70's or not, this rating was INSANE - The Stepford Wives (1975) Discussion

[–] preppy-3 11 years ago

I saw it up a theatre when I was 13 and my sister was with me. She was 12. It didn't disturb us in any way or turn us in psychotic maniacs! And there was no pelvic body hair on the robot. Just a HUGE set of breasts.

reply

[–] whitespirit26 11 years ago

Most people who say films didn't mess them up tend to miss the point. It didn't mess ME up either, but it still may be the scariest film I've ever seen, and I've seen many. Both you and your sis were an appropriate age, thank goodness. And thanks for answering my question, I was a little stunned there for a minute.

reply

[–] preppy-3 11 years ago

Sorry I misunderstood your point. I do agree that real young kids shouldn't see it. I think the ending with the robot with huge breasts and no eyes would freak them out. BTW this would not get a PG today. Probbaly PG-13 or maybe even an R. The ratings board was a lot more leninet about nudity back in the 1970s.

reply

[–] whitespirit26 11 years ago

Oh no need to apologize :) I was basically saying it would disturb young people. Not turn them into psychos, I'd never say that about regular films, but it'd probably bug them severely. It surprises me that after all I've seen, this mis-rated movie could rate as the scariest.

reply

[–] preppy-3 11 years ago

This is scary but I find "Halloween" (the original) and "The Exorcist" scarier. I saw both of those when I was 16 and had nightmares for weeks! "Stepford" creeped me out a lot but didn't give me nightmares.

reply

[–] ronaldt49 11 years ago

And remember that Halloween had little blood.

reply

[–] rockmail 11 years ago

Seriously? The sight of some pubic hair will "mess up" young children? Holy crap, did the Quakers let you off work early? No, not a traumatic experience there, Pilgrim, just nature. Grow up already if it traumatizes YOU!

reply

[–] rockmail 11 years ago

I suppose "pelvic body hair" is technically correct, but it's a REALLY odd term! Just simple "pubic hair" cover the topic (literally) mich simpler and better.

reply

[–] yatzo376 11 years ago

It's practically porn! Hide your children.

reply

[–] CGlMDB 10 years ago

I wasn't around yet when this came out, so it's really fascinating to hear about how it was first received, especially from people who were fairly young at the time. If this came out today, it would barely be PG.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

R would be too strong of a rating in 75' while PG is iffy. Seems like one of those films that falls in the middle

reply

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

The film would likely be PG13 today, same as the hopeless remake. It was R13, when it was released in NZ in the 70's. No one under 13 admitted. This seemed like an appropriate rating at the time. It would likely be M today and was always M in OZ.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

Since the Exorcist was rated R in 1973, though it deserved an X, I don't think this film would deserve an R.

reply

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

THE EXORCIST was very intense and strong for the time and still is. The director's cut was still R18+ in OZ and was reduced to R16 in NZ. 'Stepford Wives', is more about mood and atmosphere, with moderate themes.

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

The U.S needs a moderation of R, like you do. What is ok for a 6 yr old is not a for 16 (regardless if an adult guardian accompanies)

reply

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

What is ok for a 6 yr old is not a for 16 (regardless if an adult guardian accompanies)
_______________

It is all about box office and profit and some theatrical release films in OZ, that get an MA15+, (same stipulation as your 'R', only the age is 15 not 17), should really be R18+. NZ has more ratings at their disposal and while they can tend to be contradictory at times, the R13, R16, R18 and occasional R15 does appear to make more sense and age appropriate, in that it restricts the films to those that rightfully shouldn't be viewing. Home viewing is another issue, but that would come down to responsible parenting. For every 1 responsible parent, I would say there are a myriad of irresponsible ones, being the cynic that I am.

I don't understand the NC17 stigma in the US. This rating replaced the 'X', in the early 90's, so it wouldn't be lumped in with the distinction of porn, yet I believe many states and exhibitors, refuse to screen NC17. The guidelines and contents of US 'R' rated films, is too broad. A soft 'R' film, due to a smattering of language, gets lumped in with hardcore, graphic horror like HOSTEL and SAW, which rightfully should be NC17. Go Figure!

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 10 years ago

Roger Ebert talks at length about the NC-17 rating which he finds stupid.

reply

[–] rascal67 10 years ago

Roger Ebert talks at length about the NC-17 rating which he finds stupid.
_________________

It only appears to be an issue in the US, to restrict a film, from a certain age only. Almost every other country in the world, doesn't have an issue with doing this. That said, a rating in one country, contradicts what the same film may be rated in another and by a few years margin. It's the same damn film, so who is right about what age it should be restricted too? What a conundrum!

reply

[–] jmillerdp 8 years ago

The 1970's was like this. "Jaws" had a guy getting eaten by a shark in a geyser of blood onscreen. The f-word is thrown around many times in "All the President's Men."

There is some truly freaky stuff here. But, the MPAA did not think it crossed over into R territory.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It did the kids no harm.

I grew up watching Horror films filled with violence and nudity. I'm a well adjusted individual...I think.

reply