PG-13 .. should 13 year olds really be watching some of this stuff?

[RandomBurrito]

Ok, well I'm a huge fan of watching movies. I love em' and I'm actually going to be starting a movie review thing on youtube (not sure when so please don't ask right now). I recently watched a few PG-13 movies and was really surprised with the content they had in it. Me being older was even like "I don't wanna see this kind of stuff and if I had a thirteen year old kid I wouldn't want them to see this either". For example, I recently watched Transformers 2. I'm a fan of Transformers and I was really disappointed with this movie. All the junk they had in there really ruined it for me. For those who have seen will know what I'm talking about. And if I had to rate it I would rate it 6/10 because of it. I've seen other titles like "My super x-girlfriend" which is PG-13, disappointed, Iron Man, wasn't as bad but still had some content, Norbit, innuendo was too much, etc. So .. what are your opinions about this? Please .. no fighting (although I really don't expect that) and respect others opinions.

So now my switch is on. XD

[Nate]

I agree, I think the standards for what constitutes PG-13 have gotten REALLY lax. Transformers definitely should have been rated R, but because Michael Bay is a bigshot he talked down the MPAA (or so I heard).

Transformers 2 was tamer content-wise. There was a lot of questionable stuff in there but I really can't think of anything that was explicit enough to warrant an R rating, unlike the first movie (the whole "Sam's happy time" thing alone was enough to warrant an R, there wasn't anything that bad in the second movie).

What I find interesting, and I can't claim credit for this (James Rolfe gets credit for pointing this out), roles are switching from what they used to be. It used to be most comedy movies were rated PG or PG-13, and most action flicks were rated R. Look at Alien, or Terminator, or Robocop. Now, most comedy movies are rated R, and most action movies are rated PG or PG-13.

I think the reason for this is related to what you're saying. Action movies are getting PG-13 ratings because the standards for what constitutes PG-13 is becoming less restrictive. Comedies nowadays seem to have a lot of sexual or grossout humor, which earns them an R rating (and then a lot of them have "UNRATED" slapped across the DVD cover).

I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing, although I do think it's very inappropriate to do, such as with Transformers which has kids' toys marketed for it, and kids love robots and stuff, so to have all that sexual humor is definitely out of line. It's part of the reason I hate Michael Bay and wish he hadn't gotten the rights to the movies in the first place.

Although interestingly the original Transformers movie, when shown in theaters, had two instances of swearing, one of which was edited out on the video release (Bumblebee's infamous "Oh s***, what are we gonna do now?" which made a lot of kids in the theaters go "He said what now?").

[minakichan]

I saw Transformers when I was 18, and even at 18 I didn't think That Part was warranted or appropriate...

[Whitefang]

Nate, I also think that what constitutes 'R' or 'PG-13' is getting reversed. It used to be that violence was tolerated more and sexual content would get an R rating, but now those roles seem to be reversing.

I totally agree with you minakichan, that scene was unnecessary regardless of the rating the movie received.

[rocklobster]

I felt the same way about a lot of movies. Disney's version of Hunchback should definitely have gotten at least a PG, and Dark Knight was certainly an R movie in my book. Heath Ledger's Joker is much too frightening for young children.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Ledger's joker was a very disturbing character on a psychological level, by all means, but the action was very much on a PG 13 par. Yeah, there was a lot of it, but there was really relatively little blood or gore. For the most part, the horror of that movie took place entirely in your own mind. From a stance of "how severe was this movie" it should've gotten an R perhaps, but from a technical by the books presentation it passed the grade for PG-13.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Yeah, I wouldn't want my 13 year old staring at Megan Fox for two hours.

With all the adult (perverted) humor in most comedies, I have no idea how they end up with PG13 movies.

Our family, little brothers and all, saw Dare Devil in theater. What in the world is a gratuitous make out scene doing in a comic book movie?

I think the only movie I've seen recently that was appropriately rated PG13 was Men in Black.

And I agree with Nate. And Michael Bay's an idiot, albeit a wealthy one.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

As a general rule, I'm not a fan of staring at Megan Fox for two hours myself.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Heh, I didn't mean that anyone wants to see Transformers for her sake, but that she's just there

[Etoh*the*Greato]

No no, I totally get that. I just think I might be the only straight guy in america who thinks she's not that great looking.

[Mr. Rogers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwirWWnzJKM


What ever happened to the good old days of comedy?

[LadyRushia]

Most times when sexual humor is in a PG-13 movie, I think it's too much for 13-year-olds. Older teens might be better suited to handle it, but not younger ones. It might be a good idea if there was something like PG-15 or 16 since anything PG-13 can either be close to PG or close to R. There seems to be too much of a gap there. I guess the problem would be distinguishing what would make a film PG-15 instead of 13. People would have a wide variety of opinions on that.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I think maybe more descriptive warning labels would be nice. I mean, should a mother really have to explain what certain functions are to her thirteen-year-olds as they walk out of the theater?

