PG-13: A Discussion

It Neuters Content

When the PG-13 rating news was suddenly broken regarding Live Free or Die Hard in 2007, the internet was up in arms about it, with dedicated fans of the franchise bitterly disappointed in the decision to neuter the movie to heighten box office potential. Bruce Willis promptly took to the talkback section on AICN to calm down the bad press, probably because Fox paid him to try and make out that PG-13 is not a big deal and that the movie will still be violent and awesome. But we all know that we should never listen to such blatant propaganda bullcrap.

The previous Die Hard movies were by no means bloodbaths, nor did they push NC-17 levels of content. Rather, with the freedom of an R rating, John McClane can swear when he feels frustrated, and when people are shot, there is blood. It adds a visceral punch to the action which makes it more enjoyable and impactful, and it adds extra chutzpah to the one-liners and bantering. With a PG-13, it just feels like the entire movie is pandering directly to the rating. McClane is calm when he should be in over his head and swearing like a sailor. When a dude falls into a fan, there's the littlest hint of blood when there should be guts flying everywhere. When people are shot, it's hard to tell where they were shot. It harms coherence and makes the action scenes feel very "meh." (And the unrated edition is horrid, adding pink CGI blood puffs that look phoney as hell.)

With an R rating, action movies give the target audience exactly what they want. Judge hardcore action fans for being shallow or whatever, but there is an audience who like their action brutal and hardcore. We have to put up with romances and rom-coms, we deserve the good shit that we want!

And then there is the lack of nudity in contemporary action movies. Again, you can judge people for being shallow if you must, but nudity is another part of giving an audience what they want. People may say they don’t care about nudity in movies, but they are liars. When you see nudity, you can feel something: joy, arousal, curiosity, horniness, disgust... And this is the real reason we watch motion pictures - to experience emotions like joy, happiness, disgust, anger, and so on.

Take away these factors, and the end product feels unnatural and unrealistic, not to mention unsatisfying. While movies are not supposed to be realistic, the unrealistic moments should at least be done as realistically as possible. This is all part of The Trick, which is critical whilst making an immersive motion picture. This is why bad or mediocre-looking digital effects get such a bad wrap - people are disappointed that it does not look real, and therefore they do not get tricked. If a viewer cannot get tricked, the experience is ruined. Practical effects look the most realistic because they are real.

And here's the big thing: No matter how watchable or enjoyable a PG-13 action movie might be, it could have been even better with an R rating. I just keep seeing wasted potential.

It Sends The Wrong Message To Kids

The Expendables 3 is PG-13, and yet it still flaunts a massive body count, showing its young target audience that war is sanitised and clean. If people are shot, they just slump over like it's no big deal. Kids can buy tickets to movies like Expendables 3, but are denied the chance to watch R-rated movies about kids & teens like The Breakfast Club or The Kings of Summer? How the fuck does THAT work?

With bloodless bullet wounds and very little in the way of visible blood and harm during mayhem, kids will not feel threatened by the carnage and think that violence is both cool and without major consequences. PG-13 violence is unrealistic, preaches the wrong things to children, and denies a crucial part of the excitement/entertainment of an action movie. In short, nobody wins. This point was actually discussed in This Film Is Not Yet Rated - really, the rules of violence should be switched. Sanitised, bloodless violence should be for adults who understand that real-life violence is horrible and not cool, while visceral graphic violence should be shown to kids so they can understand that real-life violence is not so cool. Then again, adults would not pay to watch unsatisfying, bloodless violence. So who the fuck is PG-13 for?

There Needs To Be A Rating Between PG-13 And R

It's undeniable at this point that there needs to be a rating between PG-13 and R. People have been saying it for years. Take a look at Australia's rating system: PG (for kiddie movies and really sanitised actioners), M15+ (essentially PG-13, but allows for stronger content), MA15+ (the happy middle ground - restricted to audiences over 15, but kids can be accompanied by a guardian) and R18+ (essentially NC-17). Look at the UK: 12A, 15, 18. Same kinda deal.

Having a middle ground between PG-13 and R means studios won't have to pander to PG-13 anymore. Instead, they can go back to what they used to do: make a movie and include all the content that's necessary for the material, including violence and swearing, and see where it lands. R should be reserved for the REAL OTT bloodbaths, in the same way that R18+ in Australia is. It would just be a much better system, and the integrity of movies won't be compromised as much.

It's Too Black & White

Here are the MPAA rules for PG-13: one or two kinda bloody acts of violence, and no more than 2 or 3 f-bombs, none of which can be used in a sexual context (motherfucker cannot be used in a PG-13). No matter what the movie is, if it breaches those rules in any way, it's gonna be an R.

The King's Speech contains a scene full of profanity to illustrate a genuine form of speech therapy. It's not used in an exploitative or profane way; it's educational. But no matter how much the studio begged for reconsideration, the MPAA didn't budge. It's swearing and it's inappropriate for kids, apparently, according to the board of overzealous soccer mums who probably keep saying the phrase "Please think of the children!". But by getting rid of the scene of profanity, the movie's impact and value is diminished.

