After seeing the rating of PG-13 I've given up hope for this film. I was dubious before but with a guarantee of no violence, I see no point.
It looks like a really crappy Underworld ripoff minus the awesome gore...wtf did they make this kinda movie PG-13 for?
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 7.5/10
Thor: The Dark World: 7.5/10
Gravity: 6.5/10
Same reason Frankenstein's Monster isn't allowed to be ugly and monstrous: appeal to the lowest common denominator in a feeble attempt to maximize profit.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
I can't believe boys (because I refuse to believe adults fall for this) are still falling for the ratings scam.
Are you at all aware that in the US all you need to get an R rating is tits and the f word? Several films that many think are "awesome" or 'edgy" just barely got the R rating because of a few peppered F words and a boob shot. That's all. In the 1980s horror films would deliberately insert breast shots even when they were completely random and unnecessary just to trick the young male audience into thinking it would somehow be darker or scarier because of the R rating. It's a sham.
It takes integrity for a film to not bother with the old con just to get little boys to think it will be "cool" because it's very, very easy to get the R and it's very, very easy to not have the R either. Child's Play would not be R if Chucky hadn't said f--k several times.
The Dark Knights Rises has a reference to "Balls in a vice". The Dark Knight is the best movies ever made, and lost nothing by going for a PG-13 rating, same with Casino Royal.
T2 would absolutely by PG-13 if it wasn't for all the distracting gratuitous swearing. Salvation is in fact a much grittier and darker film in tone, but stupid Internet trolls continue to judge that film based on it's stupid rating.
The MPAA exists only to make parents Lazy.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Yes, exactly.
To be fair, T2 had a scene in which a guy peeled the skin off his arm to reveal a bloody mechanical arm underneath.
Still, when it comes to ratings, I can't really commit to either side of the argument. One on hand, there is some material that would perhaps be represented most effectively with an R rating. On the other hand, anyone who thinks an R rating is a guarantee of quality is probably a moron, and the same goes for people who think a PG-13 rating is a kiss of death.
The thing is, no one's really willing to look at them at a case-by-case basis, and really evaluate the actual material. It's just a bunch of people saying "EVERYTHING MUST BE R" or "PG-13 GETS AWAY WITH EVERYTHING NOW" without any real thought.
There is one thing I cannot stand, however, and that is when a director's vision for a film is chopped up against their wishes merely to lower the rating, whether this occurs after everything's been shot or in the scripting stages. If Guillermo Del Toro says At The Mountains of Madness needs to be an R-rated film, then he better get his wish.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. How would any Underworld movie be if they edited it for a PG-13 rating? It'd be like a Sci-Fi version of Twilight sans teeny bopper romance. This movie just screams "watered down" because they advertised it as coming from the guys who produced(?) Underworld which sticks out in my mind as a movie that needed the violence, and the trailers just looked like Underworld: Demon Edition. Now they're telling me they've removed one of the best parts of this "kind" of movie? Sounds like a pathetic money grab.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 7.5/10
Thor: The Dark World: 7.5/10
Gravity: 6.5/10
How would any Underworld movie be if they edited it for a PG-13 rating? It'd be like a Sci-Fi version of Twilight sans teeny bopper romance.That is a really stupid thing to say. Twilight IS A ROMANCE first and foremost, so "sans the romance' means nothing like Twilight at all.
Eh, I think depending on the execution, Shelley's novel could get an R rating. Let's not forget the scene where the child is strangled to death.
But the key word there is "execution". Some properties are a bit more versatile than others. That's why I think it should be treated on a case-by-case basis.
You could be 100% true to Shelley's text without deviating from what is established and end up with two wildly different films, and I'm sure you could easily get a PG-13 or an R.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
Have you actually watched the content that bumps up the rating? It's very rarely (if ever0 actually the violence that does it, it's usually a boob shot or the f word.
Salvation deserved its crappy rating. It wasnt bery good. Awful directing and script. I mean MCG has the director!?!! Are you kidding me? You had a Terminator movie to f'ing MCG???!!?
share[deleted]
i agree
shareLMAO - in the early 90's T2 was correctly rated at 'R'. Um the arm peeling, the arm through the eye, the shootings and just the violent nature in general. The swearing had nothing to do with it. In Canada we had 14A which is one step up from pg 13 and that was slightly more appropriate than R but T2 was NOT PG-13 (despite the swearing), it just seems that way cuz people are desensitized now.
You Suck...now deal with it.
The swearing had nothing to do with it.
The violence in T2 would still be R-rated today. I mean, that milk carton impaling alone and the fat prison guard eyeball moment.
And the swearing gave the dialog an edge - I like when adults in stressful situations talk like adults in stressful situations.
And Dark Knight would've been BETTER had it been R. Generally people tend to bleed when they get a pencil shoved through their skull.
Anyway, enjoy your PG-13 Robocop.
The violence in T2 would still be R-rated today. I mean, that milk carton impaling alone and the fat prison guard eyeball moment.
TV-14 allows near NC-17 levels of violence. The first two seasons of Walking Dead were TV-14. Hannibal and The Following and 24 would easily be R-rated if they were shown at the cinemas.
All the violence in Pirates is almost bloodless. Miles Dyson getting shot to pieces would never be shown in that graphic detail in a PG-13.
Not quite. As soon as you let that F bomb through the rating bumps up to MA, same with nudity. Just like an R. However MA is a lot more expansive than an R.
CountVladDracula,
PG-13 violence and R-rated violence are not the same. Get a *beep* clue about what you are talking about and then come back.
Prolonged, intense, and bloody/realistic violence ( i.e. EXTREME or REALISTICALLY GRAPHIC violence ) is an automatic R-rating.
Brief, Bloodless/gore-free violence, and violence usually involving fantasy elements ( i.e. Violence that is not prolonged, extreme/intense, or realistic ), is the stuff PG-13 films are made of.
From the MPAA board >>
<<< R — Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian. An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.
PG-13 — Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous. >>>
I have never seen,, in all my years of watching all kinds of movies,.......A single PG-13 movie that can rival the type/depiction of violence seen in an R-rated movie. For all the MPAA gets wrong with their inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and BS,...... They AT LEAST get that part right.
SPIRAL OUT!........KEEP GOING!
I never said that R was without violence however MOST films, and I do mean most, that get an R rating in the US it's because of language and nudity. That's why when all you cut out is the language and nudity the rating drops so drastically on TV broadcasting.
On screen deaths factor in just as much as language and nudity, as does smoking.
TV is far more graphic and permissive than the movies these days.
The Dark Knight is the best movies ever made
T2 would absolutely by PG-13 if it wasn't for all the distracting gratuitous swearing. Salvation is in fact a much grittier and darker film in toneExtra
Remember the scene where Arnold uses his body as a shield to protect John Connor and his back is riddled with bullet holes? That scene right there would have to be removed in a PG-13 movie because of the bleeding bullet wounds.
The one thing that made Hansel and Gretel watchable was the ridiculous gore, it was so brutal it was amusing. I, Frankenstein could have benefited from that horror movie gore appeal, the rating kills it.
In all fairness,TDK DID lose something. Just a tad. It is a great film but when we knew Nolan was on a leash,not allowed to get bloody,certain aspects of it Went abit wrong....like the score and the henchmans reaction to whatever move the Joker did to Gamble to make him die without a sound. Maybe pull out the blade and slice the throat in 0.8 seconds? Nolan should not have compromised.
A few,FEW F-bombs let us know people are real even in Gotham and with so many executions,a Little blood wouldn´t do much harm. THAT film succeeded financially very much due to the PG-13 rating....and if it is one thing that is obvious while I Watch it,is that Nolan is very aware of this.
Sure,then you have classy,magical moments like when the cop says-You can´t park here and the joker jumps up with a shotgun. THat was smooth and subtle and in its editing,almost creepy successful way of adapting to the rating...since we all know the cop lost his head.
Still,it is the 26th best made film but who´s competing....we both know some films like Die hard 4.0 embarass the franchise(Have not seen 5)when there´s no blood and the signature naughty line can´t be overheard due to a gun fired at the exact same time...you know,for the Childrens sake. PG-13 horror very rarely works....maybe they should call it suspense.
Playing within the rules for what a kid can see for maximized profit goes one way artistically and one way morally. Would I want my 13 year-old to Watch a Gangsterthriller like TDK? Probably not. She´d have to wait a year or two.