Like, telling us if the "Sexual content" was done in a joking/just plain dirty way or a more serious way (IE, the movie "Taken.")

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Perhaps with the exception of some families, the vast majority of thirteen year olds are already well aware of those functions, either because of classmates or other adults in their situation (Not necessarily the parents). I was relatively sheltered myself, and even I was made aware of those things by the time I was ten.

Let's also keep in mind what the PG in PG-13 stands for: Parental Guidance. Basically the guideline they're saying is, "this movie will be OK for a thirteen year old if you offer them your guidance in understanding and processing the material within said film." This is not a "free ticket OK for thirteen year olds to watch" rating.

[LadyRushia]

But even still, plenty of 13-year-olds get into those movies without parents. My friends and I did back when we were that young.

And it's true that most young kids know all sorts of things these days. By 6th grade or 7th grade, I knew most of what there is to know. That being said, more detailed description about content would be helpful in discerning which movies to see or not see regardless of age.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Oh, absolutely. As for the thirteen year olds getting in, I think that has less to do with the rating system and more to do with its enforcement. It was only recently that they started to tighten up on the R and NC-17 films, before that just about anyone could get in as long as they had visibly hit puberty.

It's a little like the issue many politicians have with game ratings and such. The ratings system for videogames is fantastic. it's the retailers failing to enforce it that are causing many of the issues politicians have with the ESRB.

[SnoringFrog]

Our family, little brothers and all, saw Dare Devil in theater. What in the world is a gratuitous make out scene doing in a comic book movie?

Well, you find stuff like that in comics as well, so it's not a massive stretch to have it in the movie as well. I understand that you still tend not to expect that in that sort of movie, if only because of how much these comic book heroes are marketed to children (although I don't really think Daredevil has a strong of a market there as Batman and Spiderman do).

Either way, I do agree that alot of PG-13 movies are probably too explicit in one way or another to be rated PG-13. I'm kind of skewed as far as the action/gore rating goes, because I'm very resistant to that type of content and so I've yet to see enough that I'd say "oh that should be R", but for sexual content I can see the problem more.

Although, from what Nate said ("the whole "Sam's happy time" thing alone was enough to warrant an R"), I apparently am skewed on the sexual content as well. I suppose it's because I'm more offended by the actual showing of any sort of sexual content and not as much by sexual humor or conversations. I wouldn't have said that scene should only be in an R-rated movie, but then again I wouldn't really know either.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Yeah, I suppose that's true... You pick up on things just because it's how nature works... but still, man... Seeing things acted out on screen is a bit... much. Not just for kids either, but most of that crap is put in for the sake of lust.

It's a little like the issue many politicians have with game ratings and such. The ratings system for videogames is fantastic. it's the retailers failing to enforce it that are causing many of the issues politicians have with the ESRB.

I agree. I think the ESRB does a pretty good job. And I even think Halo could have gotten a T rating.

Well, you find stuff like that in comics as well, so it's not a massive stretch to have it in the movie as well.

We've never read any comics, so... But that was way to much for a PG13... I mean, geez...

[ShiroiHikari]

Well, at least we have a PG-13 rating these days. Before 1982-ish, there wasn't one, so all kinds of stuff could make it into a PG movie. Like for example, Poltergeist is rated PG, but it's pretty scary with one scene of straight-up gore, and I personally wouldn't let kids under 13 watch it.

I do think that the standards have gotten lax, and I think it's due in part to studios trying to make as much money off a movie as possible, which means a lower rating so more kids can go. Parents just need to be more mindful, I guess.

[SnoringFrog]

We've never read any comics, so... But that was way to much for a PG13... I mean, geez...

And that would probably be why you didn't know that then, XD. Until I started reading comics alot myself I wouldn't have expected any of that type of content either. I can't comment on that particular scene though, because I've only ever seen Daredevil on tv and I don't remember many specifics, so for all I know it was edited. I do remember hearing that Daredevil was pushing the PG-13 rating alot when it came out though.

[Nightshade X]

No no, I totally get that. I just think I might be the only straight guy in america who thinks she's not that great looking.

No... you're not the only one. I guess, that makes us the only two straight guys in America who think that.

...I'd tell you what I think of her, but it's not nice. Not at all.

[Anystazya]

Hm...

I know some thirteen year olds-actually, some that were still 12 year olds-who were not only exposed to stuff like this, but they made some pretty dirty jokes themselves. They nicknamed this other girls butt, for one.

My eleven year old brother watched The Dark Knight...he may have even been ten at the time (He was with my elder siblings and my dad).

