|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 16, 2017 19:34:44 GMT
OK: I know this is a very long post, but I think it's a very interesting subject.
'Ghost in the Shell' is now only the latest remake/reboot to be released with a PG-13, despite the fact that the original animated film received an R-rating by the MPAA. I'm sure this news will kick-start the debate about the importance of ratings among film fans once more, but I find those discussions are almost always rather one-sided. In most cases, they focus solely on how much violence, sex/nudity and swearing you can (or can’t) show within the limits of either the PG-13 or the R-rating, and this simplification doesn’t really do the issue justice.
Sure, those elements ARE important - also because they're the most noticable in a film - but the impact on a production if the studio decides to aim for a PG-13 rating goes far beyond the mere amount of F-words, blood and T&A you get to show. And in many cases, the decision to aim for a PG-13 rating for non-creative reasons can really affect the quality of a film.
As James Mangold recently explained when he was asked why he was so insistent on being allowed to make an R-rated movie even before he started writing his new film ‘Logan’: “Because then the movie can be more intelligent”. Now some may be baffled by that answer, but he does have a point (you can watch the interviews with him below).
What many people don’t realize is that a significant chunk of the audience for a typical PG-13 blockbuster are children aged 6-12 years (or younger; there is no age restriction for PG-13 films, and not even small children are legally required to be accompanied by an adult if they want to see a PG-13 film), and the studio is very much aware of this, in fact, they even rely heavily on that very demographic with their projected box office calculations and merchandising deals. So by aiming for a PG-13 rating, the studio doesn’t really mean to make a film for people aged 13 or older: they basically want to make a film for everybody.
And that's where the trouble starts: Because what this means for the writers/directors of your average summer blockbuster is that during the whole production - from the first pages of the script until a week befor the film opens - there is a whole army of non-creative studio people who are constantly on the filmmakers' back worrying about every tiny little thing that they fear could impair the marketability and desired broad commercial appeal of their (insanely expensive) product. Unless the filmmaker is someone with enough “star” status and power to retain a certain amount of creative control (such as Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson or James Cameron), those “non-creatives” will scrutinize almost every aspect of the artists’ work and continuously intervene and send “notes” addressing the most ridiculous issues that they perceive to be “problematic”.
And by “problematic” we’re not talking about tits, gore or F-words (because those things are off the table from the get-go); oh no: we’re talking about the very essence of what usually makes a story worthwhile. You want the characters in your film to talk about complex, adult themes such as depression or post traumatic stress? Well, too bad: there can’t be language that might be too complicated for a 9-year old (or the studio gets worried and sends a note).
You want a long, drawn out scene between two characters to establish their complicated relationship and create a certain mood? Well, sucks for you: but the length of scenes – this is no joke – can’t be longer than what the attention span of an average 9-year old can process (or the studio gets nervous the kids might get bored). You want the androids (and humans) in your sci-fi movie to ponder deep questions about what it means to be human? What a pitty, but there can’t be philosophical themes that are too complex for a 9-year old too understand (or the studio interferes and demands a simplification from the writer).
Btw: I’m aware all that sounds pretty ridiculous, but I’m afraid it’s very true. And now that statement by James Mangold I mentioned earlier, namely that an R-rating makes the film more intelligent, suddenly makes sense. But there’s more: There can’t be images that are too frightening for a 9-year old; gunshots can’t be too loud for a 9-year old; actions scenes can’t be too intense, and so on and on and on – you get the idea.
And on top of all that, the marketing section will also have its say. Knowing that the film must be marketable for kids and young teenagers, they will want to include, for example, a cute character at one point (or an animal or a cool gadget that can sell merchandise and Happy Meals) and a romance and a certain well known hunk (maybe a member from a popular boy-group) or a sexy girl somewhere down the line – because polls show that teenagers respond well to that.
