A rant about the PG-13 rating in the U.S.

[Kjata]

First off, I don't watch foreign films. I don't know the slightest thing about them. This is purely about US (so Hollywood) movies.

The PG-13 rating is an abomination. It blurs the line between "acceptable for kids" and "adults only." They can't get away with anything actually worth watching, and at the same time try to break away from the "kiddy" aspects that make a lot of films enjoyable.

To demonstrate this, I will list off m favorite movie from each rating. G gets Oliver and Company. It's sweet, fairly sad, and when I watched it last I was 16, and it still put a glow in my heart. PG has the original Star Wars trilogy. I don't even need to go into details here. PG-13 has, uhhh, Austin Powers I guess? It's camp to the extreme, and it's funny, but in a "so bad it's good" way. R has too many choices, but I'll say Saving Private Ryan.

G, PG-13, and R were very hard to pick. G and R, opposite ends of the spectrum, have way too many choices. There were half a dozen choices for G, and I picked Oliver and Company because the opening is the only scene in a movie I have EVER cried at. R has dozens. I really just picked the first one I could think of. PG-13 has NOTHING. I picked what is the DEFINITION of so bad its good for me.

The rating is so bad because of what the "target" is. Teenagers like R movies. They are not the target. It's the parents. This rating is used to dilute the content of an R rated movie to be able to sell it to parents. Action sequences are watered down. Instead of making the joke they wanted, they change the wording so it isn't funny anymore. Double entrende's are funny in extreme moderation, not as an entire movie.

However, like all rules, it was made to be broken. Movies based on a source material can be good. For example, The Lord of the Rings are my favorite movies. However, this is because the SOURCE is great. I can't think of a single PG-13 movie that I like that isn't based off a source or is so bad its good.

[Morph Bark]

Pirates of the Caribbean? Indiana Jones? Those are PG-13. And pretty good (http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic/mpaa.htm?page=PG-13&p=.htm) too.

I don't think it is bad, because there just are some things that prepubescent children might find disturbing (or that their parents don't want them to see), while pubescent children are much more okay with it (or their parents).

But eh, over here we dun use MPAA ratings anyway. We simply got "6", "12" and "16". (Well, and 18, but that is just for porn or certain video games.)

[PopcornMage]

Your rating system of preference has nothing to do with the reason why the MPAA has its rating system for movie content.

Grouping movies you like by that?

Makes no sense to me.

[Serpentine]

Sounds like you need Australia's system :smallbiggrin:
We have:
One that's specifically for children. I believe it has to meet certain educational standards or somesuch to get that classification.
Unclassified, I think, specifically for documentaries and the like.
General, for any age.
Parental Guidance, "parental guidance recommended for young viewers" i.e., iirc, under 13ish. i.e. There might be some scary bits or some naughtyish words or some bit-more-than-kissing.
Mature Audiences, not suitable for viewers under 15. i.e. pretty scary, pretty violent, a bit sexy, and/or a fair few naughty words.
Mature Audience 15+, restricted to viewers over 15. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 15 see it without an adult. Quite violent, somewhat gory, very sexy, and/or absolutely filthy.
Restricted 18+, restricted to viewers over 18. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 18 see it at all. Extremely violent, very gory, borderline porn and/or extremely adult themes.

While there is some line-blurring, on the whole I think it's more clear-cut, or at least better for advising parents.

[Eldan]

Huh. It's simpler around here. We have 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+, which are normally fairly adequate. Rarely, I've seen 14+, but I don't think that's used anymore. That's enough categories to distinguish a little better between different levels. Of course, in the age of internet piracy, any fourteen year old will still be watching 18+ movies.

[Sholos]

*snip*

PG-13 has, uhhh, Austin Powers I guess? It's camp to the extreme, and it's funny, but in a "so bad it's good" way.

*snip*

PG-13 has NOTHING. I picked what is the DEFINITION of so bad its good for me.

*snip*

However, like all rules, it was made to be broken. Movies based on a source material can be good. For example, The Lord of the Rings are my favorite movies. However, this is because the SOURCE is great. I can't think of a single PG-13 movie that I like that isn't based off a source or is so bad its good.

You've just proven yourself wrong and confused me as to why you're even mentioning this with this series of statements. First you say that Austin Powers is your favorite PG-13 movie, then you say that the PG-13 rating has absolutely nothing worthwhile in it, then you say that your favorite move is a PG-13 movie (that isn't Austin Powers). Make up your mind! Who cares if the movie is "based off a source"? That doesn't make it any less of a movie than one that isn't.

As a final note, the original Star Wars trilogy was made before the PG-13 rating even existed, and I could see it being rated PG-13 today.

[Brother Oni]

Hong Kong has a very strange certification system:

Category 1: Suitable for all

Category 2: was subdivided into A and B , where A is 'younger teen' and B is 'older teen'.

Category 3: Pornography.

As an example, the John Woo film, Face/Off, was a Cat 2 film, while in the UK it received an 18 certificate (18 or over to buy or see it in the cinema).

Note that the HK version was the unedited version of the film, with an additional slo-mo switchblade scene and a couple other bits and pieces trimmed for violence.

[Cheesegear]

Sounds like you need Australia's system :smallbiggrin:

Recently I've been coming across F for Families. I don't know if its an Australia-wide thing, or just a particular idiosyncrasy of my local cinema. Either way, I thought I'd bring it up. Its been introduced in the last few months.

Anyway, these days, in Australia, I often have a hard time trying to tell the difference between PG and M movies.

[Kjata]

Austin Powers is an awful movie. It's just the best one I could think of.

Anywho, I guess my point is, the PG-13 rating is aimed to sell products that are crap.

If I go see a comedy, I want it to be FUNNY. Watching what is basically a 2 hour long double entrende is not. Sitting through 2 hours of sex jokes isn't either really, but it's a lot better.

Basically, when what parents want their kids to wach, and what the kids themselves actually want to watch, it collides into something suitable for neither. If somebody can handle Austin Powers, then they can handle something like Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It's the same content, at its core.

If i'm in the mood to see action, there should be blood. People who get shot BLEED. If I want to listen to people talk about sex, they should be upfront about it. If someone isn't old enough to handle the core material presented upfront, then they aren't old enough for the movie.

This is all heavily imo. I just hate the PG-13 rating because I feel movies made to fit in that category lose a lot of potential. And I exaggerate a lot when I rant. Nothing? Exaggeration. A lot of **** with very little shine? Yep.

@Brother Oni: That's what I want. 13 is old enough to see any R rated movie, at least if it should be seen by anyone. Gorn, I'm looking at YOU. Who even finds that kind of stuff entertaining?

[Revlid]

We don't have PG-13 in Britain, we have U/PG/15/18. Works well enough.


Sounds like you need Australia's system :smallbiggrin:I'll thank you to keep your game rating system away from us, though.

[blueboy]

We don't have PG-13 in Britain, we have U/PG/15/18. Works well enough.


You've forgotten about 12a.

[Irbis]

The only problem with PG-13 is that in most sane systems it should be PG anyway.


Mature Audiences, not suitable for viewers under 15. i.e. pretty scary, pretty violent, a bit sexy, and/or a fair few naughty words.
Mature Audience 15+, restricted to viewers over 15. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 15 see it without an adult. Quite violent, somewhat gory, very sexy, and/or absolutely filthy.


Um... isn't M and MA essentially the same, then? :smallconfused:

Back where I live, there's no 'G', there's just 12, 15, and 18. There, that's all, everything is left to the discretion of the viewer, no punishment if parent thinks their mature 14 year old might be mature enough to see '15'. Oh, and you need soome seriously heavy stuff to land in '15' instead of '12', and in '12' isntead of no rating at all. No one was bothered by random nipple or swear word, I even remember a few natural nudity scenes on compulsory shool movies. And these were not even '15'.

At least IIRC, I lost contact with that system as soon as I hit 18, and given just who sat in the position of our regulator for the past few years, it might have took turn for the worse. But, I don't remember hearing anything about that.

[Serpentine]

edit: No. M is recommended for people over 15, but MA is restricted. A 14 year old can get into an M-rated movie on their own. For an MA movie, he needs an adult.
If you're interested. (http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/classification.nsf/Page/ClassificationMarkings_ClassificationMarkingsonFil mandComputerGames_ClassificationMarkingsonFilmandC omputerGames)
@Brother Oni: That's what I want. 13 is old enough to see any R rated movie, at least if it should be seen by anyone. Gorn, I'm looking at YOU. Who even finds that kind of stuff entertaining?You do have something between PG-13 and R, right? Because if not... Lets just say I wouldn't want anyone under the age of 16 at least, maybe a particularly mature 15, to see, say, Antichrist, nor would I expect them to enjoy it.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Actually, I think America needs something between PG and PG-13. Or heighten PG-13 restrictions and make one between PG-13 and R.

Take my favorite film, The Village. Not one strong word at all, not even a PG-rated one. Not one scene of even sensuality (there is a single romantic on-the-lips kiss), much less sex or even anyone showing as much as a knee or elbow (I'm serious). There was no drug use, and no gore.

What did it show? According to my DVD case 'A' scene of violence, and frightening sequences.
Yup, 'a' single guy gets stabbed. There is no blood, except on the knife. He doesn't die of it. There is also a skinned animal left in a yard. Cleaned. Its no more than you'd see hanging from a butcher's shop.

That poked it above PG, but PG-13? Hell, no.

(The above 'curse' just out-rated anything in that film)

[Morph Bark]

Back where I live, there's no 'G', there's just 12, 15, and 18. There, that's all, everything is left to the discretion of the viewer, no punishment if parent thinks their mature 14 year old might be mature enough to see '15'. Oh, and you need soome seriously heavy stuff to land in '15' instead of '12', and in '12' isntead of no rating at all. No one was bothered by random nipple or swear word, I even remember a few natural nudity scenes on compulsory shool movies. And these were not even '15'.

At least IIRC, I lost contact with that system as soon as I hit 18, and given just who sat in the position of our regulator for the past few years, it might have took turn for the worse. But, I don't remember hearing anything about that.

For the sake of referencing, where do you live?

[Serpentine]

I like things like "mild language". What, someone said "oh pooty" or something? "Gee wiz"?
Or an R-rated movie that simply warns of "adult themes".

[John Cribati]

They should rate Movies in the US like they rate Video Games.
EC for early Childhood.
E For everyone.
E10+
T for Teen
M for Mature (17 and older)

[Serpentine]

Here's (http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(4CA02151F94FFB778ADAEC2E6EA8653D)~CLS+-+M+and+MA15+Cinema+Factsheet+-+General+-+Nov+09+Update.DOC/$file/CLS+-+M+and+MA15+Cinema+Factsheet+-+General+-+Nov+09+Update.DOC) a more informative link than the one I posted before.

In Australia, games have pretty much the same ratings as films, except without an R rating :smallsigh:

[Reverent-One]

This is all heavily imo. I just hate the PG-13 rating because I feel movies made to fit in that category lose a lot of potential. And I exaggerate a lot when I rant. Nothing? Exaggeration. A lot of **** with very little shine? Yep.


So how would Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Pirates of the Caribean, or Inception been better with a lot more blood, language, or sex?


They should rate Movies in the US like they rate Video Games.
EC for early Childhood.
E For everyone.
E10+
T for Teen
M for Mature (17 and older)

They already do, short of including an EC rating. E = G, E10+ = PG, T=PG-13, M = R.

[Amiel]

The PG-13 rating is an abomination. It blurs the line between "acceptable for kids" and "adults only." They can't get away with anything actually worth watching, and at the same time try to break away from the "kiddy" aspects that make a lot of films enjoyable.

