PG Rating for all narnia Movies. Thoughts, concerns?

MissReepicheep said:
I don't think that the films should ALL get progressively darker. That was not at all what I was trying to imply. I just feel that perhaps LB might need a PG-13 rating. But you're probably right, AK and Charn Tim.

I am strongly against little kids watching PG-13 or R rated movies. There are some G rated movies that I think aren't appropriate. When PC came out, I noticed that it was trying to come across as more adult, and it... failed. If you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one, which is exactly what happened. Narnia is what it is, and if you try to turn it into something else, it loses its value and distinction.

LotR is wonderful! But Narnia just plain isn't LotR. That kind of violence isn't conducive to its storyline. Narnia is supposed to be different.

I hope that makes sense. I tend to ramble on, and then people read implications that were never supposed to be there at all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your post did make sense, believe it or not. ;) Narnia isn't LotR, and shouldn't be viewed that way.

Josh, the reason PC flopped is partly because of publicity and marketing, NOT because it was less "family-friendly". Yeah, it was somewhat darker, but considering the fact that Walden and Disney didn't make much of an effort for publicity, it didn't have a lot of marketing appeal. I remember the months leading up to the LWW release. You couldn't hardly turn around without seeing something Narnia-related. With PC, I didn't see that. I didn't hardly see any promotional material for PC, and certainly there were no resources available for church groups, one of the groups that made LWW so popular. With Dawn Treader, I'm seeing a huge push for marketing and publicity, AND IT'S WORKING. People are seeing the ads, seeing the tv spots and trailers, and saying, "now that's a film I want to see" because it promises to be the type of film that LWW was. If I wasn't a Narnia fan and I had the choice this holiday to see HP 7 or Narnia (if I had kids and/or if I didn't), I would opt for narnia. Why? Because I don't believe that children should be exposed to those kinds of things until they're old enough to determine for themselves what's right and what's wrong. To me, having a PG-13 rating undermines the values put forth in Narnia, regardless of material. They can do TLB correctly WITHOUT a PG-13 rating, and they can do it in keeping true to the source material.

To me there's no need for any kind of exception.
 
*applauds* Excellently said, AK! I agree with you about the marketing! When LWW came out, Narnia stuff was everywhere, and I'm seeing it all again now for VDT. Marketing really does help raise awareness. And because the movie appears to be a visual treat, even people who may not be Narnia fans may go see the movie just because it looks good. But this is a bit off topic. :rolleyes:
 
I thought PC was PG-13 when it came out in theaters, and then was PG when it came out on DVD...huh, weird.

I hope they keep the Narnia movies PG and down, and actually KEEP it PG. I went back and watched the first Star Wars movie (Episode IV) a while ago. It has a PG rating, but it has enough language in it for a PG-13, which was highly disappointing. And thank-you for putting that down about TS3, AK - I never plan on seeing it now! :) I wish movie makers wouldn't do that sort of thing just because younger kids don't "get it" and older audiences do - that's what they did with Shrek, bleh.

Anywho, I am completely with AK on this topic as well - you don't need to add all the extra junk to make it a good movie. What I've learned in writing can easily apply to movies: don't put more in there than is needed, especially violence. When violence is glorified with excessive gore and showing that it's "good," that's when it sickens me. And on another point, I can't stand bad language in movies, especially using the Lord's name in vain. I hope the Narnia movies never have language in them, no matter what Hollywood expects of movie standards nowadays.

I believe Walden could do an excellent job with TLB. Frankly, I'm glad they didn't overdo it on blood in LWW and PC, because it simply wasn't needed. They could do the same thing with TLB if they kept to what they've done in previous movies.
 
But the PG will keep them from showing some stuff that are in the books. For whats on paper may come across more violent on screen.

Like the muder of Lilliandil, and the Lady of the Green Kirtle (in serpant form), getting her head chopped off. Lewis did say the floor was quite a mess. But how can you portray that in a movie without showing blood? If everything is seen offscreen why even make the movie in the first place?

Or in Horse and His Boy, when Aravis gets her back slashed by Aslan? While you don't have to picture the scars and blood too much in your head, in the movie there is no way to cover it up without looking like you are trying too hared. And lets not mention the suicide attempt and the fact that her being a kid was being forced to marry an old man (a lot of parents wouldnt like those thematic elements).

The Magician's Nephew and VotDT don't have anything beyond PG material, except the crucial scene where Aslan rips the scales of Eustace (I'm sure unfortunatly that that particular scene will be cut).
 
They killed the Hag in PC without beheading her, and they can do the same for the Lady of the Green Kirtle.

Your arguments really don't hold water because they can change how things happen, and most likely they will.

And you don't know what is and what isn't in VotDT. I've heard that the undragoning scene is done faithfully to the book...I don't know what exactly that means, but undoubtedly, the undragoning scene is faithful to the book.

