PG-13 scifi/Horror Movies That Prove the Rating Doesn't Matter

[jefferiestubes8]

Hey guys moviefone has an article up yesterday
PG-13 Horror Movies That Prove the Rating Doesn't Matter

the truth is the PG-13 rating isn't the curse of death many make it out to be. Sure, it limits the amount of profanity, nudity and gore that a filmmaker can show, but such limitations shouldn't be seen as deal breakers. Just because a film received a PG-13 rating does not mean that it was made for 13-year olds, and to that end here are a number of examples that prove when a horror movie is done right, it doesn't matter what the rating is.
Here are some of the examples in the article:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/

'Alien' can easily be labeled a sci-fi film, but at the end of the day it's just a haunted house movie set on a space ship.

'The Last Exorcism'
'Knowing'
'I Am Legend'
'Poltergeist'
'Carriers'

'Carriers' is a sorely underseen post-apocalyptic movie about a virus that has killed off most of the human race.

The PG-13 rating has come a long way since Red Dawn in 1984 when it was generally regarded as the first PG-13 film released to wide audience in USA.
A horror film is more about crafting tension and psychological thrills rather than just gore.
The Fly (1986) was rated PG-13 and was a good scifi horror film.

let's discuss the MPAA PG-13 and horror film ratings and a good movie not just being an R rating.

 

[Gaith]

But Alien was R. And T4, the first T-PG-13, was the first bad movie in the series. (Say what you like about T3 as a sequel, but it's a good action film.)

 

[Davros]

But Alien was R. And T4, the first T-PG-13, was the first bad movie in the series. (Say what you like about T3 as a sequel, but it's a good action film.)

The only good Terminator film was the original.

 

[Greg Cox]

I believe THE OTHERS was PG-13.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The Fly (1986) was rated PG-13 and was a good scifi horror film.

Box Office Mojo has it listed as an R rated film.

 

[Teelie]

I think the problem is they intentionally target PG-13 because they want to get the teenage audience a R-Rated film would miss. Does that mean a PG-13 film will be bad? No but it does mean it will be given a low limit on what could make it more adult-oriented and less obviously a cash-grab for the teenage audience.

While it's not vital, stuff like nudity, gore, excessive-profanity and other things that usually garner an R-Rating and might make a film more immersive to an adult audience get lost or restricted.

Imagine some of the best sci-fi/horror films that had R-ratings PG-13'd and you'd notice a difference.

 

[Too Much Fun]

But Alien was R. And T4, the first T-PG-13, was the first bad movie in the series. (Say what you like about T3 as a sequel, but it's a good action film.)

The only good Terminator film was the original.

 

[Mike Farley]

While the point stands Poltergeist was rated PG, not Pg-13.

And both Alien and The Fly are rated R. The Fly is a very hard R.

 

[Trent Roman]

An unimpressive list. A few good flicks and a whole lotta chaff; I think he basically disproved his own point. The creeping conformism of making a venerable franchise like Alien kid-friendly to net a wider demographic showcases everything wrong with the rating system. Besides, it's rather infrequent that a horror film is actually scary; that's generally not what I watch them for. If I'm watching horror, then it's because I'm in the mood for some good death scenes sprinkled some irrelevant toplessness. The genre is basically a vehicle for gratuitous sex and violence, which respectable films rarely yield for fear of losing their respectable cachet; I don't watch, say, "Thirteen Ghosts" for the vivid characters, or "Final Destination" for the virtuoso acting. Infantilising horror misses the point.

MPAA delenda est.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Pauln6]

If it reduces unnecessary gore and bad language then I'm in favour. If it reduces dramatic tension because of the limits of what can be shown, then I'm not. I have strong reservations about the Thing prequel being PG-13. I saw the original when I was 15 and it scared the shit out of me then because of the dramatic tension and hideous special effects. It remains one of my favourite horror movies today. I can't see a PG-13 version maintaining the level of fear of the original because traumatising 13-year olds is considered bad form. It's a pretty dumb decision.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I thought The Ring was terrifying, personally, and that one was PG13. The Sixth Sense is one of my all-time favorite movies, and it is PG13.