The PG-13 rating does indeed seem rather arbitrary.
There's a good number of horror films that are rated PG-13; The Ring was rated PG-13; seriously, what?


Sounds like you need Australia's system
While there is some line-blurring, on the whole I think it's more clear-cut, or at least better for advising parents.

There was also the PG-15 rating - some material may be require parental guidance for those under 15.
And some networks use AV15+ or MAV15+ "Not suitable for people under 15. This is similar to the MA15+ rating, however it is used specifically to differentiate violent programming. In all other respects, the content cannot exceed the guidelines" (Australian Classification Board).


For the sake of referencing, where do you live?

Switzerland.


Does Europe have a homogenised motion picture rating system?

[Serpentine]

Can you give me an example of a PG-15 movie? I'm not sure I've seen it.
And yeah, I forgot about the weird TV classifications. Don't even know how they're meant to be different.

[Irbis]

So how would Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Pirates of the Caribean, or Inception been better with a lot more blood, language, or sex?

No. But the point, with which I agree, was, that sometimes movies/animated series are castrated to make them fit into PG-13 or even PG. Which destroys the intent of the creator and forces him to find alternatives.

True, sometimes thay make his works more subtle, but most of the time, writers don't even bother (out of regret, maybe?) and the holes are plainly visible or at least you can feel something missing.

I'm just sick about reading 'here, we had to cut that nice relationships scene becuase execs threatened to stop funding/the rating would have been worse/the usual nutjobs would have protested' :/

[Reverent-One]

No. But the point, with which I agree, was, that sometimes movies/animated series are castrated to make them fit into PG-13 or even PG. Which destroys the intent of the creator and forces him to find alternatives.

Are there any examples you can think of? I know Peter Jackson made sure to not have the battle scenes too bloody in LoTR to make sure they didn't end up with an R rating, but I don't think anyone would say they ended up too tame.

[Violet Octopus]

I didn't realise the US had nothing in between PG-13 and R. That would explain why I had so much trouble seeing Brokeback Mountain in cinemas when I was over there in 2005. In San Francisco. :smallconfused:

edit: according to the DVD commentary, RENT (the movie) is PG-13, and it manages to be pretty explicit with its themes. Pretty much the only thing they had to soften to avoid an R rating was one line from the homeless woman that used the F word.

(Contact was probably cut because it sucked)


Recently I've been coming across F for Families. I don't know if its an Australia-wide thing, or just a particular idiosyncrasy of my local cinema. Either way, I thought I'd bring it up. Its been introduced in the last few months.
Unless they suck at updating their website, the Classification Board does not have an F rating, perhaps that's your local cinema doing weird things.

While there, because I was curious, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is MA 15+ in Australia.

What. No way I'd show that to a 15 year old*

At least they specify its content more precisely than "adult themes".

*not to say that a composed/wise 15 year old couldn't handle the film's content, rather that I would never take that risk, and while I don't know the guidelines in detail, it's a lot closer to R movies I've seen than MA 15+ ones.

[PopcornMage]

Artistic vision gets compromised all the time.

I don't blame ratings systems for it.

[Amiel]

Can you give me an example of a PG-15 movie? I'm not sure I've seen it.

They were probably phrased out; I can remember quite a number of movies that were rated PG-15, although I can't recall exact titles. Jumanji was one such movie to give an example.

[Serpentine]

While there, because I was curious, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is MA 15+ in Australia.

What. No way I'd show that to a 15 year old*Maybe, but a 16 or 17 year old could be fine.

Jamunji was an odd movie anyways.

[Haruki-kun]

Mexico's rating goes as follows:

Not legally enforced.
AA: Children's movies. (As in Winnie the Pooh movies)
A: Family movies, suitable for all audiences. (As in general Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks movies.)
B: General movies that may not be suited for children but are not restricted.

The previous 3 are informative only. If a parent thinks his 3 year old is mature enough to enter a B-Rated movie, he may do so. After that:

Legally enforced:
B-15: An extension of the B-rate, only this time no one under the age of 15 is allowed in.
C: Adults only. In Mexico that means 18+. Violent or sexual in nature.
D: Basically the same, only MORE violent and sexual.
XXX: Porn.

I've actually heard criticism on this system. Many people seem to think we should just adopt the American one, so I don't think this quite supports the OP's point. :smalltongue:

[JDMSJR]

{Scrubbed}

[PopcornMage]

People want a simple code to look at, not an in-depth examination.

That said, most of the movie trailers I've seen do mention in some detail the specific content.

[Dubious Pie]

I understand the requiring parents for some ratings, but I have never understood that even with a parent there some ratings are still off limits, even if the parent says OK.

[Violet Octopus]

There's anecdotal evidence to suggest that children who are exposed to alcohol in the home at an early age and who are allowed to consume it in small amounts over the years (perhaps a small glass of wine at Thanksgiving dinner; a sampling of champagne on New Year's Eve; a sip or two of Dad's beer during a Sunday afternoon football game) are less likely to binge drink at college. Alcohol holds no mystique for them. Been there, done that, don't need to do it to excess.
While I largely agree with that article, that myth has been disproven. Nudity isn't an addictive drug though, so it doesn't impact on the argument either way.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

To make a point that there are, indeed, good PG-13 movies...

Good PG-13 movies off the top of my head

The Lord of the Rings series
The Prestige
The Illusionist
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Iron Man
Les Triplettes De Belleville
Master and Commander
Pirates of the Caribbean
O Brother Where Art Thou?
The Terminal

[Reverent-One]

Here is an something a movie reviewer wrote about the whole PG13 deal.

http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=648

"Life Is Not PG-13"


Wow, that's a horrible article. Since the orignal writer isn't here, I won't bother listing every single thing that's I disagree with there, but the simple version is this. While life is not PG-13, that doesn't mean a parent is wrong to try to reduce their child's exposure to above PG-13 material, especially in terms of the presence of the material in their child's forms of entertainment. There's little a parent can do about said material in the real world short of locking their kid up, but a parent can limit the forms of entertainment the child is exposed to.

[gooddragon1]

Is there a rating higher than R rating? This thread causes me to wonder.

[PopcornMage]

Is there a rating higher than R rating? This thread causes me to wonder.

There was X.

Replaced by NC-17.

[TheThan]

I don’t really see what the issue is. if your old enough to watch whatever you want to watch, why pay attention to the rating system.

After all the rating system exists to inform parents of what sort of content any given movie has in it. It’s a guideline for concerned parents. The problem is that in many parts of the USA, many people’s perception of what is appropriate has become looser and more liberal. So we are beginning to see movies that would have been given an R rating 20 years ago are getting PG-13 ratings, and so on.

For example Rambo: First blood part II, there is very little in the way of gore or intense violence so its likely to earn a PG-13 rateing if it was made today. But since its from 1985, its been given an R rateing.

[Lord Seth]

Sounds like you need Australia's system :smallbiggrin:
We have:
One that's specifically for children. I believe it has to meet certain educational standards or somesuch to get that classification.
Unclassified, I think, specifically for documentaries and the like.
General, for any age.
Parental Guidance, "parental guidance recommended for young viewers" i.e., iirc, under 13ish. i.e. There might be some scary bits or some naughtyish words or some bit-more-than-kissing.
Mature Audiences, not suitable for viewers under 15. i.e. pretty scary, pretty violent, a bit sexy, and/or a fair few naughty words.
Mature Audience 15+, restricted to viewers over 15. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 15 see it without an adult. Quite violent, somewhat gory, very sexy, and/or absolutely filthy.
Restricted 18+, restricted to viewers over 18. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 18 see it at all. Extremely violent, very gory, borderline porn and/or extremely adult themes.How is that any different than the US's system outside of switching the age numbers around a little?

Personally I find this rant rather silly, however.

[Setra]

My thoughts on the subject could probably be summed up by saying this: Live Free or Die Hard.

[Bhu]

Hong Kong has a very strange certification system:

Category 1: Suitable for all

Category 2: was subdivided into A and B , where A is 'younger teen' and B is 'older teen'.

Category 3: Pornography.

As an example, the John Woo film, Face/Off, was a Cat 2 film, while in the UK it received an 18 certificate (18 or over to buy or see it in the cinema).

Note that the HK version was the unedited version of the film, with an additional slo-mo switchblade scene and a couple other bits and pieces trimmed for violence.

Category III was also extreme violence and sexploitation. Actual hardcore porn is frowned on in China.



There was X.

Replaced by NC-17.

NC-17 wasn't meant so much as a replacement for X as it was to give mainstream films that were explicit or too violent some option, because most theaters wouldn't show an X rated film after the 70's. It failed because NC-17 is widely regarded as a death knell for films wishing to make money as it restricts too much of the audience from attending. The MPAA is also notorious for their lopsided and seemingly random handing down of the rating for films which should more likely receive an R.


To OP: PG-13 films are becoming rarer because the movie studios believe they make less money than PG, so they're attempting to get the MPAA to loosen their restrictions on what they'll allow in a PG film. Nowadays it's largely used for horror films. They get snipped to avoid an R at teh theater since younger audiences are more likely to go see horror movies, and then get an unrated release on DVD (which often contains only a few extra seconds to maybe a few minutes of extra material). Sometimes literally the difference between PG13 and R comes down to "how many seconds was her nude breast exposed on film".

[Brother Oni]

@Brother Oni: That's what I want. 13 is old enough to see any R rated movie, at least if it should be seen by anyone. Gorn, I'm looking at YOU. Who even finds that kind of stuff entertaining?

I disagree on 13 being able to watch any 18 rated movie. For example, Hellraiser is an R rated movie according to IMDB and I wouldn't let anybody I didn't think mature enough to watch it (15 at the very least, especially the sequel). Unlike Rambo, it would still get an 18 rating today.

While I agree with gorn movies (Hellraiser is borderline gorn but has enough of a supernatural twist to elevate it) being of questionable artistic merit, there are plenty of good movies that aren't entertaining to watch, but are good movies nevertheless. There's a thread (Good movies you shouldn't see (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=170495)) that has suggested films, mostly listing things like Schindler's List and Million Dollar Baby.
You don't watch them to be entertained, but to be inspired, informed, or to remember.

Bear in mind that there are plenty of cultural and political considerations involved with the certification system. A 3 (well 4) tier system like Hong Kong's may not be suitable for a more diverse place like America (Face/Off I believe got a IIa certification, meaning it's the equivalent of a PG to 15 cert).


Category III was also extreme violence and sexploitation. Actual hardcore porn is frowned on in China.

I mentioned Hong Kong specifically as I understand it has a different certification system to the mainland. All the Cat 3 films I've seen advertised seemed to be some sort of soft core porn - I haven't seen any extreme violence films that would fall under that category.

[Innis Cabal]

Actually, I think America needs something between PG and PG-13. Or heighten PG-13 restrictions and make one between PG-13 and R.

Take my favorite film, The Village. Not one strong word at all, not even a PG-rated one. Not one scene of even sensuality (there is a single romantic on-the-lips kiss), much less sex or even anyone showing as much as a knee or elbow (I'm serious). There was no drug use, and no gore.

What did it show? According to my DVD case 'A' scene of violence, and frightening sequences.
Yup, 'a' single guy gets stabbed. There is no blood, except on the knife. He doesn't die of it. There is also a skinned animal left in a yard. Cleaned. Its no more than you'd see hanging from a butcher's shop.

That poked it above PG, but PG-13? Hell, no.

(The above 'curse' just out-rated anything in that film)

Doesn't matter if the person "Didn't die from it". Seeing someone get stabbed isn't something kids need to see. And to a little kid (And probably only a little kid in relation to The Village) would be scared of the "tense" moments. So, I think the PG-13 system fits.

Little kids don't need to see the blood in butcher shops either.