Besides, with things being animated, they can keep a PG rating while still putting in elements that are violent (did ANYBODY read the comment I made about Beowulf???). There are a lot of movies that have G ratings that actually deserve to have PG ratings, but don't. You can have a PG film with violence in it. The ratings for films nowadays are set to different standards than they were about 10 years ago. Who in the world gave Hollywood permission to make films with characters using both the s and f words frequently? I saw a PG-13 film (Knight and Day) that probably deserved an R. and Toy Story 3...well, let's just say it had some content in it that was very unappropriate for a G rated film. What I'm saying is this: films are judged by a completely different standard than they used to be, meaning that people can push the limits of a rating without going to the next level.

There's a movie coming out (which I won't name because of forum "rules" :rolleyes: ), which deserves an NC-17 rating, but has an R (starring Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor). Beowulf received a PG-13 because it was "animated", but it had as much violence and sexuality as an R-rated film, such as Troy or Alexander. If you can classify something as "animated", apparently you can get a lower rating than what you should. Narnia can do that, and still push the PG limit if they want to. But I don't want to see a PG-13 attached to ANY Narnia film, regardless of which one it is.
 
It looks like everyone is in good agreement that they need to fight to stay faithful to the books, but I guess we just disagree on what that entails about the rating it should be given. AK, you're right, more "violence" can be done if it's animated or cgi I think, and Josh, I think you're right that what doesn't sound so bad in reading can look much worse when shown (like the beheading of the Lady of the Green Kirtle) but I'd still rather have them be sensitive to crowds of all ages, and not make it more "adult" or "teen" and do more indirect showing, rather than a majorly realistic, bloody, violent head-chopping to be sensationalistic. I still think they can do all those things faithfully to the books and keep it PG, but you disagree. That's fine. We'll see if the filmmakers can walk this fine line, I guess, but I'm personally glad that Walden Media and the C.S. Lewis estate have agreed to make them PG.
 
In this article by two students at BYU (Brigham Young University), they concluded that box office really didn't matter with PG and PG-13 movies. They did find that the upper limit of the rating (borderline PG/PG-13 or PG-13/R) that received the lesser rating actually made more than a middle rating, but those two are better than a R rating in terms of box office.

I don't think Narnia should try to get one or the other. They should make the movies and just keep them below an R rating, which isn't too hard, especially when they avoid all of the trappings of R material such as cursing, graphic violence, adult material, etc.

MrBob
 
i dont have any problem with it,i mean it is a family movie and the PG rating means "Parental Guidence" so i see nothing wrong with it,the current batch are getting darker and are not meant for small children to see on their own..
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
And you don't know what is and what isn't in VotDT. I've heard that the undragoning scene is done faithfully to the book...I don't know what exactly that means, but undoubtedly, the undragoning scene is faithful to the book.
Click to expand...

Actually I saw the movie last night (or two nights ago since its already midnight) and the undragoning scene sucked. Though granted, it wasnt do to the lack of Aslan ripping off Eustace's skin (though that would have been more effective). Rather there was hardly any lead up to it, and it was just a rushed scene. The film was more interested in focusing on the sea serpant battle then Eustace's undragoning. Aslan and Eustace didnt even exchange dialouge in that scene.

One thing I don't like is that you feel that "They don't have to cut off the Lady of the Green Kirtle's head." Um, if its in the book, it has the right to make it to a movie. Granted, we don't need the camera to focus on her guts coming out, but a quick swipe of the head (like Aragorn did to some orcs in LotR) wouldnt be too much to ask for. Because it is in the book and you cannont get angry at a filmaker for portraying a scene accuratly from the novel.
 
Except that they never do. Why would they choose to follow the book in that regard if they don't follow it in the much more important aspects?
 
Thats the problem. I'm alright with the films making necessary changes in book to movie adaptations, but I don't like it when they mess with scenes like Eustace's undragoning or add in romances that didnt exist, or changing the whole plot of of the film (Green Mist?).
 
Yep. That's definitely going too far. While I don't like it primarily because of its irrelevance, quite frankly I dont' understand it. I mean, I don't see non-fans of any age jumping up and down saying, "I TOALLY want to go see that movie with the awesome green mist and blue sword in it dude."
 
Back to the topic at hand... the movie's ratings. In the end it will al lcome down to what the MPAA decides for a film like say Last Battle.

While there may be violence aginst humans, the train accident is a "sudden" thing. No need for the twisted and mangeld remains of William, Skander, Georgie, Will and ( insert the name of the actress playing Jill later.)

Most battle violence is against animals... Old Yeller any one? For some reason that one is rated G.

