PG-13: Good, Bad, or Ugly?

[bruce_pullen]

PG-13, has it helped or hurt movies? What do you think?

[Gamma_Winstead]

Depends on the movie.

[STARSCREAM]

Alot of movies it has hurt. Some should have been R rated. Case in point, Die Hard 4: Live Free Or Die Hard.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by STARSCREAM

Alot of movies it has hurt. Some should have been R rated. Case in point, Die Hard 4: Live Free Or Die Hard.

That's my point? Has PG-13 killed mature movies? Push them to the fringe and Oscar fests? That's my question.

[ScarredLungs]

PG-13 have helped the movie industry a lot!

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by cvm

PG-13 have helped the movie industry a lot!

I agree, but I see the bad too.

Without PG-13, would we have so many Comic films?

That's my thought?

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

I agree, but I see the bad too.

Without PG-13, would we have so many Comic films?

That's my thought?

I do not see anything "bad" that PG-13's have done.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

That's my point? Has PG-13 killed mature movies? Push them to the fringe and Oscar fests? That's my question.

ABSOLUTELY......

Studios are hand-cuffing directors in an attempt to reach a wider audience.... Obviously you want the movies to make money so the studios can put out more movies etc...... but I am completely against anyone changing the director's vision to try to make more money.......

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

ABSOLUTELY......

Studios are hand-cuffing directors in an attempt to reach a wider audience.... Obviously you want the movies to make money so the studios can put out more movies etc...... but I am completely against anyone changing the director's vision to try to make more money.......

Agree 100%. I'm tired of so many movies being dumbed-down in order to get a PG-13 rating so that all of the kiddies can also see it (thus raising profits). Die Hard 4 was a PRIME example.

Imagine what Tropic Thunder would have been like if they were forced to meet a PG-13 rating?

No; F-bombs, nudity and exploding heads do not make a movie "better" per se, but sometimes they are needed to properly convey the story.

IMO, of course.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Agree 100%. I'm tired of so many movies being dumbed-down in order to get a PG-13 rating so that all of the kiddies can also see it (thus raising profits). Die Hard 4 was a PRIME example.

Imagine what Tropic Thunder would have been like if they were forced to meet a PG-13 rating?

No; F-bombs, nudity and exploding heads do not make a movie "better" per se, but sometimes they are needed to properly convey the story.

IMO, of course.

I'm sorry. Tropic Thunder was too much. PG-13 or not. The idea was unworkable. Panda gear, stabbing children? The retarded child?

But did the rating complicate that?

[assydingo]

I don't believe in movie censorship so I'd have to agree that it's bad.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Agree 100%. I'm tired of so many movies being dumbed-down in order to get a PG-13 rating so that all of the kiddies can also see it (thus raising profits). Die Hard 4 was a PRIME example.

Imagine what Tropic Thunder would have been like if they were forced to meet a PG-13 rating?

No; F-bombs, nudity and exploding heads do not make a movie "better" per se, but sometimes they are needed to properly convey the story.

IMO, of course.

I agree with you on this point

"
No; F-bombs, nudity and exploding heads do not make a movie "better" per se, but sometimes they are needed to properly convey the story."

It is not needed to make a movie better. I think that today many people are trying to take thier movies to the extreme and put way to much of that in movies. At the same time, you still need to convey the message of the story.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

No; F-bombs, nudity and exploding heads do not make a movie "better" per se, but sometimes they are needed to properly convey the story.

i do agree that sometimes certain elements are needed to convey the story properly
those instances i understand
i mainly meant the pointless, nothing to do with the plot, lets put a sex scene right here, movies
know what i mean?

[Marine Mike]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

That's my point? Has PG-13 killed mature movies? Push them to the fringe and Oscar fests? That's my question.

I think its contrary to the Oscars as its typically dominated by 'R' rated films.