[PopcornMage]

NC-17 wasn't meant so much as a replacement for X as it was to give mainstream films that were explicit or too violent some option, because most theaters wouldn't show an X rated film after the 70's. It failed because NC-17 is widely regarded as a death knell for films wishing to make money as it restricts too much of the audience from attending.

Ahem, check this article. (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-27/news/mn-1406_1_r-rated-films)

And I think it's more because NC-17 films just don't get the advertising and screening than an audience restriction.

[Xefas]

Man, why can't we just go back to the 1400s ladder of maturity?

Married by 13. Two kids by 15. Dead by 30. Didn't seem to hurt the kids back then.

[Knaight]

Married by 13. Two kids by 15. Dead by 30. Didn't seem to hurt the kids back then.

I hate to intervene with a minor pet peeve, but this particular one is grating. The average life expectancy at birth was 30, that is completely different than someone who is 13 or 15 expecting to only live by 30.

Average life expectancy is usually determined by how long people live, with a mean taken. Which means that something like a bunch of 0-2 results would drag it downwards. Enter infant mortality, that wonderful statistic that lets you find out just how much.

For basic mathematical purposes, lets assume a 50% infant mortality in the middle ages (less 1400 CE than 900 CE, or maybe 1100 CE, given the other numbers). With even distribution from 0-2, a 3 year old past that critical period can already expect to live to be 59.5

Now, there are a few other notable changes as well. A bunch of people in the teens and twenties dying in wars also pulls down the average. Eventually, in almost every case, people live to about 80 years old before dying, on average, once infant mortality and warfare is removed, and that total hasn't increased from the middle ages, even in Europe. However, fewer people are dying in wars now, and the infant mortality rate in most first world countries is incredibly low, so there isn't that change. Medicine hasn't increased the average lifespan significantly, barring infant mortality, but that is largely due to the high number of deaths due to accidents. Using U.S. teenagers as an example, the most likely sources of death are car accidents, alcohol poisoning, and suicide. In the middle ages, while there weren't car accidents there were all sorts of miscellaneous accidents due to tools, farm animals, and other parts of common life. Alcohol poisoning wasn't a significant risk to most, but its not as if there weren't other ways to get poisoned, plus there was the change in disease. As for suicide, I haven't the foggiest idea of the numbers, but can verify the existence of it with specifics, though some degree of suicide can just be assumed.

[Xefas]

knowledge

Ah, I appreciate your appropriate smackdown of knowledge. :smallsmile: Learn something new every day. Though, while I am now educated as to the gross misconceptions of average life expectancy, my point was more that it seems like an age range that used to mean "Responsible enough to get married, have sex, make babies, live independently, and support a family with one's livelihood" now means "Oh god, don't let him see a boob! That boob will scar him for life!".

Which, I'm not going to say is a bad thing. I'm not informed well enough on all the ramifications of such a shift to say whether it was bad or not. However, I'm curious as to how and why it happened.

[TheThan]

I disagree on 13 being able to watch any 18 rated movie. For example, Hellraiser is an R rated movie according to IMDB and I wouldn't let anybody I didn't think mature enough to watch it (15 at the very least, especially the sequel). Unlike Rambo, it would still get an 18 rating today.


Yeah, I never meant that ALL old movies that are rated R are equivalent to PG-13 movies nowadays. Just that many of them are. I just though I'd clarify that.

[Brother Oni]

Medicine hasn't increased the average lifespan significantly, barring infant mortality, but that is largely due to the high number of deaths due to accidents. As for suicide, I haven't the foggiest idea of the numbers, but can verify the existence of it with specifics, though some degree of suicide can just be assumed.

Medicine and a proper sewerage system has dramatically increased life expectancy - a quick look at cities in the late Middle Ages should tell you everything you need to know about the annual summer plagues and various diseases, not to mention infected wounds were almost always lethal.

As for suicide, it's a great deal less than modern times due to lower life expectancy and due to greater religious faith, which for board reasons, I can't go into further detail about.

[Lord Seth]

Yeah, higher infant mortality rates definitely screw up the data quite a bit, but even ignoring that, people are still living a fair amount longer due to medical advances, higher standards of living, increased sanitation, and so on. Still, stuff like "people lived to be 30" is erroneous; if you made it out of infanthood, you had a good chance at living significantly longer than that, but not nearly as long as you would nowadays.

[Yora]

Huh. It's simpler around here. We have 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+, which are normally fairly adequate. Rarely, I've seen 14+, but I don't think that's used anymore. That's enough categories to distinguish a little better between different levels.
We use the same system in Germany, and I've never seen any problems with it. IF the stores would actually enforce, it works perfectly. But now that they have to pay fees if they don't, it probably got better. I can remember us getting Quake 3 in stores and we all were waaay younger than 18.
The only problem is, that the companies like to sell to 16 and 17 year olds, so lots of games and movies are censored by the publishers to get it down to a 16+ rating. But since you can get the UK version of basically everything online, that hasn't bothered me for years... :smallbiggrin:

[Ormagoden]

PG-13 specifically came out because of the film Indiana Jones and the temple of doom. Which had the PG rating when it came out. At the time other movies that shared the PG rating were: The never ending story, ET, and A Christmas story to name a few. You can see why someone might get pissed that their kid saw some guy painted up like an Indian death god, rip a guys still beating heart out of his chest and burn him alive in a pit of fire, when they might have been expecting content similar to other movies with the same rating.

PG-13 is basically "No, Really, your kid will have nightmares." Or "You really don't want to answer questions about the sexual content in this movie do you?"


Minor additional note for more clarification.

Jaws was a PG movie when it came out.

Jaws makes full grown rational adults afraid of the deep end of a swimming pool.

[Knaight]

Medicine and a proper sewerage system has dramatically increased life expectancy - a quick look at cities in the late Middle Ages should tell you everything you need to know about the annual summer plagues and various diseases, not to mention infected wounds were almost always lethal.

Medicine and a proper sewerage system has dramatically increased how long an individual was likely to live after getting ill. However, so many deaths were and are due to things that couldn't be prevented by medicine. Sudden death during sleep, fatal accidents, warfare (though deaths due to warfare have been drastically reduced in modern 1st world countries, particularly after WWII), etc. combine with deaths today that essentially nullify the gains made by the various summer plagues and infected wounds.

Heart attacks and cancer still kill people extremely frequently, as they are often not treated in time, and modern life contains both more carcinogens and more people with sedentary lifestyles that contribute to heart attacks. That right there changes the average that was shifted by medicinal gain. Then there are things like car crashes, the tools comparison I drew before is if anything underestimating car crashes effect on expected life span.

In any case, this discussion is going nowhere without statistics. I'll cite some as soon as I can track down my sources, and feel like taking the time to do so.

[DeathsHands]

I don’t really see what the issue is. if your old enough to watch whatever you want to watch, why pay attention to the rating system.


That's basically my point of view on the matter. That said, movies being neutered because of ratings isn't exactly a massive issue. It doesn't happen to any extreme, and it's not like more blood, violence, sex, or other mature themes makes things better. Not being a moral guardian, but mature doesn't necessarily = good.


In any case, this discussion is going nowhere without statistics. I'll cite some as soon as I can track down my sources, and feel like taking the time to do so.
I don't think it's necessary; we're talking about ratings, remember?

[Knaight]

I don't think it's necessary; we're talking about ratings, remember?
Aww, but the spinoff conversation is so interesting.

Right then, the rest of your post.

"Mature" doesn't necessarily mean good, however there are concepts that require the use of mature themes for proper exploration of them, and ideas that require the use of mature themes for proper fictional portrayal of them. If Crime and Punishment were made into a movie, it would probably get an R rating because of its mature themes. If Sonia is changed so she is no longer a prostitute, and Raskolnikov's rather vivid picture of murder are removed to make it PG 13, then it loses impact. Probably less impact than was lost making it into a film in the first place in this scenario, but significant amounts nonetheless.

[Fiery Diamond]

So how would Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Pirates of the Caribean, or Inception been better with a lot more blood, language, or sex?



They already do, short of including an EC rating. E = G, E10+ = PG, T=PG-13, M = R.

You're forgetting X, and AO.

[Derthric]

IIRC the first movie given the PG-13 designation was Red Dawn, it was not the first released however. And if you look at it I could see why, its not explicitly gory. it doesn't tackle adult themes in a meaningful way, anything sexual is implied and never shown(I didn't pick up seeing it in my early teens). But yet I wouldnt drop off a 10 year old at the theater and expect it to be good for them.

The big problem with PG-13 is that somehow our society translated ratings not as a recommended maturity level for viewing but rather as a level of acceptable viewing. Ratings have little to do with the subject matter of a story and far more to do with whats actually seen. Just look at the difference between a rated/unrated cut or R/theatrical cut of films, usually its a little more blood, and a shot of boobs, but the hitman as the protagonist of a film, that's just A-OK. So that means that now PG-13 is a watered down R with only one allowed use of a curse word each or some such silly nonsense which leads to John McClane never getting to say his catchphrase.

[Bhu]

I mentioned Hong Kong specifically as I understand it has a different certification system to the mainland. All the Cat 3 films I've seen advertised seemed to be some sort of soft core porn - I haven't seen any extreme violence films that would fall under that category.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Hong_Kong#Category_III_films

This article lists a few, Men Behind the Sun, Dr. Lamb, and Ebola Syndrome being some of the more well known examples.


Ahem, check this article. (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-27/news/mn-1406_1_r-rated-films)

And I think it's more because NC-17 films just don't get the advertising and screening than an audience restriction.

The article gets a few things wrong. The MPAA dropped the X because it no longer reviews hardcore pornography, and none of the porn companies would submit it if they did, because it would be a pointless waste of time and money on both sides. You don't need to know if a porn film is an X, so it doesn't need to be reviewed. And if you aren't reviewing porn, then you don't need a rating for it. NC-17 is for mainstream films that push the envelope on either sex or violence, but stop short of explicit penetration. Therefore it doesn't really replace X, because it's not meant for explicit pornography.

[PopcornMage]

The article gets a few things wrong. The MPAA dropped the X because it no longer reviews hardcore pornography, and none of the porn companies would submit it if they did, because it would be a pointless waste of time and money on both sides. You don't need to know if a porn film is an X, so it doesn't need to be reviewed. NC-17 is for mainstream films that push the envelope on either sex or violence, but stop short of explicit penetration.

I'm pretty sure I see all of that as implied, or at least not contradicted by the article. If anything, I see your explanation as completely congruent with the reasoning found in the article.

We must not be on the same page.

[Raistlin1040]

I'm nearly 17, and I prefer PG-13 movies, on average, over R rated ones. My ex-girlfriend was two years older than me, and my current girlfriend is already 17, so it's not like I can't get into R movies. My parents are fine with me seeing them. Despite that, the last...jeez, probably last ten movies I've seen in theaters have been PG or PG-13. To be honest, I just don't pay much attention to the rating. The OP seems to make the case that teenagers will look at a PG or PG-13 movie and scoff and choose an R movie JUST because of the rating. I go see a movie based on what looks good. The rating is irrelevant.

[Selrahc]

The ratings systems in other countries don't really apply to the OP's complaint. Big film makers may possibly jump through hoops to fall in line with marginal ratings in the US system, but I doubt they're keeping an eye on every potential film code in the world and bearing them in mind when creating movies, because domestic movie takings are far more important.


Knaight: If your assertion is that people would regularly live to 80 if they were not dead from infant mortality or warfare then you are massively wrong. Even amongst the wealthiest in medieval society, 70 was a very unusual age. Your expectation of a healthy life was low after the age of 55.

