Flags, Gays, Under God and Now "PG"

[iGary]

Christian film's PG rating troubles Congress

Monday, July 3, 2006; Posted: 1:57 p.m. EDT (17:57 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Christian-themed movie about a football coach's faith in God is finding an audience in Congress -- not so much for its inspirational message, but for the PG rating it received.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt and other lawmakers are demanding explanations after hearing complaints that the movie "Facing the Giants" was rated PG instead of G due to religious content.

A PG rating means parental guidance is suggested because the MPAA believes some material may not be suitable for children. A G rating means the MPAA has found the movie acceptable for all audiences.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims the controversy arose from a miscommunication with the filmmakers. It says religion was not the reason for the rating.

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman.

After meeting with MPAA officials, Blunt and a handful of other House members said they remain concerned about the subjective nature of the ratings process.

"I'm not satisfied," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who attended the meeting with Blunt. "We probably will want to revisit this ratings process to have some commonality in the standards that exist for movies, videos and video games."

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/christian.movie.rating.ap/index.html)

[gauchogolfer]

Great way to ignore the huge white elephants in the room named 'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.

[Desertrat]

As to "'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.":

I imagine most Congressfolks figure there's no politically viable answer to any of those, much less a practicable answer. So what's left?

I gotta admit that if a film is a "Christian film", I'm puzzled about why it's PG instead of G. Doesn't make sense to me...

'Rat

[iGary]

As to "'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.":

I imagine most Congressfolks figure there's no politically viable answer to any of those, much less a practicable answer. So what's left?

I gotta admit that if a film is a "Christian film", I'm puzzled about why it's PG instead of G. Doesn't make sense to me...

'Rat

I guess we'd have to see it to figure it out, but I sure wish Congress would deal with more pressing matters...that's my beef with the issue.

[atszyman]

"This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence," Blunt said in a letter to MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman.


I completely agree that this is a non-issue and a waste of time but I also love how it's the MPAAs fault. As far as I know the ratings are usually pretty appropriate. Yes, Religion is more dangerous than sex and violence, that's why most movies with nudity and violence get R ratings and this one got PG.:rolleyes:

If you want to blame anyone for children's exposer blame the parents and theatres.

A theatre my wife and I go to has this disclaimer on it's website (http://www.cinemark.com/theater_showtimes.asp?theater_id=251) :
Note: No Children Under Age 6 Will Be Admitted To Any R-Rated Feature After 6:00 PM. Valid IDs will be required to attend Rated "R" movies. You must be at least 17 years of age or have your parent accompany you to view the movie. IDs will be checked at the theatre.

I'm not an expert but under 6 seems to be awfully young to be seeing an R movie but evidently it's OK before 6:00 p.m. Yes, it should be the parents responsibility to not take their kids to R movies and I have no tolerance for parents who do this but the theatre policy doesn't help at all.

[iGary]

I'm not an expert but under 6 seems to be awfully young to be seeing an R movie but evidently it's OK before 6:00 p.m. Yes, it should be the parents responsibility to not take their kids to R movies and I have no tolerance for parents who do this but the theatre policy doesn't help at all.

We went to see American Pie 2, and there were 7 year olds in there. I was so embarrassed to be in the theater with kids watching this stuff that we left.

I wasn't allowed to see an "R" film until I was 16, and I think I was better for it. Parents generally suck today. I think a lot of people think you just pop kids out and they raise themselves (or the Internet and TV do).

This country really is in a disgusting state these days.

[Desertrat]

The "6PM" thing reminds me once again that rule-makers of whatever sort seem to lack a firm grasp on reality.

E.g., in Austintatious, the City Council declared no smoking in places that serve food. Okay, although my own opinion is that that's a matter for the restarateur, not law. Be that as it may, the Council in its infinite wisdom decided that between the hours of 10PM and 6AM, second-hand smoke is harmless and people can thus smoke in all-night restaurants. En passant, I note that most eateries are adjacent to heavily-travelled streets, with the central A/C sucking in the "fresh" smog and vehicle exhaust--which I presume is harmless--as are "R" movies before 6PM.

All hail our rule-makers...

:), 'Rat

[yg17]

Roy Blunt is behind this? Reason to hate Missouri # 1839287402815

[FFTT]

There was an interview on NPR yesterday about what threats people ignore
and the things make them react with sudden importance.

The discussion was focused on how we have essentially ignored global warming because of it's gradual threat, while suddenly getting up in arms
about these social issues that really pose no immediate danger.

The fact that we could end up with major climatic changes threatening life as we know it seems of little importance, but watch what would happen if
people suddenly started burning bibles or eating kittens.

People seem to react to what is socially shocking, but otherwise harmless, yet something that is a real threat, documented by science seems to be
virtually a non issue.

[ahunter3]

It's not being PG'd because of its religious content, that's just how Roy B and the Biblepounders™ are spinning it.

I think the film revolves around themes like pregnancy and whether or not to do drugs. Subject matter under discussion = PG.

[iGary]

Here's the trailer (doesn't look like G material to me):

http://www.facingthegiants.com/trailer_sm.php

[FFTT]

This is just one more obvious attempt to create social wedge issues.

