Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PG-13 Rating Turns 20

CowboyNeal posted about 10 years ago | from the microwaved-green-monsters dept.

Movies 321

Ant writes "CNN has a story about the 20 year anniversary of PG-13 and how it was created/born from two of Steven Spielberg's movies. (Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom and Gremlins)" Oh, Mola Ram and your heart-removing antics, little did you know the profound impact you would have.

cancel ×

321 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Enforcement... (5, Insightful)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083285)

I realize the importance of having a rating that differentiates between a kid's movie and one for young adults, but as a non-parent I look on it with contempt. Ever since the R rating begun to be widely enforced, studios have toned down violent films so they can still have a chance at making money from the younger market. For example: I might actually have gone to see the recent Alien vs. Predator film had it been rated R, but since it was PG-13, I decided to wait until I can rent it. Enforcement of the ratings system, and the studios' response to it, has dealt the death blow for true horror/action films, because studios must now focus on making higher quality products for a more discerning audience if they want to make profit and carry the R rating. Instead they choose to neuter their movies and add some more special effects and popular cliché to entice the kids.

I'm not suggesting that just because a movie is rated PG-13 that it is, by default, a bad movie. What I am suggesting is that continuations of previously successful films, and modern horror/action flicks will never be what we all remember them to be. We will never see truly cheesy and senselessly bloody movies like Evil Dead ever again.

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls, this [adirtyshamemovie.com] one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.

Re:Enforcement... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083308)

How did you type this and still get a first post?

Re:Enforcement... (5, Funny)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083344)

How did you type this and still get a first post?
I' a subscriber baby, I was read it, the link to CNN, and had a response typed in word 10 minutes before it was live.

God I need a life.

Re:Enforcement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083510)

A /.'er reading the FINE article?

I don't buy it :)

Re:Enforcement... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083545)

I' a subscriber baby, I was read it, the link to CNN, and had a response typed in word 10 minutes before it was live.

And look at him being all proud of having wasted money on Slashdot...

Jesus, you *pay* to see an article 10 minutes before everybody else, have a little star next to your nickname, and have the pleasure of posting first in a thread, right up there with the "frist psot" and GNAA retards (who apparently can post just as fast as you and for free).

If that doesn't scream "I've too much disposable income", I don't know what does. Give your money to a charity instead, and help the poor and hungry with your free money, maybe you'll feel a little less dumb later in your life.

Re:Enforcement... (4, Insightful)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083603)

No, it's about supporting someone or something that deserves it. Beides, everyone is just as guilty as me when it comes to blowing $5 sometime in your life.

Then again, $5 might be high-ballin for you, in which case I apologize for making light of your econimic status.

see the *? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083357)

*

missed the * (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083556)

blah blah blah stupid cat got your freaking tounge

Re:Enforcement... (1)

ThreeE (786934) | about 10 years ago | (#10083597)

Here's an idea -- stop obsessing over frost piss.

Showgirls decent? (1)

scheme (19778) | about 10 years ago | (#10083387)

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls

Showgirls is not a decent movie. The only real question is whether it's just horrible or whether it's so bad that it's passable as camp. I don't think any of the principals associated with it really want to be associated with it anymore.

Re:Showgirls decent? (2, Interesting)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083418)

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls

Showgirls is not a decent movie. The only real question is whether it's just horrible or whether it's so bad that it's passable as camp. I don't think any of the principals associated with it really want to be associated with it anymore.
It's definately camp. Some blame it for destroying Elizabeth Berkley's career, but I blame Saved by the Bell for that. It did wonders for Gina Gershon's though. Oddly enough, she gained a large homosexual following from it. Don't ask me why.

Re:Showgirls decent? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083596)

Oddly enough, she gained a large homosexual following from it.

Possibly because she played a lesbian in Showgirls and Bound, among other movies?

Re:Enforcement... (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 10 years ago | (#10083391)

Nah, your real problem is with the movie studios. Basically, they stopped making plots in, what, '86 or so? With the rare exception of a "Memento" here or a "Requiem For A Dream" there, you can limit your watching to only movies made prior to the late '80s without missing a single thing.