Also, the documentary Bully got controversy because of its real, disturbing exploration of schoolyard bullying that got an R from the MPAA. Language is strong and subject matter is disturbing, but it's an essential movie to show kids for its educational purposes. They should be challenged and forced to think about the implications of the documentary. But it breached the MPAA's clean-cut rules, so it's R. What a load of absolute arse.

PG-13 Is NOT More Violent Today

A "study" was released in the last few years which says that PG-13 action movies today are more violent than PG-13s of the '80s and '90s, and even more violent than the typical R-rated movies from decades back. What an absolute load of fucking bullshit. Any time someone brings this up, I have to point out that if they agree with it, they are retarded, period.

The study is predicated on "acts of violence." So PG-13 action films have big body counts and lots of people die, compared to something like the first Die Hard in which only like ten people die. That logic, however, is fucking retarded. Does that mean that 2012 is the most violent movie ever because most of the planet's population dies? Get your head out of your butt. In a PG-13 movie, a lot of people may die but they expire without any blood or impact. In an R-rated movie, people are shot and there is fucking blood and viscera. You take notice. It shocks you. Jaws only has a few shark attack scenes, but each scene is graphic as fuck, with dismembered limbs and plenty of blood. And that's just PG!! Frozen is rated fucking PG! Ditto with Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is PG but has the blood splashes of a modern R-rated movie. If either of those movies were released today, they would be R, period. This already shows the study is pure, 100% bollocks.

I mean, take a look at this clip from the sanitised, bloodless Expendables 3:


You get bored. You're just watching people fall over.

Now compare that to, say, the Rambo 4 finale:


See how it maintains interest because of the blood and gore? It doesn't get repetitive or boring.

And what about this classic scene from Tony Scott's masterpiece, True Romance, from the early '90s. It's R-rated and violent.


See the difference between that and the EX3 clip?

Studios Have Too Much Faith In PG-13

When RoboFlop was being prepped, apparently it was designed to have an R-rating. The filmmakers were pushing for it, to make it worthy of its ultraviolent predecessor. But MGM wanted themselves a new big money-maker, and refused to fund an R-rated movie, so PG-13 it was. In the case of Live Free or Die Hard, Fox only agreed to make the thing if it was PG-13. Other movies like the Total Recall remake? PG-13. Most everything has to be PG-13 because the studio thinks they'll get a massive return on their investment.

But they really have too much faith in the rating. There are other factors that they simply can't comprehend and do not want to think about. Both RubberCop and Total Retard flopped as PG-13 movies, and there are other PG-13 productions like The Losers and The A-Team which disappointed majorly.

Fact of the matter is, a PG-13 will not always return a profit. Neither will an R-rated movie, mind you, but surely it's a safer gamble to make a $50M R-rated movie than a $200M PG-13 movie?

Studios Underestimate R Ratings

We've recently seen somewhat of a resurgence of the R-rating. American Sniper became the first R-rated movie since Saving Private Ryan to be the biggest domestic box office grosser of its year. Who saw that coming? A $50M R-rated war movie outgrossed Marvel's annual output, the new Hunger Games, and other high profile releases.

More recently, Kingsman became a box office dark horse, with positive word-of-mouth leading to a surprising hit, earning in excess of $400 million worldwide, more than PG-13 movies like Taken 3, Insurgent, Jupiter Ascending, and others. Hell, Fifty Shades of Grey was an R-rated movie that made booku cash.

R-rated movies with real integrity can achieve more than studios realise. If American Sniper was PG-13, guaranteed its box office would not have been so high, because people would laugh at the prospect of a PG-13 war movie. Fifty Shades of Grey would be utterly unable to provide the sensual scenes from the book, so it would alienate everyone and would've flopped. R-rated movies can still make fucking bank!

Un-PC And Gloriously R-Rated Gets People Talking

Sometimes, a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street comes along, which laughs in the face of political correctness and serves up so much foul language and material in such bad taste that it gets people talking. And then people want to see it. And then more people see it. This was an R-rated movie, borderline NC-17, and yet it made a lot of money. In Australia, it was R18+, a commercial death wish, yet it made over $20M, an astonishing figure higher than most PG-13 blockbusters.

PG-13 Can Work, However

It must be stressed that adult movies can be PG or PG-13 and still be great, but these films handle material which did not necessitate an R rating. There would be no reason for Hugo or something like Good Night, and Good Luck to be filled with profanities - in fact, they would be worse off with exploitative expletives - because such endeavours nonetheless deal with mature, adult themes and at no point felt neutered. I'm not talking about movies like this - I instead take issue at soulless Hollywood products, mostly action movies, which do not possess an ounce of integrity.

And I do admit that, in some rare cases, talented filmmakers can in fact keep ostensibly R-rated material in the PG-13 realm without pulling punches. James Cameron’s Titanic at no point feels gutted since all the terror and tragedy of the Titanic disaster was masterfully conveyed. Yet, even talented filmmakers can fuck up such endeavours. Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones was a good effort, yet the material involves rape and murder, none of which was conveyed effectively, thus detracting a certain emotional punch. It’s a fine line to walk.