sexuality in movies: not concidered a bad thing anymore?

[Tenshi no Ai]

And regarding PG-13 films with language in them, I've noticed quite a few PG-13 movies these days that drop the "F-bomb" (Bruce Almighty, Anchorman, etc.).

Yeah, those are both PG here :/ For us it's like, well actually, I'm not even sure HOW they come to rate the stuff anymore :/ I guess they think "it has some bad language in it, but that's it. Kids can come as long as their parents do" maybe? But sheesh, not like stuff like THAT helps kids swearing at a younger and younger age :/

Concidering age-rated stuff, kinda sucks when I'm working at Home Ent. I have 8 year olds buying Eminem and it's like you have the right to refuse to sell with age-rated things, but with the guy's dad like right there it's like :/ cause you know they're allowing it and all. And then selling a certain sequel of a movie where guys do stupid stunts, and having like this 11 yr old ask his mom to get it (rated R here too). Like, I dunno. The kids know what they're getting into and it's a little different than doing something illegal like selling cigs to minors. These parents allow it, and I already know how young kids are DEFINATELY trying to act more older and "mature" than in my generation of that age... Then again, it's hard to judge kid's ages nowadays. Sometimes 10 year olds still look like they're 7 (and boy do they get offended when you guess wrong!) But still...

Ok, yet another ramble there, but somethign that just came to mind :/

[Tommy]

I don't watch Movies that often Tom I am usaully working

Then how would you know the ratings are usually wrong if you don't watch movies that often?

I have a part-time and a crapload of school work, but I usually find time to watch movies...

You also must take this into consideration,They probably arent really married in Ral life,They really shoulden't show that kind of "Stuff" In movies.

Yeah, I did consider that.

[Bobtheduck]

Basically Canada's rating system is more like the way the US used to be when the ratings were first invented. It was only in the 90s where the US rating system started to change... In the 80s, a PG rating could have strong language, and full nudity as long as it didn't show sex. A sex scene with Nudity earned an R rating instantly. What sparked the divide in the ratings system was the over the top violence in some PG movies that they felt still didn't warrant an R rating... Actually, one of the movies that got the ratings changed was "Temple of Doom." That's when the PG-13 rating was invented... It was only later that restrictions on language in a PG-13 movie were brought about, and even nudity... It isn't that "all of a sudden" PG-13 movies have nudity. You can't release a PG movie with more than brief language, and none with frontal nudity. PG-13 can have brief frontal nudity (Titanic pushed the limit) but not as much as a PG movie in the 80s. I think the american ratings got more strict but are loosening. That's really what it comes down to... Of course, I think a movie like Revenge of the Sith should have been R... That scene in the fire world... That was a bit disturbing... The problem with the American rating system is they're not consistent and prone to favoritism (a G rating on Hunchback???)

[Radical Dreamer]

Of course, I think a movie like Revenge of the Sith should have been R... That scene in the fire world... That was a bit disturbing...

Really? I didn't think so...well, it was an intense scene, but it was the only scene with that much "gore", if you will, in it. I do think it deserved the PG-13 rating, even if all the other Star Wars films in the past had PG ratings, but there wasn't anything else other than that scene that would legitimately be able to push it to an R.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Then how would you know the ratings are usually wrong if you don't watch movies that often?

I have a part-time and a crapload of school work, but I usually find time to watch movies...

Oh gosh Tom, stop bickering with her and drop it.

I'll be perfectly honest. I don't care about ratings of movies I watch. I only watch movies that look really intriguing and interesting. Of course I'm not saying that certain parts of films won't make a film less enjoyable. But I decide whether or not it was worth my time and/or money after watching it.

[ShiroiHikari]

I never look at the ratings before watching a movie myself, but have you noticed that the MPAA tells you why a movie is given its rating? Like, all the time now? Even if it's something trivial like "cartoon violence" (or whatever they call it)? I mean, that seems pretty effective to me. If the MPAA rates something "R" for sexual content and language, then you dang well better expect some effwords and sex.

[Tommy]

Oh gosh Tom, stop bickering with her and drop it.

I'm not bickering with anyone.

I asked a simple question and she gave a vague answer so I questioned her further.

Just let the mods decide what I should and shouldn't do.

I'll be perfectly honest. I don't care about ratings of movies I watch. I only watch movies that look really intriguing and interesting. Of course I'm not saying that certain parts of films won't make a film less enjoyable. But I decide whether or not it was worth my time and/or money after watching it.

It's never a bad thing to look ahead to make sure that the first 30 minutes isn't at the same level as porn (Hostel, anyone?).

But I'm having toruble finding a reliable source for Christian outlooks on movies. Plugged In is okay, but Screen It reported Ant Bully for having a lot of male nudity.


Just my 2/100 of a dollar.

[rocklobster]

There wasn't a lot a male nudity. And besides, it was a boy's bare chest that we saw, nothing else. And only because the kid shrunk and couldn't fit in his clothes anymore. But then, it's not the first time Plugged in got something wrong.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

The problem is those sort of Christian sites are ultra-conservative or they view them from the point of allowing a 5 year old to watch something. Whereelse would you find War of the Worlds to be "Extremely Offensive"? (lol)

[Tommy]

There wasn't a lot a male nudity. And besides, it was a boy's bare chest that we saw, nothing else. And only because the kid shrunk and couldn't fit in his clothes anymore. But then, it's not the first time Plugged in got something wrong.

First of all, I said Screen-It made the claim of male nudity and as you can see, I'm fully aware that's an error on their part.

However Plugged In claimed there were numerous sexual messages in Hey Anorld! The Movie which weren't present.

[ShiroiHikari]

Whereelse would you find War of the Worlds to be "Extremely Offensive"? (lol)

I find War of the Worlds extremely offensive. [/offtopic]

[Mave]

I rarely bother with ratings. I guess I'm not upset if I see something disturbing or embarrassing since I mostly watch movies by myself and I typically take my own sweet time to watch a movie (in other words, I could wait many years later after that movie was released). By then, the movie has been reviewed to bits and it's most likely a solid recommendation by friends and family.

It's only when I have friends over to watch it together or there are little kids around when I start thinking twice. For the former, it would depend who that friend is. For the latter, I'll be watching it first before deciding whether it's appropriate for them.

[Rocketshipper]

I just found this culture clip on Plugged In's website.

In response to criticism from parents and filmmakers, the Motion Picture Association of America is considering some significant changes aimed at helping filmgoers understand its heretofore arcane movie-rating process. Specifically, the board infamous for its secrecy has proposed posting its ratings standards online. The organization says it will also identify some of its evaluators, post demographic information about the rest and ensure that its raters are parents with children between ages 5 and 18. The proposed changes are scheduled to be finalized in late March. [csmonitor.com, 1/25/07]