This is topic Harry Potter and the R-Rated Half-Blood Prince? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005656
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2008, 05:50 PM:
According to the trailer insert that came with our print of "Marley and Me," the next Potter film is rated R for "some sequences of violence and language."
Personally I think it's a misprint. We didn't get the actual trailer so I couldn't check the rating band on the trailer, can anyone verify that the film is actually (probably) rated PG-13?
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-23-2008, 06:11 PM:
It'd have to be PG-13. An R rated HP would be the dumbest idea of the not-even-here-yet new year.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2008, 06:22 PM:
I think Warner Bros. took a fairly serious risk allowing the last two Harry Potter installments to be rated PG-13. Harry Potter isn't G-rated fare, but still the target audience for this stuff is mostly pre-teen kids.
I agree it would be beyond astonishingly stupid for the next Harry Potter movie to be made with a R-rated cut. It would even be far more stupid than the toned down PG-13 sequels of movies with R-rated originals.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 12-23-2008, 06:25 PM:
Remember the books were written with the increasing age of her children in mind. Therefore they will continue to get deeper and deeper toward R. (X?) Louis
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2008, 07:26 PM:
That may be true. However, most kids tend to grow out of the Harry Potter type of thing as they get farther along in their teens. Meanwhile, the children still in elementary school and perhaps middle school remain to be the most valuable demographic in the business of selling Harry Potter books and movies.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-23-2008, 08:35 PM:
The MPAA does not have a rating posted on the ratings website yet.
Come to think of it, I haven't received a weekly ratings email since July. WTH?
Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 12-23-2008, 09:20 PM:
Well an R rating would be commercial suicide. I'm sure loads of people already got screwed over by the date change.
Is a PG-13 rating for these films really a bad thing? I would have thought cutting out the younger kids from shows that (for us at least) will definitely sell out anyway on opening weekend means a higher average ticket price and more potential impulse food buying customers. Also it's not a leap in to the unknown for the younger children as many will have read the book already.
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 12-23-2008, 09:24 PM:
Also, I think it's too soon for it to be rated, I can't imagine it's done yet. Nothing listed at www.cara.org, and the trailer on trailers.apple.com has no rating as of yet.
--jhawk
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 12-23-2008, 09:43 PM:
They said the film was done when they decided to not release it. They were going to use the extra time to do some extra cg work
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2008, 10:57 PM:
quote: John Hawkinson
Also, I think it's too soon for it to be rated, I can't imagine it's done yet.
The film is in the can, according to a WB guy in an article I read in Entertainment Weekly. So it could be rated, but I've not been able to find any reference to said rating anywhere, except on the Marley trailer insert, which could very well be mistaken. If it really IS rated R, the headlines should start screaming it any day now.
Posted by Carey Barber (Member # 1586) on 12-24-2008, 01:34 PM:
Most likely just a typo...
Our most recent trailer programming sheet also listed Night at the Museum 2 as R-rated. Obviously, that is not correct.
Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 12-24-2008, 02:47 PM:
Here's what might have happened:
Freddie is typing up the trailer sheet, he shouts down the hall to Jimbo, who has the actual trailers in front of him.
FREDDIE
Yo, Jimbo! Wus da ratin' on dat new Harripodder treller?
JIMBO
It's NR! [Not Rated]
FREDDIE
An "R"?
JIMBO
Yeah, man, NR!
FREDDIE (to himself as he types)
OK, it's an "R".
(yelling to Freddie)
How 'bout Night At Da Museum?!
JIMBO
Dat's NR, too!
FREDDIE
"R-2"?!
JIMBO
No, just NR, man!
FREDDIE
Okay, an "R".
Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 12-24-2008, 05:03 PM:
Good one John. Now who's on first? Jimbo
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-25-2008, 05:20 AM:
Yes. Who's on first...and What's on second.
