I really think that an R rating would be too much. What makes you think is should have been an R? Just curious.
shareBecause they show the main girl completely naked in the last part. Usually that warrants an R rating. I remember my parents renting this movie when we were kids. We watched it cause they didn't think anything with a PG-13 rating could be too much for us. They pretty much freaked when that last part happened. Pretty funny, I thought.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Buddy, it seems pretty unlikely that a kid would last long enough into this film to catch that. I caught it on TV today and found it quite boring. That woman's bush appearing unexpectedly on-screen near the end was about the only fun thing that had happened basically since the first scene with the metal-head who was dating the lead guy's daughter. Anyway, I think there's something wrong with the world where pubic hairs on camera can cause people's heads to explode. At most there could have been some small disclaimer about nudity on the back cover, and I'm guessing there probably was.
sharetrue... but seeing how this is the ONLY PG-13 movie that can boast a full-frontal shot... it's definitely a legit question.
sharemrscarecrow typed:
metal-head
No question about it.
shareThis movie, "Dreamscape," and "Sheena" are great examples of the MPAA working out the kinks of the new PG-13 rating in 1984. I just looked up their release dates, and they all came out the weekend of August 17, 1984. How 'bout that.
shareSheena was rated PG. The first PG-13 movies were Red Dawn, Dreamscape and The Woman in Red. The MPAA was more selective about applying the PG-13 in 1984. Most movies that would be an automatic PG-13 today got PGs in 1984.
Sheena (nudity), All of Me (sexual innuendos up the wazoo), A Soldier's Story (multiple uses of the "F" word) all were PGs. Even then I was amazed A Soldier's Story got a PG and not an R.
Human Beings...Wowshare
I think "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was the very first movie to get a PG-13 rating.
"I'll bet you never smelled a real school bus before"
I'd forgotten "Sheena" was PG, not PG-13. Imagine seeing that with your parents as a "family-friendly" film.
"The Temple of Doom" was rated PG, as were "Gremlins" and "Ghostbusters," but "Temple" and "Gremlins" definitely led to the PG-13 rating being created. Even "Return of the Jedi" a year earlier contained a special warning about the intensity of its violence, I think, so the MPAA was probably already contemplating a new rating. And let's not forget the nightmarish images contained in the climax of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in '81, or "Poltergeist" in '82.
rwcass typed:
I'd forgotten "Sheena" was PG, not PG-13. Imagine seeing that with your parents as a "family-friendly" film.
technically the first to 'receive' a pg-13 rating was "The Flamingo Kid", but the first to be rated pg-13 that was in theaters was "Red Dawn".
shareI think "Ghostbusters" should have gotten a PG-13 but that didn't exist yet. My rating reasons would be: sci-fi/fantasy action violence, some strong language, and sexual humor and references.
shareRaiders of the Lost Ark was originally rated R but Spielberg added some smoke effects to the exploding heads sequence at the end, and got a PG.
Poltergeist was also rated R but (I think) re-rated PG on appeal. No cuts were made (but I could be wrong).
Jaws, I think, was R as well. Spielberg did some editing to get the PG.
Most movies that were PGs in 1984, when PG-13 was created, would be PG-13 today. Even "Splash," the first Touchstone release, would get a PG-13 for nudity. And Romancing the Stone--who can forget the alligator scene at the end?
Human Beings...Wowshare
The Flamingo Kid is generally accepted as first "rated" PG-13 movie, but not the first released, due to a studio delay.
sharei can confirm through literally thousands of attempts to pause my betamax machine - we've got bush - to steal a line from ROTN....
I was only 11 at the time...
mark this down as the only pg or pg-13 movie that ever did.
"i can confirm through literally thousands of attempts to pause my betamax machine - we've got bush - to steal a line from ROTN....
I was only 11 at the time...
mark this down as the only pg or pg-13 movie that ever did."
Wrong.
John Hughes' Sixteen Candles had completely non-accidental full body female nudity, profanity, drug use, and the climax was a rape...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088128/board/nest/143191806
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088128/board/nest/180436349
About a year ago I was going back down childhood memory lane, Sixteen Candles crossed my mind, and I had to admit I had to check out IMDb to convince myself this indeed was just a PG movie at the time.
But I went back and checked out Woman In Red. It will be interesting if this ever is released in 1080p Blu-ray, as watching closely, well, not only can spot the obvious bush...
