Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1

    PG-13 horror films

    I am watching a bit of TV, and just saw ads for "The Last Exorcism" and "Devil."

    The Last Exorcism

    Devil

    Okay, I have to admit I do not watch horror films, and honestly do not approve of them (especially the horror porn that has become such standard fare nowadays.) But still, I have to say... just seeing the trailers for these, how on earth are these types of films getting PG-13 ratings? PG-13 means that anyone can go and see these films, of any age... just that we expect parents to pay attention.

    But these look very, very scary, and a bit disturbing... do films just get rated R for blood and gore? Do the psychological aspects of films not play into the ratings? Or are the trailers not really representative of the films? Looking at what the MPAA says about ratings, I find it so hard to believe these films are not in the R territory.

    Anyway, this seems to be a trend, as films get the PG-13 to expand their audiences and make more money. I am not sure I approve.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    The MPAA is a running joke. Go watch This Film is Not Yet Rated.

    There are also some great articles about the farce of negotiating cuts with the MPAA to get ratings. I remember Trey Parker and Matt Stone had some hilarious stories about what they cut to get the South Park Movie down to "R" but left in or even added that was much worse than what was cut.

    With respect to these PG-13 movies, I imagine they are actually much tamer than the trailers let on. I also find this with comedies. If a comedy tries to play off that it is of the Apatow/Todd Phillips genre and gets a PG-13 rating, it is usually is pretty lame. But, for instance, some of the stuff that stupid Transformers 2 movie got away with would never have flown without an "R" rating if it wasn't MICHAEL BAY!!CGI!!MEGABUCKS!!!

  3. #3
    Anyway, this seems to be a trend,
    Well, Jaws was rated PG. So, perhaps it's not a new trend. No way Jaws gets a PG rating these days. The MPAA allows a lot of blood, violence, and gore, but any bit of sexuality, innuendo, or swearing and it's getting close to R-territory. Personally, I think seeing endless murders is more disturbing (and thus requires a more mature audience) than a partially nude woman. But whatever.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    wilmington, nc
    "The Last Exorcism" looks really scary. Very rarely do I see a preview on tv of a horror movie that actually gets my attention as looking scary. Usually they look comical but this one looks intense. When at the end of the preview I saw that it was PG-13 I was surprised cause just the preview itself looked PG-13. Maybe they put all the good stuff in the preview which seems to happen sometimes.

    Movies like "Saw" get the R rating because of the gore and such i think but are really silly to me. Maybe the exorcism movie is more scary to me because those types of things, exorcisms, actually happen.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeblue1206 View Post
    "The Last Exorcism" looks really scary. Very rarely do I see a preview on tv of a horror movie that actually gets my attention as looking scary. Usually they look comical but this one looks intense. When at the end of the preview I saw that it was PG-13 I was surprised cause just the preview itself looked PG-13. Maybe they put all the good stuff in the preview which seems to happen sometimes.

    Movies like "Saw" get the R rating because of the gore and such i think but are really silly to me. Maybe the exorcism movie is more scary to me because those types of things, exorcisms, actually happen.
    I agree that these two movies don't look like PG-13 fare. Then again, in today's cinema, Red Dawn would probably just get a PG.

    Calling out Saw, though. Saw is anything but silly. While some of the traps do spring - and are graphically gory, it's the ones that you don't see executed that give me the shivers (like the knives on springs and the face) -- shake shake.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    raleigh
    a kid can see a person decapitated while a swords gouge out the eyes and the victim's legs are ground to a stump in a wood chipper....

    but simple frontal nudity? uh - oh...

    where did this train jump the tracks?



  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    The MPAA is a running joke. Go watch This Film is Not Yet Rated.

    There are also some great articles about the farce of negotiating cuts with the MPAA to get ratings. I remember Trey Parker and Matt Stone had some hilarious stories about what they cut to get the South Park Movie down to "R" but left in or even added that was much worse than what was cut.

    With respect to these PG-13 movies, I imagine they are actually much tamer than the trailers let on. I also find this with comedies. If a comedy tries to play off that it is of the Apatow/Todd Phillips genre and gets a PG-13 rating, it is usually is pretty lame. But, for instance, some of the stuff that stupid Transformers 2 movie got away with would never have flown without an "R" rating if it wasn't MICHAEL BAY!!CGI!!MEGABUCKS!!!
    I personally find the MPAA a joke anyway. The UK actually does it right, with an "A" rating - that means you have to be 15. The A rating covers many of the issues we've discussed - PG 13 movies that are intense are "A" - R movies that are R because of some partial nudity - they're A too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    I think the theme and the messages it sends to the viewer should be more important than blood or nudity in determining the rating of a film.