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 12-26-2008, 03:48 PM:
Latest UK Half Blood Prince trailers ( 21 Nov 2008) are rated 12A and PG
Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-27-2008, 02:28 AM:
I'm a pretty big fan of the books and I don't see how the last 2 aren't R, judging on other R-rated flicks, unless they take the road TDK did and just not ever show blood.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-27-2008, 06:49 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
most kids tend to grow out of the Harry Potter type of thing as they get farther along in their teens
I disagree with this statement. People who are fans of the books seem to be very loyal HP fans. I know many older teens and even adults (like me) who have read each of the books multiple times.
I also disagree that the PG-13 rating for the last 2 movies was a bad idea. The simple fact is those two movies have much darker and more mature content than the earlier books. Watering them down for a PG would have been the disastrous mistake.
The last two films (actually 3 films) should both be PG-13. There is nothing in the books that would suggest an R rating - no sex, no nudity, no profanity. Aside from some kissing, there really isn't anything that even hints at sexuality. Really the only way they could turn them into R rated movies is to add things that aren't in the books or to make the various battles graphically violent.
I do think it's possible, although unlikely, there could be a red band trailer.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-28-2008, 09:00 AM:
You don't need blatant sex, violence or language to get an "R" rating. Mature themes, dark subject matter and other story telling devices (tension, scariness, terror, etc.) all count too. As someone who has also read all of the books multiple times, I can say that with each book, the tension rises. Harry is in real mortal danger at this point, and main characters are dying. Voldemort is a scary dude, and depending on how they translate that to the screen, it could be very terrifying for young kids.
However, I agree an "R" rating in the cinema would be a bad idea. But I don't think an unrated version on video would be out of the question. Whether or not they do that, I don't know. I wish they would have shot extra footage for the video releases of the last three movies. I'm glad the last book will be two movies. There's way too much going on there to cram it all into one film. It's sort of like one of those epic video games where the story just keeps unfolding and unfolding and unfolding.
I also don't agree that kids grow out of Harry Potter. I think it's safer to say that some people have grown INTO Harry Potter as the films have become less and less like children's films. I know a couple of people that fall into that category.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-28-2008, 11:15 AM:
The Dark Knight should have been an R in my opinion. Let's call a spade a spade.
I see no problem with an R Harry Potter. Parents would actually heed the rating system and it would actually do what it's intended to do. (We all know PG-13 is a joke).
The other day I watched Urban Cowboy on DVD. Tons of swearing, lots of sex, including a three-way scene, adultery, violence, abuse, etc. Clearly an adult film. and it was rated PG?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2008, 12:07 AM:
quote: Eric Hooper
Parents would actually heed the rating system
HA HA HA! You're killing me! Tell another one!
An R-rated Potter would cause the largest swarm of rating-avoiding kids (and parents who try to drop them off unaccompanied) in the history of movies.
Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-29-2008, 08:20 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
An R-rated Potter would cause the largest swarm of rating-avoiding kids (and parents who try to drop them off unaccompanied) in the history of movies.
Oh ok. So instead, we'll just call it a PG-13 because it'll be easier all around for everyone. Forget ethics and pride. Mind as well legalize drugs while we're at it...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-30-2008, 09:49 AM:
I never said that was a good thing. I just said what would happen. And you know I'm right.
You can actually show just about anything you want in a PG-13 as long as you don't step over a certain line which will make it an R.
- Violence: Don't show a lot of blood, or weapons piercing the skin
- Language: Say whatever you want, but don't use the F word more than once or twice (or even once in a sexual context) and don't use any of the other sexually explicit anatomical terms (except all the slang words for breast get a pass)
EDIT: I sent an email to Exhibitor Relations at Warner Bros to ask about this and will report back what I hear, if anything. I'll bet I set off a flurry of phone calls between WB and Fox! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 12-30-2008, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-30-2008, 03:00 PM:
Show the parents this piece of crap and they will be thankful that the new Harry Potter may only be an R at worst.
The clip from Equus .
Whatever the new HP is rated, the acting cannot be anywhere close to as awful as what you see of D Radcliffe's acting in this clip and nowhere as traumatizing as his naked self on lengthy display.
