The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[StylishHokie21]

It's funny listening to everyone talk about how brutal and super-mega-violent the Joker is supposedly going to be. Some people seem to think the Joker will be worse than South Park's Woodland Critters, but there is only so much you can cram into a PG-13 rating.

Yeah...they can only go so far.

 

[Solidus]

The ratings treat fantasy violence differently than they treat realistic violence.

Human heads, and blood, is the same thing regardless of genre lol. Does not matter. And from what many think on these forums, Batman is fantasy. So technicaly it could get away with it. Most don't take young ones to "The Ring" Or some of those other PG-13 horror movies. PG-13 can get away with a lot. Just like Jurassic Park. And The Lost World.

 

[Crook]

Human heads, and blood, is the same thing regardless of genre lol. Does not matter.

No, Saint has a point there. When you have a realistic tone and setting, ratings are a bit more harsher due to it's close connections with our own reality.

Take a look at Se7en, which virtually showed absolutely nothing, and left everything to the imagination, received an R rating.

 

[Solidus]

No, Saint has a point there. When you have a realistic tone and setting, ratings are a bit more harsher due to it's close connections with our own reality.

Take a look at Se7en, which virtually showed absolutely nothing, and left everything to the imagination, received an R rating.

But still, lol, blood and gore is still blood and gore. What difference does it make with fantasy or not. The ratings are there to protect children. So I don't think kids are going to go, oh its just an Orc throwing some ones head, and ripping it off. Kid's get more scared by fantasy, and monsters then they do "reality".

And in Jurassic Park, it had T-Rex's ripping people in two. *The Lost Wolrd* actually.

Hell people blame violent crimes on video games, and those are nothing more then fantasy virtual worlds.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

No, Saint has a point there. When you have a realistic tone and setting, ratings are a bit more harsher due to it's close connections with our own reality.

Take a look at Se7en, which virtually showed absolutely nothing, and left everything to the imagination, received an R rating.

Se7en also had ALOT of cursing.

 

[StylishHokie21]

No, Saint has a point there. When you have a realistic tone and setting, ratings are a bit more harsher due to it's close connections with our own reality.

Take a look at Se7en, which virtually showed absolutely nothing, and left everything to the imagination, received an R rating.

Great example.

 

[Saint]

Human heads, and blood, is the same thing regardless of genre lol.

Not to the people doing the ratings.

What's most important is how violence is treated. In LOTR, the violence is glossed over--heads may fly off, but do you really see anything? And tonally, is it treated like violence? No, it's treated like fantasy. What you see isn't always what gives you an R-rating.

 

[Solidus]

Not to the people doing the ratings.

What's most important is how violence is treated. In LOTR, the violence is glossed over--heads may fly off, but do you really see anything? And tonally, is it treated like violence? No, it's treated like fantasy. What you see isn't always what gives you an R-rating.

This may be true. But thats a flawed concept. I mean Matrix Reloaded did not deserve in the least to be rated R. I've seen worse PG movies. *Like Temple of Doom* hell it had people ripping out hearts in it.

And yes I just watched Return of the King this weekend again, it shows blood, and a few seconds of heads. So yes you clearly see something.

And yes as for Se7ven it had tons of cursing, the f word out of Brad Pitt's mouth every five seconds.

But movies like Jurassic Park, The Lost World, had gore, and blood at some scenes, not excessive but violence non the less. And I don't see those as much fantasy, sci-fi yes, but it had that "real" tone to it. Temple of Doom though yes it created Pg-13, it was a violent movie. Sometimes what I'm saying is that kids can't tell the difference between fantasy context, and real context, so the rating system is flawed if they truly do it that way.

 

[Mister J]

The Se7en references just make me remember of how people were citing how the Joker should be like John Doe.

I think a number of people aren't going to have their violence expectations met.

 

[Crook]

But still, lol, blood and gore is still blood and gore. What difference does it make with fantasy or not. The ratings are there to protect children. So I don't think kids are going to go, oh its just an Orc throwing some ones head, and ripping it off. Kid's get more scared by fantasy, and monsters then they do "reality".

Not when it's glorified as entertainment factor. The tone of violence makes a big difference in how the acts are seen, and whether to cheer, or cower in fear.

Both Terminator and Anton Chigurh had shotguns, and were mowing people down with it. I'm sure I don't need to explain how there is quite a difference in the mood of the scenes.

Se7en also had ALOT of cursing.