But you can ever make out some meat curtains!
well... a couple of issues with the response...
first... the full-frontal shot is at an angle where it's basically just topless..
second... I've got some issue with the last scene being "and the climax was a rape"...
both parties were drunk.. she claimed to have remembered and enjoyed it the next morning.... I think it's a bit of an unfair criticism... I mean it's easy to say that and of course many will coming running in agreement, but think about how many rapes we have if we consider that rape.. hard to say it's non-consensual when they wake up in the morning, kiss, and start a relationship. *I MEAN SHE'S THE ONE THAT CONFIRMS THAT THEY DID IT BECAUSE HE doesn't remember*!!!! Not to mention we have nothing deep into the wee hours of the night in terms of movie... you figure the party ended at what time? midnight-ish... hits the town and takes the photos around 1am...?,.,, then they wake up at 9:30-10:00... who's to say how many hours went by... they could have had sex at 6AM and she could have been more coherent than he was by that time... just sayin'
besides Ted's actions and personality just doesn't fit the insinuation... he's too shy to be like that.. he actually shows genuine concern for her well-being in all of those scenes.. maybe he shouldn't have had sex with her... BUT character-wise... SHE would have been the aggressor... let's just say he wasn't drinking anymore...*even though he seemed like he was just starting to drink*... the martini and two-three beers on screen after jake saved him from being under the table... maybe he didn't 'fight her off' to stop her from making a move on him, but character-wise she would have been the aggressor... she was experienced - he was a virgin.
don't get me wrong... i have an intimate understanding and true sensitivity towards the subject, but always get a little bent when people say this about this film.
Actually I agree it should've been rated R. Know why? Let's just say at the end when Kelly LeBrock's character finds out her better half comes home, we find out the carpet matches the drapes. Couldn't put it any other way.
share[deleted]
no way....PG-13 films should be allowed full frontal nudity....more graphic nudity should be in the R like seeing her .......instead of just pubic hair.
shareThe quick shot of bush, and it was quick, should not warrant an "R" IMO.
shareI watched this movie again yesterday, the last time I watched it was when I was about 12 and I didnt even notice the beaver shot, it is very brief.
There are a lot of F words in one scene however.
I'm sure it WOULD be rated R today, but it shouldn't be. We need to scale back the ratings to that family stuff gets a G instead of PG, and PG-13 actually means there is mature content. I was just old enough to see this when it first came out and it didn't warp me at all.
Believe it or not, ratings in the early 80's made more sense than they do now. We're a bunch of freaks now.
The thing that surprises me is they left the obvious shot that everyone's referring to that would've given this an R today in since it was pretty clearly an accident (or at least unintentional.) I can think of two explanations: Either they didn't want to go through the trouble of reshooting and Kelly LeBrock didn't think it was that big of a deal, or Kelly LeBrock developed an exhibitionist streak and WANTED to leave it in (and possibly even let it happen on purpose.)
shareDo you really think children need to be protected from a glimpse of a female human body? Better keep 'em away from art museums.
"The truth 24 times a second."
Swimming pools and beaches too.
share"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins" were the films that proposed the PG-13 rating. They were released PG with disclaimers saying "This film may be too intense for younger children." A few months later, "The Flamingo Kid" was indeed the first film to be rated PG-13, but the film got shelved and wasn't released until December '84. So, "Red Dawn" was the first PG-13 film to be released.
But actually, "Return of the Jedi" was what really sparked the MPAA into thinking about another rating. "Jedi" also carried that "too intense" disclaimer. And I remember some news shows saying that "Jedi" was more violent this time around.
-UJ
http://www.swapadvd.com/index.php?n=1&r_by=JJC
SWAP YOUR DVDS at swapadvd.com.
Actually "Poltergeist" and "Gremlins" got the MPAA thinking about the PG-13. In fact I heard "Poltergeist" WAS R rated but Spielberg appealed the rating and won. "Indiana Jones..." WAS way too extreme for the PG but not strong enough for an R. The same applies to this movie. Really--was the quick female nudity at the enough to give this an R? I don't think so. My sister saw it when she was 12 and she didn't grow up to be a sex addict or homicidal maniac! In fact she found the film "silly" and "stupid". She never even commented on the nudity.
shareNo. Absolutely no.
shareIt was the pulling out of the heart that inspired the PG-13 rating in Indiana Jones.
I think movie ratings are a joke. But even worse is when they try to list why with all the lame reasoning. Mild Violence? Yawn. That just means there's fighting. What f* *king prude needs to know that????
What f* *king prude needs to know that????
Saw IV (2007):
Rated R for sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture throughout, and for language
Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty woids! That's what this war is all about!
[deleted]