Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Question: How Has the PG-13 Rating Changed Over The Years (if at all)?

Posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 by David Chen

pg13

It seems almost quaint today but the PG-13 rating was actually conceived in 1984 at the suggestion of Steven Spielberg: His Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was deemed just a tad too graphic/violent for kids, but not so bad as to warrant an R rating. Since then, the PG-13 branding, which indicates that “Some Material May Be Inappropriate for Children Under 13,” has had a bit of a bumpy road.

On this week’s episode of the Totally Rad Show, Dan Trachtenberg argues that in a world where movies like Drag Me To Hell are rated PG-13, it becomes virtually irrelevant whether or not a movie is rated PG-13 or R. In other words, it feels like today’s standards are pretty slack for PG-13 films, compared with decades ago, and that filmmakers can easily push the envelope. On this week’s /Filmcast (which, coincidentally, features Alex Albrecht), I mentioned some of the absurdities of what went into rating Live Free or Die Hard (e.g. bullet holes in objects, volume level of gunfire, etc.). Famously, that movie caused a great deal of fanboy ire when it was rated PG-13, which prompted Bruce Willis to actually come out in defense of the film.

I would not argue exactly that ratings across-the-board have gotten more lenient over time, but it seems to me that the “rules” of what goes into a PG-13 rating  have crystallized, and that filmmakers now know exactly what to do to get around the rules (although sometimes they can still fail to get the rating they desire). This has led to PG-13 ratings on films that feature brutal killings, breasts, and of course, foul language. But it’s also revealed the ludicrousness of the fact that in the MPAA’s eyes, it’s much worse to show a couple having sex than to show that couple getting brutally shot to death.

What say you, readers? How do you feel the PG-13 rating has changed over time, if at all? Do you feel like things have gotten more strict, less strict, or stayed roughly the same? And what are some examples of movies that you feel illustrate these differences over time?

[Photo by Flickr user julia k]

Comments 

Related Posts

  • No Related Post

Tags

MPAA, Question of the Week, 

  • Brend
    i think that we in britain have a better classification system with U, PG, 12, 12A, 15 and 18, it is more defined and a film can usually always fall into one category.
  • Without a doubt, the film ratings in the USA are crap.
  • Similar to the ratings we have here in Australia aswell i guess.

    G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, X18+

    They seem to work pretty well in most cases.
  • jules
    They don't use X anymore, they haven't in years.
  • really?

    i thought it was still used, though only sold in the territories (not the states), but could be imported.

    either way, R18+ is sufficient.
  • filmkid
    i agree im from the UK and our rating system are much better then the US
  • I agree that the UK rating system is better but it's not perfect, especially since they replaced 12 with 12A.
    Studios still find a way around it and to get as much as they possible can into a 12A rating
    I can't think of a better system but I think ours is too strict, how come on your 15th birthday you can see a film that your were too immature to see 24 hours before.
    Then again they have to draw the line somewhere.
  • Here in Manitoba, Canada this province has its own rating system. And it seems everything (unless it is has lots and lots of sex or gore) is 14-A. 14-A lets kids at least 14 years old in without a parent. MOst of the Apatow gang R rated comedies are 14-A here. Watchmen and Slumdog both had 14-A ratings. Only the stuff like hardcore torture porn films get the higher ratings.
  • I like that because to think Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall have the same rating as a Saw or a Hostel film is pretty ridiculous. We need another rating.
  • I'll assume you also fall under Manitoba's system according to your statement's wording.