I think you're heavily overestimating the amount of people involved in medieval warfare for one thing. Battles were between only a few thousand, with relatively low casualties on either side. It was only in the late early modern period that the numbers involved in warfare (both troops involved and casualties taken) started to increase to levels that we would consider heavily significant to demographics.

[Lord Seth]

I'm just confused by the complaint that they "neuter" R-rated movies to make them PG-13. And if PG-13 didn't exist...wouldn't they be neutered anyway (possibly more?) to make it PG?

PG-13 was made because they realized that there is in fact a fair gulf between "maybe not great for people under 6" and "can't watch it unless you're 17+ or have an adult with you". PG-13 was thus, correctly I believe, created to bridge that gap. I see no real problems with it.

[Knaight]

PG-13 movies get much better sales simply by virtue of being PG-13, so tweaking is done to movies to get them in that rating bracket. Considering how minor this is compared to the numerous other changes made for sales, its not worth being upset over.

[AtlanteanTroll]

I'm fine with the American system, and IMO, the best stuff is rated PG-13.

The Dark Knight (as well as Batman Begins), Indiana Jones, Star Wars (I think), Star Treck (2009), Transformers, Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes. I can think of 2 films that go on my list that aren't PG 13. Holes and Gran Torino.

Maybe that just says more about my taste in movies then anything else.

[Cerlis]

I'm going to ignore the entire discussion and just say that Most of the movie system is bull. You got a few good movies, surrounded by Movies that are nothing but sex and violence, ones that are just stupid for kids, and ones that are pretty much equivical to an entertainer burping in everyone's faces because burping is funny apparently.

[Tirian]

And I think it's more because NC-17 films just don't get the advertising and screening than an audience restriction.

It's the screening that's the problems. Mainstream movie companies will not book an NC-17 film, maybe because they don't want to be bothered carding the audience and maybe because anyone who is upset about whatever the "adult" material is would picket and boycott any theater who would show such a thing. "Art" theaters are more likely to show NC-17 films, but more often I think the producers will just bypass the MPAA and release the movie without a rating.

So if the purpose of the rating was to provide a way to have legitimate adult movies that weren't pornography, that really didn't work out very well.

[Lord Seth]

I'm going to ignore the entire discussion and just say that Most of the movie system is bull. You got a few good movies, surrounded by Movies that are nothing but sex and violence, ones that are just stupid for kids, and ones that are pretty much equivical to an entertainer burping in everyone's faces because burping is funny apparently.And how is that different from any other creative industry?

[AtlanteanTroll]

And how is that different from any other creative industry?
Not to mention good is subjective.

[Haruki-kun]

And how is that different from any other creative industry?

This.

You know, a great author whose name I can't remember once said "While writing is an art and a craft, publishing remains a business." It applies to Movies too.

Remember, you need stuff to sell. If rating can be used for that,then a little more violence here and a little less sex there is fair game.

[jmbrown]

PG-13 rating is fine, it's the NC-17 rating that sucks. NC-17 makes no sense, much like the AO rating for video games, because there's literally a 1 year difference between the audience and this somehow bans the product from shelves. On at least two different occassions Kubrick had to tone down his movie to achieve an R rating and that's criminal.

NC-17 needs to be axed and go back to being "X." R rated movies have tons of adult content in them so what is exactly is the defining element between R and X? Out of all the movies I heard were rejected for an R rating, none of them had extreme sexual content which seems to be the major qualifier for higher than R.


I'm going to ignore the entire discussion and just say that Most of the movie system is bull. You got a few good movies, surrounded by Movies that are nothing but sex and violence, ones that are just stupid for kids, and ones that are pretty much equivical to an entertainer burping in everyone's faces because burping is funny apparently.

You just described the entertainment industry dating back at least a thousand years. For every Shakespeare there are ten philistines who fart and chuckle at such low brow humour puppet shows and tumbling acts. Harumph! Harumph, I say!

[snoopy13a]

It's the screening that's the problems. Mainstream movie companies will not book an NC-17 film, maybe because they don't want to be bothered carding the audience and maybe because anyone who is upset about whatever the "adult" material is would picket and boycott any theater who would show such a thing. "Art" theaters are more likely to show NC-17 films, but more often I think the producers will just bypass the MPAA and release the movie without a rating.

So if the purpose of the rating was to provide a way to have legitimate adult movies that weren't pornography, that really didn't work out very well.

Ironically, the G rating is also disdained. Legitmate adult movies with no violence, profanity, and mild (if any) sexual contact will often slip in a profanity to avoid the dreaded "children movie" label that a G rating confers. Even many children movies are PG now.

This wasn't always the case. 2001: A Space Odyssey was rated G.

[Tirian]

PG-13 rating is fine, it's the NC-17 rating that sucks. NC-17 makes no sense, much like the AO rating for video games, because there's literally a 1 year difference between the audience and this somehow bans the product from shelves.

I disagree. A child can go to an R-rated movie with adult supervision (parental guidance is merely _suggested_ for PG and PG-13), but nobody under 17 is permitted in an NC-17 movie under any circumstances.

I don't think there's any reason to revive the X rating. That rating was used independently by film producers of adult movies who didn't even bother with the MPAA. (Perhaps some people would be surprised to learn that there is no XXX rating -- that was just a marketing gimmick.) By contrast, I should assume that the MPAA can at least trademark the term "NC-17" to maintain control over it.

If there's anything that they need to do, it's to respect that rating. For instance, everyone agreed that Saving Private Ryan had a level of violence in it that fully merited an NC-17 rating, but because it was an important historical film that you really want high schoolers going on field trips to see, the MPAA gave it an R rating fully knowing that it didn't deserve it. That was a mistake. They should have given it the proper rating and then theaters would have had to realize that it was up to them to show it anyway and to waive their voluntary guidelines for an important movie. As soon as they went the other way on that, I lost faith that any NC-17 movie would ever receive fair distribution.

[Lord Seth]

If there's anything that they need to do, it's to respect that rating. For instance, everyone agreed that Saving Private Ryan had a level of violence in it that fully merited an NC-17 rating, but because it was an important historical film that you really want high schoolers going on field trips to see, the MPAA gave it an R rating fully knowing that it didn't deserve it.Do you have any sources to back this claim up, or is this just pure speculation on your part?

[Tirian]

Do you have any sources to back this claim up, or is this just pure speculation on your part?

You can go ahead and google "saving private ryan nc-17" and see just how many people are "speculating" about how such a gory movie got an R rating. And I don't think you'd have any trouble finding quotes of Jack Valenti, the then-head of the MPAA and a WW2 vet, saying that all teenagers should watch this movie as it was produced to see how important the ideals were.

[Tyrant]

Austin Powers is an awful movie. It's just the best one I could think of.
I thought the first two were pretty funny myself (with the occasional bad joke) but then again I am a Bond fan and I thought it was a pretty good spoof of the Bond movies. It is nowhere near the "so bad it's good category".

Anywho, I guess my point is, the PG-13 rating is aimed to sell products that are crap.
I'm pretty sure, as others have said, it is to bridge the pretty wide gap between PG and R. Your beef is with the studios who have realized that PG13 is an easier sell than R so they waterdown some movies (either by altering the tone from what you would expect, or by cutting and trimming scenes here and there that add nothing but violence, sex, or language). This is usually addressed with the DVD release if something was cut. I also agree that PG13 has lowered it's bar. Alien vs Predator would have possibly been an R rated movie in the 80s. I think it's an example of choosing to go PG 13 by removing the chance of gore by not filming the gory scenes we know occur (thanks to the 6 R rated Alien and Predator movies that came before). I don't think an R rating would've saved that movie. AVP: Requiem is the counter evidence. It was the reaction to the PG 13 AVP and it went way overboard with it's level of violence and gore. I'm in the minority in that I actually liked Requiem. Another case is Die Hard 4 (07). Everyone sees that it was watered down compared to the other 3. Then we have it's counter, Rambo 4 (08). That movie is probably coming close to pushing the NC 17 rating with the final shootout/slaughter via .50 caliber machine gun. Both are recent additions to 80s action franchises (franchise indicating that they like making more movies and making more money) but one sold out and one went off the deep end (possibly in reaction to seeing Die Hard 4). I think with action movies (and horror movies) it's a toss up. They have PG 13 movies and they have R movies.

If I go see a comedy, I want it to be FUNNY. Watching what is basically a 2 hour long double entrende is not. Sitting through 2 hours of sex jokes isn't either really, but it's a lot better.
Why sit through 2 hours of either one? I sat through 2 hours of bad sex jokes once (Funny People). It was in no way, shape, or form better than 2 hours of regular bad jokes. If anything, it was worse. There was more to that movie, but the jokes weren't funny and it seemed like a never ending contest for who could reference the sex lives of other people the most. That's sad, not funny. Bad sex jokes are worse because not only is it not funny, it tries to hide it behind crude language which tells me they just gave up and hoped to cover it up. This is the opposite way of selling out. Hiding a crappy product in crude lanuage, nudity, and gore, instead of taking a crappy product and hiding it behind the PG 13 rating.

If i'm in the mood to see action, there should be blood. People who get shot BLEED. If I want to listen to people talk about sex, they should be upfront about it. If someone isn't old enough to handle the core material presented upfront, then they aren't old enough for the movie.
People bleeding doesn't make a movie better. We know that if people get shot they should bleed, there's no point dwelling on the matter if it serves no purpose. A fully realized, graphic headshot from point blank range rarely improves a movie, so I have no problem with it being implied right off screen if it will otherwise bump the movie to an R. On the other hand, I expect R to pull no punches. To me, that's the real difference. PG 13 implies or doesn't go into graphic detail, R does. You can tell a good story without being excessively graphic in your violence (unless it serves an actual purpose within the story). All good stories don't require graphic detail. Saying "he was killed" can work as well as "his head was vaproized by a shotgun blast at point blank range and the remains were left dripping on the wall behind him". The guy is dead either way, but one of those ways is a one way ticket to an R rating. Is the latter of those two always necessary?

This is all heavily imo. I just hate the PG-13 rating because I feel movies made to fit in that category lose a lot of potential. And I exaggerate a lot when I rant. Nothing? Exaggeration. A lot of **** with very little shine? Yep.

@Brother Oni: That's what I want. 13 is old enough to see any R rated movie, at least if it should be seen by anyone. Gorn, I'm looking at YOU. Who even finds that kind of stuff entertaining?
Movies made to fit the category do lose some potential, but in the grand scheme of things they lose quite a bit just by being made by a studio. That (in it's many forms) probably leads to more loss of potential than anything else. Edit to add: It can easily be argued that the PG 13 watering down is a result of being made by a studio. I'm talking about executive meddling before the cameras ever start rolling. Changing character details (nationality, background, sex, orientation, etc), altering endings or major plot details, etc.

As for the latter part, there are a lot of R rated movies I wouldn't want most 13 year olds to watch. I'm saying this as someone who has watched R rated movies since I was around 8 or so and who's dad worked out a deal with the guy who ran the video store so I could rent anything short of porn by age 11 or 12. To give an example, I was born in late 81. I saw Total Recall (90) in a theater when it was first released. By that time I was also watching movies like The Terminator and Conan at home (either on VHS or on HBO, not watered down cable versions). The movies I watched were primarily R rated for violence, but some were for "horror elements". I also had a TV which meant I could watch HBO when I wanted to. I could handle this, not every kid (or every adult for that matter) can. I won't let my younger nephew (12) watch most of my DVDs because I don't think he can handle them.

[Setra]

I'm just confused by the complaint that they "neuter" R-rated movies to make them PG-13. And if PG-13 didn't exist...wouldn't they be neutered anyway (possibly more?) to make it PG?

Not necessarily.

There's a certain gap that can't be crossed, without PG-13 they may not try in the first place.

