The rating system should just be PG-13, PG-15, PG-17, or R-13, R-17, etc. Meaning that viewers under that age would either need their parents to see it with them or Parental Guidance if kids are under a certain age. There's a big difference between a bit of blood--like some animal documentary--and gratuitous gore like a zombie film. There's a big difference between a bit of profanity and gratuitous profanity while cutting a bunch of bad guys in half with machine gun fire.
@@Win090949 even tho toy story features alot of mature ideas and themes. just shows how their animations are pushing the plot to appeal to a wider audience but pull live-action to single out the largest demographic of kids to only want to watch the movie.
Ratings today: G: nobody cares about this rating PG: this rating dosent mean anything anymore PG-13: has been made a lot more childish R: the creators can do whatever they want NC-17: nowadays it's "nobody cares-17"
Nihilist Russian - The IT films & Joker as well but that rating in mainstream marketed films (outside of serious attempted horror films) was getting almost as rare as the X rating.
Yeah, where were you when the NBA 2k20 trailers were released? The ones with gambling taking up most of the run time with some guy having the same reactions as gambling ads want? That said the game was rated E (for the U.S.) and PEGI 3 (for Europe). Plus, movies do say why they have their rating on the box, just the same as video games. The problem is ratings not being justified when looking at precedent. I mean, having paid loot boxes in your game should be an automatic AO/PEGI 21 for gambling, yet FIFA, NBA 2k, WWE 2k, and any other licensed sports title has them nowadays and are rated E/PEGI 3. Movies have the opposite problem, where movies that should be rated PG wind up being PG-13. Tl;dr - both rating systems suck in opposite ways.
+Demonic Culture Nut A Choking Fish was probably in The U.S. when the NBA 2k20 trailers were released. It sounds like the ESRB is a bit different from PEGI. Dunno for sure, though.
Jaws was rated PG. A movie about a great white shark that terrorizes a town beach and the mission sent out to slaughter it, with blood and body parts throughout. Apparently, it's in the same league as Finding dory, Frozen, and Inside Out.
Wouldn't it be fun if someone back in 80's made some PG movie about a maniac who almost literally turned victims inside out and called it... Inside Out
The rating on Jaws was correct. For all the gore audience members think they saw, there is no on camera violence, save for the shots of Robert Shaw in the shark’s mouth. The filmmakers did a fantastic job editing around most of the attack scenes, which was necessary since the prosthetic shark kept breaking down and the skin was being eaten by the salt water. Now, had the shark worked and Spielberg had shot the way he wanted to, with the shark visible from the beginning, it would have gotten an R-rating, but also would have been dismissed as just another gory monster movie.
Why do swear words have the same weight as blood and gore. to me at least swear words really don't effect me even when i was 12 but blood and gore do. If you walk down the street you are going to hear a swear but your not going to see arms getting ripped off and pool of blood that follows. sure swearing isn't something you should teach kids when their 9 and under but by the time they hit 4th grade they have heard most swear words and looked them up online.
If I was making a rating system, I would do: PG - Fart Jokes/words like damn - 5yo and older PG-13 - 10+ Four-letter words/Violence/Mature themes - 10yo and older R - 15+ Gore/Full Nudity/Very Mature themes - 15yo and older
It really depends on the kid because I can watch blood and gore and not be affected and I know some people my age who are not affected. But I also know some people who are the same age as me that would be horrified.
Because we raise our children to believe that some words are taboo for some reason. Silly really when you learn that the only reason most of them are considered improper is because the Norman's beat the English hundreds of years ago.
When I was growing up in the late 70's, my mom used to tell me G stood for "good", PG for "pretty good", R for "Rotten" and X for "eXtra rotten"....made perfect sense to a 7 year old!
She probably meant what she said, but she was using the terms in a moral sense rather than artistic quality. Remember back when you tried to tell your parents when you got an F on your report card that it was supposed to stand for "Fine" or "Fantastic!"?
examples:. CSI, Walking Dead, Hannibal, American Horror Story. I love horror movies but they all suck these days, TV has them beat hands down because they keep making them PG13
TV either already has your money or they already have the advertisers' money. Movies need to get that box office from you. TV can drop a hundred thousand on an episode or two and have advertisers who have already paid for the ad spots. Movies can drop a hundred million, but have to hope someone pays to see the movie. I personally believe that television is only able to go to the limits of what they do only because they are more strictly monitored. Broadcast television knows that from 9pm - 11pm their restrictions as more lax, but there are boundaries they must still adhere to. Pay channels, like FX and Comedy Central, have even less restrictions. While Premium channels, like HBO and Showtime, are about as restictionless as you can get. Again, it all comes down to money. TV already has it, and movies are trying to get it.
Yes. It is dumb that every other rating is essentially ghettoized, although the success of films like Deadpool and Logan does seem to indicate that it might be coming to a stop. Might. What's even sillier is, I want to give my reactions to three movies when I watched them all within the past two or so years. When I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, I was amazed by all the family-unfriendly violence you'd never get away with in a PG film nowadays, yet when I watched Temple of Doom I did not find the film to be so alarmingly violent in any way - although perhaps it's a case of, in TV Tropes lingo, Hype Backlash and Seinfeld is Unfunny. Then a few months after watching Temple of Doom I saw The Dark Knight and felt like the film could have been even better with an R-rating, so it could better convey the chaos caused in Gotham by The Joker. Thankfully the direction, acting, and action sequences were strong enough to overcome some flaws that would be pretty glaring otherwise (and no I don't mean Batman's throat cancer voice - it's silly, yeah, but I get what they were going for, and TDK has much bigger problems. Thank god for the MCU to put an end to all manner of idiotic attempts to emulate The Dark Knight that tend to amp its flaws to the point of borderline unwatchability).
The PG-13 rating itself isn't the problem, it's when they edit R-rated films down to PG-13, which far too often backfire as this vid pointed out. Slender Man was another movie that was ruined by being cut to PG-13, it was literally an incoherent, incomplete mess.
Same for the Blade movies. Can't have a movie about a Vampire hunter - a hunter of creatures who literally gorge themselves on blood - without a solid R rating. Lets hope the Blade reboot keeps up the R rating.
@@ubisuccle I doubt it. The whole purpose of Once Upon a Deadpool was to give money to a Cancer charity organization (literally called "fuck Cancer"). The movie itself didn't did that good because of the censorship, so I don't think you should worry. They know that watering Deadpool down doesn't give results.
Nowadays, PG-13 movies are seen as "for kids" on IMDB. Even though it's mostly because of movies like The Avengers and Age of Ultron. This makes no sense as a lot of kids went to see Deadpool, so does that mean that Deadpool is for kids?
+Nightbane Games The descriptor for a PG-13 reads "Parents STRONGLY Cautioned," but today it's gotten to the point where it's been watered down to "family-friendly" instead. Movies like The Avengers should have been rated PG, compared to more 'intense' titles like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale who fully earn their PG-13.
EpikFilmz11 Avengers had to be PG-13 because of lines like "Son of a bitch," "huge bag of weed?" "This is my bargain you mewling quim!" "I tried to shoot myself and the other guy spit it out," also the Hulk's transformation sounds painful and he's pretty scary. If it was PG, parents would complain that it's too frightening for children. That's why the rating exists now, even though if Avengers was made in 1983, it'd be a PG and no one would care.
Taken should've been rated R. The unrated version is what was intended to be seen and the theatrical version is just the MPAA trying desperately to make money off another PG-13-edited version of a deserved R-rated movie.
The documentary 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' talked about a big part of this: The raters got old. Originally the MPAA was setup with actual parents of kids of the different age groups. But they never replaced them. Their kids grew up, went to college, got mortgages, and mom and dad stayed on getting older and older and dictating their opinions for the MPAA. Everything you said in this video about the explicit-ness of scenes being of absolute paramount important is 100% true. Many instances of censorship to get a rating concentrate specifically on the exact number of seconds something is shown, exactly how close a zoom is, etc. There isn't just a list of "If someone gets shot, its PG-13". It comes down to how 'hard hitting' the scene is. There is also a great deal of concern over what the consequences of certain actions are. For instance, if a character does drugs, they MUST suffer grave harm or extreme problems (getting sent to prison, etc) because of it. A major contributor to this is also the extreme (and historically unprecedented) change in parenting. From the beginning of time, the job of a parent was to turn a child into an adult. Starting in the mid-1990s, however, that changed. The job of a parent now is to turn a child into a larger child. The next time you hear a parent say that their child is "too young" for something or "not ready" for something, ask them what they are going to do to MAKE the child ready. The idea will blow their mind (and probably piss them off). They don't see that as their job. Hell, they don't even see it as POSSIBLE any longer. They believe, and are catastrophically wrong, that maturity is a product of aging. They think that a capacity to handle important and intense issues somehow comes about as a natural consequence of brain development. In reality, brain development does not occur unless exposure to intense situations and ideas happens. That's what DRIVES brain development. If you put an eyepatch over a babies eye (don't do this) and take it off when they're a year old because they're "not ready" for binocular vision (and they're not, its learned, we are not born with the ability to integrate the image from both eyes into a single cohesive whole), guess what? They will NEVER be capable of mastering binocular vision. It has to develop in the first few weeks of life, or it can never happen, the brain develops to handle single-eye vision and the introduction of a second one can never be fully adapted to. You mention the Janet Jackson nipple scandal... but you didn't mention the outcome of that. I think it is very important. The outcome was that the FCC told TV stations that they were not permitted to censor. Straight up, they came out HARD against censorship of TV. They said that fining TV stations for airing objectionable content was illegal. And to those who think that censorship is good, that censorship keeps society from descending into depravity, that mature content can easily be expressed in different ways and get the same ideas across - that decision gave us Breaking Bad. It gave us The Walking Dead. It gave us the ability to tell mature stories that could not have worked without being done in a sincere manner. Censorship is poison. In every circumstance where a creator wanted to show or say something and they either had to alter it, or decided to not even do it at all out of fear of peoples reactions, our culture rots a bit.
I think I agree with everything you wrote except the whole "not ready" bit. I think that's a very important part of knowing how to parent properly. In my case, though this is admittedly anecdotal, I wasn't allowed to watch or play occult-based movies or games until I was like 15 because my mom didn't like my reaction to them. (It was "Oh that's cool." and not fear, I was *too* into it for her liking.) My sister on the other hand, was watching Saw at 9 or 10 because ultraviolence apparently had no discernable affect on her. As far as "what makes them ready", yes time does, as well as controlled exposure and knowing your kid.
Now that you've mentioned it, yeah, that's the way I've been seeing it. Not all "R" movies but for the most part the mature tone of most of the "R" movies I see have a watered down feel. Like when you have too much ice in your soda, the ice melts and you taste a literal watered down drink, you can still tell it's coke/pepsi/whatever but it's almost like half of it is water. The things that make it an R movie are still there but it's a real weak comparison from what you were use to.
This is the problem with weak PG-13 movies, it makes R rated movies too wildly inconsistent, so if a parent were to see a weak R movie and see it isn't that bad and lets their kid see it thinking they can handle and they do, then that makes that parent believe any R movie is okay at which point the kid might see something that scars them. Deadpool 1 seemed R enough, but besides the cussing and the one scene where juggernaut rips him in half with the guts spewing Deadpool 2 felt it was already for pg-13 before that version came out. And there are harder Rs than that which wouldn't be good for a kid to see. So weak PG-13s are actually making things worse.
This isn't something new though. The MPAA has been watering down the R rating since the 80s as well. The friday the 13th series was hit hard with censorship when it came to kills a lot of them cut away just as fast as that PG-13 andaconda movie did. I know it may not seem like it but the kills they filmed compared to what was shown to us were drastically different in length and gruesomeness.
Even in other countries! I bought a 18+ movie in Australia, which is basically meant to be one rating worse than America's "R"... a Nazi said the N word once, another Nazi got decapitated with cheesy low budget 80s gore (everyone could see it was a mannequin), and the rest of the violence was basically karate montages, with most gross stuff happening off camera. What happened?!
PG-13 seems very childish compared to R. I wish more companies made movies for entertainment, instead of making money. Deadpool did that and obliterated the box office.
People misunderstand, the only reason Deadpool made so much money is because they only put 65 million dollars into the movie, along with the fact that they could have literally released a picture of a cat extended to an hour and. a half and made a boatload of money because blind Deadpool fans would insist it's "ironic" and hilarious
Ermm, well you're both correct and incorrect. Deadpool's massive cost to profit ratio is definitely larger than normal because of it's small budget, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with it's box office numbers, which broke records. It's the highest grossing R rated film of all time, purely on box office--that has nothing whatsoever to do with it's budget. Also the highest grossing film in the X-Men franchise, again nothing to do with budget. If you had said the numbers were inflated due to the time it was released, I would buy into that argument more, though. The lack of any new release competition at that time definitely gave the film an advantage. Also, I think you over estimate the number of Deadpool fans out there. It has grown over the years, sure, but maaany people knew nothing about the character before going in--speaking as someone who is a big fan of the character, I had many friends (even friends who read comics) asking me about him shortly before the film was released, and others asking if the film got it right, after it's release. People know the iconography, but the actual fans of the character have nowhere near the numbers to explain it's massive success.
Was about to type that. It is at approx. the 10 min mark. Action heroes spraying bullets at anonymous henchmen who fall over, is completely different from executing a political prisoner, or watching someone's lungs and heart destroyed by rifle ammunition. Sam Peckinpah built a career on this fact. I guess it is subjective and an artistic choice, but the people in charge are idiots to not recognize the difference.
it was mostly because of the minimal sexual content and nudity and psychological thrill, cussing adds on but not much. but yeah i agree, i would consider it a more mature pg13
I had a conversation about this at school. I told someone if I were to make a movie about a guy who kills a ton of people with a katanna by slicing off their limbs, BUT don't show any blood, it would probably be PG-13. Even people are self aware of this issue. Usually PG-13 movies have stuff like mass destruction scenes, but its okay if we see a crap ton of buildings be destroyed, they don't spurt blood, so it's all good!
Ramen Bowl Productions This is exactly the problem, and I think it’s a case of the reviewers being lazy. They’re just looking at what’s literally shown in the frame instead of looking at the theme and context. If I was being charitable, I’d suggest perhaps the MPAA are understaffed and/or underfunded for the level of content being released. Less charitably, I’d suggest they’re simply not qualified to do their job properly.
Actually.....that could work. If it were a heated blade or like a lightsaber you would have charred smoldering wounds. And if you wanna make it R you done need blood. He takes the disabled to his lair where they get sewn back together wrong. }:3
You can have the most violent PG-13 movie imaginable but as long as everybody keeps their clothes on and nobody says "f*ck" too many times you'll get your PG-13 rating.
I seriously doubt that playing Dark Souls or watching The Royal Tenenbaums will turn you into the Antichrist. Those films and games aren't for kids though and I think the R / M rating should make that clear. (Though it would be hilarious to watch 11-year olds ragequit DS...)
Lol. Yup. I got to watch Poltergeist and Gremlins over and over again, because they were rated PG. I think watching Poltergeist over 40 times when I was 7 is what numbed me to scary movies. They just really don't scare me at all.
