UnsilentMajorty

...Is they are not very good artistically and often attract the wrong audiences to them.

What do I mean?

The whole concept of the PG-13 rating is to make a particular film more accessible to a larger audience, namely pre-teens, who normally would not be able to see the film if it was rated "R" (Restricted; Must be 17-years old and up), but this often backfires on two fronts because:

A) Most of the time the movie fans who show up for a PG-13 movie are in fact under-aged kids... Tweens as their called (11-15)... And they show up with their cell-phones and lack of maturity and don't actually watch the movie once they get there. Basically, parents drop their kids off for an hour and a half to two hours of
"babysitting" time simply because the film is rated PG-13 and not R.

Case in point: I have friends who manage local multi-plexes and when they read the schedule for upcoming releases rated PG-13 they dred those days for precisely the reason above. They spend more time taking care of complaints from older movie-goers about obnoxious kids who won't shut-up, are text messaging and IMing each other and doing everything BUT watching the movie.

What is worse is when they have to resort to ejecting (physically removing) kids who are misbehaving and call their parents... Who are of course not happy their babysitting time has been cut short and they have to pick them up. In addition, most of the kids then lie and say they were the ones being harassed by the theater staff and this angers the parents who then get hostile! Give me a break...

B) The film's artistic integrity itself often suffers under the restrictions of the PG-13 rating because not only is the rating (and how it is applied) hypocritical*, it is very handicapping from the start as a good 90% of the time when a movie is in the pre-production phase... When a script has been bought and they are still casting actors and even a director... The studio will demand the finished film aim for a PG-13 regardless if it applies to the subject matter, or not.

One famous example of this is when "Terminator II" was in pre-production in 1991, and, ironically, when "Terminator III" was also in pre-production in 2003. Both times the studios who were releasing the films told the directors (James Cameron; Jonathan Mostow) the films were supposed to be PG-13 because of the mainstream popularity the "Terminator" character and franchise had reached and therefore, they wanted under-age kids to be able to see the films as well.

I am glad to say BOTH directors refused and went ahead and made both films R-Rated and they are better films for it in my opinion. They may not be Shakespeare by any stretch of the imagination, but the subject material of killer robots and a nuclear holocoust are very frightening issues the way the "Terminator" films address them with the respect they deserve.

Also, the same thing happened to Steven Spielberg when he was prepping "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998.

The debate about what rating the film would ultimately receive came about because he wanted to do a historically accurate portrayl of modern WWII-era combat and the studios thought this would be a great educational opportunity for young people to see how WWII was really fought on the front lines... Aka also get more money from under-age kids... But at the same time, Steven didn't want to sugar-coat the realities of front-line warfare either. In the end, he also opted to make the film as realitistic as possible and it was rated a hard "R" for "Extended scenes of graphic war violence" and it is a much better film for it because no WWII movie had ever depicted the realities of what fighting on the front lines was really like up until that time, even 50 years after the war had ended.

*The PG-13 rating (and the whole MPAA ratings system in America) is very hypocritical because the biggest factor which determines why one film is PG-13 and why one may be an R isn't necessarily gore, sex or violence. It is the amount of swear words and the serverity of the words in question.

A perfect example of this hypocracy is if you made a film full of people being evicerated, blown up, shot, tortured and killed... Yet no one said the F-word... You could potentially be granted a PG-13 rating as long as you didn't linger on the entrails or blood splatters more than a few seconds.

...................................

The reason I started this thread was to open up a discussion about the various effects, good and bad, PG-13 films can have on both the film(s) itself and those who view them.

Also, understand, this isn't an all out attack on PG-13 films or those who view them.

There are a lot of good PG and PG-13 rated films such as "Forest Gump", the "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" films, the "Lord of the Rings" series and "Harry Potter" series to name a few.

However, on the whole, mainstream Hollywood studios often use the PG-13 ratings as a lure to parents for two hours of "babysitting" time and this ends up alienating movie goers, no matter what their chronological age, and is another reason why people are just not going to the movies anymore and opt to wait for the DVD to be released so they can watch it in the comfort and controlled environment of their own home.

Thoughts?

ROCKSTAR

Amen.

I hate 98% of PG-13 movies, they make me want to throw things because you can literally FEEL the restraint pushing the movie back.

