[theme music]
Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to.
"Gremlins"!
"Jaws"!
"Beetlejuice"!
"Watership Down"!
"Raiders of the Lost Ark"!
[hesitant] "Frozen",
"Inside Out",
"Kung-Fu Panda",
"The Lego Movie",
"Mr. Magoo"...
What do all these movies have in common?
They're all, strangely enough, rated PG.
At least, that's what the always logical Motion Picture Association of America says.
For those who somehow don't know, America has five ratings for films:
"G", for General Audiences of all ages;
"PG", for Parental Guidance suggested;
"PG-13", for some material might be inappropriate for children under 13;
"R" for Restricted- anyone under 17 needs an adult;
and "NC-17" for you must be 17 to watch.
It doesn't sound like a bad system, except when you ask the question:
"How is this...
[screaming]
... in the same league as this?"
"Hello, did I wake you?"
"Do you have to play that?"
"Well, I have to practice."
Or, the bigger question:
"Why is this movie that obviously doesn't need parental guidance
suggesting it, when it seems identical to another movie that doesn't suggest it?"
They're even made by the same company.
Well, to best understand, it's probably best to look at the history of the rating system.
You see, years ago, there was really just only three ratings:
G, PG, and R.
And everything else was just porn.
But, if you had one of these ratings, you're not porn,
and you can be shown in the majority of theaters.
That mostly made sense;
one was acceptable for most people,
one might be a little iffy for some,
and one was clearly just for adults.
Because of this, the ratings were a little bit more relaxed than you may think of them today.
Films like "Planet of the Apes", "The Haunting", and "True Grit"
are all movies that no one in their right mind would've called G nowadays.
With several swear words, off-screen violence,
on-screen violence, tons of deaths, and some pretty dark intense situations.
But the idea back then was people knew there'd be some risk going in.
As in, you can't shield everything from everyone.
That didn't always make the ratings right.
Hell, all three of these films can have some very disturbing scenes in them.
But they seemed ethically sound and not overkill.
Everybody of every age wants entertainment, after all,
and they knew there had to be some intense moments to keep you engaged.
That's just the kind of gamble you take when you see a film, even if it is rated G.
But as movies went on, the envelope was pushed more and more.
And some movies weren't really extreme enough for an R, but PG didn't seem to cover it either.
When "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" came out, they didn't know where to place it.
It was certainly more than a PG, but not too much more than "Raiders of the Lost Ark",
which was also pushing the PG rating.
Thus, the PG-13 was born, a compromise that seemed to fit in between the two.
The upside is the loopholes for this rating allowed, in many respects, much more violence
for our blood-hungry 13-year-old minds to take in.
Resulting in, funny enough, even more violence than a lot of R rated films.
The downside is for years, this is all people wanted to make.
You see, because of this rating, there was suddenly more of a distinction between G and PG.
G was now seen as not really general audiences anymore, but kids.
And eventually, when you saw that rating you would think: "Oh, a kids only movie".
PG suddenly could buckle down a little bit more.
And let things that could fly, in say, "Planet of the Apes", "The Haunting", and so forth suddenly not fly now.
Because of this, the G rating was now being stigmatized as baby movies.
Which hey, we're grown adults and 10 to 16-year-olds who want to be grown adults.
We don't want to watch that crap! G movies suck now!
A lot of kids hated them so much we started marketing R-rated movies as toys.
"Terminator's back to fight evil with his mobile assault vehicle!"
"... talking and electronic RoboCop, in three action packed sizes."
It was... a little messed up.
Cool, but a little messed up.
This meant, obviously, not as many people wanted to see them.
Because of this, what were obviously G-rated movies
started throwing in one or two elements that are completely pointless,
but help get that PG rating.
They do this to show: "Hey! There's something in this movie you're not supposed to see,
And that makes it a little risqué, right?"
Remember the out of nowhere swear words in "Casper" or "Iron Giant"?
"The bitch is back!"
How about the mountain of awkward adult jokes in Dr. Seuss movies.
"Dirty hoe!"
Yeah, thank God your parents are there to help you understand
those totally childish moments parading as adult moments.
