I watched the unrated version of Live Free or Die Hard yesterday and I got thinking about this new proposal to the ratings system that, to me, stinks to high heaven. Cut for cut, there isn’t a lot of difference between the PG-13 and the uncut (R rated) version. Maybe there were some scenes shaved for a second or two somewhere but visually they are the same movie.

Dialog made the difference. I didn’t pick it up at first, but maybe fifteen minutes into the film I realized the clean up made to get the PG-13 rating was with the language. There are some decidedly R rated language in the unrated version. What I also saw was that the language cut out, which were basically swear words, were words that pertained to sex. I think, and I would have to compare the film a lot more, there were some R rated non sex words that were in both versions or maybe show up once or twice in the PG-13 version, but the R rated sex words are out completely.

What I don’t get, from a pure artistic standpoint, is any person in a situation where they are dodging bullets, getting shot and hurt, there would come a point where you would probably uttered the same words they were removed from the film to get a PG-13 rating. I figured if you’re in an action film where people are getting maimed and killed, then you need to go R.

Terminator: Salvation is out and while I haven’t seen it yet, I’ve seen a lot of commercials for it. Many of the commercials are for toys for kids. Just from the premise, it makes sense to me that the film should be R rated, but I’m sure, just like Live Free or Die Hard, all the violence was left in and the language was altered to get the rating.

From a marketing standpoint, I understand. You want to sell the toys, Slurpee cups and other tie ins and kids are going to get those more than adults. I remember years ago when the second Rambo came out. Parents groups had a point in saying it was crazy to have toys out marketed for kids to buy, yet by having an R rating kids shouldn’t be in the theater. So from the money making end of the movie industry, and with the way the rating system works, you can still have an action movie, but just cut out some bad words and you get the PG-13 rating.

Now there’s a new proposal to have any movie that has smoking get an instant R rating. It’s the whole ‘protect the kids’ concept but that has to be the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. I can look outside my window and see neighbors smoking. I can drive down the street and see people smoking in their cars. We’re not talking something hidden behind closed doors. As a gross example, if I want to see people having sex, or nudity, I have to either hide somewhere with strong binoculars or hidden cameras, or for seeing nudity I have to drive to some seedy buildings to see a magazine or hit a strip club.

The point I’m trying to make is if the argument is we’re protecting the kids, I can see where an R rated film with sex or violence you’re going to block it because it’s not something a kid is going to see just outside their window. Last I looked, there are no terminators running around, except in California and he’s in Sacramento. Putting smoking in a restrictive class seems silly when you can just look outside and see people smoking. I have a little dilemma on this myself because I have been doing some tinkering on a project to film and a few of the characters I see as smokers. To me, being an artist, the smoking is integral to the characters, but if I want to make the film accessible, if the rule gets passed then they can’t smoke. I’m not sure what I’m going to do.

 

<< PREVIOUS
NEXT >>

Copyright © Chaotic Fringe LLC. All rights reserved.

What Makes an R Rating - June 3, 2009
Home | News | Entertainment | Blog | Podcast | IMVN | Everquest 2 | Links | Photos | V-Blog