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

[CelticPredator]

But none of that is above a PG-13. Even the Ring is more intense and violent.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's true. Even Inception had more blood than TDK.

 

[GothamAlleys]

But none of that is above a PG-13.

Perhaps. But my point is its really pushing it. On the other hand its rare to see a guy blowing up in PG13

 

[CelticPredator]

The X-Files- Fight for the Future.

Hulk.

 

[Lasirius]

The guy blew up 30 ft. away from us. We were just able to see an explosion, which a lot of PG-13 action movies have.

 

[CelticPredator]

Ooh, Mission Impossible 1 is pretty gruesome. Even shows a guy not only EXPLODING, but getting crushed by a Helicopter. It's great stuff.

 

[ed_coleman]

The above images really do demonstrate how the rating was pushed in my opinion.

I'm from the UK, and the film was a 12A over here which is to all intents and purposes a PG-13 rating.

As many people have already said, what's important aren't just the explicit elements of the movie like the scenes displayed above, but what's implied as well. The joker's character - his recited backstory and his conversations with the detective in the holding cell where he demonstrates nothing but callousness regarding the murder of his colleagues - he nature of his character is a matter of levels of understanding. When I saw the movie here in England, I was surprised it was a 12A for a number of reasons, among them because young children might watch the movie and, because of their level of understanding, think the joker character is a "cool" villain. Now there is a big difference between someone who is 20 thinking the joker is "cool" and dressing up like him on halloween, and an 11 year old misunderstanding the character and identifying with him. TDK is a mature film in terms of its content, and to an extent therefore requires a more mature rating to ensure its content isn't misunderstood or taken out of context.

That said, I completely agree that in other films - captain america being one of them - rating's are totally inconsistent and the darker tone of TDK overall accentuates the content of the film.

 

[ed_coleman]

I can remember something mental happening in Xmen - First Class that seemed inconsistent with the rating but now can't remember what it was...

 

[Victarion]

Ooh, Mission Impossible 1 is pretty gruesome. Even shows a guy not only EXPLODING, but getting crushed by a Helicopter. It's great stuff.

Let's not forget Raiders of the Lost Ark. Didn't a nazi walk into a propellar?

Also, did Joker's men indeed dice up the Chechen?

 

[CelticPredator]

It wasn't shown. Look, you can imply killing babies, but if you don't show it, it doesn't affect the rating.

Unless they graphically describe it.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

The above images really do demonstrate how the rating was pushed in my opinion.

I'm from the UK, and the film was a 12A over here which is to all intents and purposes a PG-13 rating.

As many people have already said, what's important aren't just the explicit elements of the movie like the scenes displayed above, but what's implied as well. The joker's character - his recited backstory and his conversations with the detective in the holding cell where he demonstrates nothing but callousness regarding the murder of his colleagues - he nature of his character is a matter of levels of understanding. When I saw the movie here in England, I was surprised it was a 12A for a number of reasons, among them because young children might watch the movie and, because of their level of understanding, think the joker character is a "cool" villain. Now there is a big difference between someone who is 20 thinking the joker is "cool" and dressing up like him on halloween, and an 11 year old misunderstanding the character and identifying with him. TDK is a mature film in terms of its content, and to an extent therefore requires a more mature rating to ensure its content isn't misunderstood or taken out of context.

Aye, back when it was released, I recall there was some organisation or other that put out a press release condemning the fact TDK had such a rating that children could see it in the UK, and it was all to do with that speech the Joker gave about taking his time with a knife when it came to his victims.
This was of course all to do with the fact that there is an abundance of knife crime amongst young people in the U.K., and, as you were saying, it could be argued that such a charasmatic comic book character could influence some kids into thinking that was the way to be if they wanted to join up with gangs or whatever, so no-one would mess with them. So aye, I have to say, I could see some kids getting into that scene the way they surely must do with adult certificate gangster films.

 

[CConn]

See, we don't have a problem with knife crime in the US.

