Not at all. The DE of TMP was treated as a new product when it got rated, and it turned out "PG". I'm fairly sure that the more recent DVD release of TMP's theatrical version was back to being a "G".
Can you blame fans for snickering over TMP being rated G ?
- Thread starter Mutara Nebula 1967
- Start date
Not at all. The DE of TMP was treated as a new product when it got rated, and it turned out "PG". I'm fairly sure that the more recent DVD release of TMP's theatrical version was back to being a "G".
It's certainly possible. Having read quite a bit about the MPAA in the past few years, the ratings board certainly doles out ratings based upon individual judgment. Any "subtle criteria" they may be applying seems to be rather undefined and ever-changing--I think you're giving them too much credit there. But I also have to acknowledge that I view the ratings board very cynically.
Again, it's possible. I just think you are underestimating Paramount's position, concerning both the stigma that has become attached to the "G" rating since the late 70s as being exclusive to children's entertainment and with the studio's desire to suggest that the changes made to The Director's Edition were dramatic (which a new rating rather slickly suggests).
The MPAA has always been the lap-dog of the major studios--or at least, given them preferential treatment. The creation of the "PG-13" rating in 1984, for example, was directly to the benefit of the studios. It is independent producers who run into the most trouble with the ratings system.
Kirby Dick's documentary, This Film is Not Yet Rated, goes into detail on the subject. Matt Stone and Trey Parker explain in the documentary how they had no trouble getting an R-Rating for South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut (produced for Paramount), but found it impossible to secure the same rating for Orgazmo (produced independently). They were forced to release the latter with an "NC-17" rating, effectively crushing any potential business it might have had.
I understand why it went to the MPAA for re-rating. However, I disupute that the changes made to the Director's Edition had any discernible effect as to how "intense" any sequence in the film happened to be. Either the rating changed because the MPAA's standards have changed, or the rating changed because the studio wanted it to, or both.
The theatrical version remains rated "G," however. I'm not sure what the protocols are for re-submitting an unchanged film to the MPAA for a harsher rating.
Quite right. Never underestimate the impact of editing on a film. The way a film is cut can significantly alter it. The DE is not the same film as the theatrical edition. And it was rated accordingly, as a distinct entity. This was not a re-rating of the original, it was a first-time rating of a new edition.
I'm not "underestimating" anything. I don't have to. If you're going to accuse them of lying about their reasons, then the burden of proof is on YOU, not them. They don't have to prove they're telling the truth. There is nothing about the stated reasons that is contradictory to known facts, therefore there are no grounds for any accusation of dishonesty.
And the changes were significant. A change in editing or sound design can easily have a major effect on the impact of a motion picture sequence. And it doesn't take "dramatic" changes to alter a movie rating.
I don't have any "proof," of course. This is all just speculation. And it's surely nothing worth taking personally. I didn't mean to offend, just present a differing opinion.
A couple of points, though.
First, I didn't mean to imply that the re-rating would have required "dramatic" changes to the film. My point was, from an advertising perspective, it was in Paramount's interest to suggest that The Director's Edition of the film had significant changes, since the DVD was being sold first and foremost on the merits of the newly edited version of the movie. With a new rating comes the implication that the film has been changed, which adds support to Paramount's advertising claim that the DE represented a major revision of the film as had been seen up until that point (and not a false one, the DE is definitely the superior version of the film with a number of recognizable changes as well as a number that are far more subtle). It's my fault for phrasing that so awkwardly in the first place.
On the subject of editing and sound mixing, I've seen first hand the immense difference that can result from subtle changes in both, having done both things myself. But I don't see an immense difference in The Director's Edition of Star Trek -- The Motion Picture compared to the theatrical release. Surely, the pace is slightly tightened, and inserts that were obvious placeholders for incomplete sequences in 1979 (like the long shot of the Federation seal when Kirk makes his first appearance, or a similar long shot of the console between the helm and navigation stations when the Enterprise leaves drydock) have either been replaced with new shots or eliminated to complete the sequences. But I don't find what tension that can be found in either version to be notably different. Offhand, the only shot I could point to that might do this is the shot of the asteroid exploding at the end of the wormhole sequence, since it illustrates the danger in way that is far less clear in the original sequence.
Of course, this point is subjective. I'm definitely curious as to the changes that you think raise the tension in the film. It is also worth admitting that in the past ten years, I've only seen the theatrical version once (recently, on Netflix), and before then had only seen the Special Longer Version, and not nearly as often as the other films. No doubt you (and Therin) are more familiar with the theatrical version and therefore can more easily recognize the changes made to the DE, especially the less obvious ones. That would seem to me to be a more rewarding direction for the conversation to take at this point.
