Also remember that "G" was not originally a rating that equated "children's film" in the public's mind. All it originally meant was that the content was suitable for someone of ANY age. Plenty of movies aimed at adult audiences received a "G" rating. At some point along the way, the perception of that rating changed to represent a film for kids in the public's mind. But that definitely wasn't always the case.
Can you blame fans for snickering over TMP being rated G ?
- Thread starter Mutara Nebula 1967
- Start date
Speaking from my own personal experience, I'd say the transition occurred in the late 1970's, beginning in 1977 with the release of Star Wars, rated PG. The transition was cemented in 1979, with the release of two films, Alien, rated R, and Disney's The Black Hole, rated PG. In between, we had for example, Superman (1978), rated PG. While Alien was not written for kids, all of the science fiction blockbusters of the day certainly were written for and marketed to kids, and in that climate even Alien was appealing to kids.
By 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was noticeably way behind the curve in terms of trendiness in its MPAA rating. I'll record for history that it felt a little wimpy going to a rated G film at the age of 13 in that climate.
The OP has a point, thought it was not stated completely accurately. It was not snickering, but rather hoping that no one would notice. Notice that TWOK had splosions, phasers firing, and all the fireworks to make it PG.
Which, by the way, was Disney's first ever PG-rated film, and that fact created quite a stir at the time. I've noted that a lot of people today look back on The Black Hole and assume it was meant as a children's film because it was from Disney, but actually it (along with Something Wicked This Way Comes) represented the first attempts by Disney to expand beyond children's films and produce more adult-oriented material. Eventually they created their Touchstone Films division to handle that stuff, perhaps because audiences did find it so incongruous and confusing to see the Disney label on films that weren't kid-friendly. But at the time, the PG rating still definitely had the connotation of something that might be too intense for children.
The Black Hole (1979) deserved its PG rating.
My point exactly.
I think a PG-13 for the film is doubtful, but the MPAA's standards have certainly changed over the years (in as much as the organization even has standards). The re-rating of TMP from G to PG with the release of the Director's Edition is indicative of that--it's hard to tell what changed in the new version to warrant a rating change, besides the movie ratings themselves.
2001, Star Trek, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger all deserve a G rating. Nothing's changed about them, and if anything, the sensibilities of the MPAA have become looser in the time since they were all released. Movies that were once X rated are now R rated. Content that made movies R rated in the 70's make them PG-13 or even PG rated now.
According to what I read, the reason for the rating change was that the new, tighter edit and the fuller sound-effects mix made certain sequences more intense than they had been originally, and thus potentially more upsetting for children. (The theatrical cut was rushed into theaters unfinished, and thus had only an anemic temp audio mix. The DE features the completed sound mix it was supposed to have.) It's a subtle distinction, but it's such little things that can make the difference between one rating and another. It's more an art than a science.
^ I think you nailed it with the "more art than science" comment. Ratings are issued based on the subjective judgments of the people watching the films on behalf of the MPAA. Sure, the MPAA has guidelines and standards, but putting a rating on a film involves more than just counting up the number of instances of a certain curse word. So, naturally, you'll see variance between the ratings from film to film.
I don't honestly think that the tighter edit and sound effects mix make enough of a difference in TMP to warrant a different rating. But what one group of raters sees in 1979 is subjectively different from what another totally different group sees in 2001, so it gets a different rating. (I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some lobbying on Paramount's part to get it up to a PG rating, feeling that it would sell better that way.)
In any case, while the MPAA ratings can help set your expectations for what's in a film, they certainly are not standardized in any meaningful sense, and your mileage may vary from film to film.
I don't honestly think that the tighter edit and sound effects mix make enough of a difference in TMP to warrant a different rating. But what one group of raters sees in 1979 is subjectively different from what another totally different group sees in 2001, so it gets a different rating. (I also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't some lobbying on Paramount's part to get it up to a PG rating, feeling that it would sell better that way.)
In any case, while the MPAA ratings can help set your expectations for what's in a film, they certainly are not standardized in any meaningful sense, and your mileage may vary from film to film.
And Jack Russell terriers.
True.
Jack by Therin of Andor, on Flickr
If the ears go back like this, it's not a "G".
Paramount could have argued that it was a "G" before and should be a "G" now, but they were probably pleased with a higher rating. I'd agree that the sound mix definitely gives several scenes a very different feel.
IMDb says: "Rated PG for sci-fi action and mild language." No mention of sexual themes. "Sci-fi" action would include the DE's sound mix.
You may not think it makes a difference, but the people who sat on the MPAA board when evaluating the Director's Edition clearly did. Like you say, it's subjective. But it's been reported that that was, in fact, their reason. I'm not playing an April Fool's joke here.
I've read that reasoning, but I don't buy it. It seems much more likely to me that it's just an empty justification for the MPAA to do what they do best--namely, bending over backwards to the major Hollywood studios. In this case, bending over for Paramount by re-rating a film from "G" to "PG" because the original ratings has taken on the stigma of being for children's films.
But is this actually an issue? I remember when the movie opened in 1978. My entire college science fiction club went to see it and don't remember anyone "snickering" about the G rating. I don't recall anyone paying any attention to the rating at all.
Honestly, I've been going to Trek conventions for decades now and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone worry about the rating.
Honestly, I've been going to Trek conventions for decades now and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone worry about the rating.
^ TMP opened in December, 1979.
I stand corrected, but my point remains the same. None of us grown-up college kids were troubled by the G rating. Or even noticed it.
(To be honest, I'm not sure I was aware that TMP was rated G before I read this thread. It was a STAR TREK movie, that's all.)
I see no reason not to "buy it." Movies are, in fact, rated based on subtle criteria and individual judgment. The difference could simply have been that different people are sitting on the MPAA panel today than were there in 1979.
I'll grant that there were probably other factors at play here, but there's no need to see it as cynically as you suggest. As has already been established in this discussion, back in 1979 it was far more common for science fiction in general -- and Star Trek in particular -- to be perceived as children's programming. As someone remarked earlier, ST reruns often aired in daytime slots, and there had been an animated ST series just five years earlier, so the show had a sizeable young audience. At the time, it made sense to think this was a film that should be appropriate for general audiences. But the Director's Edition came out in a time when ST was more regarded as programming for older viewers, and of course it was probably aimed at established fans and collectors as much as anyone else. So it stands to reason that the way Star Trek would be perceived by the people responsible for determining its rating would be different.
And where in the hell did you get this notion that the MPAA bows to the studios? If anything, it's the other way around. Studios and filmmakers constantly have to tweak their films in order to get the MPAA to give them the rating they hope for.