This is undoubtedly true, but that's natural. Standards change with time.But that doesn't mean that The Dark Knight deserves an R-rating by today's standards (I don't think by the standards of five years ago it would have warranted it, either, but you have a point about 10 years ago). There was no blood in the movie at all as far as I can remember. When people were shot, you didn't see anything as bad as even what's shown on television every night. Two Face was certainly menacing, but do you think to the extent that a 13 year-old couldn't handle it? I don't, but I can only speak for myself.
I would guess Max Payne has plenty of gun violence and probably blood, as well (based on what I remember about the game, which was pretty violent), two things that are major red flags. I'm not excusing the MPAA, but I am saying the director that was complaining about Max Payne probably doesn't have much of an argument comparing his film to The Dark Knight.
I think if you rate The Dark Knight as an R-rated movie, then there are a lot of R-rated movies that need to be rated NC-17.
Well, there are a lot of people that think the MPAA is too lax with many films.
We're in a bit of a shift right now, ratings standards wise. Even without the hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA we seem to be in an "envelope pushing" period. You see it when PG-13 movies come out and there are news articles about how it should have been rated "R" (something that many people commented on with Dark Knight). Heck, a lot of people thought Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was pushing it, what with the murder of children and a dude being charbroiled alive. I don't necessarily share those views, but I understand them. A lot of parents bemoan the fact that so few PG and G rated films make it out these days, because they won't take their kids to anything with a harder rating.
Interestingly enough, the last time we had a period like this, the MPAA invented the PG-13 rating (because there had been too many films that were getting rated PG that were somewhere between PG and R...Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being the most famous example, what with all the heart-ripping, blood-drinking, child-whipping stuff. I dunno that the same method could work now, though. I mean, I suppose they could make a "PG-16" rating or something, but it'll probably stay the same and folks will get used to PG-13 movies being "harder" than they once were.
It's also worth noting that it's not just violence and/or sex or language that can get a movie an "R" rating. Sometimes the MPAA uses what are called "mature themes" as a ratings criteria. A simple way of saying that there's stuff in this film that (they think) kids shouldn't really be exposed to. It's used less often these days (I think they call it "thematic material" now). Not that I personally think TDK should have been rated R, but I can see people viewing it from that angle.
I think there are a lot of films that need a "tougher" rating. I was young once and dying to see certain films I wasn't allowed into, but now that I'm older I'd prefer that more films get R ratings that are PG-13. I don't like to see the MPAA relax its standards. The FCC seems to be relaxing its standards, too, and it makes me worried for where we'll be in another ten years. That's why I don't begrudge any parent who complains about things like that (though the simple solution is to be the bad guy and don't let your under-age child see something they don't need to be seeing. My parents watched movies first, regardless of the rating, and then decided if it was OK for me).
I don't have a problem with the FCC relaxing its standards a little. For a while no one on TV could utter "ass" without getting fined 100,000 dollars. So I"m happy for the relaxed standards a little. I think we will be fine in ten years as long as parents do there job and we don't allow the Government to pick and choose what TV, music, and movies are best for us. Parents should watch stuff before there kids see it but also when a movie is rated PG-13 or R and the kid is 5 there is a very good chance the parents are just wasting there time presecreening it, the kid is not able to handle it.
This is undoubtedly true, but that's natural. Standards change with time.But that doesn't mean that The Dark Knight deserves an R-rating by today's standards (I don't think by the standards of five years ago it would have warranted it, either, but you have a point about 10 years ago). There was no blood in the movie at all as far as I can remember. When people were shot, you didn't see anything as bad as even what's shown on television every night. Two Face was certainly menacing, but do you think to the extent that a 13 year-old couldn't handle it? I don't, but I can only speak for myself.
I would guess Max Payne has plenty of gun violence and probably blood, as well (based on what I remember about the game, which was pretty violent), two things that are major red flags. I'm not excusing the MPAA, but I am saying the director that was complaining about Max Payne probably doesn't have much of an argument comparing his film to The Dark Knight.
I think if you rate The Dark Knight as an R-rated movie, then there are a lot of R-rated movies that need to be rated NC-17.
Well, there are a lot of people that think the MPAA is too lax with many films.
We're in a bit of a shift right now, ratings standards wise. Even without the hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA we seem to be in an "envelope pushing" period. You see it when PG-13 movies come out and there are news articles about how it should have been rated "R" (something that many people commented on with Dark Knight). Heck, a lot of people thought Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was pushing it, what with the murder of children and a dude being charbroiled alive. I don't necessarily share those views, but I understand them. A lot of parents bemoan the fact that so few PG and G rated films make it out these days, because they won't take their kids to anything with a harder rating.
