-

Jump to content



Photo

Logan's Run MPAA Rating


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
48 replies to this topic

#1 of 49 OFFLINE   James_M

James_M

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 135 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 10:57 AM

I can't believe this movie's still rated PG!! It should be rated R with all that T&A. It's so messed up that PG-13 didn't come into existance until 1984 and nobody's bothering to re-rate the questionable ones.

#2 of 49 OFFLINE   Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 11:05 AM

Quote:
I can't believe this movie's still rated PG!! It should be rated R with all that T&A.

Pffft... if you think Logan's Run has lots of T&A you haven't seen that many films. To tell you the truth, imo, I don't think Logan's Run deserves the R rating (a PG-13 yes, but not R). Hair, a film made a year (or two) after Logan's Run has more of it (and also has a glimpse of male full frontal nudity) and it's only PG. Now of days, due to the male full frontal nudity it would automatically be rated R... which is BS, but whatever. I'm still shocked that the MPAA finds nudity (and male nudity even more) offensive. Oh well, the MPAA is ran by a bunch of assholes so what can you really do?


#3 of 49 OFFLINE   rutger_s

rutger_s

    Supporting Actor

  • 878 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 07 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 11:11 AM

Three words:

Barbarella on DVD

The film was released to theaters back in 1968, before the MPAA decided to introduce the R rating. So its original rating was M(for Mature). The M was then changed to R in 1969 but in 1977, Paramount Pictures wanted to cash in on the success of Star Wars: Episode IV. So the film was edited to gain a PG rating. What was changed?

The title for one. Barbarella: Queen of The Galaxy. Also, all the nude sequences were altered to remove Jane Fonda's best parts. Then the sexual overtones were toned down.

However....

The DVD of Barbarella: Queen of The Galaxy sports the PG rating from 1977 but it is the original 1968 version of the film. You get Jane Fonda in her prime and the original sexual overtones.

#4 of 49 OFFLINE   Bill Slack

Bill Slack

    Supporting Actor

  • 841 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted March 23 2002 - 11:23 AM

AFAIK, whoever owns the film would have to re-submit it for rating, and there's no beneficial reason to do that. Why does it matter?

#5 of 49 OFFLINE   Larry Schneider

Larry Schneider

    Second Unit

  • 356 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 09 1999

Posted March 23 2002 - 12:48 PM

So what?

#6 of 49 OFFLINE   Ryan L B

Ryan L B

    Supporting Actor

  • 880 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2002

Posted March 23 2002 - 01:03 PM

if a major studio would remake logans run with all scenes included, an instant R on the spot. Also, why is the 1960's version of Psycho R. It should be a bare minimum of a PG for the time it was re submited in 1984.

#7 of 49 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted March 23 2002 - 01:36 PM

I don't see the point in any case. What purpose, other than of possibly historical interest, does it serve to put ratings on dvds?

It's one thing for parents to use ratings as a guide for movies in theaters that they may not get a chance to see. But for dvds, I don't see why they can't screen them. I know I do, and there are r-rated movies I'll let my son see a lot sooner than some pg or even g movies (I happen to find violence more offensive than nudity).
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#8 of 49 OFFLINE   Ryan L B

Ryan L B

    Supporting Actor

  • 880 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2002

Posted March 23 2002 - 01:43 PM

i mean I am 16, and no store I know of that ask me "hey you can't have that are you over 17. Now would they ask on the unrated versions of american pie.

#9 of 49 OFFLINE   Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 01:57 PM

Quote:
What purpose, other than of possibly historical interest, does it serve to put ratings on dvds?

To tell you the truth, I don't know. The MPAA has always been inconsistent with their rating decisions and it would be better off to abolish the MPAA and/or adopt a new rating system (the Canadian rating system, imho, makes more sense than the US rating system). I have no problem with nudity at all. Nudity is apart of human nature, why try to censor it up? Do people not see what is considered "nudity" when they go to the bathroom or take a bath/shower?

I was watching an E! True Hollywood Story on Fast Times at Ridgemont High last weekend and the MPAA told Amy Heckerling to edit out one shot of a male's penis or they will have an X rating. Their reason for the X rating was cause the penis is a "sexually agressive organ". Posted Image

What I don't like is that the MPAA basically listens to complaints from parents. Language and nudity are more offensive than violence (I have no problem with violence, but would you really want your kid to see a shoot out?). Giving a film a rating due to amount of language is bullshit now. I hear little kids who have dirtier mouths than me (and that's a shock to some people, including myself). Hell, I go right into my high school, filled with teenagers ages 14 - 19 and I'll hear more colorful uses of the f word, the c word, the s word, and so on in a few hours than in most R rated movies combined. And with nudity, most teenagers see nudity let it be on the internet or in real life.

