Badmovies.org Forum

When I was a kid, a lot of movies that were rated "G" would now be rated "PG."

For instance, the first three PLANET OF THE APES movies were rated "G." But they contained shootings, nudity, blood, torture, profanity, etc. Surely, they would NOT be rated "G" by today's standards.

The movie WHAT'S UP DOC? was also rated "G," but had a lot of adult humor and dealt with the theme of infidelity.

As we all know, "G" stands for "General Audiences." But it seems to have evolved quite a bit, and now it REALLY means "kid's movie." In fact, most "PG" movies nowadays are really movies for kids. "PG-13" seems to be the real cut-off point between what is okay for the entire family, and what might shock or offend someone.

What does all of this mean? Probably nothing.

But the next time you watch one of the first few PLANET OF THE APES movies, and you see a naked ass or someone getting shot, ask yourself if something like that would get a "G" rating today.

IIRC - Lucas had to fight to keep Star Wars from being rated "G", fearing people would think it was only for kids

I remember a "GP" rating on a lot of horror movies when I was a kid. Anyone know about that?

Rob

Wikipedia.org has a good rundown on the rating system.


http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system

MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND (http://www.scifilm.org/reviews3/maddoctorblood.html) only got a "M" rating when it was released ("M" would be come "GP", which would become "PG") in spite of quite a bit of blood and nudity.

Other notable nudity-featuring PG releases that come to mind are LOGAN'S RUN and THE BEASTMASTER.  There were quite a few.

Airplane! and the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers are both PG movies that had nudity.  Dang, the 70s were so cool.  Sex was neat back then, now it's back to being scuzzy and naughty.

Yes. "M" was the first rating. It basically divided movies into 2 categories: those for mature audiences (rated "M") and everything else (no rating). For instance, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was rated "M" for violence and adult themes.

"GP" was an early version of "PG." I think it only lasted a year or two before they changed it to "PG." An example is THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES, which was rated "GP."

I can't think of a recent "PG" movie that features nudity, but it was fairly common back in the 1970s. For instance, WALKING TALL, PART 2 was rated "PG," and features a brief shot of a topless woman. Boobs and butts used to be routinely accepted in "PG" flicks back in the good old days.

Chadzilla wrote:

> Airplane! and the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers are
> both PG movies that had nudity.  Dang, the 70s were so cool.
> Sex was neat back then, now it's back to being scuzzy and
> naughty.

And a surprising amount in the latter film at that!

And Midnight Cowboy got an X  due to content about drugs and hints as to exactly what goes on in a Turkish prison.

I think in the 70s, coming out of the 60s, there was the idea that human nudity-- by itself, was no big deal.

Nowadays, directors add in enough cussing & nudity & violence to make sure they don't get a dreaded G or PG, so more folks will go see their movies.

Also when PG-13 movies came out they allowed a little bit more in. Often containing some nudity and instances of the F word. Nowadays you usually don't get that in PG-13, but some movies (I'm thinking Stealing Harvard, National Security etc) you'll get the f word once or twice.

Not to mention that many older movies have come down in ratings. Such as Midnight Cowboy and Last Tango in Paris only being rated R now.

It does seem that they were easier on films back then. The most controversial mainstream film I've seen is probably Mandingo, which was rated R. If Showgirls got an NC-17, I don't see any way this movie could get away with just an R today.

As for PG13, I know it's supposed to be a harsher rating than normal PG, but every time I hear it mentioned, I can't help thinking that the '13' means it's suitable for 13 year olds.



Post Edited (07-01-03 06:05)

> As for PG13, I know it's supposed to be a harsher rating than
> normal PG, but every time I hear it mentioned, I can't help
> thinking that the '13' means it's suitable for 13 year olds.


The question is why does 13 change a person? Is it because they are now a teenager. I think it would be better if things were just G and R, PG is superfluous and I dont see the point of PG 13.

I guess they think teens can handle more than little kids.  

There are also adults that might not want to watch a kids' movie but don't want to see a movie with a lot of violence, cursing, etc....

I think the PG-13 was necessary--there were PG movies that were way too much for younger kids to handle [GREMLINS, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, and I remember a big stir over SIXTEEN CANDLES], though some of the problem was lazy parents that though PG was automatically OK for kids.

The reason it changed this way (another example is True Grit, rated G and starts with a triple hanging and has people getting shot and bleeding, etc) is because PG-13 was introduced.  As near as I can tell, in the old days G was really modern ratings G AND PG, and PG was the high end of todays PG and PG-13.  That's why there is the difference, IMO.

I just saw the Italian Job yesterday, chock full of explosions and references most 13 year olds waouldnt get. Another example of the superfluous PG 13.