PG-13 came around about the same time as the studios simply gave up trying. It has nothing to do with making movies teen-safe, and everything to do with the tactic also commonly seen in corporate board rooms: saying to hell with the future, let's see how much junk we can shove out the door on the cheap today before our customers abandon us.

Give PG-13 a break. If anything, it let studios add the occasional adult element to otherwise-PG movies while still allowing the chilluns to see them. Yes, current movies suck, but that has nothing to do with revamping the ratings system.

Re:Enforcement... (1)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083521)

I agree completely. What's happening with modern films is the studios' response to the enforcement of the R rating.

On a side note, Rules of Attraction [imdb.com] is the only decent drama I've seen on this side of the century. If anyone knows of any other recent thought provoking films, please post them.

Re:Enforcement... (5, Insightful)

huchida (764848) | about 10 years ago | (#10083574)


Nah, your real problem is with the movie studios. Basically, they stopped making plots in, what, '86 or so? With the rare exception of a "Memento" here or a "Requiem For A Dream" there, you can limit your watching to only movies made prior to the late '80s without missing a single thing.


People keep saying this, but I don't buy it. We have a collective ability to remember the classics and forget all the crappy movies made throughout the years and think things used to be better. They weren't. They've made shitty hack movies since day one. Sequels aren't even anything new, look how many third-rate sci-fi and detective series have been produced throughout the years. I'll give you that the major studios put out some great stuff in the '70's, but that was a fluke-- before then, it was much the same as it is now.

The truth is, people want the crap. A good movie can do pretty well and find an audience-- look at, say, Donnie Darko-- but the majority want their Alien Vs. Predator. They want to forget their troubles and watch special effects, not be asked to think. And you can give AvP a scathing review, and their friends will tell them it sucked, and they'll still go to see it. If the audience truly hungered for better movies, there would be more of them.

There are good movies being made, by the way. Thanks in part to both DVD potential and the explosion of low-cost digital editing, idependent filmmaking is stronger now than ever. And it's actually possible to make something great on a shoestring budget with no studio backing or big names and get it seen. That was much, much harder to do as recently as fifteen or twenty years ago.

Re:Enforcement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083405)

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls, this one looks promising. I saw the trailer for it the other day.

The last decent NC-17 movie was "A Clockwork Orange". I've heard "Lolita" was also pretty good.

Re:Enforcement... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083629)

What about "The Bad Lieutenant" or "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" ? Both are fine NC-17/X films made after "A Clockwork Orange".

Re:Enforcement... (1)

ElForesto (763160) | about 10 years ago | (#10083413)

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls

You mean the movie that is sold in a package making fun of itself? Right.

Re:Enforcement... (2, Insightful)

huchida (764848) | about 10 years ago | (#10083475)

It's not necessarily PG-13's fault. It's the market. Studios know they'll make more releasing a movie for the widest range of audiences. If there wasn't a PG-13, movies like Alien Vs. Predator would be butchered further down to PG. Or not be released at all.

At least we have DVD now, so movies hacked up to get the tamer rating can release "unrated" versions with the lost footage intact (in fact, the unrated versions drive up sales, consumers are much more inclined to buy a movier they're already seen when they're promised new gory or sexy footage.)

Of course, it's much easier for kids to get ahold of an unrated or R-rated DVD to repeatedly watch in the privacy of their own home... But that's another matter.

Re:Enforcement... (1)

Laur (673497) | about 10 years ago | (#10083531)

So you're saying that since PG-13, movies have declined in quality from Evil Dead?

The mind boggles.

Re:Enforcement... (1)

Izago909 (637084) | about 10 years ago | (#10083575)

You should read the comment [imdb.com] on the IMDB site. He sums it up very well. It's not as much the quality, as it is the complete campiness and cult following it's gained because of the directors methods. Please keep in mind the original rating was R, but was re-rated NC-17 in the early 90s.