***** Poltergeist was messed up. Not because of the movie itself, but because they used actual skeletons as props. I get that the director wants the movie to be authentic, but that's taking it too far. People DIED because of health complications related to that.
Spencer Andersen I dunno. I hope it is. Either way, real skeletons were used on the set, and they were believed to have been linked to certain health complications that the cast and crew had later on. Look up "Poltergeist Curse"
Bottom line, some films should be strictly R, others strictly PG-13. Studios need to realize that because not every single film can be rated R, not every single film needs to be PG-13 either. But both ratings can co-exist, i say.
+Gabreya Bradley All of that I agree with more or less. Studios are unfortunately placing more emphasis on the financial end of producing films than both the art and what audiences really want to see.
Gabreya Bradley I can get behind the latter, yeah. But at the same time, I have to contend that a lot of times (even for R-rated films), blood and gore AREN'T necessary to portray death onscreen in a believable way. I'm NOT a gore-hound at all. I personally don't find it the 'only' way to 'realistically' portray death in films and TV shows. You CAN portray death in a very believable manner without it. You just need the right creative minds to do it. Also, I say films that should be getting remakes/reboots are ones that FAILED the first time. Give films that weren't critical and financial hits a second chance, you know? What's unfortunate about that is, like you said, studios want to play it safe by focusing on properties that were already popular to begin with.
USA should implement a rating system like other counties have. Something like: 0, 7, 12, 15, 18 ... meaning you have more options than just G, PG, R (X is basically just R+1).
If PG-13 went back to this the statement everything is better with an R rating would be bullshit, cause right now that's true but if we gave people leeway to create what they wanted rate it accordingly but make it easier to keep a PG-13 rating this could do wonders. I just had my mind blown and I'm not even high.
Series that start out with an R rating are better with an R rating. Same for PG-13. People always want to draw in new audiences, but it's not a good idea to do so at the expense of the original audience. This was the problem with the second xXx movie, which maintained the same rating as the original; it changed the style from x-games and metal music to gangster and rap music. It just didn't fit. The movie should have a rating that fits.
I let my 9-year-old watch The King's Speech. That scene, taken in context, is fine. When I first watched the film, I wondered why it was R for the longest time. Until that one scene. Even my parents, who are anti-F-word, enjoyed the film and understood why that scene existed.
UA-cam often takes that stuff very seriously. I had to guard my video if it contains sexual content as well as trimming down the offensive shit if I wanna show it.
That seems to be related to the advertisers, because, if you want to have nudity on your video (as long as it's not porn), you can put it on your video, but, it won't get monetised by UA-cam, those who get money from their own sponsors or donations, they don't care about censoring what UA-cam and their advertisers have set to monetise the videos, now, of course, there is a community guidelines which need to be followed, too, but, that's a little different story. Since most advertisers are companies from USA and/or their regional divisions in USA, it's not surprise they have similar rules than those imposed in U.S. TV and films
It annoys me that studios make PG13 sequels to R-Rated movies, like Terminator. As someone who's only seen one R Movie (The Matrix, and that was for school) I have zero interest in seeing a Terminator sequel until I see the first film.
How old are you that you've only seen one r rated movie? You must have really strict parents that put parental locks on every device because I was watching r rated movies since I was 7. We didn't even have pass codes, parental locks, or v-chips on anything back then either, not to mention access to the internet.
And to get G you have to be so inoffensive and bland it's disgusting. Aladdin wouldn't get G these days because it's too violent and scary. Fucking Aladdin. Basically Hollywood seems to want there to be one rating: PG13.
My cinema had a fucking screening of The Meg (PG-13) for their "mommy and baby" group. I've never seen it but it must be a pretty tame shark movie if people are comfortable enough to bring their damn babies along.
The comparisons you did starting at 10:07 are a real eye-opener. It's not just the lack of blood, but the editing in the newer movies is ADD-quick to avoid showing the consequences as much as possible. The PG-13 has really become a de-facto Hayes Code, down to the neutering of content and the financial motivation.
I've never understood why censorship groups in the US are so anal about language. I mean, you can massacre an entire room full of people in a PG-13 movie, as long as there isn't too much blood and guts, but if you say 'fuck' more than once or in a sexual way at all, it's automatically rated R.
I thought it was the nudity that gives a movie the R rating. Most PG-13 movies get away with letting in a few "fucks" but the second a movie shows a set of female tits, there's total outrage from the parents.
***** The thing I remembered about the SOUTH PARK flick, the MPAA didn't consider giving the flick an "R" rating until after it was released. When Parker and Stone were doing the press tour for the film, they talked about their problems with the MPAA throughout the press tour. The NC-17 rating didn't become an issue until after that with Jack Valente saying he should've nailed it with a NC-17 after he and his group were besmirched by the filmmaking duo. .
I think it shows a perfect persona of how our current culture is. Where the whole PC police came from. I, we, grew up with all of this feeling natural, sure it might be a bit scary, but it was ok. Now, like he said, it's been treated with kids gloves, and we see what it has done to this generation, over all. Coddled and family safe. Fuck that. I'll take tits and ass, and a bucket of blood on the side, sprinkled with fucks throughout. I say, fuck the children, (not literally people), let em see the world isn't as safe and fuck free as they think it is. Snowflake is a thing, and it kinda sucks, and I hope it dies off. Because if it continues to increase, it may just be the death of us. *Edited a word.
I just don't understand... How does a generation who grew up on Aliens, Predator and had anime with as much blood and gore, the best in heavy metal and movies with ultraviolence grow up to be this mega censored PC race? I get the PG-13 dillema, its a bit complicated... But what I'm talking about goes deeper. Visa, Mastercard, and other credit bureau have policies recently in place that prevents them from being used to help advertise pornohraphy and have long made it very difficult for those in the industry to collect funds through sites like Paypal. I have to ask, why? This is supposed to be a capitalist company trying to make a profit... So why are they trying to control our access to adult material? Why do they care about our seeing red blood on Mortal Kombat videos? This stuff doesn't earn them cash...
Krystal Myth Some people grow to hate something when they get older and realize how “”evil”” it is. A big moment of rebellion then sobering up and wondering why they liked that. Plenty of things I liked when I was 15 (currently 19) then turned around one day and wondered “Dang why did I like that” lol (tho for me I didn’t reject all of it; just some of the completely nonsensical bits). Some were raised to already dislike how much was there and see it all as senseless, and they grew up to help tone it down several notches. And both groups could be influenced by the parents who grew up with the less violent and “more story-needed” aspects. The 40s films that focused more on suspense than violence, the tv westerns that had modern PG-13 esque violence (gunfire with no blood upon impact), sex being something that wasn’t explicit but more implied through phrases that you knew meant *it* but to a younger person could be mistaken for simply making out, etc. Best reason I can give to them controlling adult content (aside from pornography) is the availability. Many are ignorant and think anything is available for anyone w/o research or even looking at the back of a box. So with all the people thinking this, something like Mortal Kombat gets backlash due to it being so available for kids to see and play to the unknowing parent (tho I don’t get how a cover doesn’t tell them that; in the 90s it made sense but now there’s a big M for Mature there for those who might miss it based on the look of the box). They don’t want their kids exposed to it but don’t wanna be fully responsible for keeping them away from it. That or they do try but they think there’s too many bases to cover. Companies wanna sell stuff, so they comply and make anything more available to the wider audience. We’ll probably never get a Black Ops 1 again due to more teens and kids playing it (even though it’s rated M) and CoD steering itself towards that demographic to get even more on board
Wow you fucking moron A it has nothing to do with morality and B the people who made the bot that demonizes the shitty content UA-camrs think they're owed money on was not from this generation
@@sumrose7972 PC police and morality police are not one and the same. Morality police is pushed by the Evangelical Right, while the PC police is the Left.
To me, the fact that violence in PG-13 rated films has become bloodless is more of a concern as it paints violence and killing as something very easy to do and no big deal. At least when people died on screen in 1980s films, you saw them convincingly die, you saw the consequences of getting shot or stabbed and I think young people _need_ to see this. Same goes for nudity, it seems to me that Western society has become more puritanical has time has gone by to the point that young men actually complain about seeing women sexualise _themselves voluntarily_ and posting women's nipples on Instagram gets those women banned. There's nothing inherently wrong with the naked body and there's certainly nothing wrong with artistic, non sexual nudes. Again, I think young people _need to see this. Hehe, I'm becoming quite the reverse Mary Whitehouse here, aren't I?
Here here! I 100% agree with both points. Also, fuuck Mary Whitehouse.. From her Doctor Who hate, to that disastrous video nasty campaign. Couldn't get much better than the reverse of that woman.
I fully agree with you,nudity and violence makes people grow up better because ir's actually good to be a little insensitive. If you are too much sensitive any real life event that is not of your liking will bring u down.
It's not western society, it's just the USA. Watch any UK or french film... especially french "artsy film"... it's like they can't wait to undress their actress... Blue is the Warmest Color ? That's NC-17 for US audience... It's -12 for French audience (that's like a PG-13, more of NC-13 maybe... although it was given a -16 for TV broadcast).
I remember seeing "Titanic" in the theater and I remember that there was like a 10 year old boy about two seats from me. During the nude scene his parent or whoever tried to shield his eyes for about two seconds before giving up. Lol
I saw Pulp Fiction in theaters when I was 12. I remember a couple (of adults) in front of me turning around, asking, "how did you kids get in here?" "we just paid, man"
great video. as a parent of 3 I think that parents need to be the determining factor becsuse they are, oh I don't know, the parents! only stupidity and laziness are to blame for the parents that think it's someone else's job to do their job. I watch everything before my kids do, and I know everything they are watching, yes, everything. my wife and I do our part ad the parents, and know it is no one else's jobs, especially the gov't.
One problem with the rating system you didn't mention is that the MPAA is industry-run, not an independent rating system. There have been times when it seemed that independent films were given higher ratings (or studio films given lower ratings) to try and influence sales, and because it is so closely tied to the major studios it's harder to dismiss those allegations.
the gun action in the modern movies you show in contrast to the older movies seems like the victims are portrayed as totally hollow and meaningless enemies in a videogame. kind of disconcerting. id argue that its kind of.. worse than victims (whether theyre good or bad characters) being shown as reacting in a "real" way, bleeding, and suffering
What wimpy video-games are you playing? I'm used to enemies I kill melting into a pile of sludge and bones in slow motion while screaming after being shot.
So, basically if you watch a PG-13 movie say in the theater and it later comes on DVD or Blu Ray as an "unrated" version, you're really just watching the R rated version? What a rip off
Yep, if you own a 50 inch or up 4K TV the theater thing seems a lot more pointless considering the picture quality of a blu ray looks far better than a theater screen. The only thing a theater has over home video now is screen size but that's it, our home systems are becoming so more advanced now that theaters seem obsolete lol. It wasn't like that in the 90's/2000's.
@@austinwillcut4919 If i wanted to watch a movie with such a big screen, I could get my own projector, canvas screen, and surround sound system, then set them up in my backyard.
This is great! Although, I'm getting really sick of movies that get an R rating because of one or two bad words. Teenagers hear more than that in the real world! Hell, they say more than that in the real world.
Kristina Kaylor IKR? It’s no wonder school codes of conduct disallowing profanity usage should be deemed unfair thanks to schools permissively requiring entire student bodies to learn from profanity-laced curricular material, regardless of how nervous I felt when I had to go through that experience! After all, this should definitely be a reason why kids should stay in school!
You really hit the nail on the head. The MPAA ratings system needs to go back to what it was intended to be: as a guideline, not as a censorship bureau.
Your evaluation is amazingly astute. I'm an 80s kid and it makes me ill to see you the way my childhood favorite movies like RoboCop have been butchered in the name of roping a larger demographic. Making movies is obviously a business (*BIG* business) but the studios have forgotten that _it is a cultural expression._ Just as much art as a painting or lovey song.
How everything was in the 1980’s in spite of no internet existing at that time, it makes my generation in Gen Z look stupid. There was a lot of things you could get away with back then that you can’t now.
The G rating is almost non-existent as well. That is probably a side effect of all this pushing for a rating to sell tickets; instead of making good movies and letting ratings happen.
+Spencer Andersen There are new restrictions to bump the rating up that wouldn't have made sense to censors a few decades before. A description called "children in peril" gets a PG, so most of the G-rated family films of a previous generation would automatically be PG now. Oliver and Company came out before the smoking rules, but it would actually be rated R now for that. In Saving Mr. Banks, Tom Hanks could hold the cigarette as long as he didn't puff it, otherwise it would be R. Fucking pointless rating system.
Harpo Django Rose Other countries do seem to have their priorities straight. Many R-rated comedies are rated for ages 12 and older in Germany and the Netherlands. (Bruno got away with a 12 in the Netherlands, meaning most middle schoolers could watch it.) However, PG-13 movies with lots of gun violence or horror like The Expendables 3 or Insidious almost always get those countries' equivalents of an R rating. According to IMDB The Dark Knight was rated the equivalent of R in Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden (probably because Heath Ledger's Joker would scare the crap out of the kiddies.) European censors in general tend to be looser on swearing or sex, but tougher on violence and scary moments.
Ha I remember in my middle school we had a movie club and would pick movies for anyone to watch but they had to be pg and I brought poltergeist , ROFL. I love the old rating system. 😂
Awesome video. Here is something I have noticed, since movies have been showing less blood and gore associated with violence, we suddenly have a lot more school shootings and teen violence in the real world. When you make violence look harmless and appealing it makes it easier to want to do violence for real. In movies today, violent acts look less horrific than a day at a paint ball range. When I was a teenager with the bloody gore in movies, seeing acts of violence made you cringe and look away. There were real consequences to the violence on screen. Seeing people who look like they really got hurt, makes you not want to actually hurt people.
***** Yeah, that is the problem with PG-13 rated, bloodless violence--it shows no consequences! It conditions young minds to believe that violence has no bloody consequences and that it's okay. Everyone will want to have sex, but nobody wants to be a victim of violence.
The bit about ratings limiting your audience is no longer bullshit. Deadpool and IT prove that if the movie is good, an R-rating can bring in just as much as your pg-13 baby edits.
It depends on the movie, for example Birds of Prey (2020) [despite me and others enjoying its R rated nature] was a disappointment at the box office partly because young Harley Quinn fans weren't able to watch the movie without parents.
But Deadpool was rated the equivalent of R in many countries though- some with much stricter guidelines. In Germany and the Netherlands you had to be 16 or older to watch it, no exceptions, while in the UK you had to be 15 and in the province of Manitoba, 14. Yet it did well internationally so obviously any age restrictions didn't hinder its financial success.
+Spencer Andersen In Ontario you actually had to be 18 to watch it unless accompanied by an adult. Now I think that's a little too harsh considering there are more intense movies out there that were given 14A in Ontario. Thank God Deadpool got a 14A home video rating though.
+Marco Hidalgo One rating I just can't figure out is Breaking Bad's- it only got a PG for Canadian home video but it's about a guy who makes meth to keep his family afloat so.... not really for kids.
@@sumrose7972 Well this means that most of the movies we get - the vast majority are US movies that are either in English or with a French dub - are rated 13+. This means most movies rated R in the US are available for kids under 13 as long as an adult(18+) is present. Once in a great while you'll get a movie that gets a 16+ rating. Sausage Party was the first I'd seen in years. Then you have movies critics don't understand or obviously adult movies getting the 18+ rating. Natural Born Killers was rated 18+, for instance. Haven't seen one rated that high in...geez I dunno.