    So why should they be separated separated. What's so bad about a floppy penis? One is obviously is more vulgar but it isn't like it warrants a 15-A or something.
  • I was saying that Manitoba's system is better then the US because I don't think a Harry Potter should have the same rating as a Knocked Up but also Knocked Up should not have the same rating as Saw 100
  • My friends and I were pretty surprised about the rating of The Watchmen here in Winnipeg. And because of that, there were a number of kids brought into the theater to watch the film and I honestly don't think they should have seen that, even f they were brought by their parents.
    The violence in that film was pretty graphic and I think because of that, the film should have been rated higher here. Not because of the sex or Dr. Manhattan scenes, just the violence.
  • freemachine
    It's kinda hard for me to have an opinion on this because I'm in my 30s and I can't remember the last time I recently looked at or worried about the rating of the film I was going to see. However, I the films I recall seeing that were PG-13 seemed to be hardly worth the rating that differentiates them from strictly PG films. In truth, there are some R films I've seen that I surprised me at the rating because I felt that there was hardly anything in them that a 16 year old has not already seen. Like that documentary, "This Film Has Not Been Rated" shows, the distinction is nearly always based on the sexual content of the film, not the violence.

    On that note, I have a story to share. I went to see "The Hangover", which didn't contain as much R rated material as I would have expected, save the photographs at the ending. However, the theater was adamant about carding anyone who looked younger than 21. A whole group of kids were turned away. Some of them got tickets while others claimed to have forgotten their IDs. When their friends were unable to purchase more than one ticket using their legit IDs, they started approaching strangers to buy tickets for them. One girl succeeded in this effort, only to be carded by the usher who was tearing ticked stubs. She ended up getting a refund.

    Bottom line is that the rating system is flawed and that some theaters enforce while others do not. Hollywood, theaters, and parents need to get a grip on what they think is appropriate for kids to see. Given the violence on the evening news, and deaths in the wars we wage, people need to start evaluating what our children are mature enough to deal with. A nude guy at the end of "Observe and Report" is hardly as disturbing as some of the shit that goes on in this world today.
  • "Frost/Nixon" got an R rating for just talking about sex whereas "The Dark Knight" got a PG-13. If that doesn't tell you how messed up the system, nothing will.
  • freemachine
    Excellent point. "Frost/Nixon" had a lot of profanity, whereas TDK did not. Yet TDK had a lot of intense violence that was completely absent in "Frost/Nixon" (a great film BTW) That seems to be the difference between the two. As we all recall from our youth, we probably all uttered far worse obscenities than Nixon did when we were in middle school, and talked about sex in explicit terms. Why people feel that kids under 17 aren't prepared to hear those words is completely beyond me.
  • jules
    Frost nixon had under 5 swear words. I think they said fuck twice, one of them being "motherfucker"
  • zeckariast
    Don't you people get it the government is trying to build sexually frustrated, desensitized, under-educated, high-fructose corn syrup addicts, to fight their wars.
  • brian
    do those guys realize using garageband loops makes your video sound like crap?
  • It's not secret that the US rating system is absolutely ridiculous. There are no real consistent rules for how ratings should be distributed, which just means that the ratings board can give the film whatever rating it FEELS the movie deserves without basing it on anything in particular. Additionally, the ratings board members have no background or expertise in determining what is appropriate for children.

    I've really like what the folks at www.commonsensemedia.org do with film ratings (they also rate games, websites, TV, books and music). They give a specific age for which they think the film is appropriate (and it's not just 13 or 17) and they point out all the factors that lead to that rating, divided into different categories (Violence, Sex, Language, Message, etc.) so that you can focus on the ones that concern you the most. Additionally, their guidelines for determining what is appropriate for a specific age group were generated by child psychologists. Their system seems much more sound and transparent than the MPAA's and seems much more focused on actually communicating information so that parents can decide for themselves what their kids should be watching, rather than doling out ratings based on who gave them money or what their personal agenda is.
  • moviewatcher
    That's a flawed site -- No one can say what's appropriate or not for a child of a certain age without personally knowing that kid. Some 13-year-olds can handle material a 15-year-old can't, etc. Anyone giving a specific age recommendation is doing a disservice to parents.
  • A better site would be www.kids-in-mind.com. It breaks down all the ratings into categories, and even goes into details, such as...