RENT is an example of a movie I watch and always wonder "what if". What if the director had the guts to go all out and make the material as best and as real as he could? What if he had kept the original lines that have all the juice and all the greatness in them?

Excellent point and very well said!

I call the PG-13 the wuss rating in here. You're clearly not PG but don't have the stones to go all the way. Adults DO watch movies (theater and DVD) and they demand a better product than teens! Teens have already their movies, must they also be a factor in higher concept entertainment? I do recognize that money is king and it's all about making the extra buck, but the thing is that the movie industry is actually suffering even though they ave PG-13 films all over the place... Mainly because movies are not that good lately.

There are tv shows that are more daring than most films these days.

I was going to the movies yesterday and when my best friend and I saw the movies that were showing, we stayed home and watched lots of tv and ate pizza.

UnsilentMajorty

There are literally tons... TONS... Of recent movies in my opinion which should have the R rating and should have tackled their subject matter in a much more adult manner than they did and the reason they didn't was because of the greedy studio demanding the film(s) be PG-13, or they wouldn't release them.

"Pulse" and every other recent "horror"... And I use the term lightly... Movie that has come out in the last few years that has been PG-13 are prime examples of this.

Good horror movies are supposed to "horrify" the audience with gore and a sense of dread through out the entire film... And horror films have always made box office profits whenever they were released. Some of the classic movies of mainstream culture are in fact horror movies like the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and the immortal "Alien" to name a few... Let alone "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Friday the 13th" series.

These were all, R rated horror films and they did incredibly well at the box office because the studios used to not care so much about who was going to the movies, but just that persons were going to the movies in an ironic twist compared to today. This means the horror genre will and always has catered to mostly older teens (18+) and up and this didn't matter back then because there were apparently enough of them and older moviegoers to make these movies successful.

Unfortunately, studios (and Hollywood in general) is in such financial panic right now they are being forced -- by their own failings -- To "dumb down" horror movies, action movies and other films that would normally be R rated in order to maximize whatever profit there is to be made at the box office... Which isn't much... By making these kinds of films "kid safe" and this is ultimately why most PG-13 films are not very good if we put aside other aspects like story, acting, directing, etc.

This is the other related factor and I am glad you said it because if you didn't, I was going to shortly

Everything in Hollywood.. Or, at least how their products (Movies; TV; Music) are marketed... Revolves around being young and youthful.

I have no problem with this because we were all young once... But the fact is this segment of the potential moviegoing public is ALL they market to and why movies for adults (late20s and up) are now relegated to a few short months during the fall and right after the new year right before Oscars.

Like Rockstar said, we all know WHY they market to kids... Because they supposedly have more disposable income than working adults... But I don't know how true this really is with the price of living just going up so high everywhere to the point you can't even go to the movies on a kids allowence anymore, but I digress.

Also, I am not going to apologize for the fact most people's tastes change and evolve as they grow older and gain more life experience. I know mine sure have. I used to love action movies with Arnold and Sylvester when I was a kid in the '80s... But now, I think they are the dumbest things on the planet as far as movies and entertainment value for my dollar goes...

And this isn't me being some "film snob" and turnig my back on things I used to like just to appear smarter and more sophisticated, either. I just do not like those kinds of movies anymore because I've matured as an individual and so have my tastes and I want movies which are more realistic and have actual SUBSTANCE, RELEVANCE and RESONANCE to them than just mindless entertainment where things blow up and people get shot.

This is part of the big Catch-22 Hollywood finds themselves in right now.

Hollywood thinks people aren't going to the movies because they don't appeal to everyone, aka youger kids, enough so what did they do? They start dumbing down a lot of the movies lately to appeal to younger audiences by slapping PG-13 ratings on them which leaves adults with no real choices of what to watch when they go to the theater... So adults just aren't going to the theater like Rockstar said... Which is why there is low box-office turnover right now and studios are in such a financial bind which was the root cause for increased production of PG-13 movies to begin with. Oy vey!

Again, I have no personal grudge against PG-13 movies, or even mainstream Hollywood as they have every right to make a buck just like every other industry out there as well.