Also very important: funny one-liners at regular intervals to get a giggle out of those teens, and of course: spectacular action scenes and the latest state of the art CG effects (also at regular intervals), because after all, that’s almost the only thing where movies still surpass cable TV (and you DO want to lure in some adults as well). A character who’s a bit of a brooding loner in the source material might fare better with the kids and teens if he has a dog or a funny side-kick, and so on.
To sum it all up: for the artists who try to retain their voice and creative vision throughout that process it’s nothing short of a nightmare.
But, as James Mangold tells it, the very moment the decision is made that the film DOESN’T have to be PG-13, almost all of those worries and expectations from the studio go away. Once the studio knows the film is NOT for children, there’s far less need for “non-creative” people to get involved and send notes all the time, because the two most demanding demographics, male and female children/young teenagers, are not part of the equation anymore. All of a sudden, the filmmakers are basically free to just write (and film) the story the way they think is right, and the film becomes a completely different animal. Now it’s mostly back to the artists to make the decisions about story structure, complexity of themes, casting, music/song choices; the editing, the language, or story developments (such things as a character death, a downbeat ending or a character suffering), in other words: they’re able to just make “a film”.
So if you think ratings are just about gore, sex and F-words – think again. Once the film gets screened for the MPAA, their decision about the rating may indeed come down to such simple issues as language and blood and nudity (although there are often several other - more thematic - elements which influence a rating), but in the end, their decision (or the cuts they require to grant the studio the desired rating for a film) probably won’t have that much of an impact on the quality of the final film.
The bottom line is this: What’s really responsible for how generic and formulaic so many of these films have become is what happens long before the MPAA even gets a first look at the film; it's that whole process set in motion once the studio decided to aim for a PG-13 rating for non-creative reasons which can - and mostly will - affect a film's quality.James Mangold talking about the importance of ‘Logan’s rating:
Video 1: www.videodetective.com/movies/logan-james-mangold-on-the-effect-of-the-r-rating-mandarin-taiwan-subtitled-/455192
Video 2:
Video 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhTPhcKMpOA (at minute 1:20 Mangold talks about studio expectations and financing in a PG film opposed to an R-rated film)
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Mar 16, 2017 20:23:37 GMT
I think PG-13 is only bad when it's used to water down an R-rated franchise like, say, Robocop or The Expendables to get it to appeal to a wider audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 18, 2017 9:57:08 GMT
I think PG-13 is only bad when it's used to water down an R-rated franchise like, say, Robocop or The Expendables to get it to appeal to a wider audience. I think PG-13 ratings are neither inherently good or bad: it all comes down to whether the filmmaker is able to make the film in a way which serves the story best. The rating in itself is neutral, but what can really affect the quality of a film is the conscious aim for a certain rating for non-creative reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 19, 2017 20:05:59 GMT
I think PG-13 ratings are neither inherently good or bad: it all comes down to whether the filmmaker is able to make the film in a way which serves the story best. The rating in itself is neutral, but what can really affect the quality of a film is the conscious aim for a certain rating for non-creative reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 20, 2017 20:43:39 GMT
Some PG rated films from the '70s and early '80s would be PG-13 today. For example; 1973's SSSSSSS would be rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi terror, frightening images, some language, and partial nudity if rated and released today.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 21, 2017 0:16:07 GMT
Some PG rated films from the '70s and early '80s would be PG-13 today. For example; 1973's SSSSSSS would be rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi terror, frightening images, some language, and partial nudity if rated and released today. I agree. Some might even be rated R today, unless some tiny edits are made: 'Jaws', 'Raiders', 'Temple of Doom', 'Poltergeist' - Spielberg really pushed that PG rating, come to think of it  . Funny enough, it was him who pushed for the introduction of a rating between PG and R (after being criticised for the violence in his PG Films) as he thought a PG-13 rating would cover the middle ground of the kind of adventure films he liked to make. A PG "with a bit of hot souce" - as he called it. And until the late nineties, that's precisely what the PG-13 rating was. It was only with the beginning of the new millenium, when studios started to perfect their tentpole formula, that films aiming for that rating became more and more generic. |
