Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PG-13 Rating Turns 20

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the microwaved-green-monsters dept.

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.

8 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Enforcement... by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I realize the importance of having a rating that differentiates between a kid's movie and one for young adults, but as a non-parent I look on it with contempt. Ever since the R rating begun to be widely enforced, studios have toned down violent films so they can still have a chance at making money from the younger market. For example: I might actually have gone to see the recent Alien vs. Predator film had it been rated R, but since it was PG-13, I decided to wait until I can rent it. Enforcement of the ratings system, and the studios' response to it, has dealt the death blow for true horror/action films, because studios must now focus on making higher quality products for a more discerning audience if they want to make profit and carry the R rating. Instead they choose to neuter their movies and add some more special effects and popular cliché to entice the kids.

    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 one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.

    1. Re:Enforcement... by huchida · · 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.

    2. Re:Enforcement... by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's about supporting someone or something that deserves it. Beides, everyone is just as guilty as me when it comes to blowing $5 sometime in your life.

      Then again, $5 might be high-ballin for you, in which case I apologize for making light of your econimic status.

    3. Re:Enforcement... by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are two kinds of FOSS people on Slashdot: those who support free software because they support freedom, and those who support free software because it's free. You have just had a run-in with the latter.

    4. Re:Enforcement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is mostly an american thing. It's very amusing to see your "standards" from an european perspective.

      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 :-)

  2. jack valenti can go [CENSORED] by Speare · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  3. My problem is the exact opposite by the-matt-mobile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Though my position on this issue probably doesn't sync with the norm, I've found the problem with PG-13 to be the exact opposite of yours. Sometimes I'd just like to see a good movie without any of the questionable junk. (I know, I know - lots of people seem to prefer to see the stuff I just called junk in their moves - I'd rather that stuff be in movies rated R though.) Movies which for the most part probably could be rated PG throw some gratuitous scene or language in just to get the coveted PG-13 rating so that the teenage crowd won't dismiss it. So, what you end up with are movies which are mostly pretty good, but have some questionable content which may or may not fit with the rest of the story or the intended audience in one small scene just to get the more mature rating. So, from my perspective, the PG-13 rating has actually worsened my movie going experience. But, I recognize I'll be hard pressed to have very many other people on Slashdot agree. Let the puritanical accusations commence!

  4. Re:PG-13 is a root cause of bad films. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Most films are are either child and fundamentalist reactionary safe (G)

    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.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/