Posted on 07/22/2008 11:51:19 AM PDT by Abathar
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- He may be known to many children as a comic book friend, but a Purdue University professor warns the new "Dark Knight" Batman is a much more violent reincarnation of the classic character.
Glenn Sparks, a professor of communication, studies the effects of scary movies, particularly on children.
"The danger with a film like this is its history in the Batman comic book series and cartoons. People think of this hero as fun and entertaining, so parents may even take very young children to see what they believe is a family film. Instead, they may be jarred by the film's explicit level of violence," he said.
"Dark Knight," which is rated PG-13, opened July 18 and broke box office records during its opening weekend.
Sparks said the level of violence in the movie can be especially upsetting for children ages 6-10 as they try to comprehend why bad things happen to people.
"At the same time, children at this age don't have experience coping with explicit images of violence or understanding the likelihood that something will happen," Sparks said.
The latest interpretation of Batman's longtime nemesis the Joker can also be confusing to younger children, Sparks said, because of the distorted, violent image of a clown.
Sparks said he recommends that parents research films in advance by viewing descriptions of their violent content at the Web site Kids In Mind. Run by an Ohio-based company, the site also ranks sex, nudity and profanity in movies.
Sparks said parents, especially now, need to be aware of what's really in the movies their children are watching.
"Ultimately, filmmakers are trying to appeal to multiple markets and ages. Violence in films like these has been a trend. For example, the Harry Potter movies have been
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
So many things wrong here I can't even list them all, did this idiot even read the original Batman comics? He was as violent as they come.
Pre-teens probably shouldn’t see it but isn’t nearly as violent as most TV shows and videos games.
Why would a parent bring a 6 year old to a PG-13 movie? Especially when it’s common knowledge about the violence?
The “professor” probably is afraid of Batman because he is a strong and moral breeder.
Translation: Conservative ideas are not appropriate for chilluns.
“The danger with a film like this is its history in the Batman comic book series and cartoons. People think of this hero as fun and entertaining, so parents may even take very young children to see what they believe is a family film.”
Where the heck has THIS guy been living for the last 35 to 40 years?
Batman (including the “Dark Knight” style comic books and television cartoons) hasn’t been “family” oriented since the Adam West days of the late 1960s.
This guy thinks Adam West was the original Batman, obviously. The Original Batman is a living nightmare.
Why isn’t all the sex in films considered a dangerous influence, just the violence.
The Dark Knight wasn’t “explicitly violent”. There was some violence — but it was implied, not explicit. Most of it was just your general gunfight, fistfight, explosion stuff. There isn’t a 10 year old boy in this country that would be traumatized by the Dark Knight.
The Joker is creepy, but hardly traumatic.
H
I get the feeling he is one of those people who believe that sheltering a child from real life will somehow protect them.
Granted Batman isn’t real of course, but bad things happen to good people on a daily basis. Most people pray FOR kids, but there are some who prey ON them too, kids need to understand that IMHO.
That's why it is rated far beyond their years. But some parents want to be seen as friends and not parents.
Wonder if it'll come out in an "unrated" (R) version on DVD.
Eggheads and cartoons: News At 11.
Just an observation on Hollywood of today vs what we saw growing up...
when the Lone Ranger shot someone, there was a puff of smoke from the gun, a man holding his stomach or chest and falling to the ground.
In recent movies we somehow are required to see graphic depictions of decapitation, severing of limbs, entry/exit wounds, etc.
Both are depictions of violence, but do we need the graphic depictions or can we just understand what happened?
I had a three year old next to me when I saw it. All I could think was, “Oh take that baby out of here!”
Has anyone seen the amount of kids products connected to this film? Fruit roll-ups? Come on!
The Magic Trick scene, while most children would probably not know what is going on, because it is so quick, is a horrifying scene. And the reaction of the theater! I know I did laugh when he says, “Ta-da!” How would that actually sink into a kid’s brain? Who knows?
I was thinking the same thing.
“Sparks said the level of violence in the movie can be especially upsetting for children ages 6-10”
Uh, it’s PG-13 for a reason. I’m a huge fan of Batman, but I’m certainly not going to let my 6 year old son watch it.
I know it’s hard to believe ; but, during the “Leave It To Beaver” years, most kids were not allowed to read comic books.
The violence in movies is nearly always fake (dum dum bullets, computer effect explosions, squibs instead of blood, altered film speed to make fights seem faster and more dangerous, false body parts, etc.
How many times do they use rubber prosthetics in nude scenes in movies? A kiss isn’t “really” a kiss, etc.?
