The Dark Knight MUST be 'R' Rated...

[Visionary]

But... that's not what Batman's about. A Punisher movie, sure. Sin City? Oh look, that happened.

Batman? No. Just... no.

Batman comics has serial killers, rapists, murderers, violence, blood and prostitution. It depends on how you write it, it should be written this way on film. Even the people on the streets of these comic book films are G-rated, sometimes, I wait for a damn musical number. Especially in Gotham or New York, this shouldn't be. The comic books can only touch on these serious situations, but the movie should take it to the next level. They never will with a freakin' PG-13 rating that tries to ****e in kids. Trying to cover their eyes and ears when there's far worst on public TV, that they can see for free. There are few kids who hasn't seen The Matrix, The Passion, T2 or even SAW films...all R-rated...and huge hits at the box office.

Maybe one of these days, one of these filmmakers will grow some balls...some really big balls.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Batman comics has serial killers, rapists, murderers, violence, blood and prostitution. It depends on how you write it, it should be written this way on film. Even the people on the streets of these comic book films are G-rated, sometimes, I wait for a damn musical number. Especially in Gotham or New York, this shouldn't be. The comic books can only touch on these serious situations, but the movie should take it to the next level. They never will with a freakin' PG-13 rating that tries to ****e in kids. Trying to cover their eyes and ears when there's far worst on public TV, that they can see for free. There are few kids who hasn't seen The Matrix, The Passion, T2 or even SAW films...all R-rated...and huge hits at the box office.

Maybe one of these days, one of these filmmakers will grow some balls...some really big balls.

Isn't it possible that what's made Batman so popular as a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER for 70 years should be taken into consideration when adapting him to the big screen? He has always been a character who could be enjoyed by adults and children alike. PG-13 allows for a lot of room to put in serious and gritty material, as long as it's not explicit. And really, what's the use in showing a rape onscreen, or in showing an exceptionally gory murder? These things can be included in the movie without violating a PG-13, if they are handled creatively.

 

[War Party]

What's wrong with PG-13? You can get away with a lot of stuff with a PG-13 rating. It will be fine.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I disagree. I don't want Batman being R. PG13. And it will be.

more so what i ment, was in a perfect world how much money a Pg-13 Batman would make vs how much an R would make, wouldn't go into play in deciding how this movie is made, the filmmakers would make the batman movie they felt was best, and yes, that indeed could very well be an R raiting, or it could also be the PG-13 classic begins was, but moreso then "IT SHOULD BE AN R" i ment in a perfect world they would make this movie and the finsihed copy that they like best would get whatever raiting it gets, i go ether way on this if its PG-13 i'll roll with it because this movie is going to be Fantastic, no matter what, but it would be a daring gutsy move that wouldn't pay off in dollars but in street cred, and respect, to make it an R.

 

[Visionary]

Isn't it possible that what's made Batman so popular as a COMIC BOOK CHARACTER for 70 years should be taken into consideration when adapting him to the big screen?

No, it shouldn't. It was this thinking that led to some horrible Batman films.

He has always been a character who could be enjoyed by adults and children alike.

Then let the little bastards rent the previous kiddy Batman films, and let the cool kids and adults ponder upon filmmaking that's not being interrupted by Studio-Heads.

PG-13 allows for a lot of room to put in serious and gritty material, as long as it's not explicit. And really, what's the use in showing a rape onscreen, or in showing an exceptionally gory murder? These things can be included in the movie without violating a PG-13, if they are handled creatively.

PG-13 allows these films to be less "DARK," less "BRUTAL," less "GRAPHIC" and less "GRITTY" even if handled creatively. Just because you shoot a lot of scenes a night, doesn't make one's film DARK. Hell, we couldn't even see Batman kicking ass in key scenes. I want the PG-13 rating lifted from at least one "ICON" comic book film...it would be great to start with Bats....for others to follow.

 

[Ronny Shade]

more so what i ment, was in a perfect world how much money a Pg-13 Batman would make vs how much an R would make, wouldn't go into play in deciding how this movie is made, the filmmakers would make the batman movie they felt was best, and yes, that indeed could very well be an R raiting, or it could also be the PG-13 classic begins was, but moreso then "IT SHOULD BE AN R" i ment in a perfect world they would make this movie and the finsihed copy that they like best would get whatever raiting it gets, i go ether way on this if its PG-13 i'll roll with it because this movie is going to be Fantastic, no matter what, but it would be a daring gutsy move that wouldn't pay off in dollars but in street cred, and respect, to make it an R.

You're actually becoming somewhat intelligent. Color me impressed.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

No, it shouldn't. It was this thinking that led to some horrible Batman films.

Well that's not a very good argument. The problem is that the comics are inconsistent. The earliest comics were very rough, both in subject and in form. Then they became sort of "out there" and then downright silly. But then... in the 1970's they became very dark and spooky, very serious. In the 80's they continued this trend. Then The Crisis of Infinite ******ation came along and they rebooted Batman... now he's serious and dark and gritty, but not so spooky. So... the truth is, there are a lot of ways to do Batman, but they have all been PG-13. Even "The Dark Knight Returns" is a hard PG-13, probably.

Then let the little bastards rent the previous kiddy Batman films, and let the cool kids and adults ponder upon filmmaking that's not being interrupted by Studio-Heads.

Do you consider Batman 89 and Batman Begins "kiddy films"?

PG-13 allows these films to be less "DARK," less "BRUTAL," less "GRAPHIC" and less "GRITTY" even if handled creatively. Just because you shoot a lot of scenes a night, doesn't make one's film DARK. Hell, we couldn't even see Batman kicking ass in key scenes. I want the PG-13 rating lifted from at least one "ICON" comic book film...it would be great to start with Bats....for others to follow.

Batman stories should not BE graphic or overly brutal. Dark, absolutely. Gritty, absolutely. But hell, man, Batman 89 was dark and gritty. Batman Begins was dark and gritty. Those were both PG-13 films.

Also, your inability to follow the fight scenes in Begins has nothing to do with the PG-13 rating. It's just the way Nolan chose to handle the fights. He went for chaotic and lightning-fast. That has nothing to do with rating, that was an artistic decision. Some folks didn't like it, but that's another argument entirely. Batman broke arms and legs (you could hear them crack and see them, too, if you can follow the fights) and he smashed a guy's head into a mirror while the guy was taking a leak. He pretty much made poor Flass sh1t his pants. And he ripped Falcone out of the sunroof of his limo, headbutted him, and left him chained to a spotlight.

Batman was VERY brutal. But it wasn't graphic.

Certain comics are not meant for kids... like Sin City. Other comics, like Batman and Superman... the "ICON" comics as you put it... are meant for adults and children both. And there will NEVER be an R rated film for any of those characters, nor should there be.

So, I'm delighted to say, you will always be disappointed in this regard.

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

No, it shouldn't. It was this thinking that led to some horrible Batman films.

Then let the little bastards rent the previous kiddy Batman films, and let the cool kids and adults ponder upon filmmaking that's not being interrupted by Studio-Heads.

PG-13 allows these films to be less "DARK," less "BRUTAL," less "GRAPHIC" and less "GRITTY" even if handled creatively. Just because you shoot a lot of scenes a night, doesn't make one's film DARK. Hell, we couldn't even see Batman kicking ass in key scenes. I want the PG-13 rating lifted from at least one "ICON" comic book film...it would be great to start with Bats....for others to follow.

Dude, have you ever even read a batman comic? They're plenty "gritty," "dark" and "brutal," and virtually NONE are explicitly violent, gory. I cannot think of one single Batman comic... NOT ONE that would require an R rating if adapted to film. Even DKR could be made PG-13. Seriously, I don't know where the hell you get this idea that an R rating would make a better Batman movie.