Awesome, awesome analysis! I was 12 when Red Dawn came out and used to think PG-13 was awesome! But for the past 10 years I've been saying that PG-13 sucks and that Hollywood is watering down what should otherwise be good edgy films. You helped me to realize that I hadn't changed.. the standard changed.
As a person that generally doesn't watch R-rated movies and many PG-13 movies because of the violence/profanity/sensuality, I also COMPLETELY AGREE that this practice of watering down R-rated movies is ruining the overall quality of the movies in both categories; the PG-13 ones because we're getting just-below-R movies that are poorly adapted, and the R category because many of those movies would have been better movies without the adjustments, so the pool of actually good R-rated movies is smaller. As an aside, since I watch so few R-rated movies, the ones I have watched also have had a lot more impact on me than I think they would have otherwise, and I appreciate them more for that. I usually wait until a movie is so well-acclaimed that I feel like I need to watch it, like most recently Road to Perdition. I can't imagine that movie would have had the same impact on me if it had been adjusted to be PG-13.
Rating should be a warning, not a banning. They should only be there to tell you what potentially offensive stuff is in there. But if someone decides to see an R-rated movie, there should be no barrier beyond the price of admission.
+And Dav The MPAA doesn't rate actual porn. That's why you dont have "X" as an MPAA rating (NC-17 replaced it) "X" is used as a marketing ploy for porn, for example the often used "XXX" never was an actual MPAA rating.
A movie that is essentially soft-core porn with a plot would be given an NC-17 rating. At any rate, op is saying an 8 year old should allowed to view Showgirls or a similar movie without restriction.
1 thing I think is NO MOVIE EVER, should be Rated R just for Language. Kinda sad when various movies like that are rated R in US for language, but get like an age range equivalent from like 7 to 15 rating throughout the world. The King's Speech was a perfect example. R rated in USA, but rated 7, PG, 10, 12 in various other places. I mean the documentary film "Gunner Palace" is a perfect example of how the rating SHOULD have been for language. Even with 42 uses of Fuck, still got a PG-13 (on re-rating appeal) and yes i know the reason why. This should honestly apply to all films and not just for the scenario of why they wanted a lower rating. Honestly, a PG-15 rating would solve a lot of these problems. Then also Remove NC-17 or something. The movie "Safe House" is a perfect example of a movie that I think should have Never gotten an R. I actually saw it on some Premium Movie channel years ago, and only AFTER the movie was over I saw it was R which shocked me as I've seen movies way more violent and got a PG-13. Most likely the waterboarding and themes are why they said R rating as the violence was no where near as bad as they made it sound. It was not "Strong Violence Throughout" as the rating says. Taken (Unrated Cut) I think still should have been PG-13 (maybe excluding the interrogation chair change).
+lonewolf colin (Colintheexecutioner) I thought the same thing. Most creators hardly look at the comments, let alone comment back personally. I gave him props too and he messaged me back in hours. A really nice touch to already great videos.
Are there any violent PG-13 films from the 80s and early 90s? The ones I could think of are the Tremors films, the Critters films, Dances with Wolves, Licence to Kill and Ghost
@@aziziabdrahman7756 Gremlins 2, Monster Squad, only the third Indiana Jones got a PG13 because the rating wasn't invented yet when the first two came out despite those ones being WAY more gory.
Totally agree 100%. It is nine kinds of bullshit that boobs = hard R. God forbid a 13-year old be subjected to something that they've already seen a million times on the internet in a far worse context.
13 year old!? I think you're gravely mistaken... I have a 6 year old nephew who has shown me some shit that I didn't know existed that I don't know how to access... I'm like WTF!? Where the hell did u find this?! It's kinda cool but your dad needs to take away your iPad kid. kids these days... they grow up so fast.
13 year old!? I think you're gravely mistaken... I have a 6 year old nephew who has shown me some shit that I didn't know existed that I don't know how to access... I'm like WTF!? Where the hell did u find this?! It's kinda cool but your dad needs to take away your iPad kid. kids these days... they grow up so fast.
There is so much crap here on UA-cam, from overrated Let's Plays to Make Up Tutorials and so on. This Video, Sir, is, for me as a Movie Fanatic, the most informative Video I've seen this year on UA-cam. I will Link this Video with my Blog in the upcoming time, because I'm very interested in the PG13/R Rating Topic. Thanks.
MonsieurAufziehvogel Thanks for the compliment! If you liked this, check out my other WTF videos as well as my Exploring videos. They are the most detailed.
What's funny is that in his pre-post 2004 comparisons you can see why the PG-13 rating was needed in the late 80s. The split was just too stark. It was a nice middle ground, but now it's just so... pointless.
I was at a talk by somebody from the BBFC (British Board Of Film Classification) and they said that they gave The King's Speech a 12A (basically PG-13) because of the context of that scene.
@@Warrior2044 The 15 certificate was withdrawn and replaced by a 12A rating. R means that anyone under the age of 17 must be accompanied by an adult guardian - You're getting R and NC-17 mixed up.
I saw a clip of a tv edit of Rob Zombie's Halloween film. It made me wonder how long it took them to edit the movie, since there's like 80-100 F-Words (possibly more), plus other expletives, teen nudity, and lots of blood and gore. It just doesn't seem like a movie that should be shown on network television. Imagine a PG-13 edit of Goodfellas. Joe Pesci would be out of a job. There's like 300 F-Words (most likely more) in the film...and Pesci is responsible for at least 80% of them. It just wouldn't be good as a PG-13 movie.
This makes me think about how on Comedy Central, when they have a stand-up comedian on there, and they decide to censor the profanity. It's hard to follow when the punchline is a censored word. The audience watching it live laughs, because they know what the word is. The tv audience can't laugh because the punchline is censored and it makes no sense at all.
that makes no sense. i actually remeber seeing a movie on network tv where the main character called someone a fuckface in the orginal cut and they replaced the word fuckface with frenchfry?
Wow, this is an excellent video! It says everything I've been complaining about for years now, well said! I'm sick of this PG-13 era, I'm hoping that studios will soon realise that they're actually losing customers by censoring their movies. We also have a load of bland, forgettable movies. Like the Robocop remake, Terminator Salvation, Total Recall etc. Nobody will be talking about them in 30 years time, unlike the originals that were made in the 80s and still highly regarded today. It's time they stop ruining art for the sake of money.
VirtualMark Thank you! It is such a shame. They don't seem to be looking long term anymore. It all has to make a quick buck now and then they don't care if if drops off. Its all product to them.
GoodBadFlicks The only real thing we can do is vote with our feet, and stop paying to see them. If enough people do it, maybe they'll realise and start making decent movies again. Let the director have total control to realise their vision, that's the only way a movie should be made. From what I've seen of the Termingator Genisys trailer, it looks like it'll be PG-13. The T-1000 gets shot off camera, then you see it heal. A Terminator movie should be R rated, else we'll end up with Terminators that throw people around instead of punching holes in them. If that's the case, I'm not interested, and won't pay to see it. But if it turns out to be R, then I'll pay to watch it in IMAX.
***** The studios, without a doubt. They are the ones who dictate to the director that it has to be a PG-13. They compromise the art for the sake of profit, which sucks. A director should have the final say, and the quality of the movie should always be the first priority imo.
In my opinion, PG-13 *is* the problem. All its implementation did was muddy the waters. Instead of creating a new rating, the summer of '84 should have been used to remind parents what the ratings mean. Instead, the rating system makes far less sense now than it used to. Most modern PG rated movies would have been G before PG-13 and the vast majority of PG-13 films would have been PG before its invention, so what's the point? Beyond this, the completely arbitrary standards the MPAA uses couldn't be more full of it if they tried. Nudity is the best example. Back in the days before the waters were muddied with another gratuitous rating, breasts were bared in many movies with a PG rating. This makes sense. At the end of the day, they're just boobs: feed bags for baby that just happen to also look nice. Then PG-13 came along and the MPAA decided you can still show breasts in that rating... so long as they're shown in an asexual context. Well, unless it's Terminator: Salvation. Nothing was overtly sexual in that scene, but it was the last thing cut in order for them to lose the R rating. Let's compare that to The Notebook. You've got breasts in a sex scene and the movie is still PG-13. I guess they knew teenage girls would be the main audience for the movie so they let it slide lest ticket sales suffer. Personally, I don't think either scene warranted an R with its nudity, but the MPAA's alleged standards sure aren't standardized. I think the way violence is treated in PG-13 films is absurd as well. Look at X-Men: Days of Future Past. You've got characters being impaled and ripped in half, but the lack of blood means the movie doesn't get an R. Cool. That makes sense.
PG-13 sucks because people are lazy. It's called PG (Parental Guidance) for a reason; to give parents a small pointer to then decide THEMSELVES whether they want their children to see said movie. But parents are lazy and instead want other people to do their parenting for them so they start taking these ratings as hard rules (like thinking PG-13 means for 13 year olds and applying no extra thought whatsoever) and then complain about it when a movie doesn't line up with their vision of this rule they've created for themselves. Sadly that's where the money is and quality and artistic integrity very rarely beats money in the eyes of corporations so we end up with these mauled movies that end up pleasing nobody that actually gives a damn about the medium. Great video by the way, subscribed and looking forward to your other videos.
I think the Canadian PG is much better than our PG. it basically tells the parents "You can bring your kids, and it won't scar them for life, but this isn't really a kids movie." They give pretty much any animated movie a G rating (except for far-and-few between animated PG-13 movies like 9 or The Simpsons Movie, which get a PG) and add an advisory for things like "cartoon violence" if needed.
+Spencer Andersen Different provinces have their own ratings Back in the day (60s 70s) British Columbia had three ratings General (No restrictions on admittance) Mature ( No restrictions on admittance) Restricted (under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian) There would be a few words about content... Brief Nudity...Violence and Coarse Language Throughout.... Completely concerned with sex
brizanna33 That is essentially the same thing as a MPAA rating, only less reliable and not standardized. The PG-13 rating is a necessary evil. Most parents will not allow their teens to view R-rated content, so if a movie wants to tap into the teen demographic, they do need some level of content control, and the production company needs to choose between a teen-acceptable or adult-only movie. The video is essentially complaining that children exist. Any rating system is going to have problems, but the video essentially wants teens to see what are, by nature, adult-only movies. There probably should be rating between R and NC-17, and possibly one between PG-13 and R. But, the problem of the threshold will still exist. There is still going to be a limit on teen-acceptable and conventional cinema-acceptable films. However, that is not too large of a problem, because unrated versions are often available on DVD.
I've watched this video almost 10 times. It's that well done. The rating seems to be involved in two issues: 1. As stated in the video, studios are in the business to make money and therefore will tailor a script to meet a rating in order to make money, rather than simply make the movie as intended and just give it the appropriate rating. 2. As demonstrated by the King's Speech, the rating system is based in basic requirements. What gave it it's R rating was that is said "Fuck" more than once, which is the max allowed for a PG-13. However, the rating system doesn't take into account the context as to which everything is said. Yes, Colin Firth swears dozens of times in that scene, but he's not using them literally, as insults or other obscenities, he's using them as the word itself as they're what helps him with his speech. They're essential to the story, and that was the only time they were used. Many R films gain their rating just from the amount of "fucks" they use, but they're put in specifically for obscenity, not as a plot device such as the King's Speech. And how the hell does substituting "fuck" a word that means sex and is the joining of two people for mutual enjoyment as well as the creation of life, for "shit" a word that means feces, a disgusting brown sometimes green waste product from our bodies, make the movie less terrible. It's not as if the demographic seeing PG-13 films doesn't already know what sex is. I agree that the rating system needs an overhaul. Particularly, paying attention to the context of certain elements of the movie rather than just the elements itself.
+VBall1295 The dumb thing about The King's Speech is that it was rated 12A (equivalent to a PG-13 in case you couldn't guess) in Britain. It was originally to get a 15 rating (which is the most common rating there), but the producers coaxed the BBFC into lowering the rating. To be fair it probably helps that BBFC ratings there go from 12 to 15 to 18 instead of 13 to 17 in the MPAA. Also, the BBFC seems to have higher tolerance for swearing.
+VBall1295 A documentary about bullies was also given an R rating because the preteen bullies in the movie said fuck more than once. Video of actual kids could not be used because actual kids swear too much, so the MPAA had to protect theoretical kids from hearing that swearing. Think about that.
As someone who’s growing up in this dark age of the rating system, I’ll describe the system. G: Non-Existing, last G film I ever heard of was Cars 3 PG: Honestly any kids film nowadays. PG-13: Basically PG+ with the Marvel movies and a giant amount of terrible action and horror movies. R: Basically Freedom Land when it comes to movies NC-17: Haven’t seen or heard of a recent one.
definitely. I think any movie where people are killed should actually express the severity of taking a life. Today movies typically only show that if part of the main cast dies. Sadly, you could easily tell who was going to die in Suicide Squad because they had the shortest backstories and like no lines.
Idont see how. My main complaint with the movie is that I cant hear the dialogue and the city fight scenes were a mess. I couldnt see anything because it was too dark. Did somebody steal all their spotlights?
They took out the majority of the Joker's scenes because they featured domestic violence with Harley and that would have given it an R rating. Also when she fell out of the helicopter he was initially trying to kill her.
that movie was all kinds of messed up a rating change would not have helped it. The characters didn't act like the comics they came from. Harley is a good example. and the joker never cared that much to save any one let alone Harley.
yeah the new robocop was lame, not funny or violent like the original 2 was not as good but 3 was total shit, i think the new one was better than 3 or even 2 but not the original.well at least we have game of thrones.
Fantastic video, you earned a subscriber . And did anybody else notice that UA-cam let this guy say "FUCK" as many times as he wanted to, and show gratuitous violence, but wouldn't let him show nipples? That's some bullshit for ya
***** In general its tough to give an exact breakdown so thats about as good as any. There are always factors that go in but it seems that right now we are in this weird area where the ratings board is too out of touch. They need a complete overhaul of the system before it will ever get better.
Also the mpaa is really homophobic and somewhat misogynist, cause a man's orgasm is pg-13 and a females is R. Also if you have gay people in your film it pretty much always gets rated R or NC-17 reguardless of the content. (For exampls, the film "A Single Man" was rated R in America, but PG in Canada. The main character is gay but it features no gay sex, violence, or language")
What are "parents" scared of? that if their kids watch a movie with cursing or violence that they will grow up to be serial killers? I watched movies like Conan, terminator1 and cartoons like eon flux from age of 7 and played games like resident evil a few years later. I am not a serial killer.....my neighbor is looking at me funny, il be right back,,, Parents today buy their kids COD at the age of 3, but god forbid if someone curses on the avengers and a family with their 13 year old sees and hears it in the cinema or tv. Parents, do some parenting instead of blaming movies and games for the fact that you suck at parenting.