If I were to make a Rating's system it would be..

For Everyone (G, PG, PG-13)

15+ (R, NC-17, X)

... But I'm probably alone on this.

To me, it just seems silly to hide porn from 15 year olds when kids these days seem to be having sex even earlier at times.

[Bhu]

NC-17 needs to be axed and go back to being "X." R rated movies have tons of adult content in them so what is exactly is the defining element between R and X? Out of all the movies I heard were rejected for an R rating, none of them had extreme sexual content which seems to be the major qualifier for higher than R.


This article will explain that a little.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738155/movie_ratings_meanings_for_parents.html?cat=25


Do you have any sources to back this claim up, or is this just pure speculation on your part?

Again, peek at the article above. If it's speculation it's not just on his part, I remember the controversy at the time too because my boss was wondering how to approach reviewing it.

[Serpentine]

I understand the requiring parents for some ratings, but I have never understood that even with a parent there some ratings are still off limits, even if the parent says OK.In Australia's system, I believe, a parent is fully within their rights to show their children any film they like (with the possible exception of X-rated stuff). It is cinemas that are not permitted to do so. The decision to let a child see an R-rated movie is and should be entirely in the hands of the parents, and cinemas should not be expected to check that every adult taking every child is definitely that child's parent.
Is there a rating higher than R rating? This thread causes me to wonder.Australia has X, basically porn.

How is that any different than the US's system outside of switching the age numbers around a little?Uh... From the OP and what I've read in this thread, several extra categories and a lot more precision :confused:

For every Shakespeare there are ten philistines who fart and chuckle at such low brow humour puppet shows and tumbling acts. Harumph! Harumph, I say!See: Aristophanes and the ancient Greeks.

[Lord Seth]

You can go ahead and google "saving private ryan nc-17" and see just how many people are "speculating" about how such a gory movie got an R rating.Not that many, actually. But there's also a difference between wondering "why didn't this get an NC-17 rating?" and stating that they "knew" it should be an R rated movie but decided not to give it to that because they liked it.


Uh... From the OP and what I've read in this thread, several extra categories and a lot more precision :confused:Let's compare Australia's ratings as they were explained with those of the United States:
One that's specifically for children. I believe it has to meet certain educational standards or somesuch to get that classification.
Unclassified, I think, specifically for documentaries and the like.Okay, the US doesn't have those two, but they don't seem relevant to the discussion and seem largely superfluous anyway.


General, for any age.Seems exactly the same as G in the United States.


Parental Guidance, "parental guidance recommended for young viewers" i.e., iirc, under 13ish. i.e. There might be some scary bits or some naughtyish words or some bit-more-than-kissing.Seems exactly the same as PG in the United States.


Mature Audiences, not suitable for viewers under 15. i.e. pretty scary, pretty violent, a bit sexy, and/or a fair few naughty words.This seems very similar to the PG-13 rating. Okay, it's 15 rather than 13, but it seems to serve the same purpose in that they're a recommendation but aren't enforced.


Mature Audience 15+, restricted to viewers over 15. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 15 see it without an adult. Quite violent, somewhat gory, very sexy, and/or absolutely filthy.Again, very similar to the R-rating. 15 rather than than 17, but serving the same purpose in requiring people below the age to be with an adult.


Restricted 18+, restricted to viewers over 18. Cinemas will get into trouble for letting people under 18 see it at all. Extremely violent, very gory, borderline porn and/or extremely adult themes.Very similar to the NC-17 rating in that it means age is utterly required (can't bypass it by being with an adult), it's just changed to 18.

So honestly, it is pretty much the same as the US's except with the numbers being moved around a little (13->15, 17->15, and 17->18).


While there is some line-blurring, on the whole I think it's more clear-cut, or at least better for advising parents.But again, the moving of the numbers around a little aside, there doesn't seem a real difference.

[Serpentine]

Ah. I think I didn't realise there's a difference between your PG and PG-13. However, isn't your NC-17 more analogous to our X-rating than our R? In any case, I think the numbers-shifting is still significant, as it eliminates a big gap in the teen years, and in my opinion makes more sense - there are films I would be comfortable having a 16 or 14 year old seeing, but not a 12 year old, and... bah, I can't explain it properly.

[Bhu]

http://www.ovguide.com/movies_tv/this_film_is_not_yet_rated.htm

Given the conversation here's a little documentary some of you might like called "This Film is not Yet Rated". I think there's a link to watch it online on Veeho further down. It's nsfw, so no peeking in the office.

[Katana_Geldar]

I think their NC-17 is more like our R, Serpentine. And I don't think we have an X as the classifcation board is rather prudish, remember Ken Park? They couldn't stop the film being shown, but they COULD arrest everyone who went to see it.

Besides, I think there's a difference between porn and filsm that deserve an R Rating like Wolf Creek. But classifications change with the times, my Aunt's VHS copy of Dirty Harry has an R Rating.

[Lord Seth]

Ah. I think I didn't realise there's a difference between your PG and PG-13. However, isn't your NC-17 more analogous to our X-rating than our R?According to Wikipedia (which is always right!), both X and R amount to "no one under 18 gets in to see it, period." The difference seems to be that X (outside of specifying it's for sexual content) actually bans selling of it in most places, which is not true of the NC-17 rating. So NC-17 seems more analogous to R than X.

[TheThan]

In the USA, X rating basically means porn. Well originally it didn't, but the porn indestry has basicly grabbed and ran with it. So they adopted the NC-17 rating in place of the X rating, and let the porn industry keep it.

NC-17 has a higher level of sex, profanity and/or violence than R rated movies, at least in theory.

[Serpentine]

I'm pretty sure there are restrictions on when and where you can sell X-rated films here, but I don't think it's all-out banned in most places - or if it is, it's not very well enforced.
I think their NC-17 is more like our R, Serpentine. And I don't think we have an X as the classifcation board is rather prudish, remember Ken Park? They couldn't stop the film being shown, but they COULD arrest everyone who went to see it.Nope, we have one. Check out the links I posted before. They list it along with all the others. Out of interest, I perused the "Recent Classification Decisions" section, noting all the boring ol' movie titles before being taken aback by one with a title not very far off the well-known "Anal Sluts III".

[Bhu]

Ah. I think I didn't realise there's a difference between your PG and PG-13. However, isn't your NC-17 more analogous to our X-rating than our R? In any case, I think the numbers-shifting is still significant, as it eliminates a big gap in the teen years, and in my opinion makes more sense - there are films I would be comfortable having a 16 or 14 year old seeing, but not a 12 year old, and... bah, I can't explain it properly.

Peek at the link I made in post 76. It's 3 pages, but it does give a semi detailed explanation of the ratings in the US.

[Avilan the Grey]

I must say this again shows the difference between cultures; someone up thread said that "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" would be totally out of the question for a 15 year old girl (and I assume a boy?). To me I find that weird, a 15 year old can definitely cope with anything in that movie (besides, most 15 year olds here has already read the book anyway, and there are no ratings on books in this country). Of course in Sweden 15 is somewhat of an "almost 18/21"; an age when when you suddenly gets a lot of rights and possibilities.

That said, most Swedes that has an interest in movies know the American system, since it has consequences for us all.

I don't see a problem with PG-13; most movies that makes it does not lack anything because of it. There has been posted lists in this thread already showing great movies that are PG-13.

Btw FYI - Swedish rating system for movies:

B - For kids of all ages
7 - For kids 7 or above, if escorted by a legal guardian the child can be of any age
11 - For kids 11 or above, if escorted by a legal guardian the child can be of age 7 or older
15 - Equivalent of R / 18 in other countries. Any movie. Movie goer must be 15, it does not help if you are in company of a legal guardian.

...So of course I see no problem with The Girl With The Dragon Tatto being seen by a 15 year old.

[Serpentine]

besides, most 15 year olds here has already read the book anyway, and there are no ratings on books in this country). Man. Jealousy. I wish more 15-year-olds would ask for something like that at the library :smallsigh:
I would be okay with a 15 year old seeing the movie, but I would expect most of them to be disturbed by That Scene (hell, I was). Pretty sure they could deal with it, though.

[Avilan the Grey]

Man. Jealousy. I wish more 15-year-olds would ask for something like that at the library :smallsigh:
I would be okay with a 15 year old seeing the movie, but I would expect most of them to be disturbed by That Scene (hell, I was). Pretty sure they could deal with it, though.

Heh. Personally I am more amazed about the reaction about Stieg Larsson's popularity. It's not like what he wrote is significantly better, or more radical, than any other modern Swedish crime story (of which there are too many; a good 50-60 percent of all books written in this country are novels of this kind, at least it feels like it).

On the upside, apparently several American publishers and film studios has started digging through the bookstores here for other authors. Our biggest export since Abba?

[Serpentine]

My colleague at the town library put together a bunch of bookmarks with lists of particular types of books that people tend to come asking about. It amuses me that one of those is "Scandinavian crime authors" because of Larsson.
'course, it also depresses me a bit that another is "Vampire writers", because* of Twilight :smallsigh:


*Nothin' wrong with vampires in general.

[Avilan the Grey]

'course, it also depresses me a bit that another is "Vampire writers", because* of Twilight :smallsigh:

*Nothin' wrong with vampires in general.

...But then they might actually read some very different books about vampires. Which is good.

[Serpentine]

Trudat.

A while ago I had a mother come in and ask me what she should get for her daughter. I asked her what she liked, and she said "fantasy". I asked what sort, and she said "Twilight".
I have decided that anytime that happens again, I'll suggest Tamora Pierce. Cuz it's fantasy, has some romance, and is much healthier for teenage girls (and guys!).

[Sahaar]

Troo dat. Twilight just goes to prove the increase in the decrease of movie quality these days. Also, modern vampires suck. Bring back teh Dracula and teh Blad zee Impaler!

Anyway, BoT, The only problem I have with PG-13 is that AVP the first was rated PG-13. Total bummer, considering the stuff that makes the franchise(s) 'R' is what makes them awesome.

[Bouregard]

We use the same system in Germany, and I've never seen any problems with it. IF the stores would actually enforce, it works perfectly. But now that they have to pay fees if they don't, it probably got better. I can remember us getting Quake 3 in stores and we all were waaay younger than 18.
The only problem is, that the companies like to sell to 16 and 17 year olds, so lots of games and movies are censored by the publishers to get it down to a 16+ rating. But since you can get the UK version of basically everything online, that hasn't bothered me for years... :smallbiggrin:

Except everything distributed via Steam. They will force you to play with horrible translation and "low violence". Kills games like Left for Dead and now Fallout in my opinion. Kinda stupid that I'm allowed to vote, own a gun and drive 300 km/h on some highways but a drop of blood seems to be to much for my fragile mind.

And about those fines for selling games to minors, yes they are there in theory however as it's not allowed in Germany for the police to send minor test buyers out there and so its kinda hard to enforce.

[Kjata]

Troo dat. Twilight just goes to prove the increase in the decrease of movie quality these days. Also, modern vampires suck. Bring back teh Dracula and teh Blad zee Impaler!

Anyway, BoT, The only problem I have with PG-13 is that AVP the first was rated PG-13. Total bummer, considering the stuff that makes the franchise(s) 'R' is what makes them awesome.

You know, THAT is the perfect example of why I hate PG-13.

Age has nothing to do with maturity, or even what you can handle in a movie. I watched Saw when I was 14, and all kinds of slasher movies. Everybody I know did. People forget what its like to be younger. Somebody can handle at 13 what they'll be able to handle for the rest of their life.

If the content in a movie is to graphic for you when your 13, are you magically able to handle it when your 17? No.

I want to see a rating system along the lines of
G- Family movies
PG-Mild language, mild action. Deaths low.
R- Basically, anything with the focus on violence or sex goes here.
R+ - Movies like Saw, where the point is to be as horrific as possible.