|
|
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 21, 2017 7:16:33 GMT
Some PG rated films from the '70s and early '80s would be PG-13 today. For example; 1973's SSSSSSS would be rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi terror, frightening images, some language, and partial nudity if rated and released today. I agree. Some might even be rated R today, unless some tiny edits are made: 'Jaws', 'Raiders', 'Temple of Doom', 'Poltergeist' - Spielberg really pushed that PG rating, come to think of it . Funny enough, it was him who pushed for the introduction of a rating between PG and R (after being criticised for the violence in his PG Films) as he thought a PG-13 rating would cover the middle ground of the kind of adventure films he liked to make. A PG "with a bit of hot souce" - as he called it. And until the late nineties, that's precisely what the PG-13 rating was. It was only with the beginning of the new millenium, when studios started to perfect their tentpole formula, that films aiming for that rating became more and more generic. Times have change. And some X (NC-17) movies would even be rated R today. Even G and NC-17 rated movies are looking pretty rare these days. Both are subjected to be box office poisons. A lot of family, kids, and animated movies are PG rated because, apparently, a G rating would only appeal to a much younger demographic (like toddlers) instead of a general audience as intended. So a lot of movies that could've easily been G rated end up with PG for 'Thematic Elements' or such. So a G rated movie cannot serve as a blockbuster feature and 'Parental Guidance' has kind of lost its true meaning. All just to serve to broader family moviegoers with kids. NC-17 rating, on the other hand, has a stigma of being associated with pornographic or other exploitative contents to ever make a complete breakthrough. It's much harder to sell an NC-17 rated film than a R rated one. Some NC-17 films used to get nominated in the Academy Awards like 'Henry and June' and 'Requiem for a Dream'. There are even some R rated movies that could easily fall under NC-17 would have to omit a lot of things out or make some adjustment in order to remain a R. So the most explicit moments in a film can still get away with a R. So while some PG-13 movies can look like sanitized versions of R rated materials, some R rated movies can end up as sanitized versions of NC-17 materials. |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 21, 2017 10:29:48 GMT
I agree. Some might even be rated R today, unless some tiny edits are made: 'Jaws', 'Raiders', 'Temple of Doom', 'Poltergeist' - Spielberg really pushed that PG rating, come to think of it . Funny enough, it was him who pushed for the introduction of a rating between PG and R (after being criticised for the violence in his PG Films) as he thought a PG-13 rating would cover the middle ground of the kind of adventure films he liked to make. A PG "with a bit of hot souce" - as he called it. And until the late nineties, that's precisely what the PG-13 rating was. It was only with the beginning of the new millenium, when studios started to perfect their tentpole formula, that films aiming for that rating became more and more generic. Times have change. And some X (NC-17) movies would even be rated R today. Even G and NC-17 rated movies are looking pretty rare these days. Both are subjected to be box office poisons. A lot of family, kids, and animated movies are PG rated because, apparently, a G rating would only appeal to a much younger demographic (like toddlers) instead of a general audience as intended. So a lot of movies that could've easily been G rated end up with PG for 'Thematic Elements' or such. So a G rated movie cannot serve as a blockbuster feature and 'Parental Guidance' has kind of lost its true meaning. All just to serve to broader family moviegoers with kids. NC-17 rating, on the other hand, has a stigma of being associated with pornographic or other exploitative contents to ever make a complete breakthrough. It's much harder to sell an NC-17 rated film than a R rated one. Some NC-17 films used to get nominated in the Academy Awards like 'Henry and June' and 'Requiem for a Dream'. There are even some R rated movies that could easily fall under NC-17 would have to omit a lot of things out or make some adjustment in order to remain a R. So the most explicit moments in a film can still get away with a R. So while some PG-13 movies can look like sanitized versions of R rated materials, some R rated movies can end up as sanitized versions of NC-17 materials. It's also interesting how cable TV-shows have raised the bar for what's acceptable in terms of violence and sex; there are shows out there who'd probably end up with an NC-17 if they were produced for the big screen. And it's kind of strange how ratings for movies are apparently much more conservative than they are for the small screen. On another note, James Mangold, whom I cited in my original post, recently said something which really struck a chord with me: |
