Why was TMP G-rated?
- Thread starter gottacook
- Start date
Sure -- it was okay as a "place" name, just not as a swear word. Context matters. There are a lot of words that have an inoffensive literal meaning and a profane slang meaning, and whether you could use them on TV depended on which usage you had in mind. Like "ass" meaning a donkey or a fool versus "ass" meaning buttocks.
Which sometimes allowed TV writers to slip some major innuendoes past the censors, like in the Batman episode where Catwoman tells her henchman to "brush my pussywillows."
Which sometimes allowed TV writers to slip some major innuendoes past the censors, like in the Batman episode where Catwoman tells her henchman to "brush my pussywillows."
At one point, some anti-smoking lobbyists were pushing for precisely that. They wanted any movie that had smoking in it to get an automatic R rating.
An automatic R may be extreme but it's not ungrounded, I think a lot of smoking in under R-rated films does try to or ends up promoting it, certainly not depicting it as bad.
I think the rating system today is generally preferable to that of the '70s and early '80s, PG-13 feels a lot more appropriate for the first two Indiana Jones films, TESB and maybe TWoK and PG for The Lion King. Higher ratings won't stop people from watching the films eventually.
That seems hyperbolic, the first Harry Potter got PG with using bloody hell and arse and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles likewise with multiple hells and damns.
I disagree. I think the ratings system is broken. PG-13 is considered the only profitable rating, so films that should be PG are putting in gratuitous scenes to edge over into PG-13, and films that should be R are toning themselves down to edge down into PG-13, and as a result the PG-13 rating has been stretched so far in both directions that it's become essentially useless as an indicator of content. Basically, every rating other than PG-13 has become so stigmatized as harmful to box-office returns that it stifles creative freedom. If only one rating is considered "good," then it totally defeats the purpose of a rating system as a means of objective classification. It's basically putting the cart before the horse -- instead of the ratings merely describing what the films do, the films are changing themselves in pursuit of the rating.
Not to mention that MPAA is this secretive cabal that's very far from being representative of the audience and that makes its decisions for arcane and often arbitrary reasons. Given how powerful they are, they should be more answerable.
I think we need a completely new rating system. Maybe something like the TV system of content descriptors with L for language, V for violence, etc., but without the preceding overall ratings. Don't try rating films at all, just describe what kind of content is included. And replace the MPAA with a more transparent and representative panel.
Heck, my parents thought nothing of taking my brother and sister and I to see "Goldfinger" at the drive-in when we were kids, despite "Pussy Galore."
She was just a cat-lover, right? And the movie was just a harmless espionage adventure movie, perfectly suitable for kiddies.
It was a simpler time, when double entendres like that we're expected to fly over younger heads. Not sure you could get away with that today. Would "Pussy Galore" get you a PG or a R rating these days?
It wasn't that particular post, per se, but the fact that it was the latest(in this thread, and in general at the time) in a long line of posts that at least seem to be for the purpose of telling me I'm completely wrong about something, even when the evidence against me has all the same details, just shuffled into a more correct order. Have someone do this to you long enough, even if it isn't their goal or intent, it gets to be annoying.
After putting up with it for several years now without responding, when I read this the other night it just seemed to get to me, and since I was both literally and figuratively tired, I let it prod me to a response.
It's not "evidence against you," though. You're not the target. As Greg says, it's just an attempt to help you by clarifying some information. I'm with Greg -- if I'm wrong about something, I want to be told as soon as possible so I can stop being wrong. So it always bewilders me when people see a correction as a personal affront rather than an attempt to help. There's no shame in making a mistake. Everyone does it. We're all constantly learning and correcting ourselves as we go, or at least we should be. So there's no personal judgment intended. We're all in the same boat of human fallibility, trying to help each other bail it out.
Lurker: Fair enough.
For what it's worth, if I see a factual error in a thread, I'll probably post a correction because, well, inaccuracy can cause confusion, but, like I said, I'm usually trying to correct "the thread," not target any specific individuals.
It's nothing personal. The trick is not to be snarky or (too) pedantic about it.
"A minor correction: Christopher Lee did not play Moff Tarkin in the original STAR WARS. That was his frequent co-star, Peter Cushing. Lee played Count Dooku in the later prequels."
That kind of thing.
And if someone catches me in an error, my usual response is "Oops! I stand corrected."
Then again, I'm used to being corrected by eagle-eyed copyeditors . . . who are usually right, damn it.
For what it's worth, if I see a factual error in a thread, I'll probably post a correction because, well, inaccuracy can cause confusion, but, like I said, I'm usually trying to correct "the thread," not target any specific individuals.
It's nothing personal. The trick is not to be snarky or (too) pedantic about it.
"A minor correction: Christopher Lee did not play Moff Tarkin in the original STAR WARS. That was his frequent co-star, Peter Cushing. Lee played Count Dooku in the later prequels."
That kind of thing.
And if someone catches me in an error, my usual response is "Oops! I stand corrected."
Then again, I'm used to being corrected by eagle-eyed copyeditors . . . who are usually right, damn it.
Following this discussion I had to look up the American ratings. I remember my UK import DS9 DVDs having descriptions like `this might contain mild forms of violence´or something like that. I don't have my DVDs close at hand, but the age limit varies between 12 and 16 (Season 7). I found an Amazon.de offer that claims that the DVDs are unchecked and without rating, so no delivery to minors is possible.
The German rating system is called FSK (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft) and is based on age limits (0 = without limit, 6, 12, 16, 18) according to the Youth Protection Act.
FSK rated TMP with 12.