My personal favorite is "Twister" is PG-13 for violent depictions of the weather...Evan3 wrote:

When Temple of Doom came out, everyone caused a huge stir, saying that a voodoo priest ripping out a person's heart while he was still alive and watching it beat in his hand was way too violent for a PG rating, and of course, by making Indiana Jones a rated 'R' movie back in those days would have destroyed the box-office rake-ins for the younger movie watching crowd. Apparently the same thing was true with seeing a Gremlin blowing up in a mircowave or another one getting beheaded with a sword.

In the end, it's all about the money. How can we divide the pie to appeal to a wide enough audience without p**sing off the establishment? the eternal ratings question.

Actually I think that the ratings should just go out the window and (like most ratings today) just keep the little blurb underneith telling whats in the movie. It'd be much easier to just look at it and say "Well this one has 'language and violence', while this one has 'nudity and extreme violence'" etc etc. Like under the ratings now sometimes they show these.

The MPAA probably wouldn't go for that, since they have all the ratings copyrighted.

systemcr4sh wrote:

> Actually I think that the ratings should just go out the window
> and (like most ratings today) just keep the little blurb
> underneith telling whats in the movie. It'd be much easier to
> just look at it and say "Well this one has 'language and
> violence', while this one has 'nudity and extreme violence'"
> etc etc. Like under the ratings now sometimes they show these.
>
Yeah, but that's a pretty subjective term. What qualifies as "Brief Nudity" or "Mild Drug Use"? "Extreme Gore"?!? How is this different from just plain old fashioned "Gore"? Very misleading, methinks.

Yeah I wouldn't think that it would happen any time soon, but they should put the little blurb underneith every rating now because it still may be misleading but not as misleading as saying its rated R and nothing else, you have no idea what it contains that way.

kriegerg69 wrote:


> The late 70's movie SAME TIME NEXT YEAR with Alan Alda and
> Ellen Burstyn was rated PG.....and yet the word f*ck was used
> once (innocently, btw) in that film.
 
> LOGAN'S RUN and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS were both PG
> films which not only had some innocent nudity, but also had
> bare breasts seen onscreen....as did KING KONG with Jessica
> Lange's breasts uncovered by Kong.

Very true. the word "F*CK" has actually been in several PG movies . . . I just can't think of other examp[les at the moment. I read somewhere that the WAY the word is used makes a difference. For instance, if it is used as an exclamation, like, "Oh, F*CK!" it might not result in an "R" rating. However, if it is used in reference to a sexual act, then it probably WILL result in an "R" rating.

As for nudity, MANY "PG" movies from the 1970s showed breasts and butts. Look at the original VANISHING POINT. There is a whole scene with a woman riding around naked on a motorcycle.

"PG" movies were fairly violent back then, too:

PAPILLON (which shows a guy being guillotined, plus stabbings, shootings, etc.)
THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES (numerous murders)
DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN (numerous murders)
MR. MAJESTYK (numerous shootings, plus a guy being smashed to death with a piece of wood)
THE GETAWAY (numerous slow-motion shootings)
THE KILLER ELITE (numerous slow-motion shootings and sword fights)
THE SEVEN UPS (general violent police action)
BREAKOUT (which has a shot of a guy being sliced up by airplane propeller)

jmc wrote:

> The MPAA probably wouldn't go for that, since they have all the
> ratings copyrighted.


Do you mean I owe the MPAA for every letter "R" I use Just Grrrrrrrrrrreat

Hee hee.....I'm just saying that they have a lot of money invested in the system as it is and probably don't have any interest in changing it.

In the old days, they just had the rating and a general blurb like this:

"R" (no one under 17 admitted without parent or legal guardian)

At least nowadays, they are a bit more specific:

"R" (contains profanity and scenes of intense violence)

I was watching " Bend it like Beckham"
that movie was rated G, yes I said G
they were showing sex scenes, using words like  F****Head, Balls, Sh** for brains
I mean come on, you can have whatever you want on your movie just dont fool folks and rate it something else. I took that movie home to my kids and I was apalled.
The Burgomaster wrote:

> kriegerg69 wrote:
>
>
> > The late 70's movie SAME TIME NEXT YEAR with Alan Alda and
> > Ellen Burstyn was rated PG.....and yet the word f*ck was used
> > once (innocently, btw) in that film.
>  
> > LOGAN'S RUN and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS were both PG
> > films which not only had some innocent nudity, but also had
> > bare breasts seen onscreen....as did KING KONG with Jessica
> > Lange's breasts uncovered by Kong.
>
> Very true. the word "F*CK" has actually been in several PG
> movies . . . I just can't think of other examp[les at the
> moment. I read somewhere that the WAY the word is used makes a
> difference. For instance, if it is used as an exclamation,
> like, "Oh, F*CK!" it might not result in an "R" rating.
> However, if it is used in reference to a sexual act, then it
> probably WILL result in an "R" rating.
>
> As for nudity, MANY "PG" movies from the 1970s showed breasts
> and butts. Look at the original VANISHING POINT. There is a
> whole scene with a woman riding around naked on a motorcycle.
>
> "PG" movies were fairly violent back then, too:
>
> PAPILLON (which shows a guy being guillotined, plus stabbings,
> shootings, etc.)
> THE ABOMINABLE DR. PHIBES (numerous murders)
> DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN (numerous murders)
> MR. MAJESTYK (numerous shootings, plus a guy being smashed to
> death with a piece of wood)
> THE GETAWAY (numerous slow-motion shootings)
> THE KILLER ELITE (numerous slow-motion shootings and sword
> fights)
> THE SEVEN UPS (general violent police action)
> BREAKOUT (which has a shot of a guy being sliced up by airplane
> propeller)
>

