Let's talk about PG-13

[Sundancer]

Well, The Expendables 3 is PG-13, and controversy arises again.

I don't need gratuitous blood and nudity, but if you are dealing with R-rated material, a movie should be rated R.

Here's my main problem: action scenes.

Many PG-13 movies have very choppy editing to get that rating. Compare Taken theatrical versus unrated. The final scene is longer and more fluid. Same thing with Daredevil PG-13 vs. R--more fluid fight scenes.

When I watch a gun fight or hand-to-hand combat, I like to see what strikes are being used and how the combatants are spatially related to one another. Movies like The Transporter and the Bourne movies rely a lot on editing to get he PG-13 but the fights end up being a mess. John Woo had to work hard to get MI2 down from R to PG-13, and it shows.

The Matrix is rated R, but barely has blood, nudity or swearing. My guess it's because of the amount of violence shown. Very fluid, wide shots instead of ambiguous close-ups, and fans responded to it.

Admittedly, PG-13 is getting more lenient. Casino Royale had some good fight scenes and it was PG-13. I wonder if the opening scene being in being in B&W made a difference.

The bottom line is: I know it's a business, but the movie will be better and fans will enjoy it more if the final product reflects the material.

 

[MadVillainy]

Im honestly tired of people complaining about R rating. It doesnt make for a better movie in most cases.
The only cases where I can think that R rating was better were Live Free or Die Hard (Die Hard 4.0). But then look at a Good Day to Die Hard. R Rating but sucked worse than the fourth movie.

The Expendables is so tame anyway that a PG13 rating isnt really gonna make or break the movie. It's only gonna have less blood.

Im more worried about how good the stories and characters are rather than the rating.

 

[Quasimod0]

Cap had some great fight scenes that were easy to follow. PG13

 

[MadVillainy]

I think what Sundancer is pointing out is that movies that are shot for R but get cut down to PG13 have worse fight scenes due to editing.

It's different to compare Cap to Taken in that regard


Ive never noticed personally because so many fight scenes nowadays has the Bourne method of hand-to-hand combat scenes, when the camera is right up in someones face

 

[The Endless]

Why not talk about ham and cheese toasties?

 

[:eek:]

World War Z: PG 13 and one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Compared to the R-rated (and much cheaper) 28 Days Later WWZ is just pathetic. A zombie-movie for kids. Ugh.

 

[MadVillainy]

World War Z: PG 13 and one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Compared to the R-rated (and much cheaper) 28 Days Later WWZ is just pathetic. A zombie-movie for kids. Ugh.

WWZ's story problems and what not were not due to the PG13 rating.

 

[The Endless]

WWZ's story problems and what not were not due to the PG13 rating.

True. But i think if it was let off the leash a bit it could have been more viscerally effective.

It's like, would Carpenter's Thing be as great as it is if it was on a short leash and neutered to be PG-13? Absolutely not.

 

[-JKR-]

Hollywood studios need to get their s**t together and stop gearing and marketing adult-oriented movies and franchises to kids.

I enjoy PG-13 tentpoles as much as anyone else, I wouldn't be posting on the Superhero Hype otherwise.

But I'm tired of seeing movies being watered down in their content, only in order to get that rating. You see lots of action movies trying to be edgy, and when people get shot you see a white cloud popping out...

I'm fine with it in a Batman movie, James Bond, etc. But if you wanna sell me on an edgy action flick, then the action and violence has got to be more visceral. In a movie about M-E-R-C-E-N-A-R-I-E-S (I'll take The Expendables just as an example), the last thing you want is to see watered-down sequences meant for younger kids, as well. Why would you market a movie full of gunplay and (watered-down, implicit) violence, a movie about people killing other people, to kids anyway?

Aside from comedies, the R-rating seems to have somewhat of a bad stigma. Guess what? It was the same for comedies. American Pie, in 1999, pretty much brought back the concept of the R-rated raunchy comedy as a successful studio movie, and Judd Apatow's 40 Year Old Virgin and other movies soon followed.

Producers and studios need to have more faith in R-rated action movie and thrillers. Bring back quality hard-boiled action pics, and audiences will start showing up again. Maybe. Because I'm losing faith in the audiences more than I do in major studios, honestly.

 

[Sundancer]

I think what Sundancer is pointing out is that movies that are shot for R but get cut down to PG13 have worse fight scenes due to editing.

Yes, thank you. That is my point though it's not always the case in all movies.

I don't expect blood in Captain America. The long shot following the various Avengers in the NY battle is a good example of what I like to see.

 

[-JKR-]

But it's not just that, guys. There are too many movies these days that are already SHOT as PG-13, when they clearly shouldn't.


For example:

Max Payne --- Aside from being based on a videogame (which was meant for adult players, anyway), why would you market a movie such as this to younger kids? A movie about about a cop whose wife and kid are violently murdered by criminals. Why would you make such a movie for the PG-13 audience? Granted, the movie had problems worse than the rating. It was a quickly-tossed together cashgrab by Tom Rothman's Fox, with a hack director at the helm, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an action movie which should be geared towards a more adult audience, but which has been watered down (don't bring up the 'Unrated' cut, some cheap blood CGI effects added in order to convince people who are easy to convince ain't much better than the PG-13 rating, considering you filmed it with the more 'family-friendly' rating anyway).

Does anyone here think that it would be a good idea to make a PG-13 Punisher movie, and that the rating wouldn't matter or interfere with the concept's 'natural edge' and content?

 

[Figs]

But it's not just that, guys. There are too many movies these days that are already SHOT as PG-13, when they clearly shouldn't.


For example:

Max Payne --- Aside from being based on a videogame (which was meant for adult players, anyway), why would you market a movie such as this to younger kids? A movie about about a cop whose wife and kid are violently murdered by criminals. Why would you make such a movie for the PG-13 audience? Granted, the movie had problems worse than the rating. It was a quickly-tossed together cashgrab by Tom Rothman's Fox, with a hack director at the helm, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an action movie which should be geared towards a more adult audience, but which has been watered down (don't bring up the 'Unrated' cut, some cheap blood CGI effects added in order to convince people who are easy to convince ain't much better than the PG-13 rating, considering you filmed it with the more 'family-friendly' rating anyway).

Does anyone here think that it would be a good idea to make a PG-13 Punisher movie, and that the rating wouldn't matter or interfere with the concept's 'natural edge' and content?

You can throw Mortal Kombat in that list as well. A movie based on a game known for it's violence so much that it was the main focus for Joe Lieberman's conservative campaign to ban violent video games. F that guy and to hell with Ed Boon/John Tobias for selling out.