My primary example for the sake of the opening post will be The Rocky Horro Picture Show. Would that movie have been Rated R were it made in 2001?

Would Jaws be PG? And Poltergeist?

Both of those movies were made before the PG-13 ratinge existed. The first movie to ever be rated PG-13 was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) Airplane would have also gotten a PG-13. Check out Just One of the Guys. Even in today's post American Pie environment I can't imagine that one getting by without an R (it got a PG-13 back in 1985). Pretty Baby (1978) would never have even been made in this day and age. I also can't figure out why the R rated version of Spawn had to be cut to get a PG-13. Also Airforce One and Snake Eyes should have been PG-13

One of the things about the rating system is that it has never been about rating movies based on set-in-stone rules. The only qualification needed to sit on the ratings board is you must be a parent. The members do not have to use what similar movies were rated to determine their rating. All they have to ask them selves is "how would I feel about my kid seeing this?" The whole idea is so that films can be judged on their own artistic merit. The problem with this arbitrariness is everyone has their own idea about artistic merit. This is why Kubrik was aloud to have a hallway full of blood in The Shining while Wes Craven had to cut his room full of blood in A Nightmare on Elm Street. Kubrik is considered an artist while Craven is thought of as a horror director. Why horror directors are not thought of as artists is beyond me.

Actually, Temple of Doom was rated PG, as was Gremlins, released the same year. Both films were integral in the development of the PG-13 rating. I believe the first PG-13 film was actually Red Dawn.

Rocky Horror? Have you ever actually seen that movie? If you were to cut the number of bizarre sexual references in there by two thirds, the remaining stuff would still be enough to earn it an R.

To WTW:You are half right. The first PG-13 film released was "Red Dawn." The first film to be rated PG-13 was "The Flamingo Kid", with Matt Dillon and Richard Crenna. Although the film's rating came down in the summer of 1984, Fox sat on it until Christmas '84.

Blazing Sadles would have had a PG-13 rating.

Rocky Horror? Have you ever actually seen that movie?

He's probably only seen the "edited-for-televsion" version that VH1 runs sometimes.

I heard this rumor in '74 that Brooks asked for the "R" rating for "Blazing Saddles," as he wanted to keep kids away. Even at the time, I thought it could have received a "PG."

I think Blazing Saddles would have gotten the R regardless, for the "It's twue!" scene between Lily and the Sheriff.

Incidentally, Lily's last name "von Shtup". Shtup is yiddish for the sex act.

ScottN, do you know how that scene originally ended? Black Bart said something like "Pardon me, Miss... but your sucking on my elbow."

Arm. Not elbow.

In CBS's 1980 TV airing of "Blazing Saddles," Lily von Shtup's name became Lily Von Sh. However, in an establishing shot of a sign outside the theater, her name was written out in full.
Today, this pic would probably get a PG-13. I agree with you, Jason.

Ah, thats right.

"Last Tango In Paris" got an "X" rating in 1972. This was a thoughtful, serious, superbly made film, for adults, of the descent of a man after his wife's suicide. Brando was superb, not the buffoon he is now. This pic was made before the "X" was seized by the pornographers (and NC-17, its successor, made such films pariahs.) At that time, producers were willing to take a chance with serious, adult oriented fare, before box office became king. "Tango" and "Clockwork Orange" would not be made today, out of fear.

Over in the UK, a 12 is the equivalent of a PG-13 and was introduced since Batman (which became a 15 following its video release) and Erik the Viking, in 1989. I don't know about 70s films, but I reckon Star Trek 2 (which is a certificate 15 in the UK) might become a 12 if it were re-released. In fact, Monty Python's Meaning of Life, originally a certificate 18 (possibly due to the Sperm song or Mr. Creosote), is now available to buy on DVD, certificate 15!

At that time, producers were willing to take a chance with serious, adult oriented fare, before box office became king.

I hate to bring this up but the bottom line has always been king, it is called show business for a reason. Last Tango was produced by a French companey, who have always more willing to take risks, and later distributed by United Artists in the US.

