Look out! He is a Spider-Pig
I saw and quite enjoyed The Simpsons movie this weekend. But having just gotten the MPAA rating for The Nines (”Rated R for language, some drug content and sexuality”), I was a little surprised-slash-envious to see the official rating for The Simpsons:
Rated PG-13 for irreverent humor throughout.
I’m fine with PG-13. There is yellow nudity, after all. But “irreverent humor throughout” feels like a marketing quote, not a rating. You could blow that up in 200-pt type on the newspaper ad: “The MPAA says… IRREVERENT HUMOR THROUGHOUT!”
Articles
July 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I know these people are just trying to help out the movie-going folks who don’t know what a movie will be like from the poster, but it does get comedic. I seem to remember a poster for Harry Potter 2 warning patrons about the fantasy spiders therein.
A bit later, I think Odeon cinemas warned us that The Two Towers featured horror fantasy, whilst Return Of The King kept us on our toes with fantasy horror. A subtle, but no doubt important distinction.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
My favourite rating-reason (sadly I forget the film) was for “mild sex”.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
So would “reverent rumor throughout” be a PG film, instead of PG-13? I would love to get an “irreverent” rating for my comedy. Do standup comediennes get ratings?
I hope you’re not too bummed about the Nines rating…
July 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The big(ger) question is… Are you okay with R for NINES-? Or do you feel it coula shoulda been PG13-?
July 30th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
The Nines is and always was clearly an R for language. I made zero effort to keep it in PG-13 territory. The “some drug content and sexuality” is more questionable, but nothing worth fighting over.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Let me ask a follow up question… How much effing and cursing do you write into the dialogue, and how much is ad lipped by the actors, i.e. was the script R - or the dailies?
July 31st, 2007 at 12:55 am
Language-wise, the script was going to be rated R — there were more than two fucks in it, as I recall. The Nines is unusual in that one section of it is less-scripted (not quite unscripted), and additional swearing crept in that way.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:17 am
“Much Ado About Nothing” is PG-13 for ‘momentary sensuality.’ Sounds like a warning to prudes and pervs alike.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
I think it is a marketing thing; on the television ads, the announcer always makes a conspicuous declaration of the reason why it’s PG-13.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Good point about the marketing angle of television “warnings.” In fact, for violence-packed shows like 24, the voice-over guy has a tantalizing, almost leering way of saying, “Warning. The GRAPHIC material is not suitable for all audiences. Viewer discrestion…is advised.”
He reads it the same way, in fact, that a gentleman club’s DJ introduces a stripper.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:54 am
I was watching HBO recently and one of the ratings warnings was for “situational nudity.” This made me wonder A) is there non-situational nudity? (I guess that would be “gratuitous” but making a distinction like that is kind of odd) and B) is that like situational comedy?
“Damn it, Ari’s taking off his pants again! What is it this time?”
July 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Yeah, I caught that when I heard an ad on the radio for The Simpsons the other day. I was wondering to whom or what they were supposed to be reverent in the first place. But then some new song came on and the thought flitted out of my head as quickly as it had popped in.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
In the United Kingdom, “The Simpsons Movie” is rated PG for “mild language, innuendo and comic violence”. However, I understand in the states that a PG is a box-office death sentence, so I guess they asked for and received the higher rating instead.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
So Harry Potter 2 gets ‘fantasy spiders’ but not Return of the King??
Do film makers (or more likely Studios) ever suggest to the MPAA possible warnings or do they come up with them independently?
Love the site, John
July 31st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
My favorite warning is “Some Language.”
Oh, look out! There’s dialogue in the movie…
July 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Sorry to take a serious turn here, but I find the whole focus of the ratings rather stupid. I have two small children, and I’m far more worried about them seeing violence than nudity, or even hearing the occasional fuck or shit (which I can talk to them about, at least). They’re going to hear swearing in real life, but hopefully they won’t see a lot of people getting the crap beaten out of them or people shooting other people with guns, except in movies. All the shooting and violence in the new Die Hard movie gave it a PG-13, but if he had said fuck one more time, it gets a restricted rating. To me, there’s something seriously wrong with that.
