The Matrix is going to be on network TV tonight. Maybe you can tell by what’s been cut why it had the R rating.
Helpful advice Libertarian, but The Matrix isn’t on network TV until friday.
Argh, why’d it have to be Fox? That’s the one broadcast channel I don’t get well at all.
Wouldn’t it be funny if they just completely skipped the lobby shooting spree altogether?
Okay, time for more coffee. I just sat here for about two minutes thinking, “Christopher Reeves wasn’t in The Matrix…”
I’m not sure how much I can add to this discussion, but here goes:
It seems like here in the US, a certain amount of violence is more acceptable than sex. I have seen some pretty violent PG-13 movies, but almost none which featured nudity or sexual situations beyond a mere passing reference. (I think it’s okay to see somebody’s bare butt in PG-13, but no frontal nudity. Correct me if I’m wrong.)
However, I think gun violence is a bit different. Due to popular opinion in the US, lots of gun battles are probably going to merit an R. Columbine obviously could not have had an effect on the rating of the first Matrix, but it may very well have influenced other movie ratings, maybe even the new one. People in the US are getting more concerned every day about the protrayal of gun violence in the media, and this is obviously going to affect movie ratings.
Somebody brought up The Two Towers; it was a rather violent film, but I think the thing that got it the PG-13 was 1) the lack of blood and gore, and 2) most of the people getting killed were orcs. I think it makes it somehow okay if it’s not actual humans getting killed.
I think ambiguity in films probably does a lot to influence ratings as well. In LotR, there were the good guys and the bad guys, nobody was confused, and nobody had a gun. The Matrix is fairly clear-cut in that way as well, but many movies aren’t, and I think ratings boards have trouble with that.
Were we watching the same movie?
Actually, almost any amount of violence seems to be more acceptable than sex.
Quoth Justin_Bailey: “Were we watching the same movie?”
Maybe not, but I saw the one ratty did - I remember a head or two getting chopped off, but little blood and no guts.
Now that I think about it, killing monsters probably does rate as more harmless than killing people; I’m convinced that makes a difference in video game ratings. Along those lines, maybe killing Evil Overlords is more harmless than killing innocent police officers.
The PG-13-rated Titanic has a surprising amount of waist-up naked Kate Winslet. This was one of the reasons that company started in Utah (ClearView? don’t recall) that would edit a movie for you (after you bought it from them) to get rid of all the “icky” stuff. Hundreds of people drowning and freezing is fine, but gotta keep that titty under wraps. :rolleyes: The lawsuits about this service, of course, are pending. But the point is, bare breasts can briefly be shown in PG-13, as long as nobody’s fondling them or whatever.
SilentGoldfish, what’s the difference between C and G? (Aside from a major fifth, that is.) In the US, G movies are all targetted at children. Most Disney (and Nickelodeon, and Dreamworks) cartoons are G, and precious few non-animated things are (except for Muppets, I suppose). The main difference between G and PG seems to be target audience, not content. So maybe American G is actually equivalent to Australian C, and Australian G doesn’t have an American equivalent?
Gimme a hard question next time 
G means that anyone can watch something and not get offended (hopefully ;). C means that it’s specifically aimed at children and adults will probably be bored stiff. It’s mostly used for TV shows like Teletubbies and it’s ilk.
I’m not so sure about that. While it’s true the G category is dominated by children’s films, I don’t think there’s anything at all keeping films with a more grown-up target audience out of this category. I guess it depends on what you have in mind. I don’t really consider Chicken Run to be a children’s flim, though I can certainly see an argument to the contrary. It looks like documentaries also wind up in this category. If you look back to the 1970s, you see films like Airport and 2001: A Space Odyssey. But I think the fact that you don’t see drama or sci-fi in G anymore is probably due more to filmmakers than the MPAA.
Can you give an example of a PG movie that has little enough sex, violence, profanity, and scary images that you think it should be in G?
That’s not always true… My Fair Lady was a G film, and definately wasnt aimed at children (there was nothing objectionable in it to them, but they’d probably be bored more than anything else.)
Oh, and I’d have given ET a G rating were it in my power.
If I had to point to a single scene, it would be the point just after Neo dodges the bullets and Trinity shoots the Agent in the head a point blank. We see the shot, then a red mist on the other side of the head, and the guy falls over dead.
Head shots pretty much guarantee an ‘R’ rating. I’ll bet that scene is edited when it airs on broadcast TV. Expect a few frames here and there to be missing from the lobby sequence too.
On another note with the difference between violence and nudity is that violence is simulated, but the naked person is really naked. (Though who knows if that’ll change in this CGI era.) The funny thing about Cleanflix (I think that’s the Utah store’s name) is that Titanic is a terrible story, so editing out one scene doesn’t help it much. Though I was confused by the MPAA rating, since Rose’s character says that the painting scene was “the most erotic moment of [her] life.” Nudity in an erotic context == ‘R’ rating by MPAA standards.
Oh well, so much for consistency.
I guess I was wrong.
When almost all of them are computers it doesn’t matter how many die.The pills were not something serious, like cocaine or something. they were like meds. Whenever u see Tylenol do you cover your kids eyes and scream,DRUGS???
I take it you didn’t realise that you were replying to an 8 year old thread, and that the poster has since been banned? (In other words, you’re not gonna get a reply.)
Wow. This was the first thread I ever started.
No, but I do cover my eyes and scream when I see zombies.
You could ask the same question about John Carpenter’s version of The Thing. And, in fact, I have. There’s plenty of blood and gore,. but it’s almost entirely fake blood and gore of a wholly imaginary creature. It freaked the people at CBS out so much that, when they first showed it on that network, they cut out almost every single image of The Thing (thereby proving that Not Showing The Creature does not, despite what many people claim, make the film better)
On the other hand, the film does show a guy getting both hands cut off, and two characters getting shot in the head. That would give it an “R” rating for violence, right there. I suspect that they still would’ve slapped an “R” on it, though, even without those scenes.