Slumdog Millionaire - R
The Wrestler - R
Milk - R
Frost / Nixon - R
The Reader - R
Rachel Getting Married - R
Changeling - R
Frozen River - R
Tropic Thunder - R
Revolutionary Road - R
Happy Go Lucky - R
In Bruges - R

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - PG13
The Visitor - PG13
Doubt - PG13
Dark Knight - PG13
Vicky Cristina Barcelona - PG13
The Duchess - PG13
Australia - PG13

WALL-E - G

[MassiveMovieBuff]

I prefer all of my movies to be rated R, NC-17 or unrated (which would be NC-17 if released that way in the theater initially). I own quite a bit of PG and PG-13 movies that I love and when the film is done right those ratings can pass but I still prefer all movies to be R or NC-17

[BoogalooShrimp]

While Verhoeven is right, it's naive to think the movie industry would act any other way. They've always been this way and had PG 13 been available in the 70's they would have used that rating the way they do now. They have stock holders to appease after all. Maybe because he's from the Netherlands, he has a different expectation of the film industry. Art and commerce are tricky things to combine successfully. While the rated r blockbuster is pretty much dead, there are still great rated R films being made. You're just not going to find them at the local multiplex (at least not for more than a week or two).

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by BoogalooShrimp

While Verhoeven is right, it's naive to think the movie industry would act any other way. They've always been this way and had PG 13 been available in the 70's they would have used that rating the way they do now. They have stock holders to appease after all. Maybe because he's from the Netherlands, he has a different expectation of the film industry. Art and commerce are tricky things to combine successfully. While the rated r blockbuster is pretty much dead, there are still great rated R films being made. You're just not going to find them at the local multiplex (at least not for more than a week or two).

Except that back then there were PG movies with far more extreme content than what can be found in a PG-13 film today. The Beastmaster, for example, has more edge and sexual content with a PG rating than most modern PG-13 films.

Here's what I said in response to someone rolling their eyes at the idea that PG-13 is an unnecessary rating:

[Show spoiler]

That's how it was until a bunch of whiny parents complained (because they apparently forgot that "PG" stands for "Parental Guidance" not "automatically okay for little Timmy to watch.") G was for kids, PG was for older kids/teens, with the caveat that parental guidance was suggested, and R was for adults/older teens, with the exception that kids could see it when accompanied by a guardian. That's why a lot of older PG movies have violence, nudity, language, etc.

And PG-13 was never intended to be what it's become. It was supposed to be PG with a bit more spice/kick. It was supposed to accommodate the more graphic and gooey (but still not R-worthy) violence of movies like Temple of Doom and Gremlins, while allowing for a little nudity and/or language. It was supposed to take over for the more adult PG movies (think Beastmaster.)

Instead, it became the sweet-spot for theatrical revenue and became more neutered than what the old-school PG was. Now, you rarely get nudity, the violence is completely - or at least mostly - bloodless and sanitized, language is closely monitored and often altered to ensure a PG-13, and absolutely no drug use is allowed to be shown.

Basically, instead of doing what they were supposed to do with the PG-13 rating, they just shifted a couple of the ratings slightly - PG is the new G and PG-13 is the new (albeit neutered) PG.

[FilmKoala]

I feel like this was a much bigger issue ten years ago when we heard of studios trying to cut everything down from an R to a PG-13, specifically the PG-13 horror boom. But nowadays I genuinely don't notice it. Maybe that's just me being naive, but I rarely ever hear about studios neutering their R rated films to secure a PG-13.

Originally Posted by BoogalooShrimp

While Verhoeven is right, it's naive to think the movie industry would act any other way. They've always been this way and had PG 13 been available in the 70's they would have used that rating the way they do now. They have stock holders to appease after all. Maybe because he's from the Netherlands, he has a different expectation of the film industry. Art and commerce are tricky things to combine successfully. While the rated r blockbuster is pretty much dead, there are still great rated R films being made. You're just not going to find them at the local multiplex (at least not for more than a week or two).

But there are tons of R rated films still being made and given wide releases, and a lot of them do pretty well.

[TheBlayman]

PG13 films are just fine. I find excessive profanity a major turnoff.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by TheBlayman

PG13 films are just fine. I find excessive profanity a major turnoff.

You definitely wouldn't like Bad Moms then.