Another X rated film was Midnight Cowboy which is the only X rated movie to ever win the Best Picture Oscar. This movie is now rated R because after it won the Oscar someone from the rating board called up the distributor and said that if they cut out one frame (not a specific frame, any random frame) they could resubmit it to the ratings board as a new cut of the film and this time it would get an R. Why the sudden change of heard by the board? Because it got the Oscar and was now seen as high art, not just a sexual film.

Also you can't really fault the producers in Hollywood for cutting NC-17 films into Rs. It's not so that kids can get in; it's so that most adults will have a chance to see them. In the past year Artisen Entertainment has released 2 unrated films that were rated NC-17 origionaly but droped the rating all together and no-one would show them. I wanted to see Center of the World and found out that in the state of Georgia it was playing in 1 theater in Atlanta, and nowhere else in the state. Same for Requem for a Dream, for which Ellen Burstyn was nominated for an Oscar. Why do NC-17s not get wider releases? Because large theater chains are afraid that they will get boycotted by the conservative American Family Assocation, or Pat Robertson or one of those other Religious Right types. Same with newspapers taking out ads for the films, or bolckbuster and Hollywood video stocking them. So the next time you see Jerry falwell or one of his allies crying about how Hollywood is pushing off adult movies as R rated just remember that the people in his camp had a large part in creating that mess, and perhaps diserve to be stuck with this ratings monster that is their own creation.

Is the American Family Association still active? I haven't heard mention of it or the Rev. Don Wildmon in ages. (Not that I look for it.)
At least up here in the New York area, the attitudes are more liberal. We have art houses willing to take chances showing controversial films. Their owners do not cower in fear every time one of these right-wing buffoons opens their mouths.

I'm sure they are, Adam. Those types seldom ever leave for long, if at all. What I absolutely love about those buffoons is when movies are released that they find objectionable they always make a big, vocal outcry over it, never realizing that instead of turning people away from those films they're actually turning people towards the films. So they not only give those films free advertising but they're also give people just the very best reason to go see them, which in turns makes more money for the studios, theaters and everyone involved in making those films. But of course those buffoons are too stup¡d to realize that, or if they have then they've finally learned to shut up. Do you remember all the hoopla over "Last Temptation of Christ" and "Dogma"?

I saw an interesting program on the Independent Film Channel (IFC) called, Indie Sex, about how sex is shown in independent films, and how it's more realistic than Hollywood films, which is true. I mean how many people have sex partially covered by only a mere sheet, and not only that but the couple always hold hands and squeeze them tight at the point of orgasm? Or when the woman sits up she always covers herself with a sheet? Not too bloody many, I'll tell ya.

IFC is showing "The Lover" this month and I finally had the chance to watch it. Now some may find the subject matter objectionable, of a 32yo Chinese man (or any adult male, really) having sex repeatedly with a 15yo girl who said she was 17 (and indeed the actress, Jane March, was at the time), but even so at least the sex they had was more realistic than Hollywood usually shows, much more than I expected it to be. This film also got me to thinking how many films with this very theme, adult male with underage girl, have been made? The only other two I can think of right off are both versions of "Lolita". The only one to reverse that that I can think of is "Summer of '42". Jennifer O'Neill is still very attractive.

Jane March was in the relatively steamy "Color Of Night," with Bruce Willis, from 1994 (from a Disney subsidiary, Hollywood Pictures, no less.) This pic was better than I had heard. Still, I understand that it had to be cut to avoid the NC-17. I don't think she played an underage girl there, though.

Actually, I think Blazing Saddles would still recieve an R. Or be heavily censored. Use of the "N" word is agaist political correctness. If you think movies that openly mock Christianity get bad press, no one crosses the Liberal church and gets away with it.

Dogma recieved some protest from the Catholic Leauge, with good reason. But the controversy was proberly created by Disney's wanting to get as far away from it as possible. Of course, that has nonthing to do with the fact it was a bad film. Why are people entranced with Kevin Smith?