In terms of Christopher's suggestion to describe the contents of movies rather than rating them, the German age limits are also insufficient.
Oddly, they rate several DS9 seasons with 12, season 7 with 16. And the whole series (all seasons) is rated with 16, depending on what you purchase.
Honestly, it's not even about trying to "help" the person who made the original error. It's just about clarifying matters for the sake of the discussion.
It doesn't matter who made the error or why. It's about facts, not individuals.
Granted, one wants to be tactful about this.
True behind-the-scenes tip: When I'm editing another author's work, one of my cardinal rules of conduct is: "Don't try to be funny."
In my experience, most writers have no sense of humor when it comes to be edited, even if they like clowning around and joshing outside of work. So . . . no sarcasm, no facetiousness, no teasing . . . not when I'm correcting somebody's baby. You want to be Joe Friday, sticking to the facts:
"On p. 35, Anna said she was an only child. On p. 62, she mentions going to her brother's wedding. Please clarify."
Probably not a bad approach to factual matters on the internet as well.
Which films do you think were toned down to their detriment? And especially which films added gratuitous elements?
From what I've read it's a fair criticism that the system is a lot easier on studio than on independent or foreign films but the judgments seem pretty reasonable otherwise.
The Austin Powers movies were PG-13 and featured characters with names like Ivana Humpalot, Fook Mi, and Fook Yu, so I think PG-13.
Good point!
The King's Speech and True Grit were released in 2010 and had a very, VERY puzzling rating.
The King's Speech: Rated R for some language
True Grit: Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images
The language in question from The King's Speech is a scene where King George VI is told by his speech therapist Lionel Logue to say the F-word. This is strictly for medicinal purposes (Thanks Bones!) and isn't really that negative in context. Medicinal purposes = Not suitable for anyone under 17.
True Grit? Where do I start. We have gun and knife violence, finger chopping (seen on screen), red blood splatter (MPAA should hate red blood), adults attempting to murder children, animal cruelty and racism. Totally more approachable than the King's Speech. I'm sorry, I still cannot get over that.
The King's Speech: Rated R for some language
True Grit: Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images
The language in question from The King's Speech is a scene where King George VI is told by his speech therapist Lionel Logue to say the F-word. This is strictly for medicinal purposes (Thanks Bones!) and isn't really that negative in context. Medicinal purposes = Not suitable for anyone under 17.
True Grit? Where do I start. We have gun and knife violence, finger chopping (seen on screen), red blood splatter (MPAA should hate red blood), adults attempting to murder children, animal cruelty and racism. Totally more approachable than the King's Speech. I'm sorry, I still cannot get over that.
I suppose my defensiveness comes from being paranoid. I was bullied incessantly at school growing up, and they would use anything they could think of to try to make me look bad. One kid often went so far as to deliberately mispronounce words around others that I had said, and used, correctly, making it sound as if I had been the one mispronouncing them. Others would try to make it seem as if I knew nothing about things like Star Trek, when usually I was the one that would know, as I was the only admitted fan among my peers. In fact, I have a first edition paperback of Spock Must Die! that I got at the school bake sale and fundraising fair, that a couple of kids spent a day teasing my about "Why must Spock die?" and laughing at me when I tried to answer.
Honestly, it's not even about trying to "help" the person who made the original error. It's just about clarifying matters for the sake of the discussion.
It doesn't matter who made the error or why. It's about facts, not individuals.
Granted, one wants to be tactful about this.
True behind-the-scenes tip: When I'm editing another author's work, one of my cardinal rules of conduct is: "Don't try to be funny."
In my experience, most writers have no sense of humor when it comes to be edited, even if they like clowning around and joshing outside of work. So . . . no sarcasm, no facetiousness, no teasing . . . not when I'm correcting somebody's baby. You want to be Joe Friday, sticking to the facts:
"On p. 35, Anna said she was an only child. On p. 62, she mentions going to her brother's wedding. Please clarify."
Probably not a bad approach to factual matters on the internet as well.
It was a long time ago, so it tends to take a lot to set me off anymore, but it can build up.
I had much the same experience. I was bullied constantly, always treated like I was in the wrong about everything even when my adversaries had to embrace totally nonsensical positions (like insisting that a membrane was a kind of brain, or something like that -- that's one I've always remembered).
But I was also raised to think critically and question my own assumptions. I resented it when my father would routinely take contrary positions to my own rather than granting me the approval I wished for, but I suppose I learned from it nonetheless -- that everything should be questioned and challenged, especially our own beliefs and conclusions. And one way or another, I learned that the best defense is simply to avoid being wrong. If you're wrong about something, find out, admit it, and fix it as quickly as possible so that nobody will be able to criticize you for it again (or at least so you can prove your position if they do). Better in the long run than resisting a correction and continuing to be wrong.
Although, really, I think the long-term consequence of being a bullied nerd and outsider is that I learned to rely on my own approval of myself over the approval of others. It's important to me to have accurate knowledge, and I know the best way to achieve that is to question my assumptions and correct my mistakes. And I have to find out about my mistakes if I want to correct them.
G stands for General Audiences, i.e. anyone can see it. PG is Parental Guidance Suggested, i.e. parents should think about whether to let their kids see it.
And how did Critters 2 got away with a PG-13 rating? i mean gory violence, language and the hottest transformation ever put on film, a blank faced alien body hunter in need of a new form/bodyfit looks at a playboy magazine and turns into a hot blonde centerfold complete with tits growing in front of your face bursting out of the suit and ass forming to being semi-nude with tits exposed.
Yeah, but they were just jiggling across the screen. If someone had been slobbering on them, the PG would be out the window.
Similar threads
