Not really.
News Variety Reports Robert Pattinson is the new Batman
- Thread starter auntiehill
- Start date
- Status
Not really.
The Last Jedi could have become a great movie if it had a proper follow-up, but Rise of Skywalker retroactively made it and TFA worse.
The Last Jedi is still the best SW movie for me. It just floats in a void of possibility in which its story was never finished (nor entirely properly set up).
Okay...I'm trying to stay away from spoilers because I'm going to go see this when it comes out for everyone. But really, some of these reviews I'm seeing just make me wonder what is going on.
Apparently one person wrote that Pattinson is "a very broody Batman who never smiles" and the movie "is not kid-friendly for younger ones".
....Seriously?
Apparently one person wrote that Pattinson is "a very broody Batman who never smiles" and the movie "is not kid-friendly for younger ones".
....Seriously?
Not everyone is as tuned into films and their development or promotion as people on this board are. There will be parents who will see an advert for a new Batman film and will just file it alongside the MCU or whatever as something to bring their kids to. A local cinema chain owner down my way was asking the local council to do something about the ratings, as it’s different (lower) in the Republic of Ireland to that in the North and he reckons his staff will be getting flack when they have to turn families away. https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/ni-cinema-chain-owner-bid-23114141.amp
I mean, sure, lots of people don't pay attention. But the last batman series we got included The Dark Knight. So someone assuming 'Batman' equals 'kid-friendly' is still pretty damn weird.
Parents are not always making wise choices regarding movies and kids [/understatement meter on maximum]. I once attended a midnight showing of The Dark Knight and some idiots had brought a 4 year old and a baby in a portable car seat/stroller. Apart from the inappropriateness of the film for a four year old, exposing the extremely sensitive hearing of an under 12 month old infant to the sounds of that movie bordered on child abuse. Never underestimate the inability of parents to choose unwisely for children and movies, ESPECIALLY if the film is based on a superhero.
(I also saw a family of five, no kid over 8 years old, at a screening of Deadpool.)
(I also saw a family of five, no kid over 8 years old, at a screening of Deadpool.)
Yeah, it's ridiculous. They go to the trouble to give films ratings that clearly inform people whether they're suitable for children, but some parents always just ignore the ratings and take their kids anyway. I remember when I went to RoboCop 2 and was startled that a couple of parents had brought very young children, who soon ended up crying and IIRC had to be taken out of the theater. You can put up all the warning signs you want, but they only work on people who bother to read.
Let’s not forget all the kids at home whose parents let them watch such films (sometimes repeatedly) without joining them in the viewing. My son, when in elementary school, would routinely ask me why his then under 10 year old friends were allowed to watch a bunch of movies when I would not let him see them. He eventually understood when, as a family, we watched Gravity in our home cinema. I’d frankly forgotten the quick moment when a piece of debris effectively decapitated an astronaut and we we see the hole in the helmet where the head used to be. He was then 10 years old and after that moment, he climbed into my lap for the rest of the movie and had some disturbing dreams for a few days. Meanwhile, some of his friends were watching Game of Thrones. Now I strongly believe it’s the responsibility of parents, not the state, to decide whether a child is ready for a particular show or movie (my daughter, unlike my son, was never bothered by films and was a more mature viewer at a younger age than my son). However, there is a degree of common sense involved and, sadly, too few parents exercise it. Either they rely entirely on ratings (crude, but better than nothing) or they give no thought to it whatsoever.
Meh, I watched Terminator when I was 8. Was not scarred for life. I've also seen movies featuring scenes with women that have breasts exposed (!!!!) when I was like 12... Did not die.
I'm pretty sure my brother and I had seen two or three 'R' rated movies before we turned ten. 'Blazing Saddles' and 'Saturday Night Fever' being the two I distinctly remember. I was four and seven when they came out.
It's more "comic book movies are for kids" that is the general assumption. And this has been going on pretty much since I became aware of the ratings system. Friends of mine would be watching various horror films (we were all may be 10) as well as Batman, and Batman Returns.
Nothing is new under the sun.
Whereas when I was about eight, my father fired my sister's and my live-in nanny after she let her disreputable boyfriend drag us to a double-feature of a couple of racy PG-rated movies (The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox and Mother, Jugs & Speed) and then a bar. And made us ride unsecured in the back of his pickup truck. I was very uncomfortable with the whole experience. I would've probably been really freaked out if they'd been R-rated.
I'm still mad at my dad for letting me see Alien at 8. Stupid film.
I still remember the mothers who brought their kids to see the South Park movie. The reactions on their faces when the Terrance And Phillips song started was priceless.
I'm thinking, "Yes it's a cartoon, but how did you miss the R rating?" Animation isn't just for kids.
Last edited:
This is all personal opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. All the movie did was piss away what had been setup and turned the series into a hot mess. I've never been more disappointed after a Star Wars screening. If I had never seen the previous one or the one that came after, I'd have still been pissed with what they did to Luke's character.
I know the movie has its fans, but I (and a great many others) hated it and will always take any review that gave it a high rating with a mountain of salt.
Of course not. And my daughter would have been equally unfazed at 8. However, not my son. My point isn’t to argue that ratings are inviolable. Rather, my point is a responsible parent would at least be aware of what their kids are watching and adjust accordingly. Not always possible, of course, but “I can’t do it all the time” =/= “it’s not worth doing at all”. It’s not about banning without explanation. It’s about assessing each child’s level of readiness. Parenting includes guidance.
Yeah this is all true. Passive parenting usually doesn't lead to good things. At least know what your kids are doing, even if you don't interfere much.
- Status