Film rating

[Gerbil]

Over in the UK it's PG.

It seems funny how certain films get 'dispensation' on ratings, because of their content.

That FotR is a 'hard' PG is beyond doubt. Decapitation, limbs chopped off, numerous clear deaths by sword / arrow etc.

Compare it's content to that pile 'o poo Harry Potter!

In the cinema I go to they have an extra line under it's rating 'some scenes may be unsiutable blah blah' but everyone takes that with a pinch of salt. But some of the scenes were 'disturbingly' real. (although it struck me as odd that in Moria when a head gets chopped off you get gouts of blood, but when errr....... Boromir's killer gets his nonce removed there's nowt - same with his arm).

Anyway, glad he got this one through the censors OK.

Now I'm really going OT but wasn't Saving Private Ryan also a PG? It was either that or an 18!

[Pailan]

Yes, Gerbil you make some good points about the violence and the ratings. All I can say is that orc blood must not count. And lopping of their non human body parts falls into the realm of the cartoon, I guess.

On another topic all together; I read something about a couple getting assualted for asking some teenagers not talk on their cell phones durring the movie. I think it happened in London. Did you hear anything about this? If it had happened in the states, it would'vemade more sense to me. Just wondering.

[Gerbil]

Ratings are funny.
To think FotR was the same as Harry Potter.

The funny thing (to me) is Harry Potter is a kid's fantasy film (yes it is, no arguements please!), while LotR is an adult's one.

But approximately 9 out of 10 kids questioned preferred FotR. It was the adults who wouldn't take their kids to LotR that made Harry Potter such a success.

Also I wish LotR came out BEFORE Harry Potter - I think it's timing counts against it. I'm not surpised the HP films are timed to come out earlier against LotR - they know they'd suffer in a direct competition. They'd still probably come out on top, but with less actual profit than doing it this way.

Now is a perfect time for LotR to get a jump on HP - the 2 parts remaining are only in post production - I'm not sure if the main filming of HP2 has even got underway!

As for the violence thing, yes I read about it too. Didn't happen near me thankfully.
Apparently the kids were talking and using their mobile phones all the time during the film and the parents didn't stop them. The parents then attacked the people after the film.
With parents like that is it any suprise the kids were annoying little shits destined to grow up a burden on society either as welfare candidates (with the ensuing 5 kids to repeat the cycle) or detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure?

I must admit, I'm a good candidate for a kicking in a cinema - each time I see FotR I get less and less tolerant of people talking. Not quite got to the stage of getting people kicked out, but close. My last two put-downs worked remarkably well:

1) The obvious - 'Did you come here to talk or watch a film?'
2) A classic - said in a loud voice so everyone could here - 'If this film would have been improved by an annoying unfunny voice-over they'd have put it in'



Barry
gerbil@fourthage.net

[Play Girl]

I did expect it to be a twelve atleast and when I saw it I thought that it was a bit graphic for a PG even though it is not sutible for blah blah blah. You just have to remember they were trying to release it to as many people as possible and it was very near chistmas. I have a feeling that it was edited down from a 12. Never mind.
Hopefully the next one will be so scary from the mahusive spider at the end it will be a 15!
The book certainly is scary with heaps more violance and more Gollum.
luv
Play Girl
xxx

PS Never heard anything about that mobile phone incident

[Gerbil]

Well, I'm glad they made it a PG, because the more people that get to see it etc. etc.
Don't forget that the money these take will decide future films, eg the Hobbit (although I'll wager this is already a foregone conclusion) and possibly the Silmarillion (much less likely, must admit, althoughf some of the sections would make awesome films in themselves).

Also, because of this, and word of mouth, I fully expect TTT to take more money than FotR, simply because everyone now KNOWS how cool it is, plus TTT has many more large scale battles, and that MASSIVE software of WETA's rocks (heh heh George Lucas must be filling his pants

The ratings don't reflect FotR's content, and I for one am glad. If FotR had been of HP's level of scariness (IE none whatsoever, other than fear at having to stay and watch the whole damn thing) then Jackson would have failed. LotR is such an emotional journey, and fear is a very important part of that.

As for things like Shelob, I'm certain she will be damn scary, and it will STILL be a PG rating (it has to be - Jackson is contractually obliged to do PGs). Don't forget Shelob doesn't actually do anything too nasty really (Poisoning Frodo is actually quite a 'weak' bad thing in itself), so she shouldn't be a problem. Unless you have a phobia about spiders, of course

For some reason I seem to recall reading a CG industry mag featuring something about Shelob, although it might just be my imagination. Will try to track it down.

Oh, and try going to www.petitionsonline.com and searching for peter jackson and LotR inspired petitions. Funniest has to be the one to get Peter Jackson to take over the remaining Star Wars film. It's got about 16000 votes as well!

