A spin-off of a discussion on the Democrat or Republican thread. Are there movies people have seen and wondered "why did that get *that* rating?"
I think a lot of us agree that the MPAA rating system is fairly screwed up, in as much as a movie where the "F word" is uttered twice can easily receive the same rating as a movie featuring extended scenes of violent mutilation.
"Whale Rider" got a PG-13 for "drug content" that almost no one even noticed. "When Harry Met Sally" had the same rating as "Pulp Fiction" and "Sin City", and while I enjoyed all three movies, the latter two are most certainly "R" (possibly even NC-17, at least in the case of Sin City), "When Harry Met Sally" really, well, isn't.
And any number of movies, particularly the so-called "teen comedies", just squeeze in under the R rating despite content no parent in their right mind would want their own teenage children emulating. Meanwhile "R" rated movies that try to deal sensitively and intelligently with issues that teenagers face never get seen by the audiences they would most benefit.
Notably, MPAA ratings now feature descriptions of why movies received their ratings, some weirdly humorous ("...All featuring puppets...") It's a step in the right direction, maybe, but the whole system still feels badly out of whack.
Whaddya think, folks?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I have to agree that the rating system is arbitrary and seems based more on the raters moods than any real guidelines. Thats why I try to check out a storyline/plot or a site that breaks down the content if I have any questions. You can't depend on the rating system to be accurate.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
It makes me laugh every time when I get a video from the rental store that is rated 14A on the shelf, and then we get the American warning: Rated R for such-and-such.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I was looking through the cheap movie bin at Walmart once and I saw a foreign (I think Canadian) film. It was rated G in its native country and R in America. The only word next to the R was "nudity".
I think a lot of border line ratings are based on the target audience. The producers add in some curse words or take out something truly graphic in order to get the rating they want.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:"Whale Rider" got a PG-13 for "drug content" that almost no one even noticed. "When Harry Met Sally" had the same rating as "Pulp Fiction" and "Sin City", and while I enjoyed all three movies, the latter two are most certainly "R" (possibly even NC-17, at least in the case of Sin City), "When Harry Met Sally" really, well, isn't.
If those came out really far apart then it makes a little more sense. The rating system has evolved as societal attitudes have changed. The original Titanic (very true to what actually happened, no nudity or anything) was rated R because they felt that the trauma of the ship sinking and people dying warranted keeping kids and teens out of the theaters. The more recent one got PG-13 despite nudity and much more graphic depiction of the deaths, because those things aren't quite so outrageous anymore.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Eli Roth (the director of Hostel) thanked Rob Zombie (Devil's Rejects) and James Wan (director of Saw) in an interview for his R rating. He said if those two directors hadn't beaten up the MPAA committee so much with their films, there's no way he would have gotten as low as an R rating.
As it turned out, they didn't even ask him to go back and change anything.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Midnight Blue, you're right on with that. I swore up and down that Top Gun used to be rated R and my family thought I was insane because our DVD and VHS cases (bought many years after the movie came out) all said PG-13. Well, I was proven right when I watched my VHS of Breakfast at Tiffany's. There was a preview for Top Gun and it said "The following film is rated R." HA! So they figure that sex and sex isn't as shocking 10 years later and changed the rating. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Hostel wasn't THAT bad. It was BAD, but it was only bad for a grand total of like five minutes. Well, okay, there was a lot of sex, so I guess it WAS bad. I was thinking more in terms of the grossness of it. But yeah, the first..like...forty-five minutes was basically drug and alcohol scenes with porn.
Saw (the first one) was bad, but in a more psychological sense and less of a visceral "ew ow ick" kind of sense, at least to me.
I never saw House of 1000 Corpses (I fell asleep at the beginning), but the Devil's Rejects was...uh...that was....that was a lot more "ew ow ick."
I can't even really describe it. But um, Rob Zombie's wife is hot.
I still want to know why North Country was rated R.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
North Country:
quote:Rated R for sequences involving sexual harassment including violence and dialogue, and for language.
I think they dropped the F-bomb twice.
I don't remember any nudity at all.
And I guess I feel like the fact that it involves sexual harassment should make it MORE acessible to the general public because it's like...a...public service announcement, or something.
Like a good version of one of those after school specials. "Billy wants me to go all the way and smoke cigarettes and take ecstasy!"
Okay, not quite. But I'm in a weird mood.
I guess mostly I just feel like we shouldn't give the impression that disucssing violence towards women and sexual harassment is taboo and such.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ma Vie in Rose should not have been rated R. More like PG 13.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Everyone should go to sceenit.com to see what objectionable content a movie really has.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
These are the reasons that i ignore the ratings and read the little description of why it was rated that. It tells a lot more about the content of the movie. Personally I will watch anything but if im going to say watch something with my younger siblings i like to know what i am putting in.
Also I often wont put in a movie for them unless I have seen it first and know its appropriate.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
The ratings system was created by the MPAA only under the threat that the government (Congress, if I'm not mistaken) was going to set up an independent watchdog group. With the fox guarding the henhouse, movie ratings are too often worthless.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I remember being astounded that 'The Matrix' got an R rating, presumably purely for slow-motion gunplay.
