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.

Delicious Sauce

A new study has found that the level of gun violence in mainstream U.S. pics has more than doubled since 1950, with the level of gunplay in PG-13 movies now outpacing that of R-rated pics.

The study conducted by researchers at Ohio State U. and Annenberg Public Policy Center is to be published in the December edition of Pediatrics.

So PG-13 now means more violence while R means more graphic. Something seems to have gone awry.

Movie ratings are like any comp system. Given enough time, the field will just change to make the most effective lists, I mean movies, within the guidelines.

R movies tend to have better blood effects though.

 Ahtman wrote:
Delicious Sauce

A new study has found that the level of gun violence in mainstream U.S. pics has more than doubled since 1950, with the level of gunplay in PG-13 movies now outpacing that of R-rated pics.

The study conducted by researchers at Ohio State U. and Annenberg Public Policy Center is to be published in the December edition of Pediatrics.

So PG-13 now means more violence while R means more graphic. Something seems to have gone awry.

Meh, I'm fine with this.

Abstract violence is fine in my book. Kill Bill made me chuckle, while that achiles heel-slitting scene in Hostel made me grind my teeth into dust.

Unless by 'graphic' you meant 'sexually explicit'. Because that I find bonkers.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Abstract violence is fine in my book. Kill Bill made me chuckle, while that achiles heel-slitting scene in Hostel made me grind my teeth into dust.

Both those are rated R.

Dont most bullets in Pg-13 movies not at all cause blood? Like I think I recall someone getting shot, there being no blood, but there was a wound

Look at the death toll in red dawn, the movie the pg13 rating was invented for.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont most bullets in Pg-13 movies not at all cause blood? Like I think I recall someone getting shot, there being no blood, but there was a wound

Pretty much, yup. You'll generally get the initial spatter(or that dust spray) of being hit, but you won't really see it on the scenery and that'll be the end.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Look at the death toll in red dawn, the movie the pg13 rating was invented for.

The PG-13 rating was actually invented for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which came out in May of '84 - almost 3 full months before Red Dawn hit theaters.

Though Temple received the rating more for it's much darker tone and 'scariness' rather than an epic body count...

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.

If you look at the old Clint Eastwood westerns like "The Good, the Bad, and the. Ugly", you'll see they are rated R. Why, I do not know since a lot of PG 13 movies are more graphic.

Relapse wrote:
If you look at the old Clint Eastwood westerns like "The Good, the Bad, and the. Ugly", you'll see they are rated R. Why, I do not know since a lot of PG 13 movies are more graphic.

Different times. The rating requirements shift.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Look at the death toll in red dawn, the movie the pg13 rating was invented for.

The PG-13 rating was actually invented for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which came out in May of '84 - almost 3 full months before Red Dawn hit theaters.

Though Temple received the rating more for it's much darker tone and 'scariness' rather than an epic body count...

No, it was rated PG, however negative backlash over the violence in the film contributed to spielberg suggesting to the mpaa that there should be a rating between PG and R. Red dawn was the first film to receive the PG-13 rating.



I would highly reccomend this movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated It's all about the absurdity of the rating system.


I think the whole rating system is kinda fethed up. You can't swear but you can mow people down with a machine gun as long as you don't show what would actually happen to a human body being riddled with 50 cal.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Look at the death toll in red dawn, the movie the pg13 rating was invented for.

The PG-13 rating was actually invented for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which came out in May of '84 - almost 3 full months before Red Dawn hit theaters.

Though Temple received the rating more for it's much darker tone and 'scariness' rather than an epic body count...

Actually, PG-13 was invented because of Gremlins. It was too much for a PG movie, but not enough for an R rating. So the in-between was born.

Reminds me of the old production code, where they had to do freaky stuff to get movies out the way they wanted.
But also, studios can push for certain movies to be certain ratings.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Look at the death toll in red dawn, the movie the pg13 rating was invented for.

The PG-13 rating was actually invented for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which came out in May of '84 - almost 3 full months before Red Dawn hit theaters.

Though Temple received the rating more for it's much darker tone and 'scariness' rather than an epic body count...

Actually, PG-13 was invented because of Gremlins. It was too much for a PG movie, but not enough for an R rating. So the in-between was born.