[Gerbil]

Oh and as for the phone thing - not suprised you didn't hear about it. You are lucky enough to live up north, not in London

[Pailan]

Perhaps you two (Play Girl and Gerbil) could answer this one for me. My understanding was that the UK release differs from the one here in the USA. Here it is rated PG-13 and some are saying that it wasn't for the orcs being on the recieving end of the swords it would've earned an R rating (meaning that no one under seventeen would be allowed in without a guardian/parent).

It sounds like the same take. Here it runs 2hr 58 mins. without credits. What do you think, was a "softer" version presented in the UK?

[Gerbil]

Running time is the same, nor has there been any mention of a softer version for the UK, which would surely have come out somewhere had that been the case.

What does PG-13 mean?
Kids under 13 are not allowed, or kids over 13 can see it on their own but younger ones need their parents?
We don't have an equivalent as you said.

I think 2 things:

1) Kids are much better at soaking up fantasy than we give them credit for
2) UK kids are much less likely to grab a sword and attack their friends than US ones :P Probably because we don't have uncles with arsenals of guns 'n stuff to steal them from

[Pailan]

Originally posted by Gerbil
I think 2 things:

1) Kids are much better at soaking up fantasy than we give them credit for
2) UK kids are much less likely to grab a sword and attack their friends than US ones :P Probably because we don't have uncles with arsenals of guns 'n stuff to steal them from

yes, I agree with you that most kids do absorb fantasy better than they are cedited with. As for the arsenal stuff, don't get me going... Suffice it to say that this is a dangerous relic from our "wild west" history. But we don't have soccer (ok, football) riots.

[Gerbil]

Wow, never thought of it as part of your wild west past.
That's a cool way of looking at it

As for the football riots I find them more alarming in theory, because it's a relatively new phenomenon indication the regression of people to utter stupidity where there is a desire to hurt people for no reason other than to cause pain. Not good.

Personally I blame football completely. It was set up as a sport for the commoner (This is true! Gives working class people something to believe in and be passionate about), but it's backfired because the passions overflow. And certainly not led well by some of the players themselves who are basically professional thugs.

You get anything in the news how we have lots of players in court for various assaults / beatings etc ? Not good

[Pailan]

Hey Gerbil, I've trying to go tothe link you provided, Ithink there's something amiss with the URL.

I listen to the BBC on occasion and one of the Public TV staions in my area runs a nightly UK news show at 10 pm local time. So I sometimes see the problems of your sports players. I really like to get an outside perspective on the USA. It helps to know what other people think, especially when travelling abroad. I hate being the typical stupid yank on holiday.

BTW, a few years back I spent a 9 days in London. Had an absolutely fantastic time. Need to go again.

[Gerbil]

Sorry - wrong URL - I added an 's' that shouldn't be there.
The full URL to the petition is:

http://www.petitiononline.com/dgkomxpq/petition.html

4640 signatures when I just looked

[orald]

Gerbil,most Americans aren't as bad as you have stereotyped us to be.But our country is much more violent than yours,but being nearly 100 times bigger,and much more culturely diverse,(and under the magnifying glass from many outside factions,that dislike us).this might mean were not that different when it comes to violence.Using standard firearm locks,and safes will deter all children from access if used properly.But our society is lazy when it comes to follow up,and instead of teaching the child to respect the gun,the child is taught to fear the gun instead(its easier),and the child gets older,and overcomes his fear,and has a very dangerous weapon in his hands,he knows very little about,or the true affects of pulling the trigger.And I'll also bet,that many incidents occur everyday in the U.S. due to theatre etiquette,it just doesn't make the news.

[Churl]

First, for the record, here's how the Motion Picture Association of America words its ratings (in ascending order of adult content):

G........... All ages admitted
PG......... Some material may not be suitable for children
PG-13.... Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13
R........... Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
NC-17.... No one 17 and under admitted

Under this system, Harry Potter received the milder PG rating here in the U.S. while The Fellowship of the Ring was rated PG-13.

Within the last year or so, the MPAA has also begun to append movie-specific content descriptors just below the rating. For instance, below Fellowship's standard PG-13 logo is the message, "Epic battle sequences and some scary images." (For comparison, Harry Potter's movie specific content warning reads: "Some scary moments and mild language.")

As you can see, even the content descriptors are vague: according to the MPAA, both Fellowship and Harry had "scary" scenes/moments. Hmmm, let's see: which movie was more intense … ?

Now, some background:

During the mid-eighties, the PG-13 rating was sandwiched between PG and R to accommodate movies like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Some critics (and cynics) argue that PG-13 was added to make nearly-R-rated material more palatable for parents when taking their kids to the movies: i.e., "Sure it's a little rough, but at least it's not rated R…" etc.

