Man of Steel gets its PG-13. Is the high-profile live-action PG-rated film an endangered species?

As of this morning, Zack Snyder's Man of Steel has been awarded a PG-13 for "intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language."  That's not a surprise, as pretty much every major comic book film since Bryan Singer's X-Men has received said rating.  Even if the content seemed more appropriate for the more kid-friendly PG rating, such as I'd argue was the case with Fantastic Four and Thor, studios don't want the potential kiddie-flick stigma that's still somewhat attached to live-action PG-rated films.  Unless you're dealing with fantasy that's somewhat aimed at families, such as The Chronicles of Narnia or four of the eight Harry Potter films, or high-brow family adventures like Hugo or The Life of Pi), it's PG-13 or bust. Part of that is the way in which Shrek turned the PG rating into an acceptable 'for all rages' status for animated films back in 2001.  Part of that is merely the fact that getting a PG-13 doesn't seem to be making parents think twice about bringing their very young children to the likes of Transformers: Dark of the Moon or Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.  

Why an R-rating for A Good Day To Die Hard matters...

Bruce Willis let it be known to Harry Knowles late Friday night (and Fox confirmed sometime later) that A Good Day To Die Hard will be opening on February 14th, 2013 with an R-rating.  That's somewhat of a surprise, since Live Free Or Die Hard infamously went out as a PG-13 and still ended up as the biggest domestic grosser of the series.  On the other hand, it still earned less worldwide than Die Hard: With a Vengeance way back in 1995 and is actually the lowest-grossing entry in the series when adjusted for inflation, so it stands to reason that the PG-13 didn't make a difference either way.  Of course, cutting down a movie for a PG-13 to get the kids and then opening it on the same weekend as a Pixar movie is somewhat stupid, but I digress.  Of course, the fact that the film is going to be R-rated doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be good.  Heck, it may not mean anything other than John McClane saying "fuck" more than once amid otherwise bloodless (or hastily CGI-inserted bloody) violence.  From the sound of Willis's statement, it seems that Fox wasn't aiming for an R-rated movie, but that they are merely willing to accept the MPAA's position.  This is itself is encouraging and possibly a sign of a 'new day' for mainstream studio films.  

Harvey Weinstein is a hypocritical bully and a f***ing a**hole. Now that publicity has subsided, Weinstein to cut Bully down to a PG-13 after all.

When the manufactured outrage over the MPAA handing Bully an R-rating for its six F-bombs, I politely suggested that Weinstein should just do what Morgan Spurlock did with Super Size Me and cut and alternate, 'educational version' of the documentary so that it could be viewed in schools and other public places.  But over the last two months, Harvey Weinstein and his band of Karl Rove/Lee Atwater-ish bullies have ginned up the media, getting publicity-friendly movie stars and righteously indignant pundits to hem and howl at the MPAA because they had the gall not to give Weinstein's film preferential treatment.  After all, an R-rating was going to keep kids from seeing Bully in a theater!  LIE (any kid of any age can see an R-rated film with a parent/guardian over 18).  And NATO's statement to the Weinstein Company that releasing the film unrated would possibly cause theaters to treat it like an NC-17 film was EXACTLY like threatening to give the film an NC-17 as retaliation for raising a ruckus!  LIE.  If the MPAA didn't give in and give the film a PG-13, the film wouldn't reach the kids that it needed to reach!  LIE (DVDs, Blu-Ray, Video On Demand, Netflix... pick one!).  The film was so singularly awesome and important that it had the unimpeachable power to save kids' lives and that denying this film its rightful PG-13 was tantamount to murdering at-risk bullied youth.  Well, I haven't seen the film, but I'm guessing that's a LIE too.

Just bleep the f*^#ing profanity! Why getting a PG-13 for Bully is more important than fighting the MPAA on its lone ironclad rule.

You can't have more than one 'f-word' in your movie and still get a PG-13.  There have been a few exceptions over the years, but generally it's one 'f-word' in a non-sexual context.  Anymore than that, and its an automatic R-rating.  We can debate the morality/practicality of that specific rule.  Hell, I'd probably agree with you that it's a silly arbitrary requirement, especially considering the sort of violent content that, thanks to the FEC's war on R-rated movies in 2001 (HERE), ends up in PG-13 movies.  But at the end of the day, it's one of the MPAA's few ironclad rules.  Thus I have little sympathy when Weinstein's films keep trying to skirt that 'one rule' and still attempt to get that PG-13.  Their new documentary Bully may indeed be must-see viewing for teenagers.  It may shed light on a major problem, affect the national conversation, and save lives.  But if Harvey Weinstein and director Lee Hirsch want that PG-13, they should just bleep out the offending f-words. Period. We may not like the rules, but those are the rules as they stand at the moment.

Chuck Norris is not the cause, merely an alibi. The irony of a PG-13 Expendables II.

This story broke yesterday (I first read it yesterday morning at Collider), but since it was based on a translation of an interview that actor Chuck Norris gave to a Polish magazine, I thought I'd wait to make sure it wasn't a mistranslation.  But Sylvester Stallone has confirmed to Ain't It Cool News that The Expendables II will indeed be PG-13, although his explanation doesn't specifically blame Mr. Norris.  To wit, here, translated into English, is the 'offending' portion of Chuck Norris's interview:

"In Expendables 2, there was a lot of vulgar dialogue in the screenplay. For this reason, many young people wouldn’t be able to watch this. But I don’t play in movies like this,” Norris explained. “Due to that I said I won’t be a part of that if the hardcore language is not erased. Producers accepted my conditions and the movie will be classified in the category of PG-13."

