2003 movie ratings releases breakdown R, PG-13, PG, G

[mrbass]

NC-17 (1)
R (646)
PG-13 (185)
PG (79)
G (29)

I hate movies that put a 30 sec sex scene which makes it R. So many people I know refuse to see R and miss a great movie but I blame the producers for throwing in uncessary filth. I mean heck if you're gonna show some T&A don't be shy about it and throw in a good 15 mins or more and let people get their money's worth. I know LOTR had to do extensive battle-scene editing to get their PG-13 rating. You didn't see a head getting chopped off quite like you did in The Last Samurai.

[windtrader]

What's a bummer about those numbers is they reflect how few titles come out that little kids can watch. 108 total for G and PG. Since the kids came along the HT is on a lot less at prime time in our house.

[Elephant]

Couldn't agree more!!! That's Hollywood for you. It's no wonder society is going where it is... look what kind of diet it's fed.

[Joe Fenton]

So 30 seconds of sex is filth, but an hour and a half of dismembering people is fine? No wonder Europeans think us barbarians. Sex in Europe is PG, violence is R, and that's the way it SHOULD be. Americans are ridiculously prudish compared to anyone else in the world but Islamic fundamentalists.

[Elephant]

It's not just the sex. It's everything.

[windtrader]

It's everythingIt is more than flesh and blood, for sure. The subject matter, plots, and often evil intentions are as much to blame for the Hollywood garbage.

Now I am no bleeding born again Christain, far from it, but just am commenting that there are too few good clean funny movies that can be enjoyed by the whole family.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by mrbass
NC-17 (1)
R (646)
PG-13 (185)
PG (79)
G (29)


Ironically, not only are there very few G movies made, I bet those G movies have, by far, the highest average profit. It's interesting that the desire of Hollywood to drag down our culture outweighs even their greed.

R movies usually make little money, with some exceptions such as The Matrix Reloaded ("The audience told us it wasn't an R-rated movie," said producer Joel Silver.) or The Passion of The Christ (an avowedly Christian movie). Passion is the top grossing R film of all time, followed by Reloaded. These are the exceptions that prove the rule that more family-friendly ratings mean more sales.

[wmansir]

I think those numbers are fine. How many of our movies have to targeted toward kids? I'm an adult and I enjoy adult movies.

Compare those numbers to the National Census data (estimates) for age groups:

http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/ST-EST2003-01.php

It shows that there are ~218 Million adults in the US, compared to around 53 Million between the ages of 5 and 17. That means over %75 of the population is over 18, but only 68% of movies were rated R or NC-17.

Also, I bet the majority of those PG-13, PG, and G movies were major pictures in wide release. And the same can probably not be said of the R movies, of which smaller indie and foreign movies make a large percentage. Look at the list of the top box office takes for 2003:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2003&p=.htm

4 of the top 5 are PG-13 or lower, 15 of the top 20. Believe me, most studios know that a PG-13 movie will make more money than an R rated movie. There have been far more movies hurt because they were reined in by the ratings board. Actually, that's a bit of a misstatement, they reined them self in. I don't blame the MPAA for this, it is the film makers choice.

[Neo Neko]

G = Clean supposedly wholesome movies.
PG = Slight profanity
PG-13 = Slight profanity + mild violence
R = Full on profanity + violence + sometimes a little poorly simulated sex and nudity so breif you miss if you blink
NC-17 = Decently simulated sex + extensive sceens with nudity often full frontal + verry little violence in general.
X-XXX = Explicit depictions of sex with little or no violence and usually mild profanity.

Something seems wrong with that to me. It is ok for children to learn to cuss and kill eachother. But not to be exposed to sex or learn the consequences or sexual maturity. Instead there is a stigma on sex and sexuality. As an american I think that is wrong.

[fccHandler]

I couldn't agree more. U.S. morality is out of balance. Just think about it, a flash of boob on TV and suddenly the whole country is in an uproar. New laws are being made and offenders are being punished severely. What the heck is going on? People here are terrified of the naked human body and sex in general. I'm moving to Italy. ;)

[sysKin]

You Americans have it weird, definitely.
Look at this PDF (http://203.147.163.200/documents/CofP_Full.pdf) which describes classifications in Australia. At page 12 you can read that even for PG nudity is allowed, if it's mild and justified by the plot or context.
Not to mention M, where nudity and sex scenes are simply OK if justified and not too detailed (lol). And you still get "MA" classification before you go to material not suited for television (ie R).

What was the deal with Janet Jackson's boob anyways? They showed it here on the news, without any censorship and on slow motion. Any shampoo commercial is stronger than this...

