G-Rated


I'm rather surprised that this movie is rated G. Be warned for those looking to rent this. It should be rated R for one unnecessary scene. There is a single shot of a topless hippie chick who had died at piedmont. There is also an unnecessary shot of the scientists' buttocks as they walk toward or away from a shower.

Like I said, completely unnecessary. Not sexual in anyway. But tell a teenage boy that a topless girl is not sexual...

Some may agree, some may disagree... but, in my opinion, the G rating is way off base.

reply

%&#@ prude! A topless corpse is not sexual. Oh no, a shot of a buttocks! I sense the decline of civilization

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

reply

OK, calm down everybody. The MPAA also gave a "G" rating to the 1968 "Planet of the Apes" featuring Charlton Heston's butt. Strange that both these films received "G" ratings but featured nudity, a policy that would change sometime later.

reply

I would of never guessed this movie was rated G. Nothing to do with the nudity- but due to the subject matter.

reply

I agree...PG or PG-13 would fit, in my opinion (or M, or GP, as it was known back then).

(insert cool-sounding random quote here)

reply

The nudity was VERY minor and not sexual in nature. I do admit though the G rating suprised me too. PG would be more appropriate.

reply

Aside what has been mentioned ...

Other elements which make this film somewhat un-G-Rated.

1) Dead Bodies ... Lots of dead bodies.

2) Birds eating the bodies of dead??

3) There's a scene in which a wrist is slit!!! (close up, too!)

4) Three swears are spoken: "Hell" (twice), and "Damn."

5) Drug Reference/Sexual Reference: When Dr. Ruth Leavitt first arrives at the Wildfire scientific lab, she says, "A POT FARM? Looks like a great place to grow Pot." And, concerning the fact she does not like red lights: "It's from my younger days; growing up in a Bordello."


Also, in the original (before it was cut from 131minutes to 127), there was a shot of full-frontal male nudity - not sexual, but it was there. What's still in the film is a shot of James Olson which shows him laying nude on a table, the view is from his head down to his pubic hair (his penis is barely blocked by some equipment).

If the MPAA saw this film now, it would get an R-Rating (for the two scenes where someone lights up a smoke), otherwise it would get a PG-13.






http://humormeonline.com/images/ImagineThat/Water_Rasgold.jpg

reply

and this is why the US of A is going to Hell in a handbasket (opps, I said hell - ohhh I said it again!)

Jeez, lighten up! Do you think any of those things are gonna corrupt or warp the minds of anyone? Not when you hear much stronger language from TV and radio these days. And this is even better than those mediums - don't buy, rent or see the DVD!

When will we learn that its not so much as what is there but how we police our family and ourselves to its exposure. If this was on a billboard or posted in my local McDonalds, I'd have a gripe. But this!?

Thank you all, you politically correct, virgin-eared, lilly-white denizens who contribute in your offensive ways to the destruction of the free world.

reply

"Thank you all, you politically correct, virgin-eared, lilly-white denizens who contribute in your offensive ways to the destruction of the free world."

I believe RasGold was only making an observation, not advocating for stricter ratings based on what was in Andromeda Strain. njaco5552, you're the one who needs to lighten up, or at least know what you're talking about before you bash someone.

(insert cool-sounding random quote here)

reply

It's not always about corrupting, sometimes It's about scaring young kids ... Like said, the wrist slicing shot could really scare some very young children. Don't forget we're talking about a G rating here, meaning ANYONE can see it, at ANY AGE. I think the gore (as minimal as it was) in Andromeda Strain could be considered a lot more scary than say Snow White, and yet both movies are G.

I can see how a wrist being slit with dried blood pouring out could be just a tad scary for a 5 year old. And yes, some younger kids may also get scared by a lot of dead bodies. And teh scenes of the animals dieing could really upset some small children. Plus the dude getting shot in the face with the laser could also be very scary for small kids. Like I say, it may not corrupt them, but for a lot of kids it could easily give them nightmares ... I agree it probably should have been PG.

reply

Yeah. Kids are known for crying hysterically whenever they see a boob or an ass. They're also known for being traumatised when they hear the word hell. They start banging their heads against the wall whilst repeating "this is not happening", and a few years later they become serial killers. That's how it happens.

reply

[deleted]

yeah, right - who hasn't had to confess to their priest that they've masturbated to a headless corpse?

reply

Are you American? It's fine to show gratuitous violence, but oh no! the human body. Which one is actually worse for a child to see - back of a man's buttocks in a non-sexual way or someone being violently beaten?

reply

When this movie was released, it contained the disclaimer "May be too intense for children." I was 12 when I saw it at the theater, and I know my Dad was squirming in his seat in a few scenes, being accustomed to the Disney style of "G" rating.

reply

Beat and kill all you want is ok, but show a breast or an ass and you'd think the world was coming to an end. That's the good old U.S.A. for ya.

reply

I was amazed at the amount of T&A in a G rated film like The Andromeda Strain!
No big deal. There's also a scene where an infected guy playfully fondles the buttocks on the comely, black, attractive, female nurse dressed in plastic suit.

