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

[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?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

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

same reaction I had. where can I get ahold of those pics

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

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

It was in Gear magazine yeaaars ago. Wasn't really totally nude, she "tastefully" covered herself in most of the shots. It was right when she was leaving 7th Heaven to attempt to break the "goody goody two shoes" image that 7th Heaven imposed on her. It worked! Of course I prefered her in the movie London myself, she was smoking in that!

[Ferris]

Originally Posted by shadblz

speaking of Machines able to transform. Would you find Voltron appealing if a studio decides to make a live action movie.

I know I would! I loved that show!

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by caliminius

Well, I didn't really find the live action Transformers all that appealing. When I initially saw it in the theater, I thought it was okay. But since then my opinion of the movie have gone down. Bumblebee peeing on a guy; what stupid, juvenile nonsense. The stereotypical obnoxious black guy afraid of "The Man." The hot blonde computer expert. The obnoxious, incompetent government agent. It's been a while since I've seen an episode of the original show, but I don't remember the characters or plots being as stupid as this movie. It's the same reaction I had to the Batman movies until Batman Begins: Why did the Batman cartoon airing on the WB at the time have more intelligent plots than the movies?

I'm not sure how Voltron would fare as a live action movie. The show itself was rather cheesy a lot of the time, which isn't surprising to me since it wasn't very far removed from its anime roots. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of anime either since it is generally filled with stock characters and the generally derogatory depictions of women.

I think Robotech (NOT the original Macross or the other two series used to create it) would potentially make a good live action movie, or perhaps TV series. The show was highly Americanized (which I consider a good thing) so much of the typical anime nonsense has been toned down or removed.

I see your point. I do agree with Robotech. Yes it would be appealing. Yet my personal opinion would be hardcore to see a Voltron live action. or even a Thundercats movie. I mean who wouldn't want to see Shitara in live action.

Originally Posted by FriedEggs

I know I would! I loved that show!

i am with you bro.

[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.

[JUDGEMENT 4400]

So far, 2008 has been the year of 90 minute, PG-13 movies (Cloverfield, Jumper, Vantage Point). SOme of the posts above are true, studios rate some movies PG-13 to appeal to a wider audience, which equals more money.

But I've seen more studios take the tactic of rating a movie PG-13, then have an Unrated DVD release, like Live Free or Die Hard, Hitman, and the upcoming Far Cry movie.

But still, I enjoy movies, no matter what rating.

Edit: The PG-13 rating seriously works for the Bourne Identity movies and for the Transporter movies. I love those movies!

[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...

[broganreynik]

Originally Posted by 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...

yeah, but the whole movie was less believable, i mean come on, that scene at the end with the plane? I love the movie, it was awesome, and I'm with ya I'd rather have it rated R, but I still don't think f bombs would have made it as believable as the first 2.

[DetroitSportsFan]

I rarely go to the theater anymore, so I really don't care about the theatrical ratings.

Just give me the unrated/uncut BD and I'm happy.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by broganreynik

yeah, but the whole movie was less believable, i mean come on, that scene at the end with the plane? I love the movie, it was awesome, and I'm with ya I'd rather have it rated R, but I still don't think f bombs would have made it as believable as the first 2.

Well, i was just giving an example for action movies in general. But I do agree with you totally. The movie is not believable, but why would you make a die hard with less swearing. John Mcclaine swears, hes a rough and tough manly man, and he is supposed to swear! And besides, lets be adults here, swearing is a part of real life, lets not avoid the facts...