A couple of points, though.
First, I didn't mean to imply that the re-rating would have required "dramatic" changes to the film. My point was, from an advertising perspective, it was in Paramount's interest to suggest that The Director's Edition of the film had significant changes, since the DVD was being sold first and foremost on the merits of the newly edited version of the movie. With a new rating comes the implication that the film has been changed, which adds support to Paramount's advertising claim that the DE represented a major revision of the film as had been seen up until that point (and not a false one, the DE is definitely the superior version of the film with a number of recognizable changes as well as a number that are far more subtle). It's my fault for phrasing that so awkwardly in the first place.
On the subject of editing and sound mixing, I've seen first hand the immense difference that can result from subtle changes in both, having done both things myself. But I don't see an immense difference in The Director's Edition of Star Trek -- The Motion Picture compared to the theatrical release. Surely, the pace is slightly tightened, and inserts that were obvious placeholders for incomplete sequences in 1979 (like the long shot of the Federation seal when Kirk makes his first appearance, or a similar long shot of the console between the helm and navigation stations when the Enterprise leaves drydock) have either been replaced with new shots or eliminated to complete the sequences. But I don't find what tension that can be found in either version to be notably different. Offhand, the only shot I could point to that might do this is the shot of the asteroid exploding at the end of the wormhole sequence, since it illustrates the danger in way that is far less clear in the original sequence.
Of course, this point is subjective. I'm definitely curious as to the changes that you think raise the tension in the film. It is also worth admitting that in the past ten years, I've only seen the theatrical version once (recently, on Netflix), and before then had only seen the Special Longer Version, and not nearly as often as the other films. No doubt you (and Therin) are more familiar with the theatrical version and therefore can more easily recognize the changes made to the DE, especially the less obvious ones. That would seem to me to be a more rewarding direction for the conversation to take at this point.
By your own admission, there doesn't need to be an "immense" difference. And nobody has claimed there is.
This isn't about what I think. It's about what the MPAA's reasons were for giving the DE the rating that they did. I'm simply saying that I see no reason to doubt the explanation that's been provided. The burden of proof is not on them. They don't need to defend their stated reasons, and neither do I.
But I do find merit in the idea that a sequence such as the attack of V'Ger's energy bolts, for instance, is made more dramatically potent by the replacement of the weak temp audio mix with a finished mix. The new sound effects make the energy bolts sound more menacing.
As I said, my dog hates the DE.
Well, all the MPAA has to say about the matter is that it was "Rated PG for sci-fi action and mild language." The explanation that the rating was changed due to it being more "intense" in its sound mix seems to come from David Fein, part of the team that put together The Director's Edition. The only other tidbit I can find is a piece of trivia on IMDB (admittedly a poor information source), which states:
Christopher said:
I hadn't thought of that. The new sound definitely makes an impression. On top of that, the new visuals of the weapons firing over Earth are certainly more threatening than the blips on the Enterprise view screen.
Not that my two cents are worth... well two cents, but I also find it absurd that "an intensified soundtrack" could be the difference-maker between G and PG. It seems more likely that in the passage of time, the G rating has, as mentioned in this thread, a more kid-friendly, less "edgy" orientation than it had when the film was released, and they wanted to avoid the stigma.
I see no reason why it couldn't. Sound design is very important to the impact of a film. For instance, if there's a scene of someone being beaten to death off-camera, it can be far more horrific and disturbing to the audience if dubbed with loud, squelching sounds and bones cracking and screams of agony than if it's just dubbed with subdued thumping and grunting.
And as we've discussed at length in this thread, when a film is close to the edge of one rating category, it can be a very subtle change that pushes it over the edge into the next category. That's the way it is when we divide things into sharp categories like that. Like the way you can be in your 20s one day and your 30s the next, if the next day is your 30th birthday.
Well, I can see how a particular swear word, or a particular scene involving nudity, or a scene involving a gun that's used could mean a different rating in a movie. Those are at least a concrete difference, and can be pointed to specifically as a reason for a ratings change.
But an "intensified soundtrack" isn't even anything concrete. It just sounds silly. Like changing it because Kirk's tone in a scene "sounds angry" or something. It smacks of a fig leaf of a rationale given because the stigma around the "G" rating is what it is.
But an "intensified soundtrack" isn't even anything concrete. It just sounds silly. Like changing it because Kirk's tone in a scene "sounds angry" or something. It smacks of a fig leaf of a rationale given because the stigma around the "G" rating is what it is.
