wtf: ‘Eat Pray Love’ downgraded from R to PG-13 based on nothing at allJust in case you thought it wasn’t just caprice underlying the ratings work the MPAA does, it recently awarded a restrictive R rating -- because of “brief strong language” -- to the upcoming Julia Roberts travel romance Eat Pray Love... and then just as easily changed it to PG-13 when the director, Glee’s Ryan Murphy, asked nicely. He didn’t need to cut anything or reedit anything or change one single moment of the film. All he had to do was ask, according to Variety. I’m not sure why the studio, Columbia, felt that it needed to challenge the original rating: Does anyone imagine that teenagers are eager to see this movie, and will be flocking to it now that they’ll be able to see it without sneaking in? On the other hand, perhaps some teenaged girls (and a few boys) will indeed be enticed, now that we’re promised “male rear nudity” in the new rating (here’s hoping its Javier Bardem’s male rear), which also warns of “brief strong language [and] some sexual references.” Woo-hoo! support
Disqus commentsblog comments powered by Disqus |
posted:
Wed Jun 09 10, 5:32PM categories: movie buzz permalink 3 pre-Disqus comments Disqus comments tip jarshare
read more
Columbia
Eat Pray Love Glee Javier Bardem Julia Roberts MPAA ratings follies Ryan Murphy Variety wtf related· ‘MacGruber’: it’s the bomb · question of the weekend: The space shuttle program is over, NASA’s budget is getting slashed: what’s the next big thing in space? · wtf: AOL is still in the dialup business? · WTF? Natasha Richardson 1963-2009 · Eat Pray Love (review) · cinematic roots of: ‘Eat Pray Love’ · question of the day: Is it homophobic to suggest that gay actors shouldn’t play straight roles? · gee, and Hollywood is usually so respectful of the spiritual · female gazing at: Javier Bardem · wtf: Catholic press complaining that ‘Eat Pray Love’ isn’t Catholic Churchy enough bloggyprevious post: more reasons to hate ‘Sex and the City’ next post: deep thought |
|
|
search
follow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in case of site outages or other emergencies, I'll update my status on Twitter and Facebook)
|
||
follow FlickFilosopher.com no matter where you are online
|
||
share and enjoy
shop to support
support FlickFilosopher.com when you click through here and buy almost anything at:
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
• Amazon U.S.
• Amazon Canada
• Amazon U.K.
• Amazon Germany
• Amazon France
• Amazon Spain
• Amazon Italy
• Chapters/Indigo (Canada)
pre-Disqus comments
posted by Nate (Wed Jun 09 10, 7:31PM)
More likely they want to attract more conservative old people who shy away from anything R-rated; though It's Complicated's rating didn't seem to hurt.
posted by Deacon Jones (Wed Jun 09 10, 7:37PM)
I understand why the studio wanted the less-restrictive rating, and you alluded to it. Yes, not as many young people may be coming to see this as you or the studio think, but they don't want to miss out on not even ONE dollar from that audience.
On the other hand, I'm sometimes happy when the MPAA lets a film have a less-restrictive rating, although as you pointed out, the rationale can border on capricious.
I'll never forget the MPAA giving the movie 'Round Midnight an R for two uses of the MF word, but let a couple of music documentaries, and the movie Sneakers, use the same word and give those movies PG-13s. Yes I know the ratings board doesn't consist of the same people then as it does now, but as you point out, there don't seem to be clear guidelines in such appeals.
posted by LizeCK (Wed Jun 09 10, 11:36PM)
If it's Javier Bardem's male rear, I'm going to have to go and see the damned thing. So please include that particular spoiler in your review. (You can be our canary in the coal mine--god bless film critics.)