However, what I don't like is when the industry itself is not producing very good products... Or products which are dumbed down like PG-13 rated movies... And then has the nerve to turn around and blame its potential customers (movie fans) that it is somehow our/their fault we aren't supporting them. It is a two-way street folks, but a lot of studios still haven't grasped this concept yet... But more and more they are because the days of infinite spending are coming to a close if we take into consideration recent events like the Paramount/Tom Cruise split and other reports of studios scaling back budgets to movies already in production and no more pampering of stars with 20 million dollar paychecks.

homerschum

The concept of PG-13 movies should warn those who want to go watch a movie with a quiet respectful group not to see them till its over. When movies are PG-13 or lower you can always expect people to be annoying in the theaters.

For an example, I went to When a Stranger Calls and it bugged me so badly how I can see a sworm of cell-phones before it started. It was buzzing with chatter and crowd was excited to see a "horror" film. When the movie started people where screaming. I was fed up with it and snuck into an Adult-related PG-13 film Memoirs of a Giesha which was beautiful in its own way.

The whole concept of a R-rated film is just obsert. People will avoid it, yet some are great films. I have bought many films with a R-rated film... but this doesn't mean they are good films.

Watching the original Pearl Harbor was a good love story surrounded by action/history. Watching the R-rated version of Pearl Harbor (The Director's cut) was a pain. The added segment(s) weren't much for a film I thought highly of. It was all gory and swear words. These do not make a good film.

A good film is surround by the plot and the presentation (directors, actors, etc) A movie can be good no matter what the rating. Some of my all time favorites are PG-13. (Whats Eating Gilbert Grape)

Its the idea of a "block buster" is your problem. They can range from all different ratings. G & PG attracts family and if the movie is huge (fan base wise) it will be a "painful" movie experience. Yet, atleast parents/grown-up teens have the Fall Season of movies to look forward to. (Smart, good films)

I think of bashing "PG-13" movies is just wrong. Its the term "Block-buster" or "Teeny-bobber film/teen films" ... its not the movies ratings fault... its the targetted auidence.

ROCKSTAR

homerschum I'm the reverse, when I want to watch a movie and see it's "PG-13", I instantly get suspicious. I love R rated movies because they are not measuring dialogue, scenes, performances with a measuring cup like it's a recipe for a cake (only 3 F words, only a few shots of blood, 3 shots of a naked body, etc, etc.). If a movie is naturally a PG, G, or PG-13 movie then well and good.

But like UM said, the problem is that there are movies that need to be "R" (I'm assuming MPAA ratings because they are the ones that stamp movies and say what goes and what doesn't) for the story to be fully developed and well rounded. For example, Requiem for a Dream is a strong movie, may not be a Box Office smash but it's a good film that exists for a certain audience and the filmmakers made no apologies about it.

Imagine a PG-13 version of Quills. The issue is that not every movie can be PG-13 and yet they insist on butchering them to make them fit the mold and take in, supposedly the extra cash. Disney took a risk with Pirates of the Caribbean with it being PG-13 and all, and it paid off. Captain Jack Sparrow would've been a whole different character 10 years ago.

On the other hand, there's no need for an excellent and great movie like Serenity to be R rated. All movies will generally be good, or at least not a waste of time if the filmmaker doesn’t have to compromise his vision to fit a mold.

R ratings are not just about cursing and sex (in good movies anyway), it's about deep exploration of whatever subject the movie's dealing with, it's about the full commitment to touch all the bases on its way to home. You can't go home without stepping on every single base. When naturally R rated movies are forced to skip a base, they lose their power and the product ends up being only a shadow.

UnsilentMajorty

Homerschum:

I don't have a problem with blockbusters. In fact, it is the exact opposite as most of the PG-13 movies released are artistic and box-office bombs... Like "When a Stranger Calls"... Whose sole purpose are to be loss leaders for a studio's bigger titles that really are blockbusters.

This is another example of how PG-13 is now used and abused by Hollywood because the PG-13 rating has become an arbitrary symbol of "approved viewing" by the entertainment industry, but especially by lazy parents who don't know, or really care enough to find out exactly what their kids are watching when they aren't there.

This is another problem with the PG-13 rating in a nutshell.

Studios know there is a hypocritical stance on sex and voilence in the U.S. (Sex is a big taboo, whereas violence is completely acceptable) due to our Puritain heritage... So what they do is crank out watered-down movies like "When a Stranger Calls" and slap the PG-13 rating on it because they know it will appeal to and satisfy the two main groups who are obstacles to them making more money: Under-age kids and their parents.

