RotJ - PG-13? [Archive] - toonzone forums

Naraht

02-08-2002, 04:54 AM

Frankly......I think the edited version deserves a bloody PG-13 rating....

While I have no evidence....I do believe the lack of a rating, coupled with the fact that it was marketed as a children's movie led to the demise of Batman Beyond. I think alot of parents got the movie for their kids....were very desterbed at what happens on the screen...and wrote angry letters to the WB....which in turn caused the WB to think that no one liked BB. *sigh*

Bird Boy

02-08-2002, 09:45 AM

Awwww yeah! ROTJ:Unedited is PG-13..I'm loving this..lol

Course, now my younger cousin can't watch it with me.. :(

AH well, I'm just so glad it's got different cover art.. the first one was so bland..

-BB

Toddman

02-08-2002, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by naraht
Frankly......I think the edited version deserves a bloody PG-13 rating....

While I have no evidence....I do believe the lack of a rating, coupled with the fact that it was marketed as a children's movie led to the demise of Batman Beyond. I think alot of parents got the movie for their kids....were very desterbed at what happens on the screen...and wrote angry letters to the WB....which in turn caused the WB to think that no one liked BB. *sigh*

I'm only guessing, but somehow I doubt that's the case. Weak sales of the movie may have helped to put an end to Batman Beyond, but probably not angry letters. Of course this is the WB we're talking about, so anything is possible.

The main reason I would think differently, is because of the example set by Transformers: The Movie. It was released theatrically in 1986 with a PG rating. It shocked many parents with not only its incredible amount of brutal violence but its use of profanity as well. Angry letters were written and movie critics warned parents to not take their kids to see it. But that didn't stop Hasbro from backing another season or two of the animated series and continuing the run of the toyline to the present day. (And now all of those kids from 1986, who didn't mind the violence and the swearing one bit, are buying new Transformers for their own kids and retro-Transformers merchandise for themselves.)

Toddman

Naraht

02-08-2002, 10:44 AM

Well, all I can say isI'm glad I won't have to go to the Kiddie section to find the UnCut Version....

Bird Boy

02-08-2002, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by naraht
Well, all I can say isI'm glad I won't have to go to the Kiddie section to find the UnCut Version....

yeah..it'll probably in the "special interest" section, along side the anime...

-BB

Terminal

02-08-2002, 11:24 AM

Naraht, I think you raise a valid point with the correlation between BB's marketing and its demise. A show that occassionally contains rather mature dialouge and intense action as well as some blood shouldn't have been part of a Saturday morning line-up. I've always thought that if BB was on prime-time or just before PT it could have viewed by a completely different demographic and maybe became more successful. It just wasn't a kid's show, more of a young adult's show.

BTW, did anyone that new ROTJ disc artwork resembles the back the current DVD case but with part of BB's right glider wing exposed?

Sparvid

02-08-2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by The Electric Knight
In Australia the edited version is PG.

We have a system which goes G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+, so it will be interesting to see if the unedited pushes the envelope enough to get Mor it could be able to stay in the PG bracket. M doesn't have restrictions but it's suggested for Mature Audiences.

TEK :)
Is it only here in Sweden there is a "normal" rating system (for me, that is ;))?

All ages: Everybody can see it in a theatre.
7 years: If you are under 7, you have to watch it with someone older then 11 (I think. Maybe it's older then 7)
11 years: If you are between 7-11, you have be with someone who is 15 or more. If you are under 7, you can't watch it at all.
15 years: If you're 15 or older, you can see it. 14 or under, nope.

Cosmocat

02-08-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by bloodone
That's absolutely crazy! I love it! I never would have guessed that it would receive that high of a rating. Oh well, as long as I get my uncut movie :D

I did. I didn't know they were actually going to submit the uncut version to the MPAA -- THAT was a surprise. But, the violence in the movie is pretty strong, and a child DOES murder someone -- animated or not, the MPAA doesn't tread lightly on those things...

Cosmocat

02-08-2002, 01:41 PM

BTW, for anyone who's interested, this is the MPAA's official explanation for the rating:

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence. (director's cut)

Pretty cut and dried, eh?