I agree with toomuch @%*#,
I saw that movie too and it sucked
you are rigth I took it home for our family nigth and my 6yr old saw  a car was rocking and there were two people huffing and puffing...........just gross. I was embarassed when my mom and dad started screaming at me......all I could say was......."that movie was rated G"

>>LOGAN'S RUN and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS were both PG
> > films which not only had some innocent nudity, but also had
> > bare breasts seen onscreen.<<

innocent nudity? I own logan's run, i'm seeming to remember an orgy scene...more than just one set of ta-ta's

The imdb says Bend It... was rated PG-13:

"MPAA: Rated PG-13 for language and sexual content"

Only thing I can think of is that if you're in Canada (like me) they have those Canadian Ratings that they put over the american ones. Those can be pretty misleading at times too.

Funny... RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and TEMPLE OF DOOM both have sadistic violence- i.e., people being crushed by trucks, getting their hearts ripped out, being ground by airplane propellers, heads exploding under the wrath of God, etcetera, etcetera. Yet only THE LAST CRUSADE, arguably the least violent of the Indiana Jones triology(soon to quadlagy :)) is the only one to carry a PG-13 rating or a different country's equvalent.

I watched on the Evil Dead 2 dvd that the MPAA gave it an X rating, and Dino de what's- his- face wouldn't release an X rated picture. So the guys made a fake releasing company, Rosebud, and gave it an R instead.
I take it that there's no way in hell this could be done today, but I'd like to know the details concerning that that would back up my assumption.

fritz21 wrote:

> Funny... RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and TEMPLE OF DOOM both have
> sadistic violence- i.e., people being crushed by trucks,
> getting their hearts ripped out, being ground by airplane
> propellers, heads exploding under the wrath of God, etcetera,
> etcetera. Yet only THE LAST CRUSADE, arguably the least violent
> of the Indiana Jones triology(soon to quadlagy :)) is the only
> one to carry a PG-13 rating or a different country's equvalent.

Wow, been a long time since this thread was originally put in.....

Though the 3rd one had the pg-13 rating, Temple of Doom caused the pg-13 rating to come into existence. That, and the movie Gremlins.

The "Love Shop" in Logan's Run only has implied nudity. The commentary track on the DVD goes into this in some detail. Everything was taped down and the "dance" moves were all carefully choreographed to be very suggestive, but nothing was actually shown. The only completely visible breasts in the movie are when Logan and Jessica are changing out of their wet clothes and into the furns when they get into the frozen area that Box the robot guy was in.

I don't really remember any other movie than 'Revenge of the Nerds" having female pubic hair.

actually now it is either to much or to little either way the MPAA are really messed up. They really have no idea on how to rate a movie

Its funny, Alot of "R" rated movies in the 80's are totally tame by todays standards. For instance, "Stripes" and "Planes,Trains & Automobiles" are both rated R. Those movies would get a PG rating if they were made today.

I recall EVIL DEAD 2 being unrated, with no one under 17 admitted.  I remember this because I was ticked off that I was too young to see it when it was released.

STRIPES had quite a bit of nudity.  I think it would still get an R today, since even the teen sex comedies of today seem to have less nudity than the ones during the Eighties.

PORKY'S showed female pubic hair during the big shower scene.

were there exposes breasts in a scene of The Sting with Redford?

I remember that when I first saw "clash of the Titans", I was in awe at the PG rating. As I recall, a woman was topless for quite a while on screen near the beginnig of the film, and breast feeding (I think).
Can someone back me up, or is my memory fuzzy?

Yes, there is a woman breastfeeding at the beginning and there is a later scene where Andromeda exits a bathtub and is nude for a little while...

And don't forget Dennis Hopper's fingers being chopped off and flying into Kim Darby's face.

This was supposed to go with the post about True Grit having a G raiting.

actually the F word thing is happening more and more in PG-13 Rated movies, sometimes I think it's there just to ensure that they don't get a PG rating, I mean alot of the movies that it happens in are really tame accept for that word

Then again Beetlejuice is PG and it's in there twice
"Nice F-Ing Model" and "F-you just say it!"