Actually, I think Blazing Saddles would still recieve an R. Or be heavily censored. Use of the "N" word is agaist political correctness. If you think movies that openly mock Christianity get bad press, no one crosses the Liberal church and gets away with it.

So are you telling me that you do not have a problem with people using the N word? Would you like to go back to the age before PC came around and white people used the word all the time to refer to black people? Also South Park goes after Liberals as often as concervatives and has gotten no flack for it from the left that I know of.

Dogma recieved some protest from the Catholic Leauge, with good reason. But the controversy was proberly created by Disney's wanting to get as far away from it as possible. Of course, that has nonthing to do with the fact it was a bad film. Why are people entranced with Kevin Smith?

Because he's one of the best independant film-makers working in the biz today. Dogma was definantly not his best work but hardly a bad film. In fact in an ironic twist I while the nutcase right keeps saying that it is offensive to their beliefs I saw it with 2 atheists who were disappointed because they expected it to have a South Park style defiling of the christanity and instead got what was (under all the dick and fart jokes) a sappy messege that God loves the world and people who think that the church is all about ceramoney and dogmatic law are wrong.

South Park is a Cartoon, and Cartoons can do things live action can never get away with. Could Homer Choke Bart in live action?

Political Correctness is not nessicary in a civil society, which is what the true aim of our efforts should be. If I recall correctly, Blacks still use that word to refer to themselves and white people. Even the President pro temp of the Senate, former Klansman Robert Byrd can use White N****s, and get away with it. No one should use it, but we shouldn't unleash the furies when it is said. Political correctness is the greatest affornt to free expression. American classics have been removed from libraries because of it, College Students and Teachers have been persecuted on vauge "Speech Codes." Honestly, if your ancestors can survive Trans Atlantic shipping, Hard planation labor, 100 years of lynchings, burnings, and discrimination, I fail to see how a un-nice term is going to affect you.

Perhaps I should clarify my Anti-Smith comments. I thought Dogma was at most, something that made South Park seem high brow (Which it sometimes is). I wasn't as digusted after two mintents of American Pie, a film I still won't watch. Granted, the numerous nits in theology, excepting the newly revealed stuff, were annoying me (The fact that God is far too powerful for any of this). It was okay, but not repete viewing. However, I know people who rented it repetedly. I knew girls who named their cats after the Fallen Angels. I don't get that aspect. Granted, I name my cats after the food they most look like, and my frogs will get names when they start doing things that they can be distinguised by (Actually, they do have names, but keep in mind they only eat and XXX.) It just seemed to be drug, sex and fart jokes, with a lot of swearing.

Actually South Park isn't that bad with religion. Other than Christ joining the Army in the film, I have never really felt offended. I read Mark N postings that are more offensive than South Park

South Park is a Cartoon, and Cartoons can do things live action can never get away with. Could Homer Choke Bart in live action?

Granted but that didn't stop several concervative parents groups from condeming the Simpsons for several reasons.

Political Correctness is not nessicary in a civil society, which is what the true aim of our efforts should be. If I recall correctly, Blacks still use that word to refer to themselves and white people.

Their is a big diference between people of one group talking in such a way to one another than an outsider doing it. For example if Jeff "you might be a redneck if" was a black guy from New York southerners would not stand for it. But because he is a good ole' boy from Atlanta GA southerners figure it's ok for him to make redneck jokes because "he's one of us".

Even the President pro temp of the Senate, former Klansman Robert Byrd can use White N****s, and get away with it.

Robert Byrd is an idiot.

Political correctness is the greatest affornt to free expression.

Wrong, religion is; PC is the second.

American classics have been removed from libraries because of it, College Students and Teachers have been persecuted on vauge "Speech Codes."

As opposed to those religious fanatics who have gotten schools to ban Harry Potter books, D&D cards, and faire tales because they contain witchcraft.