James Harvey

02-08-2002, 03:52 PM

Violence? I never realized that the violence in the animated version was really that intense. I'll have to rewatch it. There is a considerable shift in violence tone in the edited version. About 80% of it is cut out during the night club part. And the flashback...that alone likely gaurenteed it the PG-13 rating. And I'm still surprised it was submitted to the MPAA.

adoptedBatpuppy

02-08-2002, 04:01 PM

Cosmocat

02-08-2002, 04:45 PM

James Harvey

02-08-2002, 04:51 PM

That is a good point about the rating. That would seem like the most logical choice, to submit to the MPAA, get the offiica rating, and then use that to seperate the two titles. Ma, now that it has an 'official' rating, it would be so cool to see on the big screen...

DerekPowers

02-08-2002, 06:24 PM

this whole situation is pretty ironic if you think about it. the movie by no means merits a pg-13 rating, i mean come on, just watch "mad love", "over the edge" or "its never too late", theyre not as intense as rotj, but they come close and they aired on tv before the tv ratings. real pg-13 movies have cursing, partial nudity, alot more stuff than rotj.

the wb is probably just doing this because the edited one was rated pg, and theyd have to rate it higher, and pg 13 was the next one, plus just to avoid anyone complaining it was underrated.

but, whatever, as long as its being released uncut is all i care about. im upset cause have the creators knew it would get slapped w/ an pg13 rating, then maybe they could have slipped in a little more violence, blood, or just plain more adult content. hehe.

and out of this rating thing we get new cover art (the other one sucked ass, why the hell did joker have a green face?? anyone?), and "rotj the original, uncut version, sounds kind of cool. i just hope the new cover art is actually good.

James Harvey

02-08-2002, 06:40 PM

Actually, the original edited version of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker is "Unrated". It was not submitted to the MPAA, therefore got no rating. If it was submitted, I bet it would have gotten a PG, though. I'm reall yinterested to see what the cover art will be, if it will not be just a reproduction of the original art, according to PREVIEWS magazine.

oranthal

02-08-2002, 07:43 PM

i think your right. i'm just going by memory but now that you mention it, the 2 pictures are very similar.

Originally posted by Terminal

BTW, did anyone that new ROTJ disc artwork resembles the back the current DVD case but with part of BB's right glider wing exposed?

nightwing_38116

02-08-2002, 07:45 PM

I've seen the uncut more times that I can stand and to be honest I think that it's a PG film. I'm sure that the PG-13 rating could translate into younger fanboys getting rilled up because they feel that they're watching an "mature animated movie" which would likely mean higher sales. But in the end as long as it gets released on DVD, hopefully with some good extras.

Cosmocat

02-09-2002, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by DerekPowers
this whole situation is pretty ironic if you think about it. the movie by no means merits a pg-13 rating, i mean come on, just watch "mad love", "over the edge" or "its never too late", theyre not as intense as rotj, but they come close and they aired on tv before the tv ratings. real pg-13 movies have cursing, partial nudity, alot more stuff than rotj.

the wb is probably just doing this because the edited one was rated pg, and theyd have to rate it higher, and pg 13 was the next one, plus just to avoid anyone complaining it was underrated.

but, whatever, as long as its being released uncut is all i care about. im upset cause have the creators knew it would get slapped w/ an pg13 rating, then maybe they could have slipped in a little more violence, blood, or just plain more adult content. hehe.

and out of this rating thing we get new cover art (the other one sucked ass, why the hell did joker have a green face?? anyone?), and "rotj the original, uncut version, sounds kind of cool. i just hope the new cover art is actually good.

Movies don't have to have ALL of those things just to get higher ratings. I've seen MANY PG-13 movies that were given that rating based soley on violence, or just language. It all has to do with what the MPAA feels it deserves. I mean, ROTJ deals with the torture and temporary insanity of a young child, as well as having the young child murder someone else. Animated or not, the MPAA becomes alarmed at those things. So, the PG-13, in my opinion, was not surprising and IS warranted.

DerekPowers

02-09-2002, 03:19 PM

well, im sure many feel rotj warents a pg-13 rating. me, i think its a bunch of bs. rotj is by no means a pg-13 movie, its just not, period. watch any disney movie, there are children in danger all the time, alot of sexual inuendo, and the villians always die violently. "the hunchback of notre dame" was extremely dark, almost more so than rtoj. they show frollo in the opening scene kill the hunchbacks mother, while shes holding the baby!! plus frollo's whole song was about how he wanted to have sex w/ the gypsy and if she turned down his advances, shed be killed. and it was only pg.

im not really all that mad that it got that rating, maybe it will make people just shoping around who see it get use to the idea of a more adult animated film, but it dosnt deserve that high of a rating.

Naraht

02-09-2002, 03:23 PM

*sigh* what do you want? PG == G in the minds of adults. The Cut version of RotJ was Unrated, and due to the fact that it was animated, placed it in the children's section. It's not a kids movie. Teens, and possibly kids over 10 could handle it no problem, but I really think the PG 13 is about right.

Cosmocat

02-09-2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by DerekPowers
well, im sure many feel rotj warents a pg-13 rating. me, i think its a bunch of bs. rotj is by no means a pg-13 movie, its just not, period. watch any disney movie, there are children in danger all the time, alot of sexual inuendo, and the villians always die violently. "the hunchback of notre dame" was extremely dark, almost more so than rtoj. they show frollo in the opening scene kill the hunchbacks mother, while shes holding the baby!! plus frollo's whole song was about how he wanted to have sex w/ the gypsy and if she turned down his advances, shed be killed. and it was only pg.

im not really all that mad that it got that rating, maybe it will make people just shoping around who see it get use to the idea of a more adult animated film, but it dosnt deserve that high of a rating.

Hunchback was only rated G, actually. And the reason Disney gets away with so much is because of the way it's presented. Disney's violence, for the most part, is "necessary" in the MPAA's eyes and is presented tastefully. And I could see them saying that ROTJ's violence is "highly stylized, almost glorified, and a bit extrenuous and intense at times". The movie also has some hints at sexual innuendo, and even though it wasn't mentioned in the MPAA's official reasoning, I'm sure that had something to do with the rating.

I mean, look at it this way. Mask of the Phantasm was only PG. It had a fair amount of violence. Now, if you were to watch MOTP and then the unedited ROTJ right after, you'd see how stronger and more intense it is, hence the higher rating. I mean, if MOTP got a PG...

James Harvey

02-09-2002, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by DerekPowers
and it was only pg.

Actually, The Hunchback of Notre Dame was rated G. That movie also happens to be one of my favorite Disney movies. As for the rating, well, I don't really care. I just wanna get my greedy mitts on the disc!

catwoman

02-09-2002, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
Violence? I never realized that the violence in the animated version was really that intense. I'll have to rewatch it. There is a considerable shift in violence tone in the edited version. About 80% of it is cut out during the night club part. And the flashback...that alone likely gaurenteed it the PG-13 rating. And I'm still surprised it was submitted to the MPAA.

I think it derserves this rating. The scene where the dees pull bonk's corpse off a table and the graphic death of the joker make it pretty obvious that this this isn't your average disney flick. I think that most parents who wouldn't mind showing this to there kids would be okay with letting their kids see a pg13 movie (mine were), but those that would object wouldn't allow their kids to watch it. It's fair, though I'm not sure if the curiousity of an uncut, more mature movie will boost sales or if it will hinder them. Guess we'll see.

Oh, and I'm with Jim. I'm really surprised that they submitted it to the MPAA.

kid_flash

02-09-2002, 05:31 PM

This rules. This just flat-out rules. NOT ONLY do we get ROTJ uncut. NOT ONLY do we get the original commentary. But we get PG-13. This just rules. Not that I have a big problem hanging in the kiddie section of the video store, but the "Special Interest" section makes you look cooler and more sophisticated. At least, that's how I feel :)

James Harvey

02-09-2002, 08:22 PM

Knowing the ignorance of most video retail first hand - I bet this will still be plopped in the kiddie section. But still, I have no problem with the rating. As long as WB makes it obvious that this is a different version of the movie, that's all I ask. Whether the movie determines the rating or not doesn't really matter to me. I just want the thing!! :)

kid_flash

02-09-2002, 08:30 PM

Well, if they put it in the kiddie section, the complaints won't take long to come in. After that, it gets moved. But I'm sure video stores at least check the rating. At least, I would hope so.

Cosmocat

02-09-2002, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
Knowing the ignorance of most video retail first hand - I bet this will still be plopped in the kiddie section. But still, I have no problem with the rating. As long as WB makes it obvious that this is a different version of the movie, that's all I ask. Whether the movie determines the rating or not doesn't really matter to me. I just want the thing!! :)

Sure, it'll be in the kiddie section, regardless. It's animated, it's Batman = it's for kids. Regardless of rating. I mean, Small Soldiers is in the kiddie section, and it was flat-out PG-13...

James Harvey

02-09-2002, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

Sure, it'll be in the kiddie section, regardless. It's animated, it's Batman = it's for kids. Regardless of rating. I mean, Small Soldiers is in the kiddie section, and it was flat-out PG-13...

That's the same here. Small Soldiers litters the kiddie section in basically every movie store I check out. I'm not a real big fan of the movie, but it's just there. But that was a mess of a movie to begin with (bad advertising, almost confused), so I don't have any sleepless nights over it. I know this will end up in the "Under $20" rack at Wal-Mart, and stuffed into the kidde section at just about every other store....

The Electric Knight

02-09-2002, 09:01 PM

In Australia Hunchback of Notre Dame was still G but it had a warning next to it "some scenes may disturb young viewers".

Then they had Tarzan as PG, which I didn't think was really as bad... Maybe the presence of songs really have something to do with it.

DerekPowers

02-09-2002, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Cosmocat

Hunchback was only rated G, actually. And the reason Disney gets away with so much is because of the way it's presented. Disney's violence, for the most part, is "necessary" in the MPAA's eyes and is presented tastefully.

actually, it was rated pg. check your copies again, reel.com, disney store.com or anywhere else, its pg. believe me, im a bit of a disney fanatic.

i just dont understand how you all could defend such a high rating. most people i know who i showed it to uncut didnt understand what the uproar was all about (since ofcourse i had to fill them in on all the controversy and such), saying theyve done worse things on the tv shows, and they have! or atleast fairly close. the wb is simply playing it safe w/ that rating, and perhaps using it to their advantage to distinguish it from the old version. but no way in hell does it deserve that rating.

in reality, if it was released in theaters, itd be pg, and everyone knows it. think about movies w/ pg13 ratings and how much more violence, nudity, and bad language they have compared to rotj. and like i said in my earlier post, the hunchback had just as much adult content as rotj, and it was pg. actually, i remember an interview where jason alexander (the voice of hugo), said he wouldnt let his 7 year old watch it, its too dark, or something along those lines.

is there anyone out there who actually likes the rating but realistically thinks its too high, cause thats how i feel, i like it cause we get lots of benefits from having it rated pg 13, but it doesnt mean it actually deserved that rating.

Cosmocat

02-09-2002, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by DerekPowers

actually, it was rated pg. check your copies again, reel.com, disney store.com or anywhere else, its pg. believe me, im a bit of a disney fanatic.

i just dont understand how you all could defend such a high rating. most people i know who i showed it to uncut didnt understand what the uproar was all about (since ofcourse i had to fill them in on all the controversy and such), saying theyve done worse things on the tv shows, and they have! or atleast fairly close. the wb is simply playing it safe w/ that rating, and perhaps using it to their advantage to distinguish it from the old version. but no way in hell does it deserve that rating.

in reality, if it was released in theaters, itd be pg, and everyone knows it. think about movies w/ pg13 ratings and how much more violence, nudity, and bad language they have compared to rotj. and like i said in my earlier post, the hunchback had just as much adult content as rotj, and it was pg. actually, i remember an interview where jason alexander (the voice of hugo), said he wouldnt let his 7 year old watch it, its too dark, or something along those lines.

is there anyone out there who actually likes the rating but realistically thinks its too high, cause thats how i feel, i like it cause we get lots of benefits from having it rated pg 13, but it doesnt mean it actually deserved that rating.

From The Internet Movie Database:

Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1996)
USA:G

If you don't believe me, check out the link:

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0116583

As for ROTJ, I LIKE the PG-13 rating, AND I feel it's deserved.

Cosmocat

02-09-2002, 11:16 PM

I also meant to say that both reel.com and disneystore.com are incorrect. I'm surprised, but they are. To date, the only PG-rated Disney animated features have been The Black Cauldron and Atlantis. I was working at a movie theatre when Hunchback came out, and I have the poster for the film in my collection. It has a G rating on it.

kid_flash

02-10-2002, 01:54 AM

James Harvey

02-10-2002, 12:26 PM

My copy of Hunchback of Notre Dame has a big fat G on the video cassette as well as the back cover.