Did it? I don't really remember much cursing, just the intense nature of the story itself.

 

[Solidus]

The Se7en references just make me remember of how people were citing how the Joker should be like John Doe.

I think a number of people aren't going to have their violence expectations met.

No I have never thought that it is going to be like Saw or a gore fest by any means. TDK will be clearly very dark, but as dark as a PG-13 will allow. I mean from all the people working on the film, and seen more then we have claim how dark it is, especially the Joker. I don't think they would say that for the heck of it. And that recent article about the Two-Face CGI where the guy claimed it will be a dark film, and may have problems with the MPAA lol. Of course it will not be R by any means nor do I want it to be that. But I feel it will be a very dark on the edge PG-13. Nolan said it was not for kids if I'm not mistaken. And by kids I mean kids under 9. Very young kids.

Not when it's glorified as entertainment factor. The tone of violence makes a big difference in how the acts are seen, and whether to cheer, or cower in fear.

Both Terminator and Anton Chigurh had shotguns, and were mowing people down with it. I'm sure I don't need to explain how there is quite a difference in the mood of the scenes.


Did it? I don't really remember much cursing, just the intense nature of the story itself.

Though you are right that the MPAA does see it this way. I think its wrong. As a kid I watched Silence of the Lambs, it did not scare me, but I saw Aliens and I was mortified. Though one is fantasy and the other more real, most kids are not scared of what adults are in the real world, they are scared of goblins, and monsters. I know I was. So to me still gore is gore.

Yet I as I said above to me it seems clear this movie will be a very dark PG-13 movie. Its not going to be a slaughter fest, of course not. But it will be pushing the edge of PG-13, many movies have pushed what can be put in a PG-13 movie more and more as time goes on. TDK may do the same.

Example to this is WB is clearly showing up front this film is dark, very dark, and not a normal PG-13 film. I mean come on:

This is just a promotional thing meant to be seen by all in a movie theater. That is dark. I went to National Treasure 2 with my aunt and her two little boys of 9 and 6 and she saw that and she said no way in hell will she let her kids see that.

Its clear WB is letting people know, its dark. Yes it will be PG-13 but a dark one at that. I mean he's writing in human blood, not cranberry sauce.

I'm not saying out of a sick fetish that I want it to be super ultra violent. No way! But it will be very dark, and pushing the PG-13 to its max. And to me the trailer, and promotional stuff is clearly showing that. All the viral stuff is very gritty as well. Kinda looks like Se7en stuff hehe, all the viral stuff is got dead bodies in the mourge ect.

But all I'm saying TDK will be very dark for a PG-13, and they are clearly showing how dark this Joker will be through the promotional means. And they don't do that for fun, marketing's whole purpose is to find a target audience. And from all the trailers and posters, it clearly aims for a darker PG-13, and older audience.

And last some PG-13 can push limits, and get away with some things by the MPAA, The Grudge was put like this by them: Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, disturbing images/terror/violence, and some sensuality.

 

[Saint]

This may be true. But thats a flawed concept. I mean Matrix Reloaded did not deserve in the least to be rated R. I've seen worse PG movies. *Like Temple of Doom* hell it had people ripping out hearts in it.

I never said anything about what films deserve--the right or wrong of how they are rated is irrelevant: the trend remains, whether it's a "flawed concept" or not.

And yes I just watched Return of the King this weekend again, it shows blood, and a few seconds of heads. So yes you clearly see something.

Which doesn't change my point.

Sometimes what I'm saying is that kids can't tell the difference between fantasy context, and real context,

Blatantly false for any child who is a) educated properly and b) not ******ed.

 

[Luchastyle]

as far as the violence goes...let's take one murder as an example.

the fake batman. he stabs him through the chest, leaving a bloody joker card attached. he paints the guy's face, cuts his cheeks and throws him out a window attached to a noose.

nothing extremely gory about that, and im sure none of it, save for the hanging, is shown. pretty violent. pretty brutal. but left to our imagination

 

[Solidus]

Blatantly false for any child who is a) educated properly and b) not ******ed.

Now thats just unfair. Like I said above, when I was 9 I saw Silence of the Lambs, and though I knew it was dark, I was not really effected by it. But seeing Aliens, scared the hell out of me. Fantasy monsters are more scary to kids then "real world" It takes some adults years to figure out more on the "reality" of life. That to me is just an unfair statement to say kids at such a young age that have over active imaginations, and would in context be more scarred of a scary monster eating them, then a serial killer. You don't hear many kids crying : "There's a rapist under my bed" You hear "There is a ghost/monster/dragon" under my bed.