P.S.: Is that actually a tiny woody I see in that clip? What the hell? Not even soft porn has the actors sporting woodies.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-30-2008, 03:13 PM:
Eric, the MPAA and its rating system is already a sham. Nothing is greater evidence of this than the "two fuck" rule. If I say "fuck" again... oh wait, now this entire thread is rated R. Except that I knew that word when I was like 8, at the latest, so why again does using that word twice get you an automatic R? The rating system should be a guideline to help parents decide what their children can watch (and for adults to make decisions about what they feel like watching). Nothing as simplistic as the G-PG-PG13-R etc scale is going to realistically do that. There is no ethical imperative to ratings, either. Your drug legalization comment is a red herring. Parents need to know how much sex, violence, drug use, and language is in a movie, and they need to use their brains.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-30-2008, 05:27 PM:
quote: Eric Hooper
Mind as well legalize drugs while we're at it...
Yeah because movies are the equivalent of heroin?[/sarcasm]
And personally, I think most drugs should be legalized. But that's because I'm a Libertarian and think the "drug war" is an utter failure.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-31-2008, 05:51 AM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Nothing as simplistic as the G-PG-PG13-R etc scale is going to realistically do that
The current system is fine if people would just pay attention to it. I had a parent bring a group of 8-10 year-olds to Yes Man about a week ago. About half way through they walked out and wanted a refund because they felt the content was inappropriate for that age group. I pointed out the movie was rated PG-13 'for crude sexual humor, language and brief nudity'. To which she replied that she would not have taken the kids if she knew that ahead of time. Never mind the fact it's on our recording and web site; it's posted with the movie descriptions in the box office window; and it's on the poster displayed in front of the theatre.
I don't think it would be possible to come up with an easy to use ratings system that would give people all the information they need. I do think the MPAA ratings system - in conjunction with the rating explanations is pretty good. If for no other reason, the MPAA system is good because it's been around for so long and most people know basically what the ratings mean - even if they don't agree with them.
One improvement that I would like to see is something between a PG-13 and an R rating. Keep the R rating for films with truly adult content and use the in-between rating for things like The Matrix, Hancock, Terminator, 300, etc. I also think the MPAA needs to quit making the 'F' word so taboo.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-31-2008, 08:01 AM:
Matrix is one of the most ridiculous R ratings I have seen slapped onto a movie. What was it rated R for? I would have been pissed if I was unable to watch that movie as a kid with my friends.
Posted by William T. Parr (Member # 677) on 12-31-2008, 09:33 AM:
quote: Adam Martin
I haven't received a weekly ratings email since July. WTH?
And you just now noticed? Did the move to Arizona turn you into a Slacker Adam? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Oh well at least the Cardinals made the playoffs and Dallas didn't, Thank God.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-31-2008, 11:21 AM:
Justin, the little descriptions on the rating band give just about enough information, but those aren't part and parcel to the rating. Nobody has "R, for adult activity, persistent violence, and sexually oriented nudity" on their marquees. A better system would specifically codify appropriateness of content. Off the top of my head here, something like "16VSC" for "appropriate for 16+, contains violence and sexual content." Furthermore, the very Victorian views of sexuality need to go. People are increasingly sexually active in their early- to mid-teens, before they can go see R rated movies that contain sexuality, but I don't personally know anyone who is yet a violent murderer or torturer and has been exposed to that, even among people who are old enough to go see Saw movies.
Anyhow, to remain somewhat on point, the last Harry Potter movies should be PG13. There is nothing to merit an R rating. As Mark points out, there is "scariness" and "tension", but I can't possibly see these as escalating above PG13 level. The idea that it should be rated R because people ignore PG13 is weak, because that does as much to weaken people's attention to the rating system as any incongruous rating.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-31-2008, 12:09 PM:
A rating like "16VSC" wouldn't work. Some movies have violence, language, sexual content, smoking, and scary situations, and even such things as "intense depictions of bad weather" (Remember Twister?) among other things. Your alphabet-soup rating system would just cause confusion. The rating information is easy to get if people would just look at it.
And, putting a number on it is not the best idea either -- what's appropriate for one 16 year old might not be appropriate for another. (I think they should have used "T," appropriate for teens and up, instead of "PG-13" myself.) A simple letter rating like "R" lets each parent, who knows his own kid better than anyone, decide what's appropriate. The real problem is parents who won't take that responsibility.
Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 12-31-2008, 12:56 PM:
Mike, you're right. Attaching an age to it is flawed, but I don't have much to work with here. The thing we always come back to is that parents need to take some responsibility. It isn't our job to decide what is appropriate for whom, but parents try to hoist it off on us. This is just another case of people trying to avoid personal responsibility by moving the burden to someone else.
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 12-31-2008, 04:05 PM:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
People are increasingly sexually active in their early- to mid-teens, before they can go see R rated movies that contain sexuality
And this is a good thing? How many movies show responsible sexual activity? How many of those increasingly sexual teens are responsible about it? I'm not defending the violent movies but at least they often portray the consequences of such violence... like people bleed and/or die. Maybe that's why becoming violent isn't so attractive after you see it in a movie.
Again, if parents had the guts to stand up to their kids' whims then -- Oh, wait. I'm living in a fantasy world.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2009, 06:11 PM:
Well here's a surprise. I just heard back from Mariel Diaz, western region manager for Exhibitor Services at Warner Bros. and she says the new Potter film is rated:
"PG" for "scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality".
Cue discussion on how this will 'water down' the story....
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 01-06-2009, 08:34 PM:
Not sure how you can have PG rated Zombies so there goes that scene. Other than the bathroom fight with Draco, everything else can pretty much happen off screen so I guess PG can be possible. The main story wont need to be watered down but certain scenes will need to be changed or removed.
Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-06-2009, 08:42 PM:
Personally, I don't know how they make the last 2 books not R rated, if they stick to the story.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-06-2009, 09:06 PM:
quote: Pravin Ratanm
...nowhere as traumatizing as his naked self on lengthy display.
P.S.: Is that actually a tiny woody I see in that clip? What the hell? Not even soft porn has the actors sporting woodies.
LOL Now that was a funny contradiction....being "traumatized" by his nakedness and yet noticing a possible woody? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I do agree that the acting was bad..but on the other hand I'd def not throw him out of bed..I think he's hot. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Back on topic, I had recently finished the installation of the MPAA and CARA ratings board new screening rooms. I did get a chance to talk to some of the raters and yes, the ratings are in some sense "arbitrary" as they are determined by real, living, fallible human beings. Each rater brings his/her own judgment, life experiences and opinions as to what is something to push a film into one rating or another. So the ratings system is NOT perfect. They do have a "guide", written examples of what is/is not appropriate for each rating, but it is just that, a guide.
One question I did pose to them was why is it that you can show several instances/long duration shots of female genitalia and still get a "R", but show more than a few short (and non-erect) seconds of a penis and it's automatically "NC-17" or (now defunct I think) "X"?
I got a chuckle and a reply of that's just how it is.
And they confirmed that the first instance of allowing the word fuck in a PG movie was in the space epic "The Right Stuff", mainly because it was actually the expression (by Gus Grissom) "Fuckin A, Bubba" that was used several minutes apart and that the use of fuck was not in that context sexual.
It was still a surprise to me and a lot of other audience members when it was heard when the film was in first release.
IIRC its re-release, had a "PG-13" rating. But the video version is still PG.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2009, 11:54 PM:
The most glaring example of multiple uses of "fuck" in a PG movie I've seen was "Tootsie." As I remember it, Dustin Hoffman is all nervous about going to do his acting thing and Bill Murray says "fuck you" to him at least three times (to break the tension, I suppose). I had always thought one or two non-sexual uses of the word would get you an automatic PG-13, three or more was an R.
