Should the MPAA make a "PG-15" rating?

[Warhammer]

yes true. some are still shocked how Ring is pg13. i am

Yep. I was thoroughly surprised. That film got lucky because of the buzz that film generated, people seemed to forget what the rating was. Of course, the rating also meant more money, which the studio was more than excited about.

 

[jmc]

Eh, because if there is going to be a PG-15, then PG-13 should be done away with. Then the question goes, why have a PG-15 rating when R is 17 years or older? It's unnecessary to have a PG-13, PG-15, and R. Then people will want a PG-13, PG-14, PG-15, PG-16, and R. What's the point?

Besides, the whole middle rating argument is moot. Is there seriously this significant difference in maturity between a 13 and a 15 year old? Like that article above about The Wolverine states, the issue isn't simply the rating. The issue is that the MPAA does not rate films consistently. Objectively, when a film like The Conjuring gets an R for no sex scenes, no death, no gratuitous cursing or gore, and a fantasy premise, while The Wolverine gets PG-13 for excessive violence like stabbing and the death of human beings, there is an issue. That issue is the MPAA itself.

Lets put it this way, In Australia we have a middle ground rating called MA15 which is in between the M rating (PG 13) and R18 rating (US R rating), the reason our government introduced this was because it was difficult for some films to fit into either category. It's really got nothing to do with maturing, it's about a middle ground that works for everyone, a middle ground '15' rating solves two issues, it means studios don't have to go through hell to try and reach a PG13 rating, plus is means filmmakers can push boundaries with more mature films - it's win/win. I use the example of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, how much more money would it have made in the US had it had a '15' rating? Quite a lot I image, how many other films lumped into the R rated category have failed due to not being able to draw a bigger audience due to being rated too high? It also means studios can advertise the films more, currently there's a limit to what you can advertise with an R rated film. Honestly, I think people are mistaking what a '15' rating actually means, it's good for everyone, you won't have these issues about films being too violent for PG13 because it means you can simply bump it up to the next level without too much loss. 13, 15, 17, perfectly logical rating system. It works down here, why some of you think it won't work in the US is strange.

 

[redhawk23]

15 is practically the same as 13.

Yeah but then just drop the already existing PG-13 down some.

There's also the matter that 16 year olds and in some cases 15 year olds can drive and have jobs, so there is a pretty major difference.

Also just in terms of the movies themselves there are movies that really stretch the limits of pg-13 and its rather disingenuous to group them with most other pg-13 films.

 

[Warhammer]

Lets put it this way, In Australia we have a middle ground rating called MA15 which is in between the M rating (PG 13) and R18 rating (US R rating), the reason our government introduced this was because it was difficult for some films to fit into either category. It's really got nothing to do with maturing, it's about a middle ground that works for everyone, a middle ground '15' rating solves two issues, it means studios don't have to go through hell to try and reach a PG13 rating, plus is means filmmakers can push boundaries with more mature films - it's win/win. I use the example of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, how much more money would it have made in the US had it had a '15' rating? Quite a lot I image, how many other films lumped into the R rated category have failed due to not being able to draw a bigger audience due to being rated too high? It also means studios can advertise the films more, currently there's a limit to what you can advertise with an R rated film. Honestly, I think people are mistaking what a '15' rating actually means, it's good for everyone, you won't have these issues about films being too violent for PG13 because it means you can simply bump it up to the next level without too much loss. 13, 15, 17, perfectly logical rating system. It works down here, why some of you think it won't work in the US is strange.

Well, I see what you're saying and it makes sense, but the MPAA is too inconsistent here for that to work. Like I said, the problem isn't merely the rating.

 

[Shifty]

In Canada we have G, PG, 14A, 18A and R.

American PG-13 films tend to be rated PG here and American R rated films tend to be 14A. Occasionally we'll have 18A films and rarely is anything R rated.

With so many countries having 1-2 ratings between 13 and 18 I'm surprised the US hasn't created one for 15.

 

[Warhammer]

In Canada we have G, PG, 14A, 18A and R.

American PG-13 films tend to be rated PG here and American R rated films tend to be 14A. Occasionally we'll have 18A films and rarely is anything R rated.