[duartix]

So 30 seconds of sex is filth, but an hour and a half of dismembering people is fine? No wonder Europeans think us barbarians. Sex in Europe is PG, violence is R, and that's the way it SHOULD be. Americans are ridiculously prudish compared to anyone else in the world but Islamic fundamentalists.
You nailed it pretty much in every aspect!
That is the general opinion around Europe, even though I believe there is a reasonable minority of Americans who aren't moral fundamentalists. Most of the americans I meet outside the US don't look as narrow-minded as the prototypes that come out of cable TV or Hollywood for that matter.

And the Janet Jackson issue is absolutely ridiculous. What I find even more ridiculous is the fact that she apologised. It prooves she is as limited as the ones who censured her.

Like sysKin also pointed out, I've seen shower gel comercials go much further and I don't see kids here in Portugal loosing their virginity at an earlier age than the americans do, nor shooting up their classmates which unlike sex is a real concearn. :( :( :(

I hate clichés but the US as a society are pretty much in it's infancy and it's not 400 years of history that are going to change that...
Sorry guys, live with it.:p

[markrb]

I think many of you are mising the point of the ratings. In all cases, but the x and NC-17 any child of any age may go to these with a parent. This is not censorship it is simply putting the choice of whether the child is mature enough to see it in the hands of the parents, where it should be.
My buddy had no problem taking his nine year old to LOTR, but there are many movies he wouldn't. She is just now learning about the birds and the bees and he would rather her remain innocent until the time is right. However violence is all around us and if the parent feels the child is capable of understanding it's just a movie then that is the parents right.
Now as she ages and learns about sex then the choices will widen, but until she can cope with what can be a confusing sexual time for a child it's better to go slowly and let the parent choose what to let her see and not see.
I see 17 as being a little old for todays youth, but these lines were drawn years ago in a more innocent age. I think 15 would do for most R rated movies today, but then again if the parent is willing to let the child go and go with the child there is nothing the theatre can do to stop them.

Mark

[windtrader]

We talk about sex and violence a lot but there are other characteristics that set the rating such as language, drugs, suicide, adult themes, horror, supernatural, etc.

I really like the broad global perspective in this discussion and would like to probe beyond sex and violence to see how movie ratings reflect other social and cutural differences and tolerances.

I'm sure each studio knows the rating criteria differences in their sleep but I've not thought much about how the American ratings sytem compares to other countries. Obviously, violence tends to be much more tolerated in the lower age brackets in America but how about themes of drugs or slasher horror films or..? Or, generally, do American films require older viewers for a given title than say France or Germany or Japan? Which country is the most liberal in rating, which is the most conservative?

[unmei]

i never thought about this topic too much, which probably means i agree on the whole with the ratings in switzerland. (of course there were movies i wanted to watch but was not allowed to, but it's not like i really suffered from it ;)..).

AFAIK for germany, austria and switzerland, the ratings are the same ..or at least they are following the same guideline, which i digged out now that you made me curious. Here's the link (http://www.spio.de/3FRAMES/ALT_FRG.HTM) (german) to the guidelines for each classification.

What i just realised when reading them (actually it's obvious, but i never thought about it): if a movie gets a rating of "ab 18" (keine Jugendfreigabe) it is protected against being forbidden (ie, "ab 18" doesnt mean "can be anything", it still has to respect guidelines).


a short translation (uh, dont hang me up to it :p)

no age restriction:
no threating situations

6yo+:
a few threatening scenes allowed, given they resolve quickly and in a positive manner

12yo+:
higher excitement like in thrillers or sci-fi can be handled. 'Heroes' with anti-social, destuctive or violent behaviour are problematic. Movies dealing with social problems in a serious way are OK.

16yo+:
a "media competence" can be expected in this age range (i think they mean to be able to judge what is serious/realistic/etc and what not?)
Problematic remains the glorification of: violence, reduction of sexuality to satisfaction of insticts, role models not on a "partner basis", discrimination of groups/racism, political radicalism, drug comsumption.

18yo+:
for videos: no mild threat to development of youth (personality)
for public shows (movies): no severe threat to development of youth (personality)

movies that:
- injure the religious sentiments or human dignity, contadict the protection of marriage or family, especially extremely brutal and sexual actions ending in themself
-endanger the liberal democratic order, disrespect human rights or fundamental laws, especially by totalitarian and race-baiting tendencies
-endanger the peacful coexistence of peoples (nations) and hereby the relationship of germany to other contries, support imperialistic or militaristic tendencies or play down or glorify war

cannot be rated because they are against the law.

[edit]
there is no PG, movies in the cinema just get a lower rating for kids accomapgnied by adults. for example 16+ alone, 14+ together with an adult.