Re:Enforcement... (2, Insightful)

stcanard (244581) | about 10 years ago | (#10083542)

That's not the fault of PG-13, it's the fault of executives who decide on a target market, then try to build a movie around it.

Making a movie, then deciding if it fits in G, PG-13, 14-Years, R, NC-17 is fine.

Declaring ("We need to make this movie PG-13" | We cannot afford to have a movie NC-17") "so cut it down until it fits" is the issue.

PG-13 is a root cause of bad films. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083543)

PG-13 is a root cause of bad films since very few films naturally have a PG-13 rating. Most films are are either child and fundamentalist reactionary safe (G), accessable to all but the youngest, most sensitive views (PG), primarily adult in nature (R) or completely adult in nature (NC-17). Only the rare coming of age yarn or serious teen drama naturally deserves a PG-13 rating.

Unfortunately, the greedhead suits realize that they make more money with a PG-13 flick than an R or PG flick so they mandate neutering an R rated film of anything edgy or adult (and not just nudity) or pimping up a PG film with gratuitous swearing or non-sexual nudity to get out of the PG rating. In either case, the quality of the film suffers.

Only Blockbuster video has had a more negative effect on the quality of film than the PG-13 rating.

And I wouldn't concider Showgirls a decent NC-17 film. ;) Try "The Bad Lieutenant" for an excellent non-pornographic NC-17 film -- just don't go to Blockbuster video, since they don't carry NC-17 anything.

Re:Enforcement... (1)

Dr. Mojura (584120) | about 10 years ago | (#10083550)

Also, if anyone hasn't heard of a decent NC-17 movie since Showgirls...

I've heard good things about Bernardo Bertolucci's The Dreamers [imdb.com] , though I haven't seen it myself yet. For what it's worth, Ebert & Roeper both gave it two thumbs up [go.com] .

FIRST FISH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083288)

OH YES, I AM A FISH!

Re:FIRST FISH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083421)

Dusted by a karma-whoring subscriber. How will you go on?

Re:FIRST FISH! (1)

AnonymousAtTheCowHer (808653) | about 10 years ago | (#10083526)

He _was_ the first fish.

So for 7 years... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083289)

PG13 has been able to watch itself.

Re:So for 7 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083381)

Soviet Russia was ahead of the curve here.

Re:So for 7 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083627)

http://lm.pleaseeat.us/?u=qat [pleaseeat.us] - Just like the internet?

You mean... (1, Funny)

genrader (563784) | about 10 years ago | (#10083290)

Indiana Jones wasn't G?

hey! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083297)

First post?

heartwarming antics... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083298)

hehehe

Woah (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083303)

Did anyone else think they were raising the allowed age for letting kids into a PG-13 movie to 20?

Or maybe 20 year olds could be naked now in a PG-13 movie.

Or... how old are the Olsen Twins again?

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

mepperpint (790350) | about 10 years ago | (#10083307)

I claim the first post! That means I get free copies of the first PG-13 movies, right? Yay! Temple of DOOOOMMM!! (worst Indiana Jones movie ever....)

Mola Ram's answer to this (0, Offtopic)

Man in Spandex (775950) | about 10 years ago | (#10083312)

Mola Ram: MOuuahahahahhaah
*roll over in a rock and dissapears*

Re:Mola Ram's answer to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083581)

Guess nobody remembers him rolling to hide in a rock, running away.

Misleading headline (5, Funny)

Will2k_is_here (675262) | about 10 years ago | (#10083316)

For a second there, I thought PG-13 was about to become PG-20!

Hooray (5, Funny)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | about 10 years ago | (#10083325)

CNN has a story about the 20 year anniversary of PG-13

In a related story... nobody cares.

Shouldn't.... (0, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | about 10 years ago | (#10083420)

why is that funny? Shouldn't it be insightful?

The Funny thing... (2, Interesting)

ajiva (156759) | about 10 years ago | (#10083326)

The funny thing is that actor that plays Ram was a popular Indian actor that played villian roles. His lines were all in Hindi, and not gibberish. Something about "Black mother" if I remember correctly.

