"Am I the only one who hated the Star Trek reboot? JJ Abrams is the master of mediocrity and the worst choice for Star Wars Episode 7."
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Anthony Stokes posted a status"I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was a natural progression of the first movie.as a non fan of star trek loved the fan service."
Chio posted a photo
The Loading Bar: Red Dead Ridiculous
My tribute to the Red Dead Ridiculous Saga on the Loading Bar. Trying to draw Jeff and Jason in a…
nkWhiteStar posted a status"Picked up some home release movies to watch and review. They are "Les Miserables", "Django Unchained", and "Pitch Perfect"."
Photos
Music
Have the sudden increase in PG-13 action, diminished the artistic quality of the genre?
I realize that 13 year olds, nowadays are too jaded to care much about F-Bombs and Topless Girls. But it seems that movies like Hannah, Source Code, Limitless, Inception, Dark Night, etc are intentionally decafinated to hit a broader demographic. I seems these movies would have more edge and more staying power if they were willing to cross over into more mature subject matter and were less censored.
For example, can you imagine if they tried to make a movie like Fight Club PG-13. It would've been a nuetered version that people would've forgotten about within a year. I understand cinema is a business, but at what point does profit motive destroy artistic integrity? I for one do not like this trend. What do you think?
Views: 26
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher on -
I'm surprised you didn't mention the newly released "censored" version of the King's Speech. Anyone who wouldn't take their kids to that movie just because it had a few F-Bombs doesn't deserve to take their kids to it at all. I like what Richard Roepert said about John Carney's Once. He said that the MPAA slapped an R-rating on it because of a few F-Bombs (it's an Irish film after all) but that kids should "go sneak into this movie right now!"
Another thing that you touch on is that Americans seem to be cool with tons of cartoonish violence, but a little sex and language is too much for our young impressionable minds. Seeing as the Religious Right is always protesting films you'd think they'd spend a bit more time on the violent PG-13 ones as well as the R-rated, sexy, foul mouthed ones. Because I'm sure Jesus is totally cool with cities being destroyed and Giant Robots killing innocent people, but a little sex (A God given gift if your'e a Christian) is out of the question. Ask yourself this, would you rather our kids were killing each other or banging each other?
-
Permalink Reply by Zeke on -
Meh, I was less traumatized when I saw a corpse for the first time then when I walked into my parents getting it on. So there's a load of logic in that.
-
Permalink Reply by Roflcoptor on -
I think some of these movies are violent was because they mabye were given an early R rating by the MPAA and the director wanted a PG-13 so they took some swears, sexual content, etc out not including the violence so they could change it to a PG-13 rating to bring in more money from teens. Take Sucker Punch for an example, the first trailer i saw, it said R but then later it was PG-13. All i can say is.....WTF.
-
Permalink Reply by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher on
-
Snyder figured he needed all the help he could get to sell it to more people. But I'm sure half the guys in American if they were a bit drunk around 10 o' clock at night would be far more likely to see it if they saw it had an R-rating, titties and violence booyah!!!
I don't think that we can deny that PG-13 movies have also gotten more adult (content wise, maybe not maturity wise) over time.
-
Permalink Reply by Gojira: Unit-01 on -
Agreed.
-
Permalink Reply by BungleFever on -
And Del Toro too!
-
Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on -
Regarding Source Code, Limitless, Inception, and the Dark Knight, I don't think the level of violence in those films warranted anything higher than a PG-13. PG-13 violence tends to be bloodless, or keeps the blood to a minimum. However, I do see where you are coming from when toning down the violence undermines the quality of a film (Live Free or Die Hard, Alien Vs. Predator).
Personally, I think the whole MPAA rating system is outdated and unfair. The main problem with the current rating system is it really only makes a suggestion for what should be the appropriate age of a movie's audience without saying much about its content, and only the R and NC-17 ratings are enforced. I made another thread a few months ago about what I think would make for a better rating system. Comment would be much appreciated.
-
Permalink Reply by NotTheWhosTommy on -
I don't know about Dark Knight. True, the violence wasn't R worthy, but something as horrific as Two Face's design should have warranted an R.
-
Permalink Reply by Alter_Ego on
-
Nobody is afraid of the R rating, it's just that the studios think they could maximize their profits if kids could come see a movie without any adult supervision. And kids (for the most part) don't listen to critics and will go see a movie that has a cool trailer/TV spot regardless if it sucks.
I know to a lot of people it might seem crazy as to why Americans are so permissive with violent content in movies, but not sex and language. I have a theory about that, though. I think people have finally realized that violence in art does not influence people to commit violence in real life. By and large, few people commit acts of violence, and the ones that do are typically criminals who would have likely committed a violent act regardless if they saw it in a film. On the other hand, just about everybody has sex and uses profanity. Parents don't want their kids having sex because they think they won't do it responsibly, resulting in an unwanted pregnancy or STD infection. And profanity is frowned upon because it tends to refer to things in a sexual or scatological context. Then there's also depictions of drug use in films. It seems that if drug use is depicted in a negative fashion (such as addiction), a film can skirt by with a PG-13 rating. If it glorifies or depicts recreational drug use of any kind (as in a stoner comedy), it gets an R. Again, it's because parents don't want their kids to use drugs, and portraying drug use in a positive light might influence kids into using them.
-
Permalink Reply by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher on
-
Although I'm the last person my friends would expect to feel this way I've always been impressed by Nolan's ability to write around swearing in his films. In Inception all the dialog seems natural without the language, same with Dark Night. When I try to write dialog my characters always turn into sailors, although the characters in Inception are admittedly a bit more high class in comparison.
-
Permalink Reply by carl hungus on -
I will give that to you. Nolan's films, except Memento, don't need the R rated content. I was just using those as examples of exremely violent films. Dark Night for 1, could never have an R rating because it is after all a Batman movie, despite it being a masterpiece. It is however debatable that if the Joker was allowed to perform Truly gruesome, make the audiance's stomach turn type shit, it would've truly put that character in the class of Hannibal Lector of Anton Sigur (No Country). If they showed his murders graphically, I think that film may have been even more profound. But a Batman movie cannot be R, I understand.
Foul language in that film is unneccessary though.
-
Permalink Reply by Cthulhu R'lyeh on -
While I think that the dialog in Inception certainly has its flaws, having no profanities was hardly the problem. It's nice to see that he doesn't rely on profanities, though sometimes it looks a bit weird. Like in TDK when that helicopter was crashing towards the police car and all that he could say was "That's not good. No, that's not good."
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
