The Dark Knight to get a higher rating??

[thezombiemessia]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2503062/MPs-speak-out-over-Batmans-violence-in-The-Dark-Knight.html


I kind of agree with the idea that it could probably be better off with a 15 rating...but the major problem is:

- They are thinking that because it is based on a comic book, it shouldnt have been this violent...despite the fact that Batman is known quite well for being an anti-hero.

- They are aiming their complaints at the wrong people. The BBFC should get the majority of complaints, but sadly the director and actors are getting a lot of stick...


what do you guys think??

[Bannik]

Im not sure where I would direct my complaint, but Ive literally just been to see this and the rating of 12A is NOT suitable, should be at least 15, Im 24, but not in any way de-sensitised to violence, some of the scenes really shocked me, there are 12 year old kids out there more de-sensitised than me, I have no doubt, but definitely not suitable for anyone under 15.

[Ryuu's_Ghost]

BBFC has been a joke for years now all I can say is they have made some retarded decisions these past 15-20 years. I mean i used to watch lots of violent 18 films when I was a wee nipper and nowadays there tame compared to the 12 A rated they show now.

[Ryu Kazama]

I personally agree with it being a 15. The ideas were a bit much for a child to see. Making the pen disappear, the many Do you know how I got these scars? scenes and so on. Its very hard to make a Batman movie good that includes the Joker to be child-friendly. The Joker simply is not child friendly, something which way too many people not into comic books are unaware of. In fact, they find him to be some lousy villain whereas hes actually amongst the most sick villains created (come on, brutally beating up Jason and then blowing him...). Saying that, the animated series managed to make it slightly child friendly but even then some were rated PG upwards. I think The Return of The Joker: Uncut was at least a 12 certificate itself.

Regarding ratings, I read some article not long ago (found it on Digg, me thinks) comparing movie and game ratings and TDK was one of the movies mentioned. Something about its rating being low because although the ideas are obvious, the ratings go by what is visible ie. blood, gore, nudity etc. Taking the examples I mentioned above, there were no traces of blood (or even splatters) from the vanishing pen or mouth slash. No blood and no actual visible injuries were shown in those scenes. What was visible were all fairly minor and 12A suitable. Again, its the ideas really.

Anyway, I do think it should have been a 15. My honest thought before seeing it when I realised it was a 12A was A 12A? It better not suck then! because when The Joker is included, I expected some really bad stuff. And TDK delivered it to me but as a 12A, heh. The only thing that may effect them now is DVD sales. Most people have seen the movie by now so they wouldnt really lose much money from ticket sales.

[Skeksis]

Well Batman Begins was a 12, so looking at it like that it should be a 15. While the BBFC dose deserve the flack, I think irresponsable parenting is also contributing to this. Though none are willing to take the blame.

Ask yourselves:
- Do they know of Frank Millers work on Batman? (anyone seen Sin City? 300? two violent films there.)
- Did any of them see the last movie? and if so thought it was ok to take their children?
- Have they read/ know of the source material?

Theres many factors that point this to being a violent film, the fact that the first seven minutes of the film (the bank robbery) have been online for months now is just an indicator.

I wonder how many parents pick up video games for their children wothout paying notice to the pegi age rating?