Yes, it is Hindi. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083622)

I happened to see it about two weeks ago. And yes, I am an Indian and I was disgusted to see how they have portrayed us Indians! Monkey-brain dessert? Majority of Indians are vegetarians, for Lord Krishna's sake!

Revisionist history (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083328)

The article talks about how it was adopted and loved and all that when for a long time - even after Indiana Jones and such - it was the No Man's Land of ratings. Teens could still get in to R movies, while parents wouldn't want to take younger kids to PG-13 movies. I'm not sure where they came up with this tripe of a story. Then again it seems to be an RIAA press release gifted to them by CNN so it's understandable that it's full of shit.

Oops! Re:Revisionist history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083427)

I meant MPAA press release, of course.

It really means nothing (5, Interesting)

greypilgrim (799369) | about 10 years ago | (#10083338)

What I don't get, is that the rating systems are inconsistent. Here in Quebec, most movies that are rated R elsewhere are rated PG-13. Take Hannibal for instance, I believe in the U.S. it was rated R, in Quebec it was PG-13 or maybe even PG-14, and in Brittish Columbia I think it was rated PG. How can anyone make sense of anything when the rating system is inconsistent? If you ask me, it's just a waste of time, completely meaningless.

Re:It really means nothing (5, Funny)

tntguy (516721) | about 10 years ago | (#10083363)

It's the exchange rate.

Re:It really means nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083407)

Its you crazy backwards french people.

go eat some poutine

Re:It really means nothing (1)

rbrinkman (681472) | about 10 years ago | (#10083450)

"If you ask me, it's just a waste of time, completely meaningless" Your new here, aren't you?

Re:It really means nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083456)

Hannibal was rated PG? Holy fuck!

It depends on jurisdiction (3, Informative)

Hamster Lover (558288) | about 10 years ago | (#10083479)

All the provinces in Canada have a movie review board that is empowered with determining a rating on all publically released movies. What one province will rate PG another might give 14A (think PG14, it's a Canadian thing).

Quebec and Canada in general, seem to have a more liberal ratings policy than their American counterparts. I had the same reaction when I was out for a movie in Texas and saw several movies rated "R" that were 14A back home in BC. Another difference that comes to mind is while the Canadian ratings system is mandated by provincal law, the American ratings system was a compromise created by the MPAA to stave off government censorship (if memory serves).

Something else to note is while in the U.S. the MPAA rating carries over onto the video release, the Canadian distributors apply a "Canadian Home Video" (or somesuch) rating that reflects the liberal Canadian ratings during the theatrical release. No province that I know of classifies home movies other than adult, thus the "Canadian Home Video" rating system.

Re:It depends on jurisdiction (1)

thermopylae300 (583506) | about 10 years ago | (#10083604)

American ratings system was a compromise created by the MPAA to stave off government censorship (if memory serves).

If my memory serves, it was actually the threat of boycott from civilian groups (mostly the conservative religious type).

Re:It really means nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083546)

No, what makes it utterly meaningless is the fact that because Hollywood makes so much money from selling merchandise to teens, what would normally have a higher rating turns into a PG-13 with a maycontainscenesoffictionalviolence tacked on the end of the advert, and us adults have to deal with a bunch of kids shouting and running around when we're trying to watch a film (no offense to the minors who actually know how to behave; I'm talking about the brats).

Re:It really means nothing (2, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | about 10 years ago | (#10083578)

For some PG-13 films, the use of English pushes them over the edge into R in Quebec.

Cowboi Kneal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083340)

Oh, Mola Ram and your heart-removing antics, little did you know the profound impact you would have.

What, did he make you hungry?

Mola Ram removed a heart? (4, Funny)

Radon Knight (684275) | about 10 years ago | (#10083346)

I guess that explains why Indy was so surprised when he said, "He's still alive!" Or why Short Round yelled, "Cover your heart Indy! Cover your heart!" during the bridge scene.

