Whale Rider PG-13! The MPAA is Smoking Crack
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Marblehead, MA
Posts: 6,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whale Rider PG-13! The MPAA is Smoking Crack
Pop Quiz:
What do Whale Rider and The Ring have in common?
They're BOTH movies rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America.
So what was so edgy in Whale Rider that got it PG-13. Bloody corpses? Depictation of Suicide? Violence towards children? (see: The Ring for that and worse) Nope none of these things are in Whale Rider The movie got a PG-13 for 2 scenes:
Scene 1: A guy is sitting on a bench with his head on his girlfriends shoulder on his chest is what looks like a pot pipe and a bag of pot. But who knows, he isn't smoking it, and there's no reference made to it. But the MPAA calls this 'Brief Drug Reference' enough for a PG-13
Scene 2: An old chief is training a bunch of younger boys. He's trying to get them to give it all they got and says that if they don't their 'Dicks will Fall off'. The MPAA considers this brief language enough for a PG-13.
When we've got Bono saying 'F'cking Brilliant' on national TV and the FCC that's A OK there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with the MPAA to slap a rating harder than 'Parental Guidance Suggested' on a movie which by all accounts is probably THE SINGLE BEST FAMILY MOVIE OF THE YEAR!
Something has got to be done about the MPAA!
What do Whale Rider and The Ring have in common?
They're BOTH movies rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America.
So what was so edgy in Whale Rider that got it PG-13. Bloody corpses? Depictation of Suicide? Violence towards children? (see: The Ring for that and worse) Nope none of these things are in Whale Rider The movie got a PG-13 for 2 scenes:
Scene 1: A guy is sitting on a bench with his head on his girlfriends shoulder on his chest is what looks like a pot pipe and a bag of pot. But who knows, he isn't smoking it, and there's no reference made to it. But the MPAA calls this 'Brief Drug Reference' enough for a PG-13
Scene 2: An old chief is training a bunch of younger boys. He's trying to get them to give it all they got and says that if they don't their 'Dicks will Fall off'. The MPAA considers this brief language enough for a PG-13.
When we've got Bono saying 'F'cking Brilliant' on national TV and the FCC that's A OK there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with the MPAA to slap a rating harder than 'Parental Guidance Suggested' on a movie which by all accounts is probably THE SINGLE BEST FAMILY MOVIE OF THE YEAR!
Something has got to be done about the MPAA!
#2
DVD Talk Limited Edition
SWEET LEAPING DOLPHINS!!!! DO YOU THINK THEY MAY TURN THE FILM BLACK AND WHITE, THEN IN COLOR FOR THE OVER SEAS MARKET?!?!?!
Spoiler:
Last edited by zero; 10-20-03 at 01:11 AM.
#3
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Though Zero makes the joke about the mpaa being bashed a bit much in the kill bill threads lately, I must agree that really it comes down to the studio making the choice of resubmitting.
You know, I have no real problem with the whole choice that there is to have a commitee to review the films, but there really needs to be more choices as to the ratings. they pretty much have a to generalization to them. you have G, PG, PG-13, R NC-17. When I was young my parents didn't care. Do you know why? because in a PG rated Jaws you can make out some bush. if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided?
I would say that something has to be done with the way we rate the films and not the fact that we have a board reviewing them. If I was a parent I wouldn't mind knowning what kind of crap my kids are watching based on a more specific film review system.
as for the FCC, well the standards and practices is a little more easy. its not like the MPAA can say "Only show this film at night and you'll get more leway". when you see a lot of late night television have a bit more edgier items.
My suggestion. more choices on ratings. then a film that doesn't have the same amount of gore as a kids film can get a better rating and not be labeled in the same group as each other.
You know, I have no real problem with the whole choice that there is to have a commitee to review the films, but there really needs to be more choices as to the ratings. they pretty much have a to generalization to them. you have G, PG, PG-13, R NC-17. When I was young my parents didn't care. Do you know why? because in a PG rated Jaws you can make out some bush. if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided?
I would say that something has to be done with the way we rate the films and not the fact that we have a board reviewing them. If I was a parent I wouldn't mind knowning what kind of crap my kids are watching based on a more specific film review system.
as for the FCC, well the standards and practices is a little more easy. its not like the MPAA can say "Only show this film at night and you'll get more leway". when you see a lot of late night television have a bit more edgier items.
My suggestion. more choices on ratings. then a film that doesn't have the same amount of gore as a kids film can get a better rating and not be labeled in the same group as each other.
Last edited by Jackskeleton; 10-20-03 at 01:19 AM.
#4
Moderator
Nothing to get excited about, really. PG-13 really means nothing. Kids of all ages can get in, and usually films with this rating do a bit better in the box office than their PG counterparts.
Look at this forum. People go nuts if they think a rating is too low, and won't see it because they are worried it'll be toned down. I think the rating will get more butts on the seats, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio lobbied for the harder rating, actually.
Look at this forum. People go nuts if they think a rating is too low, and won't see it because they are worried it'll be toned down. I think the rating will get more butts on the seats, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the studio lobbied for the harder rating, actually.
