Harvard Study Shows Ratings Creep
Posted 06 October 2004 - 12:24 PM
Posted 07 October 2004 - 11:35 AM
All you trivia watchers: What's the earliest example of a PG-13 film you can think of that uses the f-word?
Are there any PG films that use it?
Any PG-13 films other than Adventures in Babysitting and About a Boy that you can think of that use it more than once? Any at all that use it more than twice?
What are the most outrageous (especially violent) PG-13 films you can think of in the first decade or so of PG-13 (1984 to 1994)?
Posted 07 October 2004 - 11:55 AM
|QUOTE (SDG @ Oct 7 2004, 04:34 PM)|
|Any PG-13 films other than Adventures in Babysitting and About a Boy that you can think of that use it more than once? Any at all that use it more than twice?|
Ocean's 11 has it at least twice. Elliot Gould and Shaobo Qin's gymnast character (the latter being in broken English. Which, of course, makes it hilarious, not offensive... )
Posted 07 October 2004 - 12:50 PM
since I'm essentially debunking the ratings creep claim, at least to a degree, I really want older films that are outrageous for their rating. Especially with violence, since I've gleaned that that's the bugaboo for the study's auth ors.
Posted 07 October 2004 - 12:54 PM
They explain their policy here, and an example is Fahrenheit 9/11.
I don't see that specific words are high-lighted but thought this could help.
Posted 07 October 2004 - 03:10 PM
: All you trivia watchers: What's the earliest example of a PG-13 film you can think
: of that uses the f-word?
Wish I could help here, but I wasn't paying THAT much attention when the rating came into effect. Red Dawn (1984) was the first movie to get a PG-13 rating, period, so my first inclination would be to check and see if the f-word comes up in that one.
: Are there any PG films that use it?
Before the PG-13 rating existed, definitely, as per my Sixteen Candles (1984) example above. And since the PG-13 rating came into existence, I seem to recall being somewhat surprised when the PG-rated Eight Men Out (1988) featured a scene in which a character says to Shoeless Joe, "You don't want to f--- up our plans now, do you?"
: Any PG-13 films other than Adventures in Babysitting and About a Boy that you
: can think of that use it more than once?
They both use it more than once? Really? Adventures doesn't surprise me so much, since it came out in the early days of the PG-13 (back in 1987), but I think I would have noticed if About a Boy (2002), which I have seen twice, had used the word that often.
This might or might not count, but the PG-13 film Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) features two Japanese girls named Fook Mi and Fook Yu, and we hear their names several times, assuming of course that the girls are saying something ELSE, before we see their names stitched on their backs (or backpacks, I forget which).
: What are the most outrageous (especially violent) PG-13 films you can think of in
: the first decade or so of PG-13 (1984 to 1994)?
Well, Red Dawn WAS a war film. But I can't remember how violent it was.
Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:33 AM
As for PG-13's with the f-word, add to the list X Files: Fight the Future, which included Mulder's 2 uses of the word. Not as old as "Adventures in Babysitting", but not as recent as "About a Boy". I read somewhere that Duchovny tried to ad-lib a third, but was told by the director that he had used his allotted 4 letter profanities... apparently a third use of the f-word would have pushed them into R-rated territory (or at least make their lives difficult in reguards to the MPAA).
Posted 08 October 2004 - 12:40 AM
: For some reason I remembered Sixteen Candles as being one of the first R-rated
: movies I saw on my own... and sure enough, upon its initial release it was rated
: R, later to be re-rated PG upon appeal.
Was it actually RELEASED with an R rating? My hunch is the appeals process would normally take place BEFORE a film comes out.
: As for PG-13's with the f-word, add to the list X Files: Fight the Future, which
: included Mulder's 2 uses of the word.
Huh, I've been following this ratings business for so long I'm surprised I didn't catch the second use of the f-word in that film, if indeed the word was used twice there.
At any rate, in the vein of that Austin Powers example, I just thought of another couple of PG-13 films that have played with our R-rated knowledge of that word: Meet the Parents, in which the Ben Stiller character's birth name is Gaylord Focker, and its upcoming sequel Meet the Fockers. (Okay, admittedly, the latter film hasn't been rated yet, but it probably WILL get a PG-13.) Boy, am I looking forward to seeing how the Christian media handles THAT movie!
Posted 07 January 2005 - 01:37 PM
My parents didn't specifically show me this one, but I happened to witness the graveyard nightmare sequence while they were watching it. It was the scariest thing I thought I had ever seen. I was totally freaked.
Just goes to show the ratings have evolved in complex ways. There was a while in the 80s, I think, where "G" meant "innocuous and not even potentially problematic"... but that's not what it originally meant, and I think the pendulum has been swinging the other way again.
Ratings Creep? What Ratings Creep?
Posted 09 January 2005 - 02:33 AM
Posted 16 January 2005 - 09:52 AM
Posted 03 March 2005 - 08:38 PM
Apparently agreeing with producers that any young person old enough to be recruited by the military should be able to see what life in the military is all about, the MPAA has decided to allow the documentary Gunner Palace to open with a PG-13 rating, instead of an R. The film, about a group of U.S. soldiers living in a bombed-out palace that had once been owned by one of Saddam Hussein's sons, reportedly features more than 30 scenes in which the f-word is uttered. Although the MPAA has previously rejected demands to provide additional detailed information about its movie ratings, it did so for what may be the first time in the case of Gunner, noting specifically that the film uses "strong language not heard in previous PG-13-rated films." It added, "We want parents to take note of this important cautionary warning so they can better guide their children's movie viewing."
I'm not sure if I agree with the arguement in the first sentence. How many 13 year olds are being recruited by the military?
Posted 08 March 2005 - 01:56 AM
one movie that always comes to mind in relation to ratings is the late Harryhausen flick Clash of the Titans, which has two different scenes of explicit non-sexual female nudity (not to mention some bloody violence) but still recieved a rating of PG. My family owns that movie, but the young ones (who are the only ones interested in watching it anyways) have to get special permission.
Posted 08 March 2005 - 02:16 AM
Posted 08 March 2005 - 09:31 AM
Posted 04 May 2005 - 03:07 PM
It also found that one in 10 PG films had more violent acts than the average for those in the study that were rated R, or "Restricted" -- meaning any viewer under 17 should be accompanied by an adult.
Reuters story here.
Posted 30 September 2005 - 09:03 PM
Warning: maybe not explicit, but there will be sex discussed here.
Last night at the theater I picked up a copy of FLM, a slick, 4 color magazine style promo piece for indie films. Has brief articles by various directors. Atom Ergoyan writes about the challenge of the sex scenes in Where the Truth Lies because he felt he needed to show more thrusting than he thought MPAA would allow in an R-rated film.
I read that just before going to see A History of Violence today. I wonder what Ergoyan would say about the stairway scene. To be sure, that scene and others are important to the story. Although I think there were a couple places it got a bit gratuitous (e.g., the 69 scene and the open front of Edie's robe coming out of the bath.) Maybe thery were included to give MPAA something to cut, but they didn't force it.
Example of NC-17 film that now qualifies as R? Is the story good enough that they didn't want to give it an NC-17? Is ti really just an R? If it were NC-17, would you still consider it a movie worth seeing?
Posted 30 September 2005 - 10:33 PM