The homely, unglamourous Kate Reid kind of looked like Mikey from Teenage Strangler.

"...and he didn't steal no bike, neither!"

I like that scene where that guy tries to reach an override switch for a self destruct mechanism and two laser guns keep zapping him!

"It's just shock! Ignore it! Keep moving!"

reply

[deleted]

Thank you all, you politically correct, virgin-eared, lilly-white denizens who contribute in your offensive ways to the destruction of the free world.

Maybe a mother with kids would like to be sure such things aren't there for her children to see ... It's all up to the individual, their comfort zone, and as long as we're warned a head of time I have no complaint ... and I don't think I'm contributing to the destruction of the free worlsd for asking to be pre-warned. Geez.

reply

All the jibes at the movie aside, you guys must not be aware of how fledgling the Motion Picture Association of America's film-rating system was back then in the year 1971. Granted the film could have been rated M for Mature or GP which was used in place of PG until its emergence in 72'. Many features that are utilized to classify films for ratings today were not thought of back then as they were still ironing out the system and what the actual ratings were. The ratings system back then was also more liberal and was guided by the indiviual censors' personal opinons and values. It was not uncommon to see mild cursing, naked men, sexually suggestive speech and action and violence in the lower ratings back in the 60's and early 70's. Someone mentioned Planet of The Apes also being rated "G" but it as well as many other live action films that were once rated "G" were re-rated years later to the PG or PG-13 classification when re-examined by the MPAA to see if the "G" rating, which was mainly a classification for children's films was applicable under the new guidelines.

reply

It is pretty amazing how much the MPAA has changed since the early 70's, I just rewatched this last night and was surprised how much you could get away with and still obtain a G rating. I think the movie was great and the minor nudity and more intense images (the slit wrist, the dying animals, birds pecking away at people) totally belonged there, I was just surprised they didn't bump it up to a GP which would still let kids go see it but let parents know it might be a little rough for really young kids instead of slapping the G on it with the caveat of the "may be too intense for younger children" in smaller print.

I think the MPAA was figuring (probably rightfully so) there's no actual human-on-human violence, no real swearing, and the more graphic images were handled in a way that was more like scientific examination than exploitive.


reply

Not that fledgling.

Having debuted on November 1, 1968, the MPAA ratings system had seen operation for three years and a major revision by the time of this film’s release.

Within a few more years, both G and X had become death kisses for mainstream films, leaving CARA essentially a two-rating system until 1984.

‘Damn’ and ‘hell’ may indeed be used as curses but neither is profane. Both are and have always been perfectly acceptable in G releases. To find otherwise, you’d have to go back to 1939 and Rhett Butler.

reply

Both of those words could be considered 'profane' because they are lightly throwing around concepts that originally had serious religious meaning having to do with somebody's eternal condemnation.

reply

[deleted]

The person said they were surprised .. that... its... rated.. G... That is about all I took from it. I happen to have been watching quite extreme stuff since I was a kid. However, I am surprised as well. Additionally, I do not advocate further censorship of movies.

'the horror... the horror...'

reply

Well, this was 1971, not 2008. The ratings had different meanings then (G didn't mean "kid's movie") and the MPAA was more lenient to the content. Of course, I think often, the ratings didn't make sense and were inconsistent.

reply

Things have definitely changed. All the original "Planet of the Apes" movies were rated G, and all contained violence and some contained brief nudity. This seemed to be the norm for the time. Zeffirelli's "Romeo and Juliet" was rated G and had nude scenes by the actors playing Romeo and Juliet. Also, both were under 18 years of age. Leonard Whiting(Romeo) was 17 and Olivia Hussey(Juliet) was just 15 years old.

reply

Oh buddy don't get me started on Olivia Hussey in her prime...

Yep, back in the day ('71) those durn hippies had too much influence on our fragile society. Alice's Restaurant had an R rating, I don't remember seeing any nakedness, but it did portray people enjoying drugs and living in a commune.

At one time, there were grown up movies and no industry ratings. They fixed that real good and removed the responsibility for parents to know what a movie was about. The end result was that ratings became marketing tools. There even used to be theaters that only showed X rated films, but the internet has made them irrelevant. And currently there is no rating system for web sites...

That being said, I can sympathize with the original poster's surprise. It's probably just a good bet that a movie about a killer virus that almost wipes out the planet would be too intense for kids in a lot of ways.

reply

I too would not have expected this from a G-rated movie. These days, film makers sometimes have to add profanity to avoid a G-rating.

