This movie could’ve been far more graphic and still been PG-13 I don’t know why Nolan played it so safe...

This movie could’ve been far more graphic and still been PG-13 I don’t know why Nolan played it so safe. Really deflated the intensity and impact in several scenes

Attached: ED4337A4-1D51-4DA3-93E8-E76C7D05340E.jpg (1920x2560, 672.85K)

Other urls found in this thread:

wegotthiscovered.com/movies/dark-knight-toned-violence-avoid-r-rating/
youtu.be/DUbplahEBfQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I recently rewatched The Dark Knight expecting it to disappoint, but I was impressed how well it holds up. Easily among the top 3 capeshit

Nolan is a hack and his movies are trash, all of them

And you're a brainlet

>This movie could’ve been far more graphic and still been PG-13
Er, no. It being PG-13 was controversial at the time and they actually had to tone it down to avoid an R.
wegotthiscovered.com/movies/dark-knight-toned-violence-avoid-r-rating/

Batman Begins was the best one.

There's literally no blood in the movies and Burton's Batman was way more graphic and adult oriented and was still pg13.

Nolan is simply a hack. That's all there is to it.

It was plenty graphic

Attached: sophia lillis.jpg (480x360, 14.79K)

release the 3 hour cut

Attached: 065-u24uJfB.jpg (1280x688, 100.23K)

It's not all about blood. Tone and intensity are massive factors. And there was 19 years between the 2 films. Standards change.

>HAPPY HOLIDAYES

Attached: 056-p42PhBH.jpg (1110x999, 209.86K)

A stab wound and a bump on a head is too graphic for a PG-13? Are you shitting me? Theres been far worse in movies rated far lighter he should’ve fought back at least a little bit. MPAA probably got too scared of the yelling and loud music to realize that there’s barely any onscreen violence at all

Yeah, that's literally all it was...

Attached: 130fbb7d6e0164094d048762d68d9b3c.gif (300x221, 369.42K)

Attached: 50-qZxZuiv.jpg (657x438, 48.94K)

Parents literally complained in cinemas and contacted ratings boards because it had the same rating as the Harry Potter films, but sure...

It's not just about specific moments on their own, it's about tone, intensity, and the overall effect of all those moments added up. Do I support it? No. But that's how it is. Ratings boards are pretty upfront about how they make their decisions, look it up.

You're just desensitized, bro.

Yeah as if the tone in the later Harry Potter movies wasn’t absolutely brooding and miserable with much more on screen violence than this movie

>This movie could’ve been far more graphic and still been PG-13
I'm geuninely shocked they managed to get away with that rating given the content. Just goes to how something is directed and presented is more important than the act itself. You can murder as many people as necessary as long as they die quickly and no blood is shown.

Scenes like the one where the Joker has a knife in the guy's mouth are pretty brutal, even though they don't show it.

Compare that to the scene in clover field where somebody explodes and their body is shown completely blown open afterwards

Still happened.
For the record, at that the time the first five had been released so things weren't as heavy as they got by the end.

it was still the best film released in a while

They don't show her body, and it happens very quickly behind a curtain. And that was a giant monster movie, not something where people were being shot, stabbed, having their faces burnt down to the muscle. Tone and 'realism' are a big factor.

I unironically find the Joker scene more disturbing than that. The idea of a mouth in your knife like that is quite visceral, someone exploding doesn't really register as real

I like TDK but you could take all this shit out of the movie and it would not change the overall story whatsoever

>mouth in your knife
I see where you’re coming from but the eye stabbing scene in fire in the sky is a far more effective use of offscreen violence than the knife scene

>mouth in your knife
my brain is pretty much falling apart in my head

Bruh there is a fucking blasted open body with intestines and rib cage shown in that movie for 3 seconds and it’s fifty times more violent than anything in this movie look it up

Which, again, came out in a different era with different standards

haha yeah imagine being the joker and you go to cut something but some dude's mouth is there like eww gross haha

It's a movie about giant fucking alien monsters that wasn't even aimed at children, not a surprisingly intense superhero blockbuster with mass family appeal where a terrorist was stabbing people in the face. Jesus Christ...

>So, how did it get away with a PG-13? Well, first and foremost, there’s very little blood in The Dark Knight and secondly, Nolan’s such an astute editor that he can make you think you’ve seen more violence than you actually did.
>Nolan’s such an astute editor that he can make you think you’ve seen more violence than you actually did.
Oh yes.

Attached: Sq6fz0j.gif (360x202, 1.56M)

youtu.be/DUbplahEBfQ
One of the most violent scenes in PG-13 kino and worse than anything in TDK suck my dick and balls

Again: It's a very different type of film, a different genre, a different core audience. It doesn't have things in it that can actually happen. That people can imitate. These are all things ratings boards take into account. Stop being wilfully dense. Maybe do some research.

That's a different film, buddy

I went looking for some other examples and I think Taken has to be the most egregious. Casino Royale also has some very violent stuff in it