The Dark Knight Batman's Competition in 2008

[Rynan]

It's a given. As I said before:

Batman will rule in 2008

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ LMFAO Sure it'll beat Narnia 2 and Indiana Jones. LOL

 

[Advanced Dark]

People used to think so.

They used to say the same about music, books, and comic books.

Thos mother****ers were just crazy.

They're saying the same things about videogames today. Crazy people.

But, yeah.....Batman Begins is not too dark. It's dark, deep and sophisticated.....but not too dark for a kid to enjoy.

Batman Begins is not too dark for a PG-13 audience. It's an awesome movie and the best Batman movie ever. It IS too dark for an 8 year old. Jeez. It's rated PG-13 for a reason ignore that all you want. If you want you little kids watching PG-13 movies based on violence and distrubing scenes...then have fun having loser kids growing up.

 

[Rynan]

^ LMFAO Sure it'll beat Narnia 2 and Indiana Jones. LOL

It WILL. Your misplaced faith will be your downfall.

 

[Rynan]

Batman Begins is not too dark for a PG-13 audience. It's an awesome movie and the best Batman movie ever. It IS too dark for an 8 year old. Jeez. It's rated PG-13 for a reason ignore that all you want. If you want you little kids watching PG-13 movies based on violence and distrubing scenes...then have fun having loser kids growing up.

Look. Advance. I don't want to hear it. It's still just your opinion, but you keep on about it like it's proveable science. I don't care about your beliefs in raising children and restricting what they watch. I just don't. And I don't belive that you have a Ph.D in family science or a doctorate in child rearing, so why don't you just take a large glass of shut-hell-up at let us back to the subject at hand, okay.

Sheesh.

 

[StorminNorman]

Batman Begins is not too dark for a PG-13 audience. It's an awesome movie and the best Batman movie ever. It IS too dark for an 8 year old. Jeez. It's rated PG-13 for a reason ignore that all you want. If you want you little kids watching PG-13 movies based on violence and distrubing scenes...then have fun having loser kids growing up.

...damn, I'm a loser kid

 

[CConn]

Batman Begins is not too dark for a PG-13 audience. It's an awesome movie and the best Batman movie ever. It IS too dark for an 8 year old. Jeez. It's rated PG-13 for a reason ignore that all you want. If you want you little kids watching PG-13 movies based on violence and distrubing scenes...then have fun having loser kids growing up.

As I said previously, I've been watching PG-13 movies since I was 2. I'm 18 now, have haven't had any "loser kids", have gotten into absolutely no trouble of any kind, and will be going to a rather plush University next year. In short, I'm living proof your statement is totally and utterly incorrect.

Oh, and I also make really good blueberry muffins.

 

[Mito88]

so kids are losers now for watchin pg-13 movies? get youre head out youre ass.

 

[Advanced Dark]

As I said previously, I've been watching PG-13 movies since I was 2. I'm 18 now, have haven't had any "loser kids", have gotten into absolutely no trouble of any kind, and will be going to a rather plush University next year. In short, I'm living proof your statement is totally and utterly incorrect.

Oh, and I also make really good blueberry muffins.

You don't know it when you're standing in it.

Not all PG-13 movies...I'm referring to the ones that are PG-13 for violence and distrubing images like Batman, The Grudge, The Ring 2, Dark Water, etc...Yes I'm comparing the darkness of Batman to these films though the subject matter is vastly different. I'm not scared to let my kids hear a bad word or see a car explode that supposed to have people in it. Besides there are exceptions to the rule but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exits. Most kids who's parents let them watch PG-13 films since they have been 2 (which means you were born in the 80's) have loser kids who dress goth and hang out in shopping malls and drink rat blood. Oh and you're 18. LMAO so you're a living breathing example of...a kid still. Let me know when you grow up and experience the world, have a career, and have children you're responsible for. If you're 18 and have kids you just proved my entire point. Irresponsible. Good luck.

 

[Advanced Dark]

so kids are losers now for watchin pg-13 movies? get youre head out youre ass.

No 8 years old kids who have parents let them watch Batman Begins and films of the matter could very well be. Like the loser parent who let his kid go in and see Aliens Vs Predator. His child was eating popcorn and during a frightening scene (that made it PG-13) the kid gasped in fear inhaling a piece of popcorn. The kids is now dead. I don't care if there's a minute chance of that happening. Loser freaking parent...and yes the kids is a loser in another way. He's dead.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Toddler Chokes To Death On Popcorn At Movie Theater
Local6: Toddler Chokes To Death On Popcorn At Movie Theater



A 3-year-old boy choked to death while eating popcorn at a movie theater.

