More "PG-13" than "R" Rated Movies?

[Zaphod]

Unfortunately it is all about the money. However I was skeptical about Live Free or Die Hard due to the rating but was suprisingly pleased with the PG-13 result. However it is ridiculous that all you have to do is say the F-word once to get slapped with a R rating.

[owa]

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

With the release of the latest Die Hard film in PG-13 instead of the traditional R rating, are more movies going to be released like this to obtain more viewers? i.e. More Cash for the studios?

I'd think so. More people (more money) and IMO, PG-13 doesn't severely limit them much these days anyway. Except for the F-word, they seem to be able to do pretty much anything they want just usually not in excessive amounts like they could in an R-rated movie.

There are still some types of movies that I'd prefer have at least an R rating, like most horror movies but even then it's not always necessary. I really liked The Ring and The Grudge and both were PG-13.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Unfortunately it is all about the money. However I was skeptical about Live Free or Die Hard due to the rating but was suprisingly pleased with the PG-13 result. However it is ridiculous that all you have to do is say the F-word once to get slapped with a R rating.

Technically there is not set rule the the f-word will get you a R rating. It more context.

If you drop an f-bomb once, you can usually get away with a PG-13.

Once you drop f-bombs multiple times or use in a more explicit manner, such as the Die Hard catch phrase, "Yippe Ki Yay, Mother ****er!"; you'll get slapped with an R rating.

As far as I know, there are only a few instances where the f-bomb was let through a PG film. The two I can think of were Spaceballs and Beetlejuice.

fitprod

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by fitprod

The two I can think of were Spaceballs and Beetlejuice.

fitprod

It's amazing how times have changed since the early 90's and even the 80's as far as films are concerned and the ratings. Even then there were PG-13 ratings, now in today's times I bet both of those films probably would receive a PG-13 rating. Plus you look at some movies that came out in the 80's and early 90's and wonder if rated now, would they get an R-rating. There were movies which showed a woman topless or an ass or two that still got a PG rating.

[owa]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

There were movies which showed a woman topless or an ass or two that still got a PG rating.

The school I was attending at the time, took us to see Romeo and Juliet (1968 version) and even though it was rated G, Juliet was topless in it during one scene. That ended up causing some at the school to get in hot-water. I don't remember what grade I was in at the time but it would have been between 3rd grade and 8th grade. Actually though, I'm now not sure it was rated-G when we saw it. Apparently in 1973, it was re-rated to be PG so it's more likely that when I saw it, it had been re-rated PG. For some reason I was thinking it was G. Oh well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063518/

Heh, just noticed the below trivia fact from that site as well. Makes me wonder if that would even be legal these days. Apparently, she wasn't even 18 and I thought you had to be 18 to do nudity, but I could be mistaken on that.

Olivia Hussey wasn't legally allowed to attend the London premier of the movie as it contained nudity and she was under 18.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by owa

The school I was attending at the time, took us to see Romeo and Juliet (1968 version) and even though it was rated G, Juliet was topless in it during one scene. That ended up causing some at the school to get in hot-water. I don't remember what grade I was in at the time but it would have been between 3rd grade and 8th grade. Actually though, I'm now not sure it was rated-G when we saw it. Apparently in 1973, it was re-rated to be PG so it's more likely that when I saw it, it had been re-rated PG. For some reason I was thinking it was G. Oh well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063518/

Heh, just noticed the below trivia fact from that site as well. Makes me wonder if that would even be legal these days. Apparently, she wasn't even 18 and I thought you had to be 18 to do nudity, but I could be mistaken on that.

Wow. I'd completely forgotten about that---we were shown the Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet in 6th grade. There was some juvenile snickering about the breast exposure, but remarkably little considering the age of the audience. Now I'm surprised I can't recall any sort of parental brouhaha about it...maybe a consent form was involved. Still the best R&J on film so far, in my opinion. Now I have a hankering to start a "Most Wanted Shakespeare" thread...

[Ferris]

Originally Posted by shadblz

a huge possibility. you see hollywood is losing money as we are speaking. which is why you see many remakes and sequels/prequels movies being released. they try to make as much money as possible. PG 13 sounds more reasonable to bring in the money.