    "38 f-words, 7 deragatory terms..." and so on. Real helpful.
  • I think the real difference between a film getting a PG-13 or an R comes down to if the film is being submitted by a signatory member of the MPAA or not.
  • Nat
    note: Titanic only has one breast, you should change that to read: "PG-13 ratings on films that feature brutal killings, a breast, and of course, foul language. "
  • Jamie
    No, actually their description is accurate: Shakespeare In Love had two love scenes that included shots of the female protagonist's nude breasts, where you could definitely see both of them. On US television broadcasts, these shots have shadows digitally superimposed over the breasts of course but in the original theatrical cut of the movie they're there plain as day.

    And of course, Shakespeare In Love was PG-13
  • authentic.imitation
    incorrect. Shakespeare in Love was rated R. always fact-check before posting comments.
  • zeckariast
    get over it i was suckin on titties when i was younger than 1 years old. How can you sensor titties?! Everyone knows what a breast looks like, only the sadly deprived dont.
  • I really don't have an issue with PG-13, but the real issue here is PG rated films. Have you guys noticed that in the past 20-25 years, that PG films have become so politically correct, preachy, and clean that cussing, drugs, and discussion of sex/boobs aren't allowed?! "The Goonies" came out in 1985 and there are cussing words in it (remember one of the kids screamed SHIT!). Or how about "Stand by Me," "The Sandlot," and other 80s/early 90s PG rated films. All these films had horny boys who wanted to try smoking, drinking and talked about boobs.

    Today those films would have never gotten passed the MPAA censors.

    Sorry guys... I know this is about PG-13, but I just had to say that about PG rating.
  • You know what? You're spot on with this comment. I agree with absolutely everything that you just said.

    As for the pg-13 and R thing:

    What the hell are these idiots talking about with this "Drag Me To Hell should have been R" bull? The real statement is "Drag Me To Hell should have been PG." Think about Poltergeist, that movie had EVERYTHING that DMTH had in it, probably more, same level of curse words, same level of violence, it even had the parents smoking pot in one scene!
  • Stand by Me was R
  • Yeah, um... Stand By Me was rated R.

    For a better example of a PG rated movie which shows the clear difference between then and now, how about Jaws - full (albeit darkly lit) nudity, drunken teens, sexual innuendo, gore, dead kids... the works - easy R in today's market. Jaws wouldn't even make the PG13 cut today but in 1975 it was PG.
  • Lawdog
    Don't be sorry. That's exactly what this post is about, and I think, the biggest impact that PG-13 has had. It's only been this past 20-25 years that we've even had a PG-13 rating, and it has made PG absolutely pointless. Kids don't want to see a PG movie because they think it's too "kiddy", and a lot of parents don't really care what their kids watch as long as it isn't rated R. What do you end up with? A bunch of studios trying to maximize their potential audience by letting the MPAA tell them what should or shouldn't be in their movies.
  • Lawdog
    And a bunch of parents letting the MPAA decide what their kids should or shouldn't watch.



    Screw you, you stupid non-existent edit button...and you too, short term memory.
  • I really don't have an issue with PG-13, but the real issue here is PG rated films. Have you guys noticed that in the past 20-25 years, that PG films have become so politically correct, preachy, and clean that cussing, drugs, and discussion of sex/boobs aren't allowed?! "The Goonies" came out in 1985 and there are cussing words in it (remember one of the kids screamed SHIT!). Or how about "Stand by Me," "The Sandlot," and other 80s/early 90s PG rated films. All these films had horny boys who wanted to try smoking, drinking and talked about boobs.

    (aah, how about 70s films like Freaky Friday, Bad News Bears, etc..?)

    Today those films would have never gotten passed the MPAA censors.