On the other side, 'Clash of the Titans' was PG even though there are at least 2 instances of female nudity.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Women being topless is only considered objectionable if it's within the context of a sex scene.
Or the Superbowl.
-pH
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I remember being astounded that 'The Matrix' got an R rating, presumably purely for slow-motion gunplay.
I'm really suprised by this statement. The Matrix was a pretty violent film. It wasn't gory, but they went on killing rampages. I can't think of why it shouldn't get an R rating.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I was more disturbed by the hand to hand combat in the Matrix than the gun play. The sound editing was especially effective that the bone crunching fist on skull sounds were unpleasant for me. It made that kind of violence more graphic and upsetting which was probably the goal.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I Capture the Castle is an example of a movie that is PG in Canada and R here in the US. The only possible thing that is even remotely objectionable is that the stepmom is quite eccentric and she likes to take her clothes off when she's outdoors. It shows her topless in one very short scene. There is no bad language, violence, drug use, or sex.
Screenit.com makes practically every movie look evil. But once you get to know how to interpret its information according to your own movie standards, it's quite useful.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
The director of the Cooler with William H. Macy said that there was a scene with the lead female star fully naked, but the movie would have gotten an NC-17 rating. In the English Patient there is a scene with the female lead fully naked as she gets out of the bathtub I think. The scene in the Cooler was in the context of a sex scene, so it must be considered more severe.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Sexually-related content is always judged more strictly, as far as I can tell.
Like you can drop the F-bomb in a movie and keep its pg-13 rating UNLESS you use the word as a verb for "to engage in sexual intercourse."
-pH
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Top Gun? I saw that as a teenager, and I NEVER watched R-rated movies as a teenager. (Still don't, usually.) I don't remember it being R. I wouldn't have been allowed to see it if it was.
I guess the ratings are useful as a guide, but they're not the answer. You still have to do your homework.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Like with the original version of The Producers. It isn't really child appropriate, but it is rated PG.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Or 'The Graduate,' which I think was PG, in spite of pretty adult stuff going on plus a stripper swinging her tassles around.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I saw Airport (the original, from 1970) a few months ago. It was rated G, even though it was about a plane accident (pretty bloodless, but still) and had a subplot or two about adultery...
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
I think the rule with the f-bomb is only two in the movie and it can still be PG-13.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I thought it was one.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
Top Gun is PG and has been as long as I've known about the movie. I watched it as a teenager back when my parents did not allow me to see PG-13 movies. I think it was actually made shortly before the PG-13 rating came into existence, but I'm not sure about that. I have seen a preview for Top Gun on several videos that included many other movies in a montage (sp?) type advertisement. I think they had the green screen say "the following film is rated R" because many of the films, though not all, included were rated R.
I'm not sure about the rule for the F-word, but I have seen a PG-13 movie where it was said at least twice, and I'm almost sure it was said three times. As far as I've noticed, the MPAA doesn't feel the need to be consistent. Silly movie ratings...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought the general rule for F-bombs was that three were allowed in a pg-13 movie ONLY IF they were not used in the sexual, verb form.
Like, a movie can say, "What the f-bomb?" "I can't believe that f-bomb guy!" "F-bomb!"
And be pg-13.
But use it as a verb once, and it's an automatic R.
Same with women's breasts. Well, I don't know about the number of times you can show them, but the situational thing.
I wonder what the rule is for man-butts.
-pH
Posted by Vamp96 (Member # 9030) on :
Has any one used cleanflicks? I've been wondering if it is worth the money.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Words cannot describe how irritating I find the idea of cleanflicks. They're a cop-out for people who want to feel like part of a society they clearly consider inferior. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Tom, What about people that watch edited movies on TV that they would not normally have rented because of the content?
I think you may be assigning motives that may not necessarily be true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What about people that watch edited movies on TV that they would not normally have rented because of the content?
These people also unnerve me. "Oh, honey, look! An expurgated version of Reservoir Dogs is playing on CBS! Now we can finally watch that torture scene without having to hear any swear words!"
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Well, personally I am not a huge fan of altering an artist's work or message in order to suit one's personal tastes. However, I can understand a person choosing to watch the least offensive movie when both options are available.
A non-movie example that comes to mind is of a songwriter that has two versions of his song. One uses the phrase, "f*ing high" while the "clean" version says "flying high." Since both are readily available, I don't have a problem if someone would rather hear the song that doesn't use the offensive language.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
HasReservoir Dogs ever been shown on Network TV? I can't see how it would be watchable.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about the F-word and automatic ratings other than one occurance making it PG-13.
For example:
In "The Net", Sandra Bullock explodes at the guy who used her (and slept with her) to get close to whatever she was working on. In one of those lines she used the F-word as a verb in reference to what he had done to her (and she was speaking physically, not metaphorically).
In "A Family Thing" (James Earl Jones,Robert Duvall) I counted at least 4 F-words. I remember because up to that time, I had thought that 3 was the max you could have in a PG-13 movie.
