PG-13 Rating Turns 20 321
Ant writes "CNN has a story about the 20 year anniversary of PG-13 and how it was created/born from two of Steven Spielberg's movies. (Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom and Gremlins)" Oh, Mola Ram and your heart-removing antics, little did you know the profound impact you would have.
Enforcement... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting that just because a movie is rated PG-13 that it is, by default, a bad movie. What I am suggesting is that continuations of previously successful films, and modern horror/action flicks will never be what we all remember them to be. We will never see truly cheesy and senselessly bloody movies like Evil Dead ever again.
Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls, this [adirtyshamemovie.com] one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.
jack valenti can go [CENSORED] (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this "knews" piece even relevant? CNN has a pro-MPAA, pro-RIAA, Valenti puff piece every couple days. You don't see a whole lot of well-rounded copyright discourse on the major media news outlets. (Gee, I wonder why...) CNN: We're tough on music fans. We like suing kids and grandmas. We equate infringement with theft. We are fair and balanced, too.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least we have DVD now, so movies hacked up to get the tamer rating can release "unrated" versions with the lost footage intact (in fact, the unrated versions drive up sales, consumers are much more inclined to buy a movier they're already seen when they're promised new gory or sexy footage.)
Of course, it's much easier for kids to get ahold of an unrated or R-rated DVD to repeatedly watch in the privacy of their own home... But that's another matter.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a movie, then deciding if it fits in G, PG-13, 14-Years, R, NC-17 is fine.
Declaring ("We need to make this movie PG-13" | We cannot afford to have a movie NC-17") "so cut it down until it fits" is the issue.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, your real problem is with the movie studios. Basically, they stopped making plots in, what, '86 or so? With the rare exception of a "Memento" here or a "Requiem For A Dream" there, you can limit your watching to only movies made prior to the late '80s without missing a single thing.
People keep saying this, but I don't buy it. We have a collective ability to remember the classics and forget all the crappy movies made throughout the years and think things used to be better. They weren't. They've made shitty hack movies since day one. Sequels aren't even anything new, look how many third-rate sci-fi and detective series have been produced throughout the years. I'll give you that the major studios put out some great stuff in the '70's, but that was a fluke-- before then, it was much the same as it is now.
The truth is, people want the crap. A good movie can do pretty well and find an audience-- look at, say, Donnie Darko-- but the majority want their Alien Vs. Predator. They want to forget their troubles and watch special effects, not be asked to think. And you can give AvP a scathing review, and their friends will tell them it sucked, and they'll still go to see it. If the audience truly hungered for better movies, there would be more of them.
There are good movies being made, by the way. Thanks in part to both DVD potential and the explosion of low-cost digital editing, idependent filmmaking is stronger now than ever. And it's actually possible to make something great on a shoestring budget with no studio backing or big names and get it seen. That was much, much harder to do as recently as fifteen or twenty years ago.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, $5 might be high-ballin for you, in which case I apologize for making light of your econimic status.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Showgirls decent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enforcement... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PG-13 is a root cause of bad films. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey? That's probably my all time favorite. I find that "adult" film really means adolescent film. I don't care to spend hours and hours filling my head full of blooshed and gore. There's a whole universe of stuff out there that could make for interesting films, but people are so in love with violence that that's what we get. Either that or just plain stupid, sappy stuff.
Long ago I decided to vote with my buck and just stop going to the movies.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:4, Insightful)
A Step in the Wrong Direction for MPAA (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that *all* of the ratings rely on someone else telling parents what's appropriate for their children. I know, but let's pretend that parents in this country actually parent.
A better system of rating would be to rate them for launguage, violence, sexuality, etc., very similar to what many pay-cable networks use.
Google for yourself - there's plenty of outraged people out there who think that some PG-13 movies are unacceptable for 13-year-olds, but if a movies was rated for brief nudity and sexual content, we could all make that decision based on personal morals, as opposed to the nebulus PG-13.
What I think is acceptable for me and my children is wildly different from many puritanical types in America. In plus, the aforementioned movie with nudity and sexual content is called Mooseport (http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=6003
They had their chance 20 years ago for reform, and now we'll never see it.
Dead wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a "counter-trend," it's a "profit-trend." The "Unrated" label is just a ploy to sell more DVDs. "Ooh look! This is unrated, it must be full of sex and murder! I want to see what I missed in theaters!"
