Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince will be rated PG

[Dream]

“Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” seems to be on a crash course to disappointing the Harry Potter fanbase. First, there were usual rumblings about changes to the story and characters, and then came the awful decision to delay “Half-Blood Prince by more than a year.

Now, Rope of Silicon reveals that the movie has finally been given the rating by the MPAA — and it has earned a rather soft rating of PG. As fans know, the books continue to grow darker as Voldemort’s power grows, and there are scenes of intense violence in “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.”

Remember when Harry and Dumbledore had to fight off the hoards of zombie-like Inferis? Katie Bell being poisoned by a necklace? Or the final battle, when Death Eaters descend on Hogwarts to force Draco Malfoy to murder Professor Dumbledore?

A PG rating likely means that much of this has been toned down. David Hayman already confirmed to Potter fansite SnitchSeeker that the Battle of Hogwarts had been cut in order to “avoid repetition.”

But fans of the book want to see the action as well as the key character moments — and toning down the film for soft ratings may leave us feeling cheated. Can we really believe in Voldemort as a threat if he’s only a PG threat, committing off-screen violence?

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/01/0...-half-blood-prince-tones-down-gets-pg-rating/

In a strange twist HBP will be less intense the previous two Potter movies. Did Warners decide to cut out the blank kills blank scene? Weird.

 

[IndyJones]

I have a problem with this. I understand omitting and changing some details in the translation from paper to film. But this sounds like it's changing the tone of the story, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Additionally, none of these movies can be viewed wholly individually. It's part of a series, and I question the the creative decision involved having a series that escalates with each installment before dipping slightly right before the climax. That's an odd choice.

 

[Gaith]

To be fair, the MPAA ratings are bats***. If Dark Knight can be PG-13, a suitably intense PG HP6 certainly seems plausible. We may have to wait and see on this one.

 

[Hermiod]

Ratings are usually just a matter of how hard the studio pushes the respective board to give in and give them the rating that will help their movie be as commercially successful as possible.

The producers of a movie such as a Harry Potter film will want as low a rating as possible to help the box office.

 

[Emher]

To be fair, the MPAA ratings are bats***. If Dark Knight can be PG-13, a suitably intense PG HP6 certainly seems plausible. We may have to wait and see on this one.

I'm hoping this is the case as well. Plus, some of the stuff one used to get away with with PG in the past is damn near R material these days, perhaps we are seeing a reversal of sorts.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

Narnia: Prince Caspian was pretty astoundingly violent for a PG movie. Perhaps this will be similar.

PG is supposed to suggest "Parental Guidance". In other words, it's supposed warn parents that a movie may have strong content, but lately both the MPAA and the general public have acted as though PG is practically synonymous with G. Maybe the MPAA is trying restore the PG rating to its original meaning.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

One other thing... Remember that ratings reflect objectionable content, not quality. It could be rated G and still be excellent. Or it could be rated PG13 and stink.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Ratings are usually just a matter of how hard the studio pushes the respective board to give in and give them the rating that will help their movie be as commercially successful as possible.

The producers of a movie such as a Harry Potter film will want as low a rating as possible to help the box office.

The PG-13 ratings for Goblet and Order didn't hurt their box-office take, though.

 

[DBR]

Maybe they're trying to throw us a curve ball, so to speak.

I remember reading an article (sorry, no link) expressing how how Warner Bros was a bit worried that the next two movies might not do so well due to the fact that there's no more to the story, no new books, and lack of anticipation.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Buuuut....I thought after the last Batman, Warner Bros. wanted dark dark dark dark....

 

[Neeka Keet]

Maybe they're trying to throw us a curve ball, so to speak.

I remember reading an article (sorry, no link) expressing how how Warner Bros was a bit worried that the next two movies might not do so well due to the fact that there's no more to the story, no new books, and lack of anticipation.

Which means that the WB probably has no one on the internet who analyzes the buzz around their films. People want to see them movies because it's the last hurrah and they have nothing else to anticipate.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

I don't honestly see how this movie could be PG. One word: Sectumsempra.

 

[Mr Light]

If I recall correctly, the movies already used "sectumsepra" in a less dangerous version. I believe it was Draco in the duel with Harry in #2?

 

[Mike Farley]

and then came the awful decision to delay “Half-Blood Prince by more than a year.

Fall 08 to summer 09 is more than a year now? Is there a new calander with some extra months I wasn't aware of?

ROTS was the only Star Wars movie that wasn't rated PG. RAIDERS melted faces at PG. And as noted above PRINCE CASPIAN was plenty violent with a PG. It means Parental Guidance sugested not kiddie movie.

 

[Dream]

ROTS was the only Star Wars movie that wasn't rated PG. RAIDERS melted faces at PG. And as noted above PRINCE CASPIAN was plenty violent with a PG.

The first three Star Wars movies aren't really violent enough to warrent a PG-13 rating.

When Raiders and Temple were released the PG-13 rating wasn't invented yet. They probably would get those ratings if they were made now.

 

[Mike Farley]

Let's see in STAR WARS Luke's family were reduced to charred skeletons--true the actual act wasn't shown, but the aftermath was pretty horrific. Obi-Wan also shops a guys arm off. In EMPIRE we are treated to Taun-taun guts spilling all over the ground. Han is brutally tortured and Luke gets his hand chopped off. The Emperor's Force Lightning attact on Luke is pretty intense in JEDI. Darth Maul gets chopped in half for TPM. Anakin slices the heads off of Tuscan Raiders and later confesses to killing the children as well.

 

[label]

Let's see in STAR WARS Luke's family were reduced to charred skeletons--true the actual act wasn't shown, but the aftermath was pretty horrific. Obi-Wan also shops a guys arm off. In EMPIRE we are treated to Taun-taun guts spilling all over the ground. Han is brutally tortured and Luke gets his hand chopped off.

I don't see what this has to do with the time of day since - as others have pointed out - the PG-13 rating didn't exist when these movies were released.

The Emperor's Force Lightning attact on Luke is pretty intense in JEDI.

Ummm, no. I thought scenes in the Lion King were more intense than that.

Darth Maul gets chopped in half for TPM. Anakin slices the heads off of Tuscan Raiders and later confesses to killing the children as well.

Very bloodless, very brief and not intense in any way.

 

[McCoy]

Did Warners decide to cut out the blank kills blank scene? Weird.

Highly unlikely. It sounds like they have just decided that this scene will not occur within the context of a Death Eater assault on the school, since that will happen in the final film.

If I recall correctly, the movies already used "sectumsepra" in a less dangerous version. I believe it was Draco in the duel with Harry in #2?

I thing that was "Rictusempra" - tickling curse. Although in the movie no one was laughing.