For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to, in the U.K. cut of Temple of Doom, the British censors refused to screen the movie without deleting the heart-removal scene, and the scene of Short Round being whipped, and maybe one or two other scenes. (The recently released Indy boxed set in the U.K. kept with the original theatrical versions, which pissed me off when I realised the difference.) As you might expect - and as I mentioned above - the heart scene was sorta crucial for making sense of a couple points of the movie.

Re:Mola Ram removed a heart? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10083454)

the British censors refused to screen the movie without deleting the heart-removal scene,

Makes you wonder how they can bear the MPAA

Re:Mola Ram removed a heart? (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | about 10 years ago | (#10083558)

Reminds me of -never- again watching Indiana Jones movies on the BBC ;)

I still remember tuning in, and 'sitting down' for the heartripping-bit (yes, i am sick ;) ) : Only to discover they just totally deleted it :D

And what was the first PG-13 movie??? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083347)

The fine brat-esque-pack Red Dawn.

For the record (2, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | about 10 years ago | (#10083458)

That anon post is exactly right - Red Dawn was not the first film to get a PG-13 rating (I can't remember which one was), but it was the first film *released* with a PG-13 rating. At the time, Red Dawn had more scenes of graphic violence than any other movie ever made.

MOD PARENT DOWN - REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083573)

He didn't RTFA

jack valenti can go [CENSORED] (4, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | about 10 years ago | (#10083352)

Why is this "knews" piece even relevant? CNN has a pro-MPAA, pro-RIAA, Valenti puff piece every couple days. You don't see a whole lot of well-rounded copyright discourse on the major media news outlets. (Gee, I wonder why...) CNN: We're tough on music fans. We like suing kids and grandmas. We equate infringement with theft. We are fair and balanced, too.

Re:jack valenti can go [CENSORED] (1)

Adam9 (93947) | about 10 years ago | (#10083569)

Get over it. [mpaa.org]

Re:jack valenti can go [CENSORED] (1)

GuyMannDude (574364) | about 10 years ago | (#10083602)

You don't see a whole lot of well-rounded copyright discourse on the major media news outlets. (Gee, I wonder why...) CNN: We're tough on music fans. We like suing kids and grandmas. We equate infringement with theft. We are fair and balanced, too.

Quite some time ago (about the time the RIAA started cracking down) CNN had an interview with an RIAA rep on "Newsnight with Aaron Brown" in which Mr. Brown concluded by wishing the rep good luck on their hunt to bring the bad guys to justice. I sent an email to him through their website suggesting that his comment and the entire interview was anything but fair and balanced. He sent me a two-sentence response that was really depressing. Basically he equated me with his daughter (and if you've seen Aaron you'll know he's young enough that his daughter is most likely a teenie-bopper Britney fan) and said he was at a loss to see how someone could not see that this was theft. I sent him a reply that tried to explain things a bit more thoroughly and even gave him some suggestions for how to fit the opposing viewpoint into one of his interviews. I don't know whether he ever read my follow up message.

I don't still have copies of those emails but I did post it here on slashdot. Subscribers can probably go through my history and find my post to see what Mr. Brown's exact words were. Sorry I don't have the link.

The reason I bring this up is to emphasize that CNN's pro-MPAA pro-RIAA stance isn't just some corporate-mandated policy. Apparently at least one of the most senior newsmen also believe that the RIAA is doing the right thing.

What we really need is to get one of "our people" on one of these news shows and try to explain the p2p position clearly and concisely in a way that the public might have a chance of understanding. Don't know when that's going to be, though.

GMD

Removal of Heart? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10083354)

Oh, Mola Ram and your heart-removing antics, little did you know the profound impact you would have.

Hmm. Considering all the [Insert favorite analog here] around these days, you'd think this would be mandatory viewing for [Insert favorite socio/economic/ethnic/political group here]

Re:Removal of Heart? (1)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | about 10 years ago | (#10083565)

This looks entertaining. I'll try it.