Kids are scarred of fantasy I would say more so then the real world while they are young, and rightfully so, kids are not exposed to certain aspects of the world until after 10 or so. I was exposed early due to the fact that my father died in my arms when I was only 8. But still, I was scared of goblins and ghosts more then a "real" serial killer.

And as Lucha put, yea the part with the Son of the Batman with a knife through his chest hanging in City Hall. .....that seems dark to me. And we know it was filmed.

 

[deathfromabove]

The ratings treat fantasy violence differently than they treat realistic violence.

to an extent but its more about the tone of the violence itself.

No, Saint has a point there. When you have a realistic tone and setting, ratings are a bit more harsher due to it's close connections with our own reality.

Take a look at Se7en, which virtually showed absolutely nothing, and left everything to the imagination, received an R rating.

huh? someone needs to rewatch seven, its a deservedly "R" rated movie. never mind the language and gore, a dead fat man's penis and a "*****knife" are usually enough to earn a restricted rating

Not when it's glorified as entertainment factor. The tone of violence makes a big difference in how the acts are seen, and whether to cheer, or cower in fear.

Both Terminator and Anton Chigurh had shotguns, and were mowing people down with it. I'm sure I don't need to explain how there is quite a difference in the mood of the scenes.


Did it? I don't really remember much cursing, just the intense nature of the story itself.

i agree with you about the differing tone in your anton/arnie comparison but both movies were "R" rated anyway. (?)

as far as the violence goes...let's take one murder as an example.

the fake batman. he stabs him through the chest, leaving a bloody joker card attached. he paints the guy's face, cuts his cheeks and throws him out a window attached to a noose.

nothing extremely gory about that, and im sure none of it, save for the hanging, is shown. pretty violent. pretty brutal. but left to our imagination

seriously, that is pretty messed up considering the tone that begins (and presumably TDK) has. by all accounts it will be a fairly violent movie.

 

[Crook]

huh? someone needs to rewatch seven, its a deservedly "R" rated movie.

I didn't indicate otherwise. Just that it was less overt about it than it's R-rated peers.

never mind the language and gore, a dead fat man's penis and a "*****knife" are usually enough to earn a restricted rating

Can't say I ever saw a penis (maybe I wasn't looking for it ), and that ***** minds as well have been an odd-shaped knife. It didn't really matter since it was shown for a fraction of a second.

i agree with you about the differing tone in your anton/arnie comparison but both movies were "R" rated anyway. (?)

Point was that the audiences get a different feeling from similar situations. They're more or less going to cheer on Arnie, where with Anton, they are genuinely scared.

 

[Solidus]

I didn't indicate otherwise. Just that it was less overt about it than it's R-rated peers.


Can't say I ever saw a penis (maybe I wasn't looking for it ), and that ***** minds as well have been an odd-shaped knife. It didn't really matter since it was shown for a fraction of a second.


Point was that the audiences get a different feeling from similar situations. They're more or less going to cheer on Arnie, where with Anton, they are genuinely scared.

I admit I don't remember the fat guy's, *unit*. LOL oh well.

But in "The Terminator" it was considered by most, even still as a horror/sci-fi. Arnie was a bad T-800 in the first, killing innocent people. To me that is almost the same. Actually some reviews make comparison to Anton being like a Terminator. Because he just keeps coming.

The first Terminator people were not cheering on Arnold, they were afraid of him, because he was the bad guy coming to kill and not stopping.

 

[CaptainClown]

T-1000>t-800

 

[Solidus]

T-1000>t-800

But who beat who in T2 ?

 

[CaptainClown]

the t-1000, if arnie didn't have the help of sarah conner who is a crazed weapons expert.

 

[Joker]

yeah, in a one on one fight, the T-1000 would destroy the T-800...he would also destroy the T-X, who despite being a new model was for some reason less advance than the T-1000 was...wtf T3?

 

[Octoberist]

wasn't the TX gimmicky? Hell, I thought the t-1000 was way more advanced than her.

 

[Manosman]

yeah i always thought t-1000 was way better than t-x, didnt make much sense to me, then again t2 was far superior to t3

 

[CaptainClown]

The big advantage with the T-X was she could make projectile weapons which I guess would be more advantageous in killing someone head on
The T-1000 would be great for just assassination.

 

[Manosman]

i think in a battle between all of them t1000 would win