It is very frequently that i watch films of an 18, 15 or 12 certificate and think. What the hell!?
I think the mximum a film certificate should be is 15, with the exception of films with very heavy rape scenes, which i consider the only really disturbing thing in films.
A film should never be able to be classed 18 because of strong sexual content, as people are allowed to have sex themselves at 16.
And a film should never be able to be classed 18 because of violence, because at the age of 16, people ae even allowed to join the army and KILL people themselves.
Apologies to anyone from a country where these laws are incorrect, or there are different film certification rules, but here in the U.K, i'm getting a bit irritated by the current state of affairs.
Technically, in the U.S., anybody can watch a movie up to the R-rating with no supervision, and they can watch an R-rated with a parent or adult guardian. The only ones the kids can't watch in the theatre are the NC-17. I admit I find it hard to swallow that somebody else can tell me that my kid CANNOT watch a certain film with me, but I rarely go out to the movies anymore anyway because it's such a hassle to try to schedule everybody in the family to get together for anything other than some "event" film.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
NC-17 is absolutely unworkable. I agree with Roger Ebert on his stance for a rating in between that of X and R for "Adults Only". Whatever the MPAA's rubric for determining what I should watch is---I think it is quite faulty. The X Rated "Requiem for A Dream" should be watched by everyone my age...everywhere....period.
G - General exhibition PG - Parental guidance recommended M15+ - Recommended for mature audiences MA15+ - May only be viewed by people under 15 years when supervised by a parent or guardian R18+ - Restricted to people over 18 years.
It's hard to say how it compares against the Yank classification system. Only about 1/3 (just guessing here) of the movies rated 'R' in America get the 'R' rating here.
Then again, there's no '18+' in America (although NC-17 is pretty close), and in instances where a movie is rated 'R' in both Australia and America (although they're obviously not quite the same rating), someone under 18 would have much easier time seeing it if they lived in America.
And yes, there probably is a reason why movies are restricted to adult viewing.
Posts: 688 | Location: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: 01 January 2005
"Requiem for A Dream" is X rated? Wow, I thought it was just unrated... thats pretty harsh condidering it didn't have too much explicit in it. Especially not comparable to "Kids" or "Bully."
Originally posted by Nickel-Z: "Requiem for A Dream" is X rated? Wow, I thought it was just unrated... thats pretty harsh condidering it didn't have too much explicit in it. Especially not comparable to "Kids" or "Bully."
Oh God yes. I read the screenplay to "Kids" and thought it was revolting although well-done. This is slightly off topic but is "Bully" as extreme as "Kids" was or is it comparavle to "Requiem"?
They really need a category in between "PG-13" and "R." Often I see movies ("Constantine" for instance) and wonder if it really deserved an "R" rating.
Posts: 3689 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
Its absurd that they actually believe pg13 movies should be only for ages 13 and higher for example. Pretty much every child from age 8 to 12 sees pg13 movies regularly.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
Well, Elijah, nobody says kids of any age can't walk into a PG-13 movie. It's just meant as an aid for parental guidance, according to MPAA Czar Jack Valenti, which means the existence of NC-17 is a crock since that's not meant as guidance, that's meant as you SHALL NOT take your kids, we're telling you that you CAN'T!
Anyway, does everyone recall that there was no PG-13 rating in 1984, but that summer Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom with its heart-ripping and flesh-frying scene, and Gremlins with its microwave-exploding gremlin, forced the MPAA to insert a rating in between PG and R? I guess Spielberg (director of Doom and executive producer of Gremlins) started that craze. Of course, it carries no legal weight and the aforementioned films are STILL rated PG!
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
I understand that it isnt saying that children under 13 shouldnt see pg13 movies. But is is saying that the movie will probably be inappropriate for children under 13. Which I think is quite stupid, because many children experience real life tragedies or curse ect. before the age of 13 and they arent allowed to watch a movie because it has cursing.
Posts: 635 | Location: California | Registered: 24 August 2004
E.M.: You should work on the presentation of your argument. Because you seem to contradict yourself an awful lot.
Looking at the first and last line of your post, for instance.
quote:
I understand that it isnt saying that children under 13 shouldnt see pg13 movies...before the age of 13 and they arent allowed to watch a movie because it has cursing.
You apparently knew that PG-13 wasn't a definite restriction when you started your post, but... forgot it halfway through, or something. Either that, or you write backwards.
Posts: 688 | Location: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: 01 January 2005
I am not sure how relevant this is here but it could spark something. This was in today's USA Today on the income of 2004 movies in the box office.
quote:
Last year, PG-rated films took in $2.3 billion in U.S. ticket sales, according to the National Association of Theatre Owners. R-rated movies, which require that anyone younger than 17 be accompanied by an adult, accounted for $2.1 billion.
PG-13-rated films remain the king of the industry, accounting for $4.4 billion last year, according to theater owners.
The figures, released Tuesday during the annual state-of-the-industry address at the ShoWest convention of theater owners, testify to the growing strength of family filmgoers, says the owners' association president, John Fithian.
"Diversity is great, but family films sell better than R-rated films," Fithian says. "Sometimes it seems like Hollywood overlooks the middle of the country, which wants movies that everyone can enjoy...
In 2004, five of the 10 top-grossing films were rated PG, including the year's biggest film, Shrek 2, which took in $441.2 million. But only four R-rated movies cracked last year's top 25. The biggest was The Passion of the Christ, which took in $370.3 million.
Doesn't it seem like the creators of PG-13 movies usually only do so to increase profit? If there was a rating just above it they could do what they want, or in many cases need, to do to make the movie good AND not have to worry about losing out on all of the kids watching movies.
A large discrepency in this is that someone under the age of 17 cannot go see an "R" rated movie in theaters by themselves, but can go to a retailer and buy an R rated film any time.
Posts: 3689 | Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha | Registered: 18 October 2004
Metacritic Forums 
