Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Superman Related PG-13 for Man of Steel

I was going to post this on the Jenny (sic) Olsen thread but then figured it needed it's own thread.

On a Completely different, but similar topic: while browsing the about Jenny Olsen, I saw that the tentative rating for Man Of Steel is: PG-13 . for a MIB movie?? <<just double checked the original movie was too -- I guess with all that alien gore, it makes sense>>

Star Wars 3 - Revenge of the Sith - was rated PG13 and deservedly so, with all the killing of the kids and Anakin turning bad and all.

Spider-man 3 was also PG13 (I'm sensing a trend here). Again, I can see why. If the bad guys are sympathetic and the good guy goes bad...

Avatar (the one with the blue people) also was PG13, but my 5 year old LOVES that movie and wasn't scared a bit. (We tried to keep him away, but he makes Lois seem like a pushover with his stubbornness - and, yes, I am a DOORMAT. It's something I've been working on for years.). I wouldn't put this movie in the same rating bracket as SW3, would you?

Language wise (even though it was pre-PG13-code) Short Circuit (the one with Steve Guttenberg and #5 robot) had TONS of language I'd prefer my kids not to learn, even though it was otherwise a kids film.

Actually, doing a quick flip through most of the superhero movies released recently (and not so recently the Michael Keaton Batman was also PG13), I notice that they ALL are PG13. Perhaps this isn't new news, and I'm slow to noticing the trend out here in the farm belt, raising my kids, and being sooooo far from being 13 myself, but when PG13 first came out it was considered R-lite and a big deal. Now it seems any movie geared towards adults and not kids gets an automatic PG13. So, should I not be shocked that Superman: Man of Steel is considered PG13?

Superman Returns was PG-13. The Reeve movies (I through IV) were all PG. It does seem like there's fewer and fewer G rated movies (for that matter, PG), though. I can't think of a SINGLE movie off to top of my head that wasn't less than a PG or PG-13 that I've seen and even fewer rated G.

The Reeve Superman movies came out pre-code (before PG-13 was a rating, which happened in the late 80s if I recall). Most Disney cartoons still rate "G" ("Princess and the Frog" was, but "Brave" was PG); the Dreamworks cartoons are usually PG because they have edgier humor than Disney.

In my quick perusal of Netflix "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (with Brenden Fraiser) was PG, but it was geared towards kids. All those animal movies that Disney puts out "Air Bud" (or Buddies) to the nth degree, those are all PG. And for some reason, "High School Musical 3" (the only one of the three which made it to theatres) was G! (I figured it would be at least PG, being that it was dealing with teenagers, but then again, I never saw it). "Big Miracle" about the whale trapped in ice was also "PG" but "Hunger Games" (I haven't seen it or read the book) was PG13.

IMO, the entire rating system needs an overhaul. It really means absolutely nothing anymore. The reason we still have the system of G/PG/PG-13/R is for advertising. If you want to get the family crowd, you rate it PG. If you're just concerned about the kids, you make it G. If you want to be a blockbuster and attract the largest demographic of people, you rate it PG-13. It has nothing to do with whether or not the rating is appropriate. (Also, a lot of R movies are split weirdly too; half of them appeal to the horror loving, blood and guts crowd, while the other half are fairly tame except for the controversialness or some language and usually nominated for Oscars :p ).

I feel like we're kind of at a splitting point for PG-13. Like how 80's PG was a bit on the rough side (i.e. "Back to the Future," which has a lot more language than some of today's PG-13's even, but is a fairly harmless storyline). Right now, there's two kinds of PG-13. The first is very tame, with no language or sex and some mild violence (or even suggested violence) and inneundo. They are just barely above the PG level, but are rated PG-13 to attract a bigger crowd. Then there's the other end, where you watch the movie and think "holy cow! why isn't this an R?" (i.e. "Cowboys and Aliens" which, IMO, was far too much on the graphically violent and dark and rough and scary side, along with some nudity).

Trouble is, there's no way to split it. The honest to god difference between R and PG-13 is language. "Frost Nixon" was rated R, but only for one or two scenes where the f-word was used (FYI: the f-word can be used up to 3x in a PG-13 movie before being forced into the R category). Sex and violence really have nothing to do with it. The difference between PG and PG-13 boils down to intensity. TDKR was rated PG-13 for violence and intensity- although the violence was not explicit, it was still happening and I can see how it wouldn't be appropriate for a kid. But I think it's something that a ten year old could handle. But they couldn't give it a PG rating because it would attract kids and parents, who would be offended if they saw it and thought "I can't believe someone thought this was a kid's movie!" Same goes for Avengers-- much less dark and intense, but they still couldn't sell it as a kid's film, even though it is owned by Disney.

It's really all marketing. That's just the way it plays out. But I totally agree with you on whether or not the ratings are right. (I am perfectly comfortable with the new Supes being PG-13, and would be surprised if they posted it as anything less-- or more.)

/end rant./

Those are all good point, Mouserocks, and it looks like you hit the nail firmly on the head about the ratings.

IMO, this was rated PG13 because of the death of a endearing character (who I will not name here due to spoilage), which is shown on screen. Because the viewer has an emotional connection to that character, his death could be over-whelming to kids, whereas the deaths of all those unknown extras (sorry, guys) wouldn't weigh as heavily on them.