Also, as Rockstar said, what has happened and is happening is more and more movies are being artistically neutered from the start because studios know about America's hypocritical stance on sex and violence AND because they primarily market all movies... Regardless of whether they should be or not... To under-age kids and teens who probably should not be seeing some of these films... And would not be allowed to under the old ratings system before PG-13 was invented in 1986 (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom)... And this is the whole point of why there really are not a lot of choices for adults who want to watch movies that tackle serious subject matters with the respect they deserve.

Also, I agree the rating doesn't determine whether or not a movie is good or not in theory.. But the reality is more and more it is becoming the sole factor which contributes to whether a movie is good or not artistically because as Rockstar said, some subjects demand more realism to have a better emotional impact (Requiem for a Dream) and there is no way around this from at least an artistic stand-point, let alone any other aspect of film and the film making process.

You mentioned how you thought the R or Unrated version of "Pearl Harbor" wasn't that good due to the excessive gore and swearing?

Well, this has more to do with the film being a P.O.S. in terms of the story and acting more than any gore or swearing that was added because at least the R rated version is a more realistic depiction of what being in conventional war is like because people do curse and there is an awful lot of gore and other things no movie will ever be able to convey accurately, thankfully.

Basically, the issue I have with PG-13 films is the rating is intended for under-age kids and their parents... But as an un-intended side-effect it now effects films aimed at older, more sophisticated adults which means there is very little for persons like myself and Rockstar -- Who are way over 13 -- Who would like to watch movies that don't speak down to us, or pressume we can't handle the realities of the themes or situations they trying to convey.

The PG-13 rating is basically a subtle form of censorship that says we (the studio) are going to sanitize this movie for your viewing pleasure before you even see it because we don't think you can handle a realistic depiction of it because we assume you are only 13 (or around that age).

Speaking of "Requiem for a Dream"... Daron Arnofsky is set to release "The Fountain" later this year with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Wiez, and it was another case of the studio wanting a PG-13 rating, but Arnofsky refused because the film deals with the realistic depiction of someone slowly dying of cancer and didn't want to sugar-coat it. Unfortunately, I can speak from experience about this subject matter... But I respect Arnofsky for his stance because this will hopefully give the film a better emotional impact in the context of the story compared to if it was sugar-coated and just breezed over in typical Hollywood fashion.

This is the heart of this discussion in a lot of ways.

Studios want to make more money off under-age kids, so they handicap a lot of films which should not be rated PG-13 (and would not if the rating didn't exist) because they are operating under the assumption kids want to be entertained, but their parents don't want them being exposed to realistic depictions of sex or violence at the same time.

This is exactly why the PG-13 rating is hypocritical in my opinion (I think the entire MPAA system is hypocritical, but that is an entirely different discussion) as not only a concept, but also how the rating itself is often applied as discussed briefly above.

shrrshrr

I heard on the radio news this morning that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is over-hauling its ratings system...or at least trying to explain (read: justify) its decisions more. On their website is a link to a Lost Angeles Times article on the topic.

Interesting, this - could be their finally getting that people are upset at the apparent lack of reasoning when it comes to ratings? Or more likely...NOT.

taovande

This is a subject that's annoyed me for years. The ratings definitely need an overhaul and I'm happy to see that they are at least going to try and do that and justify why movies get the ratings that they receive.

There are so many movies that pander to the younger crowd and they ruin their movies by doing so. Studios apparently do it so that they can get the allowance money from a bunch of 14 year olds. I wonder sometimes if they realize that if they made a great R rated movie--then maybe the adult audience would actually go see a movie! Shock of all shocks right!

I also can't stand that a shoot 'em up movie or a horror movie can get a PG-13 rating but if a movie says the "F-word" more than like 2 times it automatically gets an R rating.

There's no real consistency with the MPAA rating system right now and I think that's my major concern.

Whenever I think of the ratings now I always think about the scene in the Aviator with the "mammaries" of the leading ladies in the movies.

Also a bit off topic but I used to love going to the movies but now I always seem to sit next to the most irritating people!

UnsilentMajorty

I will make an educated guess this is because of the recent documentary...