Dude I don't know how many times I have said the exact same thing. When I was a kid I heard my parents swear up a storm. Mostly it was from my father but he's a mechanic & mechanics have filthy mouths. So when I watched a movie at a young age that had cursing, it didn't phase me at all & thank god my parents were laid back & didn't mind me watching those kind of films that had mature material, & if ever I had a question about said material they had no problem explaining it to me. You also have to take into account on how clueless some of these parents are, for example when the first Deadpool movie came out & friend of my cousin took her young kids to see it & was shocked from the amount of violence, swearing & sexual material was in the film. She just assumed it was "going to be one of those Captain America movies" & didn't know, so instead of doing research on the film or the comics to make sure it would be appropriate for your kids, you just assumed. Which is stupid on her part but somehow it's the movies fault.
not not killing, but if a kid watches movies where they swear then he/she will automatically swear a lot more. If there are nudes and especially if it's a boy watching, he probably will search up porn and that could get him ddicted which can ruin life's especially at those ages. And if it is too much gore and the kid is young it can feel much more awful for him/her
Faceless Porn is all good, he would have found it sooner or later anyway, and your kid will only swear if you let him, you just have to educate him to not do it...
@Warlord M, you dont understand the difference in context between adult film actors consenting to adult film performance and a known hollywood actress being humiliated in front of a large audience by a sleazy director? You are a small, small man.
I am so glad you brought up Anaconda. When I was 13 me and my friend wanted to go see Romy and Michele's High School reunion but we couldn't because it was rated R so instead we went and saw Anaconda. We were so much more traumatized by Anaconda than we ever would have been by Romy and Michele's High School freaking reunion!
Therein seemingly proving the point-- sexuality of any stripe is brimstone and fire (religious conservatives probably lobbying for that R rating), but the more violence, the closer you are to heaven; I don't get it!
jaws is an example of a gory pg movie, its gorier than Jurassic park which is pg13 and has a bit of violence and gore but now much (includes dinos killing peeps)
I saw a documentary about how the MPAA rating system works (or doesn't). THIS is why MPAA ratings fail: 1. The MPAA reviewers do their work in SECRET. 2. There are NO objective MPAA guidelines for the movie studios to follow EXCEPT A. > 1 "fuck" automatically gets an "R". B. Specific nude body parts get an "R". C. Other de facto, non-specific "unwritten rules". Also, when a movie gets a specific rating, the movie studio IS NOT TOLD WHY the movie got its rating -- they are left to GUESS WHY. SO, to FIX the MPAA SYSTEM, everything has to be revamped: 1. Movie studios must be given OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES in EACH area: language, nudity, violence, sex, etc. 2. The review process must be OPEN and the names of the reviewers KNOWN to ALL. How would you like a police officer to follow your car and then pull you over to say, "I'm giving you a ticket .. because I don't like the way you drive" and the $300 moving violation ticket not give any specific violation: speeding, no turn signals, running over a pedestrian, etc. Ridiculous, huh? .. Well .. welcome to the current MPAA system.
I think the big problem with neutering PG-13 that you failed to mention is that it has also ruined the R rating. It's now an excessively broad rating that can encompass anything from an otherwise innocent film with a few too many "fucks", to a full on gore fest or borderline softcore porn.
@@Warrior2044 Regardless of what PG-13 was supposed to do, the problem still stands. As of right now, the ratings are not clearly defined enough to be useful. Most parents I know interpret the ratings as such: G, PG and PG-13 = “basically fine for kids of all ages” R = “Fine for teenagers I guess?” NC-17 = “forbidden”
Great video! In my opinion, the PG-13 rating was watered down even before 2004. "Small Soldiers" (1998) was rated PG-13, despite all of the violence involving action figures! "Whale Rider" (2002) was rated PG-13 not for drug use, but for the presence of drug paraphernalia! Could the arrival of the internet or the introduction of ratings descriptions have caused parents to be more sensitive?
@Brendan Milburn The Frighteners and Army of Darkness are both rated M in Australia (which is basically their version of PG-13). Small Soldiers and Gremlins are both rated PG in Australia.
Did anyone else think that scene in Poltergeist was really fucked up, especially for a PG? The way it fits into the full movie makes it so jarring and unexpected.
so, basically South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut would be an even more relevant social satire today than when it came out. That's how you know that we as a whole have been making bad decisions.
My parents absolutely hate the word "Fuck" but they both love "The King's Speech" because the language in the film was appropriate to the film in general.
Jump to independent film, there's a lot of great stuff happening there. Hollywood makes movies I can have a fun time with, but if you want grit you have to reach beyond. Condemning them for whatever evolution they're on doesn't solve anything, just find your goods elsewhere. It's not just a pussification of Hollywood, there's a much bigger issue there with society in general. Everyone gets a participation medal, it's not okay to scrape your knees, and if just one person is offended it's over for everyone else.
Chris Peckford most of my favourite movies are independents, I also tend to get my horror fix from European movies and action movies from Asia, I gave up on Hollywood years ago, yeah summer block busters can be fun, but when we are offered nothing but remakes/reboots/sequels and prequels, its just not for me!
I know this is really old, but I wanted to say how much I appreciated this video. I have a couple of streaming services along with bunches and bunches of pay cable channels yet can never seem to find anything that really excites me. Everything seems so bland anymore that even things I think I might like turn out to be very wishy-washy if you know what I mean. I'm a big fan of horror, psychological thrillers, SF and Fantasy, which can't really be done well with a PG-13 rating. PG-13 is like diet soda. You can try to fool yourself that it really tastes like 'the Real Thing,' but your taste buds know it definitely isn't, it's just coloured water with artificial sweeteners that are worse for you over time than if you just had a regular soda a couple of times a week and enjoyed it rather than seeking satisfaction you'll never get with a six-pack of diet blah a day. I had an uncomfortable moment when m son was 9 and a big fan of the Friday the 13th movies. My mother-in-law stopped by unexpectedly one evening (never good) and saw my son watching one of the really old ones which yeah, are violent but... Those older movies are much tamer than PG-13 is today, and also the use of mainly practical effects at the time was indeed graphic but not in the same way that it is today with CGI effects that are intended to mirror reality without showing the consequences and brutality of real world violence. Sure I was scared of Jason when I was a teen, but that's all we had then. When looked at today, the effects seem sometimes laughable and thus unrealistic enough that my pretty bright 9-year-old laughed when fake blood flowed and obviously fake decapitated mannequin heads rolled away out of frame. She was horrified but I dismissed her out of hand. (great moment in history) My son is now 13 and pretty much watches whatever he wants, though I do hold back on some R rated movies because of the adult themes rather than the violence. But really, as parents in the technological age, it's stupid to think any kid won't find a way to watch what they want even if we think they're innocent babes in the woods. Thanks again for an extremely justified video.
That final line was perfect.
"It's supposed to be pushing the envelope of PG, not pulling R backwards." Put perfectly.
Amen
The rating system should just be PG-13, PG-15, PG-17, or R-13, R-17, etc. Meaning that viewers under that age would either need their parents to see it with them or Parental Guidance if kids are under a certain age. There's a big difference between a bit of blood--like some animal documentary--and gratuitous gore like a zombie film. There's a big difference between a bit of profanity and gratuitous profanity while cutting a bunch of bad guys in half with machine gun fire.
It’s the Star Wars effect from way back in 1977. The prospect of repeat viewers by a teenage audience is just too juicy a market to pass by.
@@madams3478 Like Jaws, Jurassic Park, or the Die Hard movies?
I was 13 when pg13 was first and thought it was good now I probably won't see a PG-13 movie
Please, kids get more F word from UA-cam comments than from movies
👏👏👏 And some kids cuss more than adults!
+Google Plus Pisses Me Off hell I do
+Google Plus Pisses Me Off slow clap
I know right.
kids use the F word more than the movies
And now G hardly exists anymore
Toy story 4 is G.
Hooray
@@Win090949 even tho toy story features alot of mature ideas and themes. just shows how their animations are pushing the plot to appeal to a wider audience but pull live-action to single out the largest demographic of kids to only want to watch the movie.
I don’t understand the point of your comment?- אור פאר
@@Ajourneyofknowing that G is more mature in concept ideas then a PG-13 movies.
in terms of movies yes.
Ratings today:
G: nobody cares about this rating
PG: this rating dosent mean anything anymore
PG-13: has been made a lot more childish
R: the creators can do whatever they want
NC-17: nowadays it's "nobody cares-17"
In the US there's been like ten NC-17 releases in as many years. No one uses it from the stigma. Most just decide to leave their film unrated.
Random Guy all you people know is IT and MCU lol
Only movies I know of that are G and PG are cartoons made by Disney, Dreamwork’s, or Pixar
Nihilist Russian - The IT films & Joker as well but that rating in mainstream marketed films (outside of serious attempted horror films) was getting almost as rare as the X rating.
Nihilist Russian - yes obvious
Video Game Ratings are good, because they tell you on the box why it has that rating
Yeah, where were you when the NBA 2k20 trailers were released? The ones with gambling taking up most of the run time with some guy having the same reactions as gambling ads want? That said the game was rated E (for the U.S.) and PEGI 3 (for Europe).
Plus, movies do say why they have their rating on the box, just the same as video games. The problem is ratings not being justified when looking at precedent. I mean, having paid loot boxes in your game should be an automatic AO/PEGI 21 for gambling, yet FIFA, NBA 2k, WWE 2k, and any other licensed sports title has them nowadays and are rated E/PEGI 3. Movies have the opposite problem, where movies that should be rated PG wind up being PG-13.
Tl;dr - both rating systems suck in opposite ways.
A Choking Fish I remember buying Lego The Hobbit and seeing it being classified by PEGI as containing scary elements xD
Exactly
@@Demonic_Culture_Nut I still don't get why Arkham Knight was rated M
+Demonic Culture Nut
A Choking Fish was probably in The U.S. when the NBA 2k20 trailers were released. It sounds like the ESRB is a bit different from PEGI. Dunno for sure, though.
Jaws was rated PG. A movie about a great white shark that terrorizes a town beach and the mission sent out to slaughter it, with blood and body parts throughout. Apparently, it's in the same league as Finding dory, Frozen, and Inside Out.
Jaws is re-rated R.
No such thing. I checked IMDB and Jaws is still PG.
Tom Poliak No it isn't. It's still PG and presumably always will be.
Wouldn't it be fun if someone back in 80's made some PG movie about a maniac who almost literally turned victims inside out and called it...
Inside Out
The rating on Jaws was correct. For all the gore audience members think they saw, there is no on camera violence, save for the shots of Robert Shaw in the shark’s mouth. The filmmakers did a fantastic job editing around most of the attack scenes, which was necessary since the prosthetic shark kept breaking down and the skin was being eaten by the salt water. Now, had the shark worked and Spielberg had shot the way he wanted to, with the shark visible from the beginning, it would have gotten an R-rating, but also would have been dismissed as just another gory monster movie.
Can't believe a movie can be rated R solely based on a cuss-word.
yup.. say fuck more than once and it's R rated no matter how child-friendly the rest of the movie is
@@leaf111 I think it's 3 times and then it's R.
Baby goat really? i think a pg 13 can have one max
@@MrMah-zf6jk maybe if there is absolutely nothing else to add to the R rating. But even then that would still be stupid
"I'm GoNnA sAy ThE n WoRd"
Why do swear words have the same weight as blood and gore. to me at least swear words really don't effect me even when i was 12 but blood and gore do. If you walk down the street you are going to hear a swear but your not going to see arms getting ripped off and pool of blood that follows. sure swearing isn't something you should teach kids when their 9 and under but by the time they hit 4th grade they have heard most swear words and looked them up online.
If I was making a rating system, I would do:
PG - Fart Jokes/words like damn - 5yo and older
PG-13 - 10+ Four-letter words/Violence/Mature themes - 10yo and older
R - 15+ Gore/Full Nudity/Very Mature themes - 15yo and older
It really depends on the kid because I can watch blood and gore and not be affected and I know some people my age who are not affected. But I also know some people who are the same age as me that would be horrified.
Because we raise our children to believe that some words are taboo for some reason. Silly really when you learn that the only reason most of them are considered improper is because the Norman's beat the English hundreds of years ago.
Heidi Elliott That’s absolutely stupid. This comment proves how perverted the world is now...
@@E3T7 It always was... Would just get perversely punishments in the 'good ole days'...
When I was growing up in the late 70's, my mom used to tell me G stood for "good", PG for "pretty good", R for "Rotten" and X for "eXtra rotten"....made perfect sense to a 7 year old!
edvaira6891 Your mother was a saint.
@@Mishishere Figures all the rotten movies win academy awards :3 is hollywood rotten?
She probably meant what she said, but she was using the terms in a moral sense rather than artistic quality.
Remember back when you tried to tell your parents when you got an F on your report card that it was supposed to stand for "Fine" or "Fantastic!"?
My brother did too
what's funny is that while movies have gotten watered down, TV series are amped up
examples:. CSI, Walking Dead, Hannibal, American Horror Story. I love horror movies but they all suck these days, TV has them beat hands down because they keep making them PG13
+give me a break at least dead pool was able to make a statement that it can work
Exactlyyyy!
TV either already has your money or they already have the advertisers' money. Movies need to get that box office from you. TV can drop a hundred thousand on an episode or two and have advertisers who have already paid for the ad spots. Movies can drop a hundred million, but have to hope someone pays to see the movie.
I personally believe that television is only able to go to the limits of what they do only because they are more strictly monitored. Broadcast television knows that from 9pm - 11pm their restrictions as more lax, but there are boundaries they must still adhere to. Pay channels, like FX and Comedy Central, have even less restrictions. While Premium channels, like HBO and Showtime, are about as restictionless as you can get.
Again, it all comes down to money. TV already has it, and movies are trying to get it.
R rated batman v superman should have been in cinemas
I totally agree. PG-13 is pretty much BS these days.
Yes. It is dumb that every other rating is essentially ghettoized, although the success of films like Deadpool and Logan does seem to indicate that it might be coming to a stop. Might.
What's even sillier is, I want to give my reactions to three movies when I watched them all within the past two or so years. When I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, I was amazed by all the family-unfriendly violence you'd never get away with in a PG film nowadays, yet when I watched Temple of Doom I did not find the film to be so alarmingly violent in any way - although perhaps it's a case of, in TV Tropes lingo, Hype Backlash and Seinfeld is Unfunny. Then a few months after watching Temple of Doom I saw The Dark Knight and felt like the film could have been even better with an R-rating, so it could better convey the chaos caused in Gotham by The Joker. Thankfully the direction, acting, and action sequences were strong enough to overcome some flaws that would be pretty glaring otherwise (and no I don't mean Batman's throat cancer voice - it's silly, yeah, but I get what they were going for, and TDK has much bigger problems. Thank god for the MCU to put an end to all manner of idiotic attempts to emulate The Dark Knight that tend to amp its flaws to the point of borderline unwatchability).
The PG-13 rating itself isn't the problem, it's when they edit R-rated films down to PG-13, which far too often backfire as this vid pointed out. Slender Man was another movie that was ruined by being cut to PG-13, it was literally an incoherent, incomplete mess.
do you people even know the difference between M and PG? oh wait nvm that's australian exclusive
They made Deadpool rated R and it was great decision.
And then they made once upon a deadpool which was a complete travesty
Same for the Blade movies. Can't have a movie about a Vampire hunter - a hunter of creatures who literally gorge themselves on blood - without a solid R rating.