I think the PG 13 rating hurt Dark Knight immensely. For example, that scene where the Joker had a knife in a guys mouth, I sat in the theatre thinking "ffs, this is gonna be tame won't it" because I knew it was a PG13 and I knew they'd not show anything or keep it suspenseful. It felt like it was "violence" for kiddies, and as predicted the scene barely registered on the "damn, that guys a wacko" scale. I walked away from that movie (which I'll say I found to be very average) regretting how tame everything was, because the Joker just wasn't remotely scary or alarming for me.
shareHow about Xander Berkeley getting stabbed through the mouth and out the back of his head and quivering? Not PG-13 stuff. Nor Sarah's shoulder being sliced in the elevator.
shareI can't believe illiterate people (because I refuse to believe a person who could read would rant completely off topic like that) are still posting on this site.
Are you at all aware that in my post, I was annoyed because of the PG-13 rating connotates a lack of violence, not boobies and explicit fart jokes? Seriously, there's no way you didn't just read the title and start posting. READ THE CONTENT OF POSTS YOU'RE TRYING TO LAMPOON YOU ILLITERATE SWINE.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 7.5/10
Thor: The Dark World: 7.5/10
Gravity: 6.5/10
PG-13 movies have never lacked Violence, EVER. That's why your an idiot.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Pardon me, I guess you don't know how to read in context.
R-rated violence and gore is what I inferred when talking about Underworld. But I guess you can't be expected to understand that.
Actually, I DID specify that I was concerned about the gore in my OP. You don't know how to read. That is why your opinion means nothing to me.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 7.5/10
Thor: The Dark World: 7.5/10
Gravity: 6.5/10
Why would this movie ever be expected to have "Gore".
Underwood is a movie that could have easily gotten only a PG-13 rating.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
There's a guy made of corpse parts. It's not hard to see where an R could come from this.
However, I wouldn't expect a Frankenstein film to have an R-rating either, because it can work at a PG-13 level. I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to expect an R from the makers of the Underworld films, which were R rated, had R-rated violence, and is clearly the primary influence of this film.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
That's why your an idiot
Are you at all aware that in my post, I was annoyed because of the PG-13 rating connotates a lack of violence
What kind of movies do you watch to be able to say no R-rated movies earned their ratings for violence? Many movies that are high in gratuitous violence are indeed also high in language and have some nudity but find me a PG-13 film where people are graphically disemboweled or literally just blown to bits (and I don't mean bombs exploding). Lots of those things happen off screen in PG-13s but never on screen in a PG-13.
I also notice you're trying to upset me by calling me a "little boy" and it really makes you look pathetic, bringing insults into a thread that I posted for legitimate, adult conversation.
Here's a start of movies with completely R-rated violence:
Predators (no nudity whatsoever and Lawrence Fishbourn gets blown to bits)
Watchmen: take out the tits and language, and it's got R-rated violence and content: child molestation/murder, then hacking the guy's head with a butcher knife, a man getting his arms sawed off alive, a man getting burned with hot grease, three people exploding, a pregnant women being shot point blank, and so much more in that specific film I cannot recall at this moment.
Any Saw movie: hardly any nudity (I can only recall five minutes in one movie out of seven where there was nudity) and while heavy in language, there's absolutely no way any of them could be PG-13 save for the first one even if they were scrubbed of language.
Evil Dead, original and remake: Rape by tree and thorn bush. Find me one PG-13 movie with something even on par with that.
Django Unchained: Within the first few minutes of the movie, a man's head is shot off with a shotgun and a horse is shot and killed. Later a slave is fed to the dogs and torn apart.
I could go on but the more I type, the more I think you're either a feminist or lesbian who's got a nasty inferiority complex (hence you capitalizing on the whole "little boy" thing) or a very, very successful troll. I think I'm going to stop responding to you now, I've made my point and I know you're not just going to agree with me because I've provided evidence so, my work here is done.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: 7.5/10
Thor: The Dark World: 7.5/10
Gravity: 6.5/10
PG-13 film where people are graphically disemboweled or literally just blown to bits
Any Saw movie: hardly any nudity (I can only recall five minutes in one movie out of seven where there was nudity) and while heavy in language, there's absolutely no way any of them could be PG-13 save for the first one even if they were scrubbed of language.
It's only the language and boobs that make it R. [...] Every R example you're listing required sex and foul language as the qualifier whether you want to face it or not.
The first Evil Dead would be PG-13 if that rating had existed yet.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
The pencil in the ankle. The tree rape with a shot of a branch shooting into a vagina. The dismemberment. The self mutilation.
