Lion king gore nudity screenit movie#
Have a girl *********ing in But I'm A Cheerleader (in a scene that's far less graphic, BTW) and THAT gets the movie an NC-17 rating. For example Jason Biggs *********ing in American Pie gets that movie an R rating. Sometimes two different movies with virtually the exact same scene in them can have two totally different ratings. Like showing dozens of people getting gunned down will get you an R rating at worst, but add a scene with a naked woman and all of a sudden it's NC-17. However during the hearing he is not allowed to ask any questions of the MPAA, compare his movie to other films with similar content that had lower ratings, or record the hearing in any way.Īnd that stuff is just what I can remember off the top of my head from the documentary.
Here are some of the insane rules that the MPAA have.ġ) The members of the MPAA panel have to keep their identity a secret.Ģ) They have to be of a certain age, and have children of their own (this rule actually does make sense, however the MPAA ignores this as often as not).ģ) They have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so that they can never discuss what goes on during the rating process, even after they leave the panel.Ĥ) If the rating is not to the film maker's liking, he can file to appeal the ruling. And even if the majority of the panel at the MPAA agrees to rate a movie PG or PG-13, the head of the MPAA can veto their decision and say that the film is NC-17. And if you do this the movie will be rated R." There are general guidelines, but they are ignored nearly as often as they are followed. This other thing will bring the rating up to PG-13. There is so strict set of rules which says "This makes the movie PG.
The arbitrary means by which the movies get rated are completely insane. Watch the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. It's the method by which the films get rated that's total BS. There's no problem with the ratings themselves IMO.
That Captain America and LotR are both rated PG-13 does feel a bit odd, LotR being a much higher/stronger PG-13 if not the upper limit, but they're probably not so different that the same classification is outright wrong. I do think The Lion King should have been rated PG, that it wasn't seems like favoritism to Disney. It seems pretty irrelevant to me that pre-mid-'80s, with the introduction of the intermediate PG-13 rating, PG films had more violence, a new intermediate category will and probably should change perceptions of what what was previously less-intense than R means. While not the ratings themselves, films' reviews and/or marketing I think do tend to convey which PG-13 films are darker and more intense in their tone, including violence, and so which parents may want to be more cautious about (for example TDK sequels and Craig Bond films, which despite being so noted were still successful). Most action blockbusters are rated PG-13 and most parents take their young children to watch them anyway, generally without leading to offenses, complaints or controversy, parents generally not bothered by action-violence as long as it's not particularly intense or graphic. I think the rating system is working pretty well.
0 kommentar(er)