Re:binary rating system (Score:3, Insightful)
RC censors operate under rules where they are expected to look at West Side Story, recognize that it's based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, that the musical score is a skilled orchestral work and integral to the creation as a whole, and that there's an added message about racial and class intolerance that makes a number of profound moral points, and take such things into account in rating the film, while the current US system is expected to simply notice an underage romance is involved, and tack on some standardized points. Enough points for gang violence, knives being shown, and deaths and it's PG-13, a few more and its an R, and a "message" is often irrelevant to the final result.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:1, Insightful)
Profanity is boring. It's just a way to make some characters look cool, and that's stupid. I'd rather make up my own mind about what characters I like. I mean, occasionally, it actually fits, but usually it seems forced and purposeful.
Violence is entertaining, but barely. Blood, guts, and gore provoke some curiosity, but, beyond that, what's the point? Maybe I don't have much of a bloodlust instinct.
Sex is usually a way to manipulate our instinctual feelings. Personally, I don't like being manipulated. What also bothers me is that Hollywood is an aspiration for many; our rich and famous (often role models for teenagers) get paid money to flaunt their sexuality and have sex or fake sex on camera. It seems kind of pointless, but maybe something is lost on me.
I think the best kind of films are those that make you think you're about to experience some stereotypical "cinematic hot sauce" such as sex, violence, or profanity, and then suddenly, the director makes you laugh, because there's something totally nonobvious that happens which is not any of the "hot sauce" items. The kids don't understand, but it's something the adults get and are entertained by.
Of course, the obvious reply to this is that most movies need a sense of realism, and offensive or gutsy language, sex, and violence are obviously part of real life. But, I don't know. Something about lots of teenagers wanting to be quasi-prostitute movie stars who show off how cool they can look for gobs and gobs of cash... just seems... silly?
Maybe it's just me.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in Scandinavia you can curse in TV-shows and movies. I haven't heard much cursing in children movies, but it wouldn't be against the law.
The same goes with nudity. I've seen movies for children that contained nudity, but in a natural setting (like taking a bath etc.).
What we really try to protect young children against is violence. It seems like the american movies do the opposite. You can show violence, but if anyone shows a tit, the movie instantly moves up a rating
Re:Enforcement... (Score:3, Insightful)
This has more to do with the mass markety appeal of IMDB than with the cinematic excellence of that survey. Hell, look for just about any summer or Christmas blockbuster on that chart shortly after it opens. People will say it was the best film evar, but eventually common sense will bump it back down a few notches.
Re:Lost in Translation? (Score:3, Insightful)
The director -- Sophia Coppola was it? -- apparently lived in Tokyo for sometime, and used her experiences when making the movie. Whatever it was, it really shines through. No matter how enculturated you become (for example, I've lived in Shanghai for years now, speak Chinese, and am possibly now more comfortable with Chinese culture than the one I was born with), there are always these hopeless times where you realize that no amount of xenophelia will ever make you fit in, and that you will always be an outsider, if only because of your race.
Lost in Translation captures this feeling of hopelessness in such an incredibly poetic way.
Most of the people I've discussed this movie with that didn't like it (and sibling posts bear this out) seem to be mostly concerned with the fact that the film has the slow pace of real life rather than the accelerated pace of Hollywood blockbusters. It's really much more like a French film than an American one, I think, in terms of pace and style.
If you're not into that sort of thing, well... what can I tell you?
But understand that you are probably not the intended audience of this movie. It's about culture shock, and if you haven't experienced culture shock, you probably aren't going to identify with it.
Movies do not suck (Score:3, Insightful)
Good movies are coming out at an alarming rate. In fact, I would say that for the first time since the 60s it is now possible to go to a mainstream cinema and have a high chance of finding a real grownup movie on. Even wide-appeal movies like the Kill Bill movies, Lost in Translation and so on are grown up in the way that 80's movies never were. We have more 'pure art' movies available than ever before, now that Japanese, Chinese and Korean movies are finally actually being shown on screens (admittedly only in big cities). And even the summer blockbusters, lowest of the low in pure trash terms, sometimes contain depths (LoTR, Spiderman, pity about Troy though) that nobody would have dreamed of bothering to add in in the 1980s.
What's more, from a technical point of view there has never been a greater reserve of knowhow and skilled professionals available. Even a flop like Van Helsing was able to call on cinematography that was really a work of art in it's own right.
You want Real Art? The usual suspects are doing it: Talk To Her, Dolls. Hollywood's doing it too: The Others, Donnie Darko. But even if you don't want Real Art, the average quality of every grade of movie has moved up SO far since 20 years ago...
The movies are not dying. Watch a week's worth of multiscreen fodder from 1984 and you will agree with me!
Re:Voluntary ratings system (Score:1, Insightful)
Lies.