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-07-2009, 01:44 AM:
Was there a PG-13 in 1982? I thought Temple Of Doom brought that in in 1984.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-07-2009, 01:58 AM:
I guess you're right, "Tootsie" predated the PG-13 by a couple of years. I can see why they would have gone with PG for that instead of R...or else made the producers cut the language out. (I suppose this is one of those cases where the high-powered people involved - Hoffman, Murray and director Sydney Pollack - asked for a concession and got it.)
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-07-2009, 07:41 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
About half way through they walked out and wanted a refund because they felt the content was inappropriate for that age group. I pointed out the movie was rated PG-13 'for crude sexual humor, language and brief nudity'. To which she replied that she would not have taken the kids if she knew that ahead of time. Never mind the fact it's on our recording and web site; it's posted with the movie descriptions in the box office window; and it's on the poster displayed in front of the theatre.
Justin, did you add, "And for your information, madam, this theatre has created an addition rating that we like to apply to some of our patrons; I am happy to say, we would rate you IDP: (Incredible Dumb-Ass Parent)--for excessive stupidity and some mental defect, not suitable for procreation."
quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
One question I did pose to them was why is it that you can show several instances/long duration shots of female genitalia and still get a "R", but show more than a few short (and non-erect) seconds of a penis and it's automatically "NC-17" or (now defunct I think) "X"?
I have wondered that as well....seeems like a double standard, but then again, with a naked woman, at least in far and medium shots, all you really see is a dark patch (I've never seen a main stream where a naked woman is shaved). On the other hand, with at guy, well, there's just more "stuff." There's more junk in your face, so to speak....more to get upset about for those who think human body parts are shocking and immoral. I mean, not for nuthin, but Raddcliff's got one set of huge balls that you can't exactly ignore, while his female co-star's got, well, just a patch.
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-07-2009, 10:06 AM:
Tony, I was slightly joking about the trauma! Though I gotta confess that I wish he did not do that silly play. The acting looks really bad. If one is going to indulge in such scenes, at least do not look foolish doing so. Plus what was up with those dancers at the end of the scene? I wonder if he wanted to be taken seriously outside the Harry Potter world. Plus he has to do that on a daily basis?
As far as NC-17 awarded automatically for any penis shot, I don't think that's the case. Wasn't the Piano R? Or any movie with a naked Ewan McGregor?
Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 01-07-2009, 11:03 AM:
Even the MPAA cannot follow their own guidelines. The entire "ok as long as not used in a sexual context" was out the window with "My Best Friends Wedding", when Julia Roberts clearly said "he just came in for a few hours to fuck me." I mean - that would seem to be a clear sexual context to me...
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-07-2009, 10:44 PM:
I can't possibly see this movie being any kind of a faithful adaptation of the book with a PG rating. Most of the book deals with flashbacks to Voldemort's past, but there are also some definitely disturbing scenes near the end.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-08-2009, 03:28 PM:
Frank, I think you hit the nail on the (penis) head. It is because guys have more showing that people get their panties in a wad when a guy's "wedding tackle" (thanks Austin Powers) is out there for all to see. Personally I don't find the twig and giggle berries offensive (and not just because I'm a fag) but rather I find them amusing., Face it, a guy's hardware is somewhat funny looking.
Pravin, I know you were kidding, but I did find the combination of comments amusing. You are absolutely right, that play is incredibly silly and the acting was bad, and I didn't see the point of the dancers either. (Unless the director just thought it would be amusing to see Harry Potter's hairy potter bouncing around. )
As for the ratings on those two films, I don't recall seeing how long the penis shots were or how many there were.. I think that does make a difference.
"Porky's" films for example actually showed a LOT of penis..IF you ran them at 1:37. The 1:85 plates cut off the shots at waist level. (The full-screen versions on the dvd set shows everything. )
Blaine, exactly. The MPAA is becoming more inconsistent than ever. I think they feel obligated to "keep up with the times."
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2