"Hmm. Considering all the analog stereos around these days, you'd think this would be mandatory viewing for Waste Removal Technicians."

binary rating system (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 10 years ago | (#10083364)

Almost nothing gets a "G" or "NC-17", so most films are "PG-13" and "R". I think the Catholic ternary system was a little better in distinguishing movies: "A", "B" and "C"- children, adult(not naughty), and condemned.

Catholic ternary system? (2, Funny)

MexicanMenace (673792) | about 10 years ago | (#10083451)

Don't you mean SNT, PC and NPC?

SNT = Skirts & Ties
PC = Practicing Catholics
NPC = Non-practicing Catholics

Re:binary rating system (4, Interesting)

daveo0331 (469843) | about 10 years ago | (#10083617)

The problem is with the unintended consequences of the ratings system. In theory, there should be 5 different ratings (G, PG, PG13, R, NC17). In reality, the ratings start to take on meanings other than the ones they were intended to have. For example, G means "kid's movie" and NC17 means "sex" so studios deliberately avoid putting out movies that have these ratings. Sometimes this means adding an expletive or two for the sole purpose of getting the movie up to PG instead of G.

I've heard of the Catholic rating system. One thing they do that the MPAA doesn't is they look at how the sex/violence/whatever is portrayed and not just whether it exists. So if someone gets murdered, but the movie shows the consequences of violence rather than glorifying it, the Catholic system tends to take this into account. Of course, it's all based on the Catholic Church's idea of morality, so movies can also get nailed for things like showing unmarried couples living together, gay/lesbian relationships, etc.

They must be doing something right, though. I believe Gigli was rated "Offensive."

First PG-13 Movie (0)

rgarcia (319304) | about 10 years ago | (#10083367)

How many know what the first PG-13 movie that came out was?

...

Give up?

...

..

.

Red Dawn.

I'll always remember that for some reason. I was about 13 when it came out too.
It was about Russians taking over America (cold war days). Not too bad a flick for those times either.

Re:First PG-13 Movie (2, Funny)

Mikey-San (582838) | about 10 years ago | (#10083452)

I knew it! Know how I knew it?

. . .

Give up?

. . .

. .

.

I RTFA!

[antilamenessfilter!]

Re:First PG-13 Movie (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083477)

Congratulations!!

You've proven your intelligence on Slashdot!

Click here [ebaumsworld.com] to claim your prize!

MOD PARENT DOWN - REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083549)

Didn't RTFA

Background on Mola Ram aka Amrish Puri (2, Informative)

cOdEgUru (181536) | about 10 years ago | (#10083380)

Not many know the actor who played Mola Ram is a Bollywood actor who has the badguy act down to the dot. Some info on how this talented actor landed this role can be found here [indiainfo.com]

However the first time I saw Temple of Doom, I specifically didnt enjoy the manner in which Speilberg sought to portray the culture and traditions of India and Hinduism. Thanks to movie such as Temple of Doom, a big part of Western Hemisphere thought this sad portrayal was still true of India until the Indians started stealing their jobs :).

But heck, its a movie and though not as good as the other two, it is still enjoyable. I hope Speilberg and Ford gets around to making one more and I wouldnt complain if they threw Sir Sean in to the mold as well..

Mola Ram's sect was real -- look up Thugee (1)

Jonathan (5011) | about 10 years ago | (#10083440)

While many gurus like to suggest that Hinduism is all smiles and laughter -- it ain't so. Read about the Thugee [wikipedia.org] , who were particularly nasty worshipers of the Hindu Goddess Kali.

Yeah but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083585)

Wasn't that a really long time ago? (Besides Hinduism is a rather large umbrella, much like Christianity is).

I think the grandparent's point was that India isn't now like it was protrayed in that movie... or something.

Which is obvious. I mean, Indiana Jones did NOT take place recently. I would think everyone would know that India has advanced culturally since then...

