PG-13 Movies are Now More Violent Than R Rated Movies

Published 1 year ago by , Updated November 12th, 2013 at 4:15 pm,

Hulk in The Avengers PG 13 Movies are Now More Violent Than R Rated Movies

Those who follow the film industry closely or even casually are no doubt aware of the power that the MPAA ratings system holds: a power that is particularly concentrated in the line between PG-13 and R. By precluding box office earnings from the lucrative crowd of early teens and kids, an R-rated film loses out on enough box office potential that studios generally insist upon their big-budget titles being strictly kept within the PG-13 range.

A particularly immediate example of this is the current ongoing struggle to bring Deadpool to the big screen. The R-rated script, which was penned by Zombieland writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, was received extremely well by fans and critics alike after being leaked online. Star Ryan Reynolds is eager to get started on the project, as is director Tim Miller, but Twentieth Century Fox is still holding off on granting a green light, despite Reese and Wernick’s insistence that the film could be made for around $50 million to increase the potential profit margin.

Given the significance of the line between the PG-13 and R ratings, it’s strange to learn that “family-friendly” movies might be even more violent than those reserved for older audiences!

Brad Bushman, a professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University, who has previously published notable work on the subject of video game violence and youth aggression, has found in a study of 945 top-grossing movies that the amount of onscreen violence has more than doubled since 1950, and that PG-13 movies actually show more gun violence than R-rated movies.

Daniel Craig in Skyfall1 PG 13 Movies are Now More Violent Than R Rated Movies

The first of these findings isn’t all that surprising, as films have become more extreme in many different respects since the 1950s (as cultural views of what is acceptable have shifted), but the variation of trends between ratings is particularly interesting. For example, gun violence in G and PG movies has decreased since 1985 and in R-rated movies the amount of gun violence has more or less stayed the same. In PG-13 movies, however, the amount of gun violence shown has grown considerably, to the point that in recent years it has actually overtaken that of R rated movies.

While the knee-jerk response to the study might be to create links between onscreen shootings and real-life gun violence, it’s important to note that national statistics do not show any kind of correlation that would support this. In fact, there has been a steady decrease in American youth violence and gun crime since the early 1990s, with arrests for violent crimes among young people currently at a 32-year low. Nonetheless, Bushman concludes his study with the claim that viewing onscreen violence may increase real-world aggression among youths.

Youth violence trend graph PG 13 Movies are Now More Violent Than R Rated Movies

Graph showing trends in US youth violence

What the study also does is re-open the very interesting question of the way in which the MPAA rates movies, and some of the double standards that exist within the rating system. Violence, for example, is far less taboo than sex, and both sex and violence exist on a vast, confusing and branching scale between what is considered offensive and what isn’t. The MPAA’s highly secretive and, in the opinion of some filmmakers, unfairly biased system was the subject of a 2006 documentary titled This Film is Not Yet Rated, which exposed some of the absurdities and contradictions in the way movies are rated.

In the case of violence in movies, it seems that gun violence is simply easier to get away with. The most immediate reason for this is proximity; filmmakers can show as many bad guys getting riddled with bullets as they like, so long as the camera never gets close enough to see the whites of their eyes (or, more specifically, the red of their blood). By contrast, a character having their finger cut off in a horror movie close-up might not be as lethal an act, but it’s considerably more gruesome. Above all, what these results seem to show is that violence sells, even if it has to find loopholes in the ratings system to reach its audience.

Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight PG 13 Movies are Now More Violent Than R Rated Movies

‘The Dark Knight’ Certainly Pushed the Limit of PG-13…

Bushman’s study is an interesting look at how films have changed over the years and how on-screen violence is judged by the MPAA, but it’s disappointing that much of the paper consists of attempts to create a link to real world violence based on little more than anecdotal evidence (the introductory paragraph, for example, cites the Dark Knight Rises shooting by James Holmes in Aurora last year) and past laboratory studies of aggression that are lacking in external validity. If increased gun violence in movies has led to a general increase in violence and aggression amongst youths, then why isn’t it showing up on the radar?


Source: Pediatrics (via Deadline)

Follow H. Shaw-Williams on Twitter @HSW3K
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Violence isn’t the problem. Only in American can you see people getting their heads blown off with shotguns and still achieve a PG-13 rating, but if you show two people having sex with some variety of nudity, well that’s just the end of the world now isn’t it. Gotta love religious influence over public policy.

