alligatorsin ahelicopter

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, 19 July 2006

Ratings

Posted on 11:24 by pollard
So the Motion Picture Association of America will now e-mail you the ratings of new movies every week, so that you know what to steer your kids (or yourself) toward or away from.

The problem, of course, is that actual ratings have become nearly pointless. Because unless it's a kids movie or a violent action movie/horror movie, pretty much every movie is rated PG-13, no matter what the wide range of audiences it might actually appear to have.

I like the whole idea of ratings, in theory. I think it's important to know what is in a movie, and the little descriptive boxes that they have under them help immensely.

But let's face it. The studios know that PG-13 is going to mean their maximum audience, so they are skewing everything toward it. So movies that should be R are now softer, and movies that should be PG are now harder.

I'm not sure who is really winning in that scenario.

Don't believe me? Let's look at what is in theaters now (or opening on Friday), and what the little box on the ad warns parents about.

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST should logically be PG, because it's based on a Disney ride, it's being marketed to kids, and because there's really no reason that it needs the gory moments that are in the film now, which just feel awkward. But sure enough, the ad warns "Intense Sequences of Adventure Violence, Including Frightening Images". Adventure violence? Sounds like someone's really bad defense at an assault trial. But anyway, the movie is rated PG-13.

SUPERMAN RETURNS. Another movie that would logically be PG, particularly since again, it is being marketed to kids, and Superman is so goody-goody he probably wouldn't go see a PG-13 movie himself. But thanks to "Some Intense Action Violence" (it's nice that they can break the violence down for us), it too is PG-13.

THE BREAK-UP is about as grown-up as a movie gets; do 12-year olds really want to see this? Do 16-year-olds? The ad warns "Sexual Content, Some Nudity and Language". Films like this should be R; might as well actually make a grown-up movie for grown-ups. Nope. Somehow, despite the sex and the nudity, it's PG-13.

YOU, ME AND DUPREE. "Sexual Content, Brief Nudity, Crude Humor, Language and a Drug Reference". Now we're talking. R, right? Nope. PG-13.

CLICK. "Language, Crude and Sex-Related Humor and Some Drug References". Still PG-13.

LADY IN THE WATER. Despite it being sold on TV as a horror movie, and the ad warning of "Some Frightening Sequences" (that's it? Just Some?) it is PG-13. Truly scary horror movies are not rated PG-13; it's usually the first tip-off that it's not really that kind of movie. ("The Sixth Sense" -- and all of Shyamalan's other movies -- were also PG-13, as is "The Others", though if you make a good supernatural thriller, you can pull off the rating).

MY SUPER EX-GIRLFRIEND. "Sexual Content, Crude Humor, Language and Brief Nudity". I guess throwing a shark through the side of a building doesn't even get a mention. PG-13.

THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA. "Some Sensuality". Whatever that means. Apparently enough to get it a PG-13.

SCOOP. The new Woody Allen movie, opening Friday. It has Scarlett Johansson it in, which should be enough to get an R on its own, and sure enough it has "Some Sexual Content". But, still, PG-13.

LITTLE MAN. "Crude and Sexual Humor Throughout, Language and Brief Drug References". Finally, a movie so dedicated to the funny that it can have "crude and sexual humor throughout"... But WTF? It can't be that funny, because it's still only PG-13.

THE DA VINCI CODE. "Disturbing Images, Violence, Some Nudity, Thematic Material, Brief Drug References and Sexual Content". All of that, and yes, still PG-13.

A PRAIRIE HOME COMPANION. I know, you thought it was G. But it has "Risque Humor". PG-13.

THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS 3: TOKYO DRIFT. "Reckless and Illegal Behavior Involving Teens, Violence, Language, and Sexual Content". PG-13.

See a trend here?

And clearly, though PG-13 was meant to bridge the gap between PG and R, obviously it is really just making movies that previously would have been rated R seem more family-friendly, or enabling filmmakers to goose the violence and crudity in PG movies to shoot it up to PG-13.

There are some non PG-13 movies. Miami Vice is R. A Scanner Darkly is R. Clerks II is R, thank God. Some movies just should be R, otherwise what's the point of making them?

Monster House is PG (despite "Scary Images and Sequences, Thematic Elements, Some Crude Humor and Brief Language"). Nacho Libre is PG (despite "Some Rough Action, Crude Humor Including Dialogue"). The Lake House is PG, despite the potential damage to children of seeing Keanu Reeves try to act.

And Cars is rated G, bless its heart.

Somehow, the non-PG-13 ratings feel more honest than the fake-middle-ground ones.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Scott the Writer
    So right now, kismet is teasing me. You have to understand something about me. I'm a rather fast writer, when I have the time. But I nev...
  • Book Eating
    Though I rarely drag my ass out to go to stuff, Saturday night I'm going to Royce Hall at UCLA, for "Revenge of the Book Eaters...
  • Film Question --
    I'm looking for examples of movies in which the main character, who we assume to be the good guy all along, is revealed in the end to ac...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (1)
    • ►  April (1)
  • ►  2012 (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2011 (6)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2009 (70)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2008 (117)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (9)
    • ►  September (8)
    • ►  August (8)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (9)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (15)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ►  2007 (162)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (14)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (14)
    • ►  July (16)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ►  May (12)
    • ►  April (14)
    • ►  March (12)
    • ►  February (12)
    • ►  January (17)
  • ▼  2006 (106)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ▼  July (18)
      • When Bad DVDs Happen To Good People
      • Critics
      • But I Really Don't Want To Direct
      • The MPAA Stumbles Again....
      • Honesty
      • So I Need a Name...
      • "Lady in the Water" Has Problems (No Spoilers)
      • Memorable Scenes in Forgettable Movies
      • Ratings
      • Discussion: How Do We Serve Older Actresses -- and...
      • Movie Characters That Aren't As Original As You Th...
      • Dissecting Pirates
      • Emptying My Mailbag
      • The Death of Subtlety
      • It's Raining Pirates
      • Marketing "Lady In The Water"
      • Update On My Health...
      • Why Superman Didn't Fly For Me
    • ►  June (7)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

pollard
View my complete profile