Whether a horror movie can work as PG13 would have to depend on what it is aiming for. Movies are not rated based on how scary they are, so when a director can establish a sense of dread without using graphic gore, yeah, ratings don't matter.

However, as Trent Roman pointed out, some horror fans are primarily interested in the violence, not the fear, and that is the audience that many "horror" films actually aim for. In those cases, I suppose an R is necessary. Not only to allow the blood and guts, but to let the target audience know that this is the type of movie they want.

That is one reason I don't believe the MPAA ratings system will disappear anytime soon. Hollywood uses movie ratings to help their marketing. Hollywood is not going to easily give up a useful marketing tool. They will aim for G with a kids' animated film to let parents know this is the type of movie they'll want to take their kids to, they will aim for PG13 with a summer action flick to let teenagers know it is not a kiddie film, and they will aim for R with slasher movies to let slasher movie fans know that this is is where they can get their gore fix.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

If I'm watching horror, then it's because I'm in the mood for some good death scenes sprinkled some irrelevant toplessness. The genre is basically a vehicle for gratuitous sex and violence, which respectable films rarely yield for fear of losing their respectable cachet; I don't watch, say, "Thirteen Ghosts" for the vivid characters,

Actually Thir13en Ghosts (2001) had some amazing 5.1 surround sound design. Horror films use sound very well and this was one of them to build tension and psychological horror.

 

[JarodRussell]

I wonder when people got the idea that horror = gore?
Saw, Hostel, etc... are not horror movies, in my opinion.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

horror genre films & ratings

I wonder when people got the idea that horror = gore?
Saw, Hostel, etc... are not horror movies, in my opinion.

I think in the 1970s the violence started ramping up by the time the early 1980s slasher films
Halloween (1978)
Friday the 13th (1980)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
then where do you go from there in the sequels but more violence & gore? Part of that whole 1980s excess of the decade.

JarodRussell how would you classify the genre of Saw, Hostel, etc?
This thread covered it I thought.
The appeal of Torture-Porn and Popcorn?

I posted with the MPAA ratings on each film in both series and why it was rated as that [descriptions from imdb.com]

 

[JarodRussell]

I think torture porn covers it pretty well. Pointless plot and awfully bad acting working as fillers to connect one gory scene with the next. There's also no suspense whatsoever, just the shock from how badly someone gets tortured, cut in half, etc... this time. It's like the difference between the sexual arousal you get from watching hardcore porn and the feeling you get from watching a good romance movie that doesn't even need a single sex scene.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I have strong reservations about the Thing prequel being PG-13. I saw the original when I was 15 and it scared the shit out of me then because of the dramatic tension and hideous special effects. It remains one of my favourite horror movies today. I can't see a PG-13 version maintaining the level of fear of the original because traumatising 13-year olds is considered bad form. It's a pretty dumb decision.

I never considered this, but now I wonder if I would have liked this movie more if I saw it as a kid. I saw it in university with friends and laughed my ass off at the special effects (the only thing I liked about the movie). They were like, "What the hell's wrong with you? You're laughing like it's a comedy...this is disgusting!", but I'm so desensitized to that kind of gore in movies, I thought it was just fun.

On the other hand, I get annoyed when violence is used excessively to apparently justify an R rating. Violence basically ruined "Kick-Ass" for me, because I thought the graphic quality of the violence was out of sync with the more light tone of the movie's comedy. I can also think of a few movies where the inability to show gore made scenes more satisfying and less distracting than they would have been with gore.

For example, I loved how Wolverine cut up the guys invading the mansion in "X2" without us ever seeing any blood. I wouldn't want to trade those great shots of him pinning the guy to the fridge, jumping from the balcony and flipping guys over, or running right into the camera for some blood and guts splattered all over the place.

I also think the lack of R was good for "The Dark Knight". I can't imagine someone being cut up like Gambol or impaled like the 'pencil trick' victim without some visible blood spurting about. Does anyone think those scenes needed blood? The rating keeping that from happening made it easier to focus on The Joker's terrific dialog than it might have been if the kills were more realistic.