We have a problem with gun crime.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I know, but there is a difference between seeing folk shooting guns in a movie, and seeing an influential character talking in detail about savouring torture by slowly using a knife.
With that speech you are introducing young minds to the concept of sadistic torture, and opening their minds to the idea that you can actually enjoy such pursuits, and how best to enjoy them.

I don't know the rules and regulations of the ratings systems, but I guess that would be pushing the limit since it would come under something like explicit graphic detail, ie certain material doesn't need to be shown to be a danger to young minds.

edit: and of course, you have to take in the fact of the environment/cultural context that such material is shown in, whether there is a chance that it could actually encourage such crimes, hence why they cited that the scene as a UK issue.

edit: eg, after the Home video market in the 80s took off, there was an upsurge in kids using nunchakas in the UK, thanks to the Bruce Lee movies, seriously, they sold them in martial arts shops quite freely afaik, and kids made their own(I had a pair made out of roadworks attachments). So, the film board edited out all the nunchaka scenes from Fist of Fury and Enter the Dragon when they were broadcast on tv, to this day you will not see the full nunchuk scenes from those movie on UK tv due to this ruling.

 

[Ant-LOX]

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.

Exactly. The first few minutes, I was like WTF - Not that I'm sensitive to violence, but a ton of implied violence and head shots take place just in the prologue.

 

[Mister H.]

I understand that there is much more to a film's level of "darkness" than the literal lighting of any particular scene, but I was surprised at how much daylight was used in the film when I first saw it. TDK wasn't nearly as dark as I'd expected it to be, either. Two-Face's injuries were so unrealistic that it wasn't that difficult to look at...it was more like a character from The Mummy or Pirates of the Carribean. As others have pointed out, gunshot wounds usually result in blood loss, but not in TDK. Its one of those movies that is considered "dark" by folks who don't really watch films that are truly dark. Kind of like how it is considered "smart" and "sophisiticated" by people who have never seen truly sophisticated cinema. Is it atmospheric, maybe a little bit edgy? Yeah, but TDK is still pop entertainment. But it certainly isn't near as dark or intelligent as its reputation would lead one to believe.

 

[The Joker]

Stephen King's Misery happens mostly in daylight, but has plenty of blood. Conversely Halloween doesn't have any blood but happens mostly at night. Blood and night time scenes don't equate to dark movies.

I agree with this assessment:

Joker smashed a pencil into some guy's face. Then, he burned a guy alive on top of a pile of money. Rachel Dawes blew up mid-sentence. "The Dark Knight" went, well, dark and never made a big fuss about it. How bleak did any of the Marvel Universe films ever get? Sure, Bucky fake died. That was sad ... kinda. Nolan's world distinguishes itself by going there and making it feel natural. With only the close left, now is not the time to pull punches.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1680476/dark-knight-rises-christopher-nolan-rules.jhtml

Your remark that anyone who considers it smart and sophisticated has not seen truly sophisticated cinema reeks of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[Mister H.]

Stephen King's Misery happens mostly in daylight, but has plenty of blood. Conversely Halloween doesn't have any blood but happens mostly at night. Blood and night time scenes don't equate to dark movies.

I agree with this assessment:



http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1680476/dark-knight-rises-christopher-nolan-rules.jhtml

Your remark that anyone who considers it smart and sophisticated has not seen truly sophisticated cinema reeks of arrogance and ignorance.

No, its usually a true statement. TDK isn't that smart or sophisticated, at least not nearly as much as it gets credit for. Therefore, the folks who think it is smart and sophisticated probably haven't seen many films that really are smart and sophisticated. If they had, they wouldn't think that about TDK. See how that works?

 

[Sethward]

Batman needed to have more sex... not Bruce... Batman... with his cape

 

[The Joker]

No, its usually a true statement.

Based on what? I've offered examples and assessments that refute your statement. How about offering something that supports yours.

TDK isn't that smart or sophisticated, at least not nearly as much as it gets credit for. Therefore, the folks who think it is smart and sophisticated probably haven't seen many films that really are smart and sophisticated. If they had, they wouldn't think that about TDK. See how that works?

No, I don't. All you've done there is say you don't agree with a popular opinion and all those who share that opinion are wrong just because it doesn't coincide with what you think.