Re:Background on Mola Ram aka Amrish Puri (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 10 years ago | (#10083442)

"Thanks to movie such as Temple of Doom, a big part of Western Hemisphere thought this sad portrayal was still true of India until the Indians started stealing their jobs."

Oh, puh-lease. Unless that was a joke, it ws inane.

PG-13 are worse than R's sometimes (0, Offtopic)

ddod (808590) | about 10 years ago | (#10083382)

I am suprised sometime at how much worse some PG-13's appear to be than some R's. It seems that many the the producer want to pack in as much crap as they can an still get the PG-13 rating. The maximum nudity, the maximum swearing, the maximum explicative, etc. Whereas most R's seem to get their rating simply from the content of telling there stories. I am abbout to swear off movies all together.

It's no hoax [65.75.157.200] . I normally don't go for these things but...Free ipods (click here to get yours) [freeipods.com] .

This is great! (1, Funny)

Arcanix (140337) | about 10 years ago | (#10083386)

As a concerned parent, I am very pleased that Indiana Jones himself came up with the PG-13 rating. Now that my oldest boy, Johnny, is 16 I'm thinking about letting him watch a PG-13 movie.

Re:This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083435)

omg, your child is gonna grow up to hate you... why won't you let him see a pg-13 movie when he is 13? heck, i was like 10 and seeing pg-13 movies without my parents. at 15 i was regularly seeing rated-R movies... man, parents these days. way to protective.

Re:This is great! (1)

-kertrats- (718219) | about 10 years ago | (#10083437)

You must be kidding. Your son is 16 and you don't let him see PG-13 movies? I'm 15 and let me tell you that that's just ridiculous. What possible reason could you have to shelter him like that?

Re:This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083547)

Duh. No parent really believes he or she is in control of the behavior of a teenage child. By 16 they've given up trying. Unless they are the 24 hour lockdown types, but they have bigger problems than what movies the kid sees.

Re:This is great! (2)

CypherXero (798440) | about 10 years ago | (#10083455)

Ha, you probably underestimate kids. He's probably already seen plenty of PG-13 and R rated movies, and he probably has seen pr0n at least once in his life. If he's 16 and hasn't done all 3, that's just sad. Parents suck at trying to be over-controlling. It just ends up having a negative effect on the kid later in life.

Re:This is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083535)

haha dude wtf are you talking about?

Re:This is great! (1)

JDWTopGuy (209256) | about 10 years ago | (#10083590)

This is great. Most replies took this seriously.

YOU NOT FAIL IT!!!!

Don't mod me up.

Oh, man (1)

CrkHead (27176) | about 10 years ago | (#10083394)

(Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom and Gremlins) Now I feel old

Movie ratings and trademarks (5, Interesting)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 10 years ago | (#10083422)

An interesting bit of movie rating history: when the MPAA brought out the original system (G/M/R/X), they trademarked the first three but not "X." Pornographers were thus free to use it, and it came to be associated with "pornography" instead of "adult content," requiring the creation of the "NC-17" rating years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated [wikipedia.org]

Re:Movie ratings and trademarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083488)

You can trademark single letters?

That's it... I'm trademarking all the vowels. Watch out, this will be bigger than SCO!

Re:Movie ratings and trademarks (1)

el-spectre (668104) | about 10 years ago | (#10083523)

Yup, hence "Urban Cowboy" was correctly X rated (while it contained some nudity, nothing approaching porn... it'd be a soft R now)... the only oscar winner with that rating :)

Re:Movie ratings and trademarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083544)

And the NC-17 rating failed all on its own, without the pornographers. The whole ratings system is terrible, where people being naked can very quickly land you in a category unable to advertise on TV or in newspapers but they're happy to let kids watch people beaten and murdered.

Misleading title.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083441)

Whew, for a second there I read that as PG-13 turns 20 (as in PG-20)..

PG-13 The best/worst thing to happen to movies.... (3, Interesting)

wobedraggled (549225) | about 10 years ago | (#10083448)

When it came out in the 80's it was the best thing to happen to movies. Youu could have a good humor flick with a flash of nudity and still have the teens go to see it. Now it's an excuse to make a half assed horror/thriller and tone it down enough to make them extra money. So many movies have been killed by this rating. Blah....

