Will the PG-13 Madness Stop? (1 Viewer)

[Seth_S]

True, but the film was still obviously shot in CA. Believe me or not, but that was my first reaction when I saw the trailer (before I checked to see if I was right).

 

[FilipM]

But it is very accurate. Did you check out the Ia Drang picture link I posted, most of that looks just like hills, little praries and thin forests around the SF Bay Area. So if it's accurate I dont really understand why it would matter where it was shot.

 

[BrianV]

I think the opening line of Ebert's Pearl Harbor review sums up my opinion of the movie perfectly:

"'Pearl Harbor' is a two-hour movie squeezed into three hours, about how on Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese staged a surprise attack on an American love triangle."

 

[Terry St]

Take two movies which are otherwise the same:

• One depicts a gallant hero killing 20 bad guys who all die quickly, cleanly, and anonymously behind gasmasks or goggles. The hero, rather than showing remorse, makes a pithy wisecrack to the applause of his comrades and procedes to drive his tank over a few people's homes and cars while making his getaway. Of course, the innocent bystanders always manage to get out of the way in time.
• In the second movie, only one person dies. However, it is an actual character complete with dialogue. He isn't portrayed as a snarling villian, but rather, a good guy in bad cirumstances. The hero carefully stalks him in an effort to avoid a gunfight in a public place, but the badguy spots him. Stray shots maim innocent bystanders, but whose shots they are isn't made clear. Eventually the hero pegs the bad guy, who dies slowly and/or messily. The hero expresses remorse at his crime and his comrades react in horror.

We all know which of these two movies would be rated R today, but which of them *should* be rated R? I can't answer this myself. Is cartoon-like violence all in good fun? If we show our children realistic portrayals of death, it will certainly disturb them, but will it make them appreciate the horror of murder or, rather, desensitize them to it?

I remember laughing about ten years ago when on Star Trek the Next Generation, Number 1 commented that TV's and movies died out in 2040. The more I think about it now, the more it makes sense. Maybe the year is off by 10-20 years, but I do see it coming.

The only thing far-fetched about this is the couple centuries in between the death of TV/Movies and the rise of Holodecks. (Although Enterprise has revised things a bit by having weekly movie nights for the crew and an encounter with a proto-holodeck in the first season) Enterprise aside, exactly what was Kirk supposed to do on those rare episodes where the randy, scantily-clad, alien female of the week fell for spock or bones instead of him? Riker had it worked out, but then, he had a holodeck. For example, I think the episode was called "The Perfect Mate". Riker is introduced to an amazingly beautiful alien female (played by Famke Jansen) who is clearly off-limits. I believe his exact words after meeting her were "If anybody needs me, I'll be on the holodeck." When you think about it, that's the equivalent of someone today saying "If you need me I'll be on my computer downloading asian porn." The men of the future are a lot more open about these things I guess.
Some scientists have predicted that we will have neural interfaces worked out pretty well within the next 20 years. We're already making significant progress treating the blind, deaf, or paralyzed with such devices. As soon as the technology reaches the point where we can immerse ourselves in an alternate reality via a Gibson-style neural-jack the entertainment industry is in for some major changes. However, I don't believe that movies will ever totally die out. Books never died out, nor has live theatre or even radio plays for that matter! Todays movies (some of them anyways) will be the inspiration for tommorows virtual realities. People will always be fascinated by the history of an idea. Perhaps your children will tell their children, "Get that garbage out of your jack before it rots your brain! Go watch a movie!"

