posted
After thoroughly raising my expectiations with OOTP, I hope they aren't falling off the wagon. I was under the impression that with each movie the tone would mature, but how mature can you be with a PG rating. Not to say that any movie with this rating is bad, just that this story would likely suffer from the polishing of sharp corners for kiddie safety.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, i was checking up on lighter rated movies and there are plenty that can be labeled as "mature". I'm just saying taking obviously not PG source material and turning it into a PG movie in order to make it more accessible doesn't always work out. Anyone remember that little tragedy called Eragon?
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be tame, but they're just trying to heighten the contrast with Deathly Hallows, which is going to be directed by Quentin Tarantino.
They'll be shooting for a "hard R", and the climax will include Voldemort cutting off Neville Longbottom's ears and dousing him in gasoline, as well as Harry dismembering Bellatrix with a samurai sword.
And you don't even want to know what Draco does to Dobby in the basement of Malfoy Manor before Ron and Hermione bust in and get medieval on his ass.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think The Dark Knight deserved the PG-13 rating it received, but man was it able to effectively tell it's dark tale regardless. The Land Before Time was rated G and it definitely shows the rawness of the primeval realm.
With skillful story tellers I think Half Blood Prince can be very true to the source material and remain PG.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we were talking about the PG ratings of the 70s and 80s, sure. But we're talking the PG ratings of 2009... I'm not so confident.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If we were talking about the PG ratings of the 70s and 80s, sure. But we're talking the PG ratings of 2009... I'm not so confident.
Perhaps but Land Before Time managed its' G in 1988, by cutting alot of scary and violent scenes. As it stands it's still a very difficult movie to watch.
To me *spoilers to those who have not read the book
Dumbledore being killed by the killing curse will affect me purely on reasons completely unrelated to the manner of his being killed.
posted
They must have replaced all the wands with walkie talkies. Otherwise, I have no idea how this could even be possible. They must have cut/changed a lot. Because it's definitely one of the darkest books.
posted
My problem with these movies is that in order to enjoy them, it seems you have to keep lowering your standards. "Well at least they didn't cut out all my favorite parts."
I still adore the books, but I feel sorry for the hardcore fans who can't help but get their hopes up every other year. These movies aren't being made for you. They just aren't Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: My problem with these movies is that in order to enjoy them, it seems you have to keep lowering your standards. "Well at least they didn't cut out all my favorite parts."
I still adore the books, but I feel sorry for the hardcore fans who can't help but get their hopes up every other year. These movies aren't being made for you. They just aren't
It's a non-issue about whether or not I would see the film, so so I'm forced to focus on the silver lining. It's just simple matter of disconnecting the book you love with the movie you're watching. Enjoy it for what it is and try to limit your expectations, lest you be disappointed.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I hated the fourth and fifth movies and could not just shut my brain off because they just rushed too much. They have good British actors in the movies, so that's not the problem. The problem is they are totally watering down the story in the worse way, they are scooping out the pulp of an orange and replacing it with water and high fructose corn syrup and artificial flavoring..
Maybe they are meant to be more like 2.5 hour ads for the books.
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: My problem with these movies is that in order to enjoy them, it seems you have to keep lowering your standards. "Well at least they didn't cut out all my favorite parts."
I still adore the books, but I feel sorry for the hardcore fans who can't help but get their hopes up every other year. These movies aren't being made for you. They just aren't
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: With skillful story tellers I think Half Blood Prince can be very true to the source material and remain PG.
It does seem a bit backwards to go from a PG-13 rating with OotP to PG for the upcoming. I'd like to have faith in the writers that they could pull off PG while remaining true, but we'll have to hold a collective breath for, oh, another seven months before finding out.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rowling herself said that books 6 and 7 were not meant for children. They dealt with more adult themes and dealt with a lot of very harsh scenes and concepts.
The tone of HP6 is certainly not the tone of HP1. I can absolutely see HP1 as a PG movie, but not HP6.
Maybe in the 80s, but not today.
I mean, Poltergeist was a PG movie, as was Jaws, Gremlins, Beetlejuice, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of doom. None of these would have gotten a PG rating today - no chance.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Rowling herself said that books 6 and 7 were not meant for children. They dealt with more adult themes and dealt with a lot of very harsh scenes and concepts.
The tone of HP6 is certainly not the tone of HP1. I can absolutely see HP1 as a PG movie, but not HP6.
Maybe in the 80s, but not today.
I mean, Poltergeist was a PG movie, as was Jaws, Gremlins, Beetlejuice, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of doom. None of these would have gotten a PG rating today - no chance.
Well Raiders of the Lost Ark is precisely why they split PG into PG and PG-13. But again The Dark Knight was PG-13. I can see how there seems to be more wiggle room between PG-13 and R than there is between PG and PG-13.
What specifically do you find in The Half Blood Prince to be so dark and graphic that it could not be done effectively and maintain a PG rating?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found HBP to be a lot ... well... cheerier than OOTP, heck, DH's return to the dark tone make you feel like the 6th book was a vacation.
Removing the "reduant" fight scene- stupid. Heck, isn't Kloves back to writing the scripts? It's going to make me mad about one thing or another and splitting the movies for 7 is a dumb idea as well.
I've moved on emotionally from the series since it ended- in fact, I was among those thrilled with the last book. The delay of the sixth movie only annoyed me in its effect of the seventh moving marketing and the blatant commercialism of the move. But I'm not actually eagerly anticipating watching the movie. I'll go soon after it comes out to be sure, dragged by friends, but if they weren't there, I'll take my sweet time to bother seeing it.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: If we were talking about the PG ratings of the 70s and 80s, sure. But we're talking the PG ratings of 2009... I'm not so confident.
PG often seems to be "Someone on the board didn't feel quite comfortable with making this "G" these days. I mean, Bolt? There's nothing there you wouldn't show in a Saturday morning cartoon on before the parents were up.
Still, there's Prince Caspian, on the other hand. I just hope it's a "we're avoiding gore" PG and not a "We thought Death Eaters and dementors were just a little too intense" PG.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