Clearly, this was made for people with a more mature mind.
What they missed though is that a lot of the great films are G-rated.
And actually got away with a lot more by being clever and, dare I say it, necessary.
Disney was the reigning champion of that for years.
For decades, and decades they produced nothing but G-rated material.
By turning their limitations into their advantage,
they gave us some of the most messed up stuff.
A lot of it was dark, nightmarish and intense,
but not always in the way that would get a PG-rating.
Because they had to find new avenues that people wouldn't think of if they had the luxury of a PG movie.
Films like "Bambi" or "Lion King" have intense scenes of family members getting killed.
Hell, sometimes you even see the body!
But because they worked in that this is a part of life that's important and worth understanding,
it can still count as a G film.
Perception is everything.
That all changed in 1979 though, when Disney released its first PG film "The Black Hole".
It sucked!
So they opened a new studio where they could get away with more PG material called Touchstone.
It seemed to work for a while, but PG eventually did work its way into dominating Disney films once again,
and even finally moved out into PG-13 with "Pirates of the Caribbean".
And while I like that film fine, it does raise the question:
"How far away are they getting from Disney's original plan,
entertainment that anyone could and should be allowed to see?"
Is there an R-rated film in the future?
More importantly: Is it even needed?
I remember much more great and disturbing imagery from "Hunchback of Notre Dame" or "Snow White"
than anything in "Lone Ranger" or the other "Pirate" films.
So what's even the point of trying to get the higher rating?
There was, however, a point when G film were becoming popular again,
and that was with the invention of Pixar Studios.
They started off making "Toy Story", a smash hit G-rated film.
For a long time every Pixar film was G. And every movie was trying to be just like them.
The adult-talking childlike characters with celebrity voices
that talk about children's scenarios and make them intelligent and adult,
all without having to resort to the gimmick of the PG rating.
Then the little hit came along, called "Shrek",
and it showed that a PG animated kids' film can be a little naughtier than Pixar.
Suddenly, "Shrek" was the movie everyone wanted to try and be like,
even though Pixar was doing fine with its G-rated storylines.
But then something terrible started to happen to Pixar...
... they started to suck.
Not suck hard, but... hard enough.
And as a lot of suits in Hollywood usually think: "It must be because they're not hip enough."
Yeah, let's throw a P in front of that G for... I don't know, innuendo?
Some scary imagery?
W-what's that line in "Frozen" no kid would get?
"Foot size?" "Foot size doesn't matter!"
Yeah! Throw that in there to get the PG rating that shows that we're edgy!
Thus, the G movie practically feels extinct again.
Even though most parents don't even bother watching a Pixar or Disney film with their kid.
At least, not for "parental guidance".
It feels like they just put it on there so if you want to complain about something stupid,
they could just point and say, "well, there's the PG warning,"
resulting in unneeded adult scenes that only last a second
to prove that a movie is somehow "naughty" or "edgy" when really it's nothing of the sort.
Sometimes, it can even work in the other direction.
Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" has eyes stabbed and plucked out,
heads floating in water with people climbing on them,
and even a pretty graphic decapitation scene.
It only got a PG rating when this is borderline R!
"Dark Knight" wanted to get that ever-marketable PG-13 rating,
so they cut corners by showing nobody drinking, very few swear words, and little to no sex.
Which balanced out all the shit-ton of super-intense violence, and even gory imagery.
In fact, movies like "Hunger Games" and other PG-13 films
actually have more violence in them than most R-rated movies now.
But as long as they don't show too much blood or say a curse word,
it's okay to see children slaughtered?
This is no surprise though, as the rating system for some time has been incredibly inconsistent
and... what's the word I'm looking for? Insane!
For example, the F-word could be used once in PG movies for years.
You'll notice them snuck into films like "Spaceballs" and "Beetlejuice" that got a PG rating.
Now this changed recently to PG-13, and it has to be used when not talking about sex.
So... when Wolverine drops the F-bomb in two "X-Men" movies
putting complete and total attention on it,
but if he said it one more time or used it talking about sex...
only the 17-year-old mind can understand that!