And here is Sly Stallone's confirmation:

"Harry (Knowles), the film is fantastic with Van Damme turning in an inspired performance... Our final battle is one for the ages. The PG13 rumor is true, but before your readers pass judgement, trust me when I say this film is LARGE in every way and delivers on every level. This movie touches on many emotions which we want to share with the broadest audience possible, BUT, fear not, this Barbeque of Grand scale Ass Bashing will not leave anyone hungry..."

What is strange about this is not that Stallone and his band of 80s and 2000s action stars are catering to the whims of one very over-the-hill action icon, or that Norris thinks that hearing profanity is more harmful to youngsters than watching over-the-top violence (in a pre-Sopranos/24 era, Walker: Texas Ranger was once considered the most violent show on television).  No what's strange is that the first Expendables, judging on the theatrical cut, was clearly intended to be a PG-13 in the first place.  Watching the film back in August 2010, I distinctly remember thinking that this was an awfully soft R, and that up until a certain third-act action sequence involving Stallone with a knife, it appeared that there wasn't going to be all that much R-rated violence at all.  Stallone and company waffled back and forth prior to the film's release about its rating, and I am still convinced to this day that it was always intended to be a PG-13 movie.

That's a first! MPAA awards a PG-13 to The Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue.

Yes, indeed, it appears that not only will you be seeing that 6-8 minute IMAX preview of The Dark Knight Rises attached to IMAX prints of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol (which has just been rated PG-13 for 'sequences of intense action and violence') but that extended scene has actually gotten its very own MPAA rating.  So the IMAX preview for The Dark Knight Rises has been rated PG-13 for 'some violence'.  To my knowledge, this is the first time a preview of a movie, even an extended scene, has received its own MPAA rating classification.  But yeah, that prologue will be appropriate for audiences thirteen years old and up.  I don't have anything to share, I just thought it was funny and The Dark Knight Rises generally works well as page-view bait anyway.  This post has been rated AS - Arbitrary and Shameless.

Scott Mendelson

How 2001 was a film game-changer IV: Joe Lieberman and the FTC use Columbine to kill the R-rating and (by proxy) mainstream films for adults.

This is one of a handful of essays that will be dealing with the various trends that were kicked off during the 2001 calendar year, and how they still resonate today.

I don't have all that much to say about Colombiana, which I saw this weekend.  It's well-acted (save for one overwrought emotional exposition moment in the third act), and the action sequences are suitably tight and intense.  But the most noteworthy thing about this film is that its PG-13.  Not only do we have yet another adult-themed and relatively violent action picture that has been awarded a PG-13 rating, but you can clearly see and hear the alterations that went into the original product to make it so.  You can see the haphazard editing around the onscreen violence.  You can hear the muffling of gun shots and other sounds of violence (screams, punching, kicking, etc).  Colombiana is an adult film with adult sensibilities.  Yet in this current market, it was considered unwise to release this violent action picture with an R-rating.  It's been over ten years since the Joseph Lieberman-speared committee into the marketing of R-rated pictures effectively put a clamp on the 'for audiences 17 and over or with a parental guardian' rating when it came to mainstream entertainment.  And it's been ten years since we saw the effective end of adult-oriented R-rated fare in mainstream cinemas.

MPAA thinks a young women being raped is more appropriate than a young woman initiating and enjoy sex?

There's a choice quote in this Emily Browning interview over at Nylon Magazine, which was reported by Cinemablend that merits a mention. Its implications are kinda shocking,. The crux is the discussion of changes that Zach Snyder had to make in order to ensure Sucker Punch (review) would win a PG-13 from the MPAA, which apparently took seven tries. I'll let Browning lay it out:

"I had a very tame and mild love scene with Jon Hamm. It was like heavy breathing and making out. It was hardly a sex scene... I think that it's great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn't like that. They don't think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they're from the Stone Age. I don't know what the f**k is going on and I will openly criticize it, happily. So essentially, they got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she's into it. And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That's the only way he could get a PG-13 (rating) and he said, 'I don't want to send that message.' So they cut the scene!"

I've often defended the MPAA when films are given harsher ratings for breaking clearly-outlined rules (if you have more than one 'f-word', you get an R, period). I've long argued that the real enemy is the major theater chains that won't screen NC-17 or unrated movies, as well as the major networks and newspapers that won't carry advertising for them. But this is a clear cut case of the MPAA showing serious puritanical colors. So, just to clarify, it appears that the MPAA had serious issues with the idea that Emily Browning having consensual sexual relations with Jon Hamm, but they had less of an issue with the idea that Jon Hamm was taking advantage of, perhaps even raping Emily Browning. Let me repeat that one more time: the MPAA was more comfortable with the idea of a young woman raped by an older man than with the idea of a young woman making her own choices in regards to her own sexuality. I don't even need to further editorialize here.

Scott Mendelson