I wanted to follow up on the previous topic. The PG-13 rating these days is so broad as to encompass any number of things. A small independent film, like "The Spitfire Grill" gets a PG-13, as do big budget blockbusters like "Men In Black" and "Charlie's Angels." "Grill" is a very leisurely paced film, financed by the Catholic Church, with minimal language and violence, save for one spousal abuse scene (husband hits wife once) and a (non-bloody) death scene. It probably deserved a PG rather than a PG-13. "Black" and "Angels" are kick-butt action flicks, with a lot of comic-book violence. Some films move to a PG-13 to improve box-office. "The Avengers" was originally a PG, in its first ads, until someone added the "F" word once, automatically giving it a PG-13. What's your opinion?

Well in my opinion the entire ratings system is crazy.

A movie like Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, or Die Hard get R ratings (all of which I liked)

And Orgasmo and Showgirls get NC-17 (wasn't too fond of either)

It's kinda scary that we live in a society that thinks showing incredibly graphic, gory violence is ok, but sex (or in Orgasmo's case, TALKING about sex, as there's no actual nudity in the film) is something that should be restricted from children no matter what.

I'm not one of those people that thinks either should be restricted, frankly. But to choose violence over sex is a pretty strange choice.

As for PG-13: I read a while back that most movies marketed towards "Kids" try to get a PG-13 rating. That way kids will think it's a cool movie to try and "sneak into", or their parents won't be so against them seeing it. Men in Black could have easily been rated PG, save for a few curse words (which is a whole other rant. You can watch someone blow up an alien, but if someone says the "S" word, then no kids allowed)

Like I said: The whole ratings system is screwed up.

The rating system is screwed up, but not in the way that most of the people doing the
criticizing think. They keep saying that we need something between R & NC-17 for
flicks like Hannibal to go in while ones like Almost Famous & Billie Elliot could stay R.
They have got it backwards. R means no one under 17 without an adult, their needs be
nothing tougher. What we need is something between PG-13 and R (Pg 15 perhaps)
Films like Almost Famous, Billie Elliot, or Terminator 2 could go their while movies like
Hannibal, Seven & Basic Instinct could stay R. The problem with the R rating is it is so
broad that some parents end up taking their kids into films like "8mm" thinking it's going
to be like "The Rock".

And what about movies children SHOULD see because they could learn something important from them? Like R rated Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan?

Siskel (while he was alive) and Ebert pushed for an "A" (meaning Adult Content) rating. Instead, the "X" got changed to "NC-17", the only difference being the NC-17 gets the MPAA seal; the "X" didn't. This was probably to distance themselves from pornography. Some theatres will not show "NC-17" films, and some papers won't take ads for them. The rating system is designed for absolutes; every film is different.

The A rating wouldn't change anything. If the movie is classified "adults only", no matter what you call it, many will associate that with porn. That is why we have the NC-17 rating. After the porn industry started slapping XXX on their boxes any film that would get an X rating would automatically be associated with porn in people's minds, so they created something that did not look or sound anything like X (NC-17). But people still make the connection because it is an "adults only" rating. Even worse if you did call a rating between R & NC-17 the "A" rating (with A standing for adult) people would associate the movie with porn more than an NC-17; think about a video store what is the name of the section where the XXX videos are kept? The "Adult" section.

I am personally opposed to rating film as "adults only" anyway. That is making a judgment call that the parents should be making, also in this age of home video it is completely unrealistic to think that kids won't see it on video anyway. Ebert himself does not dispute this fact. In one of his articles on the ratings he said that we should have an "A" rating for flicks like "Eyes Wide Shut", he than went on to point out that kids could see the movie on video anyway after it has left theaters. Such reasoning brings be back to my point; what is the point of more adults only cr@p if the home video market is a simple way around it. All it would amount too is putting on a show for the Religious Right, a group who I am sick of everyone pandering to anyway.

