PG-13 Movies Not So PG-13 Anymore.

[Ruby Link]

Is it just me, or is it that almost every PG-13 movie nowadays has the word f*** in it? Only once will this word appear but its enough to shock you. I was when I heard it, and basicaly every movie since then has had it. But, like I said before, it doesn't occur more than once. It seems that ever since the movie Killers, film makers have been putting this word in a lot of the PG-13 movies. I remember when you'd only hear it in R rated movies. I think it makes the movie a little too "adult". What are your thoughts about this?

BTW: I added more reasons in my posts on this thread so don't forget to read those too.

 

[Xanthus]

I can't really see how a single word uttered once justifies a change in rating. And you use that word in your signature, which could be perceived as hypocritical...

 

[Xinnamin]

It's evolution of society. How many teens these days DON'T know the f word? Or the other common swear words for that matter? It's hardly "adult content" anymore. I can see how some people would find this kind of increased vulgarity exposure startling, but it's completely reasonable. With the types of media coming out nowadays bumping a movie rating up to R just for the f word is pretty extreme.

At any rate. movies and most other media are still required to list why they are rated certain ways, and language is a pretty common reason from what I've seen. It's the parent's responsibility to prevent their children from watching anything the parent does not approve of, and the rating warnings plus online movie reviews make it more than easy for the parent to figure out what they will allow the child to watch and hear. Like it or not, the f word and others are fairly mainstream with the teenage population already, so movie makers no longer worry about inserting a few swears here and there.

 

[Ruby Link]

I can't really see how a single word uttered once justifies a change in rating. And you use that word in your signature, which could be perceived as hypocritical...

Oh yeah... Forgot about that, heh heh... But at least mine's censored. And I was talking about the fact that kids see these movies too. For instance, that X-men First Class is about Marvel Superheroes, so of course children would want to see it, but they made Wolverine say: "F*** off."

It's evolution of society. How many teens these days DON'T know the f word? Or the other common swear words for that matter? It's hardly "adult content" anymore. I can see how some people would find this kind of increased vulgarity exposure startling, but it's completely reasonable. With the types of media coming out nowadays bumping a movie rating up to R just for the f word is pretty extreme.

At any rate. movies and most other media are still required to list why they are rated certain ways, and language is a pretty common reason from what I've seen. It's the parent's responsibility to prevent their children from watching anything the parent does not approve of, and the rating warnings plus online movie reviews make it more than easy for the parent to figure out what they will allow the child to watch and hear. Like it or not, the f word and others are fairly mainstream with the teenage population already, so movie makers no longer worry about inserting a few swears here and there.

How are parents going to know if a movie is going to include the f word? And I never said they needed to bump up the rating, I just said it was "adult" for a PG-13 movie because they never used that word before until recently.

 

[Xinnamin]

How are parents going to know if a movie is going to include the f word? And I never said they needed to bump up the rating, I just said it was "adult" for a PG-13 movie because they never used that word before until recently.

Like I said, movies list what they are rated for, like violence, drugs, etc, or in this case, language. Movie review sites like IMDb then go into detail about parent advisories, including how many times swear words are used. And I disagree that swears make a movie more "adult", especially if only used a few times, because again, a lot of kids these days get exposed to such words from even before their teen years.

 

[Ruby Link]

Like I said, movies list what they are rated for, like violence, drugs, etc, or in this case, language. Movie review sites like IMDb then go into detail about parent advisories, including how many times swear words are used. And I disagree that swears make a movie more "adult", especially if only used a few times, because again, a lot of kids these days get exposed to such words from even before their teen years.

Okay, maybe I should've have used more examples because swearing isn't all that bad but, I'm just worried that they'll start slipping in words like the really big swears (you know, like the one that starts with a c and ends with a t). Also, if you watch R rated films that contain a large amount of swearing you probably wouldn't expect that type of dialog in something rated PG-13. And fyi, there are a large amount of films that are rated R because of swearing, nothing else. So, in the eyes of a professional, swearing does make movies more adult.

Here are some other reasons: The movie Limitless is a good example. It involves a lot of swearing, contains three scenes of sex, is considerably violent, and drug deals are made constantly through out the film. Even if some site tells you whats in a movie, that is definetly not PG-13 material. What do you have to say to that?

 

[Hanyou]

I was always a bit surprised that Return of the King managed to not get an R rating. Minority Report was another one--it was probably the most cringe-worthy, disgusting movie I've ever seen, and I've seen lots of R movies, yet somehow it managed to score a PG-13.