Like I said arrogant and ignorant.

 

[Mister H.]

Based on what? I've offered examples and assessments that refute your statement. How about offering something that supports yours.



No, I don't. All you've done there is say you don't agree with a popular opinion and all those who share that opinion are wrong just because it doesn't coincide with what you think.

Like I said arrogant and ignorant.

This coming from the guy who claims that TDK is smart and sophisticated.

Examples:
Apocalypse Now
2001
The Shining
Mulholland Dr
Lost Highway
No Country For Old Men
Deep Red
The Conformist

Just a few examples, but these movies push the envelope. They are poetic. They broke ground and broke convention. Narrative is made malleable. These are movies that speak to the thinking man, the artist. I never expected Nolan to aspire to this level with a Batman movie. And TDK is well made and somewhat brainy for a Hollywood blockbuster. Its not the movie I have a problem with, its the fans who overvalue it and try to tell folks like me who know better what an incredible piece of filmmaking it is. It's a very good action movie that poses some interesting philosophical questions...nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The Joker]

This coming from the guy who claims that TDK is smart and sophisticated.

http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

With justification.

Examples:
Apocalypse Now
2001
The Shining
Mulholland Dr
Lost Highway
No Country For Old Men
Deep Red
The Conformist

Just a few examples, but these movies push the envelope. They are poetic. They broke ground and broke convention. Narrative is made malleable. These are movies that speak to the thinking man, the artist.

Now you've taken the first step, you've listed some movies. The next step, explain why you think they did instead of just listing them and say they do.

I never expected Nolan to aspire to this level with a Batman movie. And TDK is well made and somewhat brainy for a Hollywood blockbuster. Its not the movie I have a problem with, its the fans who overvalue it and try to tell folks like me who know better what an incredible piece of filmmaking it is.

That's your problem. You can't accept that others don't share your opinion, and I emphasize the word opinion, so you write them off as ignorant of movies.

It raised the bar in the genre, too. This was mentioned by other directors in the field such as Sam Raimi:

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2009/05/spidey_guy_sam_raimi_says_dark.html

You didn't get that kind of great word of mouth in reaction to Batman Begins.

It's a very good action movie that poses some interesting philosophical questions...nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't share it though.

 

[Mister H.]

http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

With justification.



Now you've taken the first step, you've listed some movies. The next step, explain why you think they did instead of just listing them and say they do.



That's your problem. You can't accept that others don't share your opinion, and I emphasize the word opinion, so you write them off as ignorant of movies.

It raised the bar in the genre, too. This was mentioned by other directors in the field such as Sam Raimi:

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2009/05/spidey_guy_sam_raimi_says_dark.html

You didn't get that kind of great word of mouth in reaction to Batman Begins.



Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't share it though.

Please. If you've ever seen any of those movies you don't need an explanation of why they are smart and sophisticated. Apparently you don't read any better than you evaluate films, as I listed several reasons those movies qualify.

TDK did elevate the superhero genre. Big deal. That doesn't make it ground breaking. It simply did things with the superhero genre that other films have been doing for decades. Congratulations to Chris Nolan for making a crime drama, something that's been going on since before WWII.

To me, the honus should be on you to explain what is so groundbreaking or sophisticated about TDK. It has that reputation among fanboys, so explain it to me. And please don't post some link to some article. I want your explanation as to why TDK is such a triumph.

This kind of sucks, because I don't want to tear the movie apart. Its a really good film and I love Batman. I saw it in the theaters several times. But its not smart, sophisticated, ground breaking, or anything like that.

 

[The Joker]

Please. If you've ever seen any of those movies you don't need an explanation of why they are smart and sophisticated.

If it's so obvious then it should be easy for you to clarify why.

Apparently you don't read any better than you evaluate films, as I listed several reasons those movies qualify.

Calling them poetic and saying they broke ground is about as useless an explanation as you can imagine. You might as well have said "They're awesome because I say so".

TDK did elevate the superhero genre. Big deal. That doesn't make it ground breaking. It simply did things with the superhero genre that other films have been doing for decades. Congratulations to Chris Nolan for making a crime drama, something that's been going on since before WWII.