Interesting footnote. Jack Vanetti the president of the MPAA (and the man who designed the rating system back in 1969) did not believe in an adults only rating because he thought it should be the parents' decision. He only put in the X because of the pressures of others. Back in 1998 when I wrote a report on the rating system that fact was on the MPAA's webpage. Said fact was later deleted after this whole "ratings war" started because he did not want his own words coming back to haunt him when he had to defend the system from both free-speech advocates and censorship advocates.

In closing I would like to say that the movie industry is handling this all wrong. Every couple of years this debate starts up again (usually during an election year) and the movie industry rolls over, compromises a few artists' visions and over the course of a few years returns to business as usual. This only encourages more politicians to go after the movie industry when they need to distract from the real issues. The movie industry is an easy target because when they roll over it looks like a victory. What they need to do is take a lesson from the NRA. Only the most liberal of politicians will dare to take a swipe at the NRA because they will fight back. If the movie industry fought back with the kind of force that the NRA uses (no I don't mean using guns LOL) people would pick their battles more carefully than just declaring open season on Hollywood.

The "X" rating symbol was not trademarked by the MPAA, hence it got snapped up by the porn industry. MPAA was verrrry careful to TM the NC-17.

Correct; the MPAA did not trademark the X rating because Vanetti figured that if a producer wanted to limit his film to adults only he could do it without the MPAA's involvement, but when the porn industry basicaly make it their own he realized that they needed something else, hence the NC-17. The NC-17 is trademarked and has never been used by the porn industry because of the TM but many theaters will not show NC-17 films and many people still assocate it with porn so my point still stands.

Seems to me they were going along fine with
just G,PG,R and X.
The sole and only reason they added PG-13 it
seems to me was to get more money.
Otherwise PG-13 is the most useless rating ever
invented..kinda like Gore's beard!

No. PG-13 came about specifically because "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was rated PG. Many parents of younger children found the temple scenes to be too intense, but this movie was definitely not an R, hence the rating between PG and R, indicating that it was OK for older kids, but inappropriate for younger ones.

And what about movies children SHOULD see because they could learn something important from them? Like R rated Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan?

Then take them. R doesn't mean no kids, it means no kids WITHOUT A PARENT. If you think your kid shoud see it, let them... BUT GO WITH THEM!!!!

It's interesting that you say that, because it works a bit differently up here in Canada.

Canadian film ratings go F (family), PG, AA (or adult accompaniment), R. The F is basically the same as your G rating, and PG is self explanitory. AA is supposed to be like PG-13, but it seems to be more liberal than that, because I've seen many films that were R in the states because they were AA up here.

The R is where things really get different. Wheras an R rating in the states means that a child can see it, provided that they have a parent/adult present, our R rating means that NO children can see it, at any time. It's basically the same as your NC-17 in that regard, but most of these movies are shown in our theatres.

AA is supposed to be like PG-13, but it seems to be more liberal than that, because I've seen many films that were R in the states because they were AA up here.

I've always felt that the problem with R is that they cram so much stuff into it that when a movie that should be R like 8mm or Basic Instinct comes along parents let their kids see it and than are shocked because they expected it to be along the lines of The Matrix or A Nightmare on Elm Street movies that keeping someone who is under 17 from seeing is rediculous.

Well, this is the situation on Britain:

U (Universal - same as G), PG, 12, 15, 18.

There also exists a "Uc" rating which means in effect "ONLY for children." Kinda like Tripe-G I guess.

Like a Carebears movie, Padawan?

I have a question, does Uc mean that if your over a certian age they will not let you into a movie rated Uc? What would be the point of such a rating?

This is a mystery to me:"Doctor Zhivago" was rated "G" when I saw it in its re-release in 1974. The new DVD version carries a "PG-13" rating, for exactly the same film.
"Star Trek-The Motion Picture" carried a "G" rating when it was released in 1979. The new "Director's Edition" carries a "PG" rating, probably due to the more intense and dangerous looking wing walk sequence. Or maybe it is just a sign of the times.