|
|
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 22, 2017 6:34:46 GMT
Times have change. And some X (NC-17) movies would even be rated R today. Even G and NC-17 rated movies are looking pretty rare these days. Both are subjected to be box office poisons. A lot of family, kids, and animated movies are PG rated because, apparently, a G rating would only appeal to a much younger demographic (like toddlers) instead of a general audience as intended. So a lot of movies that could've easily been G rated end up with PG for 'Thematic Elements' or such. So a G rated movie cannot serve as a blockbuster feature and 'Parental Guidance' has kind of lost its true meaning. All just to serve to broader family moviegoers with kids. NC-17 rating, on the other hand, has a stigma of being associated with pornographic or other exploitative contents to ever make a complete breakthrough. It's much harder to sell an NC-17 rated film than a R rated one. Some NC-17 films used to get nominated in the Academy Awards like 'Henry and June' and 'Requiem for a Dream'. There are even some R rated movies that could easily fall under NC-17 would have to omit a lot of things out or make some adjustment in order to remain a R. So the most explicit moments in a film can still get away with a R. So while some PG-13 movies can look like sanitized versions of R rated materials, some R rated movies can end up as sanitized versions of NC-17 materials. It's also interesting how cable TV-shows have raised the bar for what's acceptable in terms of violence and sex; there are shows out there who'd probably end up with an NC-17 if they were produced for the big screen. And it's kind of strange how ratings for movies are apparently much more conservative than they are for the small screen. On another note, James Mangold, whom I cited in my original post, recently said something which really struck a chord with me: True. Some cable shows do get away with a lot more than movies for the big screen. I think it's kinda ironic too how it happened that way.
What Mangold described in that highlighted section for many viewers is suspension of disbelief. So I think an average concerned parent might just shrug those kind of moments off as long as it doesn't reflect too closely to how real and gory death occurs. Movies are part of escapism and some viewers (i.e. concerned parents) would like it to remain that way, i.e. to have movies not reflect too much on real life issues. But he also brought up a good point too about how shows can be more explicit than movies. So the choices can be up to parents either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 22, 2017 19:08:15 GMT
True. Some cable shows do get away with a lot more than movies for the big screen. I think it's kinda ironic too how it happened that way.
What Mangold described in that highlighted section for many viewers is suspension of disbelief. So I think an average concerned parent might just shrug those kind of moments off as long as it doesn't reflect too closely to how real and gory death occurs. Movies are part of escapism and some viewers (i.e. concerned parents) would like it to remain that way, i.e. to have movies not reflect too much on real life issues. But he also brought up a good point too about how shows can be more explicit than movies. So the choices can be up to parents either way.
That's certainly understandable. But I'm 100% on Mangold's side when he says it's not his job as an artist to make sure his "art" is safe for children. The artists' job - ideally - is to create art and realise their creative vision. To decide whether this creative vision is suitable for their child - that's the parents' job. |
|
|
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 23, 2017 1:50:10 GMT
That's certainly understandable. But I'm 100% on Mangold's side when he says it's not his job as an artist to make sure his "art" is safe for children. The artists' job - ideally - is to create art and realise their creative vision. To decide whether this creative vision is suitable for their child - that's the parents' job. I also agree. Even though movies may be a part of escapism, some real life inspired elements can also convey art. Stories are inspired by real life events all time, since the beginning of storytelling really. Some stories and arts are just set to introduce some harsh or raw elements when needed (as long as they don’t become too gratuitous, of course). And they are not just limited to biopics or other nonfictional works. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 24, 2017 0:07:36 GMT
OK: I know this is a very long post, but I think it's a very interesting subject.