Deontea Riley, of New York City, was at the Sunrise Multiplex Cinemas in Long Island's Valley Stream watching "Alien vs. Predator" with his parents and older brother when he began to choke shortly before 7 p.m. Sunday, Nassau County police said.

The family all had been eating from a small tub of popcorn when Elaine McIntosh, the boy's mother, saw that her youngest son was choking.

His parents rushed him out of the theater where they performed the Heimlich maneuver without success.


As sad as this story is, why was a 3yo child watching Alien vs Predator?

When some of you grow up you'll see what I mean. I snuck into R rated films as a teenager as most of us do but as a parent you see things differently.

 

[Advanced Dark]

one more thing...

PG-13 Movies in the Late-Bond Era
By Daphne White
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, January 18, 2000; Page C04

It all started innocently enough. "Mom, can we see the new James Bond movie?" my middle-schooler asked. "All my friends have seen it. It's rated PG-13."

Normally, I just say "no." Ever since my son was about 2 years old, when the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were being used to sell everything from breakfast cereal to pajamas, I've been concerned about the way violence is marketed to children. For years I have been saying "no" to violent television programs, movies, video games, arcade games, toy guns, action figures and more. In a violence-happy children's culture, "no" had practically become my middle name.

It began after I did some research and found out that violence is a learned behavior. In 1992, after reviewing hundreds of studies and 30 years of research, the American Psychological Association arrived at "the irrefutable conclusion that viewing violence increases violence." I realized that children's entertainment and toys are important--children learn lifelong values in their early years. I became so passionate about this issue that in 1995 I started a national grass-roots organization, The Lion & Lamb Project, to get the message out to parents.

But my son is growing up. He's reading voraciously, writing computer code, and doing stand-up comedy in our living room. Maybe, I thought, it's time to loosen up a little bit.

I remember seeing James Bond movies as a teen, and it was relatively tame, understated stuff compared to the ultra-violent fare that today's teens are growing up with.

So I said "yes" to the latest James Bond film, "The World Is Not Enough." I went for the brand name, as I didn't see anything in the movie reviews to indicate that the brand had changed.

Well, words are not enough to describe my outrage at the explicit torture, carnage, heavy artillery, and sheer frenzy of killing that assaulted us at this latest Bond film. The clever gadgets of yesteryear were replaced by M-16s, Uzis, hand grenades, handguns, flame throwers, missiles, a nuclear bomb, and more.

In this post-Columbine era, I was especially struck by the extensive use of machine guns. In one scene, the villain smiled repeatedly as he gunned down his opponents. "Are you sure this is a PG-13 film?" I whispered to my son. "Yes," he replied shakily.

Some time later, Bond was graphically tortured in a seated contraption that pushed a wooden rod into the back of his skull, forcing his head against a metal brace and leaving him painfully gasping for breath. "Do you know what happens to a man when he strangulates?" the scantily-clad villainess asked him, as she seductively sat on his lap.

A couple of minutes later, the tables had turned and this woman was daring Bond to kill her "in cold blood." Bond does shoot her, from about two feet away. After her lifeless body falls back on the bed--a bed she had previously shared with Bond--he takes a moment to tenderly caress her forehead before moving on to more killings.

"This is a PG-13 movie?" I asked, and got up to leave. Even though this was a much more violent Bond than I remembered, I would have had no problem with it had it been rated R. I have no issue with adults seeing adult themes, and am not suggesting censorship. What upsets me is that such a movie would be actively marketed to children, and receive a PG-13 rating.

"Where did you hear about this movie?" I asked my son. "Oh, you know, television, ads, my friends. And when we had gym out on the field, a skywriter came and wrote '007' across the sky."

At Lion & Lamb, we have already documented the way PG-13 and R-rated films are marketed to children as young as 4 through toy guns, action figures and Halloween costumes. I have been horrified, along with other parents of young children, watching violent previews promoting R-rated movies at G-rated matinees. But sky-writing ads over public schools--that's a new one.

Last May, I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee at a hearing about the marketing of violence to children. I told the panel that when millions of dollars are spent marketing violence directly to children, it is unconscionable for industry to tell parents they can stem this marketing onslaught by "just saying no."

But for now, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) can place a PG-13 rating on a movie that 10 years ago would have been rated R, advertise that movie above playgrounds, and tell parents that they have been "strongly cautioned."

