I am shocked that this move got a PG-13. The full frontal nudity is not a brief shot but is shown about 3 the times in a row and one shot lasting for about 10 seconds. Most PG-13 movies that show nudity only show a brief shot. And this was 1991. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with nudity but Doc Hollywood I think is a fun smart "FAMILY" movie.
shareI agree goodnyou100. It is very odd that this movie got a PG-13 rating. I wonder what was going through the members of MPAA's rating board. Maybe the writer or the director had bribed them.
share"I wonder what was going through the members of MPAA's rating board."
Perhaps an extremely contagious case of common sense!
In my opinion it`s absolute ridiculous that you even discuss MPAA rating for this movie because of this harmless 10 sec. scene.In the US they get mad when showing only nipples whilst in every second on TV hundreds of people are being shot,stabbed to death,tortured,raped.The double standards in the US are sick.
Mabye the members of the MPAA that saw Doc Hollywood in 1991 agreed with my oppinion.
[deleted]
If they agreed with your opinion they're irrational bc your conclusion is based on the "two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right fallacy." Having a double standard doesn't nullify morality.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Not so much a surprise to me since there are movies before this one to have an unusual rating. One Clint Eastwood's first films The Outlaw Josie Wales the film has a PG rating and it contains violence, murder, sex, nudity and rape.
shareModular... here is the deal. Yes the MPAA has it's flaws. But they have a job. It may be a double standard. I may not agree with them. But the simple fact is they are alive and kicking. I'm sorry if My FREEDOM OF SPEECH rights on a Message board bothers you. So what is this for? Topics only you deem appropriate? My point being about DOC HOLLYWOOD... at the time this was made the standards were much more stringent. The NUDITY and the use of the F word seemed to warrant an R rating. By 2008 standards it would have gotten a PG-13 no problem. I'm just referring to when this movie was made.
shareI think if anything standards for nudity were probably more relaxed back in 1991 than now. It's hard to imagine the MPAA being more uptight about nudity than it is now.
Besides, haven't you seen Titanic? That was PG-13.
...they get mad when showing only nipples whilst in every second on TV hundreds of people are being shot,stabbed to death,tortured,raped.
It's all in the context. This was a rural movie. Out in the country, we see a firm pair of bosoms like that and our only thought, male or female, is, "Why there's a fine source of nutrition for her young'uns."
It's not about sex. It's nutrition.
Honest.
[deleted]
I was a bit puzzled by that as well. Nowadays, they would probably take most of the nudity out and put it on the "unrated version" DVD.
But other than those (*wonderful*) shots of Warner, it was pretty mild, except for the "Vilula in the center pocket" bet between Ben and the Mayor, which could easily have been left out.
"You cannot erase God with an edict." - Rod Serling
Like esskayess, I think the overall sweetness of the movie needs to be taken into account. Doc Hollywood is otherwise fairly tame and to me, the scene doesn't really come across as crude or gratuitous or even sexual really. It's certainly not enough to warrant an R rating.
shareFirstly, there was no full frontal nudity in the theatrical showings. That is a side effect of the open-matte process used to make the full screen DVD release. The only thing shown in the theater was topless. Don't you think a 13 year-old has seen boobies before?
Secondly, PG-13 is not a "family" movie. That's what G is for. PG, PG-13 and R mean there may be objectionable material, you you don;t get to decide which type of material that might be.
[deleted]
Full Frontal Nudity? What You Talkin About Willis?
shareI'm not sure what Willis is talkin' 'bout either.
I've seen the Region 1 DVD and it's pan-and-scan, meaning (sadly) you see no more of Julie Warner than before. Maybe he's got an open-matte DVD from another region. Lucky him, I guess.
[deleted]
Oh, I assumed he was talking about some other instance of full frontal nudity during her walk up to Ben -- one that couldn't be seen if not for open-matte. I know that she is (possibly) exposed when she emerges from the water in that long shot, but I don't think there's enough resolution in a DVD to really see anything.
If that long shot is what the earlier post is talking about, then I don't see how that could have any effect on the film's rating.
[deleted]
Swedes are just as prudish about violence as Americans are about sex. Pick your poison.
shareI disagree. If I was a parent bringing my kid into a movie, I would want to know if there was full frontal nudity in it so as not to bring my kid to that particular movie.
This movie should have gotten a PG rating only if it didn't show the full frontal nudity. The scene could have been shot from Warner's arms up. The shot was put in there to titillate. If the filmmakers want to titillate, then they have to get a higher rating for their movie.
Yes, the MPAA is too lenient on violence, but what has that got to do with this movie? The filmmakers could have filmed the scene differently if they wanted to make a good family film. Apparently, they didn't care.
[deleted]
Regarding the nudity in Doc Hollywood, I think this film was PG-13 rated because at the time the PG-13 rating had only been around for 7 years (7/1/84). Most movie studios, directors and the MPAA at the time were unsure of what content in a film is enough to warrant a PG-13 rating. I can name about 100 films that instead of being PG, after July 1, 1984 would have easily received a PG-13 or R rating. Just look at All The President's Men (76)-multiple f words, Jaws (75)- intense frightening scenes, The Outlaw Josey Wales (76)- nudity, Poltergeist (82)- scenes of a frightening nature, Sixteen Candles (84)- language, nudity, and so on. Doc Hollywood, watching it today seems tame compared to how it was received in '91.
shareI assumed that 1) bc the plot is involving a doctor in a medically strapped town 2) it's michael j fox--who is overall considered a really 'goody two-shoes' vs the feel them up and sleep around type of actor.....somebody let that slide. the idea of him even having sex (even though he had kids!) seems so absurd in a movie plot.
share