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
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.