Though I do question whether the nudity was really integral to the plot. I think we'd all be happier with a little less guy-butt in our lives.

reply

"I think we'd all be happier with a little less guy-butt in our lives."

I know I would!

reply

They fixed that real good and removed the responsibility for parents to know what a movie was about.


Ridiculous. You expect parents to watch every movie their kids watch? I'm glad they had a rating system to help parents make a choice when I was growing up. Why? Because my parents hated to go to movie theaters and, if I had to depend on them seeing something first before I could see it, I would have almost never gotten the chance to see any movies at all.

All of that being said, I saw this movie as a child when it first came out and I remember being surprised that it wasn't at least rated GP.

"He'd kill us if he got the chance."
--The Conversation

reply

I'm more surprised by all the hysterical comments on the thread about so-called censorship just because someone dared to post an innocent question about the G-rating. Almost like it's a mortal sin to ask a question about such things. Yikes.

To get back to the main topic of the thread, yeah, I was surprised about the rating too. I don't remember the "hippie chick" (I only see parts of this movie on the Encore channels from time to time, and never the same section twice) but I think there's more than enough reasons to qualify for a PG rating today. And before more people go crazy and say, "Oh no! Crazy Americans are running away from a naked breast and censoring everything in sight!" look at what other people have already pointed out in this thread. There are several scenes of dead people, of slashed bodies and the laser shooting the scientist in the face. Giving a movie a PG rating isn't crying out for censorship so all the hysterical people on this thread need to calm down a little. The rating would help parents who are deciding on what to rent or see in a movie theater if they have very young children. I can very easily see this movie scaring a good percentage of young children.

Does this mean I am saying that they are going to grow up into serial killers or bank robbers or rapists because they saw this one movie? Of course not. (Why do the "free speech/self-appointed anti-censorship" people always go to extremes in these types of discussions and act like everyone who discusses a G or PG rating is out for blood and trying to "burn the witch" and shut movies down or something?) It's certainly reasonable to wonder if parents should get a better guidance for whether a movie would be appropriate for a 6-year-old, for example. All the teenagers and 20-somethings would have no problem seeing this movie or renting it, whether it was G or PG. But I guess free speech only applies if you have the politically correct ideology or perspective. At least that would be the take-home message I would get from many of the posters on this thread.

reply

Well said, excalibur45!


I am MJ4ever, and I approve this post.

reply

Well said, but your first mistake is taking anything that anyone says on IMDB with more then a grain of salt. These forums and 99.999% of all the postings are completely asinine and should be used for entertainment value only.

Frank




"...For every man who has ever lived, in this universe, there shines a star."
-Arthur C. Clarke

reply

[deleted]

I was totally surprised at the G rating. A PG-13 rating today easily. I can't see how you can call this for all ages and put it in the same bin as "The Shaggy DA" or the "North Avenue Irregulars" or "The Cat From Outer Space."

reply

There really isn't anything in A.S. to shock the senses of anyone old enough to actually want to watch it. A fairly slow paced science fiction story like this simply won't be interesting to an 8 year old.

Besides, there's really only so much you can do to help clueless parents. If they see the package and glance at the description of a deadly virus outbreak wiping out a town, and still think it would be suitable for their little rug-rats, the little ratings box is not going to help them. Not to mention what their spawn see on television is probably the least disturbing, scarring thing going on in their lives with parents like that.

reply

Not to mention what their spawn see on television is probably the least disturbing, scarring thing going on in their lives with parents like that.


Television was nothing like it is today when this movie came out. The vast majority of what was on TV was very clean and family friendly.

This was a theatrical film with a family friendly G rating. Nobody here is saying it should have been rated X, so cool your jets. We're just saying that a GP (parental guidance) rating would have been more appropriate.

"He'd kill us if he got the chance."
--The Conversation

reply

You have to remember that the studios sort of had to "feel their way" through their ratings system when it began in late 1968 and applied mostly to films from 1969 on.


Whereas modernly, the "G" rating is meant to be pretty much "for kids only" (and little kids at that -- Disney prefers a "PG" to get older kids in), back in 1969, the self-censoring studios seemed to think that ALL movies should MAINLY be G -- everybody can come in -- because that's how most movies WERE.

Thus:

The Italian Job got a G even though early on, Michael Caine is rewarded with a roomful of hookers after he gets out of prison.

True Grit got a G even though one character gets his fingers chopped off and then stabbed in the chest.

The Andromeda Strain got a G even with the above elements.

--

The original ratings were:

G
M
R
X

The studios decided that "M" was confused with X (adults only) so they changed it to GP -- but, when that sounded too much like a "G" -- they moved it to "PG."

The studios realized that "G" should be for kids only.

The studios realized that "X" started to mean "porn film" so they changed it to NC-17.

And after complaints about the PG-rated violence of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (and on Spielberg's own suggestion), they created PG-13 to accommodate junior high kids.

reply