In 1968, movies were rated this way:
G: General audiences - all ages admitted (the G we all know and love)M: Mature audiences - parental discretion advised, but all ages admitted (not to be confused with today's M video game rating)
R: Restricted - children under 16 not admitted without an accompanying parent or adult guardian (in 1970, the age changed to 17 years)
X: Children under 17 will not be admitted (and rightfully so)
Fast forwarding a bit, M was renamed PG, PG-13 was introduced, and X eventually changed to NC-17. So what's my problem? PG has become for mature audiences.
I watched Planet 51 a few months back and let's just say that it wasn't the cleanest film I'd seen in a while. In fact, it was plenty dirty... and it was PG. (Had Planet 51 not been a cartoon, I guarantee you it would have been PG-13.) More recently, I saw Toy Story 3 and it was way too frightening for a G rating. R-rated movies usually hit right on the money, though, simply because "over 17" is a pretty big age range. They'll put anything into any movie of any rating and sometimes they "forget" to tell you everything it gets the rating for. Let me guess, there's not enough room in the little white rectangle. Make it bigger! I don't trust them anymore. It's sick!
And the next time you go to the movies, notice that instead of the famous pre-commercial green banner saying "Appropriate for general audiences" it now says "Appropriate for appropriate audiences". Wow, that's specific. I guess nothing's more important than money.
Film companies are clamoring for the NC-17 rating to be knocked out of existence because it lowers movie sales. Here's an idea. Don't make movies that deserve that rating. Then you won't get it. Money is a material thing, the mindset of children isn't. It's not just what kids of X age can handle, it's what will be a bad influence on kids X age. One reason I will never watch Avatar again is because it should have been rated higher. Not for violence but for language and you-know-what. You can have a movie without that, you know. And it will probably be more popular if it's clean because more kids will be allowed to see it and less adults will be disgusted. When I was eight, I was allowed to watch that much violence, if my parents were watching it with me, but I wasn't allowed to hear the language they used in that movie.
I think we should change everything around and start all over again. Here's my ideal rating system:
G: Any child can come and not hear dirty jokes, "potty humor", or language. No drinking or smoking in the film. Nothing to frighten them at all. No romantic relationships goes without saying.
PG-7: Small bit of potty humor. No more romantic, creepy, or violent than anything Disney-Pixar besides maybe Up.
PG-10: Potty humor but don't show anything. Some violence. No child romances. They're gross.
PG-13: No dirty jokes, some small kissing. Smoking and drinking in film okay but still dumb. Violent as, like, the Iron Man movies. Small amount of mild language. Child romances allowed but still gross.
PG-16: Some dirty jokes but don't show anything. Violent with blood but not overly gory. Medium amount of medium language.
R: No one under 17 admitted without parental guardian. Infrequent strong language. Violence is liberal. You can show things but not too much. (Ah, who am I kidding? Any at all is too much.)
X: No one under 18 admitted period. Anything goes.
At least if things are rated wrong with this system, they can't be that far off track. It's a little confusing so I won't be shooting for perfection anyway but more accurate and informative. I'm just going to clarify that I didn't approve of everything I said was allowed. I'm just stating that I know it's going to be in movies anyway, it should just be sorted out better. Come to think of it, that's the point of this entire article.
By the way, PG-13 doesn't mean that nobody under thirteen can see the movie, it means it's only suggested that nobody under thirteen can see it unless they have an adult with them. It's the same way in my rating system.