#5
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: (formerly known as Inglenook Hampendick) Fairbanks, Alaska!
Posts: 17,316
Received 513 Likes
on
353 Posts
Gee Geoff, I respect and admire you and all, but what's up with this? PG-13 is certainly not a death knell for this movie. The type of intelligent parents that would actually seek this film out and show it to their kids instead of some Di$ney tripe will take the rating in stride and use it as a reminder that they should pre-screen most movies before letting Junior and Princess see them. I agree with you that the MPAA drones are all on virtual crack, but hasn't that pretty much become common knowledge? If anything, I think movies like The Ring should get rated higher, or perhaps Rated MC for mindless carp.
I think you are on to something there Jack, they should try to adopt the TV system wherein they specify the reasons for the rating and give age recommendations like TV-14 linky.
I think you are on to something there Jack, they should try to adopt the TV system wherein they specify the reasons for the rating and give age recommendations like TV-14 linky.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Geoff I felt that same way about Amelie, which was rated R for sexual situations.
I am disturbed that our country finds foul language and wanton violence more acceptable than nudity and sex.
I am disturbed that our country finds foul language and wanton violence more acceptable than nudity and sex.
#7
DVD Talk Legend
Actually, i understand where Geoff is coming from. The MPAA needs to be more consistent with their ratings. Stand By Me is rated "R". R? R? Seems kind of harsh. I'd let my (not conceived yet) 10-11 year old watch Stand By Me, but I certainly wouldn't let him watch South Park: BLU.
I'd like to be able to look at rating and get a clear indication of why it's rated that way.
I actually would be hesitant taking 5-11 year old to see a pg-13 movie without knowing why it got the rating (only some places actually publish the "why".)
I'd like to be able to look at rating and get a clear indication of why it's rated that way.
I actually would be hesitant taking 5-11 year old to see a pg-13 movie without knowing why it got the rating (only some places actually publish the "why".)
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Geoff I felt that same way about Amelie, which was rated R for sexual situations.
I am disturbed that our country finds foul language and wanton violence more acceptable than nudity and sex.
Geoff I felt that same way about Amelie, which was rated R for sexual situations.
I am disturbed that our country finds foul language and wanton violence more acceptable than nudity and sex.
And yet, I think curse words are only foul because some people happen to be offended by them.. most (if not all) didn't start out as "bad" words -- they just ended up that way. While I'd want to keep younger kids away from swear words (they love to mimic), I'd have no problem with a 12 year old seeing a movie with cursing.
Violence, for me... depends a lot on the context, how its shown, etc. I watched lots of violent movies as a kid and am one of the most non-violent people I know - however I don't know if thats true for everyone. I'd certainly wait for some violence, but I don't see it as out of line for an older kid (10+) to see a movie with a fair amount of violence.
#9
Moderator
The MPAA didn't used to tell you why they picked the rating they did, but they do now (although it's pretty general so it can fit in that little area). You can also look it up on their website (www.mpaa.org). For example, Whale Rider is rated PG-13 for "Rated PG-13 for brief language and a momentary drug reference."
#10
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Geoff I felt that same way about Amelie, which was rated R for sexual situations.
Geoff I felt that same way about Amelie, which was rated R for sexual situations.
#11
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by DonnachaOne
Well, the fella does work in a sex shop, there's a bit with a stripper, there's a part where Amelie imagines all the people having orgasms at one time... I think the rating fits.
Well, the fella does work in a sex shop, there's a bit with a stripper, there's a part where Amelie imagines all the people having orgasms at one time... I think the rating fits.
#12
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Well, depends on the violence, I suppose. I know in England, it's violence you can easily imitate at home that gets censored (yes, I mean that word) - headbutts, numbchucks, knife attacks, that kind of thing. Imagine Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with very little numbchucks!
Perhaps the MPAA has similar standards. Joel Silver commented on how a kick to the head is an automatic R. And, I don't think anyone's going to imitate a dead girl coming out of a TV and scaring someone to death...
Perhaps the MPAA has similar standards. Joel Silver commented on how a kick to the head is an automatic R. And, I don't think anyone's going to imitate a dead girl coming out of a TV and scaring someone to death...
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really have to wonder about the MPAA when they decide it's OK for kids to see a rotting corpse pop out of the TV, but not OK for them to see a charming, sweet movie like Amelie without an adult to protect them.
#15
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Groucho
Nothing to get excited about, really. PG-13 really means nothing. Kids of all ages can get in, and usually films with this rating do a bit better in the box office than their PG counterparts.
Nothing to get excited about, really. PG-13 really means nothing. Kids of all ages can get in, and usually films with this rating do a bit better in the box office than their PG counterparts.
Last edited by Ginwen; 10-20-03 at 12:08 PM.
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
[B if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided? [/B]
[B if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided? [/B]
Sorry, but when you have a setence with "dick," "slapped" and "a little one," someone has to make a joke.