'Ghost in the Shell' is now only the latest remake/reboot to be released with a PG-13, despite the fact that the original animated film received an R-rating by the MPAA. I'm sure this news will kick-start the debate about the importance of ratings among film fans once more, but I find those discussions are almost always rather one-sided. In most cases, they focus solely on how much violence, sex/nudity and swearing you can (or can’t) show within the limits of either the PG-13 or the R-rating, and this simplification doesn’t really do the issue justice.
Sure, those elements ARE important - also because they're the most noticable in a film - but the impact on a production if the studio decides to aim for a PG-13 rating goes far beyond the mere amount of F-words, blood and T&A you get to show. And in many cases, the decision to aim for a PG-13 rating for non-creative reasons can really affect the quality of a film.
As James Mangold recently explained when he was asked why he was so insistent on being allowed to make an R-rated movie even before he started writing his new film ‘Logan’: “Because then the movie can be more intelligent”. Now some may be baffled by that answer, but he does have a point (you can watch the interviews with him below).
What many people don’t realize is that a significant chunk of the audience for a typical PG-13 blockbuster are children aged 6-12 years (or younger; there is no age restriction for PG-13 films, and not even small children are legally required to be accompanied by an adult if they want to see a PG-13 film), and the studio is very much aware of this, in fact, they even rely heavily on that very demographic with their projected box office calculations and merchandising deals. So by aiming for a PG-13 rating, the studio doesn’t really mean to make a film for people aged 13 or older: they basically want to make a film for everybody.
And that's where the trouble starts: Because what this means for the writers/directors of your average summer blockbuster is that during the whole production - from the first pages of the script until a week befor the film opens - there is a whole army of non-creative studio people who are constantly on the filmmakers' back worrying about every tiny little thing that they fear could impair the marketability and desired broad commercial appeal of their (insanely expensive) product. Unless the filmmaker is someone with enough “star” status and power to retain a certain amount of creative control (such as Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson or James Cameron), those “non-creatives” will scrutinize almost every aspect of the artists’ work and continuously intervene and send “notes” addressing the most ridiculous issues that they perceive to be “problematic”.
And by “problematic” we’re not talking about tits, gore or F-words (because those things are off the table from the get-go); oh no: we’re talking about the very essence of what usually makes a story worthwhile. You want the characters in your film to talk about complex, adult themes such as depression or post traumatic stress? Well, too bad: there can’t be language that might be too complicated for a 9-year old (or the studio gets worried and sends a note).
You want a long, drawn out scene between two characters to establish their complicated relationship and create a certain mood? Well, sucks for you: but the length of scenes – this is no joke – can’t be longer than what the attention span of an average 9-year old can process (or the studio gets nervous the kids might get bored). You want the androids (and humans) in your sci-fi movie to ponder deep questions about what it means to be human? What a pitty, but there can’t be philosophical themes that are too complex for a 9-year old too understand (or the studio interferes and demands a simplification from the writer).
Btw: I’m aware all that sounds pretty ridiculous, but I’m afraid it’s very true. And now that statement by James Mangold I mentioned earlier, namely that an R-rating makes the film more intelligent, suddenly makes sense. But there’s more: There can’t be images that are too frightening for a 9-year old; gunshots can’t be too loud for a 9-year old; actions scenes can’t be too intense, and so on and on and on – you get the idea.
And on top of all that, the marketing section will also have its say. Knowing that the film must be marketable for kids and young teenagers, they will want to include, for example, a cute character at one point (or an animal or a cool gadget that can sell merchandise and Happy Meals) and a romance and a certain well known hunk (maybe a member from a popular boy-group) or a sexy girl somewhere down the line – because polls show that teenagers respond well to that.
Also very important: funny one-liners at regular intervals to get a giggle out of those teens, and of course: spectacular action scenes and the latest state of the art CG effects (also at regular intervals), because after all, that’s almost the only thing where movies still surpass cable TV (and you DO want to lure in some adults as well). A character who’s a bit of a brooding loner in the source material might fare better with the kids and teens if he has a dog or a funny side-kick, and so on.
To sum it all up: for the artists who try to retain their voice and creative vision throughout that process it’s nothing short of a nightmare.