Interestingly enough, the last time we had a period like this, the MPAA invented the PG-13 rating (because there had been too many films that were getting rated PG that were somewhere between PG and R...Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being the most famous example, what with all the heart-ripping, blood-drinking, child-whipping stuff. I dunno that the same method could work now, though. I mean, I suppose they could make a "PG-16" rating or something, but it'll probably stay the same and folks will get used to PG-13 movies being "harder" than they once were.
It's also worth noting that it's not just violence and/or sex or language that can get a movie an "R" rating. Sometimes the MPAA uses what are called "mature themes" as a ratings criteria. A simple way of saying that there's stuff in this film that (they think) kids shouldn't really be exposed to. It's used less often these days (I think they call it "thematic material" now). Not that I personally think TDK should have been rated R, but I can see people viewing it from that angle.
I think there are a lot of films that need a "tougher" rating. I was young once and dying to see certain films I wasn't allowed into, but now that I'm older I'd prefer that more films get R ratings that are PG-13. I don't like to see the MPAA relax its standards. The FCC seems to be relaxing its standards, too, and it makes me worried for where we'll be in another ten years. That's why I don't begrudge any parent who complains about things like that (though the simple solution is to be the bad guy and don't let your under-age child see something they don't need to be seeing. My parents watched movies first, regardless of the rating, and then decided if it was OK for me).
Well in the case of TDK it was PG-13. Anybody 13 years or older will not see anything in that movie that will scar or violate them in anyway. But for a younger child 8-10 years old that movie would be harsh. But putting it at R just to appease kids is kind of pushing it. PG-13 is a fine rating if its observed. But parents will take 5 year old children to PG-13 and see no problem with it. I think personally that as long as the rating is observed by the family its doing a decent job (no matter what the MPAA ended up doing for the rating to get there).
This is undoubtedly true, but that's natural. Standards change with time.But that doesn't mean that The Dark Knight deserves an R-rating by today's standards (I don't think by the standards of five years ago it would have warranted it, either, but you have a point about 10 years ago). There was no blood in the movie at all as far as I can remember. When people were shot, you didn't see anything as bad as even what's shown on television every night. Two Face was certainly menacing, but do you think to the extent that a 13 year-old couldn't handle it? I don't, but I can only speak for myself.
I would guess Max Payne has plenty of gun violence and probably blood, as well (based on what I remember about the game, which was pretty violent), two things that are major red flags. I'm not excusing the MPAA, but I am saying the director that was complaining about Max Payne probably doesn't have much of an argument comparing his film to The Dark Knight.
I think if you rate The Dark Knight as an R-rated movie, then there are a lot of R-rated movies that need to be rated NC-17.
Well, there are a lot of people that think the MPAA is too lax with many films.
We're in a bit of a shift right now, ratings standards wise. Even without the hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA we seem to be in an "envelope pushing" period. You see it when PG-13 movies come out and there are news articles about how it should have been rated "R" (something that many people commented on with Dark Knight). Heck, a lot of people thought Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was pushing it, what with the murder of children and a dude being charbroiled alive. I don't necessarily share those views, but I understand them. A lot of parents bemoan the fact that so few PG and G rated films make it out these days, because they won't take their kids to anything with a harder rating.
Interestingly enough, the last time we had a period like this, the MPAA invented the PG-13 rating (because there had been too many films that were getting rated PG that were somewhere between PG and R...Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being the most famous example, what with all the heart-ripping, blood-drinking, child-whipping stuff. I dunno that the same method could work now, though. I mean, I suppose they could make a "PG-16" rating or something, but it'll probably stay the same and folks will get used to PG-13 movies being "harder" than they once were.
It's also worth noting that it's not just violence and/or sex or language that can get a movie an "R" rating. Sometimes the MPAA uses what are called "mature themes" as a ratings criteria. A simple way of saying that there's stuff in this film that (they think) kids shouldn't really be exposed to. It's used less often these days (I think they call it "thematic material" now). Not that I personally think TDK should have been rated R, but I can see people viewing it from that angle.
The director of Max Payne is mad that his movie has received an R rating. He says that the MPAA has bent over backward to make TDK PG-13 while his movie receives an R rating. While it sounds like be-itching to me I do agree that the MPAA has no set standards and that its pretty weird that one movie can receive a different rating based on similar content.The standards are screwed up and inconsistent, but The Dark Knight deserved its PG-13 rating. There's no way you could give that movie an R-rating. Almost all the violence was implied and not shown. Honestly, when I first saw it part of me wished it had been rated R so that The Joker could really shine, but as it stands it's clearly a PG-13 movie.
Or not so clearly when you prominently feature a guy that has half of his face burned off. I assure you, if it'd come out as-is 10 or possibly even 5 years ago, it'd have been an "R" rating, and Two-Face at the very least would need to be toned down. Heck, as it was they clearly minimized Two-Face's "on screen" time (at least for the bad half of his face). I suspect if they'd showed too much more of it, they'd have been slapped with the R-Rating.