But ratings are inconsistent at best. It's hard to say what parameters will land what rating. I fully expect parents to screen movies, or at least do the research, before allowing their kids to watch them. There are even some G movies that very young kids should not be watching (The Princess Bride is an example of one).

Ratings are unreliable, but in the age of the internet parents have no excuse to be surprised at content in films. Resources for learning about what's in movies, video games, and books are limitless, and they make the job of a parent easier, which is a good thing. Personally, I don't think PG-13 films have gotten any more violent or sexual than they always were, but either way, parents shouldn't overrely on ratings alone.

 

[Jimmy]

Aw man I really loved Minority Report. I can kind of see why that might get an R rating, but really, Return of the King? As far as I recall there is no blood whatsoever in Return of the King, and I know the graphic depiction of blood has a lot to do with the final decision on a rating. For example, if someone gets impaled with a spear and no blood comes out it's considered more child-friendly then if they get speared and blood is sprayed out from the wound.

As the Hanman said, ratings are all over the board. There is a film called Life of Brian which sparked a lot of religious controversy. I know in Britain it's a 15 (your equivalent of an R rated title) and there's only really swearing and one scene of full frontal male nudity. But it's all in the spirit of humour, and I think the tone of a film should be taken into consideration with ratings.

What a parent shows their kid is really up to them, and the ratings are only really there as guidelines. I'd imagine most 12/13 year olds know all the swearwords in the book these days - I certainly did and I don't view myself as exceptional in that circumstance. I also think people are overzealous as regards showing sex scenes to kids, and we'd be a healthier society if children understood what sex was from a younger age.

As for violence, really graphic scenes shouldn't be shown to kids, but softer stuff (like Lord of the Rings) is fine really.

 

[Ruby Link]

Aw man I really loved Minority Report. I can kind of see why that might get an R rating, but really, Return of the King? As far as I recall there is no blood whatsoever in Return of the King, and I know the graphic depiction of blood has a lot to do with the final decision on a rating. For example, if someone gets impaled with a spear and no blood comes out it's considered more child-friendly then if they get speared and blood is sprayed out from the wound.

As the Hanman said, ratings are all over the board. There is a film called Life of Brian which sparked a lot of religious controversy. I know in Britain it's a 15 (your equivalent of an R rated title) and there's only really swearing and one scene of full frontal male nudity. But it's all in the spirit of humour, and I think the tone of a film should be taken into consideration with ratings.

What a parent shows their kid is really up to them, and the ratings are only really there as guidelines. I'd imagine most 12/13 year olds know all the swearwords in the book these days - I certainly did and I don't view myself as exceptional in that circumstance. I also think people are overzealous as regards showing sex scenes to kids, and we'd be a healthier society if children understood what sex was from a younger age.

As for violence, really graphic scenes shouldn't be shown to kids, but softer stuff (like Lord of the Rings) is fine really.

I agree that kids should be taught about sex early, but not by a movie. I think parents should teach their kids around the beginning of their teen years. I had that awkward car ride when I was 11 . And I think its already gotten to the point were children could watch something like (insert extremely violent scene here) and not even flinch because of how their parents let them see movies that aren't appropriate for their age. We live in an extremely graffic age and children are being exposed to these violent scenes too early.

 

[arkvoodle]

My basic response is, if you don't like it, don't go to see it. If you don't want to see the f word in games, don't play them. If you don't want to see it in movies, don't see those either. Society, as Xinn said, has changed. Swears aren't abominations anymore, and are a part of everyday speech.

It's basically the same thing as 100 years ago, when females showing their ankles was considered scandalous.

Things change, and kids arent as sheltered anymore.

I agree that kids should be taught about sex early, but not by a movie. I think parents should teach their kids around the beginning of their teen years. I had that awkward car ride when I was 11

Normally, kids learn from their friends or from their older peers. But I believe that schools should teach kids about sex and contraception early. Around the age of 11 or 12 should do. Parents sometimes don't do the job properly, and will confuse their children by using odd terms and through disguising things. I don't see why the words ***** and ****** are so stigmatized in society. It's natural. Just like "eyes", "nose" and "ears".

In other words, if you don't like something, don't do/look/listen to it. Parents need to learn to be less sensitive and let their kids do things and hear things instead of sheltering and protecting them from everything, taking away the vital skills needed for life on their own.

 

[Ruby Link]

My basic response is, if you don't like it, don't go to see it. If you don't want to see the f word in games, don't play them. If you don't want to see it in movies, don't see those either. Society, as Xinn said, has changed. Swears aren't abominations anymore, and are a part of everyday speech.