#18
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided?
if you have dick in a film you automaticlly get slapped with an NC-17. a little one sided?
#19
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: City of the lakers.. riots.. and drug dealing cops.. los(t) Angel(e)s. ca.
Posts: 54,199
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Rypro 525
28 days later, color of night, porky's have those in them but they are rated R.
28 days later, color of night, porky's have those in them but they are rated R.
R - RESTRICTED
Criteria:
- Explicit drug and/or alcohol content and use.
- Explicit sexual references, content, and scenes.
- Explicit language.
- Full female nudity; partial male nudity.
Criteria:
- Explicit drug and/or alcohol content and use.
- Explicit sexual references, content, and scenes.
- Explicit language.
- Full female nudity; partial male nudity.
An erect penis onscreen or more then a few seconds of on air male nudity garners a film an automatic NC-17, but a film in which women are fully, graphically nude has no problem earning an R rating. I suppose I should have mentioned the whole "standing at attention". but the point is you can show bush and get a R rating and in Jaws case.. PG but you can't show a wang and let it fly without a NC-17
Just pointing out the double standards. Also add Trainspotting as one of those films, though it looks like Ewan was not "at attention".
Last edited by Jackskeleton; 10-20-03 at 12:56 PM.
#20
Moderator
Originally posted by Ginwen
It doesn't mean much, but it does mean that when Ebert called it the best family film of the year (something to that effect, anyway)they weren't allowed to use that quote in marketing (since it's PG-13, it can't be called a family film even though virtually anyone who saw it would agree that it is one).
It doesn't mean much, but it does mean that when Ebert called it the best family film of the year (something to that effect, anyway)they weren't allowed to use that quote in marketing (since it's PG-13, it can't be called a family film even though virtually anyone who saw it would agree that it is one).
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Groucho
Do you have a link to that story? I've never heard of that rule.
Do you have a link to that story? I've never heard of that rule.
Edit: I looked harder. Here it is:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert27.html
The controversy arose over my quote in the "Whale Rider" ads: "Take the kids, and they'll see a movie that will touch their hearts and minds." The MPAA informed the distributor that it had to remove the line from the ads, because a film with a PG-13 rating can't be marketed to children. This raises several problems. (1) I said "take the kids," not "send them in alone." (2) Kids can in any event attend PG-13 movies by themselves. They need the parent or adult only for an R movie. (3) It is my right and duty as a critic to make such judgments, and surely the distributor has a right to quote them. (4) This is a sad example of a system that has lost all reason and now categorizes an inspiring family film (yes, family!) like "Whale Rider" in the same category with "Charlie's Angels Full Throttle" and "2 Fast 2 Furious."
The controversy arose over my quote in the "Whale Rider" ads: "Take the kids, and they'll see a movie that will touch their hearts and minds." The MPAA informed the distributor that it had to remove the line from the ads, because a film with a PG-13 rating can't be marketed to children. This raises several problems. (1) I said "take the kids," not "send them in alone." (2) Kids can in any event attend PG-13 movies by themselves. They need the parent or adult only for an R movie. (3) It is my right and duty as a critic to make such judgments, and surely the distributor has a right to quote them. (4) This is a sad example of a system that has lost all reason and now categorizes an inspiring family film (yes, family!) like "Whale Rider" in the same category with "Charlie's Angels Full Throttle" and "2 Fast 2 Furious."
Last edited by Ginwen; 10-20-03 at 01:33 PM.
#22
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MPAA is all about politics. Do you think a Sundance movie with the "Hannibal brain scene" would get an R like Hannibal did? If a bigger name were behind Whale Rider (i.e. Spielberg), it would've received a PG no questions asked.
The South Park guys claimed (but then again, how credible are they?) that the South Park movie got an NC-17, so they made it more vulgar and disgusting and it got an R.
The South Park guys claimed (but then again, how credible are they?) that the South Park movie got an NC-17, so they made it more vulgar and disgusting and it got an R.
#23
My Generosity Is Legendary
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home of the Golden Snowball
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Partial male nudity wont get you the NC-17, you need to show a full frontal or else you can get it in as a R film
An erect penis onscreen or more then a few seconds of on air male nudity garners a film an automatic NC-17, but a film in which women are fully, graphically nude has no problem earning an R rating. I suppose I should have mentioned the whole "standing at attention". but the point is you can show bush and get a R rating and in Jaws case.. PG but you can't show a wang and let it fly without a NC-17
Just pointing out the double standards. Also add Trainspotting as one of those films, though it looks like Ewan was not "at attention".
Partial male nudity wont get you the NC-17, you need to show a full frontal or else you can get it in as a R film
An erect penis onscreen or more then a few seconds of on air male nudity garners a film an automatic NC-17, but a film in which women are fully, graphically nude has no problem earning an R rating. I suppose I should have mentioned the whole "standing at attention". but the point is you can show bush and get a R rating and in Jaws case.. PG but you can't show a wang and let it fly without a NC-17
Just pointing out the double standards. Also add Trainspotting as one of those films, though it looks like Ewan was not "at attention".