Come on. You sound dumber than the stereotypes you're trying to pin on other people.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
Tree rape = Sexual content. Something tells me that rating is mostly for that alone. And yes, in the 90s the rating was bumped to NC-17.
Was it? I meant the remake as well as the original. And the tree rape is not all.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
The original got the NC-17 in it's 90s re-release.
The tree rape is probably the ratings grabber for the remake. Either way I don't exactly call that aspect quality.
The remake is actually more violent than the original.
It's really a case where gore actually contributes though. It lends itself to the extreme, high-octane terror of what's going on.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
The original Texas Chainsaw massacre.
Night of the living dead
Nearly all the Hammer monster movies. They only got R for sex and that was in the seventies.
The Universal Monster movies.
The Fright Night remake (that was horrible but not because of it's rating).
Gremlins and Gremlins 2
Their not R which is the point.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Correction about Texas Chainsaw Masacre. The director HOPED it would have a PG rating. (Talking about the original).
And yes, to Night of the Living dead.
Uncut it only has a TV 14 which is equatable to PG-13.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063350/reference
All the Star Wars films include dismemberments. Most of them are only PG.
As far as leatherface goes, PG-13 didn't exist yet then.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
Nothing in Star Wars is particularly graphic.
No people were dismembered in the Gremlins movies.
The original Night of the Living Dead is unrated. The remake is R.
TCM is R.
Live Free or Die Hard infamously cut down violence (as well as language) to stay PG-13.
This notion that violence doesn't escalate a rating is absurd.
Some films have had to cut violence to avoid being X/NC-17 even (Robocop, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5, Scream).
Unlike your fairy tales of PG-13 Texas Chainsaw Massacre and people being dismembered in Gremlins, you can find actual evidence of this by looking in the FAQs here on imdb.
All responses to this that are not "I'm wrong" are incorrect.
The original Night of the Living Dead is unrated. The remake is R.
TCM is R.
Live Free or Die Hard infamously cut down violence (as well as language) to stay PG-13.
The Conjuring got an R for nothing more than being terrifying. Same with Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. Both films had minimal blood and violence.
Even so, blood and violence most certainly is a factor. Again, if you think the ONLY difference between R and PG-13 is language and nudity, you're not paying much attention.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
It's not the only difference but most R movies of the eighties only got it for the boobs and language and they fully admit to it. It's even done now, shamelessly, because there are young boys who only watch a film if it's R.
There's two kinds of people in this world:
1). People who realize that Robocop wouldn't drop from near X-rated to PG-13 if it removed swearing and a two-second boob shoot
2). Complete idiots
here's two kinds of people in this world:
1). People who realize that Robocop wouldn't drop from near X-rated to PG-13 if it removed swearing and a two-second boob shoot
80s horror films were often made with a lot of onscreen violence and gore which would then be cut out, and they still had R ratings anyway. The original My Bloody Valentine comes to mind but I know there were many more. This was the age of Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, and Rick Baker. Violence was definitely a factor, and to pretend otherwise is crazy.
Oh, and here's another film you probably haven't seen that ruins your argument: The Thing. Also, Cronenberg's The Fly and the remake of The Blob.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
80s horror films were often made with a lot of onscreen violence and gore which would then be cut out, and they still had R ratings anyway. The original My Bloody Valentine comes to mind but I know there were many more. This was the age of Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, and Rick Baker. Violence was definitely a factor, and to pretend otherwise is crazy.
Oh, and here's another film you probably haven't seen that ruins your argument: The Thing. Also, Cronenberg's The Fly and the remake of The Blob.
You just proved my point. It's only the language and boobs that make it R. If you think that improves quality I think you need to see a psychiatrist.
See I don't care whether their On Screen or not. In fact an argument can be made that what you don't see is more disturbing then what you do.
Movies that do get an R only for violence do so by using a ridiculous level of gratuitous Blood and Gore.
"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"
BWHAHAHAHA! How cute and naive!
PG 13 doesn't change to R for violence. No. What bumps it to R is foul language or sexual content.
Okay, I should have said in general. But let's be honest. If they leave in the violence but remove nudity and 'swear words" it can usually stay as a "hard" PG 13. Notice how many R movies air on American TV as TV 14 and yet all they remove is the nudity and swearing.
The Conjuring had no gore, no nudity, and no "bad" language, and it still got an R.
