, but it's just dumb how they like totally cut the audio as soon as the fire really gets going.

Yeah, it's a bit too easy to forget that he's there when it burns.

Originally Posted by CelticPredator

I agree. Even some charred remains from an obscure perespective would've sufficed.

Agreed.

[SymbioticToxin]

Maybe it's just me then. I don't exactly like hearing or seeing people burn alive. Harvey was enough for me.

[CelticPredator]

Well, yeah, it's obviously just you.

I don't like watching people drown, but if it's important to the story, i'd rather have it, then not.

The Prestige....

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by SymbioticToxin

Maybe it's just me then. I don't exactly like hearing or seeing people burn alive. Harvey was enough for me.

But it's an important plot point, yet I forget that he's there many times when I watch the movie.

Originally Posted by CelticPredator

Well, yeah, it's obviously just you.

I don't like watching people drown, but if it's important to the story, i'd rather have it, then not.

The Prestige....

Agreed.

[CConn]

I wouldn't even need to see anything. Or even hear him getting burnt alive.

If they could have just cut to him for a moment after Joker lights the fire, or have him audibly scream or something once he knows he's going to die, I'd be pleased.

[PSYLENTGuardian]

In terms of visuals... Nolan didn't really push anything with violence and the like.

But TDK is still a mature story, and it really isn't the best example of a kid-friendly story. I watched it when I was 13 and the movie didn't make much of a lasting impression on me other than that I loved it to death, and still do. I think it fits in right at PG13.

[CelticPredator]

Me too. Hence the point of the thread.

[Dragonheart11]

I don't see why people say that. It is a great movie with no bad things in it.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by CelticPredator

You all kinda missed the point of what I was saying.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be R. I'm saying it wasn't even close.

And it's not. That was my point.

It's a PG-13 film. Not a HARD OH GOD ALMOST R RATED PG-13 film.

I strongly disagree. I believe it was very close. And again, Im not talking about the graphic stuff itself (although you even see the fat guy blow up), Im talking about the story. Implied violence is much more than red color/ Again, Joker's stories about killing people slowly to see them suffering in their last minutes, guy pointing gun at a little kid in front of his crying parents telling them he'll die. Dent getting his fiance blown up (not talking about actual explosion but the idea itself and Dents pain and vengeance). Thats horrific and traumatic for young audience much more than swearing, boobs or red paint