But, as James Mangold tells it, the very moment the decision is made that the film DOESN’T have to be PG-13, almost all of those worries and expectations from the studio go away. Once the studio knows the film is NOT for children, there’s far less need for “non-creative” people to get involved and send notes all the time, because the two most demanding demographics, male and female children/young teenagers, are not part of the equation anymore. All of a sudden, the filmmakers are basically free to just write (and film) the story the way they think is right, and the film becomes a completely different animal. Now it’s mostly back to the artists to make the decisions about story structure, complexity of themes, casting, music/song choices; the editing, the language, or story developments (such things as a character death, a downbeat ending or a character suffering), in other words: they’re able to just make “a film”.
So if you think ratings are just about gore, sex and F-words – think again. Once the film gets screened for the MPAA, their decision about the rating may indeed come down to such simple issues as language and blood and nudity (although there are often several other - more thematic - elements which influence a rating), but in the end, their decision (or the cuts they require to grant the studio the desired rating for a film) probably won’t have that much of an impact on the quality of the final film.
The bottom line is this: What’s really responsible for how generic and formulaic so many of these films have become is what happens long before the MPAA even gets a first look at the film; it's that whole process set in motion once the studio decided to aim for a PG-13 rating for non-creative reasons which can - and mostly will - affect a film's quality.James Mangold talking about the importance of ‘Logan’s rating:
Video 1: www.videodetective.com/movies/logan-james-mangold-on-the-effect-of-the-r-rating-mandarin-taiwan-subtitled-/455192
Video 2:
Video 3: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhTPhcKMpOA (at minute 1:20 Mangold talks about studio expectations and financing in a PG film opposed to an R-rated film)
I can't even begin to express how strongly I disagree with this line of thinking. The only thing that I agree with is that yes, the regular PG-13 fair often produces formulaic garbage. And in some cases, for some special, specific stories, an R-rating is indeed very much needed. ...but to conclude that every movie, or the majority of movies, or even a good amount of movies need the "R-rating" for freedom is completely against what I believe to be art. Not every single movie needs to be a mirror to your own reality. Art, at least a good amount of art, is supposed to elevate us. Pull us above the garbage language, the death and the sexual trashiness of society. It's supposed to at least suggest a better way for humanity, not just throw the sewage back in our faces. Again, yes, some stories need to be grounded in that "reality" and the R-rating. But only select few. If everything becomes about "reality" then that is simply a surrender, it's not freedom for art, it's enslavement. Long story short, "reality," or at least the drug-and sex-and gore-and violence reality that many people find themselves in, should absolutely not be adopted as the "norm" or even a desirable quality for most films. |
|
|
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 24, 2017 5:18:59 GMT
THawk I'm also not a big fan of that kind of argument when it comes to debating R vs PG-13 movies. Those kinds of arguments usually ends with Pg-13 movies getting bashed in favor of R rated contents. A lot of people seem to forget that film ratings are just there to grade age appropriate content, and not quality. In other words, let's not pretend crappy R rated movies don't exist out there and the same goes for good to topnotch Pg-13 movies. I generally don't like seeing movies that "needs" to go a certain rating "just for the (gratuitous) sake of it". Unfortunately, those kind of movies tend to turn out mindless most of the time. At times that kind of formulaic approach in movies, as you said, can go completely against art. Ghost in the Shell could've gone R-rated, considering the source material, but we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 24, 2017 9:31:08 GMT
I agree very much with you, and if that's what you took away from my overlong post, then I failed 100% to get my point across. I think PG-13/R ratings are neither inherently good or bad: it all comes down to whether the filmmaker is able to make the film in a way which serves the story best. If a filmmaker happens to be lucky enough to be able to just make the film he/she wants to make, and that film ends up being rated PG-13 by the MPAA, that rating won’t say anything about the film’s quality (it could be a masterpiece or horrible shlock), and the same is naturally true for R-rated films (or, in fact, any rating).