 

[JarodRussell]

I also think the lack of R was good for "The Dark Knight". I can't imagine someone being cut up like Gambol or impaled like the 'pencil trick' victim without some visible blood spurting about. Does anyone think those scenes needed blood? The rating keeping that from happening made it easier to focus on The Joker's terrific dialog than it might have been if the kills were more realistic.

Interesting, because I still didn't get what the hell happened to Gumbol. Did he cut his throat, his mouth, what the hell did he do? This is one instance where I think that a little more would have helped to understand what was going on.



Die Hard 4 was neutered by the PG-13 rating, because the character couldn't make R-rated decisions. There was, for example, that one scene where a guy falls out a helicopter, directly behind McClane's car. When I saw that, I expected McClane to go into reverse and run that guy over. But he didn't. And I admit I was pretty disappointed about that, because that just would have been sooo John McClane.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Yeah, I wondered the same thing. I couldn't figure how someone died there. I mean, he starts with the knife in the guy's mouth and then what? Did he move the knife up from the mouth and slice all the way up to his brain? And if he did, how could that not cause massive on screen bleeding? Slicing open a guy's mouth or head can't possibly be the kind of clean death you'd get from, for example, simply injecting someone with a needle, but that's what this looked like. He just collapsed and died. Like I said, though, I didn't think it was very important. What matters in that scene is the dialog.

 

[Teelie]

I wonder when people got the idea that horror = gore?
Saw, Hostel, etc... are not horror movies, in my opinion.

That's the extreme end of this. The stuff that's rated R for the sake of being rated R. It's movies that sit squarely in the middle where they have violence and gore or nudity that fits with the story. Alien had a very graphic, gory scene in it with the chestburster. Would that get a PG-13 rating today? I somehow doubt it. That scene would have to be reshot or edited so we didn't see it quite so graphically and that would make the movie that much less scary or innovating. When it burst out of Hurt's chest, those were real reactions. None of the cast knew it was coming and it scared the hell out of them.

I can't remember the last time I saw Alien in a PG-13 setting on TV although I do remember I saw it and they neutered the scene. The shot was completely cut or edited to remove any sign of what was happening.

There are other movies where similarly graphic scenes make the movie and would be retuned to PG-13 to get in the teenage audience.

 

[Trent Roman]

That is one reason I don't believe the MPAA ratings system will disappear anytime soon. Hollywood uses movie ratings to help their marketing.

No, marketing is suggestive. The ratings system is restrictive. Very different things. I'm all for people having more information and making wise consumer choices (and then hopefully not bitching about the sex and violence because they were warned). If that's all the rating system did, it would be a useful tool. But the rating system's now-overriding function is to dictate who can and cannot see a film, based on the antiquated moralizing of a shadowy cabal and arbitrary substitutions of age for maturity. Because the MPAA has control over the demographics a film can reach, you wind up with situations where producers have to compromise the integrity of their vision and the product in order to gain any kind of viable distribution and expectation of rentability.

I wonder when people got the idea that horror = gore?
Saw, Hostel, etc... are not horror movies, in my opinion.

Well, ideally, horror should equal fright. But fright is extraordinarily hard to do, so gore becomes the next best thing the genre is expert at.

Honestly, I've always looked on most horror films as comedies, as vehicles for dark, cathartic humour. Looking at the horror films I grew up with, it seemed they were designed to make you laugh as much as make you scream, both within the film (one-liners, etc.) and, metafictively, without (the general ridiculousness of the plot, hapless heroines running up stairs, etc.) My problem with films like Saw and Hostel is not with the level of detail, but that they take themselves far too seriously in their 'gritty realism,' and lack that dark sense of humour that counterbalances horror's other excesses.

Interesting, because I still didn't get what the hell happened to Gumbol. Did he cut his throat, his mouth, what the hell did he do? This is one instance where I think that a little more would have helped to understand what was going on.

Honestly, first time around I thought he just fainted. I doubt a little extra corn syrup would have hurt Dark Knight in the least.

MPAA delenda est.

Ficititiously yours, Trent Roman