Lets hope the Blade reboot keeps up the R rating.
@@ubisuccle Wasn't that made for charity tho?
Ekraelum Yea... kinda forgot about that. I just hope thats not the new standard for DP.
@@ubisuccle I doubt it. The whole purpose of Once Upon a Deadpool was to give money to a Cancer charity organization (literally called "fuck Cancer"). The movie itself didn't did that good because of the censorship, so I don't think you should worry. They know that watering Deadpool down doesn't give results.
Nowadays, PG-13 movies are seen as "for kids" on IMDB.
Even though it's mostly because of movies like The Avengers and Age of Ultron.
This makes no sense as a lot of kids went to see Deadpool, so does that mean that Deadpool is for kids?
+Nightbane Games The descriptor for a PG-13 reads "Parents STRONGLY Cautioned," but today it's gotten to the point where it's been watered down to "family-friendly" instead. Movies like The Avengers should have been rated PG, compared to more 'intense' titles like The Dark Knight or Casino Royale who fully earn their PG-13.
EpikFilmz11
Avengers had to be PG-13 because of lines like "Son of a bitch," "huge bag of weed?" "This is my bargain you mewling quim!" "I tried to shoot myself and the other guy spit it out," also the Hulk's transformation sounds painful and he's pretty scary.
If it was PG, parents would complain that it's too frightening for children. That's why the rating exists now, even though if Avengers was made in 1983, it'd be a PG and no one would care.
I suppose that's true, but it's still shocking that it's in the same category as TDK, Beowulf, Taken, etc.
+EpikFilmz11 The Avengers was apparently almost rated R.
Taken should've been rated R. The unrated version is what was intended to be seen and the theatrical version is just the MPAA trying desperately to make money off another PG-13-edited version of a deserved R-rated movie.
Title: "WTF Happened to PG-13?"
UA-cam: "Sorry, this content is age-restricted."
Logic
Even though the nudity was blocked out.
Or it’s probably he just saying the F Bombs
😂😂😂😂😂
The documentary 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' talked about a big part of this: The raters got old. Originally the MPAA was setup with actual parents of kids of the different age groups. But they never replaced them. Their kids grew up, went to college, got mortgages, and mom and dad stayed on getting older and older and dictating their opinions for the MPAA. Everything you said in this video about the explicit-ness of scenes being of absolute paramount important is 100% true. Many instances of censorship to get a rating concentrate specifically on the exact number of seconds something is shown, exactly how close a zoom is, etc. There isn't just a list of "If someone gets shot, its PG-13". It comes down to how 'hard hitting' the scene is. There is also a great deal of concern over what the consequences of certain actions are. For instance, if a character does drugs, they MUST suffer grave harm or extreme problems (getting sent to prison, etc) because of it.
A major contributor to this is also the extreme (and historically unprecedented) change in parenting. From the beginning of time, the job of a parent was to turn a child into an adult. Starting in the mid-1990s, however, that changed. The job of a parent now is to turn a child into a larger child. The next time you hear a parent say that their child is "too young" for something or "not ready" for something, ask them what they are going to do to MAKE the child ready. The idea will blow their mind (and probably piss them off). They don't see that as their job. Hell, they don't even see it as POSSIBLE any longer. They believe, and are catastrophically wrong, that maturity is a product of aging.
They think that a capacity to handle important and intense issues somehow comes about as a natural consequence of brain development. In reality, brain development does not occur unless exposure to intense situations and ideas happens. That's what DRIVES brain development. If you put an eyepatch over a babies eye (don't do this) and take it off when they're a year old because they're "not ready" for binocular vision (and they're not, its learned, we are not born with the ability to integrate the image from both eyes into a single cohesive whole), guess what? They will NEVER be capable of mastering binocular vision. It has to develop in the first few weeks of life, or it can never happen, the brain develops to handle single-eye vision and the introduction of a second one can never be fully adapted to.
You mention the Janet Jackson nipple scandal... but you didn't mention the outcome of that. I think it is very important. The outcome was that the FCC told TV stations that they were not permitted to censor. Straight up, they came out HARD against censorship of TV. They said that fining TV stations for airing objectionable content was illegal. And to those who think that censorship is good, that censorship keeps society from descending into depravity, that mature content can easily be expressed in different ways and get the same ideas across - that decision gave us Breaking Bad. It gave us The Walking Dead. It gave us the ability to tell mature stories that could not have worked without being done in a sincere manner.
Censorship is poison. In every circumstance where a creator wanted to show or say something and they either had to alter it, or decided to not even do it at all out of fear of peoples reactions, our culture rots a bit.
You are incredible. Too bad I can't like. I'm on mobile
+Sum_Dätti702
I second this motion.
All in favor of UA-cam getting it's shit together?
this is the longest comment I have ever read. And the truest.
I think I agree with everything you wrote except the whole "not ready" bit. I think that's a very important part of knowing how to parent properly. In my case, though this is admittedly anecdotal, I wasn't allowed to watch or play occult-based movies or games until I was like 15 because my mom didn't like my reaction to them. (It was "Oh that's cool." and not fear, I was *too* into it for her liking.) My sister on the other hand, was watching Saw at 9 or 10 because ultraviolence apparently had no discernable affect on her. As far as "what makes them ready", yes time does, as well as controlled exposure and knowing your kid.
Amazing.
"This film is not yet rated" was a great documentary. Check it out if you wanna take a deeper dive into this subject.
Thanks, I will
@@STEP6192 love your work.. 😉
Who is the documentary by?
This Film is Not Yet Rated was frustrating to watch, but good if you want to see how freaking arbitrary the ratings system is.
Where can I find it?
It seems like even R rated movies are getting watered down too honestly.
Now that you've mentioned it, yeah, that's the way I've been seeing it. Not all "R" movies but for the most part the mature tone of most of the "R" movies I see have a watered down feel. Like when you have too much ice in your soda, the ice melts and you taste a literal watered down drink, you can still tell it's coke/pepsi/whatever but it's almost like half of it is water. The things that make it an R movie are still there but it's a real weak comparison from what you were use to.
This is the problem with weak PG-13 movies, it makes R rated movies too wildly inconsistent, so if a parent were to see a weak R movie and see it isn't that bad and lets their kid see it thinking they can handle and they do, then that makes that parent believe any R movie is okay at which point the kid might see something that scars them. Deadpool 1 seemed R enough, but besides the cussing and the one scene where juggernaut rips him in half with the guts spewing Deadpool 2 felt it was already for pg-13 before that version came out. And there are harder Rs than that which wouldn't be good for a kid to see. So weak PG-13s are actually making things worse.
This isn't something new though. The MPAA has been watering down the R rating since the 80s as well. The friday the 13th series was hit hard with censorship when it came to kills a lot of them cut away just as fast as that PG-13 andaconda movie did. I know it may not seem like it but the kills they filmed compared to what was shown to us were drastically different in length and gruesomeness.
Even in other countries! I bought a 18+ movie in Australia, which is basically meant to be one rating worse than America's "R"... a Nazi said the N word once, another Nazi got decapitated with cheesy low budget 80s gore (everyone could see it was a mannequin), and the rest of the violence was basically karate montages, with most gross stuff happening off camera. What happened?!
@ yea LMAO
That scene where he rips off his face in poltergeist was one of the only scenes that actually scared me to death when I was younger..
PG-13 seems very childish compared to R. I wish more companies made movies for entertainment, instead of making money. Deadpool did that and obliterated the box office.
People misunderstand, the only reason Deadpool made so much money is because they only put 65 million dollars into the movie, along with the fact that they could have literally released a picture of a cat extended to an hour and. a half and made a boatload of money because blind Deadpool fans would insist it's "ironic" and hilarious
+Jared Willebeek-LeMair Well that's a rather stupid assumption.
Ermm, well you're both correct and incorrect.
Deadpool's massive cost to profit ratio is definitely larger than normal because of it's small budget, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with it's box office numbers, which broke records.
It's the highest grossing R rated film of all time, purely on box office--that has nothing whatsoever to do with it's budget. Also the highest grossing film in the X-Men franchise, again nothing to do with budget.
If you had said the numbers were inflated due to the time it was released, I would buy into that argument more, though. The lack of any new release competition at that time definitely gave the film an advantage.
Also, I think you over estimate the number of Deadpool fans out there. It has grown over the years, sure, but maaany people knew nothing about the character before going in--speaking as someone who is a big fan of the character, I had many friends (even friends who read comics) asking me about him shortly before the film was released, and others asking if the film got it right, after it's release.
People know the iconography, but the actual fans of the character have nowhere near the numbers to explain it's massive success.
***** nevermind dude ***** blew your argument out of the water
+Jared Willebeek-LeMair :p I can't disagree there. Wolverine 2 certainly was mature, and also for teens.
"There's a monumental difference between more guns and gun violence". this is something hollywood doesn't understand in all facets of life.
Was about to type that. It is at approx. the 10 min mark.
Action heroes spraying bullets at anonymous henchmen who fall over, is completely different from executing a political prisoner, or watching someone's lungs and heart destroyed by rifle ammunition.
Sam Peckinpah built a career on this fact. I guess it is subjective and an artistic choice, but the people in charge are idiots to not recognize the difference.
This was extremely insightful. Reminds me of how the first Matrix movie was rated R...and didn't feel like it should be.
seemed PG-13 to me, but given a higher rating.
Didn't know the first matrix was rated R. What made it an R movie; was completely PG-13 IMO
Glad you agree with me. I don't understand that either
Even back then, WHILE watching it..I didn't have a clue why it was Rated R
it was mostly because of the minimal sexual content and nudity and psychological thrill, cussing adds on but not much. but yeah i agree, i would consider it a more mature pg13
It's depressing that PG movies back in the 70s and 80s are more violent than current PG-13 movies. It should be vice versa.
Exactly! I’m not even sure if they allow topless women in PG-13 movies anymore.
Frozen was rated PG.
If that doesn't tell you our rating system is fucked up, nothing will.
Back then, it would have been G.
Hhhhhheeeeeeyyyyyy Frrrrrissbe! I saw your awesome comment on that Franz Ferdinand video and I recognized your profile pick. Small world right?
THE AWESOME BOY Aw shit I'm famous
What else would it be rated.
Yeah, and just compare Frozen to Hunchback of Notre Dame. Hunchback had much darker and more mature content and themes yet only had a G rating.
I had a conversation about this at school. I told someone if I were to make a movie about a guy who kills a ton of people with a katanna by slicing off their limbs, BUT don't show any blood, it would probably be PG-13. Even people are self aware of this issue. Usually PG-13 movies have stuff like mass destruction scenes, but its okay if we see a crap ton of buildings be destroyed, they don't spurt blood, so it's all good!
Ramen Bowl Productions This is exactly the problem, and I think it’s a case of the reviewers being lazy. They’re just looking at what’s literally shown in the frame instead of looking at the theme and context. If I was being charitable, I’d suggest perhaps the MPAA are understaffed and/or underfunded for the level of content being released. Less charitably, I’d suggest they’re simply not qualified to do their job properly.
Happy SpaceInvader or they’re just a bunch of Karens and pearl-clutching ‘80s moms that have no sense of fun.
Actually.....that could work. If it were a heated blade or like a lightsaber you would have charred smoldering wounds. And if you wanna make it R you done need blood. He takes the disabled to his lair where they get sewn back together wrong. }:3
There's one horror that I seen it's called John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN the movie is r-rated horror it's got no blood but it got suspense and nudity.
You can have the most violent PG-13 movie imaginable but as long as everybody keeps their clothes on and nobody says "f*ck" too many times you'll get your PG-13 rating.
These ratings RAN MY LIFE as a kid. My parents thought an R movie or M game would turn me into the Antichrist if I saw/played them before I was 17.
I seriously doubt that playing Dark Souls or watching The Royal Tenenbaums will turn you into the Antichrist. Those films and games aren't for kids though and I think the R / M rating should make that clear. (Though it would be hilarious to watch 11-year olds ragequit DS...)
Lol. Yup. I got to watch Poltergeist and Gremlins over and over again, because they were rated PG. I think watching Poltergeist over 40 times when I was 7 is what numbed me to scary movies. They just really don't scare me at all.
***** Poltergeist was messed up. Not because of the movie itself, but because they used actual skeletons as props. I get that the director wants the movie to be authentic, but that's taking it too far. People DIED because of health complications related to that.
+Jacob Hunter Isn't that illegal?
Spencer Andersen I dunno. I hope it is. Either way, real skeletons were used on the set, and they were believed to have been linked to certain health complications that the cast and crew had later on. Look up "Poltergeist Curse"
Bottom line, some films should be strictly R, others strictly PG-13. Studios need to realize that because not every single film can be rated R, not every single film needs to be PG-13 either. But both ratings can co-exist, i say.
+Gabreya Bradley Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.
+Gabreya Bradley From my standpoint, it isn't hard at all. Why studios don't understand this, I have no idea.
+Gabreya Bradley All of that I agree with more or less. Studios are unfortunately placing more emphasis on the financial end of producing films than both the art and what audiences really want to see.
Gabreya Bradley I can get behind the latter, yeah. But at the same time, I have to contend that a lot of times (even for R-rated films), blood and gore AREN'T necessary to portray death onscreen in a believable way. I'm NOT a gore-hound at all. I personally don't find it the 'only' way to 'realistically' portray death in films and TV shows. You CAN portray death in a very believable manner without it. You just need the right creative minds to do it.
Also, I say films that should be getting remakes/reboots are ones that FAILED the first time. Give films that weren't critical and financial hits a second chance, you know? What's unfortunate about that is, like you said, studios want to play it safe by focusing on properties that were already popular to begin with.
USA should implement a rating system like other counties have. Something like: 0, 7, 12, 15, 18 ... meaning you have more options than just G, PG, R (X is basically just R+1).
Finally a good video about the Rating System. Not just some fanboy ranting on about how everything is better with an R rating. Good job bro
Thank you!
If PG-13 went back to this the statement everything is better with an R rating would be bullshit, cause right now that's true but if we gave people leeway to create what they wanted rate it accordingly but make it easier to keep a PG-13 rating this could do wonders. I just had my mind blown and I'm not even high.
Thank you!
Series that start out with an R rating are better with an R rating. Same for PG-13. People always want to draw in new audiences, but it's not a good idea to do so at the expense of the original audience. This was the problem with the second xXx movie, which maintained the same rating as the original; it changed the style from x-games and metal music to gangster and rap music. It just didn't fit. The movie should have a rating that fits.
+Daniel Skrivan You know the Soundtrack of the first XXX had some rap on it! I know cause I once owned it for the rap and Metal..
I let my 9-year-old watch The King's Speech. That scene, taken in context, is fine. When I first watched the film, I wondered why it was R for the longest time. Until that one scene. Even my parents, who are anti-F-word, enjoyed the film and understood why that scene existed.
Am I the only one who finds it ridiculous that we have to censor the human body here on youtube but are perfectly okay with blood, gore and death?
Jon Smith u look like drake
UA-cam often takes that stuff very seriously. I had to guard my video if it contains sexual content as well as trimming down the offensive shit if I wanna show it.
@@KermisVoyager1997 what's offensive mean these days, besides "somebody got upset and threw a fit"?