    • “Only in America* can you see people getting their heads blown off with shotguns and still achieve a PG-13 rating”

      Name one movie where you can see heads being blown off that has a PG-13 rating. Human head, blood and guts in all glory, up close and personal.

      I want to see that movie.

        • I will agree with you in terms of sexual content in movies. As in people HAVING sex should be a rated R type film. Small scenes of nudity, not so much. A boob here, and a wiener there, whatever. PG-13 is fine for that.

          In regards to action scenes, and violent scenes… depends on the action and violence. Freddy Krueger violence doesn’t belong in a PG-13 setting because its up close and personal stabbing and slashing. That’s some pretty harsh stuff. Now things getting blown up in the background, or Hulk smashing aliens, or Superman fist fighting Kryptonians, that’s PG-13 kind of stuff.

          Teenagers, if raised properly, should have the maturity level to handle that. But 2 adults having intercourse in the full nude with some pretty sweet music going in the background… keep that for the adults who understand what love making is. Rated R type stuff.

          • In that aspect, would awkward sex where they fumble with the condom and grab the boobs too hard be rated PG-13, since it’s more what teens understand, and far, far from that sweet, smooth love-making that adults engage in?

            • Grabbing boobs and things like that… those are sexual acts. Clothes on, whatever. Clothes off, then no. Sorry if I didn’t clarify well enough for you.

              There is nothing wrong with nudity in its natural form. But women and men for that matter grinding up on stripper poles sexually in all their glory… that’s rated R type nudity.

        • Von Trier’s new movie will have two versions. While the “hardcore” won’t get released in theaters in America (most likely), the “hardcrore” version will be released on DVD eventually.

          And a s far as censorship goes, don’t necessarily put the UK above the US when it comes to being less loony on movie violence. It was the UK after all who banned Clockwork Orange for many years.

          • A Clockwork Orange was never banned in the UK. Stanley Kubrick himself asked Warner Brothers to take the film out of circulation due to the British press attributing copycat violent behaviour to the film.

    • What religion says anything about Sex on Tv/Movies? You are just blindly trying to bash religion it’s really annoying

      • @Joshua

        We’ve had articles written by important figures within Christianity based in the US and the UK published in newspapers to talk about their disappointment in the amount of sex and violence on television and in movies.

        It’s been going on for a decade now at the very least.

        Since the new Archbishop of Canterbury took over last year, he’s seemed much more relaxed and hasn’t said a word about it, unlike his predecessor (who constantly rallied against the subject) and has become much more focused on trying to fix poverty here in the UK since the economic crash of 2008 destroyed millions of jobs (with another 6000 lost just last week in the ship building industry in both Portsmouth and Carlisle).

        • That’s a good example of how religious leaders should get out of politics and do the good works they are supposed to be doing. Your current Archbishop and the Pope are great examples of doing the job they are supposed to be doing.

          • Exactly.

            I can understand trying to be a moral compass but one reason I’ve never liked religion is that it divides more than it includes and seems to turn its attention to less important things like the entertainment business.

        • I’m a British Christian, if you want I could write an article on how “There’s not enough sex and violence in the media – WE NEED MORE DAMN IT!”

          • Haha, go for it.

            It’s weird how some Christians complain about it but then read the Bible, where there’s incest, sex with animals, basically more death, destruction and sexual activity than in any TV show or movie.

            Shame Dario Argento didn’t make horror movies based on Bible stories. They would’ve been epic.

  2. “Bushman concludes his study with the claim that viewing onscreen violence may increase real-world aggression among youths.”

    Keyword: may

    If the kid is dumber than a box of rocks, then yeah sure. It all boils down to parenting.

    • +1

    • Completely agree. It ALWAYS comes back to parenting.

    • I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    • I don’t agree.

      Sure, some parents are lazy but the majority of shootings seem to be those perpetrated by bullied kids (young shooters) or people with mental health problems (older shooters) with a smattering of political or religious shootings too (the Navy base murder from a few months back for example).

      • A bullied kid going haywire does boil right down to parenting. Yeah it sucks that people are cruel but if you can’t teach your kids to stand up for themselves or how to deal with a bully in general (Violent or non violent methods), then you fail as a parent.

        People with mental health problems are a different case. They are a minority and shouldn’t be included in a majority study when it comes to effects of movies and violence. A psychopath with the ability to kill will do so without the need of a movie as an alibi.

        Political or religious agendas fall into the psychopath category IMO. To take a believe to an extreme that it drives you to kill… means there is something wrong in the head.

        • I still disagree with it.

          I’ve been bullied as a kid, had my parents telling me to stand up for myself but when I did, the bullies weren’t the ones who got into trouble with the school, I was. That’s when I learned not to do anything but try to ignore them or use a pre-emptive strike by making fun of myself and goofing off to get people to like me and therefore, reduce the chances of others bullying me if I was popular (which worked).

          I’ve still wanted to attack people at times for bullying me (not just in school but in college and adult life too) but my parents never failed me whatsoever. In fact, they did such a good job raising me that I never told them about 80% of the times I was bullied because I didn’t want them worrying about it.

          Bullying happens regardless of age and retaliation against it can also occur at any age. I’ve luckily never been pushed so far over the edge that I’ve hurt others but I have hurt myself because of it (again, good parenting coming into play and my own natural instinct to not want to hurt others, regardless what they do to me).

          I assume you’d blame bad parenting for incidents where a person’s entire family can be murdered and that person gets revenge by killing the murderer?

          So again, I completely and utterly disagree with your opinion that it’s parents failing kids and letting them get bullied.

          I also suffer with clinical depression and disagree that others with mental health issues should be left out of studies because that seems to be excusing a section of society and isolating them from “normal” people and that wouldn’t be right at all.

          For a factual study, you need a cross-section from ALL types in society.

          • I really appreciate your honesty Dazz, and opening up like that is huge. Props all the way here from America. But since we are all being honest here, I would have to say that I would include you in the category of having mental health problems. Given that you said you have hurt yourself and are currently being diagnosed with CLINICAL depression.

            Im not trying to be a jerk or anything but Im stating an observation based on your shares. I am glad that you have some self control but if you were to make a violent act towards anybody, you can claim insanity.

            In regards to revenge, No. A man driven to the point of madness doesn’t boil down to bad parenting. Again, I am saying a man. Not a child.

            • No problem at all man, I like being open about it to dispel myths and help others learn more about it.

              I’d include myself in that category too since it’s the reason I wasn’t able to sign up to the military back in 2003 (I’d been diagnosed the year before and they don’t allow people with any kind of mental health issue or diagnosis in, for very good reasons). I just feel it’d be unfair to leave out people with those issues while doing studies because there’s still the stigma and myth that there’s something wrong with everybody who suffers and that everyone diagnosed with something can become dangerous.

              To me, it’s like somebody with diabetes being left out of a study for whatever reason. We all have opinions and ideas on what should and shouldn’t happen and we’re all people at the end of the day so why limit your research groups?

              As for your final point, I still disagree because the shooters involved with Columbine, Virginia Tech and a lot of other high school murders seem to have been bullied beforehand and again, as a victim of it myself, I can attest to how hard it is to tell anyone about it and how tough it is to fight back and be seen as the bad guy for standing up for yourself.

              I could go on about the insanity of sections of the US public who refuse to give up guns and then wonder why children can get hold of them easily to shoot other people but that’s going into a completely different debate.

        • In the end, all of the parenting in the world can’t save some kids. Some children/people are born violent/evil. It’s just genetics. Only a certain amount of nurture vs nature can happen in the end.

          Parents are responsible for teaching children.

          But children are still persons of free will and have proven that despite good or bad parenting, they can still act as they choose.

          Think of how much bad parenting DIDN’T lead to school shootings or mass violence on humanity? Probably a lot more than those that did.

          So the numbers for bad parenting vs. good parenting aren’t really in your favor.

          Children aren’t robots to be programmed. And if they were, are there not countless fictional stories where the robots turn against their creator? I’d say so.

          Parents aren’t the only source to influence their children.

          • I’m 46. 3 years ago when i was working for [a major home improvement company] i was doing a warranty repair on a window and the screen. from the next room, i kept hearing someone yelling profanities [f you, mutha f'er. you f'ing this and that, filth flarn filth!] then the gunshots. and i figured someone was playing whatever version of GTA was out at that time, and i was right, but the person playing it was a 4 year old boy…yes, 4! his dad was downstairs, and came up to check on me, and heard all the cussing from the next room, and told him to turn it off. and said something about ” i told you to quit playing that” but didn’t really sound like he was upset.
            i’m not a prude. i don’t care about those games one way or the other,for adults, but a 4 year old has NO business with that crap. imo, THAT was some bad parenting.

          • “Some children/people are born violent/evil.”

            This falls into the category of people that have mental health issues. As I stated, they don’t fall into the same category.

            Everything else you said to prove me wrong is only further proving my original point… Thanks for trying to call me out.

    • I’m infinitely intrigued by the line of logic followed to come to this conclusion. I’m also as curious as a virgin at the bunny ranch as to what evidence supported this claim?
      At the end of the day it’s about personal choices and responsibility, a concept foreign to many people today. Seemingly endless time and resources are thrust into proving ‘it isn’t the individual’s fault’. In conclusion, blaming movies/video games for violence in the real world is a cop out, an excuse, to summarize; bullsh*t.

    • I’m infinitely intrigued by the line of logic followed to come to this conclusion. I’m also as curious as a virgin at the bunny ranch as to what evidence supported this claim?
      At the end of the day it’s about personal choices and responsibility, a concept foreign to many people today. Seemingly endless time and resources are thrust into proving ‘it isn’t the individual’s fault’. In conclusion, blaming movies/video games for violence in the real world is a cop out, an excuse, to summarize; bullskip.

      • “At the end of the day it’s about personal choices and responsibility, a concept foreign to many people today.”

        + a million.

        But psychologically, what age do we start holding children accountable for their actions? Every kid matures differently, correct. But that is why our court system is diverse and there isn’t ONE judge, there are many.

        • That’s something we’re still trying to figure out in the UK too.

          Two 10 year olds killed a 2 year old in 1992 by taking him away when his mother’s back was turned for a minute, torturing him then leaving him on train tracks to be run over and killed then were subsequently jailed in youth institutions and released and given new identities to protect them from vigilantes when they turned 18 (although one of them was put back in there after being caught downloading images and videos of child abuse).

          The media at the time blamed the movie Child’s Play for influencing them due to one of them stealing a copy of it from his parents’ bedroom and watching it and brought about the whole “video nasty” debate rolling back around again.

          In their case, I blame the killers themselves for being psychopathic murderers, I don’t think a movie or bad parenting influenced them in the slightest.

          • “In their case, I blame the killers themselves for being psychopathic murderers, I don’t think a movie or bad parenting influenced them in the slightest.”

            I agree also. They fall into the minority of people with mental health problems. They aren’t your every day average kid. They need to be institutionalized for a long time, maybe released with life parole.

  3. How do we get rid of the MPAA or at least the bible thumpers controlling it.

    • @wjrxyz – You’re aware the MPAA isn’t run by “bible thumpers” right? You’re also aware that the MPAA doesn’t sanction which movies can and can’t be made? Getting rid of the MPAA-ratings system wouldn’t be beneficial to anyone – however, it needs to be greatly modified.


  4. I remember here in the UK Friends used to air just before Spaced. In the Art episode Simon Pegg is hallucinating about blowing holes in zombies heads with a shotgun after an evening of playing Resident Evil 2, always made me laugh thinking of how many people had not turned over and witnessed this.

    As far as ratings go all of my friends and I used to get together at the weekend (usually at the least responsible parents house) and watch Driller Killer/Aliens/Robocop etc and not one of us turned out to be violent psychopaths. I think if your heads messed up you can be influenced by anything?

    In addition to this I’m sure there are parents out there who wouldn’t let their kids watch R-Rated movies will no doubt rush out and buy them GTA?

    • yeah its a bit hypocritical that parents let their kids play M games but keeping them from R rated movies which in many cases have the same questionable content.

    • Batman Returns was rated 12 and I went to the cinema with a friend and his dad as 8 year olds demanding to see it while the woman working there refused due to our ages and suggested Disney’s Robin Hood instead.

      We broke her down eventually and saw Batman Returns but yeah, I’d seen Robocop and Beetlejuice amongst others by then and didn’t mind.

      My mum complained when the school showed Clash Of The Titans as part of our lessons about Greek mythology when we were 8-9 years old and hates me watching horror movies (complained when she came over and noticed the Grave Encounters 2 DVD and said I shouldn’t be watching “things like that”).

      • I know right? You should be watching Paranormal Activity like a normal person!

      • We were made to watch Alive in P.E when I was 14? still gives me the creeps when I think about it, I mean where was the teacher going to take us on the next school trip?

        I suffer from a fairly acute case of insomnia and my Mum still blames it on horror films. I went for Sunday dinner recently and my sister and I were discussing Kill List and she got up, left the table and refused to come back until we changed the subject! It doesn’t matter that we are 35 and 31 respectively You will always be a child in your parents eyes.

        • Hey, my first taste of Blade was during a class when there was nothing to teach us (we’d caught up on studies) so got to choose from videos brought in by other students.

          One History class, I sat bored while I Know What You Did Last Summer was played on the classroom’s TV.

          My favourite was when my tutor (and also my Science teacher in the second year) used to put Ferris Bueller on for us to watch now and then.

          Bueller was the only non-18 rated movie we saw during school.

          • Oh and there was also the 1969 version of Romeo And Juliet that we saw while studying Shakespeare and that brief shot of boob that got some in the class excited.

            • You went to a much cooler sounding school than mine. The only other film I ever watched their was Batman Forever in a science lesson at the end of term. I sat at the back of the classroom and belittled the film in a thinly veiled attempt to try and impress a rather attractive teaching assistant who was sitting next to me. Needless to say she was probably too caught up in Kilmer’s awe inspiring portrayal of Batman to notice me ha!

              • lol

                Yeah, I think my school was great. Our principal looked like Hulk Hogan so we got him to dress up when we did a wrestling show there during a fundraising day and my teachers let me run riot with my wild imagination, like naming a serious essay after TV chef Antony Worrall-Thompson or having a Mortal Kombat inspired short play about Mad Cow Disease, where one of the characters had to be beaten to death to stop it spreading.

                I know what you mean though, I used to try and impress my Spanish teacher by writing things like “The gnome wears green pants on Tuesdays and spends his weekends coaxing a bull into a cabbage patch” in Spanish as part of my coursework to make her laugh.

                The only teacher that didn’t let me get away with it was my Religious Studies teacher. She ripped out a page I wrote on the Christian ideas on contraception where I listed methods such as “big brothers, garden hose and Bill Cosby” as being good methods of preventing pregnancy.

  5. The Aurora shootings are worth mentioning but they don’t prove anything. The shooter was a wackjob. Movies didn’t make him do it, there were obviously other factors at play.

    I’m sure the guy acknowledges that in his study.

    That being said movie ratings are becoming increasingly inconsistent hard to trust. The line between PG-13 and R is a perfect example of that. TDK definitely pushed PG-13 boundaries. It didn’t have any gore or nudity but if The Conjuring got an R just for “being too scary,” in the words of a previous SR article, then maybe TDK should have too.

    I don’t have an agenda or anything against TDK. Its one of my favorite films. I just think the article brings up some good points about how silly the ratings system can be.

    • “The Aurora shootings are worth mentioning but they don’t prove anything. The shooter was a wackjob. Movies didn’t make him do it, there were obviously other factors at play.

      I’m sure the guy acknowledges that in his study.”

      Sadly not. He throws it out right at the beginning and immediately goes on to talk about how movies create “scripts for solving social problems.”

      The things that some ostensibly family-friendly movies can get away with is kind of surprising. I remember going to see The Woman in Black, which was rated 12 in the UK, and a couple had brought a group of kids in who were all quite young. About halfway through the film a little girl drinks lye and then pukes blood all over Harry Potter before dying in horrible pain. At that point one of the kids ran out crying.

      I would have felt sorry for them, except they’d been talking very loudly through the rest of the movie. It was a bit of a blessing in disguise.

      • Haha, I know what you mean.

        I looked over at all the 6 year old during The Wolverine when Hugh drops the F bomb to see how the parents were reacting. Wasn’t that movie rated 12 too? Or was it 15?

        I always remembered wondering why some things were rated 18 if 15 rated movies/videos could also feature strong language, nudity, sexual scenes and violence. Didn’t make sense to me.

        The Woman In Black was rated 12 and I think the final Harry Potter movies were the same, despite the cartoons being hung during the Three Brothers sequence (plus I had an annoying 4 year old in front of me constantly asking his mother where Harry Potter was during scenes he wasn’t involved in then declaring “There’s Harry Potter!” in every scene he WAS featured in…god, I hate kids).

        That’s why we have 12A though. Parents complaining that they wanted to take kids to see Spider-Man but the 12 rating stopped them from doing so.

      • So he argued that movies are a template for wackjobs to follow? Ha! That’s preposterous.

        I wrote a research paper my freshman year at college about whether violent video games cause real world violence. I concluded that there isn’t convincing evidence to prove a causal relationship between the two. Instead of pointing fingers I closed the paper advocating that an increased emphasis be placed on videogame ratings so that kids play the games set aside for their age group instead of GTA5.

        Perhaps the same thing could be done with movie ratings.

        I always wonder about parents taking their young children to intense films. I’ve seen plenty of children at films like TDK, Insidious, Django.. Well, technically I only saw an infant at Django but still… Instead take them to something more fