Who cares how much of it evangelizes? One scene is all it takes. If there’s only one titty shot does that mean it shouldn’t affect the rating? If there’s one preachy scene then that’s one scene I want to know about.
I doubt it’s only one scene, though.
The MPAA judged it in order to give it a rating. In order to comment on that rating, doesn’t it have to be judged by the one doing the commenting as well?
Of course, but if it’s true that the MPAA objected to more evangelizing and it was really just that one scene and they’re now backpedalling then something’s wrong.
One scene is plenty for me. What’s the harm in a PG rating anyway?
Nothing at all, as long as they’re being consistant.
Not “judged” in moral or even critical sense. Just evaluated as to whether it’s fair to assume that some parents might not want their kids to view some of the content without their presence and guidance. I don’t know if you’re a parent, Lute, but I’m finding that religious messages can be a minefield when you have young kids. They need a lot of careful explanation about things. My oldest daughter got freaked the hell out by the sight of a bloody crucifix once (at a church dinner) and I was at almost a total loss as to how to explain it to her. I appreciate the heads up if a movie is going to contain a heavy religious message.
Well, let’s see - a pair of movies with violence that would be at least PG if done live-action: Beauty and the Beast and The Incredibles. I’m sure other posters can add to the list of G rated movies with some pretty disturbing violence.
It’s not a government agency, but AIUI the MPAA offers ratings after the standards of the Hayes Commission were found to be too restrictive for filmmakers to keep following. And both were done under the threat of having the government step in, to “fix” things.
Again, this is an AIUI statement, but some of the earliest Nickelodeon “films” were peek, or even sex, films. And so offended people that the government was called in to protect the country’s poor, defenseless morals. I think that there’s a lot of room for making a parallel between the uses for which early photography, and motion pictures were put to, and the uses that digital filming is being put to use today - especially with respect to sex and nudity.
None of this changes that my view of this particular issue as a tempest in a teapot. Frankly, I have to wonder do these idiot staffers and Congresspersons really believe that a Federally supervised ratings system would be any less arbitrary and inconsistent? Come on, if the Feds set up a film rating comission - it would soon become as representative of popular tastes and mores as the National Endowment for the Arts currently is. Which is not meant to be a slam on that NEA, just saying it’s not exactly a bastion of the sort of “grass-roots” morality that these bozos are hoping to get installed.
For that matter, hadn’t they ever heard the old joke:
Relationship between plot and rating:
G - The good guy gets the girl.
PG - The bad guy gets the girl.
R - No one gets the girl.
X - Everyone gets the girl.
It’s pretty old, obviously, but it still is at least as accurate in my experience as any other explaination of whether a given movie might be age appropriate, according to its rating.
Ah, yes, those are the people who follow Christianity the…er…contact sport? Christianity the…board game? Christianity the…delicious sandwich?
You’re fucking delusional. I can’t believe I’ve even wasted my time thinking about your “argument”. It’s like watching a hamster on LSD compete in the Olympic bobsled, only not as funny.
I’m pretty sure The Incredibles was rated PG, precisely because of the violence.
Sorry, I honestly thought I was in the Pit. Don’t ask me why. I apologize, Lute Skywatcher.
The Incredibles IS PG.
You may be right. I don’t feel motivated enough to actually go looking it up, right now. But if it was rated PG it would probably have been so only after a long battle, where Disney and Pixar fought to keep it G for the kiddie market.
And don’t get me started on TV ratings. They’re effing insane for anime.
Diogenes the Cynic, and chorpler, I apologise and conceed the point with The Incredibles. I should have taken the time to do a quick look.
Complete hijack
Can anyone tell me why the Google ads in this thread are all about getting a work visa to the southern hemisphere?
What, you don’t believe there are people who are Christian but feel they don’t need to prove it by going to church or feel that churches are full of hypocrites? I was in the former group before leaning toward agnosticism.
No prob, shit happens. 
Now that is something I’d pay to see.
What does that have to do with whether or not Christianity is a religion? Christianity is a religion, period. The contention that religion == church is very odd.
Again, I apologize for blowing my lid at you. I’m starting to see where you’re coming from. But church really isn’t important in determining whether or not something is religious.
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying Christianity isn’t a religion, I’m saying one can be Christian but not be religious about it. I’ve heard of “non-praciticing Jews”, why can’t there be non-practicing Christians?
Thanks for the attempted sidetrack, but are you contending that this movie is about “non-practicing Christians”? How then do you explain the website, or even that one scene prostletyzing for Jesus Christ?
(One can be a non-practicing Jew because “Jew” is a cultural term as well as a religious. If your mother was a Jew, you are too, whether you’re religious or not. There’s no such hereditary Christianness.)
Oh, brother–that was just a way of explaining how something can be Christian without being religious. Isn’t it obvous that what I’m saying is, right now, all we know is that this is a Christian movie with a football plot and one scene that features evangelizing? One scene doesn’t make it a live-action Chick tract.
If you believe Christianity can’t be both a cultural tern as well as a religious one, I suggest you do something about this Wikipedia page.
Flywheel but no Shyster? Groucho wept.