The rating in itself is neutral, but what can really affect the quality of a film is the conscious aim for a certain rating for non-creative reasons. And in the particular case of a studio aiming for a PG-13 rating (which is what James Mangold said and what I tried to emphasize) that has more to do with the studio's expactations of a PG-13 tentpole than it has with the actual limitations of that rating by the MPAA in terms of what you can or can't show. The problem (to quote myself) is this:And as Mangold pointed out, that's the dilemma for the filmmaker: If he/she wants to make a film for adults, but the studio DOESN'T rule out the option to make a PG-13 film, the marketing section and the studio execs will not just watch your film through the eyes of people aged 13 years or older: they will watch your film through the prism of a 9 or even 6-year old. And that goes way beyond such things as gore, nudity or swearing, which is what the MPAA mainly focuses on. The MPAA doesn't restrict such things as scene length, story structure, complicated or morally ambiguous characters, complex scenes or profound philosophical themes. And the MPAA certainly couldn't care less whether at one point in the story a cute puppy shows up or if the protagonist has a funny side-kick or not. But in a PG-13 tentpole, the studio does. And it's not the MPAA who cares whether your PG-13 tentpole is marketable for kids aged 6-12: it's the studio. Becasue they count on that very young audience for their PG-13 films. So if you want to make a film like 'Ghost in the Shell' or 'Robocop' - which in this day and age are films that, despite their decidedly adult themes, are made aiming for a PG-13 rating to broaden their commercial appeal - you find yourself severly limited in terms of storytelling: NOT just terms of sex and blood and F-words. And that's the point I was trying to get across in my original post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 24, 2017 10:06:47 GMT
Some PG rated films from the '70s and early '80s would be PG-13 today. For example; 1973's SSSSSSS would be rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi terror, frightening images, some language, and partial nudity if rated and released today. There is one film from 1976 called VIGILANTE FORCE, with Kris Kris Kristofferson and Jan Michael Vincent which received an inexplicable PG rating. This is one incredibly violent film and nearly every other country in the world gave it very high age restrictions, made cuts, or just outright banned it. This film had R written all over it. Lord knows who was getting paid under the table to hand out the PG rating here. www.imdb.com/title/tt0075393/?ref_=nv_sr_1 |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 24, 2017 10:25:04 GMT
Some PG rated films from the '70s and early '80s would be PG-13 today. For example; 1973's SSSSSSS would be rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi terror, frightening images, some language, and partial nudity if rated and released today. There is one film from 1976 called VIGILANTE FORCE, with Kris Kris Kristofferson and Jan Michael Vincent which received an inexplicable PG rating. This is one incredibly violent film and nearly every other country in the world gave it very high age restrictions, made cuts, or just outright banned it. This film had R written all over it. Lord knows who was getting paid under the table to hand out the PG rating here. www.imdb.com/title/tt0075393/?ref_=nv_sr_1Crazy; I just looked it up: in the UK it got an X-rating upon theatrical release! But that says a lot about the US at that time (well, and now to a certain degree), because the film apparently contains only mild language. And although the MPAA now are much stricter in terms of violence than they were then, it's still inexplicable how films like 'Amelie', 'Billy Elliot' or the 'King's Speech' get an R-rating for language, while 'The Expendables 3' gets a PG-13. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 24, 2017 11:57:50 GMT
Crazy; I just looked it up: in the UK it got an X-rating upon theatrical release! But that says a lot about the US at that time (well, and now to a certain degree), because the film apparently contains only mild language. And although the MPAA now are much stricter in terms of violence than they were then, it's still inexplicable how films like 'Amelie', 'Billy Elliot' or the 'King's Speech' get an R-rating for language, while 'The Expendables 3' gets a PG-13. The US ratings system needs an overhaul. It's absurd how graphically violent films like the Hostels and Saws get lumped into the same category with a film that is just rated 'R' for some moderate mature themes and a smattering of f<>k words. It's only the US that have an issue with their NC17 rating and it is their own rating. Most countries do the sensible thing and restrict films like I mentioned to 15, 16, or 18yrs + only. Perhaps then, the MPAA needs a rating like M'-for mature audiences over 15 or 16, that doesn't need to be restricted, but has stronger themes and language that won't be accommodated at PG13 guidelines. If American exhibitors refuse to screen films rated NC17— which many films rated 'R' deserve—they can then reserve the 'R' rating for films that do have high impact sex, violence, themes etc. With the Vigilante Force-76' film I mentioned, while the violence isn't graphic or bloody, it is brutal. The undercurrent and tone is one of pervasive violence with strong themes of anti-social behavior that is only really suitable for restricted audiences. |
|
|
|
Post by OmegaWolf747 on Mar 24, 2017 12:34:40 GMT
I think MPAA ratings are a ridiculous remnant of a bygone era. There is really no way to keep teens from seeing movies now that they have access to streaming services, both legal and otherwise.