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Terry,
The only thing far-fetched about this is the couple centuries in between the death of TV/Movies and the rise of Holodecks.
I was thinking of a transition between the two. When you see computer games with characters that are betting more life like, then how long will it take before "Make Your Own Movie" software will be out. Take your favorite movie, Casablanca, The Godfather, Die Hard and update it with modern actors. Or change the script. Of course we all know that a lot of those budding Spielbergs will devote themselves to producing XXX versions. If Playboy and Penthouse circulation numbers have droped because of the internet, then movies will suffer the same fate.
Some scientists have predicted that we will have neural interfaces worked out pretty well within the next 20 years. We're already making significant progress treating the blind, deaf, or paralyzed with such devices. As soon as the technology reaches the point where we can immerse ourselves in an alternate reality via a Gibson-style neural-jack the entertainment industry is in for some major changes.
Another good point. Of course once you are set up with your PC movie studio, the next step will be to take that plot and imerse yourself into the part of one of the players. Twenty years is a bit optimistic, but in 100 years, even these two ideas may already be a passing fancy for the next development.
Sex, alcohol, drugs, may all fall behind the new addiction of the coming entertainment media.

 

[TheLongshot]

Getting back to the original topic:

It is well known that movie studios prefer to have their "summer" type films to be a PG-13 rating, since they want to be able to make back the money they spent on it. (Which is why Pearl Harbor was always going to be PG-13, since making it an R would be death at the box office for the amount of money spent on the film.)

Personally, I think the rating system is less than useless and needs to be replaced with something that actually describes what is in the film. Let us judge what is "offensive" and what isn't, instead of some organization who can't keep it consistant.

Jason

 

[David Rogers]

It's a money thing. Studios pay for movies to make money by charging admission and selling stuff (discs, posters, etc...). They're not doing it for anything artistic.
At all.
PG-13 means teen dollars can show up. Few filmmakers win any argument with a studio that effectively goes " ... so we really need to let it go for an R". Because all the studio heard was " and we need to not make the tons of cash a PG13 can possibly make."
I prefer R flicks, personally. Way too much PG13 coming out. Adults are people too, adults want movies toned for us, not for the GD teens!!!!!!! (yes I was young once, I feel teen pain, believe me)
Same thing is happening in gaming now, and might happen in movies over the next decade or two. Computer gaming started in the 1970s, became "normal" to the children and teens of the 80s, and now in the 90s and 00s all those kids "playing games" have grown up. Suddenly the industry has to figure out that A) they have adult consumers now where it literally used to be almost entirely minors and B) how do we market to the adult gaming consumer and get his money?
Movies have to ask the same questions, but it'll take longer because they've got rigidly established routines that executives won't change for all the reasons politicians won't vote for campaign reform (well they would if it applied after they were done campaigning). Executives will keep pushing the PG13 stuff until something, somewhere and somehow, happens to illustrate there's bucks to be made catering to an R audience, because in business you get promoted and get perks when you deliver a big paycheck for Daddy (the studio). Experience shows me the studios won't take any leaps on their own, and they'll stick with the same old same old until that magical SOMETHING happens to jar them.
(the last magical something was Spider-man's US$300mil, which to studios means only "you mean we can make movies out of those rights we keep optioning from Marvel and DC and people will pay us to see them?")
I believe the bucks are there, but no content is worth that audience's dollars. Apparently lots of you agree with me, because most HTFers say they want more R movies but complain there aren't any.

 

[JonZ]

The Bride had female frontal nudity and was PG

Why on earth was Almost Famous given a R rating?

 

[Matthew Chmiel]

Why on earth was Almost Famous given a R rating?

Because of the use of the word "fuck" twenty or so times. Shocking considering Almost Famous is less offensive than recent PG-13 fare like Goldmember and any other PG-13 gross out comedy.

 

[TheLongshot]

Why on earth was Almost Famous given a R rating?

I figured it was from all the implied drug and sexual references. Still, I see far worse on TV.

Almost Famous should never have gotten an R rating.

Jason

 

[Alex Spindler]

Almost Famous also had a bit of nudity, which makes it a tough case for PG-13 unless it is squeaky clean otherwise (like Titanic).

 

[JonZ]

I only remember a quick flash of Kate Hudson, when she was spinning with her shirt open.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Yeah, but the flash of nudity combined with the harsh language throughout (numerous "f bombs" and other curse words), plus the sex references running throughout (Russell sleeping with Kate Hudson, who's age we never really do find out), the girls "deflowering" William, who is after all, only 15. Toss in drug use for good measure, and by MPAA standards, you have an R rating. Great movie, but I'd agree it was an R, nto that I have a problem with R movies anyway. As opposed to Goldmember shich was gross, but didn't show anything and the language wasn't that bad.