I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.
Same with the first Matrix, they never said "f_ck" ONCE in it and it wasn't that violent or bloody and it still got an R (which still remains one of the biggest unexplained mysteries ever in my book). Hell, even the sequel, Matrix Reloaded, only used the "F" bomb once (which the MPAA board SPECIFICALLY says "PG-13" movies are allowed to use it once and only once), and it still got an R.
shareNearly a year old post for a *beep* movie yet I have to respond:
You're so desperate to cling to your "rating is all about sex and bad words" hypotheses, that you are forced make unfounded claims about 80s horror and that Terminator 2 would be rated PG-13 today. Key scenes such as the foster father's murder, Dyson getting shot up, Arnie ripping off his skin, Sarah charred to the bone during her dream sequence, and Arnie using his body as a shield to protect John (no bleeding bullet wounds allowed in PG-13) would have to be removed. Sarah's language being censored throughout the film would completely sanitize her character and kill the metamorphosis she undergoes from damsel in distress in the original to bad ass bitch in the second. You must be confusing Terminator 2 with Titanic, which probably would have been PG-13 without Kate Winslet's topless scene.
If an R rating is all about sex and language, what of the original Terminator? Take out the sex scene and the swearing, including the iconic "F you A**hole" and what do you have? You still have an R rated movie not appropriate for 13 year old kids. Bill Paxton getting his heart ripped out is the perfect set up for what the Terminator is; not allowed with PG-13.
I'm sure you love Dracula Untold despite its awful reviews, and I admit I will check it out myself because I do like me some Dracula, but a PG-13 Dracula? A Dracula movie where the blood has to be censored? A Dracula movie where the sexuality has to be censored? A Dracula movie where even the thematic tone has to be censored (yes, theme and subject matter can't be too dark - read the MPAA guidelines)? GTFO if you don't think a rating for 13 year olds doesn't neuter violence.
For the love of the 80s, SHUT UP about 80s Horror flicks. Perhaps you are only 12 years old, but I remember 80s horror flicks. They were filled with gratuitous gore! Each movie trying to outdo the previous as the decade went on. Severed heads, severed limbs, plucked out eyeballs, and all kinds of sadistic torture soaked in buckets of blood - people went to see these movies for the gory special effects, they went to see Porkys for the tits. Go ahead and mention 3 80s horror films you are thinking of which were R only because of the tits.
I agree for the most part. Ratings usually don't mean anything.
Horror movies, are the exception though. Most horror movies(but not all) that aren't R aren't scary or enjoyable. They are watered down and predictable. Of course, there are exceptions like Insidious or the classic G rated Gremlins.
Most of the reason why horror movies, better yet most movies get PG-13 ratings is to appeal to the younger audience. Its the reason why we get pg-13 wolverine movies. Its all about how much seats they would get. But to make scary movies SCARY the ratings don't matter. The Ring 2003 is a very good suspenseful thriller and is and was very scary at the time. But that was rated ps-13.
shareAs I stated, there are some exceptions, the Ring is an excellent example though.
sharevery well said!!!
shareaww you're cute...in a "people must roll their eyes at you alot" sort of way.
shareToday's rating system has nothing to do with how good a movie is, neither does the amount of violence or sex or foul language. And "best" is a relative term. It depends on your preferences. In general though, the very best & smartest movies have very little violence or sex or language, those things may be implied, but the less is more rule usually wins out at the end of the day, which I think is awesome.
shareO.k. I get it, it's an opinion. But please. I'm a movie lover. Just because it's PG-13. Doesn't mean it's gonna be bad. I might be good when it comes out. Who's knows what will happen. They may release a unrated version of it on blu-ray. It might, end up like Die Hard 4 (live free or die hard) where it was PG-13, but, they made an unrated version, just in case people were pissed. They might do that for this one. who knows though. (just to let you know. I feel mixed about the movie)
shareMy brain hurts from the stupidity here. I guess that's what one should expect when perusing the board for a stupid movie. Nothing to see here....
If I Didn't Care For Fun And Such, I'd Probably Amount To Much.
read my review on the board but there is no real violence, a lot of demons "die" though...and frankenstein gets prettier and prettier throughout the movie
review
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1418377/board/thread/224835221?d=224835221 #224835221
>It was more then 10 years ago when I made this nickname. And yes, it's a long story<