[Livingston]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

hmm....not sure I want any other movie to aspire to Star Trek The Motion Picture.

However, ratings are tighter on "theme" issues now than they were 25 years ago. A lot of what was PG then would be PG 13 now (in part because the PG 13 designation did not exist. That only came into play after the first Indiana Jones movie... Steven Spielberg argued that there had to be a distinction between movies parent needed to monitor for 7 year olds and movies parents needed to monitor for 14 year olds).

Ah, you didn't like The Motion Picture? I used to not like it, I remember watching it when I was a kid and thought it was so boring and then the director's cut came out a few years ago and I watched it and really liked it. Pacing and feel kinda reminded me of 2001, but no comparison there, other than that!

[Saquist]

I any thing The motion picuture would get a G rating today.
Currently previous rated R movies are being re reated as PG-13...no one forsaw that moviews would come the sick level they have to day.

[BonK]

Let's talk about ratings, theme, and context.

I was driving home from work the other night and the road was closed because of an accident. I turned around and took a rather long detour home. On the late news I learned that a pedestrian had been hit by a compact car and died at the scene. There was no close-up footage to accompany the report, just a few distant shots of the emergency vehicles and a long shot of someone standing nearby who may or may not have been the driver of the car. As I drove to work the next day I noticed something odd in the road before me. As I came closer it dawned on me that this was the location of the accident from the night before. The pedestrians blood stained an area approximately 4 feet long that crossed the entire lane. I nearly had to pull over and throw up, but traffic conditions promptly diverted my attention to more immediate concerns.

On my drive home I knew there had been an accident but I had no details. I believed one car had hit a pole, or one car had hit another car because I see these things often enough that they are a nuisance rather than a surprise.

At this point, what is the MPAA rating of the event? I imagine it would be "G" as it depicts something bad without explicit or detailed knowledge, much like the death of [insert children's movie parental figure here] in [insert matching children's movie title here]. One needs such events to drive a story. If [character's] parent hadn't [insert form of death] then [character] would have no motivation.

Imagine I had driven to work the day after the accident with no knowledge of an accident having taken place. What's the MPAA rating? It's still "G" due to a lack of relevant information. The stain in the road could have been paint, transmission fluid (which is red), or even rusty coolant. I probably would have assumed paint because I didn't imagine a human body could lose the amount of blood it took to make that stain in the road, and I've seen a lot of road-spilled paint in my time (of many different colors).

The missing information here shows the importance of "content". With details missing there isn't enough data to convey the story of what happened here.

This time include all my knowledge of the event as I experienced it in real life. No scenes of violence, a lot of blood visible, and awareness of how the blood got there. An unintentional loss of one human life at the hands of another. I think this is now a "PG" rated tale... it certainly felt "PG" when I wanted to throw up, but I've never felt the need to throw up in a movie theater, and I've seen every rating there is. Knowing this was real made all the difference. That's what is known as "context". My knowledge of events conjured the horrible image of someone lying in the street, bleeding, as opposed to the image of paint cans falling off the back of a truck.

Now, let's address "theme". Imagine this is a story and the accident wasn't an accident. Rather than being a simple tragic event it becomes a tale of intrigue, murder, possibly revenge, or even conspiracy. When all of this becomes intentional it's clearly a thematically different tale and becomes "PG-13". Another case could be that this remains an accident but we see the car strike the pedestrian for a "PG-13".

"R" would contain both intent to kill and the impact, and even show the last moments of the pedestrian on the pavement, gore and all. Subtract the gore and you might revert to a "PG-13" but the violence, intent to commit violence, and impact (minus gore) is a brutal combo that might garner an "R" depending on how hard the impact, intensity of the performances, dialog, etc.

Does this accurately reflect MPAA ratings?
Completely different events are depicted under different ratings. It's also evident that a far more complex and interesting tale comes about with each bump of the rating.

[Livingston]

Originally Posted by BonK

Let's talk about ratings, theme, and context.

I was driving home from work the other night and the road was closed because of an accident. I turned around and took a rather long detour home. On the late news I learned that a pedestrian had been hit by a compact car and died at the scene. There was no close-up footage to accompany the report, just a few distant shots of the emergency vehicles and a long shot of someone standing nearby who may or may not have been the driver of the car. As I drove to work the next day I noticed something odd in the road before me. As I came closer it dawned on me that this was the location of the accident from the night before. The pedestrians blood stained an area approximately 4 feet long that crossed the entire lane. I nearly had to pull over and throw up, but traffic conditions promptly diverted my attention to more immediate concerns.

On my drive home I knew there had been an accident but I had no details. I believed one car had hit a pole, or one car had hit another car because I see these things often enough that they are a nuisance rather than a surprise.

At this point, what is the MPAA rating of the event? I imagine it would be "G" as it depicts something bad without explicit or detailed knowledge, much like the death of [insert children's movie parental figure here] in [insert matching children's movie title here]. One needs such events to drive a story. If [character's] parent hadn't [insert form of death] then [character] would have no motivation.

Imagine I had driven to work the day after the accident with no knowledge of an accident having taken place. What's the MPAA rating? It's still "G" due to a lack of relevant information. The stain in the road could have been paint, transmission fluid (which is red), or even rusty coolant. I probably would have assumed paint because I didn't imagine a human body could lose the amount of blood it took to make that stain in the road, and I've seen a lot of road-spilled paint in my time (of many different colors).

The missing information here shows the importance of "content". With details missing there isn't enough data to convey the story of what happened here.

This time include all my knowledge of the event as I experienced it in real life. No scenes of violence, a lot of blood visible, and awareness of how the blood got there. An unintentional loss of one human life at the hands of another. I think this is now a "PG" rated tale... it certainly felt "PG" when I wanted to throw up, but I've never felt the need to throw up in a movie theater, and I've seen every rating there is. Knowing this was real made all the difference. That's what is known as "context". My knowledge of events conjured the horrible image of someone lying in the street, bleeding, as opposed to the image of paint cans falling off the back of a truck.

