Flags, Gays, Under God and Now "PG"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iGary, Jul 4, 2006.

  1. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #1
    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
     
  2. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #2
    Great way to ignore the huge white elephants in the room named 'Iraq', 'Health Care', 'Personal Freedom', and 'Economy'.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    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
     
  4. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #4
    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.
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #5
    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 :
    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.
     
  6. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    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
     
  8. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #8
    Roy Blunt is behind this? Reason to hate Missouri # 1839287402815
     
  9. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #9
    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.
     
  10. ahunter3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    #10
    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.
     
  11. iGary thread starter Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  12. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #12
    This is just one more obvious attempt to create social wedge issues.

    It is the trademark of Karl Rove's political strategy.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    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!
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

    Roy Blunt should be rated "R" for Retarded.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    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.
     
  16. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #16
    Regardless of its rating, it looks like it will suck in any case.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    "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?
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    this "issue" is DOA:
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19

    How much of this hubub was simply about free publicity for the film?
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    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.
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    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.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    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.
     
  23. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #23
    ahh the bible. blinding people for 2000 years.
     
  24. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #24
    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!
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    I thought they were 800-pound gorillas. :confused:
     

Share This Page