This is undoubtedly true, but that's natural. Standards change with time.
But that doesn't mean that The Dark Knight deserves an R-rating by today's standards (I don't think by the standards of five years ago it would have warranted it, either, but you have a point about 10 years ago). There was no blood in the movie at all as far as I can remember. When people were shot, you didn't see anything as bad as even what's shown on television every night. Two Face was certainly menacing, but do you think to the extent that a 13 year-old couldn't handle it? I don't, but I can only speak for myself.
I would guess Max Payne has plenty of gun violence and probably blood, as well (based on what I remember about the game, which was pretty violent), two things that are major red flags. I'm not excusing the MPAA, but I am saying the director that was complaining about Max Payne probably doesn't have much of an argument comparing his film to The Dark Knight.
I think if you rate The Dark Knight as an R-rated movie, then there are a lot of R-rated movies that need to be rated NC-17.
Yeah MPAA is terrible when it comes to guidelines. There is nothing set when it comes to a movies for them. If you look at the case with Kevin Smith's movie "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" they were slapped with a NC-17 and they appealed and got it lowered to an R. The appeal process is the closest you can get to unbiased rating as possible b/c its like a room full of different people not the same ones you are sending your movie to over and over. The same movie has had trouble with there poster, the poster that will only show up in Canada features the main characters in a split screen fully clothed and the top of one another head sitting at the mid section, despite the explanation its actually not so blatant you have to look at it for quite a bit before you notice exactly what is implied. It was denied but a similar poster for "Good Luck Chuck" had a shirtless Dane Cook and the top of a blond's head on the poster...a lot more blatant than the ZMMP poster. The MPAA is basically corrupt.
The director of Max Payne is mad that his movie has received an R rating. He says that the MPAA has bent over backward to make TDK PG-13 while his movie receives an R rating. While it sounds like be-itching to me I do agree that the MPAA has no set standards and that its pretty weird that one movie can receive a different rating based on similar content.The standards are screwed up and inconsistent, but The Dark Knight deserved its PG-13 rating. There's no way you could give that movie an R-rating. Almost all the violence was implied and not shown. Honestly, when I first saw it part of me wished it had been rated R so that The Joker could really shine, but as it stands it's clearly a PG-13 movie.
Or not so clearly when you prominently feature a guy that has half of his face burned off. I assure you, if it'd come out as-is 10 or possibly even 5 years ago, it'd have been an "R" rating, and Two-Face at the very least would need to be toned down. Heck, as it was they clearly minimized Two-Face's "on screen" time (at least for the bad half of his face). I suspect if they'd showed too much more of it, they'd have been slapped with the R-Rating.
The MPAA is notoriously inconsistent, and notoriously biased towards "big budget mainstream films." In other words, the studios basically bribe them to give them the rating they want. There's a great documentary/movie on the MPAA called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." Check it out sometime...it's entertaining and eye-opening as to just what a bunch of hypocrites the MPAA really are. Just don't watch it with kids...it's "not rated" but isn't it just AMAZING that the MPAA rated it NC-17 (which basically prevents it from playing in 99 percent of American theaters?).
The film "withdrew" from theatrical release and went for "unrated." It does contain footage from NC-17 rated movies, but it's used for informational/education purposes...like showing how an R-Rated movie had basically the exact same scene yet got an R-rating instead of the NC-17. In most cases, the "R-Rated" version was a big-budget release from a major studio, and the "NC-17" was an "indie flick."
The director of Max Payne is mad that his movie has received an R rating. He says that the MPAA has bent over backward to make TDK PG-13 while his movie receives an R rating. While it sounds like be-itching to me I do agree that the MPAA has no set standards and that its pretty weird that one movie can receive a different rating based on similar content.
The standards are screwed up and inconsistent, but The Dark Knight deserved its PG-13 rating. There's no way you could give that movie an R-rating. Almost all the violence was implied and not shown. Honestly, when I first saw it part of me wished it had been rated R so that The Joker could really shine, but as it stands it's clearly a PG-13 movie.
The director of Max Payne is mad that his movie has received an R rating. He says that the MPAA has bent over backward to make TDK PG-13 while his movie receives an R rating. While it sounds like be-itching to me I do agree that the MPAA has no set standards and that its pretty weird that one movie can receive a different rating based on similar content.
I thought somebody would of retorted back from DCEh that possibly are above such things but it would of made great news though
Like Morgan Freeman standing up going "Iron Man was a POS and made me flip my damn car!" That would have been the greatest interview ever.
No lol That man is above such things
As for me I wanted an all out brawl
What would be funny would be Bale in the batsuit and RDJ in the Iron Man suit trying to fight without special effects in those heavy costumes. That would be the funniest fight ever.
__scaled_800.jpg)