It seems that PG-13 more than any other rating has the widest sweep. In other words, a movie might have no sex or violence, but still earn a PG-13 for one or two uses of "f***," while in the next theater, The Fellowship of the Ring will be showing decapitations and wholesale slaughter in battle. (I'm not criticizing Fellowship's content; I'm merely citing it to draw a comparison.)

As a side note, it's interesting to note the strange distinctions made by the MPAA. For instance, consider the countless slasher flicks and graphic war movies that earn R ratings; then consider all the non-violent movies with erotic content that had to be trimmed to escape an NC-17 rating. (Many U.S. theaters won't show NC-17 films.)

This illustrates America's paradoxical prudishness and taste for violence. The attitude seems to be this: "Seeing bloody, dismembered murder victims is less offensive than seeing two (very live and happy) people making love."

(Before the flame war starts, I should state that I'm writing this as a proud American. Pride doesn't blind me to this — and other — U.S. double standards, however.)

Well, I've rambled far afield of the initial topic, so I'll revive it before closing:

Although I see the value of a rating system as a general guide for parents — and despite its imprecision, the addition of movie-specific content descriptors certainly helps — I don't think there's any substitute for parents actually prescreening a movie before taking kids to see it. Only individual parents can decide what they wish their children to see.

[kennebecc]

I agree with you churl about the movie ratings in the US. I do think however that the PG-13 rating for Lord of the Rings was justified. I work with young kids, and depending upon their age and experience going to movies this was definitely a scary movie for them.

It wasn't the violence either that frightened them, it was the Ringwraiths dogged pursuit of Frodo. I do believe though, that as time goes on for this film, kids (under 13) will be going to see it. They need to be prepared before they go to this film that these scenes exist, and once they are 'comfortable' with the idea, I think most of them will be able to handle it.

[Churl]

For the sake of clarification, bear with me for few more paragraphs.

In my previous post, I might have made it seem like I'm categorically against movie violence. That's definitely not the case.

Many "important" movies (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc.) featured graphic, realistic, horrific violence. At the same time, those movies could not have held true to their subject matter without it.

Even when the intent isn't so noble, e.g., in action flicks and horror movies, I support filmmakers' prerogative to include violent content and audiences' right to view it, but only if they're emotionally prepared to handle it. (And let's face it: films like Braveheart, Gladiator, The Matrix, Die Hard, and Aliens pack a visceral wallop.)

Yes, there's a lot of gratuitous violence in movies, but everyone's definition of "gratuitous" is different. (For instance, I'm disgusted when murder, torture, or cruelty toward people and animals is played for laughs, and I'm revolted by depictions of rape in any context.) Still, as long as the violence is artificial, I support artists' right to portray it.

Those opposed to a particular film should vote with their euros, yen, dollars, etc., and watch something else or (wonder of wonders) stay at home and read a book.

(P.S. to kennebecc: I completely agree that Fellowship's PG-13 rating was justified … in my opinion it would be extremely scary for most young children.)

[ragamuffin92]

Even without the graphic battle scenes, the orcs and Black Riders would be enough to terrify a young child. I saw Disney's "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" when I was around 4, and had nightmares about that stupid banshee for years. I am now able to sleep without a nightlight, thank you very much.

[gdl96]

I went to see it with my 9 year old cousin, and it was too much for him. He left when Saruman and Gandalf started fighting, and told me afterwards he was freaked since the begining. But he still seemed to like what he saw, and I hope I can get him to read the Hobbit.

[Entlover]

I took my 8 year old son, which I didn't intend to do at first but was talked into it -- he loved it but said the only part that really scared him was when the troll was hunting Frodo in the mines.
By the way, does anyone know when LotR will be available on tape or CD? My son in N.Y. saw a pirated Chinese version, but I want to buy the real thing.

[mirrille]

ragamuffin, don't feel bad. I was also terrified of the banshee. For years afterwards, there was no way my mother could convince me that "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" was really a cute movie. All I remember was that the banshee would come to get you at night.
Children can get scared of different things. I remember when I was about 8 I got taken to a theatre to see a movie. It was non-children's movie about triads/gangsters. I don't know how my mother managed to get me into the theatre because it was very graphically violent. A particular scene stuck because these people were playing some card game in a casino and all of a sudden someone took out a machine gun and people were getting their guts blown out left right and centre. In slow motion! Rather than being scared, I just remember being a little confused. Disturbed more because I had no idea why the shooting started than that they were getting shot at all. In contrast, those man-eating spiders in the Hobbit cartoon gave me nightmares. It's easily understood that big monsters will come eat you, so it's scary. Child would more likely get scared of Black Riders because they are the monster/ghosts. Child may not get scared of orc getting decapitated because orcs are the monsters and killing the monster is what the hero is supposed to do. Each child is different, but that's more how I was.