1. My 7 yr old son has seen Batman Begins, Transformers, and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, all without issue, but for a good reason. My son and I talk about the difference between movies and reality, and how movies can act as "pretend play" for grown ups. That being said, after the first trailers for Dark Knight my wife and I decided to see it first before taking our son. Needless to say, my son is a bit disappointed that he will not be seeing it. The difference in intensity levels between Begins and DK was the deciding factor for us. I still puzzle at the lack of attention some parents pay to ratings (movies, videogames ect) nowadays.

Posted at 12:21PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Drew

2. Drew, it sounds like you and your spouse have a good approach to movie ratings with your child. It's a shame that more parents can't or won't be as diligent. Most parents are quick to blame the MPAA (which in and of itself is a hypocrasy and a joke, but that's neither here nor there) but they fail to take any responsibility.

Posted at 12:57PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Wayne

3. Respect the rating, that's all.

I didn't see anything in TDK that would scar a 13 year old, but if you are bringing a six year old into see TDK, then shame on you.

Posted at 12:21PM on Aug 5th 2008 by John R

4. I totally agree with you. This movie is definitely not made for anyone under the age of 10-11, but thats exactly why the rating is PG-13...unless you're kid is 13 then you should be careful about taking them to see this, and you should definitely see it without them beforehand so that you can judge for yourself. Seems like a pretty simple solution. The whole ratings system would be unnecessary if parents would just take a little time to engage in their childs activities. The beheading in Narnia might have been a little rough for a PG rating, but at the same time the trailers made it pretty clear what kind of movie it would be. Parents are just to lazy to the necessary research, which is a shame.

Posted at 2:31PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Kevin

5. I'm in the UK
My buddy brought his 10 year old stepson to the IMAX showing of TDK last week & he loved it.

I was a bit apprehensive when he said he was going to take him & having seen the film I'm pretty sure my apprehension was justified. This was WAY more violent (implied & direct) than anything which had a 12 rating (12A didn't exist when I was younger but I guess is like PG13 where it's aged 12 unless accompanied?) when I was younger.
I believe the first 12 rated film I saw was the original Batman (which prompted the change) which is like a comic in comparison (yeah, I know!)

Posted at 12:50PM on Aug 5th 2008 by LordPaul

6. DK was great, however when i went to see it, there were several children in the 5 yr old range with their parents there. Whenever there was a scary part or intense part, sure enough, little boy and girls would cry and scream and it was annoying, it sadly takes away from the movie.
However I think it would also take away from the child. How many people's childhoods have the image of batman in them. These kids are going to be scared Sh**less of Batman and anything to with it.
What measures do parents take to prevent their kids from seeing "bad" content? I've worked at a movie theatre, and it seems like, 1.) if the movie's out, it's ok. That's it!! So so many take their kids ages 3 - 10 to Rated R movies, where kids like that have no place. Worse case scenario (this happened) After watching Jackass 2, a man and his what had to be 6 year old son, looked up to his dad and asked "I didn't know horses made milk, is that true?"
The ratings may suck, and they do, but parents suck even more. My parents cared way back when, I wasn't allowed to watch PG-13, until I was 13, R until 17. It's as if these people just don't care about their kids, and it's frightening that way.

Posted at 1:13PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Nathan

7. The bottom line is that people just want to complain to cover up for their lack of parenting skill or lapse of judgment. The first trailers for Dark Knight gave a good glimpse into how dark the film was going to be - explosions, Joker wielding knives (I doubt he was hosting a cooking show on the Food Network), guns going off, you name it. MOST parents are lazy, however, and they just drag their kids along for the ride. The kid either gets scared or the parents go into theatrics about how vile it is, and then people start snowballing into the whole "The movie was too dark!" spiel.

Just like people trying to complain about how Batman's voice was too dark. Seriously? Is that the best you could come up with?

Posted at 1:13PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Wiley

8. I use the ratings for my 8 years old, and if I bypass it, it is because I've seen the movie before hand. I'm doing the same thing with games. Usually works very very well for me.

I rarely blame the creator of a song/movie/book/game/whatever for its content and how it could affect children, I blame the parents because, being one, I know how EASY it is to control those things to a certain degree.

Posted at 1:14PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Whiskey Jak

9. The system sucks, but so do parents. I think the rating for The Dark Knight was borderline, it implied more than you saw, but it was almost rated R territory.

On the parents end, even as dark as this movie was, there were numerous children in the range of 2-5 year olds in the theater both times I saw it, which is irresponsible. Not only for the sake of the other customers, but for the sake of those kids as well.

The Dark Knight is an amazing movie, and I for one almost wish for the hard R Rated Batman movie, but not for those kids to be just let into it by their parents.

Posted at 1:33PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Erik

10. Personally I place this totally on the parents. The ratings are a tool - not the be all, end all. They don't replace parenting! Especially since parents should be aware of what their children can and can not handle - just because it says PG-13 on it does not mean all 13 year olds can automatically handle it. At the same time there may be some under 13 year olds who can. You have to know your own child and act in their best interests. And that does not mean letting them go just because they want to either!

Parents...Parent!!!

Posted at 1:33PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Deborah

11. The fundamental question is why isn't TDK an R? The Joker graphically murders people throughout the film. Nevertheless, Warner is using Batman to sell Domino's and Comcast. Nevermind, the action figures (when I was 13 it was time to turn in my GI Joe guys).

