Poltergeist was NOT fucking PG! I clearly remember not being able to see it because it was R. I don't think I'll watch past the 40seconds I made it to. /:<

Per Wikipedia: "Poltergeist initially received an R rating[15] from the MPAA. As the PG-13 rating did not come into effect until 1984, which would have been an appropriate rating at the time, Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper disagreed with the 'R' rating and managed to have the film changed to a 'PG' rating on appeal."

I read that as well. However I was alive then, and very clearly recall the R rating from my childhood.

This is kinda hilarious in that his central argument is that the "art" of some movies is ruined due to a PG 13 rating, when 99% of his examples are throwaway blockbuster fluff anyway.

His example of the Oscars is even more flawed, in that the majority of "good" movies tell an adult story and use sex or violence to serve the story, not the other way around.

The one thing I do find disturbing is sanitisation of violence as in the new Robocop. I watched the original Robocop as a kid (yes, I was too young for it). The violence is horrifying. But the new one is "safe" for kids in that you see tonnes of guys getting shot with no blood. How is that better? If you're going to depict violence on screen, it should be violent!

Well I did some googling, and apparently Poltergeist came out in June of 1982, and the R rating was overturned in May. This being the pre-internet era, I'm guessing you found out about the R rating but never discovered that it had been overturned.

Roger Ebert pushed rated A for adult which is genius imo.

Perhaps this is the era of throwaway blockbuster fluff because studios are responding to the reality of ratings and market... because a mediocre movie at PG13 is a surer bet than a possibly amazing, possibly a flop R movie. Now, after PG13 has sunk in a while, the studios are no longer cutting back R movies to be PG13, they simply are not funding the R movies to begin with.

How is the oscar Rs example flawed? He just showed the numbers... the majority of oscar winners in the time since 84 were R-rated.

To be fair, The Wolf of Wall Street didn't work as an R-rated movie either!

I don't think it would be that hard for studios to release both an R and PG-13 version of a movie to theaters at the same time. Simply have the R ones start after 9pm, and PG-13 start before. Or on weekends show both in different rooms (since many of the larger theaters have same movie running on multiple screens anyway).

Personally I don't pay attention to the ratings when deciding to see a movie or not, but I can see it being important for parents taking their kids to see something. For example I didn't NOT see Expendables 3 because it was PG-13, I chose not too because it looked exactly like the first 2, and didn't want to waste money on it. Maybe I'll watch it on Netflix eventually.

I also thought the remakes of both Total Recall and Robocop were decent in their own way, both were PG-13 where the originals were R, and I don't think it took away from the movie.

Of course movies like Scarface have to be R, because that's the nature of the story and character. Look for the TV version of Scarface, and the voice-overs they did to achieve it- so funny ("This city's like a chicken, waiting to be plucked").

Poltergeist should not have been PG. Thinking of that scene with the tree during the thunderstorm still gives me goosebumps.

My grandparents took me to see it (!?!?!), and they wouldn't have done that if it were rated R--I literally wasn't allowed to see an R rated movie until I was 17 (My dad and his family--well, enough said). I remember sitting in the theater hiding my eyes during the whole tearing-his-own-face-off scene.

Back when Poltergeist came out, we didn't have the internet for constant updates and fact checking. It would have been very easy to hear that a movie was R and just accept that as fact.

Also, I don't know about you guys, but my parents weren't fooled by PG ratings. They paid attention to whether the film was scary or violent, and wouldn't let me see it.

King's Speech should have been PG. Except for the one scene, there isn't anything that wouldn't be fine in a G rated movie.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by ant.

Isn't the whole issue that the MPAA is an industry board directly tied to the studios? I would think a more separate board would work better.