So, to sum up the article (3, Interesting)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 10 years ago | (#10083459)

Spielberg had the brilliant idea of adding a sub-rating to a 2-level rating system (making *gasp!* 3 levels), told it to his buddy Jack Valenti, who then asked their opinion to theater owners (who, as everybody knows, are reknown experts in pedopsychology) and implemented it.

The new sub-level then quickly became a marketting tool to capture more teenager money, effectively turning the whole rating system into a 2-level system again, since no filmmaker wants a PG rating anymore.

In short: *yawn*

One more year... (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | about 10 years ago | (#10083469)

and I can take it to a bar and have it buy me a beer. *snif* How time flies for our little ratings. :)

Other Speilberg Innovations (1)

korbin_dallas (783372) | about 10 years ago | (#10083508)

Lets not forget the other movie innovation from Speilberg...

Million Name Movies!

Credits that roll on and on for hours in type so small as to be indecipherable.

All of the violence, none of the nudity (0)

cuberat (549657) | about 10 years ago | (#10083509)

Anyone notice that PG-13 language and violence can be nearly R, while the sexuality is always closer to PG?

I can think of a single movie, the award-winning "National Lampoon's European Vacation," that is PG-13 but features an excellent though completely gratuitous topless scene.

Sad the trend didn't continue. American puritanism rears its head in the strangest places.

Re:All of the violence, none of the nudity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083607)

The fifth element had both violence and toplessness and a pg-13 rating.

PS. Lelu was hot

UK had 18, 15, PG, U (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083564)

Then at some point a 12 rating emerged, probably to match the PG-13 rating in the US, so we now have U (universal audience), PG, 12, 15 and 18 ...

It might be PG12 ... dunno ... i've forgotten now.

really, this is a non-story to be honest. someone worked out that OMG films can be bad for children but okay for young teenagers! OH WOW!

Comments on those two movies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083584)

I really didn't find the Indiana Jones movie to be all that shocking when I first saw it. It was just the buildup from the press that did it. As for the Gremlins, the scene where the head gremlin turns into a mortified skeleton because of the exposure to sunlight seemed a little bit much for what otherwise might have been mistaken for a kids film.

AVP (2, Interesting)

mrshowtime (562809) | about 10 years ago | (#10083600)

AVP is a prime example of abuse of the PG-13 rating by a major studio. AVP was shot as an "R" rated film, but the studio, at the last second, decided to cut the film to a PG-13, so the younger crowd could get into see it, and make more money. To me, they ruined the film by doing this. Thankfully, they did not cut Freddy vs. Jason to a PG-13, yet it still was the number one movie that week and made a lot of money. Hollywood has long since lost it's segregation in regards to ratings. Instead of making kid films, teenager films and adult films, the studios are making "all in one" films that just about everyone can see.

December 7, 1941 was not Fun 4 Kidz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10083605)

Okay, Alien, Aliens, Alien^3, and Alien 4 (aka Resurrection) were all rated R.

Predator and Predator 2 were also rated R.

Yet, they write Alien vs. Predator so that it ends up PG-13. WTF?

When did the "Predators" stop throwing hub-cap sized shuriken through people's heads? Why don't aliens evicerate like they used to? Cavities? And since when do people being chased by hordes of monsters curse "nicely"?

Is anyone else bothered by the recent trend of film-makers to dumb-down movies for the love of marketing and kid's meal toys?

This smells a lot like the Han Shoots First debate, which BTW, Maxim suspiciously left absent from their recent 5-page Lucas-lick (Sept 04). I will never buy their adazine again.

Yes, a flick can be scary (M. Night Shyamalan) or fun (Indiana Jones series) without an R- rating. But maybe when violence is a central element of the film, things should be left to the writer, and not the MPAA. PEARL HARBOR, anyone?

Game over, man.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>