Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:

Wait, I thought violence in the media had nothing at all to do with it, and it was solely the NRA's blood-soaked pursuit of anarchy?

The media's portrayal of violence has nothing to do with it, it is obviously the media's portrayal of breasts and their corrupting effect on fertile little minds..

 Alfndrate wrote:
Easy E, Monsters University was G rated, also if G was never seen as a rating, wouldn't that make it the least common?

Wow, that really surprises me.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think the rating has started to float significantly over even just the last 5 years or so. There is no reason The Dark Knight should have been PG13; for example.

I don't know the movie might be a bit too scary for eight year olds so maybe PG-13 is appropriate.

Wrong direction, actually. I think the Dark Knight was clearly a rated R film. I think the pencil scene alone should have pushed it there, and would have in days gone by.

To be clear, though, I'm not complaining about violence in movies at all (huge fan) or the R rating in specific (also, huge fan). It's just sort of irksome that the studios are so willing to be flexible for violence when it's for a big tent pole film for a mega studio, and so rigid and dickish when it's either for sex (like Blue Valentine) or laughably, for language, like when they refused to give a PG13 to that teenager-aimed bullying movie because they used the F word.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a just-see movie for anyone who enjoys films I think, as someone else already pointed out in this thread.

 Ouze wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think the rating has started to float significantly over even just the last 5 years or so. There is no reason The Dark Knight should have been PG13; for example.

I don't know the movie might be a bit too scary for eight year olds so maybe PG-13 is appropriate.

Wrong direction, actually. I think the Dark Knight was clearly a rated R film. I think the pencil scene alone should have pushed it there, and would have in days gone by.

To be clear, though, I'm not complaining about violence in movies at all (huge fan) or the R rating in specific (also, huge fan). It's just sort of irksome that the studios are so willing to be flexible for violence when it's for a big tent pole film for a mega studio, and so rigid and dickish when it's either for sex (like Blue Valentine) or laughably, for language, like when they refused to give a PG13 to that teenager-aimed bullying movie because they used the F word.

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is a just-see movie for anyone who enjoys films I think, as someone else already pointed out in this thread.

The thing with dark knight is everything is implied violence, nothing is graphic, they always cut away to a reaction shot. There's also no swearing from what I can remember, at least I don't remember any f bombs being dropped. But yeah, there's a lot of politics involved for sure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ratings have shifted down the scale in the UK over the past few decades. I don't know whether there is any evidence of this having caused any social problems. (Probably not, looking at the crime rate.)

Naughty modern teenagers can get as much filth and violence as they like on their smartphones nowadays, regardless of the ratings given in cinemas. We'll see in 10 years whether that has any effect.

Well, as a 29 year old who spent adolescence as Internet access was still finding its feet here... I can confidently say it won't. Because teenagers have been able to access material over their age for a LONG time now. Even before the Internet, there was the older sibling, the "cool"/uncaring (delete as appropriate) parents, and that one friend who had a seemingly magical ability to just turn up with tapes.

 Super Ready wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Ratings have shifted down the scale in the UK over the past few decades. I don't know whether there is any evidence of this having caused any social problems. (Probably not, looking at the crime rate.)

Naughty modern teenagers can get as much filth and violence as they like on their smartphones nowadays, regardless of the ratings given in cinemas. We'll see in 10 years whether that has any effect.

Well, as a 29 year old who spent adolescence as Internet access was still finding its feet here... I can confidently say it won't. Because teenagers have been able to access material over their age for a LONG time now. Even before the Internet, there was the older sibling, the "cool"/uncaring (delete as appropriate) parents, and that one friend who had a seemingly magical ability to just turn up with tapes.

Not to mention that WAY back in the day it probably wasn't too hard for a kid to see real sex and violence on a fairly regular basis.

It makes me sad when movies are pg-13 and not rated R - too much happens off camera or is implied.