Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macgeek2005 · Oct 11, 2006, 08:50 PM

The Flim ratings that the MPAA imposes upon films these days, are very inconsistent with each other. Take for example, the movies The Return of the King and Gladiator.

If one were to watch both these movies before they were rated, almost anyone would say that they should be rated the same. However Return of the King is only PG-13 while Gladiator is R.

I personally think that Return of the King should be rated R as well (at least the extended cut), and that gladiator should maintain it's rating, however others might argue that it's Gladiator that should move from R to PG-13.

I don't watch that many movies, so i'm not the guy to bring out the huge list of such examples, although i'm sure it's possible to create one. Does anyone else know of such inconsistencies?

euchomai · Oct 11, 2006, 09:38 PM

I think the content of the rape/murder in Gladiator pushed it to an R rating. While Return of the King was just violent without so much graphic blood splatter.

I agree with the MPAA on this ruling.

macgeek2005 · Oct 11, 2006, 10:57 PM

What about Star Wars III?

If violence was at all a factor in the rating of Gladiator, then Star Wars III should be rated R. That burning scene is more graphic than anything in Gladiator.

olePigeon · Oct 11, 2006, 11:26 PM

Not to mention that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are "fantasy" films, while Gladiator is loosely based off historical events. A lot of the violence in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings was also animated violence.

If you were to say that MPAA ratings are inconsistent over different years, I would agree. I think it has to deal with cultural acceptance that changes over the years.

Somehow, Hellraiser and Hellbound: Hellraiser II got R ratings instead of NC-17.

The Ring shoulda been rated R... for RETARDED.

Gossamer · Oct 11, 2006, 11:51 PM

How about Airplane...there's no way a film today could get away with that kind of nudity and get a PG. Also, Space Balls was fairly heavy on the language/innuendo and it only got a PG. I'm not sure a whole lot of movies could get away with the F word and a PG rating.

macgeek2005 · Oct 12, 2006, 12:45 AM

And I completely forgot to mention Gandhi. That movie got a PG and it has a scene of cold blooded massacre, and is based completely on historical events. How it got a PG is still beyond me.

torsoboy · Oct 12, 2006, 02:17 AM

When a lot of the movies you guys are talking about where made there was no PG-13, so it was either PG or R. When a film got an R rating back then it had to be pretty bad. Non-sexual nudity was not considered as much of an "adult" content as it is today, so that helped keep a lot of movies in the PG rating even though they had some naked shots.

Gossamer · Oct 12, 2006, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by torsoboy

When a lot of the movies you guys are talking about where made there was no PG-13, so it was either PG or R. When a film got an R rating back then it had to be pretty bad. Non-sexual nudity was not considered as much of an "adult" content as it is today, so that helped keep a lot of movies in the PG rating even though they had some naked shots.

PG-13 was introduced in 1984. So Airplane was before that, but Spaceballs was not. That movie would definitely get a PG-13 today.

residentEvil · Oct 12, 2006, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

And I completely forgot to mention Gandhi. That movie got a PG and it has a scene of cold blooded massacre, and is based completely on historical events. How it got a PG is still beyond me.

because, of it's historic nature and in much the same way a documentary will be rated, get PG or even G, so that it can be show to all. even with nudity (national geographic films), they get G and PG ratings.

torsoboy · Oct 12, 2006, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

PG-13 was introduced in 1984. So Airplane was before that, but Spaceballs was not. That movie would definitely get a PG-13 today.

Has it been that long? Wow, time sure flies.

I agree that a lot of movies would have different ratings today. I also see inconsistancies in movies put out today. For example "In America" has some nakes breasts and some graphic non-nude scenes in a very sexual context but it only got a PG-13 rating, where others get the R rating for far less. I have also scene movies recently with multiple uses of the F-word in PG-13 movies where the limit is supposed to be only one.

macgeek2005 · Oct 12, 2006, 09:13 PM

Alright. The Da Vinci Code. You all know the famous scene of Sylus whipping himself, and showing in vivid detail the whip cutting into his back as he winces in pain, and the chain which it shows close up as he tightenes it and draws blood from his leg... over.. and over.. and over.. again, from different angles, showing how his feet rise off the ground in painful reflex with each stroke, and the horrifying music only complimenting the scene, which is set in a dark and errie room.........

PG-13? I don't think so..............

stevesnj · Oct 12, 2006, 09:21 PM

The MPAA is run by old farts with a huge political agenda in bed with the religious right and conservatives. If you piss them off or knowingly lean left they will rate your film according to their personal moral beleifs.

SirCastor · Oct 12, 2006, 10:45 PM

Sorry to be rude but, You just now figured this out?
FYI
The rating system follows no standard. The rating which a film receives is ambigously decided by a group of people who 'have parental experience' and the criteria of what they think "most parents would rate the movie".

The MPAA is made up of several Major hollywood studio: Disney, Warner, Paramount, Fox and Universal. (I think Miramax used to be part of it too, but they got bought by Disney). The organization represents the interests of those studios. Submission of a film to the board is entirely optional, but good luck selling your movie to a conditioned american audience with the note: "This film has not been rated."

If the MPAA has morals, they certainly don't fall in line with the conservative spectrum.

Top Gun was rated PG... a friend of mine said of that: The most explicit sex scene that shows absolutely nothing...

euchomai · Oct 12, 2006, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by stevesnj

The MPAA is run by old farts with a huge political agenda in bed with the religious right and conservatives. If you piss them off or knowingly lean left they will rate your film according to their personal moral beleifs.

That is the most off base observation I've seen in awhile.

macgeek2005 · Oct 13, 2006, 01:40 AM

Hmm... I didn't realise the rating system was so disorganized. I've got a question though about Lord of the Rings ratings. I've been doing some research, and I keep seeing thing thing "Contractual obligation". Apperently there was an obligation to not have the film go into the R category? Does this mean that the film would normally be rated R, but it's not? Or did the obligation force the producers to not put anything in the flim that would cause it to be R?

And what about the extended cuts? The DVD's say "Supplemental material not rated", but at yahoo.com, at least for the fellowship of the ring, it says "Video Release Dates: August 6th, 2002 (PG-13 theatrical version); November 13th, 2002 (rated R version with 30 extra minutes of footage in the film, and six hours of extra goodies)".

???

Does anyone know the full story behind the Lord of the Rings ratings?