It's basically the same thing as 100 years ago, when females showing their ankles was considered scandalous.

Things change, and kids arent as sheltered anymore.



Normally, kids learn from their friends or from their older peers. But I believe that schools should teach kids about sex and contraception early. Around the age of 11 or 12 should do. Parents sometimes don't do the job properly, and will confuse their children by using odd terms and through disguising things. I don't see why the words ***** and ****** are so stigmatized in society. It's natural. Just like "eyes", "nose" and "ears".

In other words, if you don't like something, don't do/look/listen to it. Parents need to learn to be less sensitive and let their kids do things and hear things instead of sheltering and protecting them from everything, taking away the vital skills needed for life on their own.

Aw no man, you got it all wrong. I really don't care about any of this, I was just making a thread and this is what came to mind . I actually prefer movies now because they're more my kinda films. The only reason I was shocked was because I hadn't expected them to say f***. I'm used to it now, this thread was really for the genral public as one might say. If you haven't noticed, I actually have a totally different attitude about this because I support it. I just wanted to see what people would say.

 

[Hanyou]

Aw man I really loved Minority Report. I can kind of see why that might get an R rating, but really, Return of the King? As far as I recall there is no blood whatsoever in Return of the King, and I know the graphic depiction of blood has a lot to do with the final decision on a rating. For example, if someone gets impaled with a spear and no blood comes out it's considered more child-friendly then if they get speared and blood is sprayed out from the wound.

The other Lord of the Rings movies are just slightly pushing the boundaries, but you must not remember Return of the King all that well. One soldier gets graphically impaled, Saruman (in the Extended Edition, which is also rated PG-13) has a dramatically graphic death, the heads of dead Gondor soldiers are thrown over the wall, two characters are burned alive, one gets his finger bitten off, and pretty much anything and everything happens to hundreds of orcs. I haven't even named everything. The camera rarely cuts away from the graphic violence. In my opinion, the movie Gladiator is not as graphic.

Saruman's death in particular shows everything. It's true that blood doesn't spray everywhere, but that's actually slightly more realistic and disturbing. Kill Bill, for example, isn't that disturbing at all because the violence is so over the top. That said, Return of the King even seemed to have more blood than a lot of R-rated movies with little else to account for their rating than violence.

Return of the King isn't alone. A lot of older movies are similar. Ben-Hur, I think, is rated PG, but the level of graphic violence in that movie, complete with blood and gore, can even be too much for me sometimes. Seeing the aftermath of a man getting trampled by horses racing at maximum speed is not pleasant, regardless of whether it's fake or not. The Indiana Jones films are violent, if unrealistically so, and some recent Bond films (License to Kill and Casino Royale) have been quite gory.

What a parent shows their kid is really up to them, and the ratings are only really there as guidelines. I'd imagine most 12/13 year olds know all the swearwords in the book these days - I certainly did and I don't view myself as exceptional in that circumstance. I also think people are overzealous as regards showing sex scenes to kids, and we'd be a healthier society if children understood what sex was from a younger age.

I would like my kids to know about it, but I do think showing them sex scenes in films is in bad taste. Fortunately, like I said, parents have resources so they can tailor their childrens' entertainment appropriately. I would have less of a problem with violence, because it's easier to explain the consequences of violence to children. Violence is inherently unpleasant. So something like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, or even Braveheart could be acceptable for young children. On the other hand, something that closely focuses on pain rather than zooming out, like Saw, really shouldn't be shown to children, and the negative effects, physical and psychological, of violence should be made clear (some movies glamorize violence--I'd avoid showing young children Bond films too early, for example, even if many of them are not graphic). It's all about context.

So yeah, to make it clear, I'd sooner show a ten year old Gladiator than a relatively tame Bond film like Dr. No. I know a lot of people might not agree with that, but they can at least agree that what's appropriate for children can't be reduced to letters and numbers.

 

[SinkingBadges]

It should be considered that many movies go through an appeal process before being distributed. Many movies got a PG-13 because of that even though they originally had an R or got an R when they had an NC-17. Many times, it depends on whether the studio or the makers think the rating is commercially viable or not.

Bsically, the filmmaker gets some papers where he/she has to fill some questions about content (the typical, sex, language and violence, how graphic they are...) and they get the rating. However, if they're not happy with it, they can show it to a select group of people, who later decide the rating by voting.

