MovieChat Forums > Hannibal (2013) Discussion > TV-14 Might As Well Be TV-MA/R Rated On ...

TV-14 Might As Well Be TV-MA/R Rated On TV

posted 7 years ago by DoctorModernMan
25 replies | jump to latest

There are a lot of PG-13 movies nowadays as it is the dominant mainstream rating that hits all the right demographics for big blockbuster hits without completely alienating both the young demographics who can't watch R-rated films and the older demographic who would rather not be seen watching "children's G/PG-rated" films. Yet on television, ratings seemingly work differently.

Now I'm sure I'm wrong due to the fact that it's impossible to see every film out there, but I do think that at least 75% of the big blockbusters out there would immediately be slapped with an R rating if they even tried to portray HALF the things in Hannibal on the big screen.

That's not a knock on the show as so far (I'm on Season 2) I think it's a terrific show. But I'm just exclaiming that apparently on television, you can be as violent as R-rated films so long as you exclude nudity and language and you'll get away with a TV-14 rating. And it's not just Hannibal... There are plenty of TV-14 shows that the MPAA would pucker their lips and snort at before slapping an R rating on it if it were a movie.

I mean, just think of the idea that Hannibal is considered to be in the same class as the extremely tame PG-13ish Star Wars The Force Awakens or Guardians of the Galaxy or Batman v Superman. It's just unfathomable.

Thoughts?

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] danloki 7 years ago

I think everyone was surprised/shocked how much NBC let Bryan get away with. I mean way back at the angel scene people were saying - wut? Flayed bodies are OK as long as you can't see their bums. Quite bizarre. I'm not knocking the gore either; I loved it. I just don't get the different censorship ratings in America. Nipples - bad. That horrific scene of *can't say incase you haven't seen it* - no problem.

[–] DoctorModernMan 7 years ago

I mean, an FBI agent getting sliced completely in half and the halves being distributed in thirds so we could see her complete insides - Beehives inside men with their eyes gouged out - men "crucified" on growing trees with their guts replaced by flowers.... Just a few in Season 2 that I've seen so far and all of them would have garnered an R rating without hesitation.

And I agree with you. I'm not knocking the gore. The show IS about a killer who guts and consumes his victims after all (played masterfully by Mads), so it's understandable the content. But the fact that it's TV-14 all because there's not really any nudity or language is a head scratcher for the ratings system's bizarre judgement.

How does it feel to be deconstructed?

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah, I found the fact that more blood and gore had to be added to the angels scene in order to cover up the top of the buttocks to be a hilarious representation of the inconsistencies of the MPAA rating system. Any type of nudity (even non-sexual) results in an automatic TVMA rating but blood and gore to the point of borderline-absurdity (season two has some great examples) is okay for a TV14 audience on network television. It's mind-boggling.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Considering the number of posters on the WW board whining about offensive nudity (of robots, no less) it must be a common hangup. What I found rather ludicrous was in The Secret Life of Pets the dogs don't have penises. What the???

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

I have not seen 'Westworld' but have heard wonderful things. I have heard a lot of complaining about the nudity though so you certainly have a point! And, really? I'm not so into animated movies so I didn't see 'Secret Life of Pets' but that's... strange. I don't know how that could be offensive at all; seems like it's more noticeable that nothing is there than if something would have been... I don't know. MPAA is certainly interesting

[–] danloki 7 years ago

WW is excellent. The nudity is completely sanitised apart from a blink and you miss it threesome, an orgy scene which was tastefully shot, and a rather well endowed guy that had guys on the board in an uproar. A female tech makes an admiring comment and it caused a melt down There's a scene of a woman riding a bot she has tied up to the bed, but you don't see anything except his torso and her naked backside when she opens the door. The rest of the nudity is clearly pointed out by Hopkin's character as a necessity so the techs working on them don't make themselves believe they're human. They're just regarded as livestock. Other nudity is full frontal scenes (very brief) of the bots in cold storage. For HBO it's very classy nudity, not the least bit porny, so I simply don't understand why some posters are so flipped out by it. I thought the best thing about it was the wide range of bodies and ages they used rather than skinny models and beefcake guys. Looks completely normal to me and just the sort of thing I would see on a nudist beach. One thing I thought would cause an uproar was a scene of one of the tech's screwing a switched off bot, but I guess because boobs and butts weren't on display it was ok to watch 'necro rape'.

My reaction to the lack of peens in Secret Life of Pets was 1. kids would realise that is just wrong or 2. wouldn't it freak them out when they get a pet and suddenly notice he has one? No testes was understandable because a point is made about desexing which I thought was very good.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah it's amazing what gets cut from children movies and shows, and what is put IN children's movies and shows. Crude jokes are considered to be fine (I guess they say it's adult humor and would go over the kids' heads) but everything (I'm talking animated here) must be desexualized. Amazing double standards. How have you been, Dan? It's been awhile! Happy New Year!

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Happy New Year, Philly🎇 It's been very hot and hideously humid here. I would kill for some snow right now. How about you?

I was reading something about that sausage movie on fb. Can't believe some parents are taking little kids to see that.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Just back to 'offensive nudes', currently there is a visiting exhibition from the Tate Gallery on Nudes through history. With so much stunning art work showcasing the human form, how on earth can some people find the human form hideous. I will never understand this. Many years ago I lived in Japan. There anything goes as long as there is no pubic hair. Seriously. I was watching Shirley Valentine at the movies and Tom Conti whole body sand legs arema and head was censored because the censor obviously couldn't decide where chest hair finished and pubic hair started. True Story. I also saw Prosperos Books with one of my students. I laughed and laughed when a mass nude scene underwater had all pubes pixelated.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Haha that's funny! And yeah, it's just one of those things I guess. Nowadays, anyone and everyone is offended by anything and everything. It's impossible to accommodate everyone, but I guess since so many are offended by nudity, it's something that people like to complain about; they think they'll have backup.
As for me, I'm pretty good! Delving into American Horror Story and Black Mirror now. It just snowed on the East Coast for the first time this year so that's been fun. Otherwise, not doing too much. Excited for the Bones final season which started last Tuesday.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Oh lol, I just noticed my typos. Apologies. My arm is in a cast and my typing is just getting so lazy.

