To go along with your thinking, Batman begins and Dark Knight, since they are by and acted by the same people...they both should get R (which means in the US, over seventeen allowed without adult).

Batman Begins could get a R, because it just isnt a teen/kids film.
The story is just too adult.
Dark Knight really should have gotten the R, because not only was the story adult, but the sense of dread was adult.
You don't have to show the blood to have the same impact.
Having a knife inside someones mouth, having a bomb ticking inside someones body go off, having someone's face burned off...NOT for kids.
If I as an adult felt the emotional impact, then a kid is going to really get the hit.

I might have already said this earlyer, but the movie was not aimed for kids. The only reason kids would have wanted to see it is because of "Batman" kids like superheros and they like watching the good guy kick the bad guys butt. Although alot of kids probably would have got really bored in this movie, because of the length, and it's more of a crime drama. Compaired to Spiderman or anyone else.

This movie was really a film that was grounded in reality.

With all the bad things that society is capable of, Batman shows what a hero would have to do in society. And why heroes are important to us.

It was way too political and real for a simple children's movie.

I'm going to have to agree with bigman47 on this one...

Seriously people, if they really wanted the movie to be intended for kids they would have made it PG. Everyone knows that PG-13 means "Hey parents, you should watch this first before letting your little children see it." And just because a couple of grown people don't have the stomache to see a little violence (not even see the hard stuff they cut most violence out), dosn't mean that the movie should have to suffer an R rating for it...

PG-13 rating was more than suitable for this movie...

The Movie was rated M in Australia. It needed that heavy rating.

How on earth it got a PG, is shocking. Someone got rich, I would guess.

R is way to high for this movie as well.

Here the ratings are in general.

G, PG, M, M15+, MA, MA16+, R18+

M is fine for this movie.

Funny that I remember Mortal Kombat 2 was rated MA!

Has Society slipped in its morality? Are we more acceptive of violence, because society has suffered more? Are we only able to be as good as the world lets us be?

I think morality in society is subjective to the personal experiences of that society, but it does fluxuate as that experience changes.

linkedtoxbox wrote:

Here the ratings are in general.

G, PG, M, M15+, MA, MA16+, R18

Isn't there a NC-17? or is that basically "R" or M....

It would most likely fall in the area of MA15+ or R18+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Film_and_Literature_Classification_(Australia)

The ratings are offically:

G (General) - These films and computer games are for general viewing. However, G does not necessarily designate a children?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥s film or game as many of these productions contain content that would be of no interest to children.

The content is very mild in impact.

PG (Parental guidance recommended) - These films and computer games contain material that may confuse or upset younger viewers.

The content is mild in impact.

M (Recommended for mature audiences) - These films and computer games contain material that requires a mature perspective. This classification was formerly known as M15+. There is no restriction on access.

The content is moderate in impact.

MA15+ (Not suitable for under 15s) - The content is considered unsuitable for exhibition by persons under the age of 15. Persons under 15 may only legally purchase or exhibit MA15+ rated content under the supervision of an adult guardian. This is a legally restricted category.

R18+ (Restricted) - People under 18 may not buy, rent or exhibit these films. The R18+ rating applies to film only -- any video games which rate higher than MA15+ are Refused Classification.

X18+ (Pornographic) - People under 18 may not exhibit, buy or rent films that have been issued this classification.

This rating applies to pornographic content.

It's VERY VERY RARE to see a R18+ film shown at the local theater.

linkedtoxbox wrote:

It's VERY VERY RARE to see a R18+ film shown at the local theater.

Because now days its harder to get such a high rating, unless its torture porn (e.g saw).

That got a little weird when we started talking about the R18+ So lets go back to talking about the Dark Knight.

animal wrote:

And just because a couple of grown people don't have the stomache to see a little violence (not even see the hard stuff they cut most violence out), dosn't mean that the movie should have to suffer an R rating for it

First, Animal you should know that this "grown" person who "doesn't have the stomach to see a little violence" was born and raised in NYC. I probably have seen more violence first hand then you ever saw at a theater.

And the fact that you don't think it is a big deal, really proves our point. The real danger which you have shown is that people become so desensetized to it that they accept more in life without even thinking. This translates to society at large in which we feel that ever solution can be solved if we kill enough people, just take a look at politics and you can see this.

Why it should have been higher then PG-13 is not as much the amount of violence, but the evil way it was conducted. There is probably more blood and violence in Itchy and Scratch cartoon, but you never feel like there is this darkness behind it. Children do not have the reasoning ability to logically take something apart before they take the emotional impact. I have my PhD in child development, so I can speak from experience on this.

If for example your hand had been so beat up over the years that when it caught on fire, you didnt notice, what you end up having is a severely damaged hand that onced notice was too late to treat. Sensitivity is a strength not a weakness.

Having violence to tell a story may be necessary, but we need to be careful that we place it in and with the right context of people.

