MovieChat Forums > The Tempest (2011) Discussion > How can a film with nudity be a pg?

How can a film with nudity be a pg?


It says that it is a PG because of nudity, suggestive content etc. How can a film with nudity be a pg?

reply

learn to read, it's rated PG-13

reply

Anyway the only nudity is Ariel, and the few times you see his whole body he is tied up in a knot. It is also not sexually related at all. He just happens to have no cloths.

reply

actually he's not just curled up... when Ariel turns into the black harpy he's seen to have....women's breasts... didn't notice it when I watched it on bluray but at the second viewing when it aired on the BBC today.

reply

yep watched it too on bbc lol

reply

You learn to read, its PG in england

reply

nobody cares about a spec of an island nation dwarfed in population on its own continent unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the world.

reply


@kanaric1 Not true. I'm a nobody (from the US) and I care about that island nation. Just the performances of their actresses alone tell me that the nation is something to care about.

Similarly for Australia and New Zealand.


reply

God Save the Queen!

"I am the equal and opposite reaction!" -Unknowntyper-

reply

If you're a nobody, and you care, I'm pretty sure you're agreeing with kanaric there.

reply

LOL

reply

LOL indeed! Seems this is normal behavior on IMDb. Just today someone tried to insult me by agreeing.

reply

If no one cares, why are you on the forum for a play written in said country?

reply

"nobody cares about a spec of an island nation dwarfed in population on its own continent unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the world."

What childish drivel.
Grow up.

reply

"nobody cares about a spec of an island nation dwarfed in population on its own continent unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the world."

What childish drivel.
Grow up.

What a humorless putz. I'd suggest you work on that.
I certainly didn't take such an over-the-top, excessively elaborate put down seriously. Next time, notice those two aspects of a comment, and consider the possibility they're not really all that serious.

In other words, when someone is pulling your leg, don't rip it off and beat them over the head with it yourself in response.

LOLOLOLOLOLLLLZ

============================================

In response to the OP question, a lot of girls in bikinis bouncing on trampolines but never actually showing anything might get a "PG" for nudity, etc. It largely depends on the intent. You might find a bare ass in a movie if it's not done in a sexual way, and isn't really gratuitous.

Further, the standards change with time. As I noted in another thread -- There's a 1976 movie, "Embryo", with Rock Hudson in it. Barbara Carerra is nude in it quite a bit, as I recall, for a PG movie (this was prior to the invention of "PG-13", mind you)

reply

How many people can we put on our ignore list? I have a feeling I will be adding 3 or 4 idiots to it right now.

Ahh...the schizophrenics and their keyboards. Yes it's time - go pop another pill kids.

reply

And people care about American only because they are worried about how fat and greedy most of the population is?

reply

The fact you know it is an island must make you a Mensa candidate where you are from.

reply

Which perhaps illustrates the cultural differences between the two countries. In the US, any nudity would get at least a PG-13. But in the UK the context and what that 'nudity' actually reveals is considered in the decision.

Is one right over the other. Perhaps but then again, who are we to cast a judgement on other cultures and countries and how they judge things. After all, both can be cast in a negative light. The UK, we could say, are all pervs. The US, we could also say, are all uptight about the human body. Depends on how you want to play it.

reply

Context. Duh. If it's not sexualised, and just an image of a naked human, that's no reason to bump up the rating. Would you ban children from going to art galleries because of paintings and sculptures of nudes?

reply

Sadly, Fred-889, there are plenty of reprehensible bastards that would keep a child out of a museum because of the nudes.
-------------------------------------------
If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.

reply

I like eggs


YouTube MySpace, and I'll Google Your Yahoo.

reply

Sadly, Fred-889, there are plenty of reprehensible bastards that would keep a child out of a museum because of the nudes.


That just messes up the natural progression of sex education
1) Art museums
2) The Sears Catalog
3) National Geographic
4) Playboy

"Oh Yeah, life goes on..."

--John Cougar


Ive lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rios Song

reply

Of course, everyone knows that kids will end up going to Hell if you let them see nekkid people.

reply

i've got nothing against it, i just was wondering.

reply

It's just an androgynous man's bum, something they show quite frequently on British television from what I understand. No biggie. Even in the US they are doing this more and more these days.

My vote history: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248

reply

There are people who blow up museums because they depict people at all. Seems like it's a thing.

reply

Because you are in a country (or if you are not from the UK you at least back tracked your original statement because you actually did misread PG for the US rating) which is not supposed to be as uptight about nudity, so why don't you drop it? It's rated G in Japan. What others have said, about the context, is correct. It is not smut, it is Shakespeare, and I sincerely hope you do not think nudity is inherently sexual.

Not to mention the overall subjectivity of these ratings is garbage to begin with, but that's another story entirely.

reply

Context.

reply


Torture is fine... but.. a gosht nude.... IS SO WRONG.... (?!?!?)

Oscar
Hablo mejor español :)

reply

Doc Hollywood (Michael J Fox, Julie Warner, Bridget Fonda) opens with a full frontal nude of Warner dripping wet from a swim. PG.

reply

Yeah...it get´s worse in Americanistan every day. One uncovered nipple and they freak out like Talibans under a christmas tree.

reply

It really is perplexing and disturbing, the (apparently) predominant American views regarding nudity and sex. Particularly telling is the glib term "sex and violence" - as though to imply that sex and violence are somehow equivalent in any fashion, let alone to be lumped together as "reprehensible" things as the term is almost universally used.

There are exceptions of course, but by and large in American cinema since about the mid-80s at the first sight of a female nipple or totally unobscured bottom, the movie gets an "R" rating. Meanwhile, pretty darn graphic violence only sets a movie to "R" if it's just persistent and very in-your-face. Mass murder with gunfire is PG territory, not even PG-13.

It's insane to think that the sight of a naked human body - particularly in a simple "it makes sense for this actor to be nude at this moment in the film" fashion instead of graphic, pointless sex fashion - is somehow more damaging to a person than watching maiming and killing.
People don't get PTSD from having a robust sexlife, but many soldiers returning from war do.

Nudity and sex are intrinsic, healthy parts of life. The crazy puritanical bent of many Americans, particularly policy makers and people in other positions of power, is disturbing. Other countries laugh and shake their heads at it.

reply

Nudity in this case is not sexual so PG is fine

reply

Strange, I was expecting a thought provoking discussion on the merits and faults of nudity in contemporary films.

I guess I'll start said discussion...

The film rating in the U.S. are concocted by an arbitrary organization known as the Motion Picture Association of america (MPAA). This ordinarily draconian organization is made up of an tightly knit, highly secretive group of hand sellected raters. The goal of the organization has been to ensure that American morality is maintained by way or ratings. For example, they typically place "R" and "NC-17" ratings on films depicting homosexual kissing, and "PG-13" ratings on films depicting graphic violence and torture. It is indeed surprising that they would rate a film featuring MALE nudity PG-13.

I'm guessing that the ratings in the U.K. are somewhat less nude phobic. Still, I do wonder why violence is so acceptable to American audiences, while nudity is something we want to shield people 13 and older from.

reply

Because unlike America, we don't think that skin can kill or harm people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A man who does not spend time with his family can never be a real man."

reply