Slashdot Mirror
PG-13 Rating Turns 20
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 is that actor that plays Ram was a popular Indian actor that played villian roles. His lines were all in Hindi, and not gibberish. Something about "Black mother" if I remember correctly.
The article talks about how it was adopted and loved and all that when for a long time - even after Indiana Jones and such - it was the No Man's Land of ratings. Teens could still get in to R movies, while parents wouldn't want to take younger kids to PG-13 movies. I'm not sure where they came up with this tripe of a story. Then again it seems to be an RIAA press release gifted to them by CNN so it's understandable that it's full of shit.
What I don't get, is that the rating systems are inconsistent. Here in Quebec, most movies that are rated R elsewhere are rated PG-13. Take Hannibal for instance, I believe in the U.S. it was rated R, in Quebec it was PG-13 or maybe even PG-14, and in Brittish Columbia I think it was rated PG. How can anyone make sense of anything when the rating system is inconsistent? If you ask me, it's just a waste of time, completely meaningless.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
An interesting bit of movie rating history: when the MPAA brought out the original system (G/M/R/X), they trademarked the first three but not "X." Pornographers were thus free to use it, and it came to be associated with "pornography" instead of "adult content," requiring the creation of the "NC-17" rating years later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
When it came out in the 80's it was the best thing to happen to movies. Youu could have a good humor flick with a flash of nudity and still have the teens go to see it. Now it's an excuse to make a half assed horror/thriller and tone it down enough to make them extra money. So many movies have been killed by this rating. Blah....
Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
That anon post is exactly right - Red Dawn was not the first film to get a PG-13 rating (I can't remember which one was), but it was the first film *released* with a PG-13 rating. At the time, Red Dawn had more scenes of graphic violence than any other movie ever made.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Spielberg had the brilliant idea of adding a sub-rating to a 2-level rating system (making *gasp!* 3 levels), told it to his buddy Jack Valenti, who then asked their opinion to theater owners (who, as everybody knows, are reknown experts in pedopsychology) and implemented it.
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*
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
AVP is a prime example of abuse of the PG-13 rating by a major studio. AVP was shot as an "R" rated film, but the studio, at the last second, decided to cut the film to a PG-13, so the younger crowd could get into see it, and make more money. To me, they ruined the film by doing this. Thankfully, they did not cut Freddy vs. Jason to a PG-13, yet it still was the number one movie that week and made a lot of money. Hollywood has long since lost it's segregation in regards to ratings. Instead of making kid films, teenager films and adult films, the studios are making "all in one" films that just about everyone can see.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
The problem is with the unintended consequences of the ratings system. In theory, there should be 5 different ratings (G, PG, PG13, R, NC17). In reality, the ratings start to take on meanings other than the ones they were intended to have. For example, G means "kid's movie" and NC17 means "sex" so studios deliberately avoid putting out movies that have these ratings. Sometimes this means adding an expletive or two for the sole purpose of getting the movie up to PG instead of G.
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."
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
No, movies are still good. I could name about 100 that have come out in the past 15 years that are spectacular. As shorthand, please note that 20 of IMDB's Top 50 Movies are from 1990 or more recent. I'm not saying all those are masterpieces, but they're damn good.
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? But we remember Sunset Blvd.. In 15 years no one will remember Avp. Just give it time. All the good stuff will rise to the surface.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Disney owns ABC america
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)
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?
[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.
I'm so glad that you mentioned AVP. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with the PG-13 centric model of movie making.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's also lead to an interesting counter-trend out of Hollywood... they're now putting out the "unrated edition" DVD for movies that had to get some scenes cut to qualify for the lower MPAA rating. The American Pie movie series comes to mind as an example of just such a case.
Effectively, two cuts of such movies end up on the DVD marketplace, and the consumer decides how offensive they want the movie to be.
I was surprised to find out that the motion picture rating system is a voluntary system. It is enforced by the ownership/management of a theater and not by law (like age limits on alcohol or driving).
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.
Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
This is an interesting side-effect of subscriptions - it enables intelligent first posts. Trolls aren't really gonna subscribe because they are all broke 13-year-olds (or broke 23-year-olds). So you have a bunch of people selected from what is likely to be the most intelligent posters getting a head start. An interesting strategy would be to just delay stories for people with low/no karma. It could possibly make this effect more pronounced. Of course you would market it as a reward for having high karma.
-If
Bad Karma? No Probalo!
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...
The tomato never lies: Showgirls 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.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
I mean, who remembers movies like Fklesh & Blood?
I don't, but I sure as hell remember the 1985 remake - it had a naked Jennifer Jason Leigh in it!
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.
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
I can't believe they didn't mention Poltergeist. I don't remember how old I was, but it scared the living crap out of me when that guy tore all the skin off his face. I was so afraid from that point on I had to leave the theater.
I would agree with you. I lived both in this country and abroad and Americans are definetly obsessed with violence. Oh the horror if there is any nudity on the screen or any show of affection, the movie gets an R or NC-17 rating easily. But there can be limbs cut off and people blasting each other away and that is accepted. I am not saying that nudity should be shown to kids, its just that at least the same restrictive standards should apply for violence as there are for nudity and sex - something that is far more common and normal.
When Robert Altman directed Gosford Park , he included eight "fucks", and earned his "R".
Source
"But there can be limbs cut off and people blasting each other away and that is accepted."
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
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
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."
"My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake