MovieChat Forums > The Forest (2016) Discussion > You cant make a PG-13 horror movie.

You cant make a PG-13 horror movie.

posted 9 years ago by roopaui
14 replies | jump to latest

You cant make a PG-13 horror movie. it just doesn't work. horror is not PG-13. Life for that matter, is not PG-13. PG is for Disney. Realistic, in any category, is at a minimum R rated. Please quit ruining good movies by trying to keep everything PG.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xsplizzle 9 years ago

The ring was a 16 in England, i am surprised it was only a pg-13 in America, I am guessing they cut some things for that

but anyway the ring wasn't a very good film, if you liked it so much maybe YOU are the retard

[–] Cujoseph 9 years ago

The ring is an amazing movie and you are the retard. Ya dig?

[–] Hancockenstein 9 years ago

unless you're only referring to graphic violence as horror, you're silly.

Plot hole - Aspect of a film that is misunderstood or missed while using your smart phone.

[–] dglover26 9 years ago

Dude finally! Finally someone understands what Ive been saying for years. Horror movies that are PG-13 I usually don't even bother watching. A good horror film deserves a rated R rating. But then again they're trying to target the teenagers

[–] mikelluciano18 9 years ago

I agree I've been saying the same thing for years

[–] town_night 9 years ago

1408 was one of Stephen Kings best movies and that was pg-13

[–] MaximumMadness 9 years ago

Robert Wise's The Haunting... Rated G.
1982's Poltergeist... PG (but probably wouldn't be more than a PG-13 nowadays)
The Ring... PG-13 (And the original which is way better would probably be rated the same, if not PG because there's exceedingly little violence/profanity)
The Others... PG-13
The Sixth Sense... PG-13

Just the first five examples to pop into my head within five seconds. So please... tell me exactly why PG-13 horror can't work? You're confusing gore with horror. Big difference.

How about we, as a fanbase, stop obsessing over ratings? Let's focus on the real issue, which is sub-par filmmakers who don't respect the genre and clueless studios who tamper with the films and only greenlight stupid, written-by-committee garbage for teens 99% of the time. I'll take a PG-13 horror flick by a quality filmmaker over an R-rated dud from a studio hack any day of the week, thank you very much...

This obsession and tunnel-vision with the R-rating only serves to undermine horror as a whole and creates a frankly troubling point-of-view that portrays horror fans as nothing more than shallow gore-hounds.

And FURTHERMORE, this is my signature! SERIOUSLY! Did you think I was still talking about my point?

[–] Strazdamonas 9 years ago

Ech, i dont think Poltergeist is a good example. Back then movies that would get R rating now were getting PG rating. The rating board got filled with people that dont even know what PG-13 should be.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] lockon_stratos 9 years ago

Wrong. Yes you can make horror movies without over use of sex,violence and swearing. That's more of the cheap way out. A good scare don't need excess crap.

[–] JerichosLion 9 years ago

The only PG-13 horror movie I really liked was Insidious. Poltergeist sucked. I just started The Forest but I don't have high expectations.

[–] haunt_freak 9 years ago

The Ring and The Others are good.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

[–] buffalobenji 8 years ago

The rating is never the problem, the content is. Some horror films only have a higher rating due to language or a bit of sex. You take the graphic sex seen out of Don't Look Now you would still have a good film. Halloween and Psycho maybe could have been rated lower and would still be good.