Fan Rant: The PG Rating for 'Prince Caspian' Is Ludicrous
Filed under: New Releases, Disney, Fan Rant
The MPAA's rating system is flawed and arbitrarily enforced, and the system itself is corrupt. I urge one and all to see the enlightening This Film Is Not Yet Rated for ample evidence of this -- or, if you prefer, just watch The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and marvel at how such a violent movie magically got the kid-friendly PG rating. I didn't know the rating before I watched it, and I didn't remember, off the top of my head, whether the first Chronicles of Narnia was PG. (It was.) As Prince Caspian unfolded, I noted that there was an awful lot of stabbing, throat-slitting, and other killing, though I also noted that it was almost entirely bloodless. I figured it was the lack of gore that had prevented the film from being rated R, and that it was instead a moderately violent PG-13.
So I was flabbergasted to discover afterward that it was rated PG. Mind you, I have nothing against wanton violence and destruction in film -- it just needs to be labeled properly. Prince Caspian has (no spoilers here) several large-scale battle scenes, akin to Lord of the Rings in size and scope, with people and magical creatures slaying one another right and left. In a scene of hand-to-hand combat, someone slices off someone else's head; in the next shot we see the head, still in its helmet, on the ground next to the body. Elsewhere, there's a massive slaughter while good guys are forced to look on, powerless to help.
None of this is shown graphically; there are no spurting fountains of blood or piles of entrails. But surely it's thematically disturbing -- not to mention plentiful -- enough to warrant a PG-13 rating. I'd like to give the MPAA the benefit of the doubt, but I would bet money that this is the result of Disney "suggesting" to the ratings board that they'd really, really like the family-oriented PG rating. Disney is one of the six major studios that comprise the Motion Picture Association of America, and it's absurd to think that the ratings board is immune from influence from those member studios, especially when things like this happen.
Chalk it up as one more reason -- the list is very long by now -- that the ratings system needs to be overhauled altogether. And in the meantime, parents, be careful. Won't someone think of the children?
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Let's show our kids all the violence we can! BUt wait...no, no, no...I see a breast....it belongs to a woman lying next to that decapitated head? Hmmm...cover her up! But leave the head. This Film is Not Yet Rated shows that the church influences ratings. Proves it. There is a man of the cloth in the ratings room...the church loves Caspian...hence...Disney could get a PG. Terrible...
Posted at 8:34PM on May 15th 2008 by brian
3. Heck, I thought it was PG-13 just from the trailers and the clip I saw on Leno the other night! That's an awful lot of hacking and slashing for a PG movie. I certainly don't mind film violence and brutality one bit. In fact I'm about to go watch my Robocop dvd in a minute or two. And I'm actually doubting this film will have anything the average 8 year old couldn't handle. But the hypocrisy of the ratings board really disgusts me. You know what, I think i'm going to go pick out a dvd with lots of naked women in it. I'll watch that instead of the hyper-violent Robocop. You know, in protest.
4. Heh, I thought THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE deserved blood. Anyway, yeah, I knew PRINCE CASPIAN was SOMEWHAT going to be more violent than the first. Still, no blood seems unrealistic.
Posted at 10:11PM on May 15th 2008 by V.M.L.
5. I just want to say there is nothing wrong with the MPAA, heres my proof there is no way that 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was rated PG, regardless of the ripping out of beating hearts and human sacrificing and all...... I'm just saying.
Posted at 10:15PM on May 15th 2008 by Alex Farquharson
6. There was no PG-13 with Temple of Doom came out. It was introduced not long after ward and is one of the reasons (along with Gremlins) for the creation of that rating. It wasn't bad enough to get an R so it got the PG rating.
Posted at 10:59PM on May 15th 2008 by Rich
7. And yet "Once" recieved an R rating for being a foreign, independant film.
Sigh
Posted at 11:22PM on May 15th 2008 by Kelsey
8. As a British film student, we've recently been making many comparisons between the BBFC and MPAA, with Kirby Dick's documentary providing a lot of the info for the course. However, I'm pretty sure most of the complaints Kirby had have since been adressed. Still, the BBFC has proven that the MPAA's secrecy in whom rates the movies (CARA) is generally pretty pointless.
As for this particular movie getting a PG-13, you could blame it on kids and parents just not caring much about violence as much as they used to, but also take into consideration that this movie is popular with kids, and (as with one of the Spider-man movies?) parents would only complain if they couldn't take their kids to see it.
Posted at 1:01PM on May 16th 2008 by Billy
9. Fascinating, really, The MPAA are getting more and more conservative and the BBFC are getting more rational. The BBFC now give films with frontal nudity 12A (off the top of my head Miss Henderson Presents had Bob Hoskins dangler and lots of boobage). While the MPAA, which is controlled by Church groups, will endorse something violent if it has so-callled Christian themes contained within the subtext.
Posted at 3:50AM on May 16th 2008 by Marty J
10. I saw 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' and was very disturbed. Add to the logic presented in the article that Walden Media - the production company - is owned by a right wing Christian and you can see the prevailing morality that in central to American movie ratings.
As Marty J said above me, the BBFC (the British board) has a far more common-sense approach. I can see this getting a 12A rating in the UK.
The whole back-door banning via NC-17 ratings is disturbing as well. But yes, this is not surprising.
Posted at 6:59AM on May 16th 2008 by WillTheSecond
11. My mistake. The BBFC also gave it a PG. Hmm...
Posted at 7:05AM on May 16th 2008 by WillTheSecond
12. I think some of you fail to realize that nudity in movies has a different effect on people - especially males - than does violence. The pornography industry makes billions of dollars a year because millions of men are addicted to it and the images they see stick with them forever. Violence on the other hand doesn't effect people that way.
Lawyers can say what they want, but lots of studies show (sorry for sounding stereotypical) that violence in video games and movies doesn't lead to kids becoming violent. Pornography on the other hand has millions of men entrapped and addicted.
I know that's not a popular viewpoint, but let me ask you this...if you had two friends at home by themselves and some movie with nudity and violence in it at their disposal, do you think they're going to put it in and skip to the beheading scene, or to the sex scene?
Posted at 8:41AM on May 16th 2008 by Ben
13. An interesting point Ben, and one that I wish would be discussed more often. Most people just pounce on these issues as if sex and violence are the exact same thing. Clearly they're not, and comparing a breast to a beheading is a little ridiculous. The more relevant discussion would involve how they are different and how each should be viewed and rated. Thats something I'm not sure I can answer even for myself. I do know that if I had kids I would want a ratings system that accurately depicted the level of violent and sexual content in the movie so that I could make up my own mind about it. What we have nowadays doesn't seem to do that.
Posted at 9:38AM on May 16th 2008 by Kevin
14. check out www.kids-in-mind.com. They have extremely detailed accounts of sex/violence/profanity in virtually every movie that comes out new, along with quite a history of old movies. Their reviews are usually published the same day a movie comes out, if not before, so you don't have to wait to decide if you want to see it or not. I think you'll appreciate it. Let me know what you think.
Posted at 9:46AM on May 16th 2008 by Ben
15. I remember watching Disney's the Hunchback of Notre Dame in the theaters, watching in shock as this G-rated movie showed the villain kill the main character's mother on the steps of the church, then dangle an infant over a well by its leg. Later, said villain has a masturbatory fantasy about Esmerelda, the sultry gypsy.
Rated G. Wow.
Posted at 9:18AM on May 16th 2008 by Rico
16. Ben,
Not sure that seeing 1 nude scene in a movie causes men to be entrapped and addicted. Also, they scenes stick forever in their minds.
I think these are some broad blanket statements. Also, why is your comments geared towards men, can't woman be addicted to porn as well (even female nudity)?
I would actually not skip through the movie and watch the beheading scene and then wait for the nudity to appear...
I also think there is a difference between pornography and seeing a breast in a movie.
All and all the MPAA is way too uptight and have the wrong approach and are too corrupt. I think this country is a little too uptight when it comes to thing like nudity as well.
Posted at 10:08AM on May 16th 2008 by mike
17. I'm not sure that 1 scene would or wouldn't either, but my bigger point was that nudity and violence are not the same thing in any way, nor should they be treated the same.
In the example I gave, I was referring to maybe 2 kids at home who perhaps had seen the movie already or knew there was nudity in it...the main point being, nudity is much more appealing than is violence.
As far as the scenes sticking in their minds, I stand by this point. Men are so visually stimualted that they remember this stuff. A guy cannot consistently take in nude images and not become addicted to it.
Posted at 11:04AM on May 16th 2008 by Ben
18. Ok, well I have seen numerous nude scenes in my time and I wouldn't say I am addicted to it. Is there any scientific backing to this claim?
Posted at 11:11AM on May 16th 2008 by mike
19. I can't quote any scientific studies, but as ben did earlier, I can point you to the amount of money Americans spend on pornography each year. From what I recall its in the multiple billions range, whereas I don't see movies like Hostel raking in 800 million dollars. So there certainly seems to be a pretty huge market available for anyone who wants to sell sexual content. Violence is certainly disturbing, but I think Bens point (and definitely my point) is that we need to stop comparing the two as if they are interchangable. Everyone who criticizes the ratings board always says there is a double standard between violence and sex, and frankly there should be. They are two totally different things that need to judged seperately. Lets stop saying the ratings board is biased because this amount of violence is allowed while this amount of sexuality is excluded and start saying the ratings board is biased because this amount of violence in one movie garners this rating whereas the same amount of violence in another movie gets a different rating. Those are two things that can be contrasted with one another accurately.
Posted at 11:32AM on May 16th 2008 by Kevin
20. I agree that pornography is a multi billion dollar industry, but so is kids and adults buying violent video games. So how can you say that violence isn't addictive.
Posted at 6:10PM on Jun 7th 2008 by alko
1. It is rated PG?! Wow. I really thought it was PG-13 as I was watching it. The decapitation, the one minotaur getting crushed, and other things were what made me think that. I have always been an advocate of the ratings system being changed, and now I definitely think that it should be changed.
Posted at 8:16PM on May 15th 2008 by Erin