Goblet of Fire movie to be rated PG-13

[HOBBIT]

The Goblet of Fire movie will be rated PG-13.

I've been having some heated debates about this on another message board and I'm wondering what your thoughts are?

[IronParrot]

I'm not sure that there's a whole lot to debate. PG-13 is Spielberg territory when it comes to the intensity of what we're going to see, and I think all the Potter books after and including Goblet fit there very snugly. If you ask me, the onscreen murder of an adolescent student is by itself enough to justify it.

Up here in Canada, instead of a progression from PG to PG-13 to R, we have PG to 14A to 18A. 14A usually matches up to a "hard PG-13" or a "soft R", and like Revenge of the Sith, Goblet is likely to fall under PG.

[Rían]

the part where whats-his-name gives up a body part for the spell is pretty gruesome, too!

I just re-watched POA last night and really, REALLY miss the original Dumbledore this new guy plays him kind of dumb sometimes whereas the original one was funny and whimsical sometimes, but never dumb. I mean, accidentally whacking Ron on his injured leg several times while Ron is making audible sounds of pain?! Stupid, and trivializes a great character, IMO.

[HOBBIT]

oh, the debate is that the Harry Potter movies should be "family movies" - and to many, a "family movie" is rated PG. Some think that PG-13 cannot equal a "family movie" Certainly a lot of parents will take their kids to a PG-13 or R movie if they are underage, but others won't. And kids wouldn't be able to buy the tickets themselves.

Almost everyone who argues that the Harry Potter movies and books are primarily for children so the movie should not exceed PG, thus possibly excluding young children from seeing is held by those who have not read the books.



Rian, does the PG-13 make it less of a family film?

[Rían]

In general, I imagine that a PG-13 film would be less suited to younger kids (like my 9 and 10 yr old), but I judge each film individually, and don't just go off of what Hollywood types call "family films". I don't let my kids go to a movie until I've checked it out, either personally or hearing from a friend or checking out a website that I know about that gives excrutiating detail of possible objectionable elements in movies. I like to make my own judgements, and not trust film people's idea of what is OK.

I remember my older son, several years back, wanting to go to a movie with a friend, and I had seen the preview and it looked very cute, so I almost said yes, then remembered about this website and decided to check it out. I was very upset to find out that this movie that looked so cute and innocent and fun in previews contained an extended scene in a bordello, where the two "heros" went around riding on the backs of bustier-clad prostitutes, among other escapades. I hate deception of any kind, and I felt that the preview was deceptive.

[IronParrot]

But in a way, what makes a film appropriate for a family is really up to the parents and guardians themselves - and not all of them have equivalent standards. The PG rating itself specifies Parental Guidance - and I think PG-13 subsequently falls within that range, where a film is appropriate for most children, but not all, and there is a slightly greater need for parental discretion. Beyond that, not all PG-13s are equal.

Trailers are mandated to be appropriate for all audiences, which is why they should never be relied upon as an indicator of content. They're out there to generate awareness.

[Spock]

Indeed, I.P., I've always read the PG-13 as "pretty good if your older than 13".