The Dark Knight Why no blood in this movie?

[LegendaryCaleb]

Think we'll get an unrated dvd?

haha...no

There really is no need for blood.

i know...you pretty much get the picture without having to see it...and rated r would be right around the corner if they ever showed blood

 

[MiniBond]

No blood is precisely how they avoided the Rated R......too bad in a way because I always thought blood is a good element for the veracity of a scene (I always had a small problem with the prologue and the bank manager getting shot pretty badly and who shows no blood on the floor....)!

 

[FaT_tONle]

Batman should have been cut up a bit more after those punches and falls... and the joker too... Batman mauled him in the interrogation... you need blood there. They had to keep the rating but still... a mouth full of blood is still PG-13.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

The only scene I felt should've been bloody was Gambles death. Everyone in my theater (especially my friends) were sitting there, completely tense, just waiting for the Joker to cut him. For it to end the way it did was pretty anti-climactic.

 

[Figs]

The only scene I felt should've been bloody was Gambles death. Everyone in my theater (especially my friends) were sitting there, completely tense, just waiting for the Joker to cut him. For it to end the way it did was pretty anti-climactic.

Although I don't feel that the movie needed a lot of blood shown in it I do agree with you on this.

I think it was just the editing that made that scene awkward. One second he has the knife in his mouth to cut his cheek open next thing he's falling dead.

I just think they should have at least shown Joker move the knife from inside his mouth and put it to his neck...since I'm guessing that's how he killed him, slitting his throat.

 

[spida-man]

There really is no need for blood.

agreed. if u want to see alot of blood go see a horror movie, not a super hero movie. blodd does not make a big difference on a super hero movie

 

[badgonegood]

Although I don't feel that the movie needed a lot of blood shown in it I do agree with you on this.

I think it was just the editing that made that scene awkward. One second he has the knife in his mouth to cut his cheek open next thing he's falling dead.

I just think they should have at least shown Joker move the knife from inside his mouth and put it to his neck...since I'm guessing that's how he killed him, slitting his throat.

Plus him taking down Michael Jai white, the martial arts expert of films like Kill Bill, Spawn, Exit Wounds, and Undisputed 2 just seemed fake and laughable.

 

[zanos]

It's a family movie. You can't show blood in it.

 

[Steelsheen]

The review in Dallas Morning News today said that "it was just a few blood drops away from an R rating". I think that sums it up pretty well.

true dat. in fact in some countries TDK got the equivalent R rating, mostly because of the violence, and that Two -Face's gruesome appearance unsettles a number of people.

 

[TNC9852002]

This was a very hard PG-13. If they added one drop of actual blood or dropped one more swear or two, they would've never gotten this rating..

-tNC

 

[Ashkong]

Brian Douglas has blood under his nose when he is jokerized. I think he also has it in the Joker video on GCN.

 

[Rishi]

The only thing I would have liked is for them to have shown was gambles death

I was squirming in my seat at the thought of what was about to happen... and then i felt let down when it didnt

 

[Naite22]

Its probably how they kept it a PG13 rating. Well that and the exclusion of cursing.

No blood... but it's ok to show a Harvey Dent with a half Freddy kruegger face!??? I dont get it...

 

[Naite22]

Was there really NO BLOOD at all???

 

[RDS]

There was no need for it. The lack of blood did not take any of the realism away, and opened this movie up to an age group that with an R could not have seen it. Coupled with the decision not to use a lot of profanity, this movie can be enjoyed by more people without losing its meaning or impact.

Why show blood just for the sake of showing it? This isn't a slasher movie. The lack of gore/blood in this movie didn't, however; lessen the brutality of the violence. It was still there and very much part of the experience.

 

[Untilteld]

There really is no need for blood.

I agree, but to those complaining there was a bit of dry blood on Dent's pillow in the hospital.

 

[Kud-Dukan]

I felt the movie really didn't need it. I got that sense of extreme violence throughout the movie, but I never said to myself, "Where is the blood?". That being said, if there HAD been blood in the movie, it definitely would have gotten an R rating.

 

[baerrtt]

WB should be applauded for allowing Nolan to go this far tonally with the film that blood itself wouldn't have been necessary. The threat and repurcussions of violence can be told more explicitly through suggestion and implication than HOSTEL style buckets of gore and this film (and most of Nolan's films period) does it expertly.

 

[vincenizzle]

The only scene I felt should've been bloody was Gambles death. Everyone in my theater (especially my friends) were sitting there, completely tense, just waiting for the Joker to cut him. For it to end the way it did was pretty anti-climactic.

agreed. this is the scene that disturbed me the most about the lack of blood. mind you, i only saw it once and i will have to see it again, but i don't think adding more blood would have caused an R rating. So what's the criteria for the MPAA to give a movie an R rating? I've heard about it being close to an R-rating but aren't those coming from critics? I wanna see the sources on this theres too many reviews to read through...

 

[namtaB]

No blood... but it's ok to show a Harvey Dent with a half Freddy kruegger face!??? I dont get it...

People are weird that way. Its ok to have multiple sexual partners before marriage but bigamy is a crime. Its constitutionally ok to possess porn but you don't have a right to buy/sell porn. The MPAA is probably no different. Its not good to have blood in a PG13 film but its ok to show a man with 1/2 his face burned off.

 

[Batman jr.]

As always when a movie is released, whining fanboy threads pop up...

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

It's a family movie. You can't show blood in it.

This is not a "family" movie.

 

[Nivek]

Plus him taking down Michael Jai white, the martial arts expert of films like Kill Bill, Spawn, Exit Wounds, and Undisputed 2 just seemed fake and laughable.

You seem like a man who likes to be a punching bag.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Plus it doesn't mean his character was an expert in every form of combat.

He was just a loud mouth thug.

 

[namtaB]

Plus him taking down Michael Jai white, the martial arts expert of films like Kill Bill, Spawn, Exit Wounds, and Undisputed 2 just seemed fake and laughable.

What indications were there that he was a martial arts expert in THIS film? He just seemed to be a loudmouth thug. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you can point to me what evidence you have that he's a martial arts expert in THIS film I'd appreciate it.

kthanxbye.