Spiderman and Pirates of the Carribean would be PG, because while there is combat, it's pretty mild. James Bond movies wold be R, because if you watching James Bond you want to see someone get shot. Lord of the Rings is R.

This would make it so the good bits of gunfights aren't cut out to make a PG-13 rating. The rating is based more on what makes the movie appealing. If your old/mature enough to see some die in a gunfight, then why are you not mature enough to see the blood?

[Reverent-One]

I want to see a rating system along the lines of
G- Family movies
PG-Mild language, mild action. Deaths low.
R- Basically, anything with the focus on violence or sex goes here.
R+ - Movies like Saw, where the point is to be as horrific as possible.

Spiderman and Pirates of the Carribean would be PG, because while there is combat, it's pretty mild. James Bond movies wold be R, because if you watching James Bond you want to see someone get shot. Lord of the Rings is R.

So you'd go back to the rating system we had before there was a PG-13, except with a "Super R" rating added as well. Which would still have movie makers try to appeal to a larger market by reducing the rating, only now they'd have to reduce it to PG levels. And then you'd have incidents like "The Temple of Doom", in which a very successful director could get movies that are on the edge of PG and R down to PG level.

Either that or R would effectively become PG-13, and you'd have made no real change.

[Serpentine]

I just checked, and all of the Indiana Joneses are rated M, except for Last Crusade which is PG.
So "recommended for people over 15 cuz there's a bit of swearing, a reasonable amount of blood and it can be a bit scary for youngins, but it's no big deal if anyone under sees it".

[Reverent-One]

I just checked, and all of the Indiana Joneses are rated M, except for Last Crusade which is PG.
So "recommended for people over 15 cuz there's a bit of swearing, a reasonable amount of blood and it can be a bit scary for youngins, but it's no big deal if anyone under sees it".

When Temple of Doom came out, the American rating system was G, PG, R, and X. Because Spielberg is Spielberg, Temple of Doom (and similarly, Gremlins) got PG rather than R ratings. The outcry over their content being too much for the PG rating lead to the creation of the PG-13 rating, which seems about equivalent to your M rating.

Kjata's perfered system is a step backwards, to a system that has already been proven not to work.

[Haarkla]

The PG-13 rating is an abomination. It blurs the line between "acceptable for kids" and "adults only."

...

Action sequences are watered down. Instead of making the joke they wanted, they change the wording so it isn't funny anymore.
I agree, we have the same problem with the 12/12A rating in the UK.

The vast majority of movies are either suitable for children and should have a PG (or U) rating, or are not suitable for children and should have a 15 (or 18) rating.

While there are some difficult cases, the 12 rating is massively overused.

[PopcornMage]

PG-13 rating is fine, it's the NC-17 rating that sucks. NC-17 makes no sense, much like the AO rating for video games, because there's literally a 1 year difference between the audience and this somehow bans the product from shelves. On at least two different occassions Kubrick had to tone down his movie to achieve an R rating and that's criminal.


Let me borrow a joke from TV tropes:

A police man spots a car parked out of the way. Decides to check it out, find a boy reading a car magazine, and a girl knitting.

He asks how old they are.

the boy says "18"

the girl says "18 in 15 minutes"

At least Kubrick didn't have to be arrested. And nowadays with DVD sales, they'd be making "Unrated" versions for the extra dough, so it works out.



NC-17 needs to be axed and go back to being "X." R rated movies have tons of adult content in them so what is exactly is the defining element between R and X? Out of all the movies I heard were rejected for an R rating, none of them had extreme sexual content which seems to be the major qualifier for higher than R.

Sorry, but the whole X problem being thought of only as Porn is exactly why they switched it out. It's just not possible to take the rating back.


Age has nothing to do with maturity, or even what you can handle in a movie.

A fair sentiment, but the movie rating systems is just the tip of the iceberg there.

[snoopy13a]

According to Wikipedia (which is always right!), both X and R amount to "no one under 18 gets in to see it, period." The difference seems to be that X (outside of specifying it's for sexual content) actually bans selling of it in most places, which is not true of the NC-17 rating. So NC-17 seems more analogous to R than X.

That's right. The state can regulate pornography ("X-rated" movies) much, much more strictly than it can regulate free speech (NC-17 movies).

The MPAA ratings are not government censorship. Rather, they are self-censorship by the industry itself. There is nothing stopping moviemakers from releasing unrated movies and showing them in theaters to general audiences as long as those movies are not pornographic.

It is analogous to the old comic codes where the comic book industry used to self-censor itself to conform to the regulations of a non-governmental organization. The belief then (and currently with movies) is that customers demand censorship and ratings in order to make proper choices for themselves and their families.

[jmbrown]

I disagree. A child can go to an R-rated movie with adult supervision (parental guidance is merely _suggested_ for PG and PG-13), but nobody under 17 is permitted in an NC-17 movie under any circumstances.

I don't think there's any reason to revive the X rating. That rating was used independently by film producers of adult movies who didn't even bother with the MPAA. (Perhaps some people would be surprised to learn that there is no XXX rating -- that was just a marketing gimmick.) By contrast, I should assume that the MPAA can at least trademark the term "NC-17" to maintain control over it.

If there's anything that they need to do, it's to respect that rating. For instance, everyone agreed that Saving Private Ryan had a level of violence in it that fully merited an NC-17 rating, but because it was an important historical film that you really want high schoolers going on field trips to see, the MPAA gave it an R rating fully knowing that it didn't deserve it. That was a mistake. They should have given it the proper rating and then theaters would have had to realize that it was up to them to show it anyway and to waive their voluntary guidelines for an important movie. As soon as they went the other way on that, I lost faith that any NC-17 movie would ever receive fair distribution.

I don't like a subjective rating system like this because it usually means people will be censoring their content regardless. I think the qualifiers for an NC-17 movie should be clear. R rated movies get away with a lot of blood and gore so to me the only legitimate qualifier for an NC-17 movie is visible, unsimulated sex. I really don't think the American audience has a concern for violence like they used to especially with the Saw films, all the recent horror movie remakes, and over-the-top stuff like Punisher Warzone which has Punisher shooting a guy with a frikkin' rocket launcher and splattering chunks everywhere.

[Tyrant]

I don't like a subjective rating system like this because it usually means people will be censoring their content regardless. I think the qualifiers for an NC-17 movie should be clear. R rated movies get away with a lot of blood and gore so to me the only legitimate qualifier for an NC-17 movie is visible, unsimulated sex. I really don't think the American audience has a concern for violence like they used to especially with the Saw films, all the recent horror movie remakes, and over-the-top stuff like Punisher Warzone which has Punisher shooting a guy with a frikkin' rocket launcher and splattering chunks everywhere.
The system will always be subjective. You can't possibly detail every single possible image you will see on screen. You have to account for plot themes as well as images. Otherwise you have the absurd system with language that we have now. There was a point where the F bomb was an automatic R. Now they can get away with it once, maybe twice in a PG 13 movie but add mother before it and your back to R (unless that's changed too). So instead, they use every other curse word they can use to maintain PG 13. That's what would happen if they seriously tried to detail what level of violence warrants an R. They would find the limit, and fill the movie with as much of that as they can to stay at PG 13.

I guess I don't see the big deal with a voluntary rating system. I'll take that over the likely possible alternative (it isn't no ratings). Voluntary ratings helps keep the one group that should absolutely not be involved out of the loop. As for censoring, that's going to happen anyway ratings or not. The movies are made by studios who still wish to make money. Most parents won't take their kids to movies they know contains content they don't aapprove of. In out era of mass media, they will know exactly which movies those are. Nothing will greatly change. As it stands, studios have an outlet for uncensored movies if they want to make them (DVD, if nothing else). Outlets will still pick and choose which products they choose to sell or distribute, the same as they do now. The current system is the least intrusive of all realistically possible systems, even if it isn't 100% consistant.

[jmbrown]

The system will always be subjective. You can't possibly detail every single possible image you will see on screen. You have to account for plot themes as well as images. Otherwise you have the absurd system with language that we have now. There was a point where the F bomb was an automatic R. Now they can get away with it once, maybe twice in a PG 13 movie but add mother before it and your back to R (unless that's changed too). So instead, they use every other curse word they can use to maintain PG 13. That's what would happen if they seriously tried to detail what level of violence warrants an R. They would find the limit, and fill the movie with as much of that as they can to stay at PG 13.

Obviously everyone is different in what they can handle which leads to you, as a director or producer, praying the review board doesn't turn up their noses. If you get a board of prudes you end up self censoring yourself while another lucky studio can pass on Good Luck Chuck with its 3 minute montage of wild sex scenes or Harold & Kumar 2 which had full frontal.

Images and themes just don't bother me and I can't see why that would contribute to a higher rating. Nobody really gives a damn about violence anymore so the only flag raising questionable content is sexual content which basically boils down to one of two things; simulated and unsimulated.

[Bhu]

That's right. The state can regulate pornography ("X-rated" movies) much, much more strictly than it can regulate free speech (NC-17 movies).

The MPAA ratings are not government censorship. Rather, they are self-censorship by the industry itself. There is nothing stopping moviemakers from releasing unrated movies and showing them in theaters to general audiences as long as those movies are not pornographic.


Actually there is. Several of the large (and small) theater chains refuse to show unrated movies, and some stores refuse to carry them (although there is a notorious double standard there where the store will carry an unrated film if it's popular enough). There are sections of the country that never got to see Zack and Miri Make a Porno because the title alone so offended some of the theater owners they wouldn't carry it. The MPAA was in theory supposed to stop censorship by giving suggested ratings. Instead it's heavily influenced how the industry does business, gives more leeway to large studios as opposed to independents, and encourages films to be watered down to a lower rating so they can reach a wider audience (and there fore make some money). R rated or above films tend to make better money through rentals and sales than on screen.

[PopcornMage]

The "movie" industry has always been a little wacky.

It's almost as bad as professional sports.

[Tyrant]

Obviously everyone is different in what they can handle which leads to you, as a director or producer, praying the review board doesn't turn up their noses. If you get a board of prudes you end up self censoring yourself while another lucky studio can pass on Good Luck Chuck with its 3 minute montage of wild sex scenes or Harold & Kumar 2 which had full frontal.
So what happens when we ditch ratings and instead mass media tries to play the morality police? You will still know exactly what is in that movie before you see it if you really want to. Nothing will change. Parents will still not let their kids go watch some movies, theaters will still not run some movies, and some movies will have cut scenes reinstated on DVD. The change will be minimal at best. Or it goes wildly one way or the other. If all movies suddenly decide to turn the dial to 11 on sex and violence, sales will drop because younger viewers account for a large chunk (and families going with younger viewers) of theater sales. Theaters will stop running movies that they think won't attract larger crowds and parents will stick with movies that they think are safe while ignoring the majority of what is released. Declining sales will force the studios to seriously self censor. Now instead of a potentially prudish board you have studio execs making these decisions. I hope your ready for nothing but Transformers 2 level movies. Or, they skip the going overboard phase and go straight to strict self censorship because theater chains and Wal Mart refuse to sell their movies that are "too excessive". The rating system lets everyone use it as a shield. Wal Mart can sell R rated movies and M rated games because "The content is written right there". R rated movies, as a whole, are an accepted part of society so shunning them all is a difficult prospect. Take away the rating and stores and theaters can turn away individual movies with greater ease because they are now in the position of moral guardian. You lose the fall back argument of "it's only rated R".