But what are the criteria for a PG-13 film? How much violence or language or nudity is acceptable in a PG-13 film as compared to a PG film or an R-rated film? The MPAA guidelines offer no specific criteria to help parents make an informed decision, except for this: "If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating."

I went back to see the film with a friend, and this time we took notes. We counted about 20 machine guns and 24 handguns in at least seven extended killing scenes that together lasted for more than an hour. We actually saw 20 people die, although the actual body count was much higher. We witnessed two different types of torture, as well as pistol-whipping and graphic hand-to-hand (and head-to-wall) combat.

How much violence is "too rough or persistent," I asked an MPAA spokesman, who immediately went on background. "It's all subjective," he assured me. The gist of his argument was that--like pornography--the industry Ratings Board knows "rough and persistent" violence when it sees it. In the case of the Bond film, the board just didn't see it.

"Are there any child experts--teachers, psychologists--on this panel? Are there any requirements for being on this board?" I asked. There are no criteria, I was told, except parenthood. And people with credentials need not apply--"we want parents, not academicians."

I was suddenly reminded of a Hollywood classic, "The Wizard of Oz": "Don't look at the man behind the curtain!" What you would see behind the vaunted MPAA ratings system is simply this: a group of eight to 13 Hollywood-area parents--hand-picked by MPAA President Jack Valenti and generously paid by the movie industry--with allegedly no qualifications for the job and no criteria on which to base their work. It's a case of the wolf guarding the henhouse--or, in this case, the wolf guarding our children.

I once had the occasion to ask Jack Valenti whether he would work with parents to stop the marketing of violent movies and related products to children--he would not give a straight "yes" or "no" answer.


As far as Valenti is concerned, industry has zero responsibility for stopping the marketing of violence to children. On the other hand--and Valenti is quite vehement about this--parents need to be 100 percent responsible.

Scriptwriter William Mastrosimone is one of the few industry voices willing to speak out against this double standard. "I was not surprised by Littleton," he writes in the online magazine Written By, "but I was nauseated by Hollywood's knee-jerk state of denial."

The attitude in Hollywood, he says, is that each scriptwriter and director is responsible only to himself. He once asked a group of scriptwriters if they would be willing to make minor changes to a movie if it could be proven that those changes would prevent a Columbine. To a person, they answered "no."

So now I am baking brownies and taking up a collection to hire a Hollywood sky writer. This pilot will fly over the major movie studios at lunch time with a simple message: "Enough already."

HOLLYWOOD TOY TIE-INS

Many entertainment products rated by industry groups as suitable "for mature audience" only, actually are being marketed directly to young children. This is one way industry groups can make sure that these products are not really "restricted" to adults, but capture the largest possible market share--especially the lucrative children and teen market.

For example, several R and PG-13 movies now are marketed to children through action figures, video games and Halloween costumes.

"Starship Troopers," "one of the bloodiest films of all time," said one review, has action figures complete with "awesome battle-action features."

According to Galoob Toys, the manufacturer, these toys are appropriate for children ages 4 and up.

Other examples of cross-marketing, according to The Lion & Lamb Project:


* "Aliens," MPAA rating: R. Flags: not for children, violence, graphic violence, explicit language, profanity. Roger Ebert: "The movie made me feel bad. It filled me with feelings of unease and disquiet and anxiety."

From a toy package, ages 4 and up: "It's the galaxy's last chance for survival as the vicious Aliens, ferocious Predators and fearless Marines clash in the ultimate battle of domination!"


* "Starship Troopers," MPAA rating: R. Flags: graphic violence, nudity, profanity. The All-Movie Guide (http://allmovie.com/): "To say that this was the bloodiest film in recent memory would do it a disservice." Toys designed for children ages 4 and up.


* "Scream," MPAA rating: R. Flags: not for children, graphic violence. Roger Ebert: "I was aware of the incredible level of gore in this film. It is really violent."

Toys, for "Scream 2": "Teenage slasher king is back! Instead of chasing Neve Campbell, he's after you."


* "The Mummy," MPAA rating: PG-13. Flags: violence, sexual situations, explicit language. From toy packaging: "Impale The Mummy! . . . Watch as his intestines fall out of his chest!" "Slice The Mummy! . . . Witness him split open!"

Daphne White is executive director of The Lion & Lamb Project, an initiative to stop the merchandising of violence to children (www.lionlamb.org). Its offices are in Bethesda.

 

[StorminNorman]

You don't know it when you're standing in it.