>> Violence in films like these has been a trend. For example, the Harry Potter movies have been getting darker and more explicit, as well as Indiana Jones,”
Indiana Jones? The most dark/violent film in the Indy series was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom — made in 1984. The second most explicit was the melting head in Raiders of the Lost Ark — 1981. Indy is a lousy example of a trend in violence and darkness.
H
If the author’s suggestion is that we shouldn’t permit ‘Dark Knight’ to be made, he would be an oaf. But if his point is to alert parents that ‘Dark Knight’ is not intended as kiddy fare, how can you criticize him?
Kids did NOT see films as violent as ‘Dark Knight’ in the 1950s, and I’d challenge you to offer an example if you insist otherwise. And to compare the effects of violence from cartoon stills to a movie is just plain wierd.
And by the way... just how well DID those kids who were grade-schoolers turn out? They were burning the flag in the 60s, having abortions in the 1970s, going to rehab in the 1980s, and rationalizing for President Clinton in the 1990s. I’d say that the 1950s generation of kids is a national nightmare of selfishness, depravity and violence... except my own is even more scary.
That’s because Al Gore Sr’s fellow Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver seized upon Dr. Frederic Wertham’s campaign to stamp out comic books as part of a Congressional hearing into juvenile delinquency. Kefauver was trying to take the national stage (he ended up getting the Democrat VP nod).
Funny how Al Gore Jr. managed the same trick in the mid 1980s with “rock music”. He tried for the Presidency in 1988 and ended up with the VP office in 1992 and 1996.
Yes, but see; he got his name in the news...you didn’t.
“If the author’s suggestion is that we shouldn’t permit ‘Dark Knight’ to be made, he would be an oaf. But if his point is to alert parents that ‘Dark Knight’ is not intended as kiddy fare, how can you criticize him?”
I’m not really criticizing, just lamenting how this guy has to reinforce the notion that it’s not for kids. The PG-13 rating should be enough warning to parents that this isn’t for pre-teens.
>>Why isn’t all the sex in films considered a dangerous influence, just the violence.<<
There is a Pond’s cold cream commercial before “The Dark Knight.” promoting “Mamma Mia”. At the end, they show that this movie is rated PG-13 and Smoking is mentioned. “Mamma Mia” glorifies the idea that the main character slutted around and had no clue which of three men are her child’s father.
But smoking got it a PG-13.
Oh man.
“But smoking got it a PG-13.
Oh man.”
I wonder if they’ll retroactively go back to all those Disney cartoons where characters were smoking pipes and re-rate them. ;)
Of course liberal trash would be appalled.
Well, maybe not rubber but I can think of some silicon use...
Barb Wire...classic cinema.
>>I wonder if they’ll retroactively go back to all those Disney cartoons where characters were smoking pipes and re-rate them. ;)<<
Good question!
“Hairspray” got a warning about teen smoking too.
It was 1962 for heaven’s sake. Who didn’t smoke?
>> The Magic Trick scene, while most children would probably not know what is going on, because it is so quick, is a horrifying scene. And the reaction of the theater!
I thought it was funny. Twisted ... but funny. It wasn’t especially violent though — it was implied violence, you saw nothing but a blur.
It was a dark movie, but with definite overtones/lessons about good and evil. I would think most boys over the age of 7 would be fine with it.
H
I haven’t seen this one, but I saw the first Batman movie, and what struck me is that it was dark, i.e., like a film noir. Lots of moral ambiguity and bad feelings.
That’s a very different spirit from the comics, where the good guys cheerfully prevail and the bad guys get beaten without a lot of dwelling on the horrific details.
In these more recent films, it’s a question whether Batman is even a hero, in the old-time meaning of the word.
(but really, I understand your point!)
Mickey Spillane’s “The Girl Hunters” (1963 with Mickey as Mike Hammer) is almost as sadistic as Frank Miller’s “Sin City” in some sequences. Mickey even hammers chain and spike through a man’s hand to the floor of a barn to stake him down. Mickey also leaves a weapon for a villainous woman who fires the rigged shotgun (it backfires into her face). There was also some stark brutality (in shadow) in Kiss Me Deadly (1955) as a woman is strung up and tortured to death.
Gore films outright started by the 1960s with Blood Feast (1963) in the US and Hell (Jigoku, 1960) in Japan.
Or it could actually be that "The Dark Knight" is more than a little intense and violent for young kids. I've seen it, and it is.
“That’s a very different spirit from the comics, where the good guys cheerfully prevail and the bad guys get beaten without a lot of dwelling on the horrific details.
In these more recent films, it’s a question whether Batman is even a hero, in the old-time meaning of the word.”
