rodneyfaile
Sr Member
I've been watching a lot of 80's movies lately, particularly R rated action flicks. Did the implementation of the PG-13 rating cause a shift in how movies were made, effectively censoring creativity to get more money?
PG-13 ruined movies
- Thread starter rodneyfaile
- Start date
DeathFromADesk
Active Member
They either cut or alter scenes to get the rating or deliberately avoid blood, F-bombs and boobs to get the rating.
There are some movies that are PG-13 that would have been better rated R. There are also some PG-13 movies that should be rated R.
It's all about the benjamins.
Lost21stJedi
Well-Known Member
Yup, get younger people into the theater with a PG-13 rating and than get more DVD sales with not shown in theater extended cut releases
I don't have a problem with movies that just happen to get a PG-13 rating. I have problems with films that are specifically tailored to be PG-13. Only one F-bomb in a non-sexualised context, hide the violence by violently shaking the camera, change the zombie blood from red to black, have one grotesque scene to make the audience cringe, ect.
Some films I've seen that are PG-13 are so tame that I honestly thought they could pass for a PG. One film that comes to mind is the Avengers. How can a film with such little language and no graphic depiction of violence (while also being fun and exciting) be on the same level as the very violent remake of "True Grit" yet more unsuitable than the absolutely non-violent "The King's Speech"? This whole thing is a mess.
Some films I've seen that are PG-13 are so tame that I honestly thought they could pass for a PG. One film that comes to mind is the Avengers. How can a film with such little language and no graphic depiction of violence (while also being fun and exciting) be on the same level as the very violent remake of "True Grit" yet more unsuitable than the absolutely non-violent "The King's Speech"? This whole thing is a mess.
tubachris85x
Master Member
Honestly think they should just get rid of the rating system all together. I think the entire idea spawned from an overly PC mindset. If anything, get rid of "PG, and PG-13." Leave it either G or R.
Just get rid of it all...It's stupid to even have to think about a rating. I don't base my movie viewings on the ratings, I go by what I think looks decent enough to watch. If parents are so worried about it then don't take your kids to a theater and wait for DVD.
Just get rid of it all...It's stupid to even have to think about a rating. I don't base my movie viewings on the ratings, I go by what I think looks decent enough to watch. If parents are so worried about it then don't take your kids to a theater and wait for DVD.
I distinctly remember sitting in the theater watching the John Woo Mission Impossible movie, & being totally distracted with the obvious platitudes just to get the PG-13. The 1st one I remember was the guy getting his neck broken on the plane & there being no 'pop' or 'crunch' effect. I looked at my wife & said,"Director's Cut". Alas, as far as I know, no such cut exists.
jlee562
Sr Member
The root of the problem is the MPAA, not the PG13 rating itself.
See the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated:
This Film is Not Yet Rated part 1 - YouTube
See the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated:
This Film is Not Yet Rated part 1 - YouTube
Jedi2016
Sr Member
Quite a bit of it actually is the rating, and the fact that studios intentionally butcher down movies that would otherwise be R so they can get a PG-13, thus putting more teenage butts in the seats (even for films that aren't targeted at teenagers) and maximizing profits, and the only cost is the film's integrity. Kudos to the directors that stick to their guns and keep their R ratings.
jlee562
Sr Member
Well, I suppose it's my fault for not posting a more thorough explanation.
My point is that I don't find inherent fault in a rating system which delineates teenagers from children and adults. However, the way in which the MPAA designed the rating system is that which is flawed. The MPAA guidelines are entirely arbitrary, inconsistent, and skewed heavily towards censorship of anything which is remotely sexual, while allowing almost unfettered violence.
I think of Logan's Run which had breasteseses and booty in it and it was still PG in the seventies.
It's amazing what was PG back then and what you could get away with on TV. I remember Transformers in 1986 ended up with a pg 13 for spike saying "Oh shoot (you get the idea)" because they wanted it aimed at the older fans.