Religion cannot be a affront to Free Expression. It is a form of expression. The only part which the government cannot interfere in, as the government cannot control your thoughts or beliefs, making Freedom of religious belief the only absolute freedom that mankind posesses. However, political correctness seeks to control men's thoughts, and punish those who do not confirm to it's vision. Marxist's got more respect in the 50's in college than conservatives get today in college.

Baning amusments in a place of education is quite a bit different than banning the cannon of Mark Twain. Higher education is a institution that preexists democracy. A college must serve in the tradition of liberal education as a place where all ideas can be discussed, while Elementry school exists to provide education aid parents in raising their children, and to government by producing literite citizens. As parents are responable for rasing their children, they can complain about such things.

Outsider syndrome: A nice explanation, but if this word is so evil and so nasty, everyone should stop using it.

Religion cannot be a affront to Free Expression. It is a form of expression.

So when a bunch of religious people stopped a group of Wiccan from renting some space on military base for a ceremonie (but still let Christians rent space to use) it was a form of free expression? It is only a form of expression when people voluntarily practice it. When the government starts making people abide by a certain religions' beliefs it becomes an affront to others freedom of expression. Political correctness is also a form of free expression when a person voluntarily decides to use PC terms (i.e. African American instead of black) because they think that such terms promote racial harmony; but when people use intimidation to force others to use PC terms it becomes an affront to the others freedom.

The problem is you are using the old double standard of when someone uses what I believe (Christanity) to hold others down that person has missed the point of the religion and the religion is not at fault. When someone uses what I disagree with (Policical Correctness) to hold others down that is an inherant fault in the movement.

"Star Trek II-The Wrath Of Khan" may get a PG-13 rating today, mostly due to the intense scenes involving the Ceti eels. Mostly due to the semi-gruesome scene where the bug crawls out Chekov's ear.

Sven of Nine, Batman wasn't the first film in Britain to receive the 15 rating. It was a film called, I believe, The Delinquents, which starred Kylie Minogue.
Batman might have been the first video release to get it however.

I saw a film this morning I haven't seen in a while, The Doberman Gang. The plot is simplistic-a gang uses trained dogs to rob a bank. CBS used to run this pic in late night several times a year (this was pre-Letterman.) This pic received a "G" rating when released in 1972, but it contains several scenes possibly inappropriate (IMHO) for a "G" rated film:
Two scenes of a couple in bed, obviously nude, although under sheets.
One scene of the woman (Julie Parrish, who was Miss Piper in the Classic Trek episode "The Menagerie") getting slapped on the face by her lover.
A scene where a bank guard is attacked by one of the dogs, with liberal doses of fake blood.

I guess standards have changed in 30 years. The ST-TMP DVD got a PG rating, with less violence than Doberman and no bedroom scenes.

How come ST-TMP got a PG on DVD when the original theatrical release was G? Added footage?

Partly. Also since Paramount Home Video decided to submit it to the MPAA for a ratings classification, the MPAA reviewed it according to their standards today, which may have changed from the late 70's (I think the transporter scene would have pushed the film to PG status today). Otherwise, Paramount would have had to release it as Unrated, which would have misrepresented the content of the film.

When was the last time a live action film was rated G?

Well, searching. . .looks like Princess Diaries 2 and Herbie: Fully Loaded were rated G. Can't think of any G-rated movies made in the last twenty years that I've actually *seen*. . .

Re: "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" rating adjustment

I would think that Paramount would rather the movie was rated PG than G, because nowadays, I think most movie watchers in the U.S. tend to think of G rated movies as "kid" movies, or movies that tend to stay away from challenging, mature or controversial expressions. On the other hand, I think most movie watchers in the U.S. believe that PG rated movies will not shy away from such things, and will thus be more interesting, without going into areas objectionable to soccer moms. Additionally, a rating change from G to PG doesn't really add a restriction to the market for a movie (theater or home video), unlike a change from PG-13 to R.

I wrote, back in the old days of 2001:

---

quote:

"Star Trek II-The Wrath Of Khan" may get a PG-13 rating today...

---