Dark Knight's Film Rating

As you all know The Dark Knight's great home release is upon us, and i'm just curious on what people think of the rating the film got. Do you think it was too much for a PG-13? or did it need an R rating? I also heard that they had to cut some things out to receive a PG-13, so ask yourself, these questions:


Was the Film too much for a PG-13?

Do you want an Unrated Edition?

My Answers:

Not Really, but it was VERY intense for a PG-13, but not intense enough for an R rating.

YES, I WANT AN UNRATED EDITION, I DEMAND IT!!!!!!

I don't understand what everyone's obsession with this movie is. It's not a good movie at all. The only thing that made it "huge" is the rumor that Heath Ledger couldn't shake the Joker role which is why he committed suicide. Aside from Ledger's performance, the film was pretty poor. Christian Bale is one of the worst Batman's next to George Clooney.

Originally Posted by rasp

I don't understand what everyone's obsession with this movie is. It's not a good movie at all. The only thing that made it "huge" is the rumor that Heath Ledger couldn't shake the Joker role which is why he committed suicide. Aside from Ledger's performance, the film was pretty poor. Christian Bale is one of the worst Batman's next to George Clooney.

You sir, have a bad taste in movies.
If it's such a bad movie then why do you think the film got fantastic reviews from pretty much all of the top critics?

Heath Ledger didn't commit suicide. He overdosed on prescription sleeping pills.

And I love how, once again, someone says that Ledger is all the movie had to offer. What about Eckhart? I think he was great as Dent.

There's always someone who has to hate something just for the sake of it.

Can we try to stay on topic for the post?

Sure, I'd love to.

I think, in general, today's movies are being rated much less strictly than they have in years passed. You can get away with much more in PG movies and R movies now than you could even ten years ago.

The Dark Knight is a solid example. While the film doesn't have much profanity, drugs, or sex, it does have a good amount of moments of brutality. These kinds of moments, I see it, would more likely push the movie into the R rating if this was the 80s or 90s. As of now, though, I think all of the violence portrayed in the movie is generally accepted as something that teens can watch without being accompanied by an older person.

As a side point, I saw The Dark Knight twice in theaters, and both times I thought it was interesting that a lot of parents and their children were seeing the same showing that I was. TDK was quite a blockbuster, attracting quite a large audience, both in number and scope. The movie broke records and made hundreds of millions of dollars, and to know that is also to admit that people were willing to bring their sub-ten-years-old children to see it.

Either people were expecting something else of the Joker other than his brutality, or they originally had no problem letting their kids see whatever sick and twisted antics he was going to pull off. In general I think it reflects the perceptions of today's parents on what is acceptable for their children to see with proper supervision.

As far as an "unrated version" goes, I really don't think that the filmmakers created enough material that wasn't suited for the original rating. If they were focused on making it PG-13 in the first place, then obviously they wouldn't have wasted time including extra footage that pushes the movie more into R-territory. Besides, usually when "unrated versions" are released, they are originated in movies that were already rated R in the first place.

Here's how the MPAA views movies:

Violence = A-OK
Sex and Sexuality = NO NEVER, NC-17 FOR ALL

I mean, most Bond movies are only rated Pg-13, because even though you have many, many people being shot and killed, there's no blood. The Saw franchise are extremely violent, and graphically so, but regularly get an R-rating with little fuss, but movies that depict sex are more likely to have to fight for that R-rating.

The Dark Knight has violence, and certainly scary scenes and a very dark tone, but since there is little to no blood, and some of the more hardcore violence isn't actually seen on-camera, a PG-13 rating is not really surprising.

As for an unrated version, I'd pass on it. It's not like Live Free or Die Hard where the movie would have been better if it had a more hardcore rating and went further than a PG-13 movie can. It's fine the way it is, I don't think being more graphic or whatever would enhance the film at all.

The MPAA is also corrupt and free from any sort of oversight or assessment.


But yeah, the movie pushes its PG-13 rating as far as it can go, and I'd argue probably goes beyond it (The scene of Batman torturing the Joker was...yeah. Same with the stomach-bomb.) but the MPAA is staffed by people who feel that seeing a breast will corrupt today's youth and teens, while seeing a good-guy beat a suspect to get information out of him while the police turn a blind-eye won't. :/.


And I agree with Nolan that there'd be little point in releasing an unrated version, the violence was not really integral to the movie, the mind-games and dilemmas were what made it amazing.

Originally Posted by nolan

As for an unrated version, I'd pass on it. It's not like Live Free or Die Hard where the movie would have been better if it had a more hardcore rating and went further than a PG-13 movie can. It's fine the way it is, I don't think being more graphic or whatever would enhance the film at all.

Good point...

Originally Posted by Rash

Sure, I'd love to.

I think, in general, today's movies are being rated much less strictly than they have in years passed. You can get away with much more in PG movies and R movies now than you could even ten years ago.

The Dark Knight is a solid example. While the film doesn't have much profanity, drugs, or sex, it does have a good amount of moments of brutality. These kinds of moments, I see it, would more likely push the movie into the R rating if this was the 80s or 90s. As of now, though, I think all of the violence portrayed in the movie is generally accepted as something that teens can watch without being accompanied by an older person.