Also Sixteen Candles in the first like 15 minutes is just a full screen shot of breasts in the shower and the F bomb, again PG movie

Also, I do realize I'm commenting to something almost 2 years ago

Another one brought back from the dead.

I can't remember what LOTR was rated, but here in Australia I saw quite a number of young children with their parents.  We're talking under ten years old.   After the very brutal and realistic battle scene at the end, I watched many shaken little boys and girls walking out of the cinema in a daze, probably to have nightmares for the rest of the month.  Man, *I* was shaken after that!  If little kids got in, it must have been PG of some nature.

And then there was the ten-or-so year old girl I saw with her Dad, watching Ong Bak in the cinema.  Man, she was covering her eyes half the time during the fight scenes!

~Archivist~

Is the word "f**k" forbidden from a PG movie?

Funnily, by today's standards Star Wars would probably be rated 'G'.

From what I hear the new Star Wars movie is rated 'PG-13' which Lucas almost seems proud about. Seems strange since the other SW movies weren't very violent or intense.

I was kind of disappointed in the action quotient of Episode One.  After all, only one bad guy is visibly killed and the rest are all robots!  At least the original Star Wars had some dude in the cantina getting his arm chopped off and scary implications of Leia getting injected with 'something'.  The original SW movies were far more scary and atmospheric than these watered-down family-fests that Lucas has now served up.  Despite this, I did enjoy EpI and EpII, and I am still looking forward to EpIII.  Hope springs eternal.

~Archivist~

"and I remember a big stir over SIXTEEN CANDLES"

I think the big stir over Sicteen Candles was over the hunk's line: "Why I could go violate her [his passed out girlfriend] ten different ways if I wanted to."

...to which Anthony Michael Hall's character replied: "What are you waiting for??"  And then proceeded to do exactly that later in the movie.

Um...  that's considered rape.

"Funnily, by today's standards Star Wars would probably be rated 'G'."

Dismembered arm, the intense trash-monster scene, the scare when the Jawas jumped Artoo, the overall loudness, the bizarre needle wielding torture droid, the sandpeople jumping Luke, Greedo blasted at point blank (whether he shoots first or not, the charred remains of Luke's family...

Would you care to make a bet on that statement?

Eirik, that's exactly my point, too.  There were a lot of intense scenes and moments in Star Wars that would never have allowed a G rating even today.  I saw it in the cinema when I was five and it was all I could talk about for weeks afterwards.  Had a nightmare or two, as well.

Archivist: I recall being VERY upset by the dismembered arm (I was six) and when my folks took me the second time, my mom promised to warn me to close my eyes when that scene came up again.  Good old mom.

You know I caught the end of the movie on some cable channel last night and I STILL get chills when Han comes out of nowhere and blows up two tie fighters sending Vader into a tail spin.  One of the best movie endings ever.

Rise... rise, Lord Vader!  Rise, old thread!

Beastmaster was released in '82, and yes, I think the PG rating from then would be different now (PG 13 d'you think?).    I mean, that movie had a crazed, razor-encrusted berserker (with a parasite in his brain, right?) trying to smash adorable little ferrets.  It had that gross scene with the baby being zapped out his mother's womb into the cow.

ST2, the Wrath of Khan, '82.  The Ceti leeches!  Nightmares for weeks!  Watched the rest of the movie with my hands on my ears!

Conan the Destroyer, '84.  No one has mentioned this -- don't remember if you saw her pubic hair, but you got Grace Jones mooning the camera while being helped onto the horse.  (One of the main reasons my friend and I liked that movie.)

But then there was 1986, and Aliens.  Yeahhh, that was the big R, and since we were 15, my friend and I had to scheme which theater to go to, and go to the late show and pretend to be with the couple in front of us in line.  That movie scared the bejeebers out of me, and I had nightmares for weeks... but what a show!

Lord, Aliens scared me to all heck, too.  Had a nightmare about face-huggers that night.  And I, too, was freaked out by the Ceti Leeches in the Wrath of Khan.

Speaking of Lord Vader rising, EpIII is coming soooon.  Who wants to bet on the violence quotient?

~Archivist~

I got a kick out of reading everyone's posts!  I'm 38, and topless women could appear in a 'PG' film (Kramer vs. Kramer, Airplane!), back in the '70s, early '80s.  Then, if "f" was used, it was an automatic 'R'.  No 2 ways about it!  I guess R. Reagan influenced all of this -- the conservative bent, I mean.  "Jaws," for instance, was/is a horror movie, and would probably get an "R" today (maybe).  "Walking Tall" (the '73 original) might get a "PG" as there's just violence.  There is one whipping that's quick, but nothing major.

How things change!

Glenn