^I don't see why you think it has to be "concrete." It's about what viewers of a certain age might find too disturbing, or rather, what the people sitting on the MPAA board might think that viewers of a certain age might find too disturbing. How can that be anything but a subjective assessment?
I wonder whether the board took "sci-fi action" as seriously in 1979 as they do today.
I remember being disturbed by the transporter scene when I saw it in the theater as a kid (I was 5 at the time). But I also recall being disturbed by the forest fire in Bambi. A more recent G movie, The Straight Story, has elements that would probably be disturbing to some children and has a dark edge that I notice as an adult. It probably isn't indicative of the MPAA's methods of handing out G ratings though, since it is a Disney film (even if it is also a David Lynch film).
I don't think having elements that disturb children means a film can't/shouldn't be rated G, though. And children's reactions vary depending on their age, their upbringing, and probably their psychological makeup.
I remember children crying during the finale of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which I don't see as notably less disturbing than the heart scene in Temple of Doom). There were also kids my age crying during a couple of scenes in Ghostbusters when it came out.
In any case, it's pretty funny that PG stands for Parental Guidance, since I would hope parental guidance would be involved in what kids see no matter what the MPAA has to say about it.
The first time I ever really thought about ratings myself was I guess at the age of 6, when I would not shut up about how great The Empire Strikes Back was, and I discovered one of my friends was not allowed to see it because it was PG.
I don't think having elements that disturb children means a film can't/shouldn't be rated G, though. And children's reactions vary depending on their age, their upbringing, and probably their psychological makeup.
I remember children crying during the finale of Raiders of the Lost Ark (which I don't see as notably less disturbing than the heart scene in Temple of Doom). There were also kids my age crying during a couple of scenes in Ghostbusters when it came out.
In any case, it's pretty funny that PG stands for Parental Guidance, since I would hope parental guidance would be involved in what kids see no matter what the MPAA has to say about it.
The first time I ever really thought about ratings myself was I guess at the age of 6, when I would not shut up about how great The Empire Strikes Back was, and I discovered one of my friends was not allowed to see it because it was PG.
Well, it can be "concrete" by laying out criteria like a use of a certain type of swear word will get you this type of rating, partial nudity will get you this rating, full frontal will get you this, graphic violence vs. comic book or hinted at violence, etc.
They already do this to an extent, and movies can go for a "softer rating" by removing an "F word" or taking out a particularly violent scene, etc.
Yes, it's an art more than a science, I get that. But it shouldn't be arbitrary, either.
Back then, ratings didn't have specific breakdowns of content like that. Those were added fairly recently as a way of giving more specific information to parents about the content of films. So a film wouldn't have been rated "PG for sci-fi action" or whatever, it would've just been rated "PG -- Parental guidance suggested -- Some material may be unsuitable for young children."
Of course. That's part of what makes the ratings so subjective. And of course, as you say, it's supposed to be for the individual parents to decide, with the ratings just being suggestions. One family might decide to forbid their 10-year-old child from seeing anything above a G rating, while the family next door might decide their 10-year-old is mature enough to handle seeing an R-rated film along with them.
And of course some parents are just irresponsible. When RoboCop 2 came out and I went to the theater to see it, I was startled by how many parents brought their young children to see it. Talk about the unthinking assumption that sci-fi is kid stuff. Those parents definitely should've done more research first.
Yes, I know this. What I meant was, I wonder whether it was even a factor in their internal deliberations, or whether science fiction action, and especially violence in science fiction movies, tended not to be taken seriously, because it was regarded as too much make believe.
I admit to being horrifed by the sight of parents bringing their toddlers to UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION. I was so tempted to wander over and say, "Excuse me, but I wrote the novelization of this movie and I think you should know about the blood orgy scene . . . ."
But if they were already bringing toddlers to an R-rated vampire flick I'm not sure it would have made any difference!
Last edited:
The man sitting in the row in front of me during "Watchman" put his hands over his two young daughters' eyes during the sex scene in Nite Owl II's shuttle, but didn't seem bothered by the graphic murder that opened the movie, nor the sexual assault of the first Silk Spectre.
I had the same reaction when I went to see The Passion Of The Christ, standing in line with well-meaning Christian parents who obviously had no idea what they were about to subject their kids to.
you guys are assuming the parents are ignorant rather than apathetic. In this age, when it's so easy to find out what type of "objectionable content" is in a movie(or, in examples cited here, the movies mentioned are already R, such as the horrifically violent "Robocop 2").
It's likely the parents may know full well what's in the movie and take the kids anyway. Don't forget that you don't need a license to be a parent.
It's likely the parents may know full well what's in the movie and take the kids anyway. Don't forget that you don't need a license to be a parent.