Thursday, July 06, 2006

Thanks Short Round


From moviesonline, "Traditionally, mainstream comic book superheroes are meant to be enjoyed by audiences of all ages. Keeping that in mind, it's very interesting to note that "Superman Returns" is the first Superman movie ever to bear a PG-13 rating. Superman is the cleanest cut of all comics good guys, and his big screen adventures have always been the safest for kids everywhere. The previous four movies never drifted past a PG as far as the MPAA was concerned. However, times have changed and so has world's greatest and most innocent hero.

The advent of the PG-13 comic superhero blockbuster began with Tim Burton's "Batman." While there certainly have been other PG-13 and even R ratings on comic book films before and in recent times, none are so popular and widely recognized as Batman, Superman, and their fellow flagship comic icons from the DC and Marvel universes. Tim Burton's unique vision brought the on-screen Batman back to his darker and more ominous element. After the tide shifted to more daring cinematic waters, every subsequent Batman film came out with a PG-13 warning label on it, even the notoriously campy "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin."

Why are these movies being bumped up to a rating that starts with teenagers? Well, first of all, it’s significant enough to mention that teens are the primary target audience of comic books and their cross-media these days as opposed to younger children as has been the case in the past. As the Motion Picture Association goes, the label they attach to almost every PG-13 superhero flick reads more or less the same; stylized violence, or a similar explanation relating to violent action of some kind. This rating categorization applied in some way, shape or form to almost all of the comic book films released in the last six years, including both "Spider-Man"s, the three "X-Men"s, "Hulk," "Daredevil" and "Elektra," "Fantastic Four," and of course "Batman Begins." In fact, some parents complained that "Batman Begins" was too violent even for PG-13 and should have received an R designation instead.

"Batman Begins" director Christopher Nolan only did what Burton did in 1989, making Batman darker and grittier than any other mainstream superhero of the time. While there was no language or sexuality that would warrant an upgrade to an R rating, the latest installment in the "Batman" franchise certainly had more mature themes as well as more violence, none of which was bloody or gory, however. So what roused such an outcry about the newest "Batman"? Probably the most inciting scene is when Batman is set on fire and falls from a balcony flailing in total immolation. Watching Batman nearly die in flames might be more violent than most comic book films, but certainly not any more violent than other movies that make the PG-13 cut. In fact, "Batman Begins" is pretty tame by standards of some PG-13 action and horror flicks such as all three "Mission: Impossible" movies and both "The Ring" films, as well as hundreds of others.

But, I must propose a possible reason that "Batman" and perhaps other superhero films are being given a hard time by some out there. In almost every theater showing a superhero movie of any kind, there are inevitably parents bringing their children in to see it, regardless of the rating. When I saw "Batman" in theaters, a child started crying during that same scene where "Batman" fell from the sky in a bright burning blaze. It wasn’t an infant who couldn’t watch the film and enjoy it, but it was certainly a child who was under the age suggested by the rating. Parents may be disregarding ratings more easily with superhero comic book movies than with other PG-13 films since their children are probably fans like so many teens, adults, and even seniors out there. While the fact that it’s Spider-Man or Superman might make a movie seem appropriate for all ages, the rating is there for a reason, and parents and guardians should be mindful of that when taking their families to see these more grown-up superhero movies.

In this new age, there is certainly an audience for these more mature superhero films as the box office and fans everywhere have resoundingly demonstrated. The times are always changing and so are audiences, and the general modern moviegoer prefers the no-holds-barred approach. The success of less mainstream comic book movies that are far more adult in nature and content such as "Constantine," "Sin City," and "V for Vendetta," all of which received an R rating, just goes to show that great stories and heroes transcend the boundaries of rating. When "Superman" takes it up a rating level, it’s official that a more maturely themed era of superheroes is in full swing."

2 comments:

Octopunk said...

Oh, geez. Any assumption that comic books are a kid's medium is about 25 years out of date. The older, pop & fresh tones gave us the first Superman flicks (yay) but cinematically very little else. Any momentum c-books have gained as a storytelling medium is ALL about veering away from that "excelsior" crap.

50PageMcGee said...

there are comic titles that lend themselves to lightness. superman and fantastic four and spider-man leap immediately to mind as titles that aren't covered in grime and misery and (i guess spider-man walks a tightrope between those two ideas, but whatever.)

then there are the grime-and-misery comics. daredevil, batman, hulk, punisher... all of these characters live in a world of shadows. that's why we like them. the degree to which movies based on these comics work is the degree to which they adequately convey the grit upon which the comics are based. daredevil failed miserably in that regard because it tried to float on glamour and star-power, missing the atmosphere of the comic by miles.

provided that the gritty comics stay gritty, i don't mind that the clean comics are filmed as clean flicks, but first of all, when did "clean" equal "shitty"? -- the problem with FF wasn't that it wasn't clean enough, it was that it was directed by a guy whose previous movie was Barbershop; someone with no mastery of action or conflict.

secondly, when did it become film's responsibility not to give kids nightmares?

in the early days, disney made animated films with snarl and bite. the witch from snow white scared the shit out of me and many other kids and nobody complained. nobody insisted that the teeth be pulled from the movies so their kids wouldn't find a new face for their fear.

i haven't really been in touch with anything disney has done in the last 15 years and maybe people with kids would have better touch on this, but i think the fear factor has been toned down substantially in disney's modern fare.

i don't think this is really much of a problem. certainly quality films can be made with wit and charm as their driving forces -- everything pixar ever did can be described this way: they create tension more with action and less with fear and i've never left a pixar flick unsatisfied.

Malevolent

 2018  ***1/2 It's 1986 for some reason, and a team of paranormal investigators are making a big name for themselves all over Scotland. ...