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.
The Funny thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Revisionist history (Score:2, Interesting)
It really means nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enforcement... (Score:5, Interesting)
PG-13 came around about the same time as the studios simply gave up trying. It has nothing to do with making movies teen-safe, and everything to do with the tactic also commonly seen in corporate board rooms: saying to hell with the future, let's see how much junk we can shove out the door on the cheap today before our customers abandon us.
Give PG-13 a break. If anything, it let studios add the occasional adult element to otherwise-PG movies while still allowing the chilluns to see them. Yes, current movies suck, but that has nothing to do with revamping the ratings system.
Re:Showgirls decent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Movie ratings and trademarks (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated [wikipedia.org]
PG-13 The best/worst thing to happen to movies.... (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to sum up the article (Score:4, Interesting)
The new sub-level then quickly became a marketting tool to capture more teenager money, effectively turning the whole rating system into a 2-level system again, since no filmmaker wants a PG rating anymore.
In short: *yawn*
AVP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:binary rating system (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard of the Catholic rating system. One thing they do that the MPAA doesn't is they look at how the sex/violence/whatever is portrayed and not just whether it exists. So if someone gets murdered, but the movie shows the consequences of violence rather than glorifying it, the Catholic system tends to take this into account. Of course, it's all based on the Catholic Church's idea of morality, so movies can also get nailed for things like showing unmarried couples living together, gay/lesbian relationships, etc.
They must be doing something right, though. I believe Gigli was rated "Offensive."
Re:Enforcement... (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue, if you'll let me troll for a paragraph or so, is that you're old and/or not interested in researching truly good films being made now. The quality of films right now, I'd say, is probably better than before, certainly not worse. For every Empire Strikes Back there were five American Ninja movies. It's just that, over time, we forget bad movies. I mean, who remembers movies like Fklesh & Blood [imdb.com]? But we remember Sunset Blvd. [imdb.com]. In 15 years no one will remember Avp. Just give it time. All the good stuff will rise to the surface.
The MPAA owns the major news outtlets anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
News Corp owns Fox News and 20th centuary fox
Time Warner owns CNN
Viacom owns Paramount and CBS (and also UPN)
I dont know who owns NBC (I think it is or was Vivendi or General Electric or something)
No matter where you go, most "news" outlets are biased.
When it comes to any issue that affects the big $$$$$ that Big Media makes, they are always going to go with whatever side makes them the most.
With regards to copyright, expect the MPAA to push for HD-DVD players (or whatever the new standard for blue-laser hi-definition DVDs ends up being) to only play protected content. And for any commercially available recording devices to use different disks. Their stated goal for that would be "preventing piracy" but their real aim would be to prevent anyone from being able to produce content for the format unless its been vetted by the MPAA first.
Not coincidentally, thats why Big Media is winning in congress over the technology companies (because Big Media can paint the congressmen that support them in a favorable light and paint those that wont in an unfavorable light)
Re:Enforcement... (Score:4, Interesting)
So what they did was release the film as unrated, with instructions for theatres not to allow anyone under 18 into the film. Since it wasn't technically an NC-17 film it was okay to show. Since then I think this loophole's been closed.
Anyway rating systems are messed up. Like foreign childrens films like "Billy Elliot" and "Whale Rider" get PG-13, and films with no sex or violence, just people talking, like "Thirteen Conversations About One Thing" and "Before Sunrise" get an R rating because they used the word "fuck" more than twice. I don't get that, use the f word twice it's PG-13, three times it's an R. On the Bourne Identity commentary they said they had to carefully decide which character would get the alloted f word. I don't think language should even be a criteria, kids can see worse language in school libraries.
And what's up with Europeans get the uncut version of "Eyes Wide Shut" while the U.S. gets the family friendly R-rated version?
Re:Mola Ram removed a heart? (Score:3, Interesting)
[spoilers ahead]
They had removed the shot in which one of the mental patients threw semen at Jodie Foster. This was a major plot point: the reason Hannibal decided to cooperate with her investigation. In the Blockbuster version, Hannibal told her to go away, then people started yelling, then he called her back and gave her the information she was looking for.
It made a lot more sense when I saw the whole thing, on DVD.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember the previous Alien and Predator movies? There was blood all over the place. There were even a few shots of naked boobies. And the comedic relief of the "You are one ugly motherfucker" line is missing.
I could understand a new franchise going for the PG-13 market. But established franchises like Alien, Predator, Friday the 13th and Nightmare On Elm Street should stick to their roots. It's going to be people in their mid 20s through late 30s who are going to see these films anyway. 13 year olds are like "Freddy who?" and "Wait a minute, the Predators are aliens too, right?"
Freddy Vs. Jason went for the R rating and made for a more enjoyable film IMHO.
AVP went for the PG-13 and wasn't as good as it could have been.