For this same reason, I'm surprised Bambi got a "G" rating, instead of PG. It always makes me

I'm guessing that TDKR = The Dark Knight Rises? At first I thought you were referring to a Lord of the Rings movie, but the initials didn't work out right.

True (about the character death in Avengers). But even so, like you said, plenty of kids movies have character deaths in them. In fact, most Disney movies do, both sympathetic characters and villains alike (Bambi's mother, Mufasa, Gaston, and Ursula...). I think it was probably more because of the supposed "violence" involved. That and the fact that there would have been several very LOUD complaints about the movie from fans if it were made PG instead of PG-13, blaming Disney for all of them, even if the film were exactly the same. For some reason, that door swings both ways-- people don't want to go see PG-13 with their kids because it's too scary, and people don't want to go see PG movies because they're for kids. Even though some of the best/funniest films I've seen are PG.

Yes, TDKR is "The Dark Knight Rises". Sorry about the confusion. (Though I get the confusion with LoTR :p )

PS: The Lion King is rated G, and it's based on "Hamlet"- a play where all but two people basically die! Like I said, it's all about the perception of the MPAA and who the filmmakers want to see their movie.

I remember going to an indie theater to see an unrated version of the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" about how the rating system works ( and to a degree about ratings creep, which kind of is what "we're talking about here.) It's interesting that they show side by side versions of the same film (on rated R and on rated NC-17) and how there is pretty much no difference between the two. It was also interesting to note that romantically orient adult scenes get an NC-17 rating while extremely gory ones would only get an R (or even PG-13).

If you think about it movies like Bambi ( like Virgina pointed out) and Dumbo might well have gotten PG 13 today for character deaths and drugs/alcohol. In some ways I wonder of things like that (the alcohol, not the character deaths) go over the kids' heads.

I've often wondered about--and been a bit ticked off about--the whole issue of rating DVDs. Look, they can drop a second Spanish, French, German, Portugese or esperanto audio track on the stupid film, why not a "G" or "PG" audio track. I'm old enough to still be offended by some language and it doesn't add anything to most movies anyway. Let people like me, people with kids and anyone else opt-out of the trashy language.

For that matter, if my DVD and newer Blu-Ray players have the intelligence to play from a disc, USB, MP4, AVI and other formats then that means that they have the ability to read what address to go to next for content to play. Why not save some space with a few less deleted scenes and provide alternate rated playlists for movies as well. Let me play a PG version of a movie with alternate scenes with less violence, nudity, language. It would make movies more watchable for a lot of people. Honestly, give me options--even give me the edited-for-television version of some of these movies and I would rent or own some of them. I realize it wouldn't work for every movie but I would enjoy the option.

For the record, this forum counts as a public disclosure and prior art. I don't want to hear about the MPAA patenting this idea in the future because it's MINE and I hereby put it in the public domain.

What a great idea, Shallowford. There are movies out there that I would love to share with my kids, except for one scene is a little suggestible. ("Strictly Ballroom" for one, would work for kids except for that one suggestible 10 second - if that - image.) Yes, I was surprised when we watched "Short Circuit" and there was all those words, one wouldn't expect in such a movie.

I agree with Mouserocks, too. It really doesn't make a difference, if they say a word 3 times or 25 times to a kid. Once they hear it, they've heard it (those darling little sponges). I, personally, don't think swearing is all that necessary for stories (take for example all the "swearing" we don't have here). If it's a character trait it's one thing, but to have everyone do it just to do it, becomes distracting and boring. It shows a lack of creativity on the part of the author.

Yes, Lion King is another terrific example. Some cartoons are much more violent than PG or PG13 movies, but are considered acceptable because they are cartoon. With my daughter (the more emotionally sensitive of my two children, despite being older), she can handle violence or suspense easier in cartoon films than in live-action. She was terrified by the scene in the pilot of "Lost in Space" (Yes, THAT B&W old TV show, LiS) where the mom and dad are stuck outside the spaceship because the airlock is jammed, until we explained everyone would be just fine because it was the first episode, and there were many more episodes of the show.

Christina, thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I can find a copy of that documentary. It sounds interesting.

So, just going back through this part, thanks to the new Superman discussion threads regarding MoS... and I forgot that I found something you all are pretty much wishing you had...

Watch Edited Movies

If it weren't so expensive, I'd totally get it myself, because honestly even though I'm a college student and definitely don't have any kids of my own, I really don't care for the stuff that makes movies rated R most of the time... but I am still interested in the movies. So this is cool for those purposes. And for those with kids, of course.

I was bored - and this is a really interesting, ongoing discussion - so I moved it to here.

Shallowford, that's a really intriguing idea and, like you, I can't see why it couldn't technically be done if they had the will. Perhaps it just needs a campaign to put it into their hrads and let them know there's a market/desire for it.

LabRat :-)

Someone mentioned SW Episode 3 being PG13 and that slightly surpises me, although I think I missed the part where Anakin attacks the child jedi because I went to the bathroom at that point, so maybe it was more violent than I remember.

As long as the inherent plot in Man of Steel is not so hole ridden as Superman Returns, I will probably watch it.