With so many countries having 1-2 ratings between 13 and 18 I'm surprised the US hasn't created one for 15.

See, that's the problem. Plenty of R rated films here aren't merely as bad as some PG-13 films. The ratings here are impartial.

 

[jmc]

Well, I see what you're saying and it makes sense, but the MPAA is too inconsistent here for that to work. Like I said, the problem isn't merely the rating.

But surely a '15' rating will eliminate inconsistencies, it will balance the equation out and not have ridiculous situations where films with a couple of F-bombs gets bumped up to a ridiculously high rating and films with an absurd amount of violence get squeeze into a lower rating simply because they remove blood.

 

[jmc]

In Canada we have G, PG, 14A, 18A and R.

American PG-13 films tend to be rated PG here and American R rated films tend to be 14A. Occasionally we'll have 18A films and rarely is anything R rated.

With so many countries having 1-2 ratings between 13 and 18 I'm surprised the US hasn't created one for 15.

It does seems odd from an outsiders perspective that they haven't cottoned on to other places in the world with a similar systems to both yours and mine. I don't quite understand their reason for preserving the status quo when frankly it doesn't seem to work.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon and say, yes we need a new rating in-between 13 and R. I've seen some crazy pg-13 movies that are fairly violent but hide behind it's fantasical tone or whatever.

 

[Warhammer]

But surely a '15' rating will eliminate inconsistencies, it will balance the equation out and not have ridiculous situations where films with a couple of F-bombs gets bumped up to a ridiculously high rating and films with an absurd amount of violence get squeeze into a lower rating simply because they remove blood.

Okay, you won me over. I'm on the new rating bandwagon.

 

[Max J Power]

I'm really curious to know why so many people are voted No on this poll. It's a no brainer that you should have a rating in between teenage and adult viewing. Frankly, it's half the reason so many films are watered down nowadays.

That's the main reason I think there should be a PG-15. I'd like to think it would lead to less watering down from studios.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah, why so many people voted 'no' when it makes sense to have something like a PG-15. We've outgrown this current ratings system and obviously the ratings board is so inconsistent and bias that something has to get fixed.

 

[Human Torch]

I voted No simply because the PG rating gets completly ignored.No need for a new rating if the old one would be used properly.

I think Ccon made the point.You have lots of films like Spider-Man,Batman 89,Batman Begins,etc,that get the PG-13 rating,when PG would do.Save the PG-13 for the films with stronger stuff (but obviously not R material) as was the original intent.

 

[jmc]

I voted No simply because the PG rating gets completly ignored.No need for a new rating if the old one would be used properly.

I think Ccon made the point.You have lots of films like Spider-Man,Batman 89,Batman Begins,etc,that get the PG-13 rating,when PG would do.Save the PG-13 for the films with stronger stuff (but obviously not R material) as was the original intent.

Hasn't PG evolved now to be more family friendly entertainment? The films listed are far more mature than a PG rating (Spider-Man may be able to scrape through).

 

[Octoberist]

It's almost rare to see a PG movies these days unless a family/animated film is considered too 'raunchy' to be G.

 

[jmc]

Yeah, why so many people voted 'no' when it makes sense to have something like a PG-15. We've outgrown this current ratings system and obviously the ratings board is so inconsistent and bias that something has to get fixed.

It just seems like such a simple solution to a broken problem. Ultimately a '15' rating does everyone the world of good, there are no losers in a '15' rating.

It's almost rare to see a PG movies these days unless a family/animated film is considered too 'raunchy' to be G.

I only see them in animated movies, kids films and the occasional comedy nowadays, the most recent PG (Australian equivalent) film in my DVD collection is Get Smart.

 

[dark_b]

i am afraid that if there is a PG15 that the studios will still make PG13 movies. and make them more like PG .

 

[Thundarr]

I've been thinking for a while now, it would make a lot of sense if the MPAA came out with a "PG-15" rating. Many parents are complaining that there is too much sexual content and language in PG-13 movies to be appropriate for 13 year olds, and many directors are frustrated about how hard it is to depict certain levels of violence without barely crossing into the R-Rating. So why not make an intermediate "PG-15" rating? Concerned parents wouldn't have to worry about there being too much sex PG-13 films, and directors wouldn't have to worry as much about a movie being just barely too violent to not be restricted from minors. It seems like a win-win situation to me.