Leave the gratuitous violence and such for lousy ripoff characters like the Punisher. Frankly I'm sick of characters and movies that are "gritty" just for the sake of being gritty.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Do you consider Batman 89 and Batman Begins "kiddy films"?

Batman stories should not BE graphic or overly brutal. Dark, absolutely. Gritty, absolutely. But hell, man, Batman 89 was dark and gritty. Batman Begins was dark and gritty. Those were both PG-13 films.

Compared to Begins, 89' was a ***** film, Begins is so much better on every level so to add to the PG-13 disscussion, the same level of intesity will work for TDK for a PG-13 movie

 

[terry78]

As soon as your character appears on lunch boxes and kids' clothing, you are obligated to have no higher than a PG-13 rating for any movies or entertainment related to them.

 

[War Lord]

I don't need to see explicit scenes of what the Joker can do in order to understand how brutal and cruel and ghoulish he is.

I don't want to see the movie if they're going to do this.

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

Compared to Begins, 89' was a ***** film, Begins is so much better on every level so to add to the PG-13 disscussion, the same level of intesity will work for TDK for a PG-13 movie

I really have no stomache for people who hate on Burton, Keaton, or either of the Batman movie they made. Begins is my favorite Batman movie as well, but '89 as well as Batman Returns are not only great films, they are very faithful adaptations as well.

 

[batman7289]

wrongo

 

[kytrigger]

I really have no stomache for people who hate on Burton, Keaton, or either of the Batman movie they made. Begins is my favorite Batman movie as well, but '89 as well as Batman Returns are not only great films, they are very faithful adaptations as well.

If he wants to hate it, then let him hate it. I don't like it when people put down Batman '89 to try and say BB was the best, but that's completely different than someone just not liking it. Also, I completely disagree with you on batman returns being a faithful adaptation.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I'm not sure I'd call Batman Returns entirely faithful - it does stretch several things pretty far - but at its heart it's a Batman film. Batman 89, however, was one of my favorite movies when I was 12 (as I was when it came out) and for several years thereafter.

Since Begins was released into theaters, it has become my favorite Batman movie thus far, and I had already kind of gotten over B89 at that point, but I wouldn't trash Batman 89. There's plenty of reasons for that but the main one is to remember that without Batman 89, the general public would still be thinking of Adam West and Burt Ward when they heard the word "Batman."

What Tim Burton did - while heavily stylized - was exactly what was needed to get people thinking about Batman as a more serious character. Without Batman 89, Batman Begins would never have been greenlighted, or indeed, created.

So while I have no problem with anybody preferring Begins (God knows I do) you gotta respect Batman 89 if you're a Batman fan.

 

[Visionary]

Dude, have you ever even read a batman comic? They're plenty "gritty," "dark" and "brutal," and virtually NONE are explicitly violent, gory. I cannot think of one single Batman comic... NOT ONE that would require an R rating if adapted to film. Even DKR could be made PG-13. Seriously, I don't know where the hell you get this idea that an R rating would make a better Batman movie.

Leave the gratuitous violence and such for lousy ripoff characters like the Punisher. Frankly I'm sick of characters and movies that are "gritty" just for the sake of being gritty.

Nothing would be gritty for the sake of it. However, the movie shouldn't stop at what the comics books are afraid to show us completely, that's my point--but you still know that there are some very adult situations that goes down in Batman's comics. I love it when people ask me have I ever read [said comic book?], like this is going to down-grade what I want to see as a fan, something stronger than PG-13 film, for a flick with dark and gritty characters and themes.

All I'm saying is that Batman Begins was far from being dark or gritty, like The Crow. I never said an R-rating would make for a better movie, but it would make for a darker and grittier flick (which could be viewed as better), where as these films are being held back because of Batman on Lunch Boxes. Batman is the perfect [ICON] comic book film to finally break the PG-13 rule, his elements calls for it.

