whys this pg?
i thought this was a gorey film does anyone have a clue, in canda its R but in usa it's pg?
www.myspace.com/roobarfilms
In the United States, when this movie came out, there was only G and PG and PG was basically anything that couldn't be G so most movies are PG. For example, all the James Bond films that came out back then are PG although all the modern ones are PG-13.
I don't know when exactly it changed to the new system but it was well after this movie came out (80s sometime I think).
there was also R and X back then, but R was like a PG13 back then, and X was like what a hard R and NC17 is today. Back then the system was different, but this movie shouldve gotten an R back then.
shareIt wasn't quite that conservative as you think. The ratings systems change with the politics of the times. There are plenty of hard "R" films back in the '70s that would get a "NC17" today, mostly for "violence towards women" a policy the MPAA did not have until the 1990's. And the "PG" rating truly meant "may not be suitable for children under 13". Check out Blood and Lace, The Baby, It's Alive, and many other hard "PG" films of the period. In this decade they are strecthing the "R" rating very far with violence (if the character being eviserated is a male) but at the same time they are quicker to slap a film with the "R" rating, notice how many MGM Midnight films are being re-rated "R" for a new Dvd release.
shareIn this decade they are strecthing the "R" rating very far with violence (if the character being eviserated is a male)
I don't have any hard evidence, but I suspect you're right. But you are right that many PG-rated films pushed the envelope in the '70s, particulary where sexuality was concerned but also in terms of violence.
Today, very violent films that once would have been rated R are now rated PG-13, presumably because studios want to market violent films to teenagers. I suspect "The Dark Knight" would have earned an R rating in the '70s for its violence, but it sailed by with a PG-13 this year because of its target audience. Basically, PG-13 is the new R, and R is the really hard stuff. As for NC-17, it's fallen largely into disuse.
share
I agree with your "studio theory" very much. In fact just look at the previous decades "R" rated films as compared to now and see a significant differnece. I just watched The Burning dvd, which was heavil cut to avoid an "X" rating, and I think most of the gore would remain intact now. except for some of the "violence towards women" of course. I think the MPAA is very hipocritical and policticaly motivated. The Hills Have Eyes remake: they let slide a scene of a man haveing his intestines eaten on camera but they forced cuts of women moaning in suffering which you never even seen?? It was all implied! Is that being concerned with what is suitable for children to see????
shareI haven't seen the "Hill Have Eyes" remake because I think Wes Craven got it right the first time, and your description of it isn't making me any more inclined. But it's pretty obvious that the ratings system is in serious need of overhaul. Actually, I think parenting in general needs to be overhauled, but if parents won't do it, the industry should. Of course, I suspect neither will happen.
At one point, movies with excessive sex and violence were marketed toward adults. Films like "The Exorcist" and "Taxi Driver," both excellent, were made for "mature" audiences, which means that in addition to the violence, they contained themes that were geared toward an older viewership. Today those films would be marketed to a younger crowd, and the themes would be vastly simplified and the violence exaggerated. Box office is everything these days, particularly the opening weekend, and if you don't have teens on board, your film isn't considered a success. And even if a film is rated R, the nature of the multiplex and DVD rentals means that a lot of underage viewers will get to see it.
Ideally, parents would be aware of and involved with what they're children see, but they demand very little of the MPAA, and as a result, the MPAA lets a lot slide.
"I don't know when exactly it changed to the new system but it was well after this movie came out (80s sometime I think)"
Wrong, The 'R' rating came about in the late 60's.
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.share
"PG-13" came about around 1984 or '85. The rating was created duly in large part to the Spielberg films "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Poltergeist", both of which created a lot of angry letters from parents who had taken their small children expecting "Star Wars" or "E.T."-like fare. Spielberg took the matter to MPAA president Jack Valenti and the new rating PG-13 was made to defer to the "hard" PG films that were clearly not for young audiences, but with content not so adult to be slapped with an "R".
Here endeth the lesson...
Mr. K
I just watched the trailer for this movie on YouTube and from the trailer, it looks like an R, or even an "unrated." Back in the 70s, access to movies was a bit different than it is now. No multiplexes, so parents couldn't just drop their kids off and let them see several movies in one day. There were single and double screen ("shoe box") cinemas, and the showtimes were usually at night. I think this had something to do with the lax ratings system. Movies in the early 70s that were rated PG would sure get Rs now, because they're more accessible to younger audiences. (It's Alive, Panic In Needle Park, The Valachi Papers are just three early 70s movies that squeaked by with PGs despite having R-rated content).
I also think the MPAA didn't watch many of these drive-in classics. They gave out PGs based on the studio's wishes, thinking the kids going to drive-ins would flock to these cheesy flicks. Finally, the MPAA was still relatively young in the early 70s. Some late 60s/early 70s movies that were released on DVD were actually re-rated...Targets, for one (originally PG, now R - with no added content to make it an R). I suspect if the MPAA has a lot of time on their hands, they could re-rate many movies of the 70s, and PGs then would get PG-13s or Rs now. And some Rs then would be reduced to PG-13s.
Dude means nice guy. Dude means a regular sort of person.
Talking about how far the MPAA has stretched it's tolerance for violence since the 1970's, but compare the sex and nudity to the 70's. That has NOT progressed nearly as much, in fact in may have receeded! They let films pass with full brief frontal male nudity now more than then, but I think a film like A Clockwork Orange would get slammed with an NC17 for excessive female nudity and "violence and rape towards women". There was a low budget film that came out not too long ago that got slammed for a scene with a woman masturbating down her jeans. There was no nudity in the scene!! If that would have been a male pleasuring himself it would have been "R"!
share