Page 2 of 7
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:30 pm
by MichaelB
The British equivalent of the PG-13 is the 12, and this is what's officially permissible:
Theme
Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers.
Language
The use of strong language (eg 'fuck') must be infrequent. Racist abuse is also of particular concern.
Nudity
Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context must be brief and discreet.
Sex
Sexual activity may be implied. Sex references may reflect what is likely to be familiar to most adolescents but should not go beyond what is suitable for them.
Violence
Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated.
Imitable techniques
Dangerous techniques (eg combat, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on imitable detail or appear pain or harm free. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised.
Horror
Sustained moderate threat and menace are permitted. Occasional gory moments only.
Drugs
Any misuse of drugs must be infrequent and should not be glamorised or instructional.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:04 pm
by fiddlesticks
Sounds like the typical British 12-year-old has a far more interesting life than I do.
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:36 pm
by Cold Bishop
Belmondo wrote:as long as you don't get naked, say "fuck" and then do it.
... while wearing a hood.
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:42 am
by margot
You can get away with whatever you want in a PG-13 movie it just depends which movie it is, remember Titanic?
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:32 pm
by colinr0380
I couldn't resist mentioning a brilliant example of casual smoking from a film I've just caught on television,
Three Came Home from 1950. The film opens with the family doctor coming to tell our heroine that she is about to have a child - in the very same sentence that he is congratulating her on her pregnancy he pulls out and offers her a cigarette, which Claudette Colbert casually declines. Ah, those were the days!
I wonder how well that would go down now?
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:35 pm
by tryavna
colinr0380 wrote:The film opens with the family doctor coming to tell our heroine that she is about to have a child - in the very same sentence that he is congratulating her on her pregnancy he pulls out and offers her a cigarette, which Claudette Colbert casually declines.
He's a doctor and therefore an authority figure. Therefore, we should automatically assume he knows what he's doing and have faith in him. This is the 1950s after all. Golly gee whiz!
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:49 pm
by miless
see, the 50's really were like Leave it to Beaver. Doctors gave pregnant patients cigarettes and those children were all brain-damaged morons. The Republican's are right! We need to go back in time.
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:09 pm
by fiddlesticks
colinr0380 wrote:I couldn't resist mentioning a brilliant example of casual smoking from a film I've just caught on television,
Three Came Home from 1950. The film opens with the family doctor coming to tell our heroine that she is about to have a child - in the very same sentence that he is congratulating her on her pregnancy he pulls out and offers her a cigarette, which Claudette Colbert casually declines. Ah, those were the days!
I wonder how well that would go down now?
My favorite example of this is from
The Day the Earth Stood Still. Three doctors have examined Klaatu and are marveling at his excellent health and longevity, all while lighting up. Doctor #1 observes that the life expectancy on Klaatu's planet is 130 years, then while he is handing a cigarette to Doctor #2, he observes that "their medicine is that much more advanced." Indeed!
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:38 pm
by MTRodaba2468
You got 10 out of 10 correct.
You are rated NC-17. Your tastes are not shared by everyone, but your refusal to be censored — and your fearless embrace of complicated sex — should be applauded. Bravo!
The funny thing is that I haven't seen some of the movies they used...
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:51 am
by Antoine Doinel
The
cigarette scare hits the other side of the Atlantic.
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:33 am
by colinr0380
It is probably just my contrariness but I found reading that article almost made me want to take up smoking more than any supposed glamour from watching movie stars lighting up! Just as I always eat an extra 'protest' cake or biscuit whenever a body fascist is on television talking about bringing everyone's weight down! (My motto: "It's the scrumptious way to break the law!") Considering the recent fascination with that subject there's no wonder I'm getting a little overweight!
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:58 pm
by Antoine Doinel
An
interview with the head of the Classification and Rating Administration (a separate, but affiliated portion of the MPAA). My favorite part is this:
Graves was hired after someone she met at a party recommended her as a person of good judgment.
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:08 pm
by flyonthewall2983
MTRodaba2468 wrote:
You got 10 out of 10 correct.
You are rated NC-17. Your tastes are not shared by everyone, but your refusal to be censored — and your fearless embrace of complicated sex — should be applauded. Bravo!
The funny thing is that I haven't seen some of the movies they used...
Got 8 out of 10 right.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:58 pm
by domino harvey
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:41 pm
by colinr0380
By the 1940s, the tobacco companies were sponsoring popular radio shows featuring the stars relaxing on set and talking about subjects as diverse as their new film and their favourite brand of cigarettes.
"You know Lauren, that cigarette I gave you is a Lucky Strike," Jack Benny told Lauren Bacall, the guest on his radio show in the first week of 1947, during the filming of To Have and Have Not.
"I know and it's my favourite brand, too," replies Bacall. "They're so round ... so firm ... so fully packed ... so free and easy on the draw."
Phew! *loosening collar and mopping brow* Did it just get hotter in here?
Re: MPAA Changes Film Ratings Rules
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:31 am
by Antoine Doinel
The American Medical Association Alliance gets upset with Warner Brothers for showing packs of American Spirits in
He's Just Not That Into You, even though one of the main characters of the film leaves her husband because he lied about quitting smoking.
Re: MPAA Changes Film Ratings Rules
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:41 am
by knives
Maybe that should go into the ridiculous reviews forum.
Re: MPAA Changes Film Ratings Rules
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:34 pm
by Jean-Luc Garbo
I'm with knives - that's utterly ridiculous. Next thing you know, it'll be a crime to show McDonalds in a movie! Or overweight people at all in a movie. Unless they're being mocked, of course. Sometimes I wonder where my moral compass - to say nothing of my self-righteous streak - would be were it not for Hollywood.
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:57 am
by MyNameCriterionForum
Ropes of Silicon wrote:Today's MPAA ratings deliver one of the most interesting updates to date and not because of the rating but because Terrence Malick's long delayed The Tree of Life has an MPAA rating and instead of listing Apparition as the distributor it lists Cottonwood Pictures, Inc., which is actually the production company.
I put a phone call into the MPAA and they were able to confirm this is Malick's picture, it is finished in terms of music, effects, etc. and it was screened for the Ratings Board within the last of couple of weeks.
Wait a minute, PG-13!?
Fuck that shit, Malick, you promised us a HARD R!
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:53 am
by CrazedCollector
MyNameCriterionForum wrote:Wait a minute, PG-13!?
And you just gotta love the MPAA's descriptor here: "
For some thematic material."
MPAA descriptors practically outline other movies - indeed, usually films they rated R or PG-13 - but in this case, they hold back. Infuriating.
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 6:57 am
by knives
That reminds me of the funniest rating descriptor I've read recently. On Tabu they list the rating as being due to natural nudity. Now I'm curious what unnatural nudity looks like.
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:06 am
by John Cope
My favorite recent one was for Alice in Wonderland which was rated PG for, among other things, a smoking caterpillar.
When I read that I thought, "Well, at least it wasn't a human centipede".
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:25 am
by MyNameCriterionForum
Call me crazy, but I'm not expecting too much ass-to-mouth in Tree of Life.
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:42 am
by willoneill
knives wrote:Now I'm curious what unnatural nudity looks like.
Fake boobs?
Re: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 2010)
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 11:48 am
by tajmahal