By "Hollywood" do you mean the studios, actors, writers, etc?. If the studios are losing money, it's a management issue. These films rake in a ridiculous amount of money both in the theatre, as well as on video. I guess all of that money is invested in flops (why does 'Bridge to Terabithia come to mind).

Originally Posted by UKTruBlu

at least you guys have only got PG-13 and R as age restricted certificates.
the UK film classification board (BBFC) technically has 4:
12a - similar to PG-13
15 - need to be 15 or older.
18 - need to be 18 or older
18R - Porn
from what i undrstand you can still see an 'R' rated in the cimema under the age of 17 if you are accompnied by an adult is this still true?

You don't get that in the UK.

In the US, you are correct. If a film is Rated "R" anyone under 17 must be accompanied by an adult. Bear in mind, I have personally never seen that enforced unless the kid is under 13 or so.... but that's just what I've seen.

Originally Posted by owa

The school I was attending at the time, took us to see Romeo and Juliet (1968 version) and even though it was rated G, Juliet was topless in it during one scene. That ended up causing some at the school to get in hot-water. I don't remember what grade I was in at the time but it would have been between 3rd grade and 8th grade. Actually though, I'm now not sure it was rated-G when we saw it. Apparently in 1973, it was re-rated to be PG so it's more likely that when I saw it, it had been re-rated PG. For some reason I was thinking it was G. Oh well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063518/

Heh, just noticed the below trivia fact from that site as well. Makes me wonder if that would even be legal these days. Apparently, she wasn't even 18 and I thought you had to be 18 to do nudity, but I could be mistaken on that.

You can do nudity under the age of 18 with written consent from your parents (probably legal papers). Jessica Biel did it when she was 17, in Gear magazine. I remember people wuestioning her dad about it.

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by FriedEggs

Jessica Biel did it when she was 17, in Gear magazine. I remember people wuestioning her dad about it.

Say what?!? Jessica Biel posed nude. Where the hell have I been?

[Lord_Stewie]

[QUOTE=FriedEggs;724591]By "Hollywood" do you mean the studios, actors, writers, etc?. If the studios are losing money, it's a management issue. These films rake in a ridiculous amount of money both in the theatre, as well as on video. I guess all of that money is invested in flops (why does 'Bridge to Terabithia come to mind).


Its funny the Terms Studios, actors, writers and whatever comes along is what Hollywood is. so the answer would be yes. You can review the sales and statistics and see how much Hollywood is losing the money.

Which brings to mind, Why do you think the summer of 2007 was heavily packed with blockbusters. following it christmas or holiday season of 2007 was a flop.

They tried to bring in the money. so yes that would be the answer.

[owa]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Wow. I'd completely forgotten about that---we were shown the Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet in 6th grade. There was some juvenile snickering about the breast exposure, but remarkably little considering the age of the audience. Now I'm surprised I can't recall any sort of parental brouhaha about it...maybe a consent form was involved. Still the best R&J on film so far, in my opinion. Now I have a hankering to start a "Most Wanted Shakespeare" thread...

Heh, it was probably because I was attending a private school at the time and it was fairly strict about such things. I don't even remember now if it became an issue because of students mentioning it to their parents or if it was because of some of the teachers with us being surprised by it (some apparently hadn't seen it yet). It probably wouldn't have taken much of either one to set things in motion though.

Originally Posted by FriedEggs

You can do nudity under the age of 18 with written consent from your parents (probably legal papers). Jessica Biel did it when she was 17, in Gear magazine. I remember people wuestioning her dad about it.

Thanks for the info on the legality of it all. I guess it goes along the same line as allowing a minor to attend an R rated movie with an adult but it's still somewhat surprising.

[Pelican170]

Ill be honest here. I like seeing that R rating and I do like the swearing. The reason for this is that I believe it makes the movie more believable or realistic. For example, in the newest Die Hard, in most of those situations (gunfights, explosions, car crashes...), i would think most people would be using swear words in those situations.... I know i would be at least...