It is a big deal. The superhero genre has been around since the 70's. Several superhero movies are held in high esteem by the cinematic world. They are as valid pieces of cinema as any good movie.

TDK elevating that genre does deserve recognition and praise.

To me, the honus should be on you to explain what is so groundbreaking or sophisticated about TDK. It has that reputation among fanboys, so explain it to me. And please don't post some link to some article. I want your explanation as to why TDK is such a triumph.

Why should I go to great lengths to explain why when my thoughts are summed up perfectly in that in depth analysis I gave you of the movie?

Talk about a waste of time and energy repeating something already there in front of you.

This kind of sucks, because I don't want to tear the movie apart. Its a really good film and I love Batman. I saw it in the theaters several times. But its not smart, sophisticated, ground breaking, or anything like that.

I'm not questioning your liking of the movie. That's your own preference.

 

[El Payaso]

Please. If you've ever seen any of those movies you don't need an explanation of why they are smart and sophisticated. Apparently you don't read any better than you evaluate films, as I listed several reasons those movies qualify.

TDK did elevate the superhero genre. Big deal. That doesn't make it ground breaking. It simply did things with the superhero genre that other films have been doing for decades. Congratulations to Chris Nolan for making a crime drama, something that's been going on since before WWII.

To me, the honus should be on you to explain what is so groundbreaking or sophisticated about TDK. It has that reputation among fanboys, so explain it to me. And please don't post some link to some article. I want your explanation as to why TDK is such a triumph.

This kind of sucks, because I don't want to tear the movie apart. Its a really good film and I love Batman. I saw it in the theaters several times. But its not smart, sophisticated, ground breaking, or anything like that.

Everything's already invented. It's the way you re-arrange elements that makes you groundbreaking or not.

 

[Mister H.]

If it's so obvious then it should be easy for you to clarify why.



Calling them poetic and saying they broke ground is about as useless an explanation as you can imagine. You might as well have said "They're awesome because I say so".



It is a big deal. The superhero genre has been around since the 70's. Several superhero movies are held in high esteem by the cinematic world. They are as valid pieces of cinema as any good movie.

TDK elevating that genre does deserve recognition and praise.



Why should I go to great lengths to explain why when my thoughts are summed up perfectly in that in depth analysis I gave you of the movie?

Talk about a waste of time and energy repeating something already there in front of you.



I'm not questioning your liking of the movie. That's your own preference.

But I already did genius. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Those films speak to the audience on a subconscious level as much or more so than they do on a conscious level through the extensive use of subtle and sometimes not so subtle symbolism. They turn traditional narrative on its head by mimicing the form of dream logic. They toy with spatial and temporal form. Dialogue takes a back seat to the marriage of image and sound. Pacing isn't determined by what Hollywood deems necessary to hold the attention of idiots in the general audience. I could go on and on, but there's really no need.

It's hard to believe, but I guess you haven't seen any of those films, or the hundreds of others that are more groundbreaking and sophisticated than TDK.

And again, since it seems I have to repeat myself for you for some strange reason, I never placed those kinds of expectations on TDK. I have no desire to see a Batman film that aspires to be a sublime work of art. But I won't keep my opinion to myself when I hear or read the opinion that it is some masterpiece or new level of filmmaking from people who don't know any better.

Again, Nolan did NOTHING in TDK that we haven't seen before. Taking the superhero genre seriously isn't groundbreaking at all. If you present a Batman film as a serious crime drama (it isn't, its a well-made action film) you're not really saying anything. Crime dramas have been around a long time, and movies like Goodfellas, The Godfather, and The Departed are far superior.

Even if I wanted to play along with you, TDK wasn't the first movie to treat Batman and Gotham City seriously. Batman Begins was.

My advice to you is to back away from the computer and watch the complete filmographies of Kubrick and Lynch. Also watch some Bergman, some Von Trier, some Bertolucci. Some Asian cinema. Hell, even some Coppola. Then see if you still think The Dark Knight is smart and sophisticated.