Actually in certain Batman comics, this is the spirit of Batman...he’s not your average good guy. He’s supposed to be a vigilante who cares more about slaying his own demons than helping innocent people.
Superman’s the boy scout. ;)
>> How many times do they use rubber prosthetics in nude scenes in movies? A kiss isn’t “really” a kiss, etc.?
In some of the “explicit” movies — i.e. “mainstream” movies (as opposed to porn) with explicit sexual content (penetration, explicit oral, full frontal male) they occasionally use prosthetics. They used some prosthetics in that HBO Series “Tell Me You Love Me”. There are a couple other movies out there I’ve heard use prosthetics, and a couple that are apparently not simulated at all.
For the simulated stuff (i.e. SkineMax, HBO late night), they generally don’t use prosthetics ... but they don’t need to when its simulated.
H
I remember the Batman of the late 1940s. The comics were dar and foreboding and Batman operated on the outskirts of the law.
I don’t recall, however, climbing up the tower at a local campus and taking out victims with longe-range weapons. I think I used to instead walk to the store for a ice cream sandwich.
Eggheads akways have to spoil the fun.
Disney’s been digitally airbrushing out the tobacco scenes. Even when a sequence no longer makes sense.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,283933,00.html
“In the original version (near right), the legendary cowboy smokes cigarettes incessantly; in one shot, he ropes a cyclone while rolling a homemade number on his tongue, igniting the butt with a lightning bolt. For the VHS edition, those shots, along with some song lyrics describing Bill’s tobacco-sucking prowess, have been cut, leaving the tune with a roughly 20-second trim and one full verse missing — call it Arrhythmic Time. Plus, the Disney video elves have magically erased Bill’s cigarette in every remaining shot.”
Nope. I would never take my 9 year old to see it, but I will let him watch the Indiana Jones series no problem. PG-13 means just that, people should be smart enough to research a movie before their kids see it.
I grew up on comic books and horror movies, and I knew that what I saw on the screen and in the comics was make believe. This guy acts like kids can’t differentiate between fact and fiction, and I disagree.
Try explaining “I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry” to a nine year old who sees the ad for it on T.V., far worse than Batman ever could be.
My grandmother didn’t like me watching Christopher Lee’s Hammer Dracula movies as a 12 year old either...
>>It was a dark movie, but with definite overtones/lessons about good and evil. I would think most boys over the age of 7 would be fine with it.<<
My nephew runs a movie theater in Cleveland. His boys see tons of movies. He will not let his 10 year old in. And this is a boy named after the main character in “The Crow”.
Seriously, there are parts of the movie that may play differently in a child’s mind. You don’t know how it will compute. The PG-13 was a good call. No preteens in the theater. Better to wait for DVD at home where a parent can edit.
As for the Magic Trick and the idea that you don’t see anything, that is the art of cinema. You didn’t see the knife go into Janet Leigh in the shower scene of Psycho. That didn’t mean that it wasn’t violent, just that it wasn’t graphic. Even the blood was chocolate syrup.
You don’t need to see what happens to know what happens.
“Purdue Professor Wary Of ‘Dark Knight’s’ Impact On Kids”
Funny, I’m more worried about Purdue University’s impact on kids!
People didn’t have TV in 1954. The hearings were in response to public concern that was real.
The same was true with Tipper Gore and rock lyrics. Charlton Heston was doing the same.
It’s all part of the slippery slope. Comics are cotton candy for the brain - kids were supposed to be studying.
“PG-13 means just that, people should be smart enough to research a movie before their kids see it.”
Ta-da! (to coin a phrase)
Spot ON!!!!
How simulated is it really? If parts are bumping would you find it acceptable for your spouse to participate in such a scene?
It may be “discretely” photographed but it isn’t a “simulation”. It is just not rounding all the bases.
Rarely in a simulated violence scene is there any hate or injury. Even two men wrestling aren’t “simulating” anything. They are grappling.
I wish those over 18 would research the Obamessiah before going to vote for him.
Disney edits a lot.
Go to my homepage and read about “Sunflower”
I actually own a tape of a broadcast of “The Wonderful World of Color” where you can see the sequence unedited. One realizes how lame the edit is once you see the original.
Tv started in 1949 and the Keffauver hearings were televised in the 1950s.
Charlton Heston didn’t go to the “public”, he read the lyrics of Cop Killer to the shareholders of Warner Brothers. Charlton Heston didn’t push for legislative prosecution of those selling naughty albums to minors, the Gores did (vice squads busted retail clerks earning minimum wage).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.