It's like Lenny Bruce said: You can cut off a breast but you just can't kiss it.
It's absolutely bizarre.
That seems to be related to the advertisers, because, if you want to have nudity on your video (as long as it's not porn), you can put it on your video, but, it won't get monetised by UA-cam, those who get money from their own sponsors or donations, they don't care about censoring what UA-cam and their advertisers have set to monetise the videos, now, of course, there is a community guidelines which need to be followed, too, but, that's a little different story.
Since most advertisers are companies from USA and/or their regional divisions in USA, it's not surprise they have similar rules than those imposed in U.S. TV and films
It annoys me that studios make PG13 sequels to R-Rated movies, like Terminator. As someone who's only seen one R Movie (The Matrix, and that was for school) I have zero interest in seeing a Terminator sequel until I see the first film.
The Matrix rated PG-13
Page Murray damn how are you allowed to see R rated movies for school?
Yellow Yeezys Back in high school our teacher let us see Saving Private Ryan. Sure was better than seeing the Blind Side for the 1000th time.
How old are you that you've only seen one r rated movie? You must have really strict parents that put parental locks on every device because I was watching r rated movies since I was 7. We didn't even have pass codes, parental locks, or v-chips on anything back then either, not to mention access to the internet.
Terminator is good, Terminator 2 is amazing - you're in for a treat
"Nowadays PG stands for Practically G" - Malcolm (Channel Awesome)
Very True
And to get G you have to be so inoffensive and bland it's disgusting. Aladdin wouldn't get G these days because it's too violent and scary. Fucking Aladdin. Basically Hollywood seems to want there to be one rating: PG13.
Actually, today's "PG" is what "G" was in the late 60s through 80s. "G" now essentially means "For young children."
@@dreamlandnightmare *for babies
Yeah G is literally just for babies
My cinema had a fucking screening of The Meg (PG-13) for their "mommy and baby" group. I've never seen it but it must be a pretty tame shark movie if people are comfortable enough to bring their damn babies along.
The comparisons you did starting at 10:07 are a real eye-opener. It's not just the lack of blood, but the editing in the newer movies is ADD-quick to avoid showing the consequences as much as possible.
The PG-13 has really become a de-facto Hayes Code, down to the neutering of content and the financial motivation.
AlwaysLookCool 729 uh yeah, censorship at the expense of artistic integrity is bad, did you even watch the video?
AlwaysLookCool 729 it “helped” Hollywood because it self-censored so McCarthy couldn’t completely destroy the film industry.
AlwaysLookCool 729 what’s that got to do with anything?
@AlwaysLookCool 729 Yes, it was still bad. You can read about it here: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheHaysCode
I've never understood why censorship groups in the US are so anal about language. I mean, you can massacre an entire room full of people in a PG-13 movie, as long as there isn't too much blood and guts, but if you say 'fuck' more than once or in a sexual way at all, it's automatically rated R.
Americans do seem to have skewed priorities for some reason.
I thought it was the nudity that gives a movie the R rating. Most PG-13 movies get away with letting in a few "fucks" but the second a movie shows a set of female tits, there's total outrage from the parents.
*****
The thing I remembered about the SOUTH PARK flick, the MPAA didn't consider giving the flick an "R" rating until after it was released. When Parker and Stone were doing the press tour for the film, they talked about their problems with the MPAA throughout the press tour. The NC-17 rating didn't become an issue until after that with Jack Valente saying he should've nailed it with a NC-17 after he and his group were besmirched by the filmmaking duo. .
The South Park movie nailed it: "Remember what the MPAA says: horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"
epikfilmz11 That's a bizarre criteria.
This answers why I like 90's movies more than today's.
Shut your fucking mouth, you filthy piece of shit.
I think you can do better than that.
Yeah but it will be censored later.
What's the point.....
True dat brother.
This answers why 80s movies were more risque and natural.
did you hear about the raunchy "Sausage Party" movie's trailer accidentally shown before a KIDS movie in the theater? wow
oh no D:
It was before Finding Dory, to add insult to injury
Yep, I saw it before Finding Dory.
what reactions did you notice, and yours?
Only the uncensored versions
The morality police in this generation is terrifying. Look at Demonetization. Its a tragedy.
I think it shows a perfect persona of how our current culture is. Where the whole PC police came from. I, we, grew up with all of this feeling natural, sure it might be a bit scary, but it was ok. Now, like he said, it's been treated with kids gloves, and we see what it has done to this generation, over all. Coddled and family safe. Fuck that. I'll take tits and ass, and a bucket of blood on the side, sprinkled with fucks throughout. I say, fuck the children, (not literally people), let em see the world isn't as safe and fuck free as they think it is. Snowflake is a thing, and it kinda sucks, and I hope it dies off. Because if it continues to increase, it may just be the death of us.
*Edited a word.
I just don't understand... How does a generation who grew up on Aliens, Predator and had anime with as much blood and gore, the best in heavy metal and movies with ultraviolence grow up to be this mega censored PC race? I get the PG-13 dillema, its a bit complicated... But what I'm talking about goes deeper.
Visa, Mastercard, and other credit bureau have policies recently in place that prevents them from being used to help advertise pornohraphy and have long made it very difficult for those in the industry to collect funds through sites like Paypal. I have to ask, why? This is supposed to be a capitalist company trying to make a profit... So why are they trying to control our access to adult material? Why do they care about our seeing red blood on Mortal Kombat videos? This stuff doesn't earn them cash...
Krystal Myth Some people grow to hate something when they get older and realize how “”evil”” it is. A big moment of rebellion then sobering up and wondering why they liked that. Plenty of things I liked when I was 15 (currently 19) then turned around one day and wondered “Dang why did I like that” lol (tho for me I didn’t reject all of it; just some of the completely nonsensical bits).
Some were raised to already dislike how much was there and see it all as senseless, and they grew up to help tone it down several notches. And both groups could be influenced by the parents who grew up with the less violent and “more story-needed” aspects. The 40s films that focused more on suspense than violence, the tv westerns that had modern PG-13 esque violence (gunfire with no blood upon impact), sex being something that wasn’t explicit but more implied through phrases that you knew meant *it* but to a younger person could be mistaken for simply making out, etc.
Best reason I can give to them controlling adult content (aside from pornography) is the availability. Many are ignorant and think anything is available for anyone w/o research or even looking at the back of a box. So with all the people thinking this, something like Mortal Kombat gets backlash due to it being so available for kids to see and play to the unknowing parent (tho I don’t get how a cover doesn’t tell them that; in the 90s it made sense but now there’s a big M for Mature there for those who might miss it based on the look of the box). They don’t want their kids exposed to it but don’t wanna be fully responsible for keeping them away from it. That or they do try but they think there’s too many bases to cover. Companies wanna sell stuff, so they comply and make anything more available to the wider audience. We’ll probably never get a Black Ops 1 again due to more teens and kids playing it (even though it’s rated M) and CoD steering itself towards that demographic to get even more on board
Wow you fucking moron A it has nothing to do with morality and B the people who made the bot that demonizes the shitty content UA-camrs think they're owed money on was not from this generation
@@sumrose7972 PC police and morality police are not one and the same. Morality police is pushed by the Evangelical Right, while the PC police is the Left.
To me, the fact that violence in PG-13 rated films has become bloodless is more of a concern as it paints violence and killing as something very easy to do and no big deal. At least when people died on screen in 1980s films, you saw them convincingly die, you saw the consequences of getting shot or stabbed and I think young people _need_ to see this.
Same goes for nudity, it seems to me that Western society has become more puritanical has time has gone by to the point that young men actually complain about seeing women sexualise _themselves voluntarily_ and posting women's nipples on Instagram gets those women banned. There's nothing inherently wrong with the naked body and there's certainly nothing wrong with artistic, non sexual nudes. Again, I think young people _need to see this.
Hehe, I'm becoming quite the reverse Mary Whitehouse here, aren't I?
Here here! I 100% agree with both points.
Also, fuuck Mary Whitehouse..
From her Doctor Who hate, to that disastrous video nasty campaign. Couldn't get much better than the reverse of that woman.
Yeah except PG means little kids can watch it with parentsno
Yeah except PG means little kids can watch it with parents
I fully agree with you,nudity and violence makes people grow up better because ir's actually good to be a little insensitive.
If you are too much sensitive any real life event that is not of your liking will bring u down.
It's not western society, it's just the USA.
Watch any UK or french film... especially french "artsy film"... it's like they can't wait to undress their actress...
Blue is the Warmest Color ? That's NC-17 for US audience...
It's -12 for French audience (that's like a PG-13, more of NC-13 maybe... although it was given a -16 for TV broadcast).
I remember seeing "Titanic" in the theater and I remember that there was like a 10 year old boy about two seats from me.
During the nude scene his parent or whoever tried to shield his eyes for about two seconds before giving up. Lol
Let’s be real, teenagers now days watch R movies
Nowadays? It was always like that.
Your One Black Friend Who Gave you the N Word Pass yeah, but especially since pg13 movies got super watered down
True, in fact once I even saw Blood Diamonds in my history class even though its rated R
I remember when the teacher could only get the uncut version of "Glory" for class...
For real, my friends and I have all gone to R rated movies with each other's parents.
I saw Pulp Fiction in theaters when I was 12. I remember a couple (of adults) in front of me turning around, asking, "how did you kids get in here?" "we just paid, man"
great video. as a parent of 3 I think that parents need to be the determining factor becsuse they are, oh I don't know, the parents! only stupidity and laziness are to blame for the parents that think it's someone else's job to do their job. I watch everything before my kids do, and I know everything they are watching, yes, everything. my wife and I do our part ad the parents, and know it is no one else's jobs, especially the gov't.
Amen
Maybe as a parent you should work on your grammar.
Correcting grammar = nothing to add.
+Toa Onua literally only misspelled because and as. fucking keyboard warrior :)
+Toa Onua literally only misspelled because and as. fucking keyboard warrior :)
This was one of the best editorials I've ever seen. This should be standard viewing fare for anyone who loves and respects film.
Paul Roman Thanks!
One problem with the rating system you didn't mention is that the MPAA is industry-run, not an independent rating system.
There have been times when it seemed that independent films were given higher ratings (or studio films given lower ratings) to try and influence sales, and because it is so closely tied to the major studios it's harder to dismiss those allegations.
the gun action in the modern movies you show in contrast to the older movies seems like the victims are portrayed as totally hollow and meaningless enemies in a videogame. kind of disconcerting. id argue that its kind of.. worse than victims (whether theyre good or bad characters) being shown as reacting in a "real" way, bleeding, and suffering
What wimpy video-games are you playing? I'm used to enemies I kill melting into a pile of sludge and bones in slow motion while screaming after being shot.
So, basically if you watch a PG-13 movie say in the theater and it later comes on DVD or Blu Ray as an "unrated" version, you're really just watching the R rated version?
What a rip off
just one of several reasons I stopped going to the theater.
The theater is an obsolete relic of a bygone era.
Yep, if you own a 50 inch or up 4K TV the theater thing seems a lot more pointless considering the picture quality of a blu ray looks far better than a theater screen. The only thing a theater has over home video now is screen size but that's it, our home systems are becoming so more advanced now that theaters seem obsolete lol. It wasn't like that in the 90's/2000's.
@@austinwillcut4919 If i wanted to watch a movie with such a big screen, I could get my own projector, canvas screen, and surround sound system, then set them up in my backyard.
This is great! Although, I'm getting really sick of movies that get an R rating because of one or two bad words. Teenagers hear more than that in the real world! Hell, they say more than that in the real world.
Kristina Kaylor IKR? It’s no wonder school codes of conduct disallowing profanity usage should be deemed unfair thanks to schools permissively requiring entire student bodies to learn from profanity-laced curricular material, regardless of how nervous I felt when I had to go through that experience! After all, this should definitely be a reason why kids should stay in school!
You really hit the nail on the head. The MPAA ratings system needs to go back to what it was intended to be: as a guideline, not as a censorship bureau.
And this is why Tarantino is the best. No studio would dare try to water his work down, and they can't even if they wanted to.
Your evaluation is amazingly astute. I'm an 80s kid and it makes me ill to see you the way my childhood favorite movies like RoboCop have been butchered in the name of roping a larger demographic. Making movies is obviously a business (*BIG* business) but the studios have forgotten that _it is a cultural expression._ Just as much art as a painting or lovey song.
Thanks!
I miss the 80s. (Sigh.) I'm going to get my Delorean!
i was a 90s kid but i was only really allowed to watch disney cartoons and star trek as a kid lol.
How everything was in the 1980’s in spite of no internet existing at that time, it makes my generation in Gen Z look stupid. There was a lot of things you could get away with back then that you can’t now.
Even a baby should be able to see a breast over violence!!! After all... they need to eat!
cafe80s they would end up sucking the screen
cafe80s wat
@@timmyandtommynook9763 XD
The G rating is almost non-existent as well. That is probably a side effect of all this pushing for a rating to sell tickets; instead of making good movies and letting ratings happen.
Disney is famous for G rated movies. Then The movie Tomorrowland came out. I heard that Disney is coming out with a pg-13 movie,
***** the movie had swearing in it (mainly coming from George Clooney)
Honestly, Inside Out should have been rated G. The only reason it probably wasn't was because it was about growing up. (Gasp! The horror!)
+Spencer Andersen There are new restrictions to bump the rating up that wouldn't have made sense to censors a few decades before. A description called "children in peril" gets a PG, so most of the G-rated family films of a previous generation would automatically be PG now. Oliver and Company came out before the smoking rules, but it would actually be rated R now for that. In Saving Mr. Banks, Tom Hanks could hold the cigarette as long as he didn't puff it, otherwise it would be R. Fucking pointless rating system.
Harpo Django Rose
Other countries do seem to have their priorities straight. Many R-rated comedies are rated for ages 12 and older in Germany and the Netherlands. (Bruno got away with a 12 in the Netherlands, meaning most middle schoolers could watch it.)
However, PG-13 movies with lots of gun violence or horror like The Expendables 3 or Insidious almost always get those countries' equivalents of an R rating. According to IMDB The Dark Knight was rated the equivalent of R in Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden (probably because Heath Ledger's Joker would scare the crap out of the kiddies.)
European censors in general tend to be looser on swearing or sex, but tougher on violence and scary moments.
Ha I remember in my middle school we had a movie club and would pick movies for anyone to watch but they had to be pg and I brought poltergeist , ROFL. I love the old rating system. 😂
Omfg, what was their reaction?
Really bugs me that nudity is considered more "graphic" than fucking gore.
This is what happens when puritan, conservative, prudes are at the wheel.
Thank God for Deadpool.. I feel like that is the movie that pushed peoples perspective towards making their films rated R again.
Deadpool was rated PG-13 in Canada XD
you know Deadpool was successful cause it's already a known franchise right?
Who cares if it is a known franchise.. What I'm saying is it proves that even an R rated movie can be a big success.
I've got the feeling that hollywood will make all the wrong conclusions and screw everything up as always. Then we'll get other shitty trends
I've got the feeling that hollywood will make all the wrong conclusions and screw everything up as always. Then we'll get other shitty trends
Awesome video. Here is something I have noticed, since movies have been showing less blood and gore associated with violence, we suddenly have a lot more school shootings and teen violence in the real world. When you make violence look harmless and appealing it makes it easier to want to do violence for real. In movies today, violent acts look less horrific than a day at a paint ball range. When I was a teenager with the bloody gore in movies, seeing acts of violence made you cringe and look away. There were real consequences to the violence on screen. Seeing people who look like they really got hurt, makes you not want to actually hurt people.