The ratings to me are unneeded. If you don't want your kid to watch a certain film, then don't let your kid watch it (ban the film from the kid if necessary). When I was younger, my mom told me what films I could see and what films I could not see till I was mature enough to view them. If all parents did the same, then I don't think the MPAA would be as strict.


#10 of 49 OFFLINE   Scott D S

Scott D S

    Supporting Actor

  • 836 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 23 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 04:04 PM

Amen Matt!

#11 of 49 OFFLINE   Ryan L B

Ryan L B

    Supporting Actor

  • 880 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 05 2002

Posted March 23 2002 - 04:17 PM

Quote:
I was watching an E! True Hollywood Story on Fast Times at Ridgemont High last weekend and the MPAA told Amy Heckerling to edit out one shot of a male's penis or they will have an X rating. Their reason for the X rating was cause the penis is a "sexually agressive organ".
hey, aren't there brief penis shots in porky's and that is rated r.

#12 of 49 OFFLINE   Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 04:25 PM

Quote:
hey, aren't there brief penis shots in porky's and that is rated r.

There aren't any penis shots in Porky's, but Porky's 2: The Next Day has clearly visable penis shots during the finale with the KKK members.

I can also list many other films that are Rated R that have shots of penises. This all goes back to my comment about how the MPAA has always been inconsistent.


#13 of 49 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted March 23 2002 - 05:30 PM

The current rating system has so many flaws!

All ages should be allowed in (Let parents send their 10 year olds to see American Pie if they're that stupid.) and all pre-1968 films have NO RATINGS.

#14 of 49 OFFLINE   Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 05:39 PM

Quote:
and all pre-1968 films have NO RATINGS

My mom was telling me a story last weekend about Night of the Living Dead as I was buying the Millenium Edition DVD of it. She was telling me when she was 15 (1974), her friends and herself were trying to get into the theaters to see it, but the people who worked at the theater wouldn't let her see it. I remember that the film came out before the MPAA was established so it had no rating at all (I remember reading an article about the movie by Roger Ebert and when he saw it back in 68 there were kids [around 8 years old] all in the theater), but why would a theater not let in people who are 15 to see it, but years earlier anybody could see it (even without a re-rating, and yes that's a run-on sentence Posted Image)? (Yes, Night of the Living Dead is one of the scariest films of all time, but the film has very little on screen violence (most of the violence happens off camera and I've seen PG-13 films that are worse in content.)


#15 of 49 OFFLINE   Paul Linfesty

Paul Linfesty

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 216 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2001

Posted March 23 2002 - 06:47 PM

Quote:
The film was released to theaters back in 1968, before the MPAA decided to introduce the R rating. So its original rating was M(for Mature). The M was then changed to R in 1969 but in 1977, Paramount Pictures wanted to cash in on the success of Star Wars: Episode IV. So the film was edited to gain a PG rating. What was changed?


Actually, the R rating existed at the same time the M rating did. M stood for "Suggested for Mature Audiences." This rating apparently was confusing, so it was changed to "GP: Parental guidence suggested - all ages admitted" this was later changed to "PG". There is no need to re-submit any M film for a PG rating...it is automatic as M has the same meaning as PG, as long as it is the same version that originally carried the M.

#16 of 49 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer

  • 5,585 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted March 23 2002 - 08:02 PM

I find it interesting that Warners upcoming DVD release of "Watership Down" is showing a "G" rating but the original rating when it was theatrically released was "PG".
Tolerance levels for violence seem to have increased while levels for showing skin seem to have decreased.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#17 of 49 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor

  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted March 25 2002 - 02:09 AM

News flash: We don't live in a perfect world. Posted Image

The MPAA ratings are inconsistent and sometimes misleanding, and often they don't agree with our personal sensibilites. Also, the rules change over time.

For what it is I think it does a great job. I wish the RIAA would do the same type of thing for music CDs.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#18 of 49 OFFLINE   Richard Kim

Richard Kim

    Producer

  • 4,389 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2001

Posted March 25 2002 - 02:25 AM

To take a quote from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut:
Quote:
Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!


#19 of 49 OFFLINE   Matthew Chmiel

Matthew Chmiel

    Screenwriter

  • 2,284 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 25 2002 - 03:39 AM

Quote:
I wish the RIAA would do the same type of thing for music CDs.

Oh god. Posted Image I personally think that the Parental Advisory sticker is enough.


#20 of 49 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor

  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted March 25 2002 - 04:34 AM

Quote:
I personally think that the Parental Advisory sticker is enough.
Except for the fact that is used sporadically at best. But it's important that the industry step up and do this kind of thing itself and not have anything imposed by governmental authority.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004



Forum Nav Content I Follow