Fan Rant: The PG Rating for 'Prince Caspian' Is Ludicrous
Filed under: New Releases, Disney, Fan Rant
The MPAA's rating system is flawed and arbitrarily enforced, and the system itself is corrupt. I urge one and all to see the enlightening This Film Is Not Yet Rated for ample evidence of this -- or, if you prefer, just watch The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and marvel at how such a violent movie magically got the kid-friendly PG rating. I didn't know the rating before I watched it, and I didn't remember, off the top of my head, whether the first Chronicles of Narnia was PG. (It was.) As Prince Caspian unfolded, I noted that there was an awful lot of stabbing, throat-slitting, and other killing, though I also noted that it was almost entirely bloodless. I figured it was the lack of gore that had prevented the film from being rated R, and that it was instead a moderately violent PG-13.
So I was flabbergasted to discover afterward that it was rated PG. Mind you, I have nothing against wanton violence and destruction in film -- it just needs to be labeled properly. Prince Caspian has (no spoilers here) several large-scale battle scenes, akin to Lord of the Rings in size and scope, with people and magical creatures slaying one another right and left. In a scene of hand-to-hand combat, someone slices off someone else's head; in the next shot we see the head, still in its helmet, on the ground next to the body. Elsewhere, there's a massive slaughter while good guys are forced to look on, powerless to help.
None of this is shown graphically; there are no spurting fountains of blood or piles of entrails. But surely it's thematically disturbing -- not to mention plentiful -- enough to warrant a PG-13 rating. I'd like to give the MPAA the benefit of the doubt, but I would bet money that this is the result of Disney "suggesting" to the ratings board that they'd really, really like the family-oriented PG rating. Disney is one of the six major studios that comprise the Motion Picture Association of America, and it's absurd to think that the ratings board is immune from influence from those member studios, especially when things like this happen.
Chalk it up as one more reason -- the list is very long by now -- that the ratings system needs to be overhauled altogether. And in the meantime, parents, be careful. Won't someone think of the children?
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. "... if you had two friends at home by themselves and some movie with nudity and violence in it at their disposal, do you think they're going to put it in and skip to the beheading scene, or to the sex scene?"
Actually, I know a lot of people who would much rather watch the beheading scene, provided it was shot in a really cool and stylish way. Well-choreographed fight scenes with lots of decapitation and bloodletting often attract a large crowd who definitely find these things exciting. Sex scenes, on the other hand, tend to be shot in the same way and are fairly predictable, and I rarely see people talking excitedly about a can't-miss sex scene in a non-porno film.
23. I think we're all forgetting the fact that Nudity and Sex don't always have to go hand-in-hand. I think sex and violence should be treated equally in that (to a degree) some of these images should be protected from children. However, nudity shown in a non-sexual way (a breast here, bare buttocks there) is an entirely different thing. The human body is the most natural thing in the world. When the Janet Jackson/Super Bowl thing happened, sure, it was a tasteless stunt, but it was in no way offensive at all. I think the overreaction of that event was a sure sign that many of us need to loosen up a little bit.
Posted at 1:31PM on May 16th 2008 by Dave
24. Typical MPAA hypocrisy.
Posted at 5:07PM on May 17th 2008 by Scott Weinberg
25. I would have to agree with this posting 100%. We just got back from the movie with our 7 year old. We are not prudes by any means but 2 and a half hours of non stop violence and slashings was a bit much even for me. In fact about halfway through it I was bored out of my mind, all violence and very little in the way of a storyline. I like a good movie and don't mind the violence, but just because I like films like LOTR and Kill Bill doesn't mean that I want my kid seeing them. The movie should have definitely been PG-13. Period. I can't think of any friends who would take their under 11-13 children to see this knowing the content. Most people rely on the ratings to get a feel for what the content is. I mean short of going to see a movie first hand before taking a child, this is the tool that the industry has and it seems they are not using it correctly.
Posted at 11:59PM on May 25th 2008 by Johnny
26. My comment is concerning the rating this film received from the Mpaa.This film is in no way PG.It should have been PG-13 at the least. Please explain how I am supposed to explain to my 7 year old daughter what the beheaded men and violent filled battles mean. Hmm odd the Disney is one of the six corporations that really runs the MPAA. I would suggest to anyone with young children that you do not see this film. It is overtly violent, and the greedy people at Disney don't seem to care. I would suggest that people for the rest of this year download all Disney movies from ThePirateBay.org. And please boycott Wall-E. Lets teach Disney the only lesson it understands, through its greed.Boycott Disney until they take responsibility for its actions. Oh and Disney, look for my blogs on all sites. It has been a long while since I have been so ashamed to have taken my children to see your movies.Don't worry though, I won't make the same mistake again. And I will be sure to tell everyone I know, and many that I don't.
Posted at 11:34PM on May 26th 2008 by Boycott Disney
27. Well, it seems that, unlike you, society has gotten stronger.
Posted at 3:44AM on Jun 10th 2008 by Thomas
21. Wow Alko, way to miss the point entirely. I am not saying that violence can't be addictive. My argument doesn't even try to address that. My point is that the two things are entirely different, and trying to compare them as if they are the same thing just doesn't make sense. You can't say "this movie had a beheading and got a PG-13 rating, and this movie has a boob and therefore should also get a PG-13 rating". We have to start looking at each situation as a seperate entity and stop trying to make them the same things.
Posted at 7:23PM on Jun 8th 2008 by Kevin