RENT scores PG13- Page 3

[WickedJerseyGirl]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:08am

I counted 6 F-bombs, 6 Sh*ts, 3 asses, 7 damns and 1 GD in the stage version...lol. And I am not sure if they will still put it in with this rating, but they did film a scene of actual drug use. Or that was at least my understanding.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 03:08 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:59am

That's great! Fewer annoying teenies in my immediate vicinity when I go see it!

[loudasthehelliwant]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 7:33am

To Andyf:

WTF?

What are you even talking about?

Is this Monty Python math?

B/c if it is, please tell me before I head up to the belltower with my rifle and start spraying the place.

"You will be sixteen when the movie comes out. This means you were, at the very oldest, 7 when RENT opened. You're 7 years old and you're talking about how you're worried that RENT is going to be too fluffy."

^Maybe it's because I'm "seven years old" and too young to understand, but that doesn't make any sense.

What's the problem that you have with my post, other than the fact that you may disagree with my feeling that a PG-13 RENT will be a little too fluffy?

BTW, you can bet that if this is PG-13, there will be people taking 7-year-olds to the movie. There were seven-year-olds in the theatre when I saw Chicago ("It's PG-13, but it is a musical and it's getting phenominal reviews. I should take my seven-year old to it, because they just loved the Sound of Music..."), which should have, in my opinion, been rated R. And the trailers certainly won't help keep 7-year-olds out of the theatre. I mean, just look at them! Unless you watch it like a RENThead (as we all do), it's quite possible that you don't catch the strip-tease clips, you don't realize that the woman in the Santa suit is actually a man, etc. "This here RENT movie is PG-13, but it's a musical that won a Pulitzer Prize. I can't imagine that it's that inappropriate. And it's directed by Chris Columbus, who always makes such wonderful family movies. I'll take my little girls..."

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 07:33 AM

[LariTheLoud]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:34am

loudasthehelliwant:

Then, quite honestly, that's the parents' fault. If they're going to take a 7-year-old to a PG-13 movie, that's their own damn mistake if the kid can't handle it. I have no compassion for people who blatantly ignore ratings and take their young children to see PG-13 and R rated movies, and then have the nerve to complain that it's inappropriate.

For example, I once saw a 5 year old in a slasher movie.

...

People. -_-

So my point is, there will always be small children in a movie theater, no matter what rating it is. Again, I don't see the big effin' deal with a PG-13; everyone's exaggering the meaning so much in this thread. PG-13 movies are pretty damn lenient, if you ask me.

[YankeesFan175]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:43am

very well put laritheloud. and everyone is saying how a lot couldve gotten edited out, but PG 13 is very lenient these days. i mean, they could have just left out the bag ladys 2 F bombs in on the street, since that is one of the songs being turned into dialogue. chris has said he stayed true to jonathans message, and im sure during the editing process he did that, too. just the fact that he said its going to be R over and over again shows that he left in all the things that would constitute an R rating. i was a little worried about this PG 13 as well, but then i remembered that its in the hands of chris columbus, who has told us time and time again he is staying true to jonathans message. so im not too worried.

[Cages or Wings]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 11:19am

Did anybody else notice that the PG-13 was revealed in a message that linked to the Larson's raving about a "rough cut" of the movie. 2 things: 1. I trust Jon's family, 2. Those are some clever marketing people.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 12:22pm

"Goblet of Fire needs to be a PG-13 movie. It's way too violent for PG."

You've seen it? The Voldemort scene, and then only one action, I think might have given the ratings board a pause. But I doubt that it is violent enough to warrant a PG-13. But, the ratings board takes into account WHO will WANT to see it when it comes to. That help determines whether or not it should be given a PG-13 or an R 9r a PG. It really is all very subjective. If Peter Jackson had actually followed the book Lord of the Rings, I doubt it would have receieved anytyhing above PG. None of the Harry Potter books are violent enough in my opinion to warrant a PG-13. That's only a one year difference in agwe for the ratings, I think it really is a pointless rating.

[joniray]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:07pm

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the news that Rent is the same rating as the new Harry Potter movie. That seems so crazy to me! I don't know what I should be more afraid of: if Rent is an gentrified as the East Village is now or if Harry Potter is considered the new "edgy."

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 03:07 PM

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 3:42pm

Harry Potter...edgy. LMAO. Your right that is sad.

[Marquise]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 5:37pm

WORST CASE SCENARIO



Updated On: 9/10/05 at 05:37 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 5:44pm

Rofl

How about RENT with Muppets?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 5:46pm

ha!