Images and themes just don't bother me and I can't see why that would contribute to a higher rating. Nobody really gives a damn about violence anymore so the only flag raising questionable content is sexual content which basically boils down to one of two things; simulated and unsimulated.
You keep approaching this from the idea that everyone is exactly like you. You, and I for that matter, don't give a damn about violence. Some people do. People with kids tend to get a little touchy about things like that. I will give you an images and themes example. The Matrix. Remove the very little blood in that movie and uses of the F bomb that I may be overlooking, and what about that movie earns it an R rating? While the violence is extreme, it isn't overly bloody (it's fairly bloodless actually). The utterly depressing future, the level of violence (though bloodless), the idea of humans made into virtual slaves of the machines. These are why it's rated R. Themes and images. I don't really agree with that rating, but that is an example. Another is Spawn. I recall an interview where Todd McFarlane explained why they had to tone everything down in the movie. The tone and theme were enough that there would be no leeway on an R rating. If anything was questionable, it was going to be R. I wish I could remember if he said why they were shooting for a PG 13 in the first place though. It relates back to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. It didn't warrant an R, but having human sacrifice is the kind of thing that probably shouldn't be in a PG movie.

[snoopy13a]

Actually there is. Several of the large (and small) theater chains refuse to show unrated movies, and some stores refuse to carry them (although there is a notorious double standard there where the store will carry an unrated film if it's popular enough). There are sections of the country that never got to see Zack and Miri Make a Porno because the title alone so offended some of the theater owners they wouldn't carry it. The MPAA was in theory supposed to stop censorship by giving suggested ratings. Instead it's heavily influenced how the industry does business, gives more leeway to large studios as opposed to independents, and encourages films to be watered down to a lower rating so they can reach a wider audience (and there fore make some money). R rated or above films tend to make better money through rentals and sales than on screen.

This is self-censorship (or alternatively, economic coersion by business partners) not government-imposed censorship.

There is nothing stopping you from producing NC-17 caliber movies and nothing stopping me from showing your NC-17 caliber movies to a general audience. Granted, our economic model probably won't succeed but in theory we can.

However, as you said, the vast majority of theater owners and movie production companies adhere to the MPAA guidelines.

[Knaight]

Trudat.

A while ago I had a mother come in and ask me what she should get for her daughter. I asked her what she liked, and she said "fantasy". I asked what sort, and she said "Twilight".
I have decided that anytime that happens again, I'll suggest Tamora Pierce. Cuz it's fantasy, has some romance, and is much healthier for teenage girls (and guys!).
Just hope they get the right thing. A while ago I was reading in the library, and a mother asked me what she should get for her teenage (14) daughter, who liked fantasy. I reccomended a few Alan Dean Foster books, and due to titles merging in her head, she managed to find A Song of Ice and Fire by George R. R. Martin. I'm just lucky she checked that they were the right book with me, I would hate to unleash those on someone told they had a much lighter, less dismal, more child friendly plot.

[Tirian]

There is nothing stopping you from producing NC-17 caliber movies and nothing stopping me from showing your NC-17 caliber movies to a general audience.

Hahahahaha. Have fun getting a zoning permit to build and operate an adult theater. I can't remember the last time I saw one of those. They certainly didn't all go out of business because the general public lost its collective taste for adult movies.

[Serpentine]

Tirian, are you getting the NC movies mixed up with the X-rated movies, there? Cuz I thought NC was the equivalent to my R - which is shown - and X is equivalent to my, well, X - which is not shown.

I'm pretty sure that in Australia, 1. the classifications board is part of the government, and 2. if it doesn't get rated, it can neither be shown nor sold in Australia (thus the problem with the lack of an R rating for games :smallsigh:).

[PopcornMage]

That is not the case in the United States, it's a voluntary program, with no government involvement, at least on the federal level.

Some states and other localities may be different, but I'm pretty sure there's no extant censorship board left, except maybe for churches and the like.

[Bhu]

Hahahahaha. Have fun getting a zoning permit to build and operate an adult theater. I can't remember the last time I saw one of those. They certainly didn't all go out of business because the general public lost its collective taste for adult movies.

According to an interview with Ron Jeremy and Veronica Hart the adult movie theaters went out because of VCR's. Who wants to go to a theater and see porn when you can see it in your own house?


Tirian, are you getting the NC movies mixed up with the X-rated movies, there? Cuz I thought NC was the equivalent to my R - which is shown - and X is equivalent to my, well, X - which is not shown.

I'm pretty sure that in Australia, 1. the classifications board is part of the government, and 2. if it doesn't get rated, it can neither be shown nor sold in Australia (thus the problem with the lack of an R rating for games :smallsigh:).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_rating <Should be sfw viewing, relax.

This will help a little to give an idea what gives an X. There are surprisingly few films, and almost all of them have been reclassified R or just released unrated since there's no point in submitting them for reclassification since that costs money.

[Setra]

Hahahahaha. Have fun getting a zoning permit to build and operate an adult theater. I can't remember the last time I saw one of those. They certainly didn't all go out of business because the general public lost its collective taste for adult movies.
Hahahahahahaha

[Knaight]

Exactly. That was the point.

[The Big Dice]

I agree, we have the same problem with the 12/12A rating in the UK.
That one came in because of the first Harry Potter movie. The one that for some random reason is called The Sorceror's Stone in the US.

Also, the BBFC has changed. It was once the British Board of Film Censorship, and they could (and often did) make cuts to movies before they went on general release. They are also the people who named a whole range of movies as "video nasties" back in the 80s.

Now they are the British Board of Film Classification, which has a very different ring to it's name. They also don't force cuts on films, they leave that to the studios.

[Tyrant]

That one came in because of the first Harry Potter movie. The one that for some random reason is called The Sorceror's Stone in the US.
Not to side track, but it isn't a random reason. It's a silly reason in my opinion, but there is a reason behind it. The idea was that Americans attach a slightly different understanding to the word philosopher (or can't seperate their meaning when the word is used in a different fashion, I can't recall which was the reason that was given) and the use of a word like sorceror spells out in big bold letters that we're talking about magic instead of the mental image of (for instance) ancient Greeks considering the meaning of life or how one should behave (or any other topic a philosopher may discuss). I think it's a terrible reason and seriously underestimates the intelligence of the average person in the U.S., but it was the reason.

Of course you probably knew that, so I'll try to spin this as saying that I wanted to draw attention to an alteration that was made by a studio that had nothing to do with the ratings system and that these types of choices are made at every step of the process so complaining about edits for ratings is simply the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem.

[PopcornMage]

I think it was the publisher, not the studio.

[Tyrant]

I think it was the publisher, not the studio.
I think you're right. Still, it's manipulation of the end product that has nothing to do with ratings.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm pretty sure the movie was called Sorcerer's Stone...because the book was called that. Y'know, the one that the movie was based on?:smallbiggrin:

The reasons for doing so, are elaborated in much more eloquent detail than I could in the posts above.

[Jahkaivah]

Not to side track, but it isn't a random reason. It's a silly reason in my opinion, but there is a reason behind it. The idea was that Americans attach a slightly different understanding to the word philosopher (or can't seperate their meaning when the word is used in a different fashion, I can't recall which was the reason that was given) and the use of a word like sorceror spells out in big bold letters that we're talking about magic instead of the mental image of (for instance) ancient Greeks considering the meaning of life or how one should behave (or any other topic a philosopher may discuss). I think it's a terrible reason and seriously underestimates the intelligence of the average person in the U.S., but it was the reason.

Worse considering its supposed to be something. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher%27s_stone)

[Jaros]

That one came in because of the first Harry Potter movie. The one that for some random reason is called The Sorceror's Stone in the US.

Harry Potter was a PG actually. I believe it was Spider-Man that was the first film to be classified as 12A.

[Saurus33]

I'm pretty sure the movie was called Sorcerer's Stone...because the book was called that. Y'know, the one that the movie was based on?
The book was only called Sorcerer's Stone in the US, as far as I know. My copy reads "Philosopher's Stone" at any rate.

[Serpentine]

I can't decide if it's better or worse than "The Madness of King George III" being changed to "The Madness of King George" out of fear that noone would go see it cuz they hadn't seen "The Madness of King George" I and II.

[The Big Dice]

Harry Potter was a PG actually. I believe it was Spider-Man that was the first film to be classified as 12A.

Potter was the reason for the classification being created. Apparently the nerd rage from Harry Potter fans that were too young to be able to go see the movie legally caused the BBFC to come up with this new fangled thing.

As for what the Philosopher's Stone is supposed to be, it's exactly what's in the book and movie. A thing for urning lead into gold and for creating an elixir of immortality. Nicolas Flamel was a real historical alchemist, too.

As a mild bit of curiosity, did they rename the item the sorceror's stone as well as retitling the book for the US market?

[The Glyphstone]

Potter was the reason for the classification being created. Apparently the nerd rage from Harry Potter fans that were too young to be able to go see the movie legally caused the BBFC to come up with this new fangled thing.

As for what the Philosopher's Stone is supposed to be, it's exactly what's in the book and movie. A thing for urning lead into gold and for creating an elixir of immortality. Nicolas Flamel was a real historical alchemist, too.

As a mild bit of curiosity, did they rename the item the sorceror's stone as well as retitling the book for the US market?

Yeah, they did. It would be really odd if they didn't.:smallconfused:

[Milskidasith]

I'm not sure why a title change, especially in a book aimed at children who probably don't know what a philosopher's stone is, is such a big deal. You have to market to your audience, after all. It's a bit odd, but not really surprising nor detrimental to the book at large.

[Brother Oni]

Symbolism mostly.

If the protagonist was searching for a magic spear that granted victory, it'd be one thing. If the protagonist was searching for the Lance Longinus, it'd be something else entirely.

In this context, changing it from Philosopher's Stone to Sorceror's Stone doesn't make that much difference, but it does lose some of the mystique that is attached to the Philosopher's Stone.
There's always the fanatical members of the fanbase who are opposed to changes of any sort, but minor changes I don't have a problem with.

[Serpentine]

I'm not sure why a title change, especially in a book aimed at children who probably don't know what a philosopher's stone is, is such a big deal. You have to market to your audience, after all. It's a bit odd, but not really surprising nor detrimental to the book at large.Because the Philosopher's Stone was a real (well, "real") thing, sought by a real person, with significant mythological and historical connotations that are actually fairly important to the story, and changing it is both stupid and pointless, and insulting to the people for whom it was changed.

[PopcornMage]

Eh, I can't say that the moral examination to be found in the Harry Potter books was sufficient enough to make it an issue.

It's not like there was any thought given to Flamel on the subject. The only problem with Voldemort wanting it was because he was He-who-must-not-be-named and anything he wanted, well, it was bad, because it was bad.

[Serpentine]

...but it wasn't bad :smallconfused:

[The Big Dice]

Eh, I can't say that the moral examination to be found in the Harry Potter books was sufficient enough to make it an issue.

It's not like there was any thought given to Flamel on the subject. The only problem with Voldemort wanting it was because he was He-who-must-not-be-named and anything he wanted, well, it was bad, because it was bad.

It wasn't bad at all. It was like a lot of things in the Harry Potter books. Something that was neither good nor bad in and of itself, but that could be used to good effect by the good guys or to evil ends by the bad guys.

Edit: Now I'm wondering if they had to ADR or re shoot every reference to the Philosopher's Stone in the movie.

[Milskidasith]

Because the Philosopher's Stone was a real (well, "real") thing, sought by a real person, with significant mythological and historical connotations that are actually fairly important to the story, and changing it is both stupid and pointless, and insulting to the people for whom it was changed.

Except, again, the target audience would likely not know of it, and it makes more marketing sense to advertise it as something that is likely to sound interesting to children than something that is accurate. Yes, it's a name change. No, I don't find it to be an insult. It's a marketing decision, and a fairly savvy one at that.