"South Park" made a great mockery of a similar rule,
declaring that if over 400 swear words are used in your film,
it'll get an NC-17 rating, which most theaters won't play.
How many did they use?
Three hundred and ninety-nine.
Insert slow clap here.
Thank God they didn't use that one more swear, or else that would've been too much!
Oh, by the way, it's totally okay that you show a gigantic clitoris and make that part of the story,
but if they said one more swear word that would've been too far!
Actually, a lot of things involving sex in the rating system don't make any sense.
Now don't get me wrong, I think sex should be taught at the right time and very delicately.
But by age thirteen, I think most kids have an understanding of what it is,
as well as the responsibilities that come with it.
Hey, I'm not saying they practice those responsibilities, but they know what they are.
Yet the number of times you show people humping can make the difference between an R and an NC-17;
things like three humps will get it an R, but four would get an NC-17. Why?
Nudity is something that has to be blocked out a lot, even though you can say the F-word once
and show children getting slaughtered and faces getting burned up.
But God help you if there's a nipple in there!
Something... everybody has.
On top of that, the way the ratings are done are bizarre too.
If you check out the movie appropriately titled "This Film Is Not Yet Rated",
they go into the details about how you can't see the people who are rating it.
Nor know their identity.
Nor reference past films that got a different rating, even if your film does the exact same thing.
All of that is bonkers.
Bottom line: the rating system has been and continues to be incredibly outdated,
and even kind of meaningless.
In this age of the Internet, where any information can be found at any time,
children, teens and adults are learning more and faster than they ever have in the past.
The rating system needs to reflect that.
Now don't get me wrong: I know it's all subjective.
One kid can watch the G-rated "Snow White" and be fine,
another can watch it and get nightmares.
It's never going to be a perfect system, nor should it be.
It's art, it should be subjective.
But the ratings should reflect our current environment, and be more consistent.
Why is "Drag Me To Hell", an over-the-top gore fest, PG-13,
but "Love Is Strange", where a gay couple kiss, rated R?
Yeah, there's nothing else in this movie except a gay couple kissing and sleeping in bed.
Totally clothed!
That was deemed more inappropriate than this!
It makes no sense in our current environment.
I guess it's easy to say things have either gotten too inconsiderate, or things have gotten too PC,
but the fact is: they're both right.
None of it makes any sense from any angle.
It's a different world now, and the rating system is changing, but... not in a way that reflects it.
I know these aren't law, and a lot of younger people can still sneak into R-rated films and such,
and I also know there'll always be loopholes and everything,
but if the idea is to help guide people to what will culturally be accepted to the mass public,
this current system doesn't really do that.
This should be G, this should be R, and both should be glad that they're a G and an R!
The secret to cinematic success isn't the rating,
it's making a good film.
"Toy Story" was a hit despite it being a G-rated kids' film;
"Deadpool" was a hit despite it being an R-rated superhero flick.
How did they do that?
What was the secret?
They were good!
Changes need to happen on both sides:
we need a system that makes more sense, and we need studios that can
stand by their movies, not their ratings.
Because if someone is honestly gonna tell me a parent should be present when watching "Mr. Magoo"?
I think everybody's trust needs to be brought into focus.
Because that should obviously be an NC-17, it shouldn't be shown anywhere.
I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to.
[theme music]
Hey, Doug Walker here, doing the charity shout-out.
This week we're doing the Children's Defense Fund.
Their "leave no child behind" mission is to ensure every child a healthy, fair, safe, and moral start in life.
And successful passage to adulthood, with the help of caring families and communities.
They provide a strong, effective and independent voice for all the children of America
who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves.
They pay particular attention to the needs of poor children, children of colour,
and those with disabilities.
They educate the nation about the needs of children and encourage preventive investments
before they get sick, drop out of school, get into trouble, or suffer family breakdowns.
They began in 1973 as a private non-profit organization
supported by individual donations, corporate and government grants.
With a solid A on Charity Watch and several videos on their YouTube channel
to show the good they're doing, you too can help make sure
as many children as possible deserve the help they need.
Check out the link (ChildrensDefense.org) and see all the great things they're doing yourself.