[Wilbert]

- injure the religious sentiments or human dignity, contadict the protection of marriage or family, especially extremely brutal and sexual actions ending in themself
I guess that the movie irreversible pretty much fits this description. It's for sale here in the Netherlands, though I guess it's the only movie which won't be shown on TV. (I bought it a while ago, to see what all the fuss was about.)

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Neo Neko Something seems wrong with that to me. It is ok for children to learn to cuss and kill eachother. But not to be exposed to sex or learn the consequences or sexual maturity. Instead there is a stigma on sex and sexuality. As an american I think that is wrong. [/B]

There is no official X-XXX rating. NC-17 is for everything beyond R. The violence in R movies usually looks pretty fake and cheesy. I don't know of any movie that really tried to push violence far enough to earn an NC-17. Kill Bill is about as violent as movies get, but even that was cartoonish and tame compared to what it could have been. If you saw torture and brutal killings that looked real, you would understand.

I don't think there is much of a double standard between sex and violence. R movies can be every bit as sexual as they are violent.

But, I think that many parents are more concerned with violence than with sex. If I were a dad, I wouldn't be so worried about my son picking up sword and hacking people apart as I would be with him making babies in high school. To avoid killing people, he doesn't have to fight hormones.

Likewise, if your son is acting in a school play, would you prefer him to be part of a sword fight or to be running around naked on stage?

[unmei]

hmm i don't know that one. Actually i seldom visit cinemas (im more into anime). But AFAIK, 18+ is mostly used for porn and horror movies. One i really love that was banned from cinemas in switzerland shortly after i saw it was 'baise-moi'. But recently i could still buy it in a big book/video store without showing my ID card :)

[Doobie]

Originally posted by wmansir It shows that there are ~218 Million adults in the US, compared to around 53 Million between the ages of 5 and 17. That means over %75 of the population is over 18, but only 68% of movies were rated R or NC-17.

There are several huge flaws in your reasoning. First, in abject error, you assume that people of any age group are equally likely to go to movies. Teens are probably the most likely. People over 40 probably almost never go to movies. Even people over 20, once they have children, are pretty much done with seeing any adult movie and go only to take their children.

Your next major error is assuming that adults want to see adult movies. Most adults will not go see an NC-17 movie (that's why the theaters don't show them). A huge number of adults have no special interest in R movies. Hollywood is probably missing a potential market for adult movies with G or PG ratings, as movies of these ratings are invariably designed for children.

4 of the top 5 are PG-13 or lower, 15 of the top 20. Believe me, most studios know that a PG-13 movie will make more money than an R rated movie. There have been far more movies hurt because they were reined in by the ratings board. Actually, that's a bit of a misstatement, they reined them self in. I don't blame the MPAA for this, it is the film makers choice.

Yeah, but a lot of them whine and blame the MPAA. If the MPAA ignored content, the ratings would be meaningless. Movie makers are free to release unrated movies.

[windtrader]

movies that:
- injure the religious sentiments or human dignity, contadict the protection of marriage or family, especially extremely brutal and sexual actions ending in themself
-endanger the liberal democratic order, disrespect human rights or fundamental laws, especially by totalitarian and race-baiting tendencies
-endanger the peacful coexistence of peoples (nations) and hereby the relationship of germany to other contries, support imperialistic or militaristic tendencies or play down or glorify war

cannot be rated because they are against the law.
Does that really mean that movies that fall into these categories are banned and not available legally in country?

Movie makers are free to release unrated movies.That appears to be valid in the US, maybe not in other countries. And as you say, the reason there are so few NC-17 or unrated movies is the automatic self-imposed "ban" on them and thus inevitable money losing effort. And of course all over sexed movies "XXX" are distributed via alternative channels to the home via DVD, VHS, pay cable. No need to state these all make ALOT of money.

I know in the US, the film makers negotitate for the rating and will cut here and there to "tune up" the movie to get the desired rating. It seems films undergo similar rating processes in each country and given that, I wonder how different a given title seen in the US is from one seen elsewhere. Anyone hear of specific scenes disappearing from other versions?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
There is no official X-XXX rating. NC-17 is for everything beyond R.

Official or not it exists. It is not part of the official MPAA rating scheme simply due to the fact that the MPAA does not want to be remotely associated or seen as approving of such things. Since there is no precident of any MPAA rating covering such content there is IMHO no reason not to consider them official after a fassion.

Originally posted by Doobie
The violence in R movies usually looks pretty fake and cheesy. I don't know of any movie that really tried to push violence far enough to earn an NC-17.