 

[BarryR]

THE BRIDE was rated PG-13.
I don't quite see the reflexive preference for R-rated films; sometimes alot of the elements that make an R are gratuitous. CHICAGO for example is a perfectly good PG-13 musical--making it even more raunchy would not enhance or make it any better a film. On the other hand, I can't imagine a film like THE GANGS OF NEW YORK being anything but an R.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Barry, I agree. Toy Story 2, my favorite movie of all time, is a G. Granted, a lot of movies need to be Rs to work, but in many cases, it's better off with the lower rating.

 

[TheLongshot]

Great movie, but I'd agree it was an R

See, that's the reason why I don't like the rating system as it stands right now. Everyone has their own view on what is acceptable or not. As far as I was concerned, the movie should have been PG-13, and I wouldn't have a problem with a 13 year old kid seeing anything in that film. Most "Objectionable" things in that movie are suggested. There is no overt sex acts or drug use. With the exception of the OD towards the end of the film, there are hardly any drugs at all in the film.

I wish the film industry would put the power back in the hands of the parents to judge what is "acceptable" and what isn't, rather than make the decision for us.

Jason

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I was beat to it, but I was going to post

Bert (over the walkie-talkie): We got it! We got that motherhumper!
Val: Copy that, Bert, that's one less motherhumper.

I suppose that motherfucker is considered more vulgar than fuck, but exactly why is beyond me. CityTV, a notorious independant Toronto television station, has been known to edit out the "mother" part of the offending word, and nothing else, from films it shows. I'm totally not kidding. When I was younger, my friends and I thought that maybe they were just incompetent -- they were aiming to delete the "fucker" and deleted the "mother" instead -- but that seems highly unlikely.

 

[Andy Olivera]

Aaron, there are actually three instances where it's dubbed over: the two you mention, plus once at the end(Kevin Bacon: "Can you fly you sucker"). The reason they chose to dub those three, is because the one usage they left couldn't be dubbed believably. They would've had to cut the end of that scene entirely. Besides, if you had to cut all but one, it would be the most obvious choice, because it's just freakin' hilarious...

 

[Damin J Toell]

I wish the film industry would put the power back in the hands of the parents to judge what is "acceptable" and what isn't, rather than make the decision for us.

How do you propose parents do that for newly released films that their children want to see? See a film in its entirety before deciding whether to let their child watch? Believe or not, many many parents like ratings systems. It certainly helps those who don't have the time or money to buy a ticket to see a film by themselves and then buy more tickets to see it a second time with their children if they find it acceptable.

DJ

 

[TheLongshot]

Believe or not, many many parents like ratings systems.

You didn't read the first post I made in this thread, did you? I'm not for eliminating ratings. I'm for more useful and descriptive ratings that doesn't discriminate solely on age. I'd like to see a rating system that has a scale in the individual categories of how much violence, sexual situations, language, etc are in a movie. That isn't perfect either, but it is far more descriptive than an R, which can cover a wide range of films. I mean, there are people who would say that Almost Famous would be more acceptable than a film like Ronin. Hell, I might want my kids seeing Almost Famous ahead of a film like Darkness Falls (Which is PG-13, BTW). There was also a big outcry when "Requiem For A Dream" was given an NC-17, since there were those out there who thought it should be an R, so that they could take their kids to see the biggest "just say no" to drugs movie there is.

It also works the other way. I remember reading a thread here that had a guy who was upset about "The Mask" (PG-13) that he thought would be appropriate for his kids, and then was shocked to hear the language in the film. In this case, the rating system failed him, since he had no idea that there would be strong language in the film.

What offends me the most is that the current rating system causes self-censorship to meet a certain rating, because the ratings are age restricted. It causes compromises that normally wouldn't happen.

Jason