    Sorry guys... I know this is about PG-13, but I just had to say that about PG rating.
  • Another factor with the PG-13 rating points to the inevitable double-dipping on DVD for "unrated" or "extended cut" editions. Since DVD purchase discretion is more lax than box office policy, unrated editions showcasing footage "too intense for theaters" are more easily attained and make the theatrical viewing pointless, even when the difference is almost unnoticeable to the naked eye, and more often than not, does nothing to enhance the film beyond its running time. So horror films that are given a PG-13 rating seem to be done so more by the studio as a marketing strategy for future DVD sales, not by the MPAA... that's how they get ya!
  • Female orgasms are still NC-17.
  • I remember Michael Bay saying that the 1st Transformers almost got an R rating, because the action was too intense. But instead of cutting anything, he just had Spielberg give the MPAA , and it passed intact. Something tells me there was a little donation pledging, and some string pulling...
  • stb247
    I woudn't even mind this ridiculous system, if it weren't for the changes studios are making to get a bigger audience.

    We all know that films like Die Hard 4 and Terminator 4 would've been better films, if rated R. Taht is just a fact. Now, I also know those aren't great films to begin with, but the fact that these movies were specifically cut down to appeal to the MPAA's rating systems tells you a lot.
  • Well you are right on Die Hard 4, not so much on Terminator 4. Actually, Term 4 was about the same amount of violence of Term 1 or 2. The only thing was the f word being in it. Now would 10 f words being added make a better movie?
  • The rating system, here in America, means nothing unless the theatres enforce the ratings. The theatre I go to has all teenagers working there who look like they don't give a crap about who goes in and out. I could easily go into another movie after the one I paid for but I don't, I pay for a second movie. I did see some kids leaving Up and going into the Hangover...right in front of employees.
  • I feel like PG has changed more than PG-13. Raiders of the Lost Ark and Roger Rabbit are PG rated, yet they would most likely be rated PG-13 today. I think it's the R rating where most of the problems are. You have a movie like There WIll Be Blood with one scene of minor blood, and then you have Planet Terror or Kill Bill which has gallons upon gallons of blood and violence. These two movies should not be getting the same rating. There almost needs to be something inbetween PG-13 and R because R rated movies seem to almost have no limit of questionable content, and the films with barely anything to warrant the R rating might be losing business.
  • PG-15? Not a bad idea...
  • pucatan
    the reason why more movies can fit into the pg-13 rating now is that the big studios dont want to bet on an R (Restricted) rating with their $80 mil. movie. and the studio heads know that the biggest movie going category is teenagers. have you seen your movie theater on friday nights? its packed with 13-year-olds with nothing better to do.
  • tigersuit
    The us ratingsystem is kinda lame. Here in sweden we just have 7,11 and 15. Here both PG13 and R-rating can be the same. For example: The dark knight was rated 15 here, wich means you have to be 15 to get in, you can't even get in with your parents.
    The pg13 rating sucks. And it's weird like you said David, apparently sex is worse than brutal killings..
  • Lawdog
    Yeah, that's kind of our thing in the States. We care more about who you're sleeping with than who you killed.
  • moviewatcher
    The ratings are pretty much useless nowadays, especially in the PG-13 realm. Best bet -- use a site like Screen It (http://www.screenit.com) that details everything you need to know (far more than any other site/service), w/o passing judgment on whether the stuff is good or bad.
  • bomberman
    I own "Back to School" on Dvd. It has breast shots, multiple F bombs, underage drinking, a bar fight, Rodney Dangerfield zingers and Oingo Boingo

    rated PG 13
  • bomberman
    oops the rest of my post got cut off,

    I'm not saying that it's changed in standards so much, its just that the MPAA has different raters now.
  • Lawdog
    and a Triple Lindy.
  • PG-13 is just a marketing tool. For example, "Year One", the producers wanted the most bang at the box office. Getting slapped with the "R" rating was like a death sentence to them. It's all marketing. I don't see a difference between a "Pg-13" and an "R" rating.
  • i don't really care anymore now that i am 17, i can watch any movie
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.