PG Rating

[McCulloch]

Should the movie ratings people put a warning on films that are too evangelistic?

The Motion Picture Association of America is crystal clear when it describes why its "PG" rating exists _ it's a warning flag.

"The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance," states the online explanation of the rating system. "There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. ... The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw."

Disagreements are a given. The Christian moviemakers behind a low-budget film called "Facing the Giants" were stunned when the MPAA pinned a PG rating on their gentle movie about a burned-out, depressed football coach whose life _ on and off the field _ takes a miraculous turn for the better.
[...]
Which "thematic elements" earned this squeaky-clean movie its PG?

"Facing the Giants" is too evangelistic.

The MPAA, noted Fuhr, tends to offer cryptic explanations for its ratings. In this case, she was told that it "decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions. It's important that they used the word 'proselytizing' when they talked about giving this movie a PG. ...

"It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about."
[...]
[T]he scene that caught the MPAA's attention may have been the chat between football coach Grant Taylor _ played by Alex Kendrick _ and a rich brat named Matt Prader. The coach says that he needs to stop bad-mouthing his bossy father and get right with God.

The boy replies: "You really believe in all that honoring God and following Jesus stuff? ... Well, I ain't trying to be disrespectful, but not everybody believes in that."

The coach replies: "Matt, nobody's forcing anything on you. Following Jesus Christ is the decision that you're going to have to make for yourself. You may not want to accept it, because it'll change your life. You'll never be the same."
[...]

[Jester]

Should the movie ratings people put a warning on films that are too evangelistic?

Other than wonder when the last time I actually noted a film rating, my inclination would be 'no'.
I'm willing to entertain the idea that this is because I don't have children, but I can't see myself demanding a PG rating for a movie on the grounds that it promotes Buddhism, Islam, or Green Peace. That seems to open up a messy list of "how much is too much".

On the other hand, Christians have proved that a movie can't be blatantly evangelistic and good at the same time. Much as I insist that spiritual discovery is a great theme to explore, the rating might be useful to flag a movie as hopelessly trite.

[Jester]

Anyone know if this is true? Are contemporary movies rated with Christian mothers in mind?

If so, then evangelically themed films should be censored as well. To qualify for a 'G' rating, a movie must be ideologically neutral.

But if I have my facts wrong about the rating system, then no, censoring evangelical movies is highly discriminatory.

Either we censor all ideologies, or we censor none of them.

I'm in the "none of them category myself".

My real question would be: how exactly can a movie be ideologically neutral? That doesn't strike me as possible.

[TwentyOneSix]

This is just another attempt by hollywood to snuff out god's truth. They deem christianity to be unsuitable for minors while every day the bar for sex and violence falls lower and lower. Even G rated Disney movies contain thinly veiled smut, proving that in today's world you can expose children to sex as early as you please, but exposing them to god deserves a warning sign.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

This is just another attempt by hollywood to snuff out god's truth.

I would propose a rating that points to statements presenting "truth", where no "truth" can be shown.

They deem christianity to be unsuitable for minors while every day the bar for sex and violence falls lower and lower.

There's actually quite a bit of the Bible that contains sex and violence, so surely you'd agree the Bible should be kept from minors, yes?

Even G rated Disney movies contain thinly veiled smut, proving that in today's world you can expose children to sex as early as you please, but exposing them to god deserves a warning sign.

Actually there's penalties for allowing children access to "smut", and your "thinly veiled smut" is nothing but your opinion.

[TwentyOneSix]

There's actually quite a bit of the Bible that contains sex and violence, so surely you'd agree the Bible should be kept from minors, yes?

The bible is the most important book a child will ever read, without it they become misguided.

Actually there's penalties for allowing children access to "smut".

Are you sure? The PG-13 rating allows for brief full-frontal nudity, and kids can get in with no adult supervision.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

There's actually quite a bit of the Bible that contains sex and violence, so surely you'd agree the Bible should be kept from minors, yes?

The bible is the most important book a child will ever read, without it they become misguided.

So then, as long as it's your sacred text, you have no issue with sex and violence? Why rail against it in one form and not another?

Your opinion on what constitutes "most important book" is noted, and rejected. I personaly consider a quality set of encyclopedias much better for teaching a child about the world around them.

I don't replace my parenting with a book to guide my children.

Actually there's penalties for allowing children access to "smut".

Are you sure? The PG-13 rating allows for brief full-frontal nudity, and kids can get in with no adult supervision.

Notice the placement of a period at the sentenced referenced to me. THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE COPY/PASTE ERROR. Notice in the original there is a comma, with following commentary. I notice many theists do this, and I consider it fraudulent, to downright dispicible.

Let's look at what I actually wrote, and not the typical (among some) theists' cutting out sections they may find discomforting...

Actually there's penalties for allowing children access to "smut", and your "thinly veiled smut" is nothing but your opinion.

Can you offer a definition of "thinly veiled smut" that doesn't rely on your opinion?

Notice, those who allow minors access to movies for which the rating disallows such, are violating the law, and are liable to prosecution. Further, PG-13 allows for those 13 and older to see the movie under parent or parental guardian supervision according to the law.

That you disagree with the law does nothing to refute what the laws says.

Not only have we gone from "thinly veiled smut" in G-rated movies, but I get misrepresented, the goalposts get moved to PG-13, and still we haven't found anything to fret over except someone not liking Disney movies of all things.

