It's such a simple difference. Adult means adults only 18+ and then mature means that a kid can watch the movie(or play the game it depends on what you're rating) but they just have to be mature for their age.
Age is a very bad indicator of maturity. I've met 40 year old women and men that have the naivety of and behave like a spoiled 5 year old kid and I've met 15 year old "girls" and "boys" that I would consider in the top 10% of people I've met that have (parts of) life figured out.
MasterZhangCaosun At least when it comes to western animation. 'Cause with anime you have a lot of stuff that falls pretty squarely into "PG-13" territory. Though I feel like some American cartoons such as Over the Garden Wall are pretty good at walking that middle ground.
Chachamaru15 what dumb is a lot of “p-13” anime’s get a tv-ma rating. I find tv-ma and m17+ for games, has too many levels of maturity. Some shows/games can be games I would recommend to a 7 year old, well others I definitely would not.
@@purpleperson417 I wasn't aware that anime tends to get a tv MA rating.. that's interesting..and you make a good point that some games that are 'mature' might be totally inappropriate for a small child, while others might not be that bad. I suppose it depends on what exactly it's rated Mature for. For instance, take Telltale's Walking Dead games. Other than a handful of isolated scenes where the gore becomes graphic, I don't recall much other than language that would warrant the M Rating. I feel like a kid could maybe play that game with a parent and the parent could maybe just tell the kid to look away in a couple of the more graphic scenes. What are some shows and games that are rated M that you feel you could show a kid? I'm not judging btw, just genuinely curious.
Chachamaru15 like someone else said Halo, I was playing halo 3 when I was 5 with my dad. Edit: i find that fairytale, a pretty tame anime, got a tv ma. I think it is that Japan , finds other things appropriate, while we find other things inappropriate
This is basically what the ratings are at this point G - For Kids Only (and Toy Story) PG - Fun for the whole Family PG13 - Same thing as PG, but with more swearing and action to make kids feel older when watching it R - Everyone talks like a middle schooler, and is forced to use a swear word every sentence. Plus slight nudity! Meant to be only for adults but in reality 10 year olds watch it NC-17: Porn
Toy Story is fantastic, more movies should just wear the G as a badge of honor and be family movies, not JUST for kids. Most audiences are stuck in PG, some conflict to make it interesting but maybe hold back from 13 which is like general audiences R R I mentioned somewhere else it feels they're forced to go all the way when they want a story that features more violence than 13 could get away with NC no one makes movies for, it'll basically mean no one buys it in stores and most theaters can't show it. The other side from G but 10x, people might actually see a G rated Lego Movie but Deadpool or IT NC-17 (Fifty Shades might work with it but again it'll be harder to watch)
I saw a review of the lego movie 2 once that said, "it was too kiddy and childish" and I just laughed because that just proved the entire point that the movie was making in the first place.
The movie was designed to be super kiddy to show that being “edgy and cool” as the kid in the movie had become is just as shallow as the cheery stuff his sister had made. Ironic.
Ironically enough, an R-rating is viewed as being 'liberating', and yet that rating seems to pigeonhole those types of movies into needing more 'viscera'. It's constraint that stimulates creativity. Working within constraints compels you to be more creative. The R-rating obviously has it's place, but audiences have come to associate it with a certain type of movie. But good, even very good stories can be told within a whole variety of constraints/ratings.
Oh man, speaking of ratings. The MPAA rating system has its issues. But ESRB for games... holy smokes is it vague. Like Halo and GTA V technically have the same rating. Halo has some blood spurts and some zombie things. GTA V flat out portrays torture, sex, abuse, etc. Those two games should not have the same sticker on the front of the box.
It is likely the film (Cars 2) that caused most animated films released (in the 2010s) after this movie to have a PG rating. - Awful Movies Wiki Fair point, but it doesn’t help the fact that while the MPAA does not know which films to give an R rating as much as it thinks, it also came up with the PG-13 rating a little too lately (in the mid-1980s, 1983 AD, to be exact) and was being very trendy with their PG ratings for kid(die) movies as of recently. m.ua-cam.com/video/dL4vRihNk4s/v-deo.html
TheFabulousKitten, I don't know how on Earth Halo got a M rating it should've been T instead. The rating system is been a weird thing to me. Some T rated games I've seen I think to my self how did that not get a M? While others times it's the opposite like with Halo. At least with ESRB you can see contents on the back of the box.
You definitely can see proof of this in the world of children’s animation. Shows like the Bruce Timm DC animated series, Avatar, Gravity Falls, Regular Show, and so many more were great at pushing against the boundaries of their required limitations when necessary for the story or characters or humor. They didn’t force themselves to scrub away the darker or more adult moments in their shows; they just found new ways to show those moments. And they also didn’t just randomly push the boundaries because they wanted to; they used restraint and applied it to the their work only when they needed it.
That's a good example! You watch the DCAU version of the Suicide Squad and they acted much more morally ambiguous than their big screen "adult" counterparts!
Kids shows are INCREDIBLY held back by the boundaries. None of those kids shows could ever come close to matching the themes or subject matter of something like, say, Bojack Horseman. Main characters in kids shows aren't even allowed to hurt, much less kill, the bad guy.
@@superleviathan watch gravity falls, even though it's a kids show it's amazing and actually has ways to get around gore, for example, in one episode they cut off numerous limbs of humans, but they get around it by saying the humans are wax
Omg. So Netflix shows have a bunch of nudity and sex scenes in them and very often they barely serve a purpose. This is annoying. To me, my sister and my mom. I have nothing against nudity or sex, but it's very uncomfortable when you're watching a show you enjoy only to have sexscene thrown in your face with way too many sounds. My mother actually turns down the volume of the scenes or skips them all together. She's watching a show she enjoys, and still rolls her eyes at the adult scenes! I don't really have a point, but I'm curious. To the people reading my comment, do have any similar experiences?
Absolutely. If it serves the story, by all means, film whatever you need. But if it's just in there for the sake of being edgy, I just feel super uncomfortable.
Yep! Lots of shows and films nowadays have unneeded sex scenes and such that don't further the story in any way, for me this makes it extremely awkward when I'm trying to introduce a friend to the show and they are just met with lots of random sex scenes.
There are a ton of R-rated blockbusters recently like Terminator: Dark Fate and Birds of Prey that have a few f-bombs and maybe a glimpse of gore to “justify” the rating when they only go for that status to market to an audience.
I went to see Dark fate and only realized afterward that the movie was rated r, heck I would've shown kids that movie (of course there are a few bad moments ), mainly I missed all the cussing because the movie was so boring
The problem is more that people often shoot for an R because they wanna be edgy. You can tell when the filmmaker only did an R rating because he wanted to show an actress naked or just wanted to be violent/ swear like a sailor.
Although saying the f word is normal and I hear it every day. Why should we half to censor something like that when making a middle school movie where that’s all people say basically
Mata Nui I agree, but I don’t think sensering a middle school movie to have no f bombs is a good idea. Although I don’t agree with some directors basically making a family movie. Then in the last 5 minutes have a character say the f bomb 5 times for no reason. Or having a scene in the shower with nudity that has no purpose other than to have nudity
That’s what I thought with movies like Birds Of Prey or Hellboy (2019) both of those movies felt like they were just shoving their R ratings in your face by having as much over the top blood and swearing as possible, sometimes the R rating can just feel gratuitous and unnecessary and I wish more people would realize that
People have confused maturity with adult content for so long now. We don't want children exposed to constant nudity and violence, but that doesn't mean that content is mature just because it's only for adults. Take the God of War franchise for example. God of War 1-3 was filled to the brim with nudity and extreme violence, but God of War 4 was the most mature game in the series and it didn't have any of that. It told a story about the hardships of being a father and helping your young son become a man. That is a story that takes a level of maturity to appreciate. You don't have to be mature to see boobs and gore.
Not super related, but one aspect of the R-rating that people don't take seriously enough is "mature themes." Little kids are generally told not to watch R-rated material due to violence, swearing and nudity, but I think that mature themes is just as important, and in some cases even more important. When I was in Grade 6 I heard a kid a year younger than me talking about watching Breaking Bad. Obviously a kid that age should not see some of the more graphic violence in the show (though little kids often see gore and nudity on the internet anyways), but more important than that a kid that age cannot understand the show. Since it is unlikely that a young kid will be able to separate protagonist from good/bad guy, a kid who watches Breaking Bad at that age might come to idolize and support Walter White. In that way, mature themes in shows can be even more damaging than just shocking violence. Now that I am writing this, maybe it is another good topic for a video?
I grew up in the 80s where kids where typically more exposed to rated R movies. Robocop was one of the most violent films ever made but we got a Saturday morning cartoon lol. The Terminator was one of the most iconic villains of the 80s, but other than pretending with our toy guns none of us turned to the dark side. I mean kids today could just as easily idolize PG13 Thanos if they wanted to. I didn't grow up with the internet so I can only imagine what these kids are exposed to now! I think we shelter kids a bit too much these days when it comes to movies / TV. Not saying break out the graphic sex scenes! But the kids who are going to turn out to be pricks are going to be pricks regardless of exposure to some adult content like Walter White.
@JOHN JOHN you misunderstood that whole video didn't you? It's saying that adding gore, nudity and other "mature content" senselessly with only the goal to get an R rating doesn't improve the story in anyway it goes back to an old film school saying if it doesnt add to the story or character cut it. Of course if it does improve the story by pulling on the right emotion and showing the true grit or power of what's on screen then good do it. The story should be told first then the rating given not the story being told and after it's written let's blend a few bodies have two people walk around naked and someone fuck a pig so we get the real big adult award, to me that's such a childish mindset and actually lessen the story being told
@JOHN JOHN for an example of what I mean watership down is a pg film about rabbits that uses extremely disturbing visuals especially for young children. Those disturbing visuals were needed to show just how harsh and horrifying the scenes were for the other rabbits and the visuals conveyed this in a way that if toned down the same thing could not be achieved and the same emotions felt wouldn't be there.
I think creators should make the films & shows they want to make, then worry about ratings. No-one should start off thinking about what the content “needs” to be !
I don't pay attention to ratings anymore, but I was surprised when you mentioned 1917 was rated R, I couldn't really remember any horribly gory or cursing in the film. Like Dunkirk it was about the tense atmosphere and the incredible visuals rather brutal violence and morally troubling consequences of war.
I think 1917 is a perfect example! It was graphic enough that it warranted an R rating, but it was subtle about it without constantly pushing the envelope in your face.
Man I didn't even notice it was R until now. Thinking back I definitely see why it is rated R, (they really don't skimp out on some of the horrors of war). But its used well and It didn't pull me out of the experience. There are times when I'll be watching a movie and then there's just an explicit sex scene or some really horrible violence out of the blue and it takes you out of the flow of the film.
@Mutaz Muhanad Hammad well there are a few scenes that might bump up the rating. The one that comes to mind for me is when they're crawling across no man's land and one of them gets his hand stuck in a corpse's rotting stomach.
I've noticed myself that as a kid I'd often pay attention to what rating something was because I was afraid of what content I may expose myself to. Nowadays I don't even know what rating a film is when I watch it, all I know is that I am looking for a good story regardless of what particular content is within it. Now granted I know that even I have been caught up in discussions about ratings for films, and I've sorta acknowledged that my age doesn't really limit what I can watch anymore. While there are those that most certainly need to be able determine if content they consume themselves or show to others is appropriate, what should be more focused on is what the material of the work contains rather than all of the elements strewn upon it to make it fit in better (though obviously this would be hard for those going into a film without some sort of context before hand).
I was the same way when I was a kid and the more I grew as a writer, I realized it was a harsh and limiting mindset to have that kept me from growing in the way I needed to.
Yeah. It doesnt have any violence of gore,but it tackles very complex ideas like existentialism and the presence of extraterrestrials in our universe. A movie doesn't have to be R-Rated to be mature.
The OxyScape I understand that. If the film were made today it wouldn’t get a G rating, even if everything depicted remained the same. Point I’m making is today we only use G for kids movies. Even “family movies” are usually PG or PG-13.
@@oops6876 true. It would most likely get a PG-13 or it might still get a R rating because of the mature themes but MPAA cant really be trusted because they gave Matrix a R rating
I think when people clamber for an R rated adaptation of a source material that they're big fans of, be that comic/book/anime/whatever, all they really care about is something that is true to the source material. For years Hollywood would take material with huge fanbases that had adult themes and then watered them down to make a PG13 flick to reach a wider demographic. This pleases no one: fans don't get a faithful adaptation and new viewers don't get the full measure of the source material. I think the big turning point was Deadpool. The whole point of Deadpool is the over the top violence and swearing to differentiate him from Marvel's other big names. An R rated Deadpool is the only way it would work, but the studios still toyed with him as PG13 in a Wolverine film and fans HATED it and wanted a proper representation. Eventually they listened to fans and and it became the biggest selling R rated movie of all time. I think the problem is that studios have taken the wrong message away from this. They're now thinking "lets make more R rated movies, with lots of swearing and violence, because this one did so well" wherein actually the real moral of the story is to treat source materials and their fans with respect, and give them the adaptation they deserve.
Exactly! Someone once pointed out that The Wolverine had Logan acting all heroic, not killing people whereas Man of Steel was all dark and gritty when in reality people just wanted it to be the other way around, true to the source material.
Oh totally, and I think that in deadpool specifically there's heart hidden behind all the violence, it's meant to look like a dumb and violent story at first, but just copying the style of violence achieves nothing.
That's what they always do look at how DC tried to copy the MCU too quickly and it kinda flopped. It's just not movies it's TV and video games too. The idiot suits always copy shit that works trying to make lightning strike twice. Instead of working slowly and make meaningful content. It's "let quickly make X while the fire is hot" when the reviews come back as "it's just a cheap knockoff" they're like "it should have worked the market proved it" This is why I clearly think money people are some of the dumbest people with too much power. They go off the "market" numbers and don't even ask what people really want. They just make and hope something sticks to the wall. They don't even think if people want something new they'll throw of derivative work thinking the masses are REALLY stupid.
I wouldn’t say that a PG-13 rating is what made Origin’s Deadpool suck. I would say sewing his mouth shut, giving him strange tattoos, powers, and having no resemblance to Deadpool is what made him suck. A PG-13 Deadpool could do well. Once Upon A Deadpool was able to do it in a very meta and self aware way, and while the final result was a bit undercooked, I think we could see an actually good PG-13 Deadpool in the future.
Yes, it is. The rating should be a byproduct of the film that was made, not the other way around. Filmmakers should just make the best film that they can, and then the rating will be whatever the rating will be. If they make the best film they can and it turns out to be rated R, then that's fine. If they make the best film that they can and it turns out to be PG-13, then they should leave it the way it is and not try to change it to make it R, because they've already made the best film they can.
Can you give me an example of a film that was PG13 and was changed to R? I can think of countless films the director made as R and the studio made trim down to PG13, however I can't imagine many instances where force an R rating in the editing room. I certainly agree films would be much better if studio's simply let the director they hired fulfill their vision. Of course with big budgets the studio typically plays big brother.
@@faz6877 I can't, because that's not what I'm talking about. I wasn't saying anything about studio interference or ultimatums; I was referring to a tendency for some directors to shoot for an R rating just for the sake of getting an R rating, or for some audiences to insist that an upcoming movie be rated R because they seem to think it'll automatically make the movie better. Both of which are kind of ridiculous. Studio interference rarely has anything to do with it.
@@Stardweller1 Well can you give me an example of a director shooting for an R rating for the sake of an R rating? To me most of these can simply fall under the umbrella of bad writing. I just see it with all films. The problem isn't the R rating, it's bad writing. Of course if you can give me some examples I would be open to a different line of thinking.
@@faz6877 Best example I can think of is the Birds of Prey movie. Full disclosure, I actually don't hate that movie; I don't think it's "good," exactly, but it works as a guilty pleasure film. But watching it, I felt like they were specifically aiming for the R because Margo Robie had specifically pitched it as an R-rated movie, and the chief reason it got that rating was because the characters were dropping F-bombs in nearly every scene (and also because a scene where someone gets blown to pieces is only half-censored). You could take most of the F-bombs out, and the movie, in my opinion, wouldn't have been that different; it felt to me like the primary reason there were so many was to secure the R. For my part, I feel like the only time filmmakers should even aim for a particular rating (beyond avoiding the NC-17, that is) is if it's required for their demographic, such as if they're specifically making a children's or family film or something of that nature. Beyond that, just make the movie and don't even worry about what the rating will be.
Just because a film is rated "R" and a show is rated "TV-MA" doesn't automatically make them "mature." It just means that people of a certain age can't watch them.
Also rated r can be also used as a barrier for kids and teens because it takes an adult to understand them but when u just add a bunch of f words and funny pp jokes it takes away from the r rating and just makes it a pg-13 movie with more cuss words and more gore. There is a reason its rated r it's for mature audiences and developed audiences who can understand the story
Sometimes sexuality is needed to improve the experience instead of sensuality (something like Blue Velvet or Boogie Nights). And sometimes snuff and gore is needed over adrenaline and action (like Apocalypse Now or Logan). Logan would not work nearly as well without the disturbing grit and gore that the R-rating gives it. The violence is uncomfortable, not encouraged. (The film could work in a PG-13 setting, but not nearly as well). That's not saying the film over-relies on obscene material, it's just an artist utilizing different kinds of material for different effects.
Often it's just a matter of social class. "Sensuality" means "rich people's sex," while "sexuality" is "middle class people's sex." "Adrenaline and action" means "middle class violence" while "snuff and gore" means "poor people's violence."
I really appreciate how clearly you present your points in these videos. The argument for creative liberty versus social expectation was really clearly made. And I especially love the editing style.
The worst offender was last year's Hellboy, with its forced abundance of gore and f*cks. I also don't understand why any of the Conjuring movies were rated R when they seem PG at best.
@@timtam3730 I think you're confusing the MPA's rating system for Australia's film content rating system. You must be saying that Brokeback Mountain should be PG-13, but why do you think it should be PG-13?
@@theshanaman7805 I mean he got his suit taken away, then earned it back. Vulture almost killed him multiple times in the finale because he chose to go. Hell, he IS Spider-Man because he chose to let the robber go.
I completely agree!!! It bugs me when creators tailor their work to a rating! When we watched 2018's I Can Only Imagine (rated PG), my mom didn't realize that the main character's father was abusive till he said so verbally at the very end. They had only vaguely alluded to it early in the film, despite that information being important to understanding the father-son dynamic. I can't help but feel that decision was made to keep the film in a "faith friendly" rating!
I think the ratings system should be changed to something like this: - G (General Audiences) - Includes films that would be currently rated G or PG, because no one cares if their child watches Pixar without 'Parental Guidance' if they're over 5. -PG (Parental Guidance) - Generic action movies that would currently be rated PG-13, because these films, that might have some violence, sex, swearing, etc. are what parents actually give 'Parental Guidance' on. - M (Mature) - Includes tamer films rated R, as most 13+ year olds should be able to handle blood, swearing, and some nudity. - A (Adult) - More graphic R films and NC-17 films - similar to the '18' rating in the UK, which is more widely shown than NC-17 is in the US, which means filmmakers could include darker elements and still have their films reach a wide audience.
So like the Australian Rating System then? Here down under, the rating we give movies that have a "R" rating over in the states generally tend to be rated as MA. Or Mature Accompanied +15 if you're looking for an official title. And our R rating is bumped up to being +18. Whenever I hear that a Movie has an R Rating in America I tend to get a little confused, as by the standards of the Australian rating system, the Movie classification of "R" is only for adults. And then when I rock up to the cinemas, I'm a little disappointed, as nope, the movie has been rated for people who can handle viewing mature content, and not something that is strictly for adults. Should also mention that we still have a "PG-13", which we've dubbed as "Mature" as well, it's somewhere in the middle ground of being family friendly and meant for strictly mature audiences. Oh, but we actually do have a "PG-13" rating, but it's not used as commonly as the main 5 rating systems. (G - PG - M - MA+15 - R+18) if you're curious. We even have more ratings that fit between MA and R, but again those aren't as common. Also I feel like it's odd how America added a middle ground rating for family friendly and content aimed at more "mature" audiences, but have yet to include a middle ground for the "mature" content and the content geared for adults. As well, I feel like that could easily fix a lot of the problems with the current rating system in America. PG-13 too "family friendly", but R is too "mature", just slot something in-between to balance the mature content along with content geared towards a general audience.
That sounds like the current ratings system, except for PG-13, R, X and NC-17. I would go for content warnings, which tell the audience what to expect, without stereotyping age groups' sensibilities.
I agree with the idea that boobs blood and guts don’t just make a film creative or adult, but I do take issue regarding your example of Dunkirk. I thought the film was excellent and as far as the events being portrayed on screen (men being drowned, burned alive, strafed by machine guns etc) I think any one of those things depending on how it’s filmed could merit an R but by just removing the blood and guts that in reality are a part of those examples, the studio is able to market its film to a wider audience. I firmly feel it is less impactful and emotional when you’re watching the dive bombers strafe the helpless soldiers on the beach and they simply fall over like a child playing make believe. To make the horror and triumph of Dunkirk so sanitized detracts from what those men went through and kept reminding me I was watching a movie. It didn’t strike me as in anyway an artistic choice but a commercial one and whereas the gratuitous violence of say hacksaw ridge likewise would be out of place in Dunkirk, the sterilized beach we saw portrayed was the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. 14A was missing from your essay, to me that rating has a great place, allowing violence to still have weight while avoiding indulgent gratuity and that’s where Dunkirk should have aimed to land. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
There’s a similar problem with PG-13’s “one f-word” rule. An R-rated movie has characters spewing it every other word like they’re in middle school, but you kinda get used to it. Then in a PG-13 movie, a character who DOES NOT talk like that just randomly says it once, and it just takes you completely out of the movie, as you’re reminded that they threw that in to avoid being labeled a kid’s movie with a PG rating
In the UK, films like Deadppol and I think Logan, are only a "15". This is because in the UK we are more okay with sex and nudty than violence and gore. Like yeah, there is blood and people dying in Deadpool but it isn't really realistically gorey, its sorta cartoony and so over the top its not that bad. I dont think swearing is also seen as that bad, depending on how exessive it is. I was 17 when Deadppol came out so I could go and see it no problem, but people I know in USA that were the same age were not. There really isn't that many films or series I even own that are an 18, most only go up to 15 because 18 is seen as like the most violent things ever, the sort of thing you really wouldnt let a kid watch.
TheZebbga I think it has flipped the other way nowadays - films are deliberately toning things down in order to secure a 12A rating rather than a 15, which kind of ruins it for more mature audiences (just think of what happened with the Die Hard series). Now it feels like lots of films are dumbing down more serious themes and cramming in fart jokes just to appeal to the young kids in the audience. I always thought that the BBFC created the 12A more to pander to the Karens who wanted their younger kids to be able to watch the Spider-Man movie (I forget which exact one, sorry) despite it being rated 12. I had a couple of friends who were working at the local cinema at the time who all had stories about parents causing huge scenes because the staff couldn’t, and wouldn’t, just let a pile of underage children (some barely school-age) into an age-restricted film. Immediately after the rating system was altered, the same type of people then continued to make a huge fuss about the kids having to be accompanied by adults, which I always thought defeated the whole point and purpose of the rating change in the first place - if the film were suitable for unaccompanied 12-year-olds, then wouldn’t it be rated PG in the first place? Now, the 15 rating seems to be used solely to indicate that the film maybe shouldn’t be seen by a kid still a year or two away from finishing primary school, whilst desperately trying to do anything too grown up enough to risk limiting ticket sales with an 18 certificate. Maybe I’m just too old and grumpy today and am simply overthinking things? Yet I actually find myself avoiding films with 12A and 15 ratings - I’m noticing that the vast majority of media around me is constantly forced to be child and family friendly, and sometimes I just want to park my 37-year-old backside in front of something that is a bit more mature than also-suitable-for-my-8-year-old-nephew-oh-my-the-family-friendly-FUN!!! (TM), or not be in an audience full of unaccompanied 10-year-olds. Although sometimes I just want to see a pair of nipples being violent or something, but I suppose that’s another story...
@@dancaddell6742 I kinda get what you mean but I don't fully agree. I am younget han you, I am only 21 but I agree on some of what you said. Something like thte Hunger Games to me feels like ti could have maybe been improved by some more blood and violece since it is litterally about people trying to kill each other but I don't watch it and hate that it isn't there. Most Super Hero stuff like Spider Man to be don't feel like they really should be going for a 15 because Spider Man is a character that appeals to all ages, kids like him and adults like him so a PG 12 rating seems appropriate to me. But I think that PG 12 is a bit wierd because it implies its fine for what ever age but only if your parents are there. Like I saw Revenge of the Sith when I was 7 and that was a PG 12. I never thought it felt older or mature but I don't get the 12 part of that, should it not just be PG. But I dunno. I rarely get annoyed at seeing kids in the cinema and haven't had that many bad experiences with it. Weirdly it annoys me the most when I see an actual kids film like Toy Story 4 where a kid cried all the way through it. I felt like the grumpy old guy complaining at that one because I am at a U rated film.
TheZebbga Thinking about it, I don’t think I was quite clear what I meant with the Spider-Man example. There was the argument that Spider-Man and other superheroes could have been expected to appeal to a younger audience, of course, but I was trying to describe the aspect that was demanding children be allowed to watch age-restricted content without bothering to consider whether or not it was actually appropriate. They were usually the first to complain if their kid developed recurring nightmares after seeing something too gory. A lot of parents snuck their kids in regardless in an effort to “screw the system”, but the age restrictions are legally enforceable and the cinemas got fined and stuff when they were discovered. And I don’t get annoyed at kids in movies, honestly! It’s more the insistence that everything has to be suitable for a younger audience, in a if-Johnny-can’t-have-it-then-nobody-can like attitude. Some things are just inappropriate for younger audiences, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be enjoyed by an older one. So to always have to keep a younger audience’s attention or prevent them seeing something too icky sometimes spoils the film when it is about, or is trying to depict, more mature themes. I was actually thinking of your Hunger Games point, funnily enough - its relative bloodlessness was too jarring a cognitive dissonance for me. That, and forced comic relief to stop things getting too heavy or to keep younger attention spans, can really ruin the moment as well, if you know what I mean. But the 12A has also meant that a lot of media can really push boundaries, too, especially that usually meant for a traditionally younger audience. Think of Harry Potter - the themes and stories were able to grow as the series went on precisely because the 12A certificate and its equivalents allowed darker content to be presented to a younger audience. And the guy who complained about the crying child in a Toy Story movie? That’s not even overly grumpy, that’s just being outright nasty. Perhaps he should have considered whether he was actually mature enough to have been there by himself (I assume he was very much alone?) or whether he should have had Mummy and Daddy bring him instead.
Dan Caddell idk because things like John Wick definitely aren’t for kids just getting out of primary school they are for people mature enough to watch them
THANK YOU! THANK! YOU!!!! I’ve been saying this for years! I’m so sick of people always saying that everything with mature content, dark in nature, or is based off a work that is mature/dark in nature needs to be rated R, especially when they use Deadpool and Logan as excuses. Rated R does not make your movie good. There are movies of all the ratings that are bad and movies of all ratings that are good. Blood, guts, boobs, and bunch of cussin’ don’t make your movie good. Good acting, good direction, good visuals, good cinematography, good script, good story, good characters, etc. is what makes your movie good. It’s about time somebody besides me said this! THANK YOU! ❤️💯
This is how I feel everytime a pg13 movie throws in an obligatory f bomb that sticks out like a sore thumb, in order to avoid a pg rating. But that kind of thing makes me take a film less seriously because its so obvious why its there.
That Zack Snyder quote kind of broke my brain. . Anyway, I agree. The ratings should just be taken as content advisories, and let filmmakers make whatever they want without worrying about it. I mean, *David Lynch* of all people once made a G-rated movie about an old man riding a tractor - and won an Oscar. THAT'S artistic freedom.
Ik so glad you pointed out those scenes in the dark knight, I have seen countless movies and those thoughts and images from that film have never left me, incredible piece of filmmaking by an incredible director....
I agree wholeheartedly! Nothing bugs me more than when a show throws in 'edginess' that doesn't seem to fit with story being told. Then afterwards, I realize it was bumped up a rating notch because of that singular moment. It was a very apt comparison to middle school that was given. Spot on!
But how many times is a movie really bumped from PG13 to R or forced an R rating? The studio more commonly does the opposite. Birds of Prey is fresh in peoples minds, but that's one film. Not too long ago we got PG13 Robocop and Terminator films. Robocop Remake and Terminator Genisys were gutted of that adult tone and felt completely watered down from the things that made the source material great! And it wasn't because they came up with a great story, it was to sell tickets. My point is it works both ways and a shit story is going to be a shit story regardless of rating. I think everyone here is really coming down on R rated films, which I have to disagree with. Movies that put marketing over story typically are going to have problems. BoP was bad because it was a shit story and execution, not because they wanted to make a film for adults. I think it's great we are getting more attempts at R rated films thanks to the success of Deadpool and Logan! Just because a few are misguided I don't think this trend is a bad thing. The fact Is we get a lot of shit movies at all levels.
@@faz6877 So I agree, that definitely happens that R movies get pulled back to PG-13, but some examples imo of movies trying to be edgy are "Pursuit of Happyness", if felt very much like they threw in an F word just for the PG-13 rating - similar thing with the movie "Harriot", they included the F word multiple times, but it seemed like it was done to be edgy, rather than actually adding anything to the story. And again, "Won't you be my Neighbor", a documentary about Mr Rodgers decided to throw in language to be bumped up to PG-13 over PG. I realize none of these are R (I personally think the best movies don't tend to have/need for gore, cursing, and sex to be entertaining, but I realize I'm rather puritanical and not the norm), but I hope these are examples of trying to be 'edgy' rather than being consistent in tone and message.
@@faz6877 I can put it like this the difference between a bad PG13 and a bad R is how many "asses" are in the seats. So a bad PG13 gets exposed a whole lot more than a bad R. Too often bad R's get the worse PR. Look at Birds of Prey which got a trailer a YEAR before with no follow-ups then a massive media overload after it failed. Robocop got a bit more hype since I remember ads of it being shown and some decent interest in it. Of course, it failed because it was "too sleek" of a robocop.
@@ExeErdna Yeah but BoP didn't suck because it was rated R. It sucked because it was bad writing and execution. With a film like BoP I think in the right hands you could tell a quality PG13 or R rated film, it could worth either way. But neither is going to work with terrible execution. To me Robocop remake is the perfect example of taking a property for adults and watering it down for kids. The ultra violence in the original is a statement on violence itself. Plus the character of Murphy is completely stripped of his humanity. The movie is about the essential death of his humanity and him trying to rediscover what may be left. In the remake he is basically Tony Stark if he can't get out of his suite! His wife and child accept him! Unlike in the original when Murphy loses his family and even states "I can feel them, but I can't remember them...." That's beautiful stuff! And it isn't completely dumped in the remake because they have to appeal to kids and make it like Marvel / Dark Knight.
This video originally had a second part discussing Sex and Nudity in R rated films, but I decided to turn that into its own video. You can see that video here: ua-cam.com/video/5FYmdnnlalg/v-deo.html
I agree, it doesn't matter what film is rated, if it has a good story and a good production team of talented artists behind at the helm that's usually enough to make the film a masterpiece.
I'd say it's overrated now. Movies now are so sterile. There's no Porkys, American Pie, Kumar & Harold anymore. A lot of movies now you can cut down on the violence, gore, and swearing, and that's it. The R rating used to be about showing the visceral nature of the world. Suicide Squad feels like a child's idea of what an edgy crime world is like. The movie feels trapped in the PG-13 rating. Replacing what would be visceral action scenes with dark lighting and lame putty monsters getting shot. Compare Suicide Squad to Wolf of Wallstreet. And I would argue Birds of Prey being rated R does make it better. The reason Rated R content is preferable is because it reigns in more reality. Gangsters aren't restrictive of their speech. Gangsters make examples out of people by going to such extremes. And yeah. The Dark Knight had gritty moments, but let's be honest. If the movie wasn't Batman, it would have been rated R given it's Scarface-like nature. Another scene I'd bring in is when Joker kills Randall in The Joker, you feel Randall just being brutalized. It doesn't just happen in a quick second. It feels real. And that's why it feels shocking and scary. At that point I didn't know what Joker was going to do. The blood on Joker's face, the blood and brains on the wall. I thought Gary would have ended up as bad, if not worse because Joker might not want a witness. That's just something I wouldn't get from a quick pencil in the eye. And even kids cartoons have dark moments. There's an episode of Popeye where there's a suicidal character that Popeye tries to help. But he's so annoying that Popeye shoots him in the end, it fades to black saying "The Bitter End". Granted, this was from the 40's. But it was made for kids. Even the Batman movies I grew up with had dark moments. The scene where the one guy gets electrocuted into a skeleton, the scene with the severed hand holding flowers in the box. And this movie was marketed to children. Fast forward to Batman Returns, we have Catwoman wearing a tight outfit, Penguin perving on her and biting some guys nose. Children are being kidnapped. And again. This movie is marketed to kids. Except this time, parents didn't like it. They thought it was too much. And thus Tim Burton was replaced by Joel Schumacher. The point is, they marketed this to kids. There were McDonalds Happy Meal toys and I remember this. But this content's target audience was children. That's why Batman Forever. And that's why Batman & Robin. WB execs wanted Batman to be nothing more than a vehicle to sell toys. On that note, 2019's The Joker doesn't have any toys. There's expensive adult collectibles. But nothing from NECA, Mattel, McFarlane, FUNKO, you know. The usual suspects. You know what is getting toys to this day? Batman 1989, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight....
I think the main thing that annoys me about PG-13 films is the complete absence of blood, sometimes swearing if charactrers are constantly saying PG-13 tier swearwords but only drop the F word once. My issue is that the difference between PG-13 and R is so wide, maybe some changes to the guidelines, restricting the NC-17 less or even adding another rating may help. Theres just so many films which are R rated for swearing and brief nudity.
I'd agree! It's weird that Saw and When Harry Met Sally could possibly have the same rating. The original intension of the PG-13 rating was to provide some nuance between PG and R but eventually PG-13 just became PG and PG became G.
The swearing one is stupid anyway, If all of the conversations kids had at an elementary school were put into a movie it would be an R at minimum everyday from language alone anyway. Actually I remember 'Bully' getting an R rating from the kids in the film saying a bunch of F bombs. Until it was edited down, kids weren't officially allowed to see it which was ironic.
The PG-13 rating was that change. Stephen Spielberg noticed Gremlins was being attacked by parents for the PG rating, and he told the MPAA there needs to be an in between
@@sgillman16 now the PG-13 is the new PG, The PG is the new G and the G is rarely used in America. Atleast the UK ratings are more consistent over time.
But War should not be portrayed as a tension filled exciting thing... War is unimaginable horror, and shouldn't ever be seen as mere excitement... I find it deeply unsettling, and immoral to show war as anything but the most ugly, and such a waste of life... Dulce bellum inexpertis "War is sweet to those that never have experienced it."
Well that's the point I was trying to get at. In IMAX, Dunkirk wasn't exciting, it was terrifying. It put me in the terrified headspace of a soldier better than most R rated war films with blood and guts flying everywhere. A film like Hacksaw Ridge captures the utter horror of War, Dunkirk (at least for me in IMAX) captured the terror and fear of war. Both are valid.
In this age, why not release more variety in the ways we can watch a film? Neflix could afford to post a PG, PG-13 and an R rated version of THE SAME FILM. I love that some films are getting director's cuts that edit out the studio interference to the story. When there's no longer the difficulty of marketing two films to two separate theater audiences why not just post separate versions? In Utah the Christians here ran a couple good movie editing companies until copyright lawsuits shut them down. I actually enjoyed several formerly R rated films in an edited form because as you said, sometimes the scenes of violence, nudity or language detracts, rather an adds to story. I found myself enjoying some films on a deeper level, and some cut away scenes from violence felt even more impactful and emotional. Another thought. Why, when a known plot hole or issue with a film, why don't they make a '2.0' version and fix the mistakes while letting you still see the original version (yes, Han shot first). There are some shows that don't try to stretch their run time just to hit the same number of minutes per episode anymore -logically, you might want a quick fun 20 minute filler episode and then dive in to an hour long plot turning point in the next. Kinda blows my mind that the entertainment industry is so slow to use the advantages of a streaming service delivery. They've been set free, but they still basically sit in the same box they were pressured in to by TV blocks. One explanation to answer the question of editing... I feel like Hollywood does want to corrupt children's minds with things their not ready for. Example: putting out toys for movies not designed for young eyes. Otherwise why do movie studios fight so hard to prevent editing? The Utah editing companies purchased a DVD for every copy they rented out in the edited version. The studio made the same mount from the edited rental as an edited one. It was completely legal, but that didn't prevent the entire editing industry from being crushed by expensive lawsuits.
Ratings don’t change the quality of shows or movies, they just make it clear that certain shows/movies aren’t aimed for certain age groups. ie: R rated movies are for teens and adults
While the gratuitous addition of violence and nudity in R-Rated movies rubs me the wrong way, there is nothing more dissatisfying than a PG-13 movie that definitely needed more shown but they had to cut for a more friendly rating.
I completely agree. I really can't think of many example of great films that added in unnecessary R rated qualities, but can think of plenty that watered down the franchise to a PG13 rating to sell more tickets. I'm a huge fan of horror movies and gore and have to say a little gore typically brightens my day, although is completely worthless without a quality story! I can't think of instances where I think a movie should have scaled back on the violence and went too far (maybe gratuitous nudity lol). I think it's more common for Hollywood to remove the balls from a franchise like the PG13 Robocop remake or Terminator Genesis.
This is an argument I've had with stuff like comics, where comic book creators make a creator own book, and it's suddenly "F--- This" and "F--- That" and a surprising amount of children killing. It gets annoying when they all resort ot the same tactics.
The R-rating today is not the R-rating it was in the 80s and 90s when the rating actually meant something. It wasn’t just about how much foul language, sex and violence there was, but most importantly it’s the “Tone” and “Edge” the films carried along with the language Sex and violence.
Which means a faithful adaptation of Daniel P. Mannix's novel, The Fox and the Hound (which was initially adapted as a G-rated Disney animated movie) would benefit from your answer, Alds. Its dark, realistic tone would benefit from either pushing the PG-13 rating to its limit or a soft R (British equivalent would be a 15). Not gonna spoil the ending here.
Here's the rating system in Canada (theatrical): G - family friendly (no swearing, mild violence) PG - slightly less family friendly, sometimes aimed at teens (mild swearing, medium violence) 14+ - anyone above the age of 13 can watch without an adult (swearing, excessive violence) 14A - anyone above 14 must watch with an adult (swearing, excessive violence) 18+ - anyone between 16 - 19 must watch with a parent (excessive swearing, excessive violence, excessive bloodshed) 18A - adults only (excessive swearing, excessive violence, excessive bloodshed, nudity)
@@Nindroidgamer110 I thought maybe they changed it but now I think you're wrong. I know my Fargo DVD has a Canadian R rating but I almost never see them anymore. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_motion_picture_rating_system
Nah, Logan would have lost quite a lot without the R-rating IMO. The gratuitous violence helped add to the stark, grim reality of Logan's future compared to the family-friendly violence of the previous films
Because it fits the narrative, not every film is like that, hes talking about r rated films that ar just R for the sake of being edgy like if somehow thats all that is to it ,logan is not the case
Not really, even before Logan people were saying that Hugh Jackman and his portrayal of the Wolverine character was absolutely perfect, so you can’t really say that Logan wouldn’t have worked with a PG-13 rating when you’ve already been caught red handed loving his character for the past 17 years before Logan
logan would have worked fine as a pg13 film. if anything the r rateing just gave it an excuse to be way more violent with out much substance. just blood for the sake of it.
No I disagree Logan uses its r rating to show how far gone Logan is he doesn’t care if he kills people anymore it shows a man who has been pushed too far and has finally snapped
In Scott Pilgrim vs The World, Edgar Wright used video game fight style scenes (which were still awesome) and litterally bleeped out the f-bombs (even making it into a joke) just to keep a PG13 rating. Same for Avatar The Last Airbender where the creators invented bending to keep the violence to a minimum which in turn dialed the awesomeness to 11. Overall, PG shows/films (under skilled directors of course) use much more creative ways to portray violence.
Great video! A good example of this is DC’s Titans. It has a ton of unnecessary blood and swearing, and is pitched as an “edgy” show, but that doesn’t make it any better. Edit: To put it another way, Titans use of mature content in an attempt to make itself appear more serious, did the exact opposite.
Totally agree with you, except for Black Christmas. Black Christmas is a slasher movie, and slasher movies are literally all about tension, and creating visceral and creative kills. You hardly even root for the "good guys" lmao. Imo the fans were in the right to be so concerned
People want their superhero movies to be R so they don't have to feel bad about still watching superhero movies. I saw one guy argue that future star wars movies should be rated R. Is nothing sacred? Star wars has always been light hearted and fun with the exception of revenge of the sith, but that needed to be that way to really showcase the birth of darth vader.
In my opinion as long as you enjoy it you don’t need to apologize for liking anything even if it’s primarily targeted at audiences younger than you, I still love SpongeBob and I don’t give a shit about what anyone says
1917 used the R rating amazingly, it used it for the audience to feel what was happening, cursing because it's WW1 and why not, and gore because of the horrors, no nudity, just the horror, a big reason I love that movie
I think the Dunkirk argument makes a good point if I'm being honest. There's a reason why the most common quotes about war are variations of "War is cruelty", and the discussion about the rating is less to do with the rating itself and more what it implies. I'm of the opinion that meaningfully depicting the horror and brutality of war mandates *rivers* of blood, if the audience leaves feeling anything other than sick or horrified by the abject cruelty of war, I consider that a failure
I'm tired of overrated r rated films. Too many films it's the subject being brought up rather the act itself requiring the r rating. Just show me or don't even bother having the content.
I have to respectfully disagree an R rating hinders "most" movies. How many best picture winners are rated R? That statements treats R rated movies like they are all the same. Just because some film makers use sex or violence gratuitously that doesn't represent so many R rated classics. How does an R rating hinder films like The Godfather, Raging Bull, The Terminator, Silence of the Lambs, Platoon, Schindler's List, Goodfellas and I could fill a book with incredible R rated films. Or how about comedies like Caddyshack or The Hangover? I really don't understand so many people blaming the rating for the quality of film. We have just as many examples of bad PG13 films as R. We have bad writing and execution at all levels. But don't understand how you can say an R rating hinders most movies when it's clear we have so many films that are made better by the director having the freedom to tell the story they want.
To me R rating makes no sense, because the rating system is pretty much irrelevant. Most of the time people under the age of 18 are gonna see these R rated movies anyway weather thats clips on UA-cam or pirating it. Plus anyone who’s gone through or in middle school probably already knows about swearing, nudity, and gore. Also people under or over the age of 18 are more likely to see way more messed up stuff on the internet, then in a R rated movie.
...this also gets pretty strange when it comes to grey story telling in movies and games too, that are “directed” to younger audiences Example: Undertale genocide route Ghibli movies etc (Someone continue the chain)
The beginning of "Up" really goes to show how you can be emotionally challenging and heartbreaking without trying to force it or feeling ham fisted. Without any exposition,just some brief scene and a song shows you their entire life in a matter of minutes.
I really like the description of violence and sex as tools, because it so accurately describes why it doesnt work that well in many cases. With the exeption of style (like tarantino), it often doesnt work when its used as flavour, or tacked on to elevate the story without beeing essential to it.
The American rating system always confused me. Not drawing a distinction between films like The Matrix or Boyhood, films like Deadpool and Logan, and films like Seven or Taxi Driver seems absurd - in Aus, the former are both rated "M" which is basically PG-13, Deadpool and Logan are MA-15+, and the last two are R18+. Not only does it make films and TV become arbitrarily edgier, but it also makes movies that are perfectly acceptable for a 12 year old to watch and gain a lot from like Boyhood or The Matrix less accessible to them and makes it much harder for parents to figure out what films will actually be potentially disturbing for their kids.
Honestly when it came to your Horror segment, What people in the horror community are weary of when they see PG-13, is that in recent years, say the last 2 decades now, horror has lost a bit of its identity by being more dare i say "sterile" cutting out anything that gives any die hard horror fan, really appreciates from the medium. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. There always are but, in recent years any PG-13 horror flick has been hot garbage and just plain boring to watch. End all, No Red Hot Pussy Liquors for us.
I'm more concerned with the line between G and PG. Older movies used to just get put between them and be good but after people developed the idea most G movies were baby stuff they started adding pointless smut just to get a PG rating or really push for PG13. R is probably in a reverse but similar situation, gritty movies generally don't seem to be taken seriously unless they go the extra mile and the best place to sell movies is PG13, you get to be more subtle but you also have to omit some needed details (oooor, get a good director who works with it). Superhero movies need to be careful since the plan was people get to watch most of the movies in a phase as everyone meets up for the next Avangers or Infinity War, you can't really expect everyone to be comfortable with R movies so those will be hard skips for some fans. Deadpool was still great to push against the Marvel saga, Joker was successful and had some more breathing room, and absolutely the past Dark Knight may have pushed too much towards R while keeping the idea they were making it 13, people got upset but it's still amazing as a PG15 or something
A bit more controversial, but I liked John Wick 1 more because it felt more authentic with its violence. With 2 and 3, they kept doubling and tripling down on gore and it felt a bit distracting.
Although I only partially agree with your points. I'm making this commentary actually to give, I hope, constructive feedback on the video itself. I really feel like it didn't respects the viewer's time, you basically say the same thing with slightly different examples for 1/4 of an hour over and over again. I watched full expecting that maybe you had something more to tell, but you really didn't, and that's not a bad thing, but I would really appreciate a little more of concision
I think the creator should make their movie how they want it . Regardless of what rating it gets . The MPAA is mostly staffed by people in their 40s-50s that lord over creators and tell them what parts of their visions have to be cut . At the end of the day the rating system is disgusting . that said movies like Logan or Deadpool would not work as PG-13 . At the end of the day I feel you are doing the conversation a disservice though by focusing on the rating . As you said in the last sentence there is a lot more to movies than just their ratings .
I freaking loved La La Land but it so easily could have been a PG-rated film if not for the two f-bombs, and it’s not even like they were in emotionally charged scenes where it would make sense
I believe anyone should be able to watch any movie regardless of rating as age is just a number, two 18 year olds, heck even two 18 year old boys from the same classroom can have vastly different maturity levels depending on the subject. There are probably too many rating labels at this point but all we need is a system that says "these movies aren't explicitly graphic, with little to no depictions of sex, gore, etc." and another system that says "these movies are contain more explicit and graphic depictions of subjects we as a society should limit our children viewing."
I feel like MA should replace R entirely. MA would allow more audience members in because all it means is Mature themes. R is an exaggerated rating that acts likes it's mature, but has all the depth of an edgy twelve year old. Case and point, Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey. That movie, face peeling and all, did NOT need to be R-Rated. If anything young girls should be able to see that movie. A movie with a bunch of bad-ass ladies kicking ass and protecting a child while doing it, all while portraying multiple experiences of whats it's like to be a woman... literally anywhere? My niece would eat that up! But it gets an R-Rating because what? They say fuck a lot, including the 13 year old? They show two genuinely horribly misogynistic men? A bunch of Brutal fight scenes with bones being snapped (Seriously Harley had it out for everyone's legs). For real.
I feel like this is the same with video games (I'm in the UK so I'll be mentioning the PEGI rating board) Whenever I'm in school and I mention a game that isn't rated 18 (because I'm one of those weirdos who has parents that actually reads the ratings) I always get looked down upon because apparently your game has to have gore, someone saying fuck every minute and maybe computer generated titties. Not saying that's a bad thing but I hate how a lot people think that 18 rated games are the only games that exist.
Some of the comments on here reminded me of a comic strip I saw once. I think it was Baby Blues. The dad is holding a movie case, reading the description on the back. It says somethng like, "Rated R for adult content, adult situations, adult themes." The dad throws up one hand in exasperation and blurts out, "Kids these days are going to have no idea what it means to be an adult!"
And now the creators of Avatar walked out of the Netflix adaptation because they wanted to keep the spirit of the show while Netflix wanted the live-action to be R/TV-MA It's the company taking away creative freedom to push for it, and makes no sense.
I completely agree with these points. Take a look at shows like TMNT (2012) that aired on nickelodeon. It was a very grown up show and had some darker points but it never needed to be insanely gruesome just becasue it was the TMNT.
Phenomenal video, as usual love your stuff! I have this discussion with my mom all the time, she tends to argue that "movies are too violent" and should be less violent. But I think that the violence should come naturally, and isn't the reason why someone (typically) goes to see the movie in the first place. For example, she doesn't like to watch war movies and thinks they are bad because they are too 'violent', where I say that that is what comes with it as a result of an accurate depiction of real world war events. I never considered the effect that a rating had ona movie and affected how it would perform. Interesting perspective. I think at the end of the day, too little and too much violence will become very noticeable depending on the viewer whos watching it, and that a good movie will always feel like it had 'just enough' to feel naturally part of the world/story shown on screen.
I always found it funny that north america takes movie ratings so seriously, I remember going to watch american reunion and kick ass 2 which is rated R in the cinema when I was around 12. My parents also let me watch pulp fiction when I was 9, the only bad thing about that is that due to my young age I didn't really enjoy the movie until I watched it again as a teen.
Some people dont know the difference between "adult" and "mature".
Precisely
I had to explain to my mom for years that M on video games doesn’t mean 17+, it means mature
It's such a simple difference. Adult means adults only 18+ and then mature means that a kid can watch the movie(or play the game it depends on what you're rating) but they just have to be mature for their age.
Age is a very bad indicator of maturity. I've met 40 year old women and men that have the naivety of and behave like a spoiled 5 year old kid and I've met 15 year old "girls" and "boys" that I would consider in the top 10% of people I've met that have (parts of) life figured out.
There's a huge difference between Adult and Mature. Pornography is Adult, but is any of it mature?
Good point
Probably some of it.
I mean it's not like it's immature
Its not always mature, but not always not mature.
@@mastersword6470 it is
I feel the same with animation. Everything is either Rick&Morty / South Park or Teen Titans Go.
very true is hard to find shows like The last Airbender/Regular show which are made for kids but all ages can enjoy
MasterZhangCaosun At least when it comes to western animation. 'Cause with anime you have a lot of stuff that falls pretty squarely into "PG-13" territory. Though I feel like some American cartoons such as Over the Garden Wall are pretty good at walking that middle ground.
Chachamaru15 what dumb is a lot of “p-13” anime’s get a tv-ma rating. I find tv-ma and m17+ for games, has too many levels of maturity. Some shows/games can be games I would recommend to a 7 year old, well others I definitely would not.
@@purpleperson417 I wasn't aware that anime tends to get a tv MA rating.. that's interesting..and you make a good point that some games that are 'mature' might be totally inappropriate for a small child, while others might not be that bad. I suppose it depends on what exactly it's rated Mature for. For instance, take Telltale's Walking Dead games. Other than a handful of isolated scenes where the gore becomes graphic, I don't recall much other than language that would warrant the M Rating. I feel like a kid could maybe play that game with a parent and the parent could maybe just tell the kid to look away in a couple of the more graphic scenes.
What are some shows and games that are rated M that you feel you could show a kid? I'm not judging btw, just genuinely curious.
Chachamaru15 like someone else said Halo, I was playing halo 3 when I was 5 with my dad.
Edit: i find that fairytale, a pretty tame anime, got a tv ma. I think it is that Japan , finds other things appropriate, while we find other things inappropriate
This is basically what the ratings are at this point
G - For Kids Only (and Toy Story)
PG - Fun for the whole Family
PG13 - Same thing as PG, but with more swearing and action to make kids feel older when watching it
R - Everyone talks like a middle schooler, and is forced to use a swear word every sentence. Plus slight nudity! Meant to be only for adults but in reality 10 year olds watch it
NC-17: Porn
Haha essentially
Toy Story is fantastic, more movies should just wear the G as a badge of honor and be family movies, not JUST for kids.
Most audiences are stuck in PG, some conflict to make it interesting but maybe hold back from 13 which is like general audiences R
R I mentioned somewhere else it feels they're forced to go all the way when they want a story that features more violence than 13 could get away with
NC no one makes movies for, it'll basically mean no one buys it in stores and most theaters can't show it. The other side from G but 10x, people might actually see a G rated Lego Movie but Deadpool or IT NC-17 (Fifty Shades might work with it but again it'll be harder to watch)
It's been yrs since a nc17 movie has been shown
Toy Story isn't PG but it isn't a movie that's just for kids. Hell, I'm 20 and I still enjoyed the newest entry!
Vandicoup Yes that's why I put it in parenthesis as an exception
I saw a review of the lego movie 2 once that said, "it was too kiddy and childish" and I just laughed because that just proved the entire point that the movie was making in the first place.
Ha! That's hilarious.
Wait too kiddy? Lmao
Lmao
I thought being for kids was *the point of a kids movie*
The movie was designed to be super kiddy to show that being “edgy and cool” as the kid in the movie had become is just as shallow as the cheery stuff his sister had made. Ironic.
Ironically enough, an R-rating is viewed as being 'liberating', and yet that rating seems to pigeonhole those types of movies into needing more 'viscera'. It's constraint that stimulates creativity. Working within constraints compels you to be more creative. The R-rating obviously has it's place, but audiences have come to associate it with a certain type of movie. But good, even very good stories can be told within a whole variety of constraints/ratings.
Exactly! Way to sum up my entire video in three sentences!
And a lot of stories just don't require the creative to put anything past PG/PG-13 into it.
The MPAA ratings system has honestly been a bit of a shitshow for a long time.
Agreed.
Oh man, speaking of ratings. The MPAA rating system has its issues. But ESRB for games... holy smokes is it vague. Like Halo and GTA V technically have the same rating. Halo has some blood spurts and some zombie things. GTA V flat out portrays torture, sex, abuse, etc. Those two games should not have the same sticker on the front of the box.
It is likely the film (Cars 2) that caused most animated films released (in the 2010s) after this movie to have a PG rating. - Awful Movies Wiki
Fair point, but it doesn’t help the fact that while the MPAA does not know which films to give an R rating as much as it thinks, it also came up with the PG-13 rating a little too lately (in the mid-1980s, 1983 AD, to be exact) and was being very trendy with their PG ratings for kid(die) movies as of recently. m.ua-cam.com/video/dL4vRihNk4s/v-deo.html
South Park broke it
TheFabulousKitten, I don't know how on Earth Halo got a M rating it should've been T instead. The rating system is been a weird thing to me. Some T rated games I've seen I think to my self how did that not get a M? While others times it's the opposite like with Halo. At least with ESRB you can see contents on the back of the box.
You definitely can see proof of this in the world of children’s animation. Shows like the Bruce Timm DC animated series, Avatar, Gravity Falls, Regular Show, and so many more were great at pushing against the boundaries of their required limitations when necessary for the story or characters or humor. They didn’t force themselves to scrub away the darker or more adult moments in their shows; they just found new ways to show those moments. And they also didn’t just randomly push the boundaries because they wanted to; they used restraint and applied it to the their work only when they needed it.
That's a good example! You watch the DCAU version of the Suicide Squad and they acted much more morally ambiguous than their big screen "adult" counterparts!
Oh man I need to check it out!
Kids shows are INCREDIBLY held back by the boundaries. None of those kids shows could ever come close to matching the themes or subject matter of something like, say, Bojack Horseman. Main characters in kids shows aren't even allowed to hurt, much less kill, the bad guy.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Star wars: the clone wars. That definitely pushed a lot of boundaries
@@superleviathan watch gravity falls, even though it's a kids show it's amazing and actually has ways to get around gore, for example, in one episode they cut off numerous limbs of humans, but they get around it by saying the humans are wax
Omg. So Netflix shows have a bunch of nudity and sex scenes in them and very often they barely serve a purpose.
This is annoying. To me, my sister and my mom. I have nothing against nudity or sex, but it's very uncomfortable when you're watching a show you enjoy only to have sexscene thrown in your face with way too many sounds.
My mother actually turns down the volume of the scenes or skips them all together. She's watching a show she enjoys, and still rolls her eyes at the adult scenes!
I don't really have a point, but I'm curious. To the people reading my comment, do have any similar experiences?
Idk if I'm allowed to pitch in my two cents as I made the video, but yes, I have had that experience.
Absolutely. If it serves the story, by all means, film whatever you need. But if it's just in there for the sake of being edgy, I just feel super uncomfortable.
Exactly!
Yep! Lots of shows and films nowadays have unneeded sex scenes and such that don't further the story in any way, for me this makes it extremely awkward when I'm trying to introduce a friend to the show and they are just met with lots of random sex scenes.
Totally agree, it gets old!
There are a ton of R-rated blockbusters recently like Terminator: Dark Fate and Birds of Prey that have a few f-bombs and maybe a glimpse of gore to “justify” the rating when they only go for that status to market to an audience.
My point exactly!
Thing that stinks is that Birds of Prey bombed because most of Harley Quinn’s fandom isn’t old enough to watch R rated films either.
or maybe because it wasn't a good movie at all
@@v-trigger6137 both.
I went to see Dark fate and only realized afterward that the movie was rated r, heck I would've shown kids that movie (of course there are a few bad moments ), mainly I missed all the cussing because the movie was so boring
The problem is more that people often shoot for an R because they wanna be edgy. You can tell when the filmmaker only did an R rating because he wanted to show an actress naked or just wanted to be violent/ swear like a sailor.
Exactly!
Although saying the f word is normal and I hear it every day. Why should we half to censor something like that when making a middle school movie where that’s all people say basically
@@leohaddad9225 I mean some directors clearly just go for the R rating by just saying it repeatedly.
Mata Nui I agree, but I don’t think sensering a middle school movie to have no f bombs is a good idea. Although I don’t agree with some directors basically making a family movie. Then in the last 5 minutes have a character say the f bomb 5 times for no reason. Or having a scene in the shower with nudity that has no purpose other than to have nudity
That’s what I thought with movies like Birds Of Prey or Hellboy (2019) both of those movies felt like they were just shoving their R ratings in your face by having as much over the top blood and swearing as possible, sometimes the R rating can just feel gratuitous and unnecessary and I wish more people would realize that
Its fun playing the game of "is this rated r/m because it has nsfw content or does someone say a no no word more that twice"
Trickster Cat I love that game!
People have confused maturity with adult content for so long now. We don't want children exposed to constant nudity and violence, but that doesn't mean that content is mature just because it's only for adults. Take the God of War franchise for example. God of War 1-3 was filled to the brim with nudity and extreme violence, but God of War 4 was the most mature game in the series and it didn't have any of that. It told a story about the hardships of being a father and helping your young son become a man. That is a story that takes a level of maturity to appreciate. You don't have to be mature to see boobs and gore.
Love God of War 4.
What a fantastic example 👏
Lucky Sevens, exactly.
It had an f bomb?
Awesome way to describe it man! Everything you said is true
Not super related, but one aspect of the R-rating that people don't take seriously enough is "mature themes." Little kids are generally told not to watch R-rated material due to violence, swearing and nudity, but I think that mature themes is just as important, and in some cases even more important.
When I was in Grade 6 I heard a kid a year younger than me talking about watching Breaking Bad. Obviously a kid that age should not see some of the more graphic violence in the show (though little kids often see gore and nudity on the internet anyways), but more important than that a kid that age cannot understand the show. Since it is unlikely that a young kid will be able to separate protagonist from good/bad guy, a kid who watches Breaking Bad at that age might come to idolize and support Walter White. In that way, mature themes in shows can be even more damaging than just shocking violence.
Now that I am writing this, maybe it is another good topic for a video?
Hmm, maybe so!
Maybe kids need moral ambiguity. Greg Hefley from Diary of a Wimpy Kid isn't exactly a role model.
LEARN2DRAW When I was a kid I knew greg was a jerk so I thinks possible to see Walter as a bad guy at a kid’s age but it depends on the kids
I grew up in the 80s where kids where typically more exposed to rated R movies. Robocop was one of the most violent films ever made but we got a Saturday morning cartoon lol. The Terminator was one of the most iconic villains of the 80s, but other than pretending with our toy guns none of us turned to the dark side. I mean kids today could just as easily idolize PG13 Thanos if they wanted to. I didn't grow up with the internet so I can only imagine what these kids are exposed to now!
I think we shelter kids a bit too much these days when it comes to movies / TV. Not saying break out the graphic sex scenes! But the kids who are going to turn out to be pricks are going to be pricks regardless of exposure to some adult content like Walter White.
That's a surprisingly really important point to make
It should not be a priority for filmmakers
Exactly
@JOHN JOHN you misunderstood that whole video didn't you? It's saying that adding gore, nudity and other "mature content" senselessly with only the goal to get an R rating doesn't improve the story in anyway it goes back to an old film school saying if it doesnt add to the story or character cut it.
Of course if it does improve the story by pulling on the right emotion and showing the true grit or power of what's on screen then good do it.
The story should be told first then the rating given not the story being told and after it's written let's blend a few bodies have two people walk around naked and someone fuck a pig so we get the real big adult award, to me that's such a childish mindset and actually lessen the story being told
@JOHN JOHN for an example of what I mean watership down is a pg film about rabbits that uses extremely disturbing visuals especially for young children. Those disturbing visuals were needed to show just how harsh and horrifying the scenes were for the other rabbits and the visuals conveyed this in a way that if toned down the same thing could not be achieved and the same emotions felt wouldn't be there.
I think creators should make the films & shows they want to make, then worry about ratings. No-one should start off thinking about what the content “needs” to be !
Exactly.
I don't pay attention to ratings anymore, but I was surprised when you mentioned 1917 was rated R, I couldn't really remember any horribly gory or cursing in the film. Like Dunkirk it was about the tense atmosphere and the incredible visuals rather brutal violence and morally troubling consequences of war.
I think 1917 is a perfect example! It was graphic enough that it warranted an R rating, but it was subtle about it without constantly pushing the envelope in your face.
Man I didn't even notice it was R until now. Thinking back I definitely see why it is rated R, (they really don't skimp out on some of the horrors of war). But its used well and It didn't pull me out of the experience. There are times when I'll be watching a movie and then there's just an explicit sex scene or some really horrible violence out of the blue and it takes you out of the flow of the film.
It aired on TV here, fairly sure it was only rated 15. No way it warranted an R rating.
@Mutaz Muhanad Hammad well there are a few scenes that might bump up the rating. The one that comes to mind for me is when they're crawling across no man's land and one of them gets his hand stuck in a corpse's rotting stomach.
I've noticed myself that as a kid I'd often pay attention to what rating something was because I was afraid of what content I may expose myself to. Nowadays I don't even know what rating a film is when I watch it, all I know is that I am looking for a good story regardless of what particular content is within it. Now granted I know that even I have been caught up in discussions about ratings for films, and I've sorta acknowledged that my age doesn't really limit what I can watch anymore. While there are those that most certainly need to be able determine if content they consume themselves or show to others is appropriate, what should be more focused on is what the material of the work contains rather than all of the elements strewn upon it to make it fit in better (though obviously this would be hard for those going into a film without some sort of context before hand).
I think that's the best way to approach film!
I was the same way when I was a kid and the more I grew as a writer, I realized it was a harsh and limiting mindset to have that kept me from growing in the way I needed to.
By today’s standards, 2001: A Space Odyssey is a delightful romp for the kids.
Yeah. It doesnt have any violence of gore,but it tackles very complex ideas like existentialism and the presence of extraterrestrials in our universe.
A movie doesn't have to be R-Rated to be mature.
The OxyScape I understand that. If the film were made today it wouldn’t get a G rating, even if everything depicted remained the same. Point I’m making is today we only use G for kids movies. Even “family movies” are usually PG or PG-13.
@@oops6876 true. It would most likely get a PG-13 or it might still get a R rating because of the mature themes but MPAA cant really be trusted because they gave Matrix a R rating
Spaceinvader 6424 my point exactly. I also hope people realized my first comment was sarcasm.
@@oops6876my mistake I didn't know
I think when people clamber for an R rated adaptation of a source material that they're big fans of, be that comic/book/anime/whatever, all they really care about is something that is true to the source material. For years Hollywood would take material with huge fanbases that had adult themes and then watered them down to make a PG13 flick to reach a wider demographic. This pleases no one: fans don't get a faithful adaptation and new viewers don't get the full measure of the source material.
I think the big turning point was Deadpool. The whole point of Deadpool is the over the top violence and swearing to differentiate him from Marvel's other big names. An R rated Deadpool is the only way it would work, but the studios still toyed with him as PG13 in a Wolverine film and fans HATED it and wanted a proper representation. Eventually they listened to fans and and it became the biggest selling R rated movie of all time. I think the problem is that studios have taken the wrong message away from this. They're now thinking "lets make more R rated movies, with lots of swearing and violence, because this one did so well" wherein actually the real moral of the story is to treat source materials and their fans with respect, and give them the adaptation they deserve.
Exactly! Someone once pointed out that The Wolverine had Logan acting all heroic, not killing people whereas Man of Steel was all dark and gritty when in reality people just wanted it to be the other way around, true to the source material.
Oh totally, and I think that in deadpool specifically there's heart hidden behind all the violence, it's meant to look like a dumb and violent story at first, but just copying the style of violence achieves nothing.
Just like the Mortal Kombat movie adaptations. Thank God we're finally getting an R rated reboot.
That's what they always do look at how DC tried to copy the MCU too quickly and it kinda flopped. It's just not movies it's TV and video games too. The idiot suits always copy shit that works trying to make lightning strike twice. Instead of working slowly and make meaningful content. It's "let quickly make X while the fire is hot" when the reviews come back as "it's just a cheap knockoff" they're like "it should have worked the market proved it" This is why I clearly think money people are some of the dumbest people with too much power. They go off the "market" numbers and don't even ask what people really want. They just make and hope something sticks to the wall. They don't even think if people want something new they'll throw of derivative work thinking the masses are REALLY stupid.
I wouldn’t say that a PG-13 rating is what made Origin’s Deadpool suck. I would say sewing his mouth shut, giving him strange tattoos, powers, and having no resemblance to Deadpool is what made him suck.
A PG-13 Deadpool could do well. Once Upon A Deadpool was able to do it in a very meta and self aware way, and while the final result was a bit undercooked, I think we could see an actually good PG-13 Deadpool in the future.
Yes, it is.
The rating should be a byproduct of the film that was made, not the other way around. Filmmakers should just make the best film that they can, and then the rating will be whatever the rating will be. If they make the best film they can and it turns out to be rated R, then that's fine. If they make the best film that they can and it turns out to be PG-13, then they should leave it the way it is and not try to change it to make it R, because they've already made the best film they can.
Can you give me an example of a film that was PG13 and was changed to R? I can think of countless films the director made as R and the studio made trim down to PG13, however I can't imagine many instances where force an R rating in the editing room.
I certainly agree films would be much better if studio's simply let the director they hired fulfill their vision. Of course with big budgets the studio typically plays big brother.
@@faz6877 I can't, because that's not what I'm talking about. I wasn't saying anything about studio interference or ultimatums; I was referring to a tendency for some directors to shoot for an R rating just for the sake of getting an R rating, or for some audiences to insist that an upcoming movie be rated R because they seem to think it'll automatically make the movie better. Both of which are kind of ridiculous.
Studio interference rarely has anything to do with it.
@@Stardweller1 Well can you give me an example of a director shooting for an R rating for the sake of an R rating?
To me most of these can simply fall under the umbrella of bad writing. I just see it with all films. The problem isn't the R rating, it's bad writing.
Of course if you can give me some examples I would be open to a different line of thinking.
@@faz6877 Best example I can think of is the Birds of Prey movie. Full disclosure, I actually don't hate that movie; I don't think it's "good," exactly, but it works as a guilty pleasure film. But watching it, I felt like they were specifically aiming for the R because Margo Robie had specifically pitched it as an R-rated movie, and the chief reason it got that rating was because the characters were dropping F-bombs in nearly every scene (and also because a scene where someone gets blown to pieces is only half-censored). You could take most of the F-bombs out, and the movie, in my opinion, wouldn't have been that different; it felt to me like the primary reason there were so many was to secure the R.
For my part, I feel like the only time filmmakers should even aim for a particular rating (beyond avoiding the NC-17, that is) is if it's required for their demographic, such as if they're specifically making a children's or family film or something of that nature. Beyond that, just make the movie and don't even worry about what the rating will be.
@@faz6877 Hellboy (2019) was PG-13 and then they CGIed a bunch of blood everywhere to make it R-rated
Just because a film is rated "R" and a show is rated "TV-MA" doesn't automatically make them "mature." It just means that people of a certain age can't watch them.
That goes for the NC-17 rating as well.
Also rated r can be also used as a barrier for kids and teens because it takes an adult to understand them but when u just add a bunch of f words and funny pp jokes it takes away from the r rating and just makes it a pg-13 movie with more cuss words and more gore. There is a reason its rated r it's for mature audiences and developed audiences who can understand the story
“But without constant nudity in the first few seasons”
Well Breaking Bad had a topless woman in the first episode
Racool on tv it was she had a CGI bra on and it made no difference
Both fair points!
@@davinci3478 Uncensored on Netflix
Racool i feel like most 1st episodes have sex in them, to draw in people so they keep watching the show
Sensuality vs sexuality.
Adrenaline and action vs snuff and gore.
Yes!
Sometimes sexuality is needed to improve the experience instead of sensuality (something like Blue Velvet or Boogie Nights). And sometimes snuff and gore is needed over adrenaline and action (like Apocalypse Now or Logan).
Logan would not work nearly as well without the disturbing grit and gore that the R-rating gives it. The violence is uncomfortable, not encouraged. (The film could work in a PG-13 setting, but not nearly as well). That's not saying the film over-relies on obscene material, it's just an artist utilizing different kinds of material for different effects.
Yeah. That's a good example to explain "adult" vs "mature". Sad that people don't understand the difference nowadays.
Often it's just a matter of social class. "Sensuality" means "rich people's sex," while "sexuality" is "middle class people's sex." "Adrenaline and action" means "middle class violence" while "snuff and gore" means "poor people's violence."
I really appreciate how clearly you present your points in these videos. The argument for creative liberty versus social expectation was really clearly made. And I especially love the editing style.
Thanks, man!
The worst offender was last year's Hellboy, with its forced abundance of gore and f*cks. I also don't understand why any of the Conjuring movies were rated R when they seem PG at best.
Totally agree
Apparently, The Conjuring movies are rated R for scariness.
I actually really liked the new Hellboy and i feel like the gore makes the movie better
@@Slicedude2004 While Brokeback Mountain is rated R for being too gay. Honestly Brokeback should be rated an M at least.
@@timtam3730 I think you're confusing the MPA's rating system for Australia's film content rating system. You must be saying that Brokeback Mountain should be PG-13, but why do you think it should be PG-13?
"If you're nothing without [an R-Rating], then you don't deserve it.'
Most underrated quote of the century.
No Spider-Man doesn’t deal with anything in that movie he has no consequences to his actions
@@theshanaman7805 I mean he got his suit taken away, then earned it back. Vulture almost killed him multiple times in the finale because he chose to go. Hell, he IS Spider-Man because he chose to let the robber go.
@@DeletedUserwqDaOxzQ I was joking about people who do say that
@@theshanaman7805 Oh ok good!! I really don't get it when people say it, it doesn't make sense...
I completely agree!!! It bugs me when creators tailor their work to a rating! When we watched 2018's I Can Only Imagine (rated PG), my mom didn't realize that the main character's father was abusive till he said so verbally at the very end. They had only vaguely alluded to it early in the film, despite that information being important to understanding the father-son dynamic. I can't help but feel that decision was made to keep the film in a "faith friendly" rating!
Fantastic example
I think the ratings system should be changed to something like this:
- G (General Audiences)
- Includes films that would be currently rated G or PG, because no one cares if their child watches Pixar without 'Parental Guidance' if they're over 5.
-PG (Parental Guidance)
- Generic action movies that would currently be rated PG-13, because these films, that might have some violence, sex, swearing, etc. are what parents actually give 'Parental Guidance' on.
- M (Mature)
- Includes tamer films rated R, as most 13+ year olds should be able to handle blood, swearing, and some nudity.
- A (Adult)
- More graphic R films and NC-17 films - similar to the '18' rating in the UK, which is more widely shown than NC-17 is in the US, which means filmmakers could include darker elements and still have their films reach a wide audience.
You're going backwards in time.
The PG13 rating was added at the request of Spielberg for the reasons you want to undo it.
Or X-18 rating after R
So like the Australian Rating System then?
Here down under, the rating we give movies that have a "R" rating over in the states generally tend to be rated as MA. Or Mature Accompanied +15 if you're looking for an official title. And our R rating is bumped up to being +18. Whenever I hear that a Movie has an R Rating in America I tend to get a little confused, as by the standards of the Australian rating system, the Movie classification of "R" is only for adults. And then when I rock up to the cinemas, I'm a little disappointed, as nope, the movie has been rated for people who can handle viewing mature content, and not something that is strictly for adults.
Should also mention that we still have a "PG-13", which we've dubbed as "Mature" as well, it's somewhere in the middle ground of being family friendly and meant for strictly mature audiences. Oh, but we actually do have a "PG-13" rating, but it's not used as commonly as the main 5 rating systems. (G - PG - M - MA+15 - R+18) if you're curious. We even have more ratings that fit between MA and R, but again those aren't as common.
Also I feel like it's odd how America added a middle ground rating for family friendly and content aimed at more "mature" audiences, but have yet to include a middle ground for the "mature" content and the content geared for adults. As well, I feel like that could easily fix a lot of the problems with the current rating system in America. PG-13 too "family friendly", but R is too "mature", just slot something in-between to balance the mature content along with content geared towards a general audience.
That sounds like the current ratings system, except for PG-13, R, X and NC-17. I would go for content warnings, which tell the audience what to expect, without stereotyping age groups' sensibilities.
I agree with the idea that boobs blood and guts don’t just make a film creative or adult, but I do take issue regarding your example of Dunkirk. I thought the film was excellent and as far as the events being portrayed on screen (men being drowned, burned alive, strafed by machine guns etc) I think any one of those things depending on how it’s filmed could merit an R but by just removing the blood and guts that in reality are a part of those examples, the studio is able to market its film to a wider audience. I firmly feel it is less impactful and emotional when you’re watching the dive bombers strafe the helpless soldiers on the beach and they simply fall over like a child playing make believe. To make the horror and triumph of Dunkirk so sanitized detracts from what those men went through and kept reminding me I was watching a movie. It didn’t strike me as in anyway an artistic choice but a commercial one and whereas the gratuitous violence of say hacksaw ridge likewise would be out of place in Dunkirk, the sterilized beach we saw portrayed was the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction. 14A was missing from your essay, to me that rating has a great place, allowing violence to still have weight while avoiding indulgent gratuity and that’s where Dunkirk should have aimed to land. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
A fair point!
There’s a similar problem with PG-13’s “one f-word” rule. An R-rated movie has characters spewing it every other word like they’re in middle school, but you kinda get used to it. Then in a PG-13 movie, a character who DOES NOT talk like that just randomly says it once, and it just takes you completely out of the movie, as you’re reminded that they threw that in to avoid being labeled a kid’s movie with a PG rating
Yeah, it's always weird...
Why couldn't the 11-year-old get into the pirate movie?
Mr. Krabs: Why?
Squidward: It was rated "Arr!"
Hehe
Chuckle
Hahaha
Because it’s…about….pirates
In the UK, films like Deadppol and I think Logan, are only a "15". This is because in the UK we are more okay with sex and nudty than violence and gore. Like yeah, there is blood and people dying in Deadpool but it isn't really realistically gorey, its sorta cartoony and so over the top its not that bad. I dont think swearing is also seen as that bad, depending on how exessive it is. I was 17 when Deadppol came out so I could go and see it no problem, but people I know in USA that were the same age were not. There really isn't that many films or series I even own that are an 18, most only go up to 15 because 18 is seen as like the most violent things ever, the sort of thing you really wouldnt let a kid watch.
TheZebbga I think it has flipped the other way nowadays - films are deliberately toning things down in order to secure a 12A rating rather than a 15, which kind of ruins it for more mature audiences (just think of what happened with the Die Hard series). Now it feels like lots of films are dumbing down more serious themes and cramming in fart jokes just to appeal to the young kids in the audience.
I always thought that the BBFC created the 12A more to pander to the Karens who wanted their younger kids to be able to watch the Spider-Man movie (I forget which exact one, sorry) despite it being rated 12. I had a couple of friends who were working at the local cinema at the time who all had stories about parents causing huge scenes because the staff couldn’t, and wouldn’t, just let a pile of underage children (some barely school-age) into an age-restricted film. Immediately after the rating system was altered, the same type of people then continued to make a huge fuss about the kids having to be accompanied by adults, which I always thought defeated the whole point and purpose of the rating change in the first place - if the film were suitable for unaccompanied 12-year-olds, then wouldn’t it be rated PG in the first place?
Now, the 15 rating seems to be used solely to indicate that the film maybe shouldn’t be seen by a kid still a year or two away from finishing primary school, whilst desperately trying to do anything too grown up enough to risk limiting ticket sales with an 18 certificate. Maybe I’m just too old and grumpy today and am simply overthinking things? Yet I actually find myself avoiding films with 12A and 15 ratings - I’m noticing that the vast majority of media around me is constantly forced to be child and family friendly, and sometimes I just want to park my 37-year-old backside in front of something that is a bit more mature than also-suitable-for-my-8-year-old-nephew-oh-my-the-family-friendly-FUN!!! (TM), or not be in an audience full of unaccompanied 10-year-olds.
Although sometimes I just want to see a pair of nipples being violent or something, but I suppose that’s another story...
@@dancaddell6742 I kinda get what you mean but I don't fully agree. I am younget han you, I am only 21 but I agree on some of what you said. Something like thte Hunger Games to me feels like ti could have maybe been improved by some more blood and violece since it is litterally about people trying to kill each other but I don't watch it and hate that it isn't there. Most Super Hero stuff like Spider Man to be don't feel like they really should be going for a 15 because Spider Man is a character that appeals to all ages, kids like him and adults like him so a PG 12 rating seems appropriate to me. But I think that PG 12 is a bit wierd because it implies its fine for what ever age but only if your parents are there. Like I saw Revenge of the Sith when I was 7 and that was a PG 12. I never thought it felt older or mature but I don't get the 12 part of that, should it not just be PG.
But I dunno. I rarely get annoyed at seeing kids in the cinema and haven't had that many bad experiences with it. Weirdly it annoys me the most when I see an actual kids film like Toy Story 4 where a kid cried all the way through it. I felt like the grumpy old guy complaining at that one because I am at a U rated film.
TheZebbga Thinking about it, I don’t think I was quite clear what I meant with the Spider-Man example. There was the argument that Spider-Man and other superheroes could have been expected to appeal to a younger audience, of course, but I was trying to describe the aspect that was demanding children be allowed to watch age-restricted content without bothering to consider whether or not it was actually appropriate. They were usually the first to complain if their kid developed recurring nightmares after seeing something too gory. A lot of parents snuck their kids in regardless in an effort to “screw the system”, but the age restrictions are legally enforceable and the cinemas got fined and stuff when they were discovered.
And I don’t get annoyed at kids in movies, honestly! It’s more the insistence that everything has to be suitable for a younger audience, in a if-Johnny-can’t-have-it-then-nobody-can like attitude. Some things are just inappropriate for younger audiences, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be enjoyed by an older one. So to always have to keep a younger audience’s attention or prevent them seeing something too icky sometimes spoils the film when it is about, or is trying to depict, more mature themes. I was actually thinking of your Hunger Games point, funnily enough - its relative bloodlessness was too jarring a cognitive dissonance for me. That, and forced comic relief to stop things getting too heavy or to keep younger attention spans, can really ruin the moment as well, if you know what I mean. But the 12A has also meant that a lot of media can really push boundaries, too, especially that usually meant for a traditionally younger audience. Think of Harry Potter - the themes and stories were able to grow as the series went on precisely because the 12A certificate and its equivalents allowed darker content to be presented to a younger audience.
And the guy who complained about the crying child in a Toy Story movie? That’s not even overly grumpy, that’s just being outright nasty. Perhaps he should have considered whether he was actually mature enough to have been there by himself (I assume he was very much alone?) or whether he should have had Mummy and Daddy bring him instead.
Dan Caddell idk because things like John Wick definitely aren’t for kids just getting out of primary school they are for people mature enough to watch them
The Shanaman That’s why John Wick has a 15 certificate.
THANK YOU! THANK! YOU!!!! I’ve been saying this for years! I’m so sick of people always saying that everything with mature content, dark in nature, or is based off a work that is mature/dark in nature needs to be rated R, especially when they use Deadpool and Logan as excuses. Rated R does not make your movie good. There are movies of all the ratings that are bad and movies of all ratings that are good. Blood, guts, boobs, and bunch of cussin’ don’t make your movie good. Good acting, good direction, good visuals, good cinematography, good script, good story, good characters, etc. is what makes your movie good. It’s about time somebody besides me said this! THANK YOU! ❤️💯
Thanks for watching!
This is how I feel everytime a pg13 movie throws in an obligatory f bomb that sticks out like a sore thumb, in order to avoid a pg rating. But that kind of thing makes me take a film less seriously because its so obvious why its there.
Exactly
Arrival
That’s exactly how I felt when Magneto said it in X-Men: Apocalypse, I was like “Where the hell did that come from?”
That Zack Snyder quote kind of broke my brain.
.
Anyway, I agree. The ratings should just be taken as content advisories, and let filmmakers make whatever they want without worrying about it. I mean, *David Lynch* of all people once made a G-rated movie about an old man riding a tractor - and won an Oscar. THAT'S artistic freedom.
Yes!
Ik so glad you pointed out those scenes in the dark knight, I have seen countless movies and those thoughts and images from that film have never left me, incredible piece of filmmaking by an incredible director....
It's so good.
Center Row Yes, extremely effective
Steven King's "Christine" omitted the book's violence and gore, but included unnecessary language to secure an "R" rating.
yea I heard that the movie is only rated R for language
Back to the future was PG and had foul language and words were changed for TV.
I agree wholeheartedly! Nothing bugs me more than when a show throws in 'edginess' that doesn't seem to fit with story being told. Then afterwards, I realize it was bumped up a rating notch because of that singular moment. It was a very apt comparison to middle school that was given. Spot on!
Thanks and thanks for watching!
But how many times is a movie really bumped from PG13 to R or forced an R rating? The studio more commonly does the opposite. Birds of Prey is fresh in peoples minds, but that's one film. Not too long ago we got PG13 Robocop and Terminator films. Robocop Remake and Terminator Genisys were gutted of that adult tone and felt completely watered down from the things that made the source material great! And it wasn't because they came up with a great story, it was to sell tickets. My point is it works both ways and a shit story is going to be a shit story regardless of rating.
I think everyone here is really coming down on R rated films, which I have to disagree with. Movies that put marketing over story typically are going to have problems. BoP was bad because it was a shit story and execution, not because they wanted to make a film for adults.
I think it's great we are getting more attempts at R rated films thanks to the success of Deadpool and Logan! Just because a few are misguided I don't think this trend is a bad thing. The fact Is we get a lot of shit movies at all levels.
@@faz6877 So I agree, that definitely happens that R movies get pulled back to PG-13, but some examples imo of movies trying to be edgy are "Pursuit of Happyness", if felt very much like they threw in an F word just for the PG-13 rating - similar thing with the movie "Harriot", they included the F word multiple times, but it seemed like it was done to be edgy, rather than actually adding anything to the story. And again, "Won't you be my Neighbor", a documentary about Mr Rodgers decided to throw in language to be bumped up to PG-13 over PG. I realize none of these are R (I personally think the best movies don't tend to have/need for gore, cursing, and sex to be entertaining, but I realize I'm rather puritanical and not the norm), but I hope these are examples of trying to be 'edgy' rather than being consistent in tone and message.
@@faz6877 I can put it like this the difference between a bad PG13 and a bad R is how many "asses" are in the seats. So a bad PG13 gets exposed a whole lot more than a bad R. Too often bad R's get the worse PR. Look at Birds of Prey which got a trailer a YEAR before with no follow-ups then a massive media overload after it failed. Robocop got a bit more hype since I remember ads of it being shown and some decent interest in it. Of course, it failed because it was "too sleek" of a robocop.
@@ExeErdna Yeah but BoP didn't suck because it was rated R. It sucked because it was bad writing and execution. With a film like BoP I think in the right hands you could tell a quality PG13 or R rated film, it could worth either way. But neither is going to work with terrible execution.
To me Robocop remake is the perfect example of taking a property for adults and watering it down for kids. The ultra violence in the original is a statement on violence itself. Plus the character of Murphy is completely stripped of his humanity. The movie is about the essential death of his humanity and him trying to rediscover what may be left. In the remake he is basically Tony Stark if he can't get out of his suite! His wife and child accept him! Unlike in the original when Murphy loses his family and even states "I can feel them, but I can't remember them...." That's beautiful stuff! And it isn't completely dumped in the remake because they have to appeal to kids and make it like Marvel / Dark Knight.
This video originally had a second part discussing Sex and Nudity in R rated films, but I decided to turn that into its own video. You can see that video here:
ua-cam.com/video/5FYmdnnlalg/v-deo.html
I agree, it doesn't matter what film is rated, if it has a good story and a good production team of talented artists behind at the helm that's usually enough to make the film a masterpiece.
I'd say it's overrated now. Movies now are so sterile. There's no Porkys, American Pie, Kumar & Harold anymore. A lot of movies now you can cut down on the violence, gore, and swearing, and that's it.
The R rating used to be about showing the visceral nature of the world. Suicide Squad feels like a child's idea of what an edgy crime world is like. The movie feels trapped in the PG-13 rating. Replacing what would be visceral action scenes with dark lighting and lame putty monsters getting shot.
Compare Suicide Squad to Wolf of Wallstreet. And I would argue Birds of Prey being rated R does make it better.
The reason Rated R content is preferable is because it reigns in more reality. Gangsters aren't restrictive of their speech. Gangsters make examples out of people by going to such extremes.
And yeah. The Dark Knight had gritty moments, but let's be honest. If the movie wasn't Batman, it would have been rated R given it's Scarface-like nature.
Another scene I'd bring in is when Joker kills Randall in The Joker, you feel Randall just being brutalized. It doesn't just happen in a quick second. It feels real. And that's why it feels shocking and scary. At that point I didn't know what Joker was going to do.
The blood on Joker's face, the blood and brains on the wall. I thought Gary would have ended up as bad, if not worse because Joker might not want a witness. That's just something I wouldn't get from a quick pencil in the eye.
And even kids cartoons have dark moments. There's an episode of Popeye where there's a suicidal character that Popeye tries to help. But he's so annoying that Popeye shoots him in the end, it fades to black saying "The Bitter End". Granted, this was from the 40's. But it was made for kids.
Even the Batman movies I grew up with had dark moments. The scene where the one guy gets electrocuted into a skeleton, the scene with the severed hand holding flowers in the box. And this movie was marketed to children.
Fast forward to Batman Returns, we have Catwoman wearing a tight outfit, Penguin perving on her and biting some guys nose. Children are being kidnapped. And again. This movie is marketed to kids. Except this time, parents didn't like it. They thought it was too much. And thus Tim Burton was replaced by Joel Schumacher.
The point is, they marketed this to kids. There were McDonalds Happy Meal toys and I remember this. But this content's target audience was children. That's why Batman Forever. And that's why Batman & Robin. WB execs wanted Batman to be nothing more than a vehicle to sell toys.
On that note, 2019's The Joker doesn't have any toys. There's expensive adult collectibles. But nothing from NECA, Mattel, McFarlane, FUNKO, you know. The usual suspects. You know what is getting toys to this day? Batman 1989, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight....
I think the main thing that annoys me about PG-13 films is the complete absence of blood, sometimes swearing if charactrers are constantly saying PG-13 tier swearwords but only drop the F word once. My issue is that the difference between PG-13 and R is so wide, maybe some changes to the guidelines, restricting the NC-17 less or even adding another rating may help. Theres just so many films which are R rated for swearing and brief nudity.
I'd agree! It's weird that Saw and When Harry Met Sally could possibly have the same rating. The original intension of the PG-13 rating was to provide some nuance between PG and R but eventually PG-13 just became PG and PG became G.
The swearing one is stupid anyway, If all of the conversations kids had at an elementary school were put into a movie it would be an R at minimum everyday from language alone anyway. Actually I remember 'Bully' getting an R rating from the kids in the film saying a bunch of F bombs. Until it was edited down, kids weren't officially allowed to see it which was ironic.
You guys would really benefit from a pg15 rating.
The PG-13 rating was that change.
Stephen Spielberg noticed Gremlins was being attacked by parents for the PG rating, and he told the MPAA there needs to be an in between
@@sgillman16 now the PG-13 is the new PG, The PG is the new G and the G is rarely used in America. Atleast the UK ratings are more consistent over time.
He is lying folks he is trying to bring back the hays code. BRING YOUR PITCH AND TORCHES!!!!!
Crap, they're onto me!
@@CenterRow you have a good sense of humor
But War should not be portrayed as a tension filled exciting thing...
War is unimaginable horror, and shouldn't ever be seen as mere excitement...
I find it deeply unsettling, and immoral to show war as anything but the most ugly, and such a waste of life...
Dulce bellum inexpertis
"War is sweet to those that never have experienced it."
Well that's the point I was trying to get at. In IMAX, Dunkirk wasn't exciting, it was terrifying. It put me in the terrified headspace of a soldier better than most R rated war films with blood and guts flying everywhere. A film like Hacksaw Ridge captures the utter horror of War, Dunkirk (at least for me in IMAX) captured the terror and fear of war. Both are valid.
@@CenterRow I think that bloodshed is necessary for American Civil War films.
In this age, why not release more variety in the ways we can watch a film? Neflix could afford to post a PG, PG-13 and an R rated version of THE SAME FILM. I love that some films are getting director's cuts that edit out the studio interference to the story. When there's no longer the difficulty of marketing two films to two separate theater audiences why not just post separate versions? In Utah the Christians here ran a couple good movie editing companies until copyright lawsuits shut them down. I actually enjoyed several formerly R rated films in an edited form because as you said, sometimes the scenes of violence, nudity or language detracts, rather an adds to story. I found myself enjoying some films on a deeper level, and some cut away scenes from violence felt even more impactful and emotional.
Another thought. Why, when a known plot hole or issue with a film, why don't they make a '2.0' version and fix the mistakes while letting you still see the original version (yes, Han shot first). There are some shows that don't try to stretch their run time just to hit the same number of minutes per episode anymore -logically, you might want a quick fun 20 minute filler episode and then dive in to an hour long plot turning point in the next. Kinda blows my mind that the entertainment industry is so slow to use the advantages of a streaming service delivery. They've been set free, but they still basically sit in the same box they were pressured in to by TV blocks.
One explanation to answer the question of editing... I feel like Hollywood does want to corrupt children's minds with things their not ready for. Example: putting out toys for movies not designed for young eyes. Otherwise why do movie studios fight so hard to prevent editing? The Utah editing companies purchased a DVD for every copy they rented out in the edited version. The studio made the same mount from the edited rental as an edited one. It was completely legal, but that didn't prevent the entire editing industry from being crushed by expensive lawsuits.
Ratings don’t change the quality of shows or movies, they just make it clear that certain shows/movies aren’t aimed for certain age groups. ie: R rated movies are for teens and adults
While the gratuitous addition of violence and nudity in R-Rated movies rubs me the wrong way, there is nothing more dissatisfying than a PG-13 movie that definitely needed more shown but they had to cut for a more friendly rating.
I would definitely agree!
I completely agree. I really can't think of many example of great films that added in unnecessary R rated qualities, but can think of plenty that watered down the franchise to a PG13 rating to sell more tickets.
I'm a huge fan of horror movies and gore and have to say a little gore typically brightens my day, although is completely worthless without a quality story! I can't think of instances where I think a movie should have scaled back on the violence and went too far (maybe gratuitous nudity lol). I think it's more common for Hollywood to remove the balls from a franchise like the PG13 Robocop remake or Terminator Genesis.
That purple joke is literally just how students see grayscale.
This is an argument I've had with stuff like comics, where comic book creators make a creator own book, and it's suddenly "F--- This" and "F--- That" and a surprising amount of children killing. It gets annoying when they all resort ot the same tactics.
The R-rating today is not the R-rating it was in the 80s and 90s when the rating actually meant something. It wasn’t just about how much foul language, sex and violence there was, but most importantly it’s the “Tone” and “Edge” the films carried along with the language Sex and violence.
But there are also some movies that would benefit more from a R rating perspective. Jurassic World or even some Disney films could benefit from it.
Jurassic Park is an amazing movie at PG-13, I feel more violence wouldn't help the weak scripts of Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom.
Which means a faithful adaptation of Daniel P. Mannix's novel, The Fox and the Hound (which was initially adapted as a G-rated Disney animated movie) would benefit from your answer, Alds. Its dark, realistic tone would benefit from either pushing the PG-13 rating to its limit or a soft R (British equivalent would be a 15). Not gonna spoil the ending here.
Joshua Foley marvel might start to make them with deadpool though
Whats hard to understand about the R rating in movies to me is some movies there only 1 or 2 scenes makes it a R but the rest of the movie its PG 13.
Here's the rating system in Canada (theatrical):
G - family friendly (no swearing, mild violence)
PG - slightly less family friendly, sometimes aimed at teens (mild swearing, medium violence)
14+ - anyone above the age of 13 can watch without an adult (swearing, excessive violence)
14A - anyone above 14 must watch with an adult (swearing, excessive violence)
18+ - anyone between 16 - 19 must watch with a parent (excessive swearing, excessive violence, excessive bloodshed)
18A - adults only (excessive swearing, excessive violence, excessive bloodshed, nudity)
I don't remember 18+ but I do remember there being an R rating
@@adamgates1142 in Canada, there wasn't an R rating. 14-18 was are substitute
@@Nindroidgamer110 I thought maybe they changed it but now I think you're wrong. I know my Fargo DVD has a Canadian R rating but I almost never see them anymore.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_motion_picture_rating_system
@@adamgates1142 maybe I am wrong, I'll see
As a Canadian, I don't know about you, but my friends and I literally NEVER use this system in reference to talking about film.
Nah, Logan would have lost quite a lot without the R-rating IMO. The gratuitous violence helped add to the stark, grim reality of Logan's future compared to the family-friendly violence of the previous films
Because it fits the narrative, not every film is like that, hes talking about r rated films that ar just R for the sake of being edgy like if somehow thats all that is to it ,logan is not the case
@@LuisAngel-mu4zv I mentioned Logan specifically because the video somewhat argues the film wouldn't lose a lot if it was PG-13.
I agree. 45 "fucks" is nothing for a movie. So Logan wouldn't have worked as a PG-13.
Not really, even before Logan people were saying that Hugh Jackman and his portrayal of the Wolverine character was absolutely perfect, so you can’t really say that Logan wouldn’t have worked with a PG-13 rating when you’ve already been caught red handed loving his character for the past 17 years before Logan
This is the kinda stuff you don't think about until someone points it out. Very informative, thanks for the video.
Thanks for watching!
logan would have worked fine as a pg13 film. if anything the r rateing just gave it an excuse to be way more violent with out much substance. just blood for the sake of it.
No I disagree Logan uses its r rating to show how far gone Logan is he doesn’t care if he kills people anymore it shows a man who has been pushed too far and has finally snapped
I mean look at ATLA, it deals with mature topics like genocide, revenge, etc. All while being a show rated for kids.
In Scott Pilgrim vs The World, Edgar Wright used video game fight style scenes (which were still awesome) and litterally bleeped out the f-bombs (even making it into a joke) just to keep a PG13 rating. Same for Avatar The Last Airbender where the creators invented bending to keep the violence to a minimum which in turn dialed the awesomeness to 11. Overall, PG shows/films (under skilled directors of course) use much more creative ways to portray violence.
Great video! A good example of this is DC’s Titans. It has a ton of unnecessary blood and swearing, and is pitched as an “edgy” show, but that doesn’t make it any better.
Edit: To put it another way, Titans use of mature content in an attempt to make itself appear more serious, did the exact opposite.
Yes! A perfect example, wish I would have used that!
That's one of the reasons I hate the show but mostly it's because it's bad writing even if this is PG-13 people still one like it
Totally agree with you, except for Black Christmas. Black Christmas is a slasher movie, and slasher movies are literally all about tension, and creating visceral and creative kills. You hardly even root for the "good guys" lmao. Imo the fans were in the right to be so concerned
Fair point
angel has fallen. its just a pg-13 movie but they force everyone to say the f word every six seconds
People want their superhero movies to be R so they don't have to feel bad about still watching superhero movies. I saw one guy argue that future star wars movies should be rated R. Is nothing sacred? Star wars has always been light hearted and fun with the exception of revenge of the sith, but that needed to be that way to really showcase the birth of darth vader.
That's a great point! And yeah, why on earth would you want an R rated Star Wars film?
In my opinion as long as you enjoy it you don’t need to apologize for liking anything even if it’s primarily targeted at audiences younger than you, I still love SpongeBob and I don’t give a shit about what anyone says
This video could also be titled "Are movie ratings overrated?"
1917 used the R rating amazingly, it used it for the audience to feel what was happening, cursing because it's WW1 and why not, and gore because of the horrors, no nudity, just the horror, a big reason I love that movie
I think the Dunkirk argument makes a good point if I'm being honest. There's a reason why the most common quotes about war are variations of "War is cruelty", and the discussion about the rating is less to do with the rating itself and more what it implies. I'm of the opinion that meaningfully depicting the horror and brutality of war mandates *rivers* of blood, if the audience leaves feeling anything other than sick or horrified by the abject cruelty of war, I consider that a failure
I'm tired of overrated r rated films. Too many films it's the subject being brought up rather the act itself requiring the r rating. Just show me or don't even bother having the content.
If anything, An R rating hinders most movies as it's a very niche audience.
Unless you are Deadpool.
Hello there
I'd agree!
Yeah! It makes me think of all those kids who love horror or action movies/games with scary/creepy because they watched them and remember them.
@@legogeneralgrievous4218 Section ratio general!
You is really a day of brave!
Killed him!
I have to respectfully disagree an R rating hinders "most" movies. How many best picture winners are rated R? That statements treats R rated movies like they are all the same.
Just because some film makers use sex or violence gratuitously that doesn't represent so many R rated classics. How does an R rating hinder films like The Godfather, Raging Bull, The Terminator, Silence of the Lambs, Platoon, Schindler's List, Goodfellas and I could fill a book with incredible R rated films. Or how about comedies like Caddyshack or The Hangover?
I really don't understand so many people blaming the rating for the quality of film. We have just as many examples of bad PG13 films as R. We have bad writing and execution at all levels. But don't understand how you can say an R rating hinders most movies when it's clear we have so many films that are made better by the director having the freedom to tell the story they want.
To me R rating makes no sense, because the rating system is pretty much irrelevant. Most of the time people under the age of 18 are gonna see these R rated movies anyway weather thats clips on UA-cam or pirating it. Plus anyone who’s gone through or in middle school probably already knows about swearing, nudity, and gore. Also people under or over the age of 18 are more likely to see way more messed up stuff on the internet, then in a R rated movie.
Agree! To me the R rating is an excuse to put unnecessary goryness, nudity and profanity just because they can
Yes!
...this also gets pretty strange when it comes to grey story telling in movies and games too, that are “directed” to younger audiences
Example: Undertale genocide route
Ghibli movies etc
(Someone continue the chain)
The beginning of "Up" really goes to show how you can be emotionally challenging and heartbreaking without trying to force it or feeling ham fisted.
Without any exposition,just some brief scene and a song shows you their entire life in a matter of minutes.
Pirates of the Caribbean is rated R because it’s a pirate movie!
Aren't they PG-13?
It’s a pun on how pirates say “arrr”
I really like the description of violence and sex as tools, because it so accurately describes why it doesnt work that well in many cases. With the exeption of style (like tarantino), it often doesnt work when its used as flavour, or tacked on to elevate the story without beeing essential to it.
Precisely!
The American rating system always confused me. Not drawing a distinction between films like The Matrix or Boyhood, films like Deadpool and Logan, and films like Seven or Taxi Driver seems absurd - in Aus, the former are both rated "M" which is basically PG-13, Deadpool and Logan are MA-15+, and the last two are R18+. Not only does it make films and TV become arbitrarily edgier, but it also makes movies that are perfectly acceptable for a 12 year old to watch and gain a lot from like Boyhood or The Matrix less accessible to them and makes it much harder for parents to figure out what films will actually be potentially disturbing for their kids.
Honestly when it came to your Horror segment, What people in the horror community are weary of when they see PG-13, is that in recent years, say the last 2 decades now, horror has lost a bit of its identity by being more dare i say "sterile" cutting out anything that gives any die hard horror fan, really appreciates from the medium. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. There always are but, in recent years any PG-13 horror flick has been hot garbage and just plain boring to watch.
End all, No Red Hot Pussy Liquors for us.
Nah I'd say PG-13 is WAY more OVERRATED than Rated R
I'm more concerned with the line between G and PG. Older movies used to just get put between them and be good but after people developed the idea most G movies were baby stuff they started adding pointless smut just to get a PG rating or really push for PG13. R is probably in a reverse but similar situation, gritty movies generally don't seem to be taken seriously unless they go the extra mile and the best place to sell movies is PG13, you get to be more subtle but you also have to omit some needed details (oooor, get a good director who works with it).
Superhero movies need to be careful since the plan was people get to watch most of the movies in a phase as everyone meets up for the next Avangers or Infinity War, you can't really expect everyone to be comfortable with R movies so those will be hard skips for some fans. Deadpool was still great to push against the Marvel saga, Joker was successful and had some more breathing room, and absolutely the past Dark Knight may have pushed too much towards R while keeping the idea they were making it 13, people got upset but it's still amazing as a PG15 or something
I'd agree. We need the old definitions of G and PG back so that we have a better scale.
A bit more controversial, but I liked John Wick 1 more because it felt more authentic with its violence. With 2 and 3, they kept doubling and tripling down on gore and it felt a bit distracting.
I'd completely agree
Although I only partially agree with your points. I'm making this commentary actually to give, I hope, constructive feedback on the video itself. I really feel like it didn't respects the viewer's time, you basically say the same thing with slightly different examples for 1/4 of an hour over and over again. I watched full expecting that maybe you had something more to tell, but you really didn't, and that's not a bad thing, but I would really appreciate a little more of concision
Noted! I honestly have a bad habit of rambling.
@@CenterRow I think the introduction and last part were spot on, if anything you lost yourself in the middle, overexplaining yourself.
I think the creator should make their movie how they want it . Regardless of what rating it gets . The MPAA is mostly staffed by people in their 40s-50s that lord over creators and tell them what parts of their visions have to be cut . At the end of the day the rating system is disgusting . that said movies like Logan or Deadpool would not work as PG-13 . At the end of the day I feel you are doing the conversation a disservice though by focusing on the rating . As you said in the last sentence there is a lot more to movies than just their ratings .
Comment for the algorithm
Bless you
Amen.
I'll add a comment
I freaking loved La La Land but it so easily could have been a PG-rated film if not for the two f-bombs, and it’s not even like they were in emotionally charged scenes where it would make sense
In Australia there’s G, PG, M, MA and R
I believe anyone should be able to watch any movie regardless of rating as age is just a number, two 18 year olds, heck even two 18 year old boys from the same classroom can have vastly different maturity levels depending on the subject.
There are probably too many rating labels at this point but all we need is a system that says "these movies aren't explicitly graphic, with little to no depictions of sex, gore, etc." and another system that says "these movies are contain more explicit and graphic depictions of subjects we as a society should limit our children viewing."
If someone thinks explicity nudity and sex in movies who serve no purpose at all as something "mature", you know they aren't mature at all.
I feel like MA should replace R entirely. MA would allow more audience members in because all it means is Mature themes. R is an exaggerated rating that acts likes it's mature, but has all the depth of an edgy twelve year old. Case and point, Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey. That movie, face peeling and all, did NOT need to be R-Rated. If anything young girls should be able to see that movie. A movie with a bunch of bad-ass ladies kicking ass and protecting a child while doing it, all while portraying multiple experiences of whats it's like to be a woman... literally anywhere? My niece would eat that up! But it gets an R-Rating because what? They say fuck a lot, including the 13 year old? They show two genuinely horribly misogynistic men? A bunch of Brutal fight scenes with bones being snapped (Seriously Harley had it out for everyone's legs). For real.
I think the joker movie is a great example of how a movie didn't need to be R rated
Honestly it probably didn't.
Speaking of the BvS Ultimate Edition, it didn't really feel like an R-rated movie and I'm not sure why it was rated R
I think it was the burning bodies at the beginning and the scene where the guy gets shanked.
For me it felt like that cut was given an R rating solely for attention
I feel like this is the same with video games (I'm in the UK so I'll be mentioning the PEGI rating board)
Whenever I'm in school and I mention a game that isn't rated 18 (because I'm one of those weirdos who has parents that actually reads the ratings) I always get looked down upon because apparently your game has to have gore, someone saying fuck every minute and maybe computer generated titties. Not saying that's a bad thing but I hate how a lot people think that 18 rated games are the only games that exist.
ikr, I totally agree.
Some of the comments on here reminded me of a comic strip I saw once. I think it was Baby Blues. The dad is holding a movie case, reading the description on the back. It says somethng like, "Rated R for adult content, adult situations, adult themes." The dad throws up one hand in exasperation and blurts out, "Kids these days are going to have no idea what it means to be an adult!"
Caroline is pg and still terrifying in my opinion
If it's a story that needs to be rated R then be rated r but it's annoying when they do it just to seem edgy
Precisely
And now the creators of Avatar walked out of the Netflix adaptation because they wanted to keep the spirit of the show while Netflix wanted the live-action to be R/TV-MA
It's the company taking away creative freedom to push for it, and makes no sense.
I completely agree with these points. Take a look at shows like TMNT (2012) that aired on nickelodeon. It was a very grown up show and had some darker points but it never needed to be insanely gruesome just becasue it was the TMNT.
I disagree on Dunkirk. Not seeing any blood really took me out of it. It just wasn’t believable or realistic.
Phenomenal video, as usual love your stuff!
I have this discussion with my mom all the time, she tends to argue that "movies are too violent" and should be less violent. But I think that the violence should come naturally, and isn't the reason why someone (typically) goes to see the movie in the first place. For example, she doesn't like to watch war movies and thinks they are bad because they are too 'violent', where I say that that is what comes with it as a result of an accurate depiction of real world war events. I never considered the effect that a rating had ona movie and affected how it would perform. Interesting perspective.
I think at the end of the day, too little and too much violence will become very noticeable depending on the viewer whos watching it, and that a good movie will always feel like it had 'just enough' to feel naturally part of the world/story shown on screen.
Thank you!
Dude the movie angry birds is should be a hardcore rated r
I think they should just make a movie and not try to go for any sort of rating,
I always found it funny that north america takes movie ratings so seriously, I remember going to watch american reunion and kick ass 2 which is rated R in the cinema when I was around 12.
My parents also let me watch pulp fiction when I was 9, the only bad thing about that is that due to my young age I didn't really enjoy the movie until I watched it again as a teen.