Riceball
Master Member
I actually think that the opposite is true, you can get away with a lot more on TV today than you could in the past, many formerly taboo words are no longer taboo and while full nudity is still verboten for regular (read not subscription cable channel) TV you can show a lot more skin these days than you could in the past. There's also more (graphic) violence on TV than there was before and certainly more blood too.
msleeper
Sr Member
Incredible documentary. Really opened my eyes to how terrible things really are.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Sure there are examples from back in day. I remember watching Tom and Jerry cartoons where Tom got drunk, smoked cigarettes, and brought home slutty cats, and they hit each other with hammers and stuff. I'm not sure you could make a kids cartoon like that now.
But that doesn't address why current action movies have been neutered. Profanity is realistic. Sorry if you don't like it, but I hear profanity all the time. And when people get shot, blood splatters.
I don't live in a PG-13 world. So when I'm presented with. PG-13 movie, I might as well be viewing middle-earth, because its like a fantasy.
But that doesn't address why current action movies have been neutered. Profanity is realistic. Sorry if you don't like it, but I hear profanity all the time. And when people get shot, blood splatters.
I don't live in a PG-13 world. So when I'm presented with. PG-13 movie, I might as well be viewing middle-earth, because its like a fantasy.
It's for sure a money grab. College kids and older folks stopped going to the movies as much in the 90s and they realized they could fill the seats by castrating the movies and a lot of directors were so worried about losing work that they went along with it. This way they can keep a movie "edgy" via some language and showing a bit of skin and that'll get the teens in for the maximum seats. It almost seems like a compromise with the ratings folks that both were happy to agree on. They could still get in some violence and sex while the censors went to town modifying stuff that was once acceptable into the no way area.
Those cartoons were never intended for children, neither were the Looney Toons, or any studios. They were shown before adult movies.
The movie I think is responsible for the PG-13 rating is "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". I remember watching that movie and wondering how it could have possibly have gotten a PG rating. A lot of other film makers wondered the same thing and screamed bloody murder to the MPAA because their film got an R rating with less gore. Not long after IJATTOD the MPAA came up with the PG-13 rating.
The reason Temple of Doom got a PG rating? Two names...Lucas and Spielberg. Almost anyone else would have gotten an R rating..
David.
Zombie_61
Master Member
I couldn't agree more. The problem lies in the fact that the MPAA has never created an established set of rules and/or criteria for filmmakers to use as a guide to determine what would be considered a PG-rated movie, a PG-13-rated movie, an R-rated movie, etc.. Yes, they have a very loose set of "guidelines" (if you want to call them that), but every time they review a movie in order to establish it's rating their decisions are all based on the opinions of the board members which are completely arbitrary and inconsistent.
I'm not a parent, so I really couldn't care less about movie ratings. But if they're going to be used the MPAA needs to establish a set standard by which all movies are judged and rated equally and fairly.
Getting back to the main topic, although I can't think of any specific examples at the moment I can recall having seen several movies that I thought were harmed in some way by their PG-13 rating, i.e. "This would have been a better movie if they hadn't dumbed it down to get the PG-13 rating."
darthgordon
Sr Member
I don't think so. I think it's just more the direction that studios have gone. In the '70s/'80s studios didn't attempt to make blockbusters... at least not often. But while Jaws was the first true summer blockbuster, Star Wars spawned not only 3 summer blockbusters, but made a ridiculous amount of money in merchandise... something that had never been before. The '80s saw a bunch of "successful" action and horror movies that were gory and full of sex and profanity. However, these were movies that had nothing compared to today's blockbuster budgets or box office returns. Then in 1989 WB spent over 50 million on Batman... a movie that was watched by both children and adults. It smashed records and made a TON in merchandise. So much in fact, that stores ran out of merchandise. When they came back with Batman Returns, it was (while tame by today's standards) far less kid friendly due not just to it's darker tones but many sexual innuendos. The amount of money it made in both box office and merchandise was considered by WB to be a failure (even though it made more than it's money back, it wasn't enough compared to the first). So the next experiment was the campier, more kid friendly Batman Forever. Once again, this was considered to be a success due to the return the studio got.
I think since then, studios have shifted more toward gearing their blockbusters toward kids. Over time, this has proven more and more successful over the years.
And as far as the MPAA is concerned... yeah, it's all arbitrary.
I think since then, studios have shifted more toward gearing their blockbusters toward kids. Over time, this has proven more and more successful over the years.
And as far as the MPAA is concerned... yeah, it's all arbitrary.
Similar threads
