CR secures PG-13 rating
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Not much surprise here, but at least it's official:
http://commanderbond.net/article/3691
They're being a bit more specific with the reasons on this one... "for intense scenes of action violence, a scene of torture, sexual content, and nudity"
B-) Count me in -{
http://commanderbond.net/article/3691
They're being a bit more specific with the reasons on this one... "for intense scenes of action violence, a scene of torture, sexual content, and nudity"
B-) Count me in -{
Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I have noticed, a lot of movies (rated PG-13) get the descriptor nudity, even though I do not remember any!
On a side rant, violence doesn't seem to have as much an impact, nor the indiscriminate use of racial slurs/stereotypes, critiques of the family unit, defiance of authority in any form or at any cost, and wanton embracing of junk culture and mediocre accomplishment as the pinnacle of success. I say this not as some conservative nut (far from it) but simply to say that what the Motion Picture Association of America deems particularly problematic for young people to see is balanced out by a whole host of other problematic issues that are practically endorsed. It doesn't make much sense to me and probably never will.
And really, who could ask for more?
Did you ever see Titanic, with Kate Winslet's bare boobs on display in a fairly extensive scene? That, and Tantic's use of the F-word and its violence convinced me that the PG-13 is one of the most meaningless ratings around!
Anyway, I wonder if the "nudity" in CR will be Bond's derrier, which should figure in the torture scene? Although I'd much rather the nudity deal with Caterina or Eva!
Agreed.Bond can kill with impunity and even joke about the deed(i.e."He had plenty of guts!") but a pair of bare female breasts are somehow an offense and audiences must at all costs be protected from such a horrible sight.There's something very wrong in that thinking...
*How intriguing that I speak of violence on my 666th post!
The general "rule" is you are allowed two uses of the f word but only as an expletive and not as the description of a sexual act. Any nudity must be non sexual in nature (and there are different rules for male and female nudity and what parts are nude). Basically though you can see Winslet's boob in a PG-13 film because she's being painted and not touched and it's not during the act of sex and it's not a supposedly sexualized scene (though that's debateable). With CR the nudity is indeed most likely Craig's ass in the torture scene though most likely not as it's being hit.
This is the MPAA. The level for acceptable PG-13 violence is a high one (though it does frown on too much realism and blood which will push it to an R). Some nudity and a certain kind and amount of cursing is also OK, just so long as it has nothing to do with sex, and any sex most be under the covers, non explicit -- too much rolling about, moaning and panting will get you an R or wind up on the cutting room floor as it did in the DAD Bond/Jinx scene.
No doubt the UK version (which I gather will probably be a 12 and not 12a) will have fewer cuts on the sex and skin and more on the violence as oppossed to the U.S. PG-13 cuts.
MBE
Just as an aside, I was watching Carry On Camping (rated PG) at the weekend, and it contains full on breastal footage in the first five minutes! I'm writing to my MP to complain
@merseytart
Ah, the unassailable logic of the MPAA!
I never had a problem watching violence on a movie screen since my brain can process it and say 'that is make-believe'. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for profanity or nudity.
So we can assume any nudity in CR would be of the non-sexual variety? Like, stepping out the shower, getting dressed, etc. And if it's to include Craig's derriere, is that a first for Bond? ;%
Move to America and the MPAA will protect you from boobs! Unless they're Kate's in Titanic or rated R and then you're on your own.
MBE
Believe you me, there is no rating on earth that can protect us from Carry On Camping and Barbara Windsors boobs.
And it's allright if professional maiming machines, (NFL linebackers), can take your head off with one blow; just protect us from the evils of Janet Jackson's nipple!
Anyway, sorry to hijack this thread, back to the PG-13 and CR. -{
Lovely jubblies!!!
http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/babs_windsor.jpg
I watched the Indy trilogy special features recently, and Spielberg may actually be the one to blame! Supposedly, T.O.D. was the first film ever to receive this rating, and that Spielberg called up the MPAA head, Jack Valente and suggested to the effect, "Why can't there be a new rating between PG and R? Maybe a PG-13 or PG-14."
Actually, I'm pretty sure that John Milius's gung-ho Red Dawn was the first movie to get a PG-13. But I remember the summer of '84 very well (it came between high school and college for me), and both Temple of Doom and Gremlins were harshly criticized as being too violent for the PG--and not long after came PG-13.
I'm not sure TOD actually received the rating, however. While Spielberg did want the rating, I think it was only applied to subsequent films in 1984. 'Gremlins' and 'Dreamscape' I believe were the first to get labeled with it. Anyway, I thought the rating was pretty useless then, too (And I was 13 at the time). Since, however, the rating has become a cop-out. It seems the same content is found in both 'R' and 'PG-13' films, but the 'R' gets stamped on things that the MPAA figures younger audiences probably aren't interested in seeing anyway.
"The introduction of the PG-13 rating is largely due to Steven Spielberg. 1984 two of his films, Gemlins (which he produced) and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom received a rating of PG. Parents where outraged at some of the scenes and complained. Spielberg went to Jack Valenti and stated the problem, the rating system grouped everyone from infant to late teens in one category, PG. Spielberg suggested a middle ground, the PG-13 rating. Not only did this resolve the problem but it ultimately became the rating of choice for many films. The PG rating tended to turn off teen audiences that felt the film would be too bland. Seizing the opportunity the studios now often strive for the PG-13 over the PG rating. In fact, most of the highest grossing films including Titanic and Spider-Man received this rating.
On July 1, 1984 the PG category was split into PG and PG-13. The latter category was for more intense subject matter intended for older teens. As it turns out while the new rating was created for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins due to some very intense scenes but there were two films that beat it to the punch and actually receive the rating. Red Dawn was the first film released as a PG-13 while The Flamingo Kid was the first to actually receive the new rating but sat on the shelf for five months allowing Red Dawn to be released first. The first PG-13, Red Dawn, was released on August 10th of 1984. There was a lot of talk at the time that Gremlins and Temple of Doom should have received the more restrictive R rating if not for the reputation of Steven Spielberg for family films and his influence in the film industry."
Ah, Hollywood--it all depends on who you know. Small wonder the PG-13 is as ambiguous and political as are all the ratings. I've seen several small, independent, or foreign movies that had far less nudity, sensuality, and violence than the big-studio-backed Titanic, yet were saddled with an R rating. Likewise, the PG-13 can be used to unfairly brand small films that don't have big studios or big names behind them. Most notably, the critic Roger Ebert cried loud and long that Whale Rider received a PG-13 instead of a PG because--get this--in one brief scene the girl's uncle is holding a bong!
I'm interested to see exactly what they allow in Casino Royale. Bond has always been controvercial for its sex content--not violence or language. So we'll see if we get anything out-of-the-norm for this one. MPAA can be a rather subjective bunch. It seems to add up to who's in the office and if they've had a good day.
So if we ended up with a PG-13 on this one, does that mean EON/Sony did a good job delivering mochas the day CR was screened?
Whatever works B-)
Incidentally, according to this...
http://mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4213
...though nothing has been published by the British Board of Film Classification quite yet, rumour has it that Casino Royale will carry a 12A in the UK, with a reported running time of 145 minutes.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think they could make a exceptional version of CR that carries a PG rating. Goldfinger (which you claim as 'pure perfection'), and subsequent Bond films up until LTK function very well without dipping into the realm of R Ratings or garnering the rather silly PG-13 warning.
I wouldn't have been surprised however if CR were to be the first 'R' Rating for Bond.