***** thanks!
***** Yeah, that is the problem with PG-13 rated, bloodless violence--it shows no consequences! It conditions young minds to believe that violence has no bloody consequences and that it's okay. Everyone will want to have sex, but nobody wants to be a victim of violence.
"It's supposed to be pushing the envelope of PG, not pulling R backwards." Brilliantly stated.
One thing he didn’t mention that I like to add to that, I don’t think PG-13 just pulled R backwards, it also has pushed G and PG backwards also.
The bit about ratings limiting your audience is no longer bullshit. Deadpool and IT prove that if the movie is good, an R-rating can bring in just as much as your pg-13 baby edits.
PG-13 More Like PG-TurdTeen.
@Főfasírozó True, but Joker(a R rated film) made 1 billion $ in the box office. It was also more profitable that Infinity War from budget.
It depends on the movie, for example Birds of Prey (2020) [despite me and others enjoying its R rated nature] was a disappointment at the box office partly because young Harley Quinn fans weren't able to watch the movie without parents.
I really hope Deadpool's success ends this shitty trend.
It seems to be. For now.
But Deadpool was rated the equivalent of R in many countries though- some with much stricter guidelines. In Germany and the Netherlands you had to be 16 or older to watch it, no exceptions, while in the UK you had to be 15 and in the province of Manitoba, 14. Yet it did well internationally so obviously any age restrictions didn't hinder its financial success.
+Spencer Andersen In Ontario you actually had to be 18 to watch it unless accompanied by an adult. Now I think that's a little too harsh considering there are more intense movies out there that were given 14A in Ontario. Thank God Deadpool got a 14A home video rating though.
+Marco Hidalgo One rating I just can't figure out is Breaking Bad's- it only got a PG for Canadian home video but it's about a guy who makes meth to keep his family afloat so.... not really for kids.
Spencer Andersen I think that goes by certain seasons. I was at Walmart one time and one Breaking Bad season had a PG but another had a 14A.
when will this horseshit change
haven't they seen how many cinemas have shut down
this sterile, over-blown violent rating system is dull and boring
Pfft! You haven't seen Quebec's movie board... EVERYTHING except family movies is rated "13 years +" in order to drum up ticket sales...
@@Darkdaej so wait, is that a good thing? Or.. ?? Do they shovel everything into that rating, Willy nilly, or everything just ends up bland?
@@sumrose7972 Well this means that most of the movies we get - the vast majority are US movies that are either in English or with a French dub - are rated 13+. This means most movies rated R in the US are available for kids under 13 as long as an adult(18+) is present.
Once in a great while you'll get a movie that gets a 16+ rating. Sausage Party was the first I'd seen in years.
Then you have movies critics don't understand or obviously adult movies getting the 18+ rating. Natural Born Killers was rated 18+, for instance. Haven't seen one rated that high in...geez I dunno.
PG-13 Pulp Fiction: "Did you notice a sign on the front of my house that said dead guy storage?"
Don't you mean "Did you see a sign out side my house saying dead nagger storage?"
You can say the n-word in PG-13 movies.
Awesome, awesome analysis! I was 12 when Red Dawn came out and used to think PG-13 was awesome! But for the past 10 years I've been saying that PG-13 sucks and that Hollywood is watering down what should otherwise be good edgy films. You helped me to realize that I hadn't changed.. the standard changed.
Thank you!
As a person that generally doesn't watch R-rated movies and many PG-13 movies because of the violence/profanity/sensuality, I also COMPLETELY AGREE that this practice of watering down R-rated movies is ruining the overall quality of the movies in both categories; the PG-13 ones because we're getting just-below-R movies that are poorly adapted, and the R category because many of those movies would have been better movies without the adjustments, so the pool of actually good R-rated movies is smaller.
As an aside, since I watch so few R-rated movies, the ones I have watched also have had a lot more impact on me than I think they would have otherwise, and I appreciate them more for that. I usually wait until a movie is so well-acclaimed that I feel like I need to watch it, like most recently Road to Perdition. I can't imagine that movie would have had the same impact on me if it had been adjusted to be PG-13.
Rating should be a warning, not a banning. They should only be there to tell you what potentially offensive stuff is in there. But if someone decides to see an R-rated movie, there should be no barrier beyond the price of admission.
so what you're saying is 8 year olds can watch porn!, right?
or you're saying that its ok for 8 year olds to watch porn, as long as they pay to watch it!
+And Dav The MPAA doesn't rate actual porn. That's why you dont have "X" as an MPAA rating (NC-17 replaced it) "X" is used as a marketing ploy for porn, for example the often used "XXX" never was an actual MPAA rating.
+WAQWBrentwood ok dude
A movie that is essentially soft-core porn with a plot would be given an NC-17 rating. At any rate, op is saying an 8 year old should allowed to view Showgirls or a similar movie without restriction.
1 thing I think is NO MOVIE EVER, should be Rated R just for Language.
Kinda sad when various movies like that are rated R in US for language, but get like an age range equivalent from like 7 to 15 rating throughout the world.
The King's Speech was a perfect example. R rated in USA, but rated 7, PG, 10, 12 in various other places.
I mean the documentary film "Gunner Palace" is a perfect example of how the rating SHOULD have been for language. Even with 42 uses of Fuck, still got a PG-13 (on re-rating appeal) and yes i know the reason why.
This should honestly apply to all films and not just for the scenario of why they wanted a lower rating.
Honestly, a PG-15 rating would solve a lot of these problems. Then also Remove NC-17 or something.
The movie "Safe House" is a perfect example of a movie that I think should have Never gotten an R.
I actually saw it on some Premium Movie channel years ago, and only AFTER the movie was over I saw it was R which shocked me as I've seen movies way more violent and got a PG-13.
Most likely the waterboarding and themes are why they said R rating as the violence was no where near as bad as they made it sound. It was not "Strong Violence Throughout" as the rating says.
Taken (Unrated Cut) I think still should have been PG-13 (maybe excluding the interrogation chair change).
Holy Shit Goodbadflicks, this video almost has 300,000 views, talk about a home run, congrats yo, you deserve it!
Thanks man! Yeah, this one blew up almost immediately! I'm so happy because wow, was this a ton of work to put together.
GoodBadFlicks I always do a little happy dance when you get a big view count on these WTF Happened videos.
I wonder if Deadpool has begun changing anything?
they should do a R rated Batman movie to really change things
geromino97 Maybe, maybe. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't though.
geromino97 They did. Batman: The Killing Joke is rated R.
Bacon Maken He meant a mainstream Batman I think.
+geromino97 well Batman v superman ultimate edition is R but nkt a hard R except for a lot of blood
just discovered your channel this day , love your work man.
+lonewolf colin (Colintheexecutioner) Thank you!
GoodBadFlicks welcome man! i love the fact your replied , keep those great videos coming makes my day!
+GoodBadFlicks Terminator Salvation has an R-rated director's cut that is way better than the original PG-13 version.
+lonewolf colin (Colintheexecutioner) I thought the same thing. Most creators hardly look at the comments, let alone comment back personally. I gave him props too and he messaged me back in hours. A really nice touch to already great videos.
Drag Me To Hell is the one weird outlier in modern PG13 movies. I seriously haven't seen a PG13 movie that violent since the 80s and early 90s.
Are there any violent PG-13 films from the 80s and early 90s? The ones I could think of are the Tremors films, the Critters films, Dances with Wolves, Licence to Kill and Ghost
@@aziziabdrahman7756 Gremlins 2, Monster Squad, only the third Indiana Jones got a PG13 because the rating wasn't invented yet when the first two came out despite those ones being WAY more gory.
@@anactualmotherbear Any other examples of modern PG-13 films like Drag Me to Hell (as if PG-13 movies that violent since the 80s and early 90s)?
Totally agree 100%. It is nine kinds of bullshit that boobs = hard R. God forbid a 13-year old be subjected to something that they've already seen a million times on the internet in a far worse context.
A majority of thirteen year old either have boobs or were breast fed anyway.
+Coley Durham How so? Isn't nudity cleaner than violence? Shouldn't we be viewing the human body as a work of art instead of something to hide away?
13 year old!? I think you're gravely mistaken... I have a 6 year old nephew who has shown me some shit that I didn't know existed that I don't know how to access...
I'm like WTF!? Where the hell did u find this?! It's kinda cool but your dad needs to take away your iPad kid.
kids these days... they grow up so fast.
13 year old!? I think you're gravely mistaken... I have a 6 year old nephew who has shown me some shit that I didn't know existed that I don't know how to access...
I'm like WTF!? Where the hell did u find this?! It's kinda cool but your dad needs to take away your iPad kid.
kids these days... they grow up so fast.
There is so much crap here on UA-cam, from overrated Let's Plays to Make Up Tutorials and so on. This Video, Sir, is, for me as a Movie Fanatic, the most informative Video I've seen this year on UA-cam. I will Link this Video with my Blog in the upcoming time, because I'm very interested in the PG13/R Rating Topic. Thanks.
MonsieurAufziehvogel Thanks for the compliment! If you liked this, check out my other WTF videos as well as my Exploring videos. They are the most detailed.
GoodBadFlicks Already subscribed yesterday to you. This is something, I ultra rarely do here at Youube :D
MonsieurAufziehvogel Much appreciated!
***** Yeah, and the movie "Selma" is rated PG-13 and has 2 F bombs.
What's funny is that in his pre-post 2004 comparisons you can see why the PG-13 rating was needed in the late 80s. The split was just too stark. It was a nice middle ground, but now it's just so... pointless.
I was at a talk by somebody from the BBFC (British Board Of Film Classification) and they said that they gave The King's Speech a 12A (basically PG-13) because of the context of that scene.
It was first given a 15 rating. And R means you have to be 17 and up to watch this movie.
@@Warrior2044 The 15 certificate was withdrawn and replaced by a 12A rating. R means that anyone under the age of 17 must be accompanied by an adult guardian - You're getting R and NC-17 mixed up.
"Imagine a PG13 version of Pulp Fiction"
It was fun for me.
I saw a clip of a tv edit of Rob Zombie's Halloween film. It made me wonder how long it took them to edit the movie, since there's like 80-100 F-Words (possibly more), plus other expletives, teen nudity, and lots of blood and gore. It just doesn't seem like a movie that should be shown on network television. Imagine a PG-13 edit of Goodfellas. Joe Pesci would be out of a job. There's like 300 F-Words (most likely more) in the film...and Pesci is responsible for at least 80% of them. It just wouldn't be good as a PG-13 movie.
How many F-Words do you think are in the movie? I'm guessing somewhere around 250, maybe more. I can see why the tv edit sucked.
This makes me think about how on Comedy Central, when they have a stand-up comedian on there, and they decide to censor the profanity. It's hard to follow when the punchline is a censored word. The audience watching it live laughs, because they know what the word is. The tv audience can't laugh because the punchline is censored and it makes no sense at all.
that makes no sense. i actually remeber seeing a movie on network tv where the main character called someone a fuckface in the orginal cut and they replaced the word fuckface with frenchfry?
Wow, this is an excellent video! It says everything I've been complaining about for years now, well said! I'm sick of this PG-13 era, I'm hoping that studios will soon realise that they're actually losing customers by censoring their movies.
We also have a load of bland, forgettable movies. Like the Robocop remake, Terminator Salvation, Total Recall etc. Nobody will be talking about them in 30 years time, unlike the originals that were made in the 80s and still highly regarded today.
It's time they stop ruining art for the sake of money.
VirtualMark Thank you! It is such a shame. They don't seem to be looking long term anymore. It all has to make a quick buck now and then they don't care if if drops off. Its all product to them.
GoodBadFlicks
The only real thing we can do is vote with our feet, and stop paying to see them. If enough people do it, maybe they'll realise and start making decent movies again. Let the director have total control to realise their vision, that's the only way a movie should be made.
From what I've seen of the Termingator Genisys trailer, it looks like it'll be PG-13. The T-1000 gets shot off camera, then you see it heal. A Terminator movie should be R rated, else we'll end up with Terminators that throw people around instead of punching holes in them. If that's the case, I'm not interested, and won't pay to see it.
But if it turns out to be R, then I'll pay to watch it in IMAX.
*****
The studios, without a doubt. They are the ones who dictate to the director that it has to be a PG-13. They compromise the art for the sake of profit, which sucks.
A director should have the final say, and the quality of the movie should always be the first priority imo.
VirtualMark I could not imagine a Terminator movie that is not R-rated. At all.
But same, if it goes R, I will gladly watch it in IMAX.
7:20 Oh, look, the evil Mouse Empire ruined another movie! (Yeah, I'm not real fond of Disney right now.)
Supersum Creations I’m not fond of Disney anymore because of corporate greed. Technically my relationship with it is a mixed bag.
In my opinion, PG-13 *is* the problem. All its implementation did was muddy the waters. Instead of creating a new rating, the summer of '84 should have been used to remind parents what the ratings mean.
Instead, the rating system makes far less sense now than it used to. Most modern PG rated movies would have been G before PG-13 and the vast majority of PG-13 films would have been PG before its invention, so what's the point?
Beyond this, the completely arbitrary standards the MPAA uses couldn't be more full of it if they tried. Nudity is the best example. Back in the days before the waters were muddied with another gratuitous rating, breasts were bared in many movies with a PG rating. This makes sense. At the end of the day, they're just boobs: feed bags for baby that just happen to also look nice. Then PG-13 came along and the MPAA decided you can still show breasts in that rating... so long as they're shown in an asexual context. Well, unless it's Terminator: Salvation. Nothing was overtly sexual in that scene, but it was the last thing cut in order for them to lose the R rating. Let's compare that to The Notebook. You've got breasts in a sex scene and the movie is still PG-13. I guess they knew teenage girls would be the main audience for the movie so they let it slide lest ticket sales suffer. Personally, I don't think either scene warranted an R with its nudity, but the MPAA's alleged standards sure aren't standardized.
I think the way violence is treated in PG-13 films is absurd as well. Look at X-Men: Days of Future Past. You've got characters being impaled and ripped in half, but the lack of blood means the movie doesn't get an R. Cool. That makes sense.
G-rated movies are now stigmatized as baby movies. They should’ve came up with the new rating YC.
PG-13 sucks because people are lazy.
It's called PG (Parental Guidance) for a reason; to give parents a small pointer to then decide THEMSELVES whether they want their children to see said movie.
But parents are lazy and instead want other people to do their parenting for them so they start taking these ratings as hard rules (like thinking PG-13 means for 13 year olds and applying no extra thought whatsoever) and then complain about it when a movie doesn't line up with their vision of this rule they've created for themselves.
Sadly that's where the money is and quality and artistic integrity very rarely beats money in the eyes of corporations so we end up with these mauled movies that end up pleasing nobody that actually gives a damn about the medium.
Great video by the way, subscribed and looking forward to your other videos.