CTALONS wrote:

animal wrote:

And just because a couple of grown people don't have the stomache to see a little violence (not even see the hard stuff they cut most violence out), dosn't mean that the movie should have to suffer an R rating for it

First, Animal you should know that this "grown" person who "doesn't have the stomach to see a little violence" was born and raised in NYC. I probably have seen more violence first hand then you ever saw at a theater.

And the fact that you don't think it is a big deal, really proves our point. The real danger which you have shown is that people become so desensetized to it that they accept more in life without even thinking. This translates to society at large in which we feel that ever solution can be solved if we kill enough people, just take a look at politics and you can see this.

Why it should have been higher then PG-13 is not as much the amount of violence, but the evil way it was conducted. There is probably more blood and violence in Itchy and Scratch cartoon, but you never feel like there is this darkness behind it. Children do not have the reasoning ability to logically take something apart before they take the emotional impact. I have my PhD in child development, so I can speak from experience on this.

If for example your hand had been so beat up over the years that when it caught on fire, you didnt notice, what you end up having is a severely damaged hand that onced notice was too late to treat. Sensitivity is a strength not a weakness.

Having violence to tell a story may be necessary, but we need to be careful that we place it in and with the right context of people.

What would you say to a rating inbetween PG 13 and R? Do you think that would be more suited to it, or would u still stand behind the R?

CTALONS wrote:

animal wrote:

And just because a couple of grown people don't have the stomache to see a little violence (not even see the hard stuff they cut most violence out), dosn't mean that the movie should have to suffer an R rating for it

First, Animal you should know that this "grown" person who "doesn't have the stomach to see a little violence" was born and raised in NYC. I probably have seen more violence first hand then you ever saw at a theater.

I beg to differ... I've seen a lot of violence in my life. And just because you live in NYC dosn't mean your tougher than anyone else. The fact that there's little kids who can take it but not grown adults from NYC really proves my point.

CTALONS wrote:

And the fact that you don't think it is a big deal, really proves our point. The real danger which you have shown is that people become so desensetized to it that they accept more in life without even thinking. This translates to society at large in which we feel that ever solution can be solved if we kill enough people, just take a look at politics and you can see this.

Actually, society has been much less eager to start killing people over the years than now. Society, let alone politics, used to kill by the masses on a hunch that people might have committed crimes. In fact, many countries have actually banned the death penalty and America is getting closer and closer to banning it.
Also, one of the movies main points was that killing is actually unnecessary (It was Batman's one rule), and made a big deal that there were plenty of people who won't kill for themeselves.

CTALONS wrote:

Why it should have been higher then PG-13 is not as much the amount of violence, but the evil way it was conducted. There is probably more blood and violence in Itchy and Scratch cartoon, but you never feel like there is this darkness behind it. Children do not have the reasoning ability to logically take something apart before they take the emotional impact. I have my PhD in child development, so I can speak from experience on this.

True, however all it takes is for the parents to sit down and explain that
1. Anything that they see on t.v. or in theatre's is fake even most "historically accurate" movies (as they're commonly reffered to as) have lots of fiction in it.
2.If your not 13, you shouldn't see a PG-13 movie
3.Immitating things that you see on t.v. is wrong and will always get you hurt, killed, or in jail.

CTALONS wrote:

If for example your hand had been so beat up over the years that when it caught on fire, you didnt notice, what you end up having is a severely damaged hand that onced notice was too late to treat. Sensitivity is a strength not a weakness.

Again, these kinds of things start in the house at young ages.

CTALONS wrote:

Having violence to tell a story may be necessary, but we need to be careful that we place it in and with the right context of people.

There's been plenty of movies, with plenty more "violence" in it but everyone seems just fine with that...

In total, The Dark Knight met all of the strict requirements of the MPAA to maintain a PG-13 movie and deserves it.

Animal, the toughness you talk about can also be dullness of sensibility.
For example, you should be sensible enough to know that attacking a member in this forum is not allowed. By doing so you not only lose your point right from the start, but you lose any credibility you had.

bigman47 wrote:

What would you say to a rating inbetween PG 13 and R? Do you think that would be more suited to it, or would u still stand behind the R?

The rating system in general has always been odd.
Most people and parents take it as absolutes, and thats the problem.
Being that it is Batman, most parents are going to send their kids to see this thinking its 1960's Joker or 1989 Joker.

So since it is a "comic book" movie then they make the association that it is of course a kid's film.
This is the same problem with video games, comics, and anime. Even though its under a particular genre, it doesn't mean the content is only one age level.

The rated R doesn't exclude under 17, it just says it has to be seen with a parent. I could easily see a MA15+ or R18+ here as linktoxbox has said.
What would be best is no rating system, but a content exclaimer so people would actual look before they leap. But we wont see that in our age of sound bytes.

CTALONS wrote:

Animal, the toughness you talk about can also be dullness of sensibility.
For example, you should be sensible enough to know that attacking a member in this forum is not allowed. By doing so you not only lose your point right from the start, but you lose any credibility you had.