By the way, I am in no way saying they should stop violence in movies. Platoon is my all-time favourite movie and I loved the Departed. I just think that it’s not the swearing or nudity that parents should be worried about exposing their children to.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:49 am
Re the whole censorship as marketing thing… this was James Moran’s reaction to the rating of his movie Severance:
August 1st, 2007 at 7:52 am
I saw a trailer recently that warned the film was PG-13 for “Swashbuckling action” (oddly enough, it wasn’t for a “Pirates of the Caribbean” sequel). Once again, it sounds like a critic blurb than a MPAA rating.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:02 am
You can bet your ass it’s only “irreverent” because they take shots at organized religion. Welcome to Jesus Country.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am
First and foremost, agreed that the MPAA ratings system is FUBAR.
That said, marketing directors taking advantage of it? Cool, smart idea on their part.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
Wow, that means my PG13 won’t happen unless I take out the “fucks” even though there’s no sex in the movie. Fuck!
August 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Here’s my problem with those who are upset that THE NINES (or other adult dramas) received an R. A drama for adults SHOULD get a rating that creates a hurdle to children seeing it. Why mislead the public into thinking that mature material is suitable for kids or early teens?
Yeah, the MPAA is a mess, but mostly because it is now pointless due to its being utterly inconsistent functionary. It waffles back and forth between the marketing needs of the Studios and the cries of foul from the public and government officials. There’s one reason the latest DIE HARD got a PG-13 and it has little to do with content and everything to do with a bloated budget that needs to be covered by the tickets and repeat business that comes through the allowances of preteens and teens who can’t slip into an R unattended.
I’m so tired of the old canard: “Kids see/hear far worse at school!” Well, then, why not let your kids watch you have sex? Why not let them see the neighbors duking it out in a spat? It’s a lazy cop-out. I can’t tell you how unnerving it is for many of us, especially those with kids, when fools bring their children to films like GLADIATOR or SIDEWAYS. I had a hard time enjoying either because there were children in the audience.
So, beyond money, why would any filmmaker/screenwriter want children to be able to slip in to see most movies written and made for adults and adult sensibilities??? If you have a theme and a point that you think would benefit kids, tailor it to that younger audience. It’s a part of good filmmaking to consider your audience and the intended effect.
So, way to go, John, for respecting your audience and the subject matter. Many, including me, wish more filmmakers did. Maybe then the MPAA wouldn’t be a sham as it would have to perform fewer contortions to satisfy its two masters.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Has anyone seen the doc “This Film is Not Yet Rated”? The MPAA is very strange organization. John did they give you any options as to how you could lower the rating if you wanted to? In the film they mention that independents are left in the cold while the studios are given in depth notes on where to make changes.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
You get one Fuck!, but can’t have fucking, or multiple Fucks. You can get quite a few stabs and shots and bludgeonings though.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:09 am
Incidentally, is the one-fuck rule actually valid, or were the writers of “Be Cool” just messing with us?
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:39 am
On the commentary for Gosford Park, Robert Altman noted that there is no cursing in the film except for one scene where one of the servants walks down the hall saying “Fuck! Fuck! Fuck!” under his breath and this was added specifically to get the R rating. Otherwise, the film would have been given a PG rating and he didn’t want anyone to mistake it for a kid friendly film.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
i havent seen the movie but i would like to
August 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
The one-fuck rule is not an exact science (Gattaca has two, Hollywood Homicide has four) but you can generally use it and be right. And nobody mentioned the best rating descriptor of all time: Twister’s “Rated PG-13 for an intense depiction of very bad weather.” The DVD just cheats and says “Language” but if you go to filmratings.com the description is still there.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
yeah…but the humor wasnt “crude” though…my favorite rating is “and an adolocen punch in the nose”