Comments on: No Concessions: Arrested Adolescence, or 25 Years of PG-13

By: Soundtrack Saturday: “Gremlins” | Popdose

Soundtrack Saturday: “Gremlins” | Popdose — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:21:10 +0000

[...] directed, the Motion Picture Association of America changed its rating system and introduced the PG-13 rating on July 1, [...]

By: BobCashill

BobCashill — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 06:19:14 +0000

Much obliged for the comments. (I was away last week and pretty much off the grid.) The PG-13 is an arbitrary “halfway point” between PG and R that's bound to leave moviegoers unsatisfied. Interestingly, articles sprouted up everywhere last week about movie dumbness, but none of them mentioned the effect of the rating:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/the_gat…

By: BobCashill

BobCashill — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 02:19:14 +0000

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/the_gat…

By: BobCashill

BobCashill — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:19:14 +0000

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/the_gat…

By: JREinATL

JREinATL — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:19:58 +0000

After reading your piece, it seems to me that ratings are now used to communicate differently than they used to. In the pre-PGâ€“13 era, a "Parental Guidance" rating really meant it. It mean, "Parents, think about whether you want your kids to see this." By happenstance, I recently watched Annie Hall, which would never get a PG rating today. But while it's definitely adult subject matter, there's nothing in it that would irreparably scar a child who watched it either. So the rating really told parents to make a decision for themselves about whether it was something appropriate for an individual kid.

Now, the ratings function more as a seal of approval for certain age limits. G you can take your toddlers to see. PG, 5 and up. PG-13, 13 and up. It doesn't require active parenting.

The new system is probably more useful for parents. But we undoubtedly have a poorer movie culture because of it.

By: Arend_Anton

Arend_Anton — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:32:44 +0000

I wonder if the argument could be made that a rating, like PG-13, could be responsible for the dumbing down of movies. Generally, PG-13 movies do fall in what you describe as “arrested adolescence.” They seem to be an excuse to treat mature subjects in an immature fashion. That seems a bit more offensive than gratuitousness to me.

But then again, I guess that's what adolescence is all about.

By: rwcass

rwcass — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:09:32 +0000

That's right, “Dreamscape” had some nudity too. But “Sheena” had more than boobs and was PG, and “The Woman in Red” had more than boobs and it was PG-13. FULL frontal, I said.

By: DwDunphy

DwDunphy — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:36:46 +0000

PG-13 seems to be a safe haven for boobs - brief but safe. Bob mentioned Dreamscape, and while the snake-man sequence is disturbing (in that '80s stop motion animation kinda way) there is another sequence where Dennis Quaid's character jumps into the dreams of a nebbish worried that his hottie wife is making the town happy, one bed at a time. Indeed, Quaid catches her, in a dream, on top of a man with her nipples in freefall.

Now, for all the pervs about to flip over to Netflix to put Dreamscape in their queue, forget it. Image Entertainment, the company that released the DVD, zoomed into the frame to excise the offending boobage.

How do I know this? What, is this to be an inquisition of me? Shut up, man!!

By: rwcass

rwcass — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:29:29 +0000

Similar to some of the movies you mentioned, I could've sworn “Sheena,” released the same summer, was rated PG-13 because of the full-frontal nudity, even though that rating would've been too tame, but it was just a PG! And “The Woman in Red” had full-frontal nudity, too, but it was a PG-13. Obviously some kinks had to be worked out in the system, if only for the sake of kids going to see these movies with their parents and not knowing what uncomfortable moments were in store for them. (“Sixteen Candles” had nudity too, now that I think about it.)