This Film is Not Yet Rated

The hypocrisy and lack of standards has finally been exposed to the point they are coming under a lot of public pressure to either re-think what they do... Or be abolished (which will never happen, but the threat is there which is a good thing, IMO).

Taovande:

Definitely try and see the documentary I listed above. It is a great companion to this thread and it expresses a lot of the same feelings you, I and others seem to be in agreement on.

JJ4EVER

Okay, I'm bringing my viewpoint into here. I'm 14.

First, I just want to say, yes, many times large groups of immature kids (many of which aren't even 13) go into PG-13 movies and make noise and are rude and disruptive. Some of my friends and I can be a bit loud when we're talking before the movie starts, but once it starts we're quiet, while the two adults down the row from us start talking again twenty minutes into the movie. And there's nothing that can be done about that. It happens in R-rated movies too, all ages, there is always some annoying person or group.

And yes, I agree with the fact that the artistic vision and overall quality of a film is often affected by the studio trying to get the rating to PG-13 rather than R.

I really hate how they under estimate what teens can take when it comes to movies now. Because first of all, if it's rated R, if we want to see it, we'll see it. Kids can sneak in to R-rated movies now so easily. And second... it's just stupid. And R-rated movies loose money that way, because then kids buy tickets to one movie and sneak into the R-rated one.

And when it comes to the quality of the movies, not all PG-13 movies are bad. Some are, but many are NOT. just like some R-rated movies are bad, but many others are NOT.

I'm a movie fanatic. And I DON'T want to not be able to see good movies just because there's a little bit too much gore, or they say the f-word too much. If they heard the way kids talk...

Anyway, I understand all the reasons for hating the PG-13 rating and movies rated that. But I don't want them to be rated R, and then just leave me with lame, idiotic teenage movies that I can't stand.

The ratings system is messed up. Definitely.

Moonlight~Pixie

Maybe not bad but if given an R rating, they could be better. At least in my opinion. An example of this would be the When a Stranger Calls remake. I like the movie as a suspense thriller, but since it was given a PG-13 rating, there are things that bug me about it. For example, when certain people get killed in the movie it never really shows it. It's all left to the imagination and I don't like that. I'm one for seeing the people actually getting killed. Not just given hints that they are dead.

ROCKSTAR

Yeah. Some movies need the stronger/more graphic scenes to be able to work. I mean, not everyone can make West Side Story. I know, I know... It's a musical. But even still, WSS is about gangs, knives and racism. However, everything is handled with the most amazing brush of wholesome magic that nothing truly pushed the boundaries of the time. Now people say that because of the softness factor, WSS hasn't aged well at all.

Tony & Maria's sex scene isn't shown, it fades away as they kiss. The fight between the Sharks and the Jets is mostly ballet and there's no blood. We do see two people gets stabbed, but it's bloodless. Anita almost gets raped, but there's a disturbing playfulness about it that lessens the possible sexual agression. Etc, etc. WSS was a lot stronger on stage that it was in film. Things were toned down specifically for the film adaptation.

Now, did WSS need to be graphic to be great? No.

But imagine Moulin Rouge (funny enough, a PG-13 movie) without its raunchy tone and drunken bohemians. Speaking of Moulin Rouge... I find it funny that sexual double entendres are basically all over most PG-13 films, but make a direct comment and buddy, you're grilled.

While you see harder stuff being soften because studios demand the PG-13 material (whatever the heck it takes to get that day), there are PG-13 movies that make you wonder how they managed to avoid a higher rating. Again, no consistency.

It's not violence for the sake of violence. It's just the freedom to let the chips fall where they may, and have a better movie because of it. And happier movie fans.

ROCKSTAR

Apparently, I love you, Beth Cooper is worse than what it looked like, and this review made me think of this thread when the reviewer gave the director some advice:

A piece of advice – either take it to the R-level, show some boobs, and make some really crass jokes or scale it back to PG-town and make a family-friendly comedy about young love. Keeping it somewhere in the middle made the entire thing feel lopsided and uneven. And that’s when it was making sense. Most of the time it’s just confused.

I believe this applies to 89% of PG-13 movies.

ROCKSTAR

PG-13 Movies Have More Gun Violence Than R-Rated Films, Study Finds

This is not surprising.