I think the real question is "Is it possible for a movie to earn an NC-17 rating on the merits of violence alone?". Of the very few studio releases to ever recieve an NC-17 rating [should be able to count them on a hand or two] it was the sexuality that got the rating. The violence was generally the fare you find in a PG-13 summer blockbuster. At least in the few I have seen and the others I know about.

Originally posted by Doobie
Kill Bill is about as violent as movies get, but even that was cartoonish and tame compared to what it could have been. If you saw torture and brutal killings that looked real, you would understand.

I have not seen kill bill. [ok I got a screener and deleted it after 10minutes or so watching it. Which is really odd since it is the only screener I have ever downloaded.] But I have been to places like rotten.com and seen a "Faces of Death" feature. Not to mention a grisly raw news satelite feed or two. I know what it looks like for someone to really have half their face/skull torn off. Compound fractures, mortal wounds, clustered torso close range hollow point impacts, etc. And I would have to say on a whole I have seen plenty instances of simulated cinema death that look convincing enough. The one thing I will give them is that they often are not as gorry as the real think would be. [think somewhere between the current state and monty python] People can fall over a hundred feet with little external trauma indications. The only way you can tell they are dead is that they are really still. No pool of blood. No oddly bent hyper-extended apendeges or crumpled indoskeleten. Unlike what would happen in reality.

Originally posted by Doobie
I don't think there is much of a double standard between sex and violence. R movies can be every bit as sexual as they are violent.

Ok it's not the movies but hello! Janet Jacksons nipple! Nipple bad. Football violence good. How dare they taint a wholsome violent family program with naughty bits and sexually suggestive behavior. And is broadcast TV that unique in that respect? No. Hypersensetive? Indeed.

Originally posted by Doobie
But, I think that many parents are more concerned with violence than with sex. If I were a dad, I wouldn't be so worried about my son picking up sword and hacking people apart as I would be with him making babies in high school.

So if you were a father you would be in the minority then eh?? Personally I think there are issues with both. But I have much less issue with making life than taking life.

Originally posted by Doobie
To avoid killing people, he doesn't have to fight hormones.

Not to belittle columbine...but was that not largely a case of raging hormones and puberty? Socially/sexually frustrated youth who were ignored by society and their parents? Hormones can cause more than heat seeking chubbies. If faced with the responsibilities of fatherhood I would much rather hear that my child impregnated someone else rather than killed someone else.

Originally posted by Doobie
Likewise, if your son is acting in a school play, would you prefer him to be part of a sword fight or to be running around naked on stage?

Which play was it they would be running aunatural in? I don't think that any parent of any worth would condone such things of children. Such things with minors are illegal in any event. Not that it was anything I ever suggested in the first place. There is a difference between exposing and educating them in terms of sex and sexuality than actually exposing their sex. To whit I think that the US is failing their children.

[markrb]

There is no official X-XXX rating. NC-17 is for everything beyond R.
Yes and no. There "WAS" an X rating(See last Tango in Paris), but it was changed to NC-17 due to people becoming confused over the "Adult" XXX. Many felt it was hard core sex, but X was never meant to convey that. It was just the same as NC-17 is now.

XXX means full penetration sex. Whether standard or not. If it is softcore then it may recieve an R rating. Many Playboy TV and Spice movies are the same as their XXX counterpart, but shot at a different angle so you cannot see the actual penetration.

Mark

[unmei]

Originally posted by windtrader
Does that really mean that movies that fall into these categories are banned and not available legally in country?


movies that can be classified in the age rating are protected from being banned. Movies that were submitted for rating, but found unlawful ("these categories") are imo likely to be banned, but its not the same comitte doing the age rating and the banning if i understood that right. Movies that are not submitted (recall: it's not mandatory) for rating because the maker fear to be banned ..well i don't know if they are all found or rather seldom..
i really don't know much about the topic i just got interested about my situation here and dug up the link.

[wmansir]

Originally posted by Doobie
There are several huge flaws in your reasoning. First, in abject error, you assume that people of any age group are equally likely to go to movies. Teens are probably the most likely. People over 40 probably almost never go to movies. Even people over 20, once they have children, are pretty much done with seeing any adult movie and go only to take their children.

Your next major error is assuming that adults want to see adult movies. Most adults will not go see an NC-17 movie (that's why the theaters don't show them). A huge number of adults have no special interest in R movies. Hollywood is probably missing a potential market for adult movies with G or PG ratings, as movies of these ratings are invariably designed for children.


