Rent Rating- Page 2

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:28am

Why does everyone keep repeating that drug use automatically gets an "R" rating?

A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend.

If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.
FilmRatings.com

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:30am

I thought the MPAA had some sort of quota for the amount of times 'f*ck' is used, and that was a big factor in dictation of ratings?

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:37am

It could very possibly be that all the powers that be involved in making the film thought that all along the film would get an "R" rating, and yet received a "PG-13" when it was submitted to the MPAA.

I'm sure it will all come to light eventually. Maybe Di2 knows something...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:38am

Wax Lion, where art thou?

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 01:38 AM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:39am

Yeah, it does:

More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context.

F*CKin' weird

F*CKin' cheated

There's 2 in just 1 song that we know made it into the movie.

It's times like this I almost wish that the Rent blog didn't exist so Anthony could still post here and talk us off the edge of a cliff. Again.

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 01:39 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:49am

The Sony Pictures Site still has no rating on it, stating

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated."

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/rent/

You would think if the PG-13 rating was a done deal, the site would have already been updated.

[WickedJerseyGirl]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 2:23am

I guess Idina's ass is not exposed in a sexual way so it can get in. But I know they shot a scene of explicit drug use.

I counted 6 F-bombs, 6 Sh*ts, 3 asses, 7 damns and 1 GD in the stage version...lol. I guess we'll see. Not a happy girl here.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 2:28am

I was thinking -

PG-13 is a rating that advises parents about what to allow their children to see.

R is a far more harsh, rigid rating, in the sense that it doesn't only advise but it actually does not allow kids under seventeen to see the movie alone.

Now, without getting into the politics of "oh, they promised it would be R," etc: I don't see enough movies to really know how big a difference there truly is in average PG-13 material versus average R material, or how big the range of material in each rating category is, but perhaps it's just not bad enough to warrant the harsher restriction that an R rating places. I have to question how much it's truly about the material, and how much it's about what warrants a restriction versus advisement, if that makes sense.

... just a thought, I suppose. If it's different, it ain't the end of the world, nor is it the end-all, be-all that the movie has been dumbed-down, I'd tend to think.

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 02:28 AM

[Eliza0114]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 8:30am

I read the script online and, although a lot of the music was turned into dialogue, it actually seemed pretty close to the actual show...

...I wonder what got edited out? ahhhhh!

[life_so_far]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:24am

I thought that f word could be said no more than three time? Perhaps I was wrong...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:29am

First of all -- the play as written warrents a PG13 rating: No sex, no nudity, no graphic violence, no graphic depiction of drug use...

The only thing the play has that's edgy is gay characters and a couple of f words.

"Fvck" can be said more then once in a PG13 film but not as a vulgar slang, i.e, the actual sexual act. In RENT the word is used as an expletive.

And as I say on a duplicate post, there is a HUGE difference in box office/dvd sales etc between a PG13 film and R. Seeing as how the majority of people on this board who are die hard fans of the show are teenagers, it seems smart to make a film that the target audience can see without their parents.

I, frankly don't understand what the bitching is about. People want a film that is faithful to the stage show, but now are bitching that Columbus hasn't turned RENT into TAXI DRIVER or a musical version of REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.

"It's not that kind of movie, honey..."

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 09:29 AM

[kasim]

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

maybe they can use the word Frak like in battle star galactica instead :)


(the nerdness is strong with me)

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 10:23am

I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA was a bit lenient on Columbus considering that he's churned out mostly family fare in the past.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 10:39am

You people need to chill. Many films released today with a PG-13 rating would have been rated R or even X maybe ten, fifteen years ago. The ratings are extremely subjective by those who are rating the film. As times change and societal standards change, movie ratings will change. And I wouldn't start complaining about what's been cut and edited until you actually see the film.

[neocomposer]

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

very true

[DemonBarberofBroadway]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 11:37am

neocomposer, that was great. it made my day.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 12:41pm

It will be a joyful world when a character's merely being gay is no longer deemed "edgy".

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:06pm

Well at first this shocked me, but I guess after reading some of the technical stuff maybe it makes a tad more sense. I too though there was some limit to the fvcks and Em, didn't we hear them say it like 3, 4 times in a 2-minute scene? So the only thing that may explain it is this:

A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

Do you think that applied here, a special vote? I mean, I guess it wasn't used in sex, but still I always thought if it was overused the movie received an R. It would actually be pretty awesome if the special vote made in PG13 b/c of the message and stuff.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 1:09pm

edit - got it, nevermind.

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 01:09 PM

[rclocalz]

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

Well guys, just think of it... now they can come out with a Director's Cut DVD and rate that mug "R" or even "Un-Rated" and sell more DVDs!

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 12:31am

I just watched the trailer on apple.com and at the bottom of the page with the trailer on it, they had the PG-13 ratings box.

I think it's pretty much official.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 7:57am

PG-13 is not necessarily a bad thing. It could just be that the MPAA is making a film that would be perfect for teenagers....AVAILABLE to teenagers as they didn't do with Vanilla Sky and Eternal Sunshine and such.

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:24am

I can just see the movie theater marquees all across America now:

"RENT THE MOVIE -- DUMBED DOWN AND DUBBED"

I think I'll pass on this one. But you kids all have a good time at the movies while mom and dad go shopping. Just be sure you ask for some extra money. Then, if their shopping trip runs long, you can see The Bad News Bears.

That's rated PG-13 too.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 8:46am

For what its worth -- the two f***s are still present in "Tango Maureen" as per the complete soundtrack.
Updated On: 9/21/05 at 08:46 AM

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 9/21/05 at 9:13am

JRB - well said.

However, it's not "merely" "being gay" that makes these characters "edgy" - it's more the fact that they like to partake in activities such as mooning people in public cafes and give politically-charged protest performances.