Not all PG-13 movies...I'm referring to the ones that are PG-13 for violence and distrubing images like Batman, The Grudge, The Ring 2, Dark Water, etc...Yes I'm comparing the darkness of Batman to these films though the subject matter is vastly different. I'm not scared to let my kids hear a bad word or see a car explode that supposed to have people in it. Besides there are exceptions to the rule but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exits. Most kids who's parents let them watch PG-13 films since they have been 2 (which means you were born in the 80's) have loser kids who dress goth and hang out in shopping malls and drink rat blood. Oh and you're 18. LMAO so you're a living breathing example of...a kid still. Let me know when you grow up and experience the world, have a career, and have children you're responsible for. If you're 18 and have kids you just proved my entire point. Irresponsible. Good luck.

HOLY SWEEPING GENERALIZATION BATMAN!

 

[StorminNorman]

No 8 years old kids who have parents let them watch Batman Begins and films of the matter could very well be. Like the loser parent who let his kid go in and see Aliens Vs Predator. His child was eating popcorn and during a frightening scene (that made it PG-13) the kid gasped in fear inhaling a piece of popcorn. The kids is now dead. I don't care if there's a minute chance of that happening. Loser freaking parent...and yes the kids is a loser in another way. He's dead.

I bet you are the type of person who also believes that Violent Video Games are horrible and that Video Game violence is what causes children to turn to real life violence? Just about every kid in America living in a normal household has seen a PG-13 movie, most before they were 5,6,7 years old - you are telling me that even half of them are going to turn out to be losers? LOL!

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ No you're getting me wrong. There are things suitable for 8 years olds and things that are not. I'm not going to say they make people do anything or that they don't. I would never let my kid play any of these first person shooters or any M rated video games. As someone under 18 it's hard for someof you to understand it because it's fun but it does numb you. I was playing the game "Far Cry" which I love and killing everything in site, clawing people, etc...My 6 year old (5 at the time) came in and wanted to play. She had been watching me play and she was saying "Kill that guy, scratch his head off, shoot him in the head again dad.". That's when I shut it off till she was asleep. I also (like an idiot) let her play GTA when she was 4 just because I thought it was funny watching her control. Then when I saw her grab a gun by accident and start shooting people...I got sick to my stomach.

 

[StorminNorman]

Thats when you have to talk to your kids and explain right from wrong. Video games do numb you to violence, as do action movies and other things - Video games do not make killers, it can however contribute to a child turning to violence if he/she has had poor parenting, etc. Some PG-13 movies DO have scary moments that can frighten underage children - Batman Begins is not one of those movies. I have seen much more....disturbing images from Cartoon Networks Billy and Mandy than I have ever seen on Batman Begins.

 

[CConn]

You don't know it when you're standing in it.

Which is why I gave you my charming little biography. Do I sound like some kind of...reprobate to you?

Not all PG-13 movies...I'm referring to the ones that are PG-13 for violence and distrubing images like Batman, The Grudge, The Ring 2, Dark Water, etc...Yes I'm comparing the darkness of Batman to these films though the subject matter is vastly different.

It's it's laughable that you're doing so. The Grudge, etc. are horror movies whose entire purpose is to terrify people. For those films, yes, I agree with you - I certainly wouldn't want an 8 year old watching that.

BB, however, and scores of other action/adventure movies are an entirely different matter. While they may have a scene or two that's a bit intense (and even in that sense, I've seen PG movies that've been as graphic as BB), they're not there to terrify or disturb people, and honestly, I never have seen them disturb anyone.

I'm not scared to let my kids hear a bad word or see a car explode that supposed to have people in it. Besides there are exceptions to the rule but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exits.

And I'd argue what you consider to be the rule is the exception. I've come in contact with one or two goths in my time, and they were that way due to bad parenting and having gone through some really sad events as children. None of those events included watching scary movies.

Most kids who's parents let them watch PG-13 films since they have been 2 (which means you were born in the 80's) have loser kids who dress goth and hang out in shopping malls and drink rat blood. Oh and you're 18.

Do you have any proof, or hell, even logic for this statement?

LMAO so you're a living breathing example of...a kid still. Let me know when you grow up and experience the world, have a career, and have children you're responsible for.

Yet no one tells me to get my head out of my ass.

If you're 18 and have kids you just proved my entire point. Irresponsible. Good luck.

I said I didn't have kids. Cause I'm responsible and know where the condom goes. And I got it all from my 18-volume edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica.

 

[Katsuro]

No 8 years old kids who have parents let them watch Batman Begins and films of the matter could very well be. Like the loser parent who let his kid go in and see Aliens Vs Predator. His child was eating popcorn and during a frightening scene (that made it PG-13) the kid gasped in fear inhaling a piece of popcorn. The kids is now dead. I don't care if there's a minute chance of that happening. Loser freaking parent...and yes the kids is a loser in another way. He's dead.