It is the trademark of Karl Rove's political strategy.

[mactastic]

I gotta admit that if a film is a "Christian film", I'm puzzled about why it's PG instead of G. Doesn't make sense to me...
What about if it's an "Islamic film" or an "Atheistic film" or a "Pagan film"? Would you understand if people didn't want their children exposed to that type of thing unattended?

Here's what PG means:
This is a film that clearly needs to be examined or inquired into by parents before they let their children attend. The label PG plainly states that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but the parent must make the decision.

Parents are warned against sending their children, unseen and without inquiry, to PG-rated movies.

First off, it sounds like there is far more than a discussion of religion in this movie, but doesn't it seem to you that a parent should be the one to make a decision about what their kid sees when it comes to their religious upbringing?

"Christian film" does not equal "harmless" in many people's estimation. Are those people not Americans, and not deserving of the same protections a Christian parent would expect of society?

Finally, and this isn't directed towards you 'Rat, it is quite amusing to watch the right work themselves up into a froth over the MPAA being overly cautious in their ratings after having been attacked viciously time and again from the right for being too leniant in their ratings and helping to destroy the moral fabric of our society by doing so. Now they get overly cautious and the right attacks them for it.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's just another fear button the right likes to push. Watch out for Hollywierd!

[Thomas Veil]

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Roy Blunt should be rated "R" for Retarded.

[IJ Reilly]

What about if it's an "Islamic film" or an "Atheistic film" or a "Pagan film"? Would you understand if people didn't want their children exposed to that type of thing unattended?

What about "The Passion of the Christ"? A very "Christian" film, rated "R" if memory serves. Once again, some Christians think they belong to a special class of protected Americans.

[vniow]

Regardless of its rating, it looks like it will suck in any case.

[mactastic]

What about "The Passion of the Christ"? A very "Christian" film, rated "R" if memory serves. Once again, some Christians think they belong to a special class of protected Americans.
"The Passion" wasn't rated R because of it's overtly Christian theme. That movie got an R rating because it was basically a two-hour snuff film. And even at that it was given special treatment because of it's Christian subject matter. How often are snuff films shown under an MPAA R rating, and at respectable theaters to boot?

[zimv20]

this "issue" is DOA (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/christian.movie.rating.ap/index.html):

But in a letter to Blunt in June, the [MPAA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman] insisted the rating for "Facing the Giants" was not based on religious content.

"Any strong or mature discussion of any subject matter results in at least a PG rating," Glickman said. "This movie had a mature discussion about pregnancy, for example. It also had other mature discussions that some parents might want to be aware of before taking their kids to see this movie."

Glickman said the movie's producers agreed with the rating and never appealed it.

The film's producers claim ratings officials changed their story after the controversy began.

"The first communication from the MPAA was that religion was a factor in the ratings," said Kris Fuhr, vice president of marketing at Provident Films, which is owned by Sony Pictures. "Since then, the MPAA has revised those factors to no longer include religion."

Fuhr says she is now satisfied with the rating and wants to move beyond the controversy to focus on marketing the film, billed as an inspirational drama about a high school football coach who relies on faith to battle fear and failure.

[Ugg]

this "issue" is DOA (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/christian.movie.rating.ap/index.html):


How much of this hubub was simply about free publicity for the film?

[zimv20]

How much of this hubub was simply about free publicity for the film?
i think of a lot of it was until blount got a hold of it. then it became about the politics.

i hate campaign season.

[solvs]

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who's paying attention why this film got it's rating. Doesn't mean this won't work on the same type of people who believe the UN wants to take your legal guns because some guy posted that on his web page. People fall for stuff like this because they want to believe it. They want to believe that that nasty, Godless, liberal Hollywood hates Christianity and wants to take away your Bibles. Proof of yet another "attack" on Christians. :rolleyes:

To the rest of us, we just see this as yet another PG movie about football that's probably going to suck.

[hulugu]

Good job Congress, let's play dumb political games about a Hollywood movie and try to create 'wedge' issues rather than fix anything. That's fantastic, let's just keep moving the desk chairs around.
I'm beginning to think the only thing that would help with this group of idiots is a very large and fast sinkhole.

[dornoforpyros]

ahh the bible. blinding people for 2000 years.

[bobber205]

Great way to ignore the huge white elephants in the room named 'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.

Good god Congress. Please get your act together. First it's with the New York Times fiacso, the flag burning and now this?

What!??! Do something productive!

[skunk]

Great way to ignore the huge white elephants in the room named 'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.I thought they were 800-pound gorillas. :confused:

[Black&Tan]

We Americans are too easily distracted. Or at least the media is. Remember when the election ballots were being recounted in the first Bush election...the story making more headlines was the Pledge of Allegiance being outlawed. Someone once said that the American public cannot handle more than 3 news stories at any one time. With the media as it is now, I can believe it.

Smoke and mirrors.

[jelloshotsrule]

Someone once said that the American public cannot handle more than 3 news stories at any one time. With the media as it is now, I can believe it.


do "brad and angelina" stories count as 2? ;)

[mactastic]

do "brad and angelina" stories count as 2? ;)
2 1/2. Leaving not much room for anything else.