It is a sign of the times. The ratings board has no guidlines for rating a film beyond "how would you feel about your child seeing this" it is compleatly arbitrary. That is why some early 70s films were rated X for simple nudity, while some early slasher films did stuff that no one could get away with today (last house on the left, I spit on your grave). Once a film has been rated they can resubmit it for rating at a later date, but if they do that they must take the new rating they can's decide to return to the old one. The new cut of ST: TMP had to be re-submited because the film had been changed. When it was re-submited the board deemed that in their oppinion it was a PG, they felt in no way bound by what the old board said back in 1979. Similary (the origional) Psycho was rated R back in the 70s or 80s durring a re-release but today would probably be PG 13 (no nudity, no language, some gore). If basic instinct was submited today it would have to be further cut to get an R rating.

I understand the rating system... must of the time. When it comes to gore, I get confused. In the movie "Satan's Express" a group of people get their heads cut off at once. This movie gets a NC-17. But in "Dracula 2000" just as many people get thier heads cut off. But it was stuck with a R rating. "Drac" also had nudity, sex, and launge. But "Satan's Express" has that one scene and only small cuss words. I don't get it. Also "Bonehead XL" (I think one of the funnish but still scary movies never) gets a NC-17 for few exploding heads, exploding zomibes, impalement, and for hearing people having sex. Well, maybe a NC-17 was better for only a few "Exploding heads."

I disagree with Adam Bomb's comment above that by adding adult material we are improving the box office returns. It might apply in the case of language, but increasing the level of violence or sexual content can, in my opinion, only restrict the potential audience, which has implications for box office returns.

In the UK the release of "Spider-Man" prompted media discussion of the suitability of the PG and 12 ratings of the British Board of Film Classification. We don't have a PG-13 rating as such, the nearest is a 12 certificate (the rating "Spider-Man" was given for the whole country) which in essence acts similarly to a 15 certificate in that those 11 and under were barred from seeing it. However, local councils had the power to re-classify the film as they saw fit, with some giving the film a PG plus warning of some of the content (as was the case in "Attack of the Clones" and "LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring" and indeed "Jurassic Park"). In one part of the country we piloted a special 12A certificate, which acted in a similar way to a PG-13 rating whereby those who were 11 or under had to be accompanied by an adult.

From my view, the film's target audience appears to play an important part in this. Many years ago, "Batman" was one of the very first films to be given the BBFC's 12 certificate due to its dark content and violence (I think the other was "Erik the Viking", but I digress) but I think cuts had to be made in order to reach a younger audience and therefore boost ticket sales, yet remain enough of an edge to preserve the thrills as the producers originally envisioned. Similarly "Star Wars episode 2: Attack of the CLones" features a lot of violent scenes, especially dismemberment and decapitations (humorous ones notwithstanding) and one scene with Jango Fett headbutting Obi-Wan (seen in the trailers and adverts) had to be cut in order to downgrade the movie from a 12 rating to a PG-plus-warning. Again, the motive appeared to broaden the audience.

With "Spider-Man", however, the film was criticised for depicting very violent scenes yet still be aimed at a young audience. The BBFC had to be very selective in what would be cut and what would remain in order to reduce the certificate to as broad an audience as possible, yet still gave discretionary powers to the local councils because of the film's target audience.

In a similar way, the Indiana Jones films have also been at the receiving end of the BBFC's impressive blades, particularly "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Temple of Doom" which, if released again in their full, uncut versions would probably be given at the least a 12 certificate, by virtue of the violence and content.

Thus, I think perhaps an upgraded 12 certificate might be a good idea in the UK in order to broaden the target audience yet still preserve as much of the artistic (for want of a better word) content as possible. I say this as someone who personally thinks censorship could in theory cripple the artistic quality of a piece, but that's another topic...

I disagree with Adam Bomb's comment above that by adding adult material we are improving the box office returns. It might apply in the case of language, but increasing the level of violence or sexual content can, in my opinion, only restrict the potential audience, which has implications for box office returns.