I'm sorry but I was not attacking you if that's what you thought...
I was just having a simple debate on whether or not this movie should have an R rating or not. So where you got these accusations are beyond me.

animal wrote:

I'm sorry but I was not attacking you if that's what you thought...
I was just having a simple debate on whether or not this movie should have an R rating or not. So where you got these accusations are beyond me.

animal wrote:

And just because a couple of grown people don't have the stomache to see a little violence

animal wrote:

The fact that there's little kids who can take it but not grown adults from NYC really proves my point.

I really was not attacking you. That's just how we debate where I live. Trust me, if I even made half of an attempt to attack you then they would have banned me on the spot.

animal wrote:

I really was not attacking you. That's just how we debate where I live. Trust me, if I even made half of an attempt to attack you then they would have banned me on the spot.

Guys can we get back on topic now please?

Bliss wrote:

That got a little weird when we started talking about the R18+ So lets go back to talking about the Dark Knight.

Quote:

Guys can we get back on topic now please?

Sounds good to me.

I have a topic. What does everyone feel about how they handled the jokers final scene? Do you feel it was perfect and didn't need any more closer. Do you like that it is left open in the sense that the joker's story is not over as long as batman's story continues?

I guess what I'm asking is, is the end of the dark knight the way it is BECAUSE of Ledger's death, or was that the intended end of the story all along. To me it feels like it could have been both, which i'm not upset about, but in some ways, to me the film feels unfinished because it had to be.

does that make any sense?

I can't imagine that they would have had any idea that Ledger was going to die. So the story was probably already writtin the way it ended. The Joker was probably going to have a comeback in the sequel, but as long as the producers are able to use $100 bills as toiletpaper, swimming pool water, napkins, and drinks at their party. I'm sure there is going to be a sequel.

I would want the joker back so we can see, what I would consider is the hottest villianess of all time, harley quinn.

Dreams are now shattered.

Another note to consider. IN the comics, there are only X amount of bad guys so there is a need for some of them to escape every so often. If there was a sequal, the Joker would be in prision, maxium security, holding cell, if not in fact dead as he is a mass murder who killed the mob. THe death sentance would be used.

animal wrote:

I really was not attacking you. That's just how we debate where I live. Trust me, if I even made half of an attempt to attack you then they would have banned me on the spot.

The people who run this site are super nice, especially the moderator Buff, who is the sweetest person in the world. Count yourself lucky that these people are so very cool. We dont want trolls here. :x
I saw that spanish video you put on here, you have nice friends and a great neighboorhood. Be who you are not the tough guy act. :D

linkedtoxbox wrote:

THe death sentance would be used.

If gotham had the death penalty then there would never be another villian to fight in the comic books, plus the joker ending up killed by the state would be totally against the feel of it.

Harley quinn would be great...how about if Rachel Dawes wasnt dead just scared like two face and came back nuts for revenge on batman for killing harvey?

Alright people before we rip apart the time space universe again, let us return to the classic that is batman. You have to admit that the series has gone really far away from the orginal comic. Now if they want to invent something new that is great but please dont destroy batman.

JLA movie is still in the works and how is crazy new batman going to even fit into that. Its like the new starwars movie, how does that fit into the already established universe. If we geeks cant hold onto the classics then who will.

Isn't it part & parcel with the comic book universe that characters get reinvented or redefined?

Why shouldn't the movies do the same? :D

If the joker say was not sentanced to death, then he would be in a padded cell on ALOT of drugs for the rest of his life.

The justice league movie.....

I don't know..

I absolutely love the TV series and the cartoon movie that came out, but a live action movie????

Have you seen that awful TV movie that came out? I watched 2 mins of it on skip and i'm a hardcore JLA fan. Well hardcore in that i have read all the JLA comics I can find.

I really want continuity in a JLA movie. The actors who played sups and bats to be in it, not another alternative what if. That batman would be fantastic!

Imagine a Batman Versus Superman. Batman is huntered untill say darkside shows up or something. then introduce wonder woman and the Trinity is complete.

The awesomeness is mind blowing!

As for the comics reinventing, well yes and no. There are alot of different realities in the comics, but the core character of the hero does not change.
Batman is the night life, while superman is the boy scout.

On another note the dudes that run this forum, are tops. I think the whole HISHE team are. Not many people spend alot of time and money on something for the pure free enjoyment of others.

Halo3Legend wrote:

The people who run this site are super nice, especially the moderator Buff, who is the sweetest person in the world. Count yourself lucky that these people are so very cool. We dont want trolls here. :x
I saw that spanish video you put on here, you have nice friends and a great neighboorhood. Be who you are not the tough guy act. :D

Don't do me

DCCOMICSRULE wrote:

You have to admit that the series has gone really far away from the orginal comic.

Question, what is the orginal comic?

The detective series?

The Adam west batman?

The animated batman?

The new Animated batman?

There are so many, but yet I would hold that the character of Batman is the same. Just expressed through different tones. BUT i will say that Adam West was more well.............There is no way to describe what he made batman. lol