[PopcornMage]

It wasn't bad at all. It was like a lot of things in the Harry Potter books. Something that was neither good nor bad in and of itself, but that could be used to good effect by the good guys or to evil ends by the bad guys.

If you say so, but the problem is, no examination was given in regards to it, no thought, no consequences, it was just there as a MacGuffin. Not as an aspect of philosophy.

Now I know the story wasn't about Flamel, but about Harry, but still I didn't think there was any morality given to it.

So it's like to me, they could name it the "Harry Potter and the thing the bad guy wants to steal" and it'd mean just as much to the story.

ETA: To put it another way, the "significant mythological and historical connotations" are not, to me, important at all to the story. At most, if being Flamel is amusing, for those who recognize the name, but it wouldn't make a difference if his named were changed too.

[Milskidasith]

That's pretty much how I feel. Flamel was a reference (and a neat one), but all the implications of the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's stone were ignored and Harry had to stop Voldemort because he was evil. It was and still is an enjoyable book... it's just that it's very Macguffin-y and renaming it as a marketing decision that really lost no meaning isn't really a problem to me.

[The Big Dice]

Except, again, the target audience would likely not know of it, and it makes more marketing sense to advertise it as something that is likely to sound interesting to children than something that is accurate. Yes, it's a name change. No, I don't find it to be an insult. It's a marketing decision, and a fairly savvy one at that.
The target audience get told enough in the course of the book what the Philosopher's Stone actually is. There are even clues dropped about it on the train ride to Hogwarts. The change was pointless and didn't add anything to the book, except to make it look like American readers couldn't understand what was put right in front of them.

Which is blatantly not true.

After all, nobody knew what the Deathly Hallows were before the book was published. But reading it told you everything you needed to know. And nobody felt the need to change the name of that book. Possibly because JK Rowling is now worth more than the Queen...

If you say so, but the problem is, no examination was given in regards to it, no thought, no consequences, it was just there as a MacGuffin. Not as an aspect of philosophy.

Now I know the story wasn't about Flamel, but about Harry, but still I didn't think there was any morality given to it.

So it's like to me, they could name it the "Harry Potter and the thing the bad guy wants to steal" and it'd mean just as much to the story.

ETA: To put it another way, the "significant mythological and historical connotations" are not, to me, important at all to the story. At most, if being Flamel is amusing, for those who recognize the name, but it wouldn't make a difference if his named were changed too.
The Philosopher's Stone isn't anything to do with philosophy, just as renaming it the Sorceror's Stone doesn't mean that the alchemical item in question has anything to do with sorcery. And yes, the historical allusion was a nice touch for the older reader who knows a bit about these things. But one that was ruined for the American audience.

I think the name change says more about what the media really thinks of the American public than it does about anything else. After all, a good story is a good story and, as the Bard once said, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

[Milskidasith]

The target audience get told enough in the course of the book what the Philosopher's Stone actually is. There are even clues dropped about it on the train ride to Hogwarts. The change was pointless and didn't add anything to the book, except to make it look like American readers couldn't understand what was put right in front of them.

Which is blatantly not true.

After all, nobody knew what the Deathly Hallows were before the book was published. But reading it told you everything you needed to know. And nobody felt the need to change the name of that book. Possibly because JK Rowling is now worth more than the Queen...

I never said they couldn't understand what it would do; it gives the guy eternal life. I'm just saying "philosopher's stone" sounds boring and "sorcerer's stone" sounds exciting if you're the young audience bracket the book is targeted at, and losing a single allusion is probably justifiable. As for the Deathly Hallows: Yes, I would expect a massive bestseller to get to keep the title the author wanted, while the first book in the series by a relative unknown would be more marketing directed.


The Philosopher's Stone isn't anything to do with philosophy, just as renaming it the Sorceror's Stone doesn't mean that the alchemical item in question has anything to do with sorcery. And yes, the historical allusion was a nice touch for the older reader who knows a bit about these things. But one that was ruined for the American audience.

Again, I never said any of this was untrue. The allusion isn't there (entirely), it's true. It's just that, well, the name sounds more exciting and marketing is marketing.


I think the name change says more about what the media really thinks of the American public than it does about anything else. After all, a good story is a good story and, as the Bard once said, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

Again, marketing. It's not so much "what people think of the American public" so much as "what actually happens." People check out what looks interesting. The Sorcerer's Stone sounds a lot more interesting, while the Philosopher's Stone sounds dull. Again, that has nothing to do with what they are, but when you're the eleven year old kid the book is marketed to, you want magic, not treatisies on the human condition, and you probably won't look past the title if it implies the latter.

[PopcornMage]

The Philosopher's Stone isn't anything to do with philosophy, just as renaming it the Sorceror's Stone doesn't mean that the alchemical item in question has anything to do with sorcery.

I think you misunderstand, I'm not talking about "Philosophy" so much as the item as used in the Harry Potter book not having much depth to it, unlike say in the series Full Metal Alchemist, or even in the Scrooge McDuck comic.

In contrast, for the Harry Potter story it could have been anything else and worked just as well.

[Jaros]

Potter was the reason for the classification being created. Apparently the nerd rage from Harry Potter fans that were too young to be able to go see the movie legally caused the BBFC to come up with this new fangled thing.

Wait, if it was a PG, who was complaining about not being able to see it?

[The Big Dice]

Again, marketing. It's not so much "what people think of the American public" so much as "what actually happens." People check out what looks interesting. The Sorcerer's Stone sounds a lot more interesting, while the Philosopher's Stone sounds dull. Again, that has nothing to do with what they are, but when you're the eleven year old kid the book is marketed to, you want magic, not treatisies on the human condition, and you probably won't look past the title if it implies the latter.
Why was the title really changed? The book was already a major success in Britain, which was what got the American publishers interested in it. And incidentally what made it the highest advance ever paid to a first time author, as several publishing houses got into a bidding war over the Harry Potter books.

The reason is that the publishers thought American readers wouldn't understand the reference and would not buy the book because the title gave the wrong impression.

Think about the implications of that for a moment.

And I believe that JK Rowling has said she'd have fought the decision to change the title if she'd been in a better position to do so.

Wait, if it was a PG, who was complaining about not being able to see it?

Children under 12 who were already fans of the books, and their parents who were getting pestered by kids who wanted to go see a Harry Potter movie were the ones complaining about not being able to see it.

[Jaros]

Children under 12 who were already fans of the books, and their parents who were getting pestered by kids who wanted to go see a Harry Potter movie were the ones complaining about not being able to see it.

Are you sure you're thinking of the right film? Everything I can see on The Philosopher's Stone lists it as a PG (in the UK, yes)

Edit: Might have been Spider-Man you were thinking of (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2223000/2223495.stm), several cinemas actually billed it as a PG because they thought it didn't deserve a 12. Apparently Bourne Identity was the first theatrical release to recieve the 12A

[Jahkaivah]

Aside from toning down the educational level of a book just to help market it was a bit of a **** move really. I think even by that standards it probably wasn't a good move given that what really helped the book's sales was that it found an audience with older readers as well who were more likely to appreciate the more broader referances in mythology. Besides it's Harry Potter, everyone knows it's about wizards.

It kind of comes down to how clear it was that the book would be popular when it got it's american release. I'm sure now that was considered a bad move in hindsight.

[The Big Dice]

Are you sure you're thinking of the right film? Everything I can see on The Philosopher's Stone lists it as a PG (in the UK, yes)

Edit: Might have been Spider-Man you were thinking of (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_2223000/2223495.stm), several cinemas actually billed it as a PG because they thought it didn't deserve a 12. Apparently Bourne Identity was the first theatrical release to recieve the 12A

Potter was the movie that made the BBFC come up with the new classification, but. It was a reaction to complants rather than in anticipation of the thing coming out. That's why other movies got the classification first, even though Potter was the catalyst for it being created.

[snoopy13a]

Aside from toning down the educational level of a book just to help market it was a bit of a **** move really. I think whether even by that standards it probably wasn't a good move given that what really helped the book's sales was that it found an audience with older readers as well who were more likely to appreciate the more broader referances in mythology. Besides it's Harry Potter, everyone knows it's about wizards.

It kind of comes down to how clear it was that the book would be popular when it got it's american release. I'm sure now that was considered a bad move in hindsight.

I don't believe that many Americans knew Harry Potter was about wizards before the first book was released in the U.S. Plus I'd wager almost no American children were aware of the legend of the Philosopher's stone in the 90s.

When people think philosophers, they often think of Socrates and deep discussions . When people think sorcerors, they think magic and adventure. It isn't really that big of a surprise that the American publisher changed the title. Remember, the target audience was 11 year old boys.

It is also no different than the British publisher having Rowling use her initials. They were concerned that the target audience wouldn't want to read a book written by a "girl."

[Jahkaivah]

I don't believe that many Americans knew Harry Potter was about wizards before the first book was released in the U.S.

Hence why I said:


It kind of comes down to how clear it was that the book would be popular when it got it's american release. I'm sure now that was considered a bad move in hindsight.



It is also no different than the British publisher having Rowling use her initials. They were concerned that the target audience wouldn't want to read a book written by a "girl."

Similar silly reasons yeah. Though the end result was that the author's name got shortened as opposed to a bit of the book's depth being lost.

[Milskidasith]

Similar silly reasons yeah. Though the end result was that the author's name got shortened as opposed to a bit of the book's depth being lost.

The book wasn't exactly deep to begin with, and losing what essentially amounts to a single allusion (since the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's stone in the novel does nothing besides act as a Macguffin and either way what it does is spelled out) isn't really hurting a ton. Yeah, the marketing reasons seem "silly" now... but when you're trying to get sales for something that's marketed to 11 year olds, silly things could matter.

And yeah, you can say how it's an insult... but media has done that forever. It's not so much insulting as it is marketing. People who want to sell things market it. The number of people who won't buy a book that isn't marketed towards them because a single mythological allusion, one they wouldn't even know about without buying the book, was changed is far less than the number of 11 year olds who would instantly discard a book with "Philosopher's" in the title.

[Lord Seth]

It is also no different than the British publisher having Rowling use her initials. They were concerned that the target audience wouldn't want to read a book written by a "girl."I think "J.K. Rowling" is a catchier-sounding name anyway.

[Bhu]

The book wasn't exactly deep to begin with, and losing what essentially amounts to a single allusion (since the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's stone in the novel does nothing besides act as a Macguffin and either way what it does is spelled out) isn't really hurting a ton. Yeah, the marketing reasons seem "silly" now... but when you're trying to get sales for something that's marketed to 11 year olds, silly things could matter.

And yeah, you can say how it's an insult... but media has done that forever. It's not so much insulting as it is marketing. People who want to sell things market it. The number of people who won't buy a book that isn't marketed towards them because a single mythological allusion, one they wouldn't even know about without buying the book, was changed is far less than the number of 11 year olds who would instantly discard a book with "Philosopher's" in the title.

These are probably the same marketing geniuses that temporarily allowed Mattel to market the broom fiasco

http://www.methodshop.com/gadgets/reviews/potters-stick/index.shtml

[Avilan the Grey]

These are probably the same marketing geniuses that temporarily allowed Mattel to market the broom fiasco

http://www.methodshop.com/gadgets/reviews/potters-stick/index.shtml

It wasn't a fiasco. It sold VERY well. :smallamused: From the reviews copied from Amazon on that page though I see that a lot of adults actually never learned about the "facts of life". So funny, and yet so creepy.

[Milskidasith]

It wasn't a fiasco. It sold VERY well. :smallamused: From the reviews copied from Amazon on that page though I see that a lot of adults actually never learned about the "facts of life". So funny, and yet so creepy.

Pretty sure those are trolls.