    For example, last night my family went to the movies and we saw Salt. As most of you know, it is a film with lots of action and spy drama. There is some blood and no nudity. It is rated PG-13 and I think that is a perfectly appropriate rating for the film. There was nothing in it that made me pause at bringing my 13 year old and 11 year old to see it.

    However, before it aired we saw a preview for M Night Shyamaloser's Devil (he is producing it, not directing - thank god!). It is a film about some people trapped on an elevator who discover that one of them is a monster -- but do not know which of them it is. The trailer is fairly creepy and certainly got to my 11-year-old son. Devil is also rated PG-13, but I had a real problem with that trailer being attached to Salt. Devil is certainly a different type of film than Salt -- no action, no spy/thriller kinda stuff, just straight horror (though perhaps more psychological horror than gore). How am I supposed to know what films to take my kids to when I go to see a simple action film and am subjected to a horror trailer that will give my kids nightmares!?!?!

    As you all know, I am part of a big movie-going family so this experience is not going to prevent us from going back to theaters, but I could certainly see some folks being really turned off by this kind of thing.

    I have gone to see R-rated films with my wife -- films that have a mature theme and perhaps some sex -- and been subjected to R-rated trailers that were for gore-fest horror films. I recall one time where we saw like 3 or 4 straight gore/horror trailers in a row before watching a movie that had no horror element to it at all. My wife turned to me and said, "did we go into the wrong theater?"

    Hollywood needs to do a better job of thinking about what the ratings and the themes of the movies mean to the audience. They need to stop subjecting us to material we have no desire to see. If they do not, then we will all just stop going to theaters and watch movies at home where we have more control over -- and Hollywood doesn't make nearly enough money when we do that.

    --Jason "this probably belongs in a whole new thread... hmmm" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  9. #9
    Jason... not to distract, but you've been looking for a new sig for a loooooonnnnnggg time.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Ash View Post
    Jason... not to distract, but you've been looking for a new sig for a loooooonnnnnggg time.

    Done! I am even promoting the new Survivor pool in my new sig!

    -Jason
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  11. #11
    *laugh* Good stuff!

    Oh, and on your point... where you mention movie trailers, I find that even commercials running in fairly family-friendly time slots can be a bit overwhelming at times. I have no children yet, but I would be exceedingly annoyed at some of the rather scary images and such that show up in regular television broadcasts

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by cf-62 View Post
    I personally find the MPAA a joke anyway. The UK actually does it right, with an "A" rating - that means you have to be 15. The A rating covers many of the issues we've discussed - PG 13 movies that are intense are "A" - R movies that are R because of some partial nudity - they're A too.
    If you watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated" it gets into just how much of a fascist system the MPAA is. First, the raters are purposely anonymous to the outisde world. Second, when you defend your film against the appeals board (who are also kept anonymous), you aren't allowed to use precedent from earlier films.

    The doc shows a lot of scenes that were cut from movies so they wouldn't get the NC17 rating, and for that reason it got an NC17 rating. But by getting that rating, and by hiring some enjoyable PIs, he is able to run his own film through the process and expose the MPAA. If the explicit scenes from other movies don't bug you, the documentary itself is really pretty good.

  13. #13
    I look forward to seeing "Not Yet Rated." I find the new breed of expose documentaries to be quite enjoyable.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Ash View Post
    *laugh* Good stuff!

    Oh, and on your point... where you mention movie trailers, I find that even commercials running in fairly family-friendly time slots can be a bit overwhelming at times. I have no children yet, but I would be exceedingly annoyed at some of the rather scary images and such that show up in regular television broadcasts
    We have that problem with Duke games, especially trailers for those same R-rated movies. I use my Tivo to skip commercials (if I start 30 minutes late) or pause the commercials and then skip them.

    -jk

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by -jk View Post
    We have that problem with Duke games, especially trailers for those same R-rated movies. I use my Tivo to skip commercials (if I start 30 minutes late) or pause the commercials and then skip them.

    -jk
    So essentially, you're issues are having "Green band" trailers for R rated movies that you don't believe should be "green band" - or approved for all audiences.

    That, in itself, is somewhat of an indictment of the MPAA.

Similar Threads

  1. Genre discussion: are the following films Westerns?
    By throatybeard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 11:10 AM
  2. Classic Films
    By Deslok in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 03:50 AM
  3. oh the horror (for Braves Fans)
    By Channing in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 03:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •