PG? - Amityville 3-D (1983) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] siektwo 19 years ago

i haven't seen this yet, but just picked up the boxset today. I watched poltergeist the other day (rated PG as well i might add). there was a scene in that film where a guy imagines himself ripping his own face apart. blood and gore everywhere. i was pretty shocked that the film was PG. that scene alone should have gotten the film AT LEAST a PG-13 if not R rating. go figure....

reply

[–] Trespasser2003 19 years ago

the PG-13 rating wasn't introduced until after Gremlins and IJ: Temple of Doom came out... Up until then, there were only G, PG, R, and X...

reply

[–] kowalski_91 19 years ago

uh, correction, ever heard of a film called "The Birds"? It was released in the jolly old year of 1963, and, I'm sorry, what was it rated? oh ya, PG-13! GET A JOB.
-me

reply

[–] orders-40 19 years ago

Actually, the first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating was 1984's "Red Dawn." Beginning in the 1990s, some older movies were "re-rated" now and again, so-to-speak, for subsequent video releases when it was decided the new rating would fit them better. This is most likely what happened to certain releases of "The Birds."

Though I'm not quite sure what getting a job has to do with the MPAA ratings system.

reply

[–] liam147 19 years ago

I was only eight when the PG-13 rating came out, but I remember it with perfect clarity. It was 194. It got a PG rating because the MPAA review panel didn't think it was bad enough to warrant an R rating.

For some reason, I find it amusing when people don't knowthe details surrounding certain situations, think they do, and insult people for being wrong when they themselves are the ones who are incorrect.

The point I'm making is this:

It's not necessary to be a jerk to make a post. That's one of the things I hate the most about the Internet. Because people will never face the people they are asses to, they think that being insulting makes them witty,or insulting, or cool, or some other damned thing.

I never understood why people can'tjust can't be decent to others, instead of being an arse to them.

To give two overused, paraphrased, and extraordinarilly clichéd quotes -

"Can't we all just give a long?"

and

"'Tis better to remain silent and thought an idiot, than open your mouth and remove all doubt."

reply

[–] thelace86 17 years ago

it's rated pg-13 by today's standards, it wasn't rated that when it first came out.

reply

[–] cornflakeboy20 10 years ago

I think the original poster was saying it's not violent enough. I think it could possibly qualify for a PG today.

reply

[–] Doc110894 10 years ago

I think it would be at least PG-13 today.

reply

[–] chipsforsell 8 years ago

No, this would have been PG-13 today because the PG rating is pretty much worthless now! Most modern PG movies are animated movies that would have been G in the 70s and 80s.

reply

[–] mazaldivar 15 years ago

"uh, correction, ever heard of a film called "The Birds"? It was released in the jolly old year of 1963, and, I'm sorry, what was it rated? oh ya, PG-13! GET A JOB.
-me"

It was re-rated much later ya big dummy... :)

A 3-D Spaghetti Western rereleased to theatres cominatyanoir3d.com Comin' soon!

reply

[–] cornflakeboy20 10 years ago

Uh, correction, no rating system was in place when the Birds was released. It was rated for its video release. Get a job? Huh.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cornflakeboy20 11 years ago

Why oh why do you people not know that the PG13 rating did not exist until the mid 80s? I see these discussions on every board.

reply

[–] buckyboy28 19 years ago

pretty much a sure fire signal that a sequel will suck is when the sequel has a lower rating than the original.
-Blues Brothers 2000
-"Vacation" sequels
-Weekend at Bernies 2
-The Mask
etc, etc,

--Scott

reply

[–] stewiefan201 19 years ago

Actually siektwo the movie poltergeist was originally rated R, then they edited it and it was brought down to a PG. But still Raiders of the lost ark was PG and showed a guy's head explode. So I don't know.

Spaceballs the T-shirt.

Spaceballs the coloring book.

Spaceballs the flamethrower!!!

reply

[–] misak_attack 19 years ago

Raiders of the Lost Ark was released before the PG-13 rating came out. Sorry if im sh*tting on your parade but its the facts

You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

reply

[–] kowalski_91 19 years ago

One thing that really chaps my ass is when horror movies are rated PG in the states, and/or in Canada. I won't watch a horror movie, or really any other movie, unless its rated at least R in the states, and at least 14A in Canada (I prefer 18A and R).

Amityville 3-D is an example of the filmmaker(s)' want for money. Perhaps more people would want to see this (the weenies who cant handle true horror), and bring their kids. If not for the fact that it was included in the box set, I wouldn't have watched it. Also, this is a prime example of a movie that definately deserved an R rating. The violence at the end was just incredible, and the fact that the daughter died at the end, I mean, what were they smoking? Even in Canada, it earned the "prestigious" 14A rating (what movie these days isn't 14A?), and our ratings are supposed to be lax! For Godssakes, the Exorcist was rated 14A!

Anyways, that really turned me off the Amityville 3-D! Call me a loser, but if it had been R, I would have really re-considered watching it a second time.

*/5

reply

[–] nicelikemiamivice 19 years ago

the daughter drowned dude,and it wasnt even shown and whats the difference of wanting to watching a movie again regardless of its rating? does a rating decide for you wanna watch the movie again? and if you wont watch a horror movie because its not rated R,you are REALLY missing out

reply

[–] kowalski_91 19 years ago

True enough, but I can back up my reason. Take Psycho for instance. Its PG, and it sucks! Gore is not a factor in my decision, but the situations in the lower rated films often stray away from the more realistic situations. For example: in real life if a man was punched in the face, he'd swear rather sharply, like in a higher rated movie. In a lower rated movie he'd say something like "Damn you!", and maybe not even that. And I have problem with films that arent realistic. I'll give you the fact that most horror films are unrealistic anyways, but the lack of every-day scenarios, and peoples' actions towards them really burns me. Another thing that chaps my ass is the amount of nudity in horror flicks. I mean, do we really need 40 sex scenes, and a millions different naked women? Don't get me wrong, I mean I'm not gay, but does adding ten minutes of sex really make or break the film? If the director really wants the scene included in the film, then could they not have two versions: one with, and one without; or perhaps just include the scene in the DVD version. I came to see the *film*, not two strangers shackin' up in the middle of the afternoon, then getting cut in half by some guy watching from the closet. If the films didnt have as much sex, then they, in turn would be rated a little lower (definately not in the states, but perhaps in Canada). Don't get me wrong, I'm not a movie-hater, I personally have 46, or 47 movies in my DVD collection, and love everyone of them. And I'd say about 30 of them are horror. And most of those dont have any sex scenes, or naked chicks. Maybe like 'The Shining", or "The Silence of the Lambs."

So all in all, I only like higher rated films because they're way more realistic, and arent inhibited by the viewers today who frown upon the lack of censory.

reply

[–] hosleyd 19 years ago

i would of gave it an R just because all the other amityville horror's were R bbut when the lady was burning inside the car that was pretty graphic for a PG poltergeist 2 and 3 got a pg-13 and there was hardly any violence in that amityville 3-D should of been rated R for terror/violence and some language

reply

[–] JackTorrance1990 19 years ago

Um, The Birds was rated PG-13 many years after it's release, possibly for video re-issue, or the fact most Hitchcock films have been rated.

The Godfather Part II:Greatest Ever

http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=20279

reply

[–] FILMguy92 19 years ago

Um...just so ya know, "PSYCHO" is rated R. I dunno where you got PG, but it's R.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Jump, I Jump ... Remember?

reply

[–] kowalski_91 19 years ago

PG in Canada

reply

[–] FILMguy92 19 years ago

o...ok. i gotcha

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You Jump, I Jump ... Remember?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobwoods 19 years ago

Poltergeist was PG on appeal. That mean nothing was cut out.

reply

[–] A_Random_Guy_22 15 years ago

Poltergeist wasn't edited for a PG rating, the producers appealed against the R rating and got a PG rating with no cuts made.

GET DRAGGED TO HELL
29.05.09

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

reply

[–] chatanuga 18 years ago

I have the book based on the movie, and if the movie had been like the book, it would have been rated R.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kirkwuk 18 years ago

Amityville 3D is rated 15 in the UK. Personally, I think it should be a 12 only for a few instances, such as the woman in the car being burned.

reply

[–] drhackenstine 17 years ago

It's been a long time but I remember the third Amityville being way more violent/intense then the fourth one, but the fourth one got the R rating.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drhackenstine 17 years ago

The 2nd movie deserved it's R rating. The violence and gore is pretty frequent. Plus just the overall content and angriness the film presents definitley puts it into the R category.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] holt-lover 16 years ago

I just watched it in 3d although the 3d effects on my copy were a little blurry. Still there was nothing to make this more than a PG- most of the movie was pretty tame and I dont even remember any profanity in it and no nudity, so it could probably get away with a couple of scary shots like the burnt woman in the car (the "demon" in the well was just silly). Compare that to the second one with more violence and an incest theme that had a breast shot in it if i remember right.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] A_Random_Guy_22 15 years ago

The original Amityville IS PG in Canada.

GET DRAGGED TO HELL
29.05.09

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

reply

[–] A_Random_Guy_22 15 years ago

PG-13 didn't exist back in 1982, so it was either PG or R. Amityville 3-D wasn't strong enough to get an R rating, so it got PG instead.

I don't understand how a rating can make a movie "suck".

GET DRAGGED TO HELL
29.05.09

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

reply

[–] leathaface 15 years ago

That part where the woman is burnt alive in her car then later on is shown as a still living, gooey charred near-corpse is pretty scary though.

reply

[–] chutcher 10 years ago

I watched it for the first time tonight since the eighties and I'm surprised a little at the PG rating, but those were different times and you could get away with a lot more in films(more cursing, more killing). They killed more than a couple of people in this movie.

I gotta laugh at some of the posts in this thread from '05. The PG-13 was quickly put into place right after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom because of the snake-feast and the heart-ripping scene, not to mention the loosely based Satanic theme of the whole ritual, which put the pressure on for a new rating which came out a few months later with Red Dawn. I remember all the controversy about it in the news and groups like the PMRC and Tipper Gore were still pushing the Satanic metal music train.

reply