LK
Re:Enforcement... (Score:4, Interesting)
Effectively, two cuts of such movies end up on the DVD marketplace, and the consumer decides how offensive they want the movie to be.
Voluntary ratings system (Score:5, Interesting)
I found this out when Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was released this year. There was such an uproar about the film being rated 'R' (and thus a "Bush led conspiracy to keeping some people from seeing it") that a couple of theater owners in the Bay Area said they wouldn't enforce the 'R' rating on the film.
I'm not sure what would happen if a theater owner consistently ignored the rating system.
OT: Subscriber First Post (Score:5, Interesting)
-If
Bad Karma? No Probalo!
Re:Enforcement... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...
The tomato never lies: Showgirls [rottentomatoes.com] was not a decent movie, it is thoroughly rotten.
It looks decent enough from the trailer for what looks like a B movie. I do not know if they are toning it down for the general audience of Internet users (i.e. includes people who cannot get into an NC-17 film), but it appears as though it is an actual movie and not just a porno on the big screen.
Re:Enforcement... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, who remembers movies like Fklesh & Blood [imdb.com]?
I don't, but I sure as hell remember the 1985 remake [imdb.com] - it had a naked Jennifer Jason Leigh in it!
Maybe 20 years is long enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never seen a rating system for books - thank God. Some popular music is dissed for sex, obscenity, etc., but a rating system? Why are movies special?
Let the film makers make the flick they want to make. ASSume the flicks are viewable by those who have reached the age of majority. Most film makers are already required to shoot alternate footage for the TV version. With digital distribution to theaters (How are we coming on that?) let the theaters show the different versions at different times of the day.
I don't want my media censored. At the same time, I'm weary of writers, musicians and film makers who act like little kids and try to see what they can get away with just for the sake of doing it.
If you don't want to watch something, fine, don't watch it, but you don't have the right to stop me from watching it, so bugger off.
Poltergeist? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Movie ratings and trademarks (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you mean Midnight Cowboy ?
I can remember my parents seeing this in the theatre, and Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, both rated X.
Imagine a world when your parents go out to see X rated movies.
Ok that was too easy, imagine a world where... uh, oh never mind.
Re:PG-13 is a root cause of bad films. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Enforcement... (Score:3, Interesting)
When Robert Altman directed Gosford Park , he included eight "fucks", and earned his "R".
Source [filmjournal.com]
Re:PG-13 is a root cause of bad films. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is actually not true, although it is an oft-repeated myth on Slashdot. What immediately comes to mind is "The Matrix" and "Die Hard" - both of which garnered R ratings, and neither of which had any sex or nudity whatsoever. Violence will grab you an R in this country quite easily.
Violence _won't_ get an NC-17, or at least I've never heard of it doing so, but considering that such things as wars, death camps, and mass graves are covered daily in the news in all their graphic detail, I think this is relatively understandable. Simply put, violence tends to be a public issue, whereas sex is perceived as a private one - hence societal prudishness on sex/nudity vs. violence. I don't think that's really wrong or bad, just different than other places.
I agree, though: things would be a lot better if the same standards for nudity/sex were applied to violence. G-d knows I'm never going to let my kids watch TV without VERY close supervision.
-Erwos
US Catholic Bishop's Movie Rating System (Score:2, Interesting)
I always enjoyed reading their view on movies, it was usually the only reason I'd pick up the Catholic Key each week. Not that it ever stopped me from viewing them, but it was nice to know what they found offensive in them. The write-ups can be rather amusing in a stuffy sort of way.
Harold & Kumar go to White Castle
"Danny Leiner's road picture makes pretensions of social commentary concerning race and identity, but the only race it seems to care about is a race to the bottom, shamelessly finding humor in a story built around getting high while behind the wheel of a car. Recurring drug use, two instances of frontal nudity, much rough and crude language, as well as strong sexual and bathroom humor."
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie
"Incoherent animated action adventure about a teenager named Yugi....this dizzying and disjointed mess is little more than a 90-minute commercial for "Yu-Gi-Oh!" products."
Gigli (you asked)
"Stale romantic comedy about a low-level leg-breaker (Ben Affleck) who falls for a beautiful lesbian mob enforcer (Jennifer Lopez) hired to assist him in kidnapping a federal prosecutor's mentally handicapped brother. Lopez and Affleck exhibit more fizzle than sizzle in this overhyped clunker written and directed by Martin Brest, full of forced lewd humor and fueled by a distorted suggestion that sexuality is a malleable social construct and a casual endorsement of homosexual activity. A sexual encounter, excessive sexually explicit and rough language, as well as profanity and brief strong violence. O -- morally offensive."
Re:Maybe 20 years is long enough. (Score:2, Interesting)
Censorship is a different kettle of fish, and has nothing to do with sticking a PG-13 or any other cert on a film - or a game, or a CD, or a book.
And what is the "age of majority," anyway?