If Disney movies cause one grief, I just don't know what I can say to comfort them.

[TwentyOneSix]

So then, as long as it's your sacred text, you have no issue with sex and violence? Why rail against it in one form and not another?

There is a difference between an illustration of the punishment that befalls evil, and flat out pornography. If you can't understand this difference then I truly feel sorry for you and any children you may have.

Your opinion on what constitutes "most important book" is noted, and rejected. I personaly consider a quality set of encyclopedias much better for teaching a child about the world around them.

Yes, expose them to the lies of liberal science as early as possible so they grow up thinking it's true, brilliant!

I don't replace my parenting with a book to guide my children.

I wouldn't call it "parenting" if you've neglected to read to your children from the bible.

Notice, those who allow minors access to movies for which the rating disallows such, are violating the law, and are liable to prosecution. Further, PG-13 allows for those 13 and older to see the movie under parent or parental guardian supervision according to the law.

That you disagree with the law does nothing to refute what the laws says.

So I have to pretend to be happy that some liberal politician decided it was okay for thirteen-year-olds to see bare breasts and lord knows what else? Or even younger children if their "parents" decide that it's okay to expose them to pornography?

Not only have we gone from "thinly veiled smut" in G-rated movies, but I get misrepresented, the goalposts get moved to PG-13, and still we haven't found anything to fret over except someone not liking Disney movies of all things.

Every Disney movie I've seen contains some filth; like when a female bird in Bambi exposes her breasts, or a split-second flash of a naked woman in The Rescuers, or when Simba flops down in the dirt in The Lion King and the word "SEX" forms clearly in the dust as a form of subliminal messaging to encourage children into sinfulness. I've written several letters to Disney about the pornographic undertones of their movies and have yet to receive a response.

[Metatron]

Every Disney movie I've seen contains some filth; like when a female bird in Bambi exposes her breasts, or a split-second flash of a naked woman in The Rescuers, or when Simba flops down in the dirt in The Lion King and the word "SEX" forms clearly in the dust as a form of subliminal messaging to encourage children into sinfulness. I've written several letters to Disney about the pornographic undertones of their movies and have yet to receive a response.

Fascinating. I own all three of these movies and my family has watched them many times over the years and yet none of us have ever noticed the things you allege here. Out of curiosity, do you by any chance play hard rock albums backwards to check out the secret messages from Satan?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 17:

There is a difference between an illustration of the punishment that befalls evil, and flat out pornography.

What might this "punishment that befalls evil" consist of?

If you can't understand this difference then I truly feel sorry for you and any children you may have.

Lacking the knowledge of what punishment may befall evil, I admit to a lack of understanding. Don't fret my junior there, he's an Air Force Sergeant, recipient of the highly prestigious John Levitow award.

Yes, expose them to the lies of liberal science as early as possible so they grow up thinking it's true, brilliant!

What "lies of liberal science" do you seek to challenge?

I wouldn't call it "parenting" if you've neglected to read to your children from the bible.

Per your directive I made sure junior there didn't have access to sexual or violent content.

So I have to pretend to be happy that some liberal politician decided it was okay for thirteen-year-olds to see bare breasts and lord knows what else?

I was less than thirteen before I got a chick to show me her hooters, and no media was involved. I can't help if you're behind the curve.

Or even younger children if their "parents" decide that it's okay to expose them to pornography?

Yet you have no problem having your children read the violent and sexual content within the Bible.

Every Disney movie I've seen contains some filth; like when a female bird in Bambi exposes her breasts, or a split-second flash of a naked woman in The Rescuers, or when Simba flops down in the dirt in The Lion King and the word "SEX" forms clearly in the dust as a form of subliminal messaging to encourage children into sinfulness. I've written several letters to Disney about the pornographic undertones of their movies and have yet to receive a response.

If you find a bird's breasts as pornography, I'd recommend some counselling on bestiality.

"Sinfullness" is commonly understood to be some transgression against a god. Can you show your preferred god considers the word 'sex' to be "sinful"?

I personally consider the human female breast one of the most beautiful pieces of functioning art on the planet.

Have you never really looked at a woman's breast? I don't mean the floppy "tangerine in a sock" breast, but the perky, well shaped breast. Have you ever just mushed your face into a breast and enjoyed the scent, the contradictory firm softness?

Dude, you gotta go out right now and just grab some random chick's breast (let her know you're doing legitimate research first). Really grab it like you appreciate it, give it a good handshake, and tell it you love it. Let it know you're its friend and you mean it no harm. Let that titty know you're there to please it and you seek understanding of what does please it. Tell it it's the best titty in world and you'll never leave it. Make it warm, make it comfortable. Fix it a drink or something to eat, buy it a new bra.

When you've done this, that hooter, and that female surrounding it, will reward your efforts, and you'll no longer feel such shame in seeing a good looking breast again.

[McCulloch]

I don't replace my parenting with a book to guide my children.

I wouldn't call it "parenting" if you've neglected to read to your children from the bible.

Your comment might appear arrogant. Did you mean to say that all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and atheists are unfit parents?

So I have to pretend to be happy that some liberal politician decided it was okay for thirteen-year-olds to see bare breasts

What is wrong with seeing bare presumably female breasts?

and lord knows what else?

I had preferred allowing my teenaged offspring to view what consenting adults do naturally together when they have a loving relationship than gratuitous violence.