GeoffK

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!

zero

SWEET LEAPING DOLPHINS!!!! DO YOU THINK THEY MAY TURN THE FILM BLACK AND WHITE, THEN IN COLOR FOR THE OVER SEAS MARKET?!?!?!

Jackskeleton

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.

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.

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.

AGuyNamedMike

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.

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.

DodgingCars

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".)

DodgingCars

I guess it depends if you're a parent or not. I'd like to have some control over how and when my child (again, still not conceived yet) learns about sex. I certainly don't want them to learn about it from the movies.

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.

Groucho

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."

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.

PixyJunket

Yes, there is a lot of sexuality in Amelie, but enough to earn an R? My point is compare that to the amount of violence you can get away with in a PG-13 movie. I find that disturbing. Maybe Amelie's rating is deserved, however I guess I'm just really put-off on how "acceptable" violence is in entertainment.

DonnachaOne

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...

Rypro 525

well, didn't chris tucker get kicked in the head in the first rush hour? but i can see where he gets that.

Inverse

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.

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).

Rypro 525

well, didn't they sort of mention that school of rock was a family movie as well, but for me at least, mostly I assume pg movies as being for kids.

majorjoe23

It doesn't matter how little or how many sides it has, apparantly no one likes seeing wang in their movies.

Sorry, but when you have a setence with "dick," "slapped" and "a little one," someone has to make a joke.

Rypro 525

28 days later, color of night, porky's have those in them but they are rated R.

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".

Groucho

Do you have a link to that story? I've never heard of that rule.

Ginwen

I looked but couldn't find it. He said it on the TV show.

Edit: I looked harder. Here it is:

Fox Mulder

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.

Pac-Rat

Night Terrors (Tobe Hooper horror movie) had a guy riding naked on a horse in slow-mo for about 1 minute, with his wang flying around, and slapping the horse. Plus it had a sex scene where he was fully exposed for quite some time. It's rating? An "R". And that's not even taking into consideration the simulated sex on a snake (don't ask), orgies, decapitations, lots of opium use, etc.

DonnachaOne

There's also the PG Irish film, War Of The Buttons, which at one point has about twenty naked boys with everything on display.

Groucho

I think kids are different. For example, you can see Clark's "Kent" when he still a little boy in the first Superman.