It will be interesting to see how WB markets this movie, if they will at all. WB didn't market the original ROTJ that well, and I can't see them marketing this well that good either. I wonder if I'll even see a commercial for it...

LazyReaper

02-10-2002, 01:34 PM

I remember seeing a commercial for the edited, but it was only aired once or twice here in Canada. It was for about a week too. It wasn't aired very often as other Direct to release videos. I'm not surprised, that the edited didn't sell very well.

Hopefully, WB puts in some more effort advertising it this time around.

Naraht

02-10-2002, 01:40 PM

When did it become ok for a PG 13 movie to have nudity? The only one I remember was Titanic...and I felt it was uncalled for (the movie, in it's entirerity. I hated that piece of Drek)

From the MPAA Web Site

PG-13:"Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13."

PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children.

A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend.

If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.

Cosmocat

02-10-2002, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
My copy of Hunchback of Notre Dame has a big fat G on the video cassette as well as the back cover.

It will be interesting to see how WB markets this movie, if they will at all. WB didn't market the original ROTJ that well, and I can't see them marketing this well that good either. I wonder if I'll even see a commercial for it...

That's a tough one to even speculate on. Again, this is the unedited version, and WB may be treating this as a "specialty" release, with very, VERY minor promotion. Still, many more Batman releases are coming out on the same day, so if they do a decent promo push for those, ROTJ will probably be included by default.

Cosmocat

02-10-2002, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by naraht
When did it become ok for a PG 13 movie to have nudity? The only one I remember was Titanic...and I felt it was uncalled for (the movie, in it's entirerity. I hated that piece of Drek)

From the MPAA Web Site

Like I said before, it all depends on how it's presented. The nudity in Titanic wasn't OVERTLY sexually oriented, and it was done in a very tasteful manner. It wasn't exploitational (like most nudity is) and actually helped the character and scene. So, done in that way (nudity is RARELY presented as tastefully as it was in Titanic), I can see it being okay in a PG-13.

I also liked Titanic a LOT....but that's a whole other story...

MattL.

02-10-2002, 11:43 PM

I've seen both versions. Sometimes less is more even in the context of "mature" animation.

I like the edited one better. Sue me.

Toddman

02-11-2002, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by naraht
When did it become ok for a PG 13 movie to have nudity?

Hey, before there was even a PG-13 rating, it was okay to have nudity in PG movies. I remember some movies from the early 80's (Sixteen Candles and Clash of the Titans off the top of my head) that had partial nudity. I'd guess that films like that may have contributed to there being a PG-13 today.

A couple of other PG-13's w/nudity that come to mind: Doc Hollywood and Repossessed. I'm sure there are many others.

Toddman

James Harvey

02-11-2002, 11:28 AM

Movie standards change overtime. What was once rated "X" (Midnight Cowboy, Evil Dead 2) is now rated "R". But I can see why MPAA gave ROTJ a PG-13 rating. No doubt they're pretty thickheaded when it comes to animation and just considered it to be a kids' movie like any other. When the movie reflected strong maturity, the flinched and beefed up the rating.

Maxie Zeus

02-11-2002, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
Movie standards change overtime. What was once rated "X" (Midnight Cowboy, Evil Dead 2) is now rated "R".

And vice versa. Didn't the reissued "The Wild Bunch" (an R in 1969) get an NC-17?

Nudity: "The Right Stuff" (1983; PG) had full-on female nudity, a fan dance at the conclusion that ended with the fans completely parted.

Cosmocat

02-11-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Jim Harvey
Movie standards change overtime. What was once rated "X" (Midnight Cowboy, Evil Dead 2) is now rated "R". But I can see why MPAA gave ROTJ a PG-13 rating. No doubt they're pretty thickheaded when it comes to animation and just considered it to be a kids' movie like any other. When the movie reflected strong maturity, the flinched and beefed up the rating.

And I guarantee you the MPAA decided to give it a PG-13 based on the target audience. If this movie was targeted towards older people, they might have been a bit more lenient. However, since this is animated, Batman, etc, they needed to slap a PG-13 on there to make parents take notice...