But the problem with that is finding a meeting place between the two. If you don't have as much sex and violence in an action movie or an erotic thriller (& it is rated PG-13) more people CAN see it, but will any of them want to. Would anyone here want to see a PG-13 rated version of Basic Instinct or Die Hard? Prpbably not.

As a parent I can explain the violence is not appreciated but OK, sex is never OK. My son has a better chance of storming some beach where the tide runs red afterward than being invited to an orgy. Yes, that is sad. Unfortunately it is also true.

Just so no claims I'm a sexist, my daughter has a better chance of seeing gore than being a prostitute. (I hope. [Yes, I'd rather she sees gore than becomes addicted to heroin.])

"Just remember what the MPAA says. Graphic deplorable violence is OK, as long as poeple don't use any naughty words! That is what this war is all about!"

-Sheila Brovlovsky
South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut

Me: In one part of the country we piloted a special 12A certificate, which acted in a similar way to a PG-13 rating whereby those who were 11 or under had to be accompanied by an adult.

Well, it finally happened. In the last few weeks in the UK the 12 Advisory certificate (or "12A"), Britain's version of the PG-13, went national. The certificate also means the feature presentation carries an obligatory warning about its content. "Spider-Man" was re-released under this new certificate, and it didn't do too badly - now that the ikkle sprogs can go along with their parents and see Kirsten Dunst in a wet top (sorry, Brian) to find out what all the fuss was about. Then again, box-office sales weren't that great - maybe the little tikes had sneaked in to see the film after all...

Other films to get the 12A treatment included "The Bourne Identity" and "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood".

sighs in a nostalgic manner

I remember when all we had was G, M, R, amd X.

Butch, are you in the US? I remember when all we had was G, PG, R, and X.

The problem with X was that the MPAA (evil souls that they are), didn't trademark the X, so it got snagged by the porn producers. When they made NC-17, they made d@mn sure to trademark it.

Incidentally, "Midnight Cowboy" was rated X and won Best Picture.

Like Butch, I remember the G, M, R and X ratings. Seems to me there was also GP (Not PG).

M preceded GP and PG. The G, M, R, X ratings were collectively known as GMRX, pronounced jemrex.

Incidentally, "Midnight Cowboy" was rated X and won Best Picture.

And after that happened someone from the MPAA called the producers and said "if you cut 1 frame out of any part of the movie you can re-submit it as a re-edit of the film for rating. Since it's gotten all of this artistic respect we will rate it R"

I saw Mr. 3000 in a theater today, and Deliver Us From Eva on HBO Signature tonight. Both films were rated tougher than I would have. Mr. 3000 should have been rated "PG" , because even though there was rough language and sex talk, it was relatively mild. Deliver Us From Eva has less nudity and sex talk than most daytime soaps do, and that got an "R", whereas I feel a "PG-13" would have been fairer.

What was the movie "Splash" rated? Wasn't it G? and wasn't there nudity in it?

It was most certainly not G!

Aside from the mild nudity... there was cursing, jokes about Penthouse, genitalia, and reasons why Madison couldn't possibly be shy.

I'm sorry, it was PG. I just knew that it wasn't a PG-13 or R movie yet it had those things in it.

Just more proof that those ratings me nothing...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1019641-splash/

From a marketing point of view, studios want to get PG-13 ratings in order to underscore the fact that it's okay to bring 13-year olds to it, and will recruit that demographic (13-49, or 13-34) when they hold press screenings for them.

one scene with Jango Fett headbutting Obi-Wan (seen in the trailers and adverts) had to be cut in order to downgrade the movie from a 12 rating to a PG-plus-warning.

I've heard about this before, and I just don't understand what is so wrong about a headbutt as to be such a big deal if someone under 12 sees it. What makes a headbutt so much worse than a punch, kick, etc? I mean, the movie has someone's head being cut off with a lightsaber, but it's the headbutt that has to be cut out?

What is so wrong to the Brits about headbutts?