 

[fabman]

this whole 'r' = better discussion is BS, i think...

p.s.: that 'pg-13' is not a rule... chris nolan could easily make an 'r' rated version of dvd (which warners would greenlight to make $ with this special more violent edition) but... no, he doesn't no need to force a movie get an 'r' rating... let it be what it is!

 

[Visionary]

Well that's not a very good argument. The problem is that the comics are inconsistent. The earliest comics were very rough, both in subject and in form. Then they became sort of "out there" and then downright silly. But then... in the 1970's they became very dark and spooky, very serious. In the 80's they continued this trend. Then The Crisis of Infinite ******ation came along and they rebooted Batman... now he's serious and dark and gritty, but not so spooky. So... the truth is, there are a lot of ways to do Batman, but they have all been PG-13. Even "The Dark Knight Returns" is a hard PG-13, probably.



Do you consider Batman 89 and Batman Begins "kiddy films"?



Batman stories should not BE graphic or overly brutal. Dark, absolutely. Gritty, absolutely. But hell, man, Batman 89 was dark and gritty. Batman Begins was dark and gritty. Those were both PG-13 films.

Also, your inability to follow the fight scenes in Begins has nothing to do with the PG-13 rating. It's just the way Nolan chose to handle the fights. He went for chaotic and lightning-fast. That has nothing to do with rating, that was an artistic decision. Some folks didn't like it, but that's another argument entirely. Batman broke arms and legs (you could hear them crack and see them, too, if you can follow the fights) and he smashed a guy's head into a mirror while the guy was taking a leak. He pretty much made poor Flass sh1t his pants. And he ripped Falcone out of the sunroof of his limo, headbutted him, and left him chained to a spotlight.

Batman was VERY brutal. But it wasn't graphic.

Certain comics are not meant for kids... like Sin City. Other comics, like Batman and Superman... the "ICON" comics as you put it... are meant for adults and children both. And there will NEVER be an R rated film for any of those characters, nor should there be.

So, I'm delighted to say, you will always be disappointed in this regard.

I guess you and I view what is "DARK AND GRITTY" on film differently, because neither Batman 89 or Batman Begins are considered as such to me. And they never will toying around under a damn PG-13 rating.

 

[fabman]

visionary: i hope you'll never be involved in a batman movie or we'll get a from dusk till dawn (luv that movie anyway) gorefest = not batman

 

[Visionary]

this whole 'r' = better discussion is BS, i think...

p.s.: that 'pg-13' is not a rule... chris nolan could easily make an 'r' rated version of dvd (which warners would greenlight to make $ with this special more violent edition) but... no, he doesn't no need to force a movie get an 'r' rating... let it be what it is!

Chris Nolan can't make a damn thing without Warner Bros., and WB would side with the Batman Lunch Boxes and Soccer Moms...unfortunately.

 

[Visionary]

visionary: i hope you'll never be involved in a batman movie or we'll get a from dusk till dawn (luv that movie anyway) gorefest = not batman

What is this gorefest you keep talking about, The Crow wasn't a gorefest? No one is saying turn Batman into a Slasher film.

 

[StorminNorman]

Chris Nolan can't make a damn thing without Warner Bros., and WB would side with the Batman Lunch Boxes and Soccer Moms...unfortunately.

Fox authorized a "DC" to be released for Daredevil. Why? It pumps more money out of a movie franchise. WB would do that if Nolan's real vision was a rated R film. It is not.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I guess you and I view what is "DARK AND GRITTY" on film differently, because neither Batman 89 or Batman Begins are considered as such to me. And they never will toying around under a damn PG-13 rating.

Okay, why don't you give me an example of some movies you consider "DARK AND GRITTY."

I'd love to hear what that constitutes, in your estimation.

 

[explode7]

^Hellboy

 

[Keyser Sushi]

^Hellboy

Hellboy? Dude, I love that movie, and it's dark, but not gritty AT ALL. It's dark and silly. Dark and silly, and one hell of a lot of fun.

But the question was posed to Non-visionary, not to you, 'Splodey. Thanks, though.