Nolan Fans

... Definitely just an observation since if there's one thing I dislike more than PG action, it's soft R. So I much rather see directors be rational and good businessmen and cut for PG-13 than have a soft R which you can barely notice like Expendables 2 for example (it's all just a side note)

LelekPL wrote:

MyCocaine wrote:Please take this rating bullshit elsewhere. The Dark Knight wasn't dark enough for you or something?

It's my favorite film of all-time but I don't get the "oh, it's so dark". It's more psychological and philosophical than most other superhero films but darker!?

Plus if there was one issue I had with the film it was actually the rating. When characters get shot I think it would have been more impactful if we actually saw blood and old-school bullet wound effects. Or i the interrogation scene, Joker bleeding and losing teeth... Much like IN THE SCRIPT. It wasn't necessary and the film made so much more money with PG-13... but R would have enhanced certain scenes.

If by dark you only mean visual violence then no its not a uniquely dark film, a 200 million dollar movie has to make its money. Although blowing up the love interest of two of the lead characters and the Joker's stories are kinda dark. As you've said its psychological and philosophical and in the context of this film both entail dark ideas.

I'm sure Nolan isn't squeamish as to not be able to include R rated material into his movies but he's clearly more intent on working in a larger scope and to do that PG-13 is pretty much required. However, if its less than a 100 million dollar budget then theres no reason why a WWII movie shouldn't be rated R.

I did not mean visual violence is dark nowhere in my posts. The first paragraph is about the film's thematical darkness which I still don't think is that unprecedented. It is there but it's not VERY dark like e.g. I Saw The Devil or Oldboy. Even other sh films were darker like Watchmen (not better, darker).

The second paragraph was about the R rating and whether it's necessary (which in TDK's case I clearly said it wasn't). Not darkness but R rating!

It was MyCocaine who referenced 'darkness'. We were talking about R rating before that. Two different issues - hence two different paragraphs.

LelekPL wrote:

MyCocaine wrote:Would you have preferred Gordon's kid getting killed in the end? Is that dark enough for you?

Saying The Dark Knight wasn't dark is bullshit. A dude gets a pencil through his eye. You don't need to show the actual impact of the pencil to make it dark. Or what about a father being forced to tell his son, that everything is going to be alright despite knowing his son is about to die. That's fucking dark.

Did I say anything that it should have been thematically darker!? No! Before you start going into full defensive mode (needlessly might I remind you) let me reiterate: I dont think it's very dark but I also don't think it should have been any darker, both thematically and plot-wise. All I said is that blood could have enhanced certain scenes but it wasn't all that necessary, which ultimately adds up to a very miniscule complaint. Not even a complaint, but rather an observation.

You seemed to be fixated on visual violence only. You could show me a decapitation and it still wouldn't be as dark to me as the last scene in The Dark Knight.

No, I wasn't. This was the chain of events:

1) I was talking about language when discussing the necessity of an R rating in Nolans next film if its about a group of regular soldiers
2) you started talking about darkness which had nothing to do with my posts but I decided to give you an answer nonetheless
3) I referenced your post by saying two different comments connected with 2 different issues:
- TDK is not that dark thematically imo (connected to your 'darkness' issue)
- blood could have enhanced some scenes but wasn't necessary in TDKs case (R rating issue)

LelekPL wrote:No, I wasn't. This was the chain of events:

1) I was talking about language when discussing the necessity of an R rating in Nolans next film if its about a group of regular soldiers
2) you started talking about darkness which had nothing to do with my posts but I decided to give you an answer nonetheless
3) I referenced your post by saying two different comments connected with 2 different issues:
- TDK is not that dark thematically imo (connected to your 'darkness' issue)
- blood could have enhanced some scenes but wasn't necessary in TDKs case (R rating issue)

I'll let you two sort it out but just to provide a little assist to MyCocaine I'll leave this link here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqe_feNbPRY

I think that's more of an argument for the film being 'heavy' rather than 'dark' but that's just imo and we're getting further from the topic... and my phone keeps pissing me off even more. Lets just say you think it's very dark and I think its moderately dark and lets end this off-topic 'darkness' debate.

It has nothing to do with an R rating.

LelekPL wrote:No, I wasn't. This was the chain of events:

1) I was talking about language when discussing the necessity of an R rating in Nolans next film if its about a group of regular soldiers
2) you started talking about darkness which had nothing to do with my posts but I decided to give you an answer nonetheless
3) I referenced your post by saying two different comments connected with 2 different issues:
- TDK is not that dark thematically imo (connected to your 'darkness' issue)
- blood could have enhanced some scenes but wasn't necessary in TDKs case (R rating issue)

I call bullshit. So a father being forced to tell his son, that everything is going to be alright despite knowing his son is about to die, isn't that dark? What more do you want. Do you want a Buñuel moment in which we see the pencil going through his eye? I feel your opinion it's related to the lack of blood, which you cave so much. Blood spurts isn't needed. This ain't a Tarantino flick.

MyCocaine wrote:

LelekPL wrote:No, I wasn't. This was the chain of events:

1) I was talking about language when discussing the necessity of an R rating in Nolans next film if its about a group of regular soldiers
2) you started talking about darkness which had nothing to do with my posts but I decided to give you an answer nonetheless
3) I referenced your post by saying two different comments connected with 2 different issues:
- TDK is not that dark thematically imo (connected to your 'darkness' issue)
- blood could have enhanced some scenes but wasn't necessary in TDKs case (R rating issue)

I call bullshit. So a father being forced to tell his son, that everything is going to be alright despite knowing his son is about to die, isn't that dark? What more do you want. Do you want a Buñuel moment in which we see the pencil going through his eye? I feel your opinion it's related to the lack of blood, which you cave so much. Blood spurts isn't needed. This ain't a Tarantino flick.

For the love of god. I didn't say it should be darker or that "I want sthg more". It's perfect as is. stop being a defensive fanboy because there's no need. All I'm saying is that it wasn't VERY dark imo but I didn't say it should have been darker. And by darker I mean thematically, not visually. i.e. it's not very dark and that's good.

Blood was an observation in regards to the R rating, not darkness!!! how many times do I have to repeat it!? you keep putting 'Tarantino' into my mouth even though I haven't mentioned him once on my own. You keep telling me I'm fixated on violence just because I made a small observation not connected to thematical darkness and yet you keep bringing it back. Just stop.

LelekPL wrote:

MyCocaine wrote:I call bullshit. So a father being forced to tell his son, that everything is going to be alright despite knowing his son is about to die, isn't that dark? What more do you want. Do you want a Buñuel moment in which we see the pencil going through his eye? I feel your opinion it's related to the lack of blood, which you cave so much. Blood spurts isn't needed. This ain't a Tarantino flick.

For the love of god. I didn't say it should be darker or that "I want sthg more". It's perfect as is. stop being a defensive fanboy because there's no need. All I'm saying is that it wasn't VERY dark imo but I didn't say it should have been darker. And by darker I mean thematically, not visually.

Blood was an observation in regards to the R rating, not darkness!!! how many times do I have to repeat it!?

I'm responding to you saying The Dark Knight isn't very dark. I just told you why that isn't the case and now you're calling me a fanboy. I could care less if you like the film or not but don't fucking tell me it isn't very dark. That's bullshit and you know it.