This reminds me of how the Brits were so anti-ninja at one point they had to have Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles. Not that ninjas and headbutts are synonymous, just that to this non-Brit both things seem ridiculously arbitrary, and I wish someone would explain what's going on here.

Back to the topic at hand, ratings are so subjective that if I had kids I would never rely on the rating alone to determine if a movie (or TV show or anything) was appropriate. I think any parent who doesn't do at least some additional checking is at the very least foolish.

Numchukas are still a fairly taboo thing in British film screenings. The Brady Bunch 2 went to stright to video rather than cut out a scene which featured them. The BBFC seemed to get a bit worried about them in the early 1970s, & took years to get over them. It's stange that The Brady Bunch was a direct video release but films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exocist & Driller Killer were banned from release on video until the late 1990s but could be shown at cinemas, if they were specialist 'Art House' ones.

I'm sorry, it was PG. I just knew that it wasn't a PG-13 or R movie yet it had those things in it.

Just more proof that those ratings me nothing... - Polls Voice

Did PG-13 even exist when Splash was released? I can't recall when in 1984 (the year the PG-13 classification was created) the film was released.

In any case, the rating was still in its infancy and probably not firmly established, particularly in regards to sexuality and obscenity... since the rating resulted from a reaction to violence and gore.

Splash was the first movie released by Touchstone Pictures, which was positioned as "Disney's more adult arm," or something of the sort. It was released around Easter of 1984; the PG-13 rating wasn't instituted until a few months later.
Much now is being made that Star Wars Episode III will probably receive a PG-13 rating. Even George Lucas is telling us to keep the kiddies away, as the film is dark and violent

I think the thing with the British film classification board is imitateable martial arts techniques. They're worried about kids head butting each other more than a punch or a kick cause it could do more damage. They are also more worried about kids building their own Numchukas more than swords and stuff since Numchukas are just 2 heavy sticks tied together. You know that the ninja turtles in the later seasons took away Michelangelo’s numchukas and gave him a grappling hook to make it an easier sell with the brits and others.

They're worried about kids head butting each other more than a punch or a kick cause it could do more damage.

I doubt that. The "more damage" itself, that is, not the "they're worried because they think it would be more damage".

It seems to me that the PG-13 rating makes sense conceptually, while it is the PG rating which doesn't make sense. My interpretation of the PG-13 rating is that the MPAA is suggesting parental guidance for children under 13 years old. However, the PG rating seems to imply broader parental guidance than the PG-13 rating, which doesn't make sense. If the PG rating was reclassified as something like a PG-7 or PG-9 rating, it would make the intent of the rating more clear, which is that parental guidance is suggested for children of some age significantly less than the 13 years of age for PG-13.

Grease was shown in theaters this week, as part of a special "Sing-Along" sponsored by Fathom Events (the same outfit who sponsored the theatrical showing of "The Menagerie" some years ago). This pic was assigned a "PG-13" rating for this event. AFAIK, it was the exact same cut that was released to theaters in 1978, and is now widely available on DVD, with a "PG" rating. I thought the original rating stayed unless the film was re-cut.

PG-13 was first implemented in 1984, so it did not exist when Grease was released. As a result of this, it's quite possible that Grease's rating was revised for the DVD release, to keep it in step with the current rating system. I really don't see WHAT in the movie would warrant a PG-13 rating though.

As a result of this, it's quite possible that Grease's rating was revised for the DVD release.

Sorry, but no. I was in Wal-Mart the other day, and checked out the "Rockin' Rydell" current DVD edition of Grease. It still had the "PG" rating on the back of the label. It was apparently revised for the "sing-along" version according to this IMDB page. Which, except for probable subtitles (Remember "follow the bouncing ball" from the old cartoons? ) I assume it's the same cut as the 1978 theatrical version. And, I don't see what would warrant a "PG-13" either. Except for a couple of mild swear words, and Olivia Newton-John's Sandy wearing tight leather at the end, it could have received a "G" rating back in '78.

I guess Rizzo's pregnancy scare & the lyrics of Greased Lightning helped to bump up the rating.