Wtf? I did not say that anywhere in the article you posted. Stop pulling things out of your ass. For all we know he inhaled it while laughing at a joke. It's absolutley ridiculous to blame the movie for this kid choking on food.

Most kids who's parents let them watch PG-13 films since they have been 2 (which means you were born in the 80's) have loser kids who dress goth and hang out in shopping malls and drink rat blood.

Once again, random facts made up out of this air. Never tasted rat blood, I almost never go to a mall, and I in no way dress like a Goth. My hair's not even black.

 

[CConn]

I have no style.

 

[Jack Napier]

You guys need to calm the **** down. Or write for the May issue Entertainment Weekly will publish in 2008 about this topic. One of the two, I'm not sure.

 

[AnimeJune]

Wtf? I did not say that anywhere in the article you posted. Stop pulling things out of your ass. For all we know he inhaled it while laughing at a joke. It's absolutley ridiculous to blame the movie for this kid choking on food.

Agreed - that story sounds bogus, like that scene from That 70s Show where Kelso is trying to convince people he knew a kid who died from popping a zit (because the pus went into his brain).

 

[Advanced Dark]

Wtf? I did not say that anywhere in the article you posted. Stop pulling things out of your ass. For all we know he inhaled it while laughing at a joke. It's absolutley ridiculous to blame the movie for this kid choking on food.



Once again, random facts made up out of this air. Never tasted rat blood, I almost never go to a mall, and I in no way dress like a Goth. My hair's not even black.

#1 The story is not bogus as another poster stated, and #2 I don't blame the movie at all. I blame the asshat father who took a 3 year old to see aliens vs predator. Jesus let me be right about one damn point. LOL Have you ever seen a 3 year old watch a movie like Aliens vs Predator. The scream, gasp, turn away in fear, cover their eyes, yell at their parents to shut it off, or go home. Especially with popcorn that can be inhaled because it's so light. Lesson is that if your stupid enough to take a 3 year old to that type of film at night in a dark theatre...don't give him food or anything to drink till after.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Look. Advance. I don't want to hear it. It's still just your opinion, but you keep on about it like it's proveable science. I don't care about your beliefs in raising children and restricting what they watch. I just don't. And I don't belive that you have a Ph.D in family science or a doctorate in child rearing, so why don't you just take a large glass of shut-hell-up at let us back to the subject at hand, okay.

Sheesh.

Hey a "back to topic" request would have been just fine. I started this thread and there's nothing invalid aboutmy point.

Anyways agreed. BACK TO TOPIC:

BATMAN competition 2008...discuss:

Hulk 2
Indiana Jones
Wolverine
Narnia 2
Iron Man
Die Hard 4
Deuce Bigelow: Pg-13 Gigalo

 

[ultimatefan]

I don´t worry about competition, cuz I don´t worry about the BB sequel being among the biggest three of the year or not... It´s not a "Spider-Man" kinda franchise, it´s not for everybody, it´s more in the range of the X-Men movies, like 400m worldwide or more, but not the gigantic 700m-plus numbers.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Yeah very few comic book characters have *potential* to be mega mega blockbusters. Spiderman, Superman, Hulk not quite as large as Spiderman has potential to make 300 million domestic) as a character. It still owns the records for merchandise sold around a film. Just increcible #'s. Batman and X-Men are in the same league, and I think FF has more potential as a box office franchise than the X-Men just in terms of dollars. I'm talking about character potential though and not neccessarily with the current actors and director.

I think Green Lanter is DC's best untapped character. Wonder Woman? WTF? They should work on Green Lanter like now and to hell with Jack Black.

 

[StorminNorman]

BATMAN competition 2008...discuss:

Hulk 2
Indiana Jones
Wolverine
Narnia 2
Iron Man
Die Hard 4
Deuce Bigelow: Pg-13 Gigalo

Out of that list I believe that Hulk 2, Iron Man, Die Hard 4 and Deuce (wtf?) are not anywhere in the same league as Batman at this point. Indiana Jones, Wolverine and Narnia 2 would be the safe bet as far as summer blockbusters go. Narnia 2 would have a different demographic than Batman's however will still rake in the money.

The Woleverine movie IMO is the serious competition for Batman in 2008 - however the summer is quite big enough for 2 Superhero heavy heroes - as is 2006 with X Men 3 and Superman Returns.