I mean, first there was Tourist Trap, which had a huge amount of violence that would have been R in the 80's, then Bewastmaster which had a considerable amount of nudity and sex, and now Sheena whichhas full nudity..... and they all got PG. I mean I enjoy it but how does this happen?
shareI know from some inside sources Tanya was doing "favors" for the MPAA at the time
shareNO the MPAA smokes pot while rating Spielberg films. Saving Private Ryan was an NC-17 if ever there was one (the opening sequence alone made the entire Friday The 13th series look tame). Jaws should have been R (remember the underwater shot up into that woman's privates at the very begining?), Jurassic park was more violent then Wes Craven's Scream and The Lost World was every bit as vicious as House of 1000 Corpses. Spielberg has gotten away with murder (literally) his entire career. And he's over-rated too.
I own Tourist Trap on DVD, and its TV friendly as all get out! I also own Sheena on DVD as well and IT DOES NOT HAVE FULL NUDITY!!! Roberts' breasts are shown at an angle from a distance! Black women's breasts are glimpsed during the opening sequence. Both sequences are less gratuitous then anything on The Discovery Channel or National Geographic.
You know, I really wish people would make sure they knew what they were talking about before they posted an opinion.
Tourist Trap was made in 79. That was damn graphic for PG. Also, if there was a PG flick that needed an R, it was GRIZZLY.
shareI remember seeing Beastmaster back in the early 80s when I was a teenager. My buddy and I thought we were in heaven seeing naked Tanya, and yet a bit surprised at the PG rating back then. And along comes Sheena, which had even more nudity (I saw it at the drive-in and I'm pretty sure it was full frontal. Maybe the DVD's widescreen matting may have cropped out the lower half of Tanya's body). Again I was a bit surprised at the PG rating, but shrugged and thought "oh well, guess the times they are-a-changing."
Fast forward 23 years later, and it seems that now even the slightest glimpse of a bare breast in a movie will warrant an R rating. And it seems acceptable to show graphic violence on TV, but no nudity. Recently AMC showed Conan The Barbarian uncut as a special 25th Anniversary presentation. Oh yes, it was uncut alright, showing all the beheadings, throat slashings and stabbings, with every drop of blood. However, all nudity was digitally blurred! Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude. I love horror and action movies, so violence doesn't bother me. But I am a little confused on this double standard that American television seems to go by.
Some of your complaints are true, but the idea that Jurassic Park is even remotely as violent as Scream is pure nonsense. Maybe you haven't watched it recently, but there are two disembowlings (severely cut down, but still visible), a neck being cut open and slid down the front of a van, several shots (including a headshot, I believe), and, most notably, two characters repeatedly stabbing one another, all with torrents of blood (there's also at least a couple of less-bloody deaths, which still counts as additional violence). Sure, Jurassic Park has the guy on the toilet and a disembodied arm, and maybe it should have qualified as an R (debatable), but it's certainly not even half as violent as Scream.
"Even though I'm no more than a monster, don't I have the right to live?"
"You know, I really wish people would make sure they knew what they were talking about before they posted an opinion."
That goes double for you, chum. Sheena very much shows full nudity, unless you only count explicit full frontal as "full nudity". Her breasts AND bush are visible through the waterfall in the earlier part of the movie, and at around 54:20 she bathes fully nude in front of Ted Wass for over a minute and a half in which you see her breasts, butt, and if you have the full screen version you can even see bush, and NONE of this is angled or "far off in the distance". You might want either to have your eyes checked or make sure the version you have isn't edited for content.
Was watching it today, got mine from dvd but you get a full view in the begining of a natives breasts (although they seem not to natural) - and you have sheena in the waterfall perky nipples full chest shot- and alittle bush peek..
not done with the movie yet- but its deff not PG material by then or todays standards--but remeber Dragonslayer had underwater nudity- i belive top and bottom and its Pg? pg13?
Why are people always complaining about the rating system from the past when things were different back then? I mean see what Politically Correctness has created?
I cannot stand it! I mean the standards were different from the 70's to mid 80's and people are complaining about a movie that took place 23 years ago. Take it as it is and stop your whining on what it is rated. Can't people not enjoy the movie for what it is worth and how creative the director was? I know I sure can appreciate it and love the MPAA back then.
They make too many movies now suited for PG-13 audiences to watch. I do not nearly see as many R rated movies like I did 10, 15, or 20 years ago and the way they make movies now are completely different compared to the past as well.
Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! http://deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/
[deleted]
Yes I believe the MPAA is smoking pot. Today, not in the 80's. In fact it needs to be overhauled or disbanded or something. The rating system these days is totally screwed up. I blame Political Correctness and this damnable PG-13 rating most movies have today.
What bothers me is that people get all in an uproar if you see nudity in a movie and yet the amount of violence (often graphic) seems to "slip by" the raters. I wonder about society today. Violence seems to be acceptable but nudity is a no-no. Take a look at network TV programs. Some of them would have never aired 30 years ago. Revolution, The Following, Criminal Minds, Hannibal etc. are examples of shows that depict a lot of violence (some of it pretty graphic) and yet it's allowed. Oh they state "viewer discretion is advised" and TV-MA but the fact that they show such violent content in the first place is disturbing. Have we become so desensitized to violence that shows like that are okay?
PG back then sure is different from the PG now. This movie also contains some violence but nobody seems to mention that just Tanya Roberts in the buff. The movie Splash with Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah was PG and you see her totally nude from the rear as well as a few quick glimpses of her breasts.
Times sure have changed. I bet if Sheena was remade they would remove all the nudity and enhance the violence.
Long live the 70's!
I came to this board when I saw this movie on a list of PG films... PG!!!! No way in hell Sheena should be PG with the amount of nudity shown. Sheena deserves an R rating. Not saying I agree with the amount of violence allowed in PG-13 movies, but geez...