I remember, when I was eleven and twelve, I really disliked the PG13 rating, because I felt I was already mature enough and smart enough to handle that sort of stuff...I'm kinda glad for it now, since my little brother is coming up to that age >__< My elder sister was also very protective of what I watched (still is), although, because I kinda liked to follow her and my older brother, I watched a lot of the same movies when I was younger than them...

Then, when I got to being 13, I was sorta happy I could join stuff on the computer, or watch some other stuff...but I completely agree with what everyone is saying here. I just think that, for some people...there are some people who are more mature than their age...? ^____^ Okay, well, actually, some of that stuff is pretty bad. It's crude jokes, like the 'Sam's Happy Time' that IMO, we shouldn't be watching no matter if we're older or younger...Of course, we can't help the fact that they're there XP

Anyhow, I'll just say for now that I agree with you guys...>___<

[LadyRushia]

I remember, when I was eleven and twelve, I really disliked the PG13 rating, because I felt I was already mature enough and smart enough to handle that sort of stuff

I just think that, for some people...there are some people who are more mature than their age...?

You do make good points here. I was very much in this same position when I was your age. That is, I had a level of maturity about me that made my parents not worry about things like what movies I saw as much as they would have had I acted differently. That being said, even when I was 13 I would see some movies and still think that it was too much. I think maturity does play some sort of role in this, which leads me to say that parents should just know their kids well and make judgements based on that.

[Anystazya]

Yes, I agree completely with what you said, Rushia. I know my parents know that I'm more mature than many kids my age. My mom has even joked about how I'm 'going-on-nineteen' rather than what I'm really turning next year ^___^ I think I've been very influenced by my oldest sister.

Still, some other girls I know are very...different from myself They aren't the type of people I'd recommend these type of movies to. I still think some of the stuff is just...bad...

[Cognitive Gear]

The MPAA website has an entire section for parents. Also, in case anyone was not already aware, if you looks at the rating of a movie, you can always see a brief list of the content it has been rated for:



(I don't know what movie it is for, it was just the first one to pop up in a google search.)

[Bobtheduck]

As for inappropriate PG-13 movies... One only has to look at Nutty Professor 2 (galznerking Eddie Murphy ruining classic movies with barely connected "remakes" and abysmal sequels)

The hamster scene should have earned that movie an R rating instantly.

I'll agree, it seems like the US movie rating board is turning into the Euro one: Violence gets worse ratings than anything else, the idea being who cares if they imitate the sexual acts, as long as they don't imitate the violence... This started a long time ago. Matrix 1 (though not so much reloaded and Revolutions) really didn't deserve an R rating. Things are moving a lot closer to that, now, while movies can get more sexual without flipping the R switch yet.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I think the people in charge of the ratings board have shifted a little bit since then, but it seems to me that if the Matrix earned an R, the Dark Knight should have had one handily.

[Danderson]

Matrix 1 (though not so much reloaded and Revolutions) really didn't deserve an R rating.

It's funny u mention that. A friend was talking about it a few days ago and I mentioned that it was rated R...He's seen the movie and he didn't believe that it was rated R. I had to take him to the ratings site before he believed me....

...I think alot of it was more physiological than anything. I remember the first time watching this and really getting hit with the "reality" within the plot (almost made me throw up with Neo when he finds out the reality of the matrix....I was only 15)...Also, 2 other things (3 if u want to count language):
1. The lobby shootout scene probably gave it most of the R rating. If u give then idea of storming a government building to an unstable pre-teen/teen then it's only inevitable what could happen afterwards.
2. Boot to the head. Supposedly, that used to give movies an automatic R rating. With that in mind, the type of action violence probably gave it it's R-rating. With the way that alot of kids/pre-teens like to act out their favourite scenes from a movie (star wars lightsaber fights in my childhood come to mind as proof), watching characters literally beat each other into a pulp using cool slow-mo moves (especially moves that could cause fatal damage in real life) is not something a developing mind needs (unless they already are learning martial arts and understand what it is and what it isn't)...

[Bobtheduck]

I think the people in charge of the ratings board have shifted a little bit since then, but it seems to me that if the Matrix earned an R, the Dark Knight should have had one handily.

Well, there are always those that you get the impression bribed the ratings board...

Disney with Hunchback, for instance.

[Radical Dreamer]

Well, a lot of my opinion on this subject has already been said, but I agree that some PG-13 movies are definitely not appropriate for 13 year olds (or some 15 year olds, for that matter, depending on the kid). That being said, I would let a mature 13-15 year old (perhaps not 13) watch some R-rated films (like Defiance or The Fall), rated R only for violence or more complex themes. I do agree that, within our sexually charged culture, there are far too many PG-13 movies that simply feature too much sex, and they definitely ought to be rated higher. A lot of what I think has, as I mentioned, already been said, so I'll leave it at that to avoid being repetitive. XD