The Muppets Take Manhattan could always use a sequel, you know: The Muppets Take Alphabet City.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 05:46 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 6:08pm

I dunno, those Muppets are pretty edgy, with all the inter-species beastiality. How will Chris Columbus show the frog-pig kisses in RENT?

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 06:08 PM

[forget regret <3]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 6:11pm

oh gosh marquise.... you make me smile

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 6:31pm

That's great, Marquise. Remember a few years back when NBC was rumored to be interested in turning Rent into a tv movie? That's my vote for second place worst-case scenario.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 06:31 PM

[zzannahk]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:46pm

during the previews before Brothers Grimm there was a preview for an upcoming movie (I will update as soon as i figure it out) that was rate R due to a list if things including underage drinking. I dont know what else would fall under this category, maybe drug use?? I dont know. Just thought i'd share a tidbit of info.

[kasim]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:48pm

Just a clarifaction.

I understand that Theatres students probably would LOVE to see it. And as i said in a 13-16 demographic range, they are probably one of the ONLY. Again how many non theatre types do you see in high school that like musicals?

Not many, most start going to them as they get older, more mature.

The core demographics for the movie is HARDLY teenagers, it IS 20 soemthings

i'm right your not, neener neener neener :)

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:08am

Well, as I said above, the ratings board probably took several factors into account: 1) Children under 16 probably won't have any desire to see this film 2) there's no real violence (except for Collins' mugging) 3)profanity isn't gratuitous (they aren't swearing just to swear) 4) there's no sex and 5) there's only an inference of drug use, we don't actually see it. Take that into account, and they probably needed very little persuasion to give it a PG-13. Had this been something of mass appeal to children under 12, then they would have given it an R. Because parents are generally more lenient letting a child see a PG-13 than an R. The opposite is true with Harry Potter. The core audience is under 14, and with the goriness of the cemetary scene and the evilness of Voldemort (someone is killed, though not violently), the ratings board will want to disuede parents from bringing their children, so they slap it with a PG-13, knowing that parents who have no problem bringing their 6 year old to a PG film WILL think twice before bringing them to a PG-13 film, even if by normal standards the film may still warrant only a PG. I'm surprised Warner Bros. didn't try and pushh for a PG.

[zzannahk]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:43am

example, but not the one i was looking for, it works though
Waiting (R) 10/7/2005
Ryan Reynolds, Justin Long, Anna Faris
Comedy
R - strong crude and sexual humor, pervasive language and some drug use, sounds familiar


PS go to www.mpaa.org and do a search for Rent, it's not even listed.

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 12:43 AM

[YankeesFan175]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 4:55pm

i believe RENT with puppets would be Avenue Q (or very close to it)

[XOsweet_dancerOX]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 4:56pm

true not all teenagers are squeling but it does get overdone by most. PG-13 i think is a better rating for the movie although it does make me wonder how much of the musical are they keeping out of the movie? If it takes out more than needed it should stay "R" and well you'd have to see it with a parent then if under age.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 5:04pm

heh heh, if that G rated poster is gonna fly, Idina and Tracie better get their hands off each other's asses.

[wiggin]

Posted: 9/26/05 at 9:49pm

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-03-03

So, this is my first post, but I LOVE Rent, and just wanted to point out this new movie Gunner Palace has OVER 30 F-Bombs and made a PG-13, so I am pretty certain, of the songs that are left in, the F-Words will stay...and I count 2 in Tango: Maureen, 1 in La Vie Boheme B (Benny called the cops! That ****!), so 3 total (correct me if I'm wrong.) This is not counting the masturbation, dildo, S&M, etc in La Vie Boheme, the various ****s, and such. But honestly, the director EXPECTED it to be R, so maybe the MPAA realize what a message this film carries, and decided to give it a 13?

[boatsintheghetto]

Posted: 9/26/05 at 10:42pm

In the soundtrack for the motion picture the Fwords are still in there...so if you cant have more than 2 or whatever, I dont see that happening....I dunno...i would prefer it to be R, just because yeah i do agree with the squealy teenager things...I'm 17 right now and i'll be 18 when it comes out, but when I saw Bewitched we had some girls squeal when Cheno came on the the screen and im like DUDE not cool!i mean if you're under the age of 17 and wanna see it, bring a parent or someone you know who is older...i understand that your parents may not want to see it (mine sure as hell dont) but I mean the ammount of movies i wanted to see when i was 14 and never got to see has the same situation...I understand that not all are squeally, but a lot are and it really is annoying. I dont wanna be too prejudice cuz i am a younger fan, but yeah.....

I also would just love to rub it in my friend's face who's only 16 and id wanna be liek yeah i can go see this and you cant....haha yeah thats shallow of me i know