Now, let's address "theme". Imagine this is a story and the accident wasn't an accident. Rather than being a simple tragic event it becomes a tale of intrigue, murder, possibly revenge, or even conspiracy. When all of this becomes intentional it's clearly a thematically different tale and becomes "PG-13". Another case could be that this remains an accident but we see the car strike the pedestrian for a "PG-13".

"R" would contain both intent to kill and the impact, and even show the last moments of the pedestrian on the pavement, gore and all. Subtract the gore and you might revert to a "PG-13" but the violence, intent to commit violence, and impact (minus gore) is a brutal combo that might garner an "R" depending on how hard the impact, intensity of the performances, dialog, etc.

Does this accurately reflect MPAA ratings?
Completely different events are depicted under different ratings. It's also evident that a far more complex and interesting tale comes about with each bump of the rating.

Interesting. I've never experienced anything like that. I live in NYC and some of you may have heard of that killing here, in the upper east side recently. This person killed someone with a meat cleaver. The crime was horrible, something the police said they hadn't seen in some time. The crime scene was something they couldn't show on television, the media were kept out. This murderer escaped the night he did it.

I live about a three minute walk from where it happened, but I didn't even know about it 'til the next day when I heard it on the news. I got up, went about my daily business and saw a police sketch of someone who'd been suspected in a murder plastered all over the place and then I got home, checked the news and got the entire 'story' so to speak. I was appalled. It happened around 10:30 at night. Just a block up from me this person was being murdered in a most horrific way, but I didn't know, didn't hear any screams, didn't see any blood. I had no way of knowing.

It's really terrifying to think that something like this could happen so close to you. This was savage. The media dubbed this the meat cleaver murderer. Sounds like a movie to me, felt like a movie. I still can't believe this happened just a block up from where I live. It's true though, you do see this kind of thing in movies all the time. Violence, blood, gore and it seems to get worse and worse and worse as Saquist said in a post above. What have movies come to these days?

I don't mind movies being violent or bloody. One of my favorites is Alien. It's got lots of blood, lots of gore and it certainly is R, but it's good. It's a great film in my opinion. I remember in The Temple of Doom they basically invented PG-13 cause PG was too family oriented for the heart ripping out of the chest scene. And now, these movies we have. Hostile, Saw, are a few that come to mind. I tried to watch them but they felt like snuff films.

My point, finally getting to it, is I don't think the depth of a story to tell is rated by a rating system. This new star trek movie, it'll probably be PG or PG-13, I seriously doubt it'll be R. Plenty of film makers throughout the history of cinema had told plenty of great stories on a G or PG rating, the most open and family oriented ratings. Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Dr. Zhivago, Bridge on the River Kwai, City Lights, The Kid, Rear Window, which is pretty gruesome along with many other Hitchcock films are all more than likely G or PG and have themes and a sophistication that is paramount.

These days you can show pretty much anything, be it that you have to contend with the MPAA. But would someone like say Hitchcock change his approach to telling his stories simply cause he could show more. I always felt the power is in not what you see. If we're talking blood and violence and sex, even in sex it is what you don't see that really expresses the point. I firmly think you can make a film PG, even G and have it deal with themes that one might be tempted to show explicitly. But at some point you have to address what is actually happening, showing it or not and certain audiences should not see that, there will always be stories put on film that should be and always should be R, some NC17.

Well, regardless, maybe to be safe they should rate Star Trek XI NCC1701. Sorry, it's bad, but couldn't resist!

[Zardoz]

TMP was a G rated film until the "Director's Cut" then it was bumped up to a PG.

I don't have a problem with the violence or the "gore" in Trek films (I realize they are trying to get a cross section of audience who are not Trek fans into the theatre, so I am forgiving.)

But Paramount promotes Trek as "family entertainment," with the last 3 as comps (and thanks to the person who pointed out that thel ast two Treks were indeed rated PG-13!!) I wouldn't calll Trek "family entertainment."

[section9]

Of course, in the Mirror Universe, Uhura would be in her pole dancing boots and we would get to see Zoe Saldana's belly button.

Go for the "PG-13", baby! Let's update those uniforms, some!

[flyer00jay]

PG-13 is fine. They won't show nudity, but if there is any blood, please don't make it purple...

[MissionTrek08]

Indeed, a quick Googling of ST:TMP posters will show the original release was rated G, and appropriately so.

If TREK does get a PG-13, it'll be for mild violence or adult themes or science-fiction action... some such thing. I can't imagine the creators being that into TREK history and themes, then shoehorning any nudity into the story.

Not that I have anything against nudity in films, it just doesn't fit TREK well. Action on the other hand can jump you into PG and PG-13 easily, especially if anyone's firing or using a weapon. I can see them aiming at PG-13 for the story without really worrying about leaving really young children behind as an audience segment.

[T 2]

Definately shoot for PG-13...how about sci-fi action violence, mild language, scenes of peril, and some sexual content: all the great pieces of science fiction.

I think "Wrath of Khan" and "Undiscovered Country" should've gone for PG-13 ratings. If any Trek movie went for an R rating for whatever reason, my vote goes to First Contact. We've seen great Trek (and overall sci-fi) movies with both PG (Wrath of Khan) and PG-13 (First Contact). So go with whatever's best, I guess.

[Starshelle]

Enterprise showed us that gratuitous nudity doesn't ensure better ratings. I doubt the producers of this movie would try something like that, and I agree it doesn't fit in with Star Trek. Women wearing revealing outfits, and an excuse to show Captain Kirk shirtless is a different matter of course!