Meanwhile, Zack and Miri can't get anything other than an NC-17 for bad words and body parts. Its more than just parents, its the ratings board that fears one F-word on screen more than 20 murders on screen.

I say dump the whole thing, require filmakers to list the content in the films (based on pre-set standard definitions) and then let parents freaking parent.

Posted at 3:24PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Mike

12. Graphic- 1. giving a clear and effective picture; vivid
5. depicted in a realistic or vivid manner
Which of the Jokers killings were graphic? The pencil trick cut away without showing anything physical, as did Gambits murder. Hell, when I watch the movie I'm curious as to exactly how he did kill Gambit, cause if he just cut off an inch or two of his cheek then he certainly wouldn't die right away. The cop he kills in the hospital? Don't even see it, they zoom past the officer right when he shoots, so again, no "clear and effective picture" there. The one thing that was "graphic" in the movie was Two Face. But your point seems to illustrate a common misconception about audiences, which is that if a movie hints at something, and you can clearly IMAGINE it, then its graphic, or perverse, or over the top. However, with many sexualized movies you do end up with graphic displays of sexuality. Which is what I heard was the reasoning behind the NC-17 rating for Zack and Miri. The movie showed clear, and accurate depictions of sexual behavior in a realistic and vivid manner. If it got an NC-17 for showing two people entering a bed room and then implied that they were having sex, and implied it so clearly that you can certainly IMAGINE them having sex, then I would agree with you. But hell, Naked Gun did that and didn't get an NC-17, so I'd have to think that Zack was a little more...graphic. Thats where the distinction is, and apparently many people like to blur it and dismiss it.

Posted at 11:39AM on Aug 27th 2008 by odiekevin@hotmail.com

13. my daughter is only allowed to see G movies right now. when she gets older i will most liekly view a movie before she gets to go.

what about the issue of seeing R rated or red band trailers before a PG movie? i have been to see a PG movie with my nephews, and the trailers before hand were for horror movies that were R rated.

Posted at 3:24PM on Aug 5th 2008 by lainix

14. With 13 year old girls getting pregnant..... who are these complaining parents kidding? Kids that age aren´t that innocent.

Posted at 3:24PM on Aug 5th 2008 by victor de la torre

15. I don't think parents can complain about the ratings. It's a parent's responsibility to ensure that the movie they're taking their child to is appropiate. There are websites that detail every swear word, act of violence and sexual incident appearing in each new release, so there is no reason why parents should blame the ratings board. I mean, I saw Step Brothers today and a lady brought her 9-year old. They left 20 minutes in, but she should've known it wouldn't be appropiate, especially considering the rating.

However, I think nowadays some parents are way too strict regarding content. There's no way that a 12-year old should have a problem with The Dark Knight. That's the type of movie I would've been OK with when I was about 8-years old.

Posted at 4:30PM on Aug 5th 2008 by DylanG

16. Absolutely with Mike (#11) on this one; TDK clearly deserved an R in my opinion, not so that kids couldn't see it, but so that they couldn't see it alone, and so that parents really wouldn't be bringing their small children with them.

Posted at 10:21PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Foobar

17. I took my daughter (age 12) and her two cousins (boys age 11 and 13) to see TDK. I thought the film was way too intense and violent for kids this age. It most definately deserved an R rating and was disturbing for me to watch. Additionally, the trailers before the film had my daughter upset before the movie even began.

I'm usually more dilligent about examining the content, but I thought my nephews, who have been exposed to a lot more than my daughter would enjoy it. They weren't shocked, but that doesn't make it appropriate. It means they have been exposed to enough inappropriate content that it no longer mattered.

For me it wasn't even the images as much as the intensity of the evil.

I would much prefer a movie have language and nudity that such violence and evil.

Also, different movies with PG-13 ratings have completely different levels of violence. There is no consistency.

Parents that take young children to this type of movie are abusing their children. If they don't react to it, they have been exposed to way too much previously. No child of that age should have that exposure to evil.

Posted at 10:35PM on Aug 5th 2008 by Karen

18. COME ON, GIVE ME A BREAK

Posted at 3:25PM on Aug 9th 2008 by victor de la torre

19. Hmm, so kids that age are exposed to too much to begin with? How did they get that exposure? Oh thats right, you answered my question with the very first sentence of your post...you took them to it. Why? The trailers and reviews for the movie made it very clear that it was extremely intense. That alone should have tipped you off that you should see the movie alone before taking your kids, nephews, etc. to see it. Its not the rating boards fault, its not the filmmakers fault. With the amount of information on the internet nowadays there is no way for anyone to walk into a movie and be shocked by its content unless they want to be. Spend 10 minutes online before taking your kids to see a film and you'll know EXACTLY what you are walking into. They had 2 faces picture up online, discussions of the end of the movie, boards dedicated to the joker, etc. If you don't want your kids to see the type of content present in the dark knight then simply don't take them.

Posted at 11:39AM on Aug 27th 2008 by Kevin

20. Bring originally from the UK I read about these complaints with interest. If anyone listens to the excellent movie critic Mark Kermode's podcasts then you would know he often talks about the ratings system and how 12A should mean 12.

But what has amazed me more than anything is the promotional tie in with Burger King over here in Australia, is it the same in the US & UK?

There are commercials for Burger King on TV talking about free Dark Knight toys with kids happy meals!!! I mean, the Dark Knight is not a kids film, should it really be forming part of a Happy meal?

Posted at 8:00AM on Aug 6th 2008 by Gary