That is inspected more in-depth in the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" by Kirby Dick. It's pretty informative on how the process goes, but it also shows how shady it is. The judgement of the appeal board has been doubted since that documentary came out, and for a good reason, they were anonymous. Things like the ones mentioned above have happened because of that.

It's an interesting watch if you want to know about the flaws in the rating system, which are quite a few.

I'll include in the spoiler tag a link to the documentary's IMDb page where you cand find out more about it.

WARNING: It's a film about innaprpiate content, so you're obviously gonna com across some of it (namely, the content description and the promotional poster).

Spoiler

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

 

[Jimmy]

I would like my kids to know about it, but I do think showing them sex scenes in films is in bad taste. Fortunately, like I said, parents have resources so they can tailor their childrens' entertainment appropriately. I would have less of a problem with violence, because it's easier to explain the consequences of violence to children. Violence is inherently unpleasant. So something like Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, or even Braveheart could be acceptable for young children. On the other hand, something that closely focuses on pain rather than zooming out, like Saw, really shouldn't be shown to children, and the negative effects, physical and psychological, of violence should be made clear (some movies glamorize violence--I'd avoid showing young children Bond films too early, for example, even if many of them are not graphic). It's all about context.

So yeah, to make it clear, I'd sooner show a ten year old Gladiator than a relatively tame Bond film like Dr. No. I know a lot of people might not agree with that, but they can at least agree that what's appropriate for children can't be reduced to letters and numbers.

Specific examples aside, to me you have undermined your argument here. As you said it is context that is important, and whether the film glamorises something or portrays it negatively. Of course some films portray things ambiguously and leave the audience the draw conclusions so that's another category there. I think Return of the King extended must be a lot more bloodthirsty, because I've only seen the original and I don't recall it being that bloody. At any rate a portrayal of thousands of evil goblins being slaughtered is probably a lot better than even one guy being beaten to death in a realistic context.

As for your argument on Bond: the last two films have been quite realistic, largely because of the influence of the Bourne films. The Sean Connery Bond films are pretty caricaturish, and their lack of realism means the audience can be easily detached. I'd say they were far safer for kids than Gladiator, but now we're just haggling over films.

 

[Hanyou]

Specific examples aside, to me you have undermined your argument here. As you said it is context that is important, and whether the film glamorises something or portrays it negatively. Of course some films portray things ambiguously and leave the audience the draw conclusions so that's another category there. I think Return of the King extended must be a lot more bloodthirsty, because I've only seen the original and I don't recall it being that bloody. At any rate a portrayal of thousands of evil goblins being slaughtered is probably a lot better than even one guy being beaten to death in a realistic context.

As for your argument on Bond: the last two films have been quite realistic, largely because of the influence of the Bourne films. The Sean Connery Bond films are pretty caricaturish, and their lack of realism means the audience can be easily detached. I'd say they were far safer for kids than Gladiator, but now we're just haggling over films.

I even cited recent Bond films as being graphic in an earlier post (Casino Royale and License to Kill, specifically; I haven't seen Quantum of Solace). I for one found License to Kill more visually unsettling than any other Bond film I've seen, but I've only seen a little more than half. It's also one of my favorite Bond films, so make of that what you will.

I think my issue is with glamorizing violence--I just don't believe children should be conditioned to that kind of thing, at least not in live-action films, from a very young age. What's glamorizing it to one person is probably harmless to another, but I think a key difference between, say, Gladiator and Dr. No is that Gladiator actually shows the consequences of violence, especially towards innocents. It then goes on to selectively glamorize violence against the "bad people." In Bond, pretty much everyone else is the "bad guy," and the fun part is watching Bond beat up everyone around him. It's freaking cartoon violence, but I'd still rather not introduce that too early. My parents usually allowed me to watch movies which brought up questions, and I graduated from that when I demonstrated that I could distinguish between different types of violence. As a consequence, I saw R movies (albeit ones where my parents censored some moments) from a very young age and was just fine with them. I'd do the same, but understand very well if other parents would not. There's no requirement, and there shouldn't be...so once again, we come back to the point that ratings can only tell us so much.

I have no real problem with the Lord of the Rings films or even showing them to young children, but RotK is pretty damn graphic for a PG-13 film. That's all my point was. I suppose the theatrical version was less graphic. I haven't seen it. If we're basing ratings on violence, I personally think Return of the King qualifies for an R rating; that does not mean it's unacceptable for children. Furthermore, many of its most violent moments are the ones that stuck closely to the book, so there certainly isn't anything wrong with the violence.