I had read (in Entertainment Weekly, I think) that Matrix Reloaded got an R because the MPAA considers any "killing blow" to the head (like serious martial arts kicks, as opposed to, say Jackie Chan comedy style, or extremely stylized like Crouching Tiger and it's many ripoffs) serious enough that children should only see it when a parent deems it ok.
Not really sure there is ANY consistancy whatsoever, though.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
PG-13 was created because Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom (1984) was so over-the-top and yet still somehow 'felt' less than an R. Top Gun came out in 1986. Can't remember it's rateing, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I had read (in Entertainment Weekly, I think) that Matrix Reloaded got an R because the MPAA considers any "killing blow" to the head (like serious martial arts kicks, as opposed to, say Jackie Chan comedy style, or extremely stylized like Crouching Tiger and it's many ripoffs) serious enough that children should only see it when a parent deems it ok.
Really? The bullet to the brain at point blank, WITH blood spray was iffy, but the kung-fu fatality pushed it over the line?
I guess Hollywood is still wary over that kid who died in the 90s playfighting with a friend after watching Power Rangers.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I don't kmow if that is actually true. In theory, they might feel that killing blows delivered sans weapons are much more easily emulatable by children and therefore are more dangerous. Whereas gun violence might be seen as more 'fantasy' (as ludicrous as that might sound.)
Or it could be an unsubstantiated rumor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vamp96: Has any one used cleanflicks? I've been wondering if it is worth the money.
quote:SALT LAKE CITY -- Sanitizing movies on DVD or VHS tape violates federal copyright laws, and several companies that scrub films must turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios, an appeals judge ruled.
Editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights, said U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch in a decision released Thursday in Denver.
"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection."
Matsch ordered the companies named in the suit, including CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms, to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. The businesses also must turn over their inventory to the movie studios within five days of the ruling.
I'm not sure why CleanFlicks thought they weren't violating copyright - it seems pretty clear cut to me.
This statement from the director's guild, however, seems quite specious:
quote:"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.
It's my understanding CleanFlicks was pretty upfront about changing the movies since, after all, that's what their product was.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Or the Superbowl.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I saw "Lost City" recently, rated R, becouse, aparently, a drama about the Cuban revolution that actualy shows people being shot deserves an R, even though films which glorify violence get a PG-13. "The Best of Youth" is Six hours long but got an R becouse around 20 minutes of it show a sucicide, a corpse and a "sex scene" in which no sex actualy happens. I suppose they felt that a movie in which an 18 year old man hires a prostitute, even though he finds he cannot sleep with her, is too much for children. Meanwhile, Adam Sandler is popular with pre-teens. Kyrie eleison; Christe eleison; Kyrie eleison.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by hansenj: Top Gun is PG and has been as long as I've known about the movie. I watched it as a teenager back when my parents did not allow me to see PG-13 movies. I think it was actually made shortly before the PG-13 rating came into existence, but I'm not sure about that. I have seen a preview for Top Gun on several videos that included many other movies in a montage (sp?) type advertisement. I think they had the green screen say "the following film is rated R" because many of the films, though not all, included were rated R.
I'm not sure about the rule for the F-word, but I have seen a PG-13 movie where it was said at least twice, and I'm almost sure it was said three times. As far as I've noticed, the MPAA doesn't feel the need to be consistent. Silly movie ratings...
PG-13 was created almost directly as a response to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom which was rated PG at the time because it was not considered bad enough to be rated R, but many believed had too much...stuff...to be considered PG. As a result, the PG-13 rating was created for movies that were somewhere in between. As someone who works with teenagers at churches on a semi-regular basis, you've always got to be careful of when a movie was made, some of those PG movies aren't appropriate.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I don't understand the point of Clean Flicks anyway. It's like watching the Pepsi, edited for the classroom version of the film Glory. It's missing so much stuff, that once you see the film as it was meant to be seen, you wonder (a) how you could ever enjoyed the edited version in the first place and (b) why anyone would want to edit a movie to make it less objectionable. Films with gratuitous violence never seem to have much of a point other than the violence and/or sex (IMO) and films who's violence is such that it is an important part of the story lose much of their meaning once they are edited.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Grease is PG. And it seemes to get under the radar, being before Indian Jones and containing drug use by high schoolers, sex, and the fact that the "happy" ending, is where the main character decides to smoke and drink.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, in conclusion, the ratings system is broken and doesn't work, and people are quite capable of finding a reviewer who matches their morality to tell them whether the movie could be seen by them.
Before someone jumps in and says that all we need is a system that does work, I submit to you that that is impossible, and unnecessary, as the posts preceding this one show.
I find the idea of Clean Flicks amusing, as I imagine that whenever people buy or rent the 'Cleanatized' version of the flick, that still counts as profit towards that movie. Why should Hollywood make 'clean' movies when there are third parties so willing to paint rose bushes over the objectionable scenes and allow Hollywood to make money with whatever it puts out? In this respect, I support Clean Flicks.
On the other hand, I think if you're going to edit a piece of art, I think that you've made the piece of art into something different, and so I think it must be noted somewhere that it's not the original so that people don't get the two confused.
In any case, I guess the cleanatizing doesn't matter as, as Dagonee noted, it's illegal.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Silly movie ratings...