Red dawn was the first film to receive the PG-13 rating, Gremlins was rated PG. Gremlins did however contribute, along with Temple of Doom to the MPAA's decision to create the pg-13 rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlins

"Rating

Along with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, also rated PG, Gremlins was one of two films in 1984 to influence the MPAA to create the PG-13 rating, with Red Dawn being the first film given the new rating in August 1984.[8] The scene in which a gremlin explodes in the microwave was particularly influential to the idea that some films too light to be rated R are still too mature to be rated PG. The change to the rating system was not insignificant; the rating PG-13 turned out to be appealing to some film patrons, as it implied some excitement without being too explicit."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But also, studios can push for certain movies to be certain ratings.

Very true, there have been plenty of inconsistency with the mpaa's ratings, and often powerful studios have a much easier time getting what they want out of the rating process.

Well, I did say Gremlins was the cause of it, I didn't say it received it at the time. Semantics, good sir!!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Reminds me of the old production code, where they had to do freaky stuff to get movies out the way they wanted.
But also, studios can push for certain movies to be certain ratings.

Yeah, many studios now feel that the rating NC-17 would be the death of their film, so they essentially "pay off" the raters to get it to an R (which I honestly dont understand, as there is VERY little difference between the two, as far as the majority of theater rules go)

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless by 'graphic' you meant 'sexually explicit'. Because that I find bonkers.

SOMEONE has to protect the Puritanical values of the children and elderly.

 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.

Aren't ratings in Canada a lot more lenient than they are in the US? At least comparing sexual content.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Reminds me of the old production code, where they had to do freaky stuff to get movies out the way they wanted.
But also, studios can push for certain movies to be certain ratings.

Yeah, many studios now feel that the rating NC-17 would be the death of their film, so they essentially "pay off" the raters to get it to an R (which I honestly dont understand, as there is VERY little difference between the two, as far as the majority of theater rules go)

Because, no theater will play an NC_17 film.

 Fafnir wrote:
Aren't ratings in Canada a lot more lenient than they are in the US? At least comparing sexual content.

A bit, often you'll find it's one step down the gradient. So something rated R in the states might be 14A here (our equiv of pg13). Sometimes ratings are the same though, it really depends on the movie. Depiction of homosexuality, especially homosexual sex usually tends to get higher ratings from t he mpaa than it would it here.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, no theater will play an NC_17 film.

I'd say they'd play those movies (as it's money in their pockets) they just don't want to have to strictly enforce their own rules.

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.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless by 'graphic' you meant 'sexually explicit'. Because that I find bonkers.

SOMEONE has to protect the Puritanical values of the children and elderly.

Porn is fine to show to young teenagers, as long as its gun porn. The merest hint of a breast and their fragile young minds will be scarred forever and they will probably end up socialists.

Well, my personal favorite is that you can say the F-word once and still be PG-13. Arbitrary much? Is there a huge moral difference between saying it once versus 10 times, 100 times, a 1,000 times?

Also, can anyone think of a movie that has been released in the last decade that was a rated a G movie? They are all PG minimum, PG-13 is the most common, and R is the least common.

Of course, they purposely make R movies pg-13 now by removing the blood and only using the F-word once. Plus they only let you see side-boob nowadays. Otherwise, the content is the same.

Thank god for the MPAA keeping us all sane!

 Palindrome wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless by 'graphic' you meant 'sexually explicit'. Because that I find bonkers.

SOMEONE has to protect the Puritanical values of the children and elderly.

Porn is fine to show to young teenagers, as long as its gun porn. The merest hint of a breast and their fragile young minds will be scarred forever and they will probably end up socialists.

It's working pretty well in our country, do you see any young socialists running around out there? Nope! nothing but scarred kids shooting up movie theaters, malls and schools, bastions of socialism.

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

 Alfndrate wrote:
It's working pretty well in our country, do you see any young socialists running around out there? Nope! nothing but scarred kids shooting up movie theaters, malls and schools, bastions of socialism.

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?

 Seaward wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
It's working pretty well in our country, do you see any young socialists running around out there? Nope! nothing but scarred kids shooting up movie theaters, malls and schools, bastions of socialism.

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?

If you like your automatic rifle, you can keep your automatic rifle. Period.