Lady of the Green Kertle in serpent form... getting it's head chopped of. If it's in serpent form it would be, in my opinion no different then seeing a creature like the Rancor, the Reek, the Nexu or the Akley in a Star Wars film dying. Also, in Star Wars Episode II, also rated PG, Jango Fett is decapitated. It depends on hwo long they drag the fight with her. I'd expect it to be a swift chop, and nothing more.

However the psychological implications of Last Battle: Narnia is destroyed, all the characters they know and love die, may need to be weighed upon heavily. COuld a child 8 and younger handle that?
But it is called ( as it's been pointed out) PG, Parental Guidence. A film with that rating is hardly a film to drop jr off at before going out on a date. Will some aprents do that? Probably. Will they most likely drag a three year old or four year old to see it? Potentially. ( it happened when I saw Prince Caspian(Parents brought a four year old with who wouldn't stop screaming and it took an usher escourting them out of the theater to get them to be quiet.) Would PG-13 probably urge some of thsoe parents away? I'd say so. But like I said, it all comes down to the MPAA's decision.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Sven. In the end, it is how one Fox's decidson about how much violence gets edited out and what the MPAA ultimately decides on the rating. I mean, the first HP movies were a PG rating but once everyone got older and it got darker, the last movies became PG-13. If the Last Battle movie almost adds everything what is in the book like the final war between everyone instead of Hollywood adding their own twist on things like in Prince Caspian then it will be a strong PG rating if not a weak PG-13. Because to become a rated G movie, then they will not show ANY of the battles and such, which can seriously hurt the movie because then it will be nowhere close to following what the book had. It will be its own version on how the final days of Narnia happened and that would be bad news. Just learn from what happened IN PC and you will see.
 
I think that it is strange that people are even suggesting that they change the Last Battle when they HATED Prince Caspian because of that very reason of the changes... If they changed the Last Battle at all, it would disappoint the true Narnia fan and no one who knew the story would buy it at all, and it would not go over well, just like Prince Caspian...
 
QueenLucyTheValient said:
I think that it is strange that people are even suggesting that they change the Last Battle when they HATED Prince Caspian because of that very reason of the changes... If they changed the Last Battle at all, it would disappoint the true Narnia fan and no one who knew the story would buy it at all, and it would not go over well, just like Prince Caspian...
Click to expand...
That's a really good point. Still, I believe that they can make the last film without changing from the book very much.
 
That is right QueenLucy. If they take out all the action and excitement that the Last Battle told, then it won't be anything like the book, everything minus the violence that Last Battle was telling. It would be a disaster in the making. Some will like it but there will be a majority that will be very upset like they were with Prince Caspian that outside a few things that were in the book, there was stuff that was left out and stuff that was added like Caspian and Susan having some kind of feelings for one another as a good example.
 
Sven-El said:
Back to the topic at hand... the movie's ratings. In the end it will al lcome down to what the MPAA decides for a film like say Last Battle.

While there may be violence aginst humans, the train accident is a "sudden" thing. No need for the twisted and mangeld remains of William, Skander, Georgie, Will and ( insert the name of the actress playing Jill later.)

Most battle violence is against animals... Old Yeller any one? For some reason that one is rated G.

Lady of the Green Kertle in serpent form... getting it's head chopped of. If it's in serpent form it would be, in my opinion no different then seeing a creature like the Rancor, the Reek, the Nexu or the Akley in a Star Wars film dying. Also, in Star Wars Episode II, also rated PG, Jango Fett is decapitated. It depends on hwo long they drag the fight with her. I'd expect it to be a swift chop, and nothing more.

However the psychological implications of Last Battle: Narnia is destroyed, all the characters they know and love die, may need to be weighed upon heavily. COuld a child 8 and younger handle that?
But it is called ( as it's been pointed out) PG, Parental Guidence. A film with that rating is hardly a film to drop jr off at before going out on a date. Will some aprents do that? Probably. Will they most likely drag a three year old or four year old to see it? Potentially. ( it happened when I saw Prince Caspian(Parents brought a four year old with who wouldn't stop screaming and it took an usher escourting them out of the theater to get them to be quiet.) Would PG-13 probably urge some of thsoe parents away? I'd say so. But like I said, it all comes down to the MPAA's decision.
Click to expand...

YOu bring up a lot of good points...besides, must we actually "see" the train wreck happening? It could be explained or visited another way. Like, maybe we see Jill, Eustace, and the others on the train/on the platform, then a train horn blares and the screen goes black, transitioning over into when Eustace and Jill go to Narnia. There are ways they can get around some of the violence without changing the story.
 
But its always more effective to show things then to imply them.

Imagine the Lord of the Rings movies without the Gandalf confronting Saruman, the battle at the end of the Fellowship, and the Ents attacking Isengard. Those scenes are only talked about or implied in the books, yet they are some of the best scenes in the movies.

So showing things can improve the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top