Actually, there was one (semi-hidden nipple on that page you showed. Which someone had previously pointed out to me!
Not that I think there's going to be any nipples in the movie.
This-- NSFW* was in a PG-13 movie, so I wonder how this movie got an cartoon is earning its R?
*Total Recall (2012)
My guess is that, like the nudity in the PG-13 rated Titanic and probably many other examples that could be thought of, if the nudity is brief, and is not in the context of a sex scene, then it can get a PG-13.
Also, in the case of the Total Recall remake, they are likely all prosthetics, so it is someone wearing simulated nudity. (And, of course, nudity in animation is simulated as well.)
But for the R on Killing Joke- my guess is that the nudity, if there is any, is not what tipped it into that rating. Rather the violence and cruelty, and the fact that the nudity is in a violent context. It is a character who has been stripped naked and brutalized. Which is a lot different from a character choosing to flash their boobs.
PS- Of course, this is also not to suggest that the MPAA cannot be wildly inconsistent and prejudicial in their ratings. They can. And the documentary @nweathington is referencing gives some good examples of their inconsistent ratings given to similar content in the past.
It is a character who has been stripped naked and brutalized. Which is a lot different from a character choosing to flash their boobs.
PS- Of course, this is also not to suggest that the MPAA cannot be wildly inconsistent and prejudicial in their ratings. They can. And the documentary @nweathington is referencing gives some good examples of their inconsistent ratings given to similar content in the past.
If DC is taking their long running animated series with the original voice actors and is going to adapt a mature themed non-canonical story and publicly tout the MPAA's R-rating it has earned, then it speaks to the company wide attitude towards sensationalism and adult themes they want to immerse their legacy properties in. How 'socially conscious' is this and does it even need to be?
Nearly the same story could've been told with a PG or PG-13 rating, but DC has decided R is the best choice. It wasn't originally done in a Timm art style, but they've chosen that style and the voice actors from that era. This is beyond a blood sucking animated Batman or a dark animated Superman who kills brainiac children. This is sensationalizing sexual violence against Batgirl and psychotic depravity in a very twisted way that I personally find a bit unsettling. Joker definitely deserved to be killed at the end of that book.
Not quite the same reaction, but akin to what one might expect from seeing a Flintstone's porno using the original voice actors and Hanna-Barberra art style.
It is a character who has been stripped naked and brutalized. Which is a lot different from a character choosing to flash their boobs.
PS- Of course, this is also not to suggest that the MPAA cannot be wildly inconsistent and prejudicial in their ratings. They can. And the documentary @nweathington is referencing gives some good examples of their inconsistent ratings given to similar content in the past.
If DC is taking their long running animated series with the original voice actors and is going to adapt a mature themed non-canonical story and publicly tout the MPAA's R-rating it has earned, then it speaks to the company wide attitude towards sensationalism and adult themes they want to immerse their legacy properties in. How 'socially conscious' is this and does it even need to be?
Nearly the same story could've been told with a PG or PG-13 rating, but DC has decided R is the best choice. It wasn't originally done in a Timm art style, but they've chosen that style and the voice actors from that era. This is beyond a blood sucking animated Batman or a dark animated Superman who kills brainiac children. This is sensationalizing sexual violence against Batgirl and psychotic depravity in a very twisted way that I personally find a bit unsettling. Joker definitely deserved to be killed at the end of that book.
Not quite the same reaction, but akin to what one might expect from seeing a Flintstone's porno using the original voice actors and Hanna-Barberra art style.
Hypothetically anything could be done in any way different than how they chose to do it and hypothetically could still have worked. There is no way to ever really know, because they only made the thing they made the way they did. And that is the only one we get to actually see and judge whether it worked or didn't, you know what I mean?
Again, I am not looking to defend whether or not they should have adapted this in the first place or not. I was just addressing your question about why X thing with nudity got a PG-13 when Y other thing has not.
Can't Stop the Music had a set of boobs and soapy dongs all for PG rating. The early 80s were the best, they took the term "Parental Guidance" serious; don't want your kids seeing flop man junk in a shower? Maybe you should have a little more attention to what they were watching.
Can't Stop the Music had a set of boobs and soapy dongs all for PG rating. The early 80s were the best, they took the term "Parental Guidance" serious; don't want your kids seeing flop man junk in a shower? Maybe you should have a little more attention to what they were watching.
Did you know that the original Planet of the Apes (1968) is rated-G? It would be at least a PG if rated by today’s standards for its violence and brief nudity. Wasn’t it Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that spurred the PG-13 classification? Parents who had seen the first Indiana Jones movie didn’t expect to see hearts being ripped out of chests in the second movie and freaked out because their kids freaked out.
The film rating system isn’t very nuanced, and never has been. TV does a much better job with that.
Can't Stop the Music had a set of boobs and soapy dongs all for PG rating. The early 80s were the best, they took the term "Parental Guidance" serious; don't want your kids seeing flop man junk in a shower? Maybe you should have a little more attention to what they were watching.
Did you know that the original Planet of the Apes (1968) is rated-G? It would be at least a PG if rated by today’s standards for its violence and brief nudity. Wasn’t it Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that spurred the PG-13 classification? Parents who had seen the first Indiana Jones movie didn’t expect to see hearts being ripped out of chests in the second movie and freaked out because their kids freaked out.
The film rating system isn’t very nuanced, and never has been. TV does a much better job with that.
I know, it just makes me smile when i watch 80s movies (pre PG13). You'll see kids take beatings from adults, drinking, boobs, swearing all in PG movies.
The way movies are rated is ridiculous. Remember the really good Adam Carolla boxing movie the Hammer? It's R rated and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Then you hear the story about the Southpark movie and it's a deserved R. However when it was titled SP Goes to Hell it was NC-17. Matt and Trey reedited the movie, added more inappropriate/adult jokes, didn't take one scene out, and changed the name to Bigger, Longer, and Uncut to get the movie dropped to an R rating. This Film Is Not Yet Rated was a pretty good movie btw.
I don't get the way movies are rated. Sometimes I see a tame film and I wonder why it's PG-13 but I've also seen a PG-13 film and wondered why it isn't an R. For me, personally, I don't really care but when it comes to our kids my wife and I rely on websites that list things in the movie that parents might find objectionable. At least that way there are no surprises that I need to explain to my kids later.
I couldn't tell you the last time I paid attention to movie ratings. At this point, unless Sofia The First or Frozen goes ratings rogue, I'm good for my daughter.
I couldn't tell you the last time I paid attention to movie ratings. At this point, unless Sofia The First or Frozen goes ratings rogue, I'm good for my daughter.
M
Yup, I remember those days. Now, with our kids at 9 and 12, we find ourselves in that touchy situation of what is and isn't appropriate for our kids. It's also fun when you realize the one that is 12 is mature enough for some content but the 9 year old can't see it. Makes for fun times as a parent. Cherish the Disney Junior days :)
Comments
And I really need to get around to watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated.
Also, in the case of the Total Recall remake, they are likely all prosthetics, so it is someone wearing simulated nudity. (And, of course, nudity in animation is simulated as well.)
But for the R on Killing Joke- my guess is that the nudity, if there is any, is not what tipped it into that rating. Rather the violence and cruelty, and the fact that the nudity is in a violent context. It is a character who has been stripped naked and brutalized. Which is a lot different from a character choosing to flash their boobs.
PS- Of course, this is also not to suggest that the MPAA cannot be wildly inconsistent and prejudicial in their ratings. They can. And the documentary @nweathington is referencing gives some good examples of their inconsistent ratings given to similar content in the past.
Nearly the same story could've been told with a PG or PG-13 rating, but DC has decided R is the best choice. It wasn't originally done in a Timm art style, but they've chosen that style and the voice actors from that era. This is beyond a blood sucking animated Batman or a dark animated Superman who kills brainiac children. This is sensationalizing sexual violence against Batgirl and psychotic depravity in a very twisted way that I personally find a bit unsettling. Joker definitely deserved to be killed at the end of that book.
Not quite the same reaction, but akin to what one might expect from seeing a Flintstone's porno using the original voice actors and Hanna-Barberra art style.
Again, I am not looking to defend whether or not they should have adapted this in the first place or not. I was just addressing your question about why X thing with nudity got a PG-13 when Y other thing has not.
The film rating system isn’t very nuanced, and never has been. TV does a much better job with that.
The way movies are rated is ridiculous. Remember the really good Adam Carolla boxing movie the Hammer? It's R rated and I can't for the life of me figure out why.
Then you hear the story about the Southpark movie and it's a deserved R. However when it was titled SP Goes to Hell it was NC-17. Matt and Trey reedited the movie, added more inappropriate/adult jokes, didn't take one scene out, and changed the name to Bigger, Longer, and Uncut to get the movie dropped to an R rating.
This Film Is Not Yet Rated was a pretty good movie btw.
M
M