As a side point, I saw The Dark Knight twice in theaters, and both times I thought it was interesting that a lot of parents and their children were seeing the same showing that I was. TDK was quite a blockbuster, attracting quite a large audience, both in number and scope. The movie broke records and made hundreds of millions of dollars, and to know that is also to admit that people were willing to bring their sub-ten-years-old children to see it.

Either people were expecting something else of the Joker other than his brutality, or they originally had no problem letting their kids see whatever sick and twisted antics he was going to pull off. In general I think it reflects the perceptions of today's parents on what is acceptable for their children to see with proper supervision.

As far as an "unrated version" goes, I really don't think that the filmmakers created enough material that wasn't suited for the original rating. If they were focused on making it PG-13 in the first place, then obviously they wouldn't have wasted time including extra footage that pushes the movie more into R-territory. Besides, usually when "unrated versions" are released, they are originated in movies that were already rated R in the first place.

Speaking of younger children seeing this movie, i just have to say it's kind of weird seeing all of these marketing ploys advertising TDK on childrens toys, and other products, despite it's very dark tone, and heavy violence. I wasn't around in the early 90's but i'm aware that back then there was a huge controversy over all of these marketing ploys being done to advertise Batman Returns to kids due to it's dark nature and violence, TDK is darker, and more violent then BR was, and i don't get why they haven't said much about it. When i saw TDK, i was watching the scene with the Joker dressed as the nurse and blowing up the hospital and further up in front i here this younger boy (sounded about 7 or 8) and he was laughing at the Joker's on screen antics, now don't get me wrong i thought the scene was very humorous, but i was surprised this kid wasn't freaking out at what was going on, because i was intimidated by the Joker (just a little bit) myself, and i'm 13 yrs old.
I just had to throw that out there.

Kids miss or don't appreciate some of the implications.

I'd've been terrified of this movie when I was 7, but I probably would've laughed at the hospital scene, just because I'd have no idea what was really going on.

I would have given it a 14-A Rating. Actually, thats what I think it did get where i live.

If I had seen the movie when I was younger, I would have laughed at the Joker in the Nurse uniform. ButI dont think I could appreciate how twisted and scary the Joker was and what was going on.

I still found it funny, but I while I laughed, I was kinda scared.

Anyways I could easily see TDK getting a R rating. I am just glad it wouldnt have been because of blood and gore.

Anyways I can't wait until I can get TDK on DVD

The Dark Knight in the UK was rated 12A, which means, essentailly, any age group can see it (the only catch being that if you are under 12 you must have somone over 18 with you).

I find it hard to belive that, esspecially with the huge problems we have with knife crime at the moment, that the BBFC would allow such a low rating, because this film certainly had it's share of mindless stabbing and disregard for human life.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting that everyone that sees this movie will turn into a knife maniac, but I do think that what a person sees and hears, whether in real life, movies or games, even books, does have some effect, and keep in mind that there are 7 and 8 year olds watching this movie, so I think it was quite irrisponsible of them to give The Dark Knight this rating.

I agree with what John (when the hell did you change your name?) that film certification commitees seem to have the wrong idea of what has an effect upon people. Is the naked human body really so repulsive and/or corruptive to the groups of out of touch old men that rate these films that a single bared breast is an instant 18 rating? And yet films like this one get away with violence, horror, and a lack of moral counterbalance with a measly 12A? Really?

TDK is not "brutal" enough to get an R rating. Sure its got its fair share of @$$-kickin', and its got a knife wieldig maniac thaa blows people up by putting cell phones in their stomachs (the only part that came close to scaring me).
Unrated version? Hell no.
It only makes sense to do unrated when the rating for the original was R.

Batman is an icon to kids, so they knew in the first place they couldn't make it R. So they did everything they could in it's power to be on the border of R. Overall the movie was fantastic.


Though, I'm not entirely happy about what happened to Two- Face. He better somehow revive. >.>

And it's confirmed that another Batman is in the works, rumored to use Johnny Depp as the Ridler, which I think would be awesome.

Originally Posted by Willy Wonderful

Batman is an icon to kids, so they knew in the first place they couldn't make it R. So they did everything they could in it's power to be on the border of R. Overall the movie was fantastic.


Though, I'm not entirely happy about what happened to Two- Face. He better somehow revive. >.>

And it's confirmed that another Batman is in the works, rumored to use Johnny Depp as the Ridler, which I think would be awesome.

Jim Carrey for the Ridler!

Originally Posted by rasp

I don't understand what everyone's obsession with this movie is. It's not a good movie at all. The only thing that made it "huge" is the rumor that Heath Ledger couldn't shake the Joker role which is why he committed suicide. Aside from Ledger's performance, the film was pretty poor. Christian Bale is one of the worst Batman's next to George Clooney.

It was dark enough, and seeing an unrated cut would make it satisfying.

I think the dark night deserved the PG-13 rating. If it was rated R it would probably would not of dones as well in the box-office.

That's certainly true, but box-office performance should be irrelevant to the ratings process. The fact that it isn't is yet another sign of how messed up the system is.

Originally Posted by Koulatio

Jim Carrey for the Ridler!

Been there, done that.

Then I scratched my eyes out. he's a horrible Riddler