On that note, did anyone here ever sneak into R films and get away with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 24, 2017 15:30:22 GMT
Crazy; I just looked it up: in the UK it got an X-rating upon theatrical release! But that says a lot about the US at that time (well, and now to a certain degree), because the film apparently contains only mild language. And although the MPAA now are much stricter in terms of violence than they were then, it's still inexplicable how films like 'Amelie', 'Billy Elliot' or the 'King's Speech' get an R-rating for language, while 'The Expendables 3' gets a PG-13. The US ratings system needs an overhaul. It's absurd how graphically violent films like the Hostels and Saws get lumped into the same category with a film that is just rated 'R' for some moderate mature themes and a smattering of f<>k words. It's only the US that have an issue with their NC17 rating and it is their own rating. Most countries do the sensible thing and restrict films like I mentioned to 15, 16, or 18yrs + only. Perhaps then, the MPAA needs a rating like M'-for mature audiences over 15 or 16, that doesn't need to be restricted, but has stronger themes and language that won't be accommodated at PG13 guidelines. If American exhibitors refuse to screen films rated NC17— which many films rated 'R' deserve—they can then reserve the 'R' rating for films that do have high impact sex, violence, themes etc. With the Vigilante Force-76' film I mentioned, while the violence isn't graphic or bloody, it is brutal. The undercurrent and tone is one of pervasive violence with strong themes of anti-social behavior that is only really suitable for restricted audiences. Couldn't agree more. A friend of mine recently wrote a blog about this very issue, and he pretty much suggests what you do here (in case you're interested, you can read it here: www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/the-mpaa-needs-a-new-rating.html ) |
|
|
|
Post by gogoschka1 on Mar 24, 2017 15:42:15 GMT
I think MPAA ratings are a ridiculous remnant of a bygone era. There is really no way to keep teens from seeing movies now that they have access to streaming services, both legal and otherwise. On that note, did anyone here ever sneak into R films and get away with it? Of course - that was half of the fun! When I grew up, blockbusters were made for older teenagers and adults, and many of them had an R-rating. And I believe because they didn't try to be for 6-year olds and 30-year olds at the same time, they still hold up today. Ratings simply weren't that big of a deal back then and filmmakers were mostly able to just make their film - and THEN the rating was decided. And that was also true for films with a PG rating like 'Back to the Future' or 'The Goonies'. Robert Zemeckis said in an interview that in today's climate, no studio would touch a film like 'Back to the Future' because of its themes (a mother falling in love with her own son) and he's sadly right. And you certainly wouldn't find a dick joke (like the one in 'Goonies') in a PG film today. But mowing down whole villages with machine guns is ok - as long as we don't see the violence's actual consequences (blood, pain, suffering and so on). |
|
. Funny enough, it was him who pushed for the introduction of a rating between PG and R (after being criticised for the violence in his PG Films) as he thought a PG-13 rating would cover the middle ground of the kind of adventure films he liked to make. A PG "with a bit of hot souce" - as he called it. And until the late nineties, that's precisely what the PG-13 rating was. It was only with the beginning of the new millenium, when studios started to perfect their tentpole formula, that films aiming for that rating became more and more generic.