I think the Canadian PG is much better than our PG. it basically tells the parents "You can bring your kids, and it won't scar them for life, but this isn't really a kids movie." They give pretty much any animated movie a G rating (except for far-and-few between animated PG-13 movies like 9 or The Simpsons Movie, which get a PG) and add an advisory for things like "cartoon violence" if needed.
+Spencer Andersen Different provinces have their own ratings
Back in the day (60s 70s) British Columbia had three ratings
General (No restrictions on admittance)
Mature ( No restrictions on admittance)
Restricted (under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian)
There would be a few words about content... Brief Nudity...Violence and Coarse Language Throughout.... Completely concerned with sex
What do you expect parents to do, go to every movie beforehand to determine if its appropriate or not? Nobody has time for that.
+blkgardner There are websites that screen movies for people with child and based on those the parents can decide if the movies are acceptable.
brizanna33 That is essentially the same thing as a MPAA rating, only less reliable and not standardized. The PG-13 rating is a necessary evil. Most parents will not allow their teens to view R-rated content, so if a movie wants to tap into the teen demographic, they do need some level of content control, and the production company needs to choose between a teen-acceptable or adult-only movie.
The video is essentially complaining that children exist. Any rating system is going to have problems, but the video essentially wants teens to see what are, by nature, adult-only movies. There probably should be rating between R and NC-17, and possibly one between PG-13 and R. But, the problem of the threshold will still exist. There is still going to be a limit on teen-acceptable and conventional cinema-acceptable films. However, that is not too large of a problem, because unrated versions are often available on DVD.
I've watched this video almost 10 times. It's that well done.
The rating seems to be involved in two issues:
1. As stated in the video, studios are in the business to make money and therefore will tailor a script to meet a rating in order to make money, rather than simply make the movie as intended and just give it the appropriate rating.
2. As demonstrated by the King's Speech, the rating system is based in basic requirements. What gave it it's R rating was that is said "Fuck" more than once, which is the max allowed for a PG-13. However, the rating system doesn't take into account the context as to which everything is said. Yes, Colin Firth swears dozens of times in that scene, but he's not using them literally, as insults or other obscenities, he's using them as the word itself as they're what helps him with his speech. They're essential to the story, and that was the only time they were used. Many R films gain their rating just from the amount of "fucks" they use, but they're put in specifically for obscenity, not as a plot device such as the King's Speech. And how the hell does substituting "fuck" a word that means sex and is the joining of two people for mutual enjoyment as well as the creation of life, for "shit" a word that means feces, a disgusting brown sometimes green waste product from our bodies, make the movie less terrible. It's not as if the demographic seeing PG-13 films doesn't already know what sex is.
I agree that the rating system needs an overhaul. Particularly, paying attention to the context of certain elements of the movie rather than just the elements itself.
+VBall1295 I'm glad you like it that much!
+VBall1295 The dumb thing about The King's Speech is that it was rated 12A (equivalent to a PG-13 in case you couldn't guess) in Britain. It was originally to get a 15 rating (which is the most common rating there), but the producers coaxed the BBFC into lowering the rating.
To be fair it probably helps that BBFC ratings there go from 12 to 15 to 18 instead of 13 to 17 in the MPAA. Also, the BBFC seems to have higher tolerance for swearing.
+LinkMarioSamus American did the same thing to "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"
+VBall1295 A documentary about bullies was also given an R rating because the preteen bullies in the movie said fuck more than once.
Video of actual kids could not be used because actual kids swear too much, so the MPAA had to protect theoretical kids from hearing that swearing. Think about that.
Excellent, well-made, informative video. Great work!
Thank you!
As someone who’s growing up in this dark age of the rating system, I’ll describe the system.
G: Non-Existing, last G film I ever heard of was Cars 3
PG: Honestly any kids film nowadays.
PG-13: Basically PG+ with the Marvel movies and a giant amount of terrible action and horror movies.
R: Basically Freedom Land when it comes to movies
NC-17: Haven’t seen or heard of a recent one.
I think Suicide Squad would've been a little better.
Anyone else?
definitely. I think any movie where people are killed should actually express the severity of taking a life. Today movies typically only show that if part of the main cast dies.
Sadly, you could easily tell who was going to die in Suicide Squad because they had the shortest backstories and like no lines.
Idont see how.
My main complaint with the movie is that I cant hear the dialogue and the city fight scenes were a mess. I couldnt see anything because it was too dark. Did somebody steal all their spotlights?
They took out the majority of the Joker's scenes because they featured domestic violence with Harley and that would have given it an R rating. Also when she fell out of the helicopter he was initially trying to kill her.
Suicide Squad needs a new MPAA rating - the PG-15 Rating.
that movie was all kinds of messed up a rating change would not have helped it. The characters didn't act like the comics they came from. Harley is a good example. and the joker never cared that much to save any one let alone Harley.
I am happy to grow up during the 80/90s,now we are on the Demolition man world.
(if you dont know yet,look at Black mirror the serie).
No wonder some people believe that nostalgia should be a virtue instead of just being treated like one!
yeah the new robocop was lame, not funny or violent like the original 2 was not as good but 3 was total shit, i think the new one was better than 3 or even 2 but not the original.well at least we have game of thrones.
and if you think the US is bad the uk is far worse
We're not quite there yet. I'm still wiping my ass with toilet paper rather than seashells.
Nowadays feel somewhere between Demolition Man and Idiocracy.
Fantastic video, you earned a subscriber
. And did anybody else notice that UA-cam let this guy say "FUCK" as many times as he wanted to, and show gratuitous violence, but wouldn't let him show nipples?
That's some bullshit for ya
Jeffery Lebowski Thanks for the sub! Yeah, if it had nudity it would get flagged for content. Women's nipples are evil here in the US for some reason.
***** In general its tough to give an exact breakdown so thats about as good as any. There are always factors that go in but it seems that right now we are in this weird area where the ratings board is too out of touch. They need a complete overhaul of the system before it will ever get better.
Also the mpaa is really homophobic and somewhat misogynist, cause a man's orgasm is pg-13 and a females is R. Also if you have gay people in your film it pretty much always gets rated R or NC-17 reguardless of the content. (For exampls, the film "A Single Man" was rated R in America, but PG in Canada. The main character is gay but it features no gay sex, violence, or language")
***** It was made in the UK, but idk. have you seen: "this film is not yet rated"
Hypocrites! Hypocrites everywhere!
What are "parents" scared of? that if their kids watch a movie with cursing or violence that they will grow up to be serial killers?
I watched movies like Conan, terminator1 and cartoons like eon flux from age of 7 and played games like resident evil a few years later. I am not a serial killer.....my neighbor is looking at me funny, il be right back,,,
Parents today buy their kids COD at the age of 3, but god forbid if someone curses on the avengers and a family with their 13 year old sees and hears it in the cinema or tv.
Parents, do some parenting instead of blaming movies and games for the fact that you suck at parenting.
Dude I don't know how many times I have said the exact same thing. When I was a kid I heard my parents swear up a storm. Mostly it was from my father but he's a mechanic & mechanics have filthy mouths. So when I watched a movie at a young age that had cursing, it didn't phase me at all & thank god my parents were laid back & didn't mind me watching those kind of films that had mature material, & if ever I had a question about said material they had no problem explaining it to me.
You also have to take into account on how clueless some of these parents are, for example when the first Deadpool movie came out & friend of my cousin took her young kids to see it & was shocked from the amount of violence, swearing & sexual material was in the film. She just assumed it was "going to be one of those Captain America movies" & didn't know, so instead of doing research on the film or the comics to make sure it would be appropriate for your kids, you just assumed. Which is stupid on her part but somehow it's the movies fault.
not not killing, but if a kid watches movies where they swear then he/she will automatically swear a lot more. If there are nudes and especially if it's a boy watching, he probably will search up porn and that could get him ddicted which can ruin life's especially at those ages. And if it is too much gore and the kid is young it can feel much more awful for him/her
Faceless Porn is all good, he would have found it sooner or later anyway, and your kid will only swear if you let him, you just have to educate him to not do it...
@@gamerito100 next you gonna tell me drugs are fine too
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j You right about the porn part.
Wow...that McG panel was awful. Come on, you don't treat a cast member like that.
I thought that was insane as well. Totally inappropriate.
+Glitch In The System Just because everyone was lol'ing doesn't make it right.
You could kinda see patience wearing thin.
@Warlord M, you dont understand the difference in context between adult film actors consenting to adult film performance and a known hollywood actress being humiliated in front of a large audience by a sleazy director? You are a small, small man.
Yeah that was disgusting
I am so glad you brought up Anaconda. When I was 13 me and my friend wanted to go see Romy and Michele's High School reunion but we couldn't because it was rated R so instead we went and saw Anaconda. We were so much more traumatized by Anaconda than we ever would have been by Romy and Michele's High School freaking reunion!
Therein seemingly proving the point-- sexuality of any stripe is brimstone and fire (religious conservatives probably lobbying for that R rating), but the more violence, the closer you are to heaven; I don't get it!
jaws is an example of a gory pg movie, its gorier than Jurassic park which is pg13 and has a bit of violence and gore but now much (includes dinos killing peeps)
In my opinion, Jaws (along with Jaws III and Jaws: The Revenge) should have been rated R. Violence and gore are extreme, to say the least.
David Colantuono Jaws 3 shouldve been rated R. It even has a TV-MA rating on TV.
I saw a documentary about how the MPAA rating system works (or doesn't). THIS is why MPAA ratings fail:
1. The MPAA reviewers do their work in SECRET.
2. There are NO objective MPAA guidelines for the movie studios to follow EXCEPT
A. > 1 "fuck" automatically gets an "R".
B. Specific nude body parts get an "R".
C. Other de facto, non-specific "unwritten rules".
Also, when a movie gets a specific rating, the movie studio IS NOT TOLD WHY the movie got its rating -- they are left to GUESS WHY.
SO, to FIX the MPAA SYSTEM, everything has to be revamped:
1. Movie studios must be given OBJECTIVE GUIDELINES in EACH area: language, nudity, violence, sex, etc.
2. The review process must be OPEN and the names of the reviewers KNOWN to ALL.
How would you like a police officer to follow your car and then pull you over to say, "I'm giving you a ticket .. because I don't like the way you drive" and the $300 moving violation ticket not give any specific violation: speeding, no turn signals, running over a pedestrian, etc. Ridiculous, huh? .. Well .. welcome to the current MPAA system.
15:52 - 16:26 When you're no longer afraid of cursing as a kid.
I think the big problem with neutering PG-13 that you failed to mention is that it has also ruined the R rating. It's now an excessively broad rating that can encompass anything from an otherwise innocent film with a few too many "fucks", to a full on gore fest or borderline softcore porn.
No, he mentioned that at the end of the video when he said “PG-13 is supposed to push the envelope of PG, not pulling R backwards”.
@@Warrior2044 Regardless of what PG-13 was supposed to do, the problem still stands. As of right now, the ratings are not clearly defined enough to be useful. Most parents I know interpret the ratings as such:
G, PG and PG-13 = “basically fine for kids of all ages”
R = “Fine for teenagers I guess?”
NC-17 = “forbidden”
@@splewy Some people may fine it useful but pointless and meaningless.
Heh, imagine a PG-13 version of Aliens. It'd only be 45 minutes long.
Unknown Nomad Same in Australia. Aliens is only rated M here, which is an unrestricted rating.
They made a TV-14 Sausage Party for TV.
Great video! In my opinion, the PG-13 rating was watered down even before 2004. "Small Soldiers" (1998) was rated PG-13, despite all of the violence involving action figures! "Whale Rider" (2002) was rated PG-13 not for drug use, but for the presence of drug paraphernalia! Could the arrival of the internet or the introduction of ratings descriptions have caused parents to be more sensitive?
@Brendan Milburn The Frighteners and Army of Darkness are both rated M in Australia (which is basically their version of PG-13). Small Soldiers and Gremlins are both rated PG in Australia.
Did anyone else think that scene in Poltergeist was really fucked up, especially for a PG? The way it fits into the full movie makes it so jarring and unexpected.
That's the proof that Tobe Hooper directed it.
so, basically South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut would be an even more relevant social satire today than when it came out. That's how you know that we as a whole have been making bad decisions.
My parents absolutely hate the word "Fuck" but they both love "The King's Speech" because the language in the film was appropriate to the film in general.
"The Batman 🦇" is probably the closest to "R" I've seen a "PG-13" look in a long while.
In UK it got rated 15 and in Australia it's M for Sustained Threat Violence and Language
I guess I am among the many others who have all of a sudden found your channel even though this vid is from 2 years ago. lol great video though
Better late than never! :)
same here lol
Same here dude
+Gamingar yup
same here lol
some solid points made here, its an opinion I have held for years, I'm sick to death of the pussifcation of Hollywood these days
Jump to independent film, there's a lot of great stuff happening there. Hollywood makes movies I can have a fun time with, but if you want grit you have to reach beyond. Condemning them for whatever evolution they're on doesn't solve anything, just find your goods elsewhere. It's not just a pussification of Hollywood, there's a much bigger issue there with society in general. Everyone gets a participation medal, it's not okay to scrape your knees, and if just one person is offended it's over for everyone else.
Chris Peckford most of my favourite movies are independents, I also tend to get my horror fix from European movies and action movies from Asia, I gave up on Hollywood years ago, yeah summer block busters can be fun, but when we are offered nothing but remakes/reboots/sequels and prequels, its just not for me!
Bill Waring Thank you!
fun fact, the hands used to rip the face in Poltergeist were Steven Spielbergs hands
I know this is really old, but I wanted to say how much I appreciated this video. I have a couple of streaming services along with bunches and bunches of pay cable channels yet can never seem to find anything that really excites me. Everything seems so bland anymore that even things I think I might like turn out to be very wishy-washy if you know what I mean. I'm a big fan of horror, psychological thrillers, SF and Fantasy, which can't really be done well with a PG-13 rating. PG-13 is like diet soda. You can try to fool yourself that it really tastes like 'the Real Thing,' but your taste buds know it definitely isn't, it's just coloured water with artificial sweeteners that are worse for you over time than if you just had a regular soda a couple of times a week and enjoyed it rather than seeking satisfaction you'll never get with a six-pack of diet blah a day.
I had an uncomfortable moment when m son was 9 and a big fan of the Friday the 13th movies. My mother-in-law stopped by unexpectedly one evening (never good) and saw my son watching one of the really old ones which yeah, are violent but... Those older movies are much tamer than PG-13 is today, and also the use of mainly practical effects at the time was indeed graphic but not in the same way that it is today with CGI effects that are intended to mirror reality without showing the consequences and brutality of real world violence. Sure I was scared of Jason when I was a teen, but that's all we had then. When looked at today, the effects seem sometimes laughable and thus unrealistic enough that my pretty bright 9-year-old laughed when fake blood flowed and obviously fake decapitated mannequin heads rolled away out of frame. She was horrified but I dismissed her out of hand. (great moment in history) My son is now 13 and pretty much watches whatever he wants, though I do hold back on some R rated movies because of the adult themes rather than the violence. But really, as parents in the technological age, it's stupid to think any kid won't find a way to watch what they want even if we think they're innocent babes in the woods. Thanks again for an extremely justified video.
Thank you! Lots of work went into it and I'm happy its still appreciated all this time later