Just started watching the latest season of Black Mirror. OMG. Nosedived horrified me, then the pedo episode, I almost threw up. That really upset me.

I'll swap you a sauna for an esky of snow.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah I watched the first episode of the latest season and thought it was enjoyable. I loved the British episodes though, especially 'White Bear.' That one really got me

[–] danloki 7 years ago

The social media aspect of the first one was a total freak out. I can totally see someone getting so addicted to 'likes'. Scary stuff. I said on the black mirror board most of my friends on fb are family, and so pleased my teen nieces and nephews don't get addicted to 'likes'.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah I know what you mean. It's scary looking at how close our society is to stuff like this. Everyone knows people that are addicted to social media and would do anything to get the most likes as possible. Really, really scary stuff.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

I said on that board that sometimes my nieces and nephews post photos at parties. Everyone is glued to their phone. What kind of party is that. I disconnected my fb and imdb accounts on my phone. I don't want to be standing in the queue at aldi and posting crap. I also don't post updates on fb. I only comment on other friends' posts. I can't stand the - oh look I'm having a soy decaff latte with smashed avocado on toast for breakfast photos. WTF? Or the incessant new baby photos. No one gives a poop. I think I'm about to get rid of fb - I'm being inundated with ads that have nothing whatsoever to do with my posts. Yeah, like I really need to buy a pair of men's scungy swimming trunks.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Haha this is exactly what I feel! I'm a '90s kid but just don't get the taking pics of food or any of that. I buy food, I eat food, I poop what used to be food, and the process repeats itself. In no instance does a phone become involved. That is one of my biggest pet peeves.
Same with baby pics - the first one is cute. The second one may be. The third one is meh. After that, it's just plain annoying.
Technology is wonderful until we end up like the protagonists in Black Mirror's 'Fifteen Million Merits.' Life becomes all but meaningless.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

I take photos of food in markets. You know, like being in an open area market somewhere exotic in the world and seeing produce I've never seen before, but I don't pull my camera out to take a photo of hipster smashed avo on rye and a coffee. That just seems ludicrous to me. And I don't post it to say Hey here I am in *insert exotic locale* to make all my friends jelly of my holiday. My husband is currently on a business trip in Israel. I asked him to take photos of the food he's describing, simply because I have no fking idea what he's saying and if he wants me to cook this food when he comes back on the weekend I need to know what it's called.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah I'm fine with stuff like that; exotic food is always interesting - that's why there are tv shows on exclusively about exotic food (to Americans, at least) and Man v. Food and all that.
There's just absolutely no reason to keep others updated on one's midnight snack. :)
I've never been one for exotic foods though. I suppose I should take the old advice and try some new things but I've always been someone who is comfortable with the same old, same old. I guess that makes me a somewhat boring person!

[–] danloki 7 years ago

That's not boring. It's just what you like and that's fine👍. I'm a foodie so I'm always looking for new things to cook, and I really like produce markets and the whole cultural experience, but I think the only food photo I ever posted on fb was of something I made at a cooking course in another country. Don't think I have ever posted a photo of a latte, or smashed avo, or a baby LOL. I saw someone the other day post a photo of herself obviously going to the toilet and photographing her cat who followed her in. What the??? I never take my phone to the toilet.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Taking pictures in the bathroom is just never necessary. So much can go wrong with a bathroom pic too ;)
I wish I had more of a passion for food. I'm more of a eat good food (normally meat) quickly type of guy!
I don't think I'll ever understand the appeal of sharing one's entire life with others. Privacy is so underrated these days. By taking a picture of food at a restaurant, a person can be saying they're not at home and, in a lot of cases, giving an actual location for themselves. Just seems so naive and unnecessary.

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Privacy is so underrated these days. By taking a picture of food at a restaurant, a person can be saying they're not at home and, in a lot of cases, giving an actual location for themselves. Just seems so naive and unnecessary.

Yeah exactly. It's one thing if they're on holiday. Totally different when they do it constantly in their home town.

As for bathroom or bedroom shots - good grief.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

True. Well it was nice talking to you! I'm sure we'll meet again on one of these boards! Stranger Things S2 is creeping up on us! Too bad about the news of Hannibal likely not coming back this year
:( Knew it was a long shot anyway but we can always hope!

[–] danloki 7 years ago

Great chat, matey👍I particularly find this topic fascinating, especially in this day and age, but gee we sure hijacked. Apologies to the OP.

Final hijack, let me know what you think of Westworld.

[–] Phillyfan099 7 years ago

Yeah sorry, OP!
I will have to check Westworld out sometime. Will keep you updated!

[–] IAM4UK-2 7 years ago

This show was the epitome of one made for "Mature Audiences." A theatrical release of several episodes would have been rated R, without any doubt. Aberrant behavior (cannibalism), strong bloody violence, gore.
what is the purpose of having these television ratings? It should be to allow broadcasters to show a wider range of content, with the implicit agreement with potential audiences and particularly parents of younger children that the broadcasters will provide meaningful information to help viewers discern the appropriateness of such content.
"Hannibal" was a well-produced, interesting, involving show. But NBC failed in their callous decision to rate it "TV-14" with an additional "Viewer Discretion" disclaimer. Just say it's "TV-MA," because it clearly was.