The problem isn't the ratings. It's the inconsistent and ungoverned system used by the MPAA. Have you ever seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated? There's no consistency between the individual members of the panel. The head of the MPAA can arbitrarily over rule any decisions they make. There's no specific standards given regarding rating films for sex vs rating them for violence.

Example, American Pie shows Jason Biggs dropping his pants and sticking his d**k in a pie, in quite graphic detail, and gets an R rating. But I'm A Cheerleader has a scene where a girl is touching herself over top of her clothes, and it was given an NC-17 rating.

And the appeals system is even more f**ked up than the rating system. It's a completely closed proceding. You're not allowed to know who any of the people on the appeals board are. You're not allowed to compare your film with similar films that were given lower ratings. It's all a bunch of bulls**t.

 

[jmc]

i am afraid that if there is a PG15 that the studios will still make PG13 movies. and make them more like PG .

Could you expand upon that a bit further because I don't know if I understand what you mean.

 

[dark_b]

i think i dont undestand the pg15 rating. i think thats the problem hehe

 

[Laderlappen]

I've always thought R was for up to 15. Then they should just lower R to 15. You shouldnt have to be 17 years old to watch an R rated picture.

 

[dark_b]

interesting. maybe in the future. maybe in 2040.

http://badassdigest.com/2013/08/01/edgar-wrights-polite-exchange-with-the-censors-about-the-c-word/

 

[Thundarr]

In Canada we have G, PG, 14A, 18A and R.

American PG-13 films tend to be rated PG here and American R rated films tend to be 14A. Occasionally we'll have 18A films and rarely is anything R rated.

With so many countries having 1-2 ratings between 13 and 18 I'm surprised the US hasn't created one for 15.

True, our Canadian rating system is superior to the American one (naturally, it's Canadian, eh?). But movies still have to be approved by the MPAA before they can be released, and it's THAT system which is in need of fixing.

Again I suggest you all watch the very revealing documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's available on Netflix right now. You'll be surprised at just how incredibly unbalanced the entire rating system is. I mean, they wanted to give the Kevin Smith movie Jersey Girl an NC-17 rating because of Liv Tyler's character talking about *********ing! She wasn't even doing it, she was just talking about it for crying out loud! And why was this the reason for the rating? According to Kevin Smith, the reason his movie was given such harsh treatment was because someone on the MPAA board "was uncomfortable with her 16 year old daughter hearing Liv Tyler talking about masterbation". Seriously, that was her reason. As if 16 year olds aren't already . . . Ahem . . . "old hands" at the art of *********ion. Kevin Smith's theory is that people didn't want to hear that kind of talk from Arwyn The Elf. Kevin managed to fight the ruling in appeals and argued that Liv Tyler is an actress, not her character. Just because she once played an elf in a PG rated movie doesn't mean that she is her character from that movie. Luckily he won and that scene was allowed to stay in and maintain the PG-13 rating.

 

[warhorse78]

It means that you do not have water down content for a PG-13 audience but it is not an R rating so your core audience can still go so the film. Most countries in the world have a rating inbetween 12/13 and 18...it is silly for America not to do the same. It frees up film makers.

You don't have to water down hardly anything for a PG-13 flick. Just watch the latest Total Recall or The Lone Ranger, both are PG-13, but I know I've seen softer R films than these two.

 

[warhorse78]

I'm really curious to know why so many people are voted No on this poll. It's a no brainer that you should have a rating in between teenage and adult viewing. Frankly, it's half the reason so many films are watered down nowadays.

Actually, it's a no brainer to just look at the poster at the movie plex, and right next to the rating there is this box that describes why it's rated the way it is. It could be for some violence or graphic violence, some language or strong language, brief nudity or graphic sexual content. And I can go even further and just go to IMdb and most movies have a very detailed description on precisely what happens. I go there because I don't care to see movies that have rape in them or torture, and I can find out if a movie does have that.