I admit it is not fair to say x% of people are over 18 so x% should be made R. But I was just showing that there are a large majority of adults in this country, so it is not 'unfair' to have a large majority of adult content. Also, your claim that people over 40 almost never go to the movies is very wrong. Take a look at this market demographic report from Arbitron.

http://www.cinemastudy.iconocast.com/img/zc9.jpg

Keep in mind that this is from a site (http://www.cinemastudy.iconocast.com/cinema-study2.htm) trying to sell cinima advertising, so the charts are presented in a way to make the audience look more attractive to advertisers (ie. younger). Granted many of those adults brough their kids to family shows and the under 12 crowd is uncounted. Unfortunatly I couldn't find a pure demographic breakdown of by age of viewer.

PS. Sorry about the size of the charts, I'm direct linking since I don't have a host.

[Soulhunter]

There are different kinds of voilence... :rolleyes:

- Funny... Like in Braindead !!!

- Nasty... Like in Ginea Pig !!!

If you have seen both movies, you will understand... ;)


Bye

[Joe Fenton]

There WAS one movie that got an NC-17 rating for violence: Robocop (the first one). They cut about 30 seconds from the movie to get it down to an R. All other movies I am aware of that initially got an NC-17 rating were all for sex. In one, the only thing visible was a male actor's butt, however the ratings board said it was moving in a "suggestive" way, so they gave it an NC-17 rating. One cut changed it from NC-17 to PG.

It's not about letting kids perform sex scenes, but to see adult behavior on TV or at the movies.

Something you hear a lot from high-school students is cussing. Language will often get an R rating, even though it's less offensive than the average 15 year-old's mouth. :rolleyes:

Drug use other than alcohol or tobacco is an R rating as well. For some reason, it's okay to get bombed out of your gourd on alcohol, but not any other drug.

Also, most older people go to the movies, even after having kids. They just get the kids tickets for the current PG or PG-13 movie while they go watch an R rated flick. Some even bring their kids into the R rated movie with them (I hate that). It's common to be watching something like Seven in the theater and trying to tune out the 7 year-old asking their parent "what is that?" every twenty seconds.

[windtrader]

It's common to be watching something like Seven in the theater and trying to tune out the 7 year-old asking their parent "what is that?" every twenty seconds.Kind of shows how stupid the whole rating scheme is when this happens anyway.

Also, nobody mentions the "unrated" non-classification. Not sure how that exactly works but it may be a way to get anything on the shelf here in the US. I have quite a few discs that are not rated. Usually small, little known. small budget foreign films. I guess you can skirt the whole MPAA goons if you want to here in the US.

[Joe Fenton]

Unrated just means it hasn't been submitted to the panel for an official rating. It may be G rated, but the panel wasn't given the chance to say.

You see unrated for DVDs with extra cut scenes. For example, Finding Nemo has some extra scenes on the DVD which are unrated. I don't think anyone here believes those scenes to be anything more than G or possibly PG, but it hasn't been officially rated as such.

Often, PG-13 movies put back in cut scenes and get the movie re-rated to R. R movies don't take the chance that cut scenes will affect their R rating and so put out the DVD as unrated. It may still be R, but it might not.

[Atamido]

Yes, I am an american, and a prude. That being said I thought I would explain why I am often fine with violence as opposed to sex scenes in movies. It has much to do with knowledge of the level of simulation. When someone gets their head chopped off in a movie, I know internally that nothing really happenned to anyone. It was a fake head and fake blood. If boobs are being flashed however, I know that they are real and it is not something that I am comfortable watching.

I have seen scenes where some boobs were formed out of latex and it didn't bother me at all. On the same note I have seen real footage of people dying, and it is not something that I was comfortable watching. It had less to do with what they were pretending was happenning, and more to do with what was really happenning.

Oh, and I really don't like tomatoes. I think they smell horrible.

[fccHandler]

I prefer boobs to tomatoes and heads being chopped off. ;)

[Soulhunter]

@Pamel

Boobs scare you ??? Really... :D


Bye

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Pamel
If boobs are being flashed however, I know that they are real and it is not something that I am comfortable watching.

So you like the girls with the sillicone? :D

[fccHandler]

Like it or not, we all have boobs. Girls are big and bouncy, and guys are small and hairy. However, I can't say I ever met anyone with "boobs formed out of latex..." (That IS scary!) :scared:

[Neo Neko]

Perhaps that is the reason I so rarely find horror movies at all horrifying. It needs to be whorrifying. There just are not enough TnA. Bloody axe murderer? That's old hat. Psycho in the closet with a chain saw? Puleeese! Zombie hords of the undead? As zombies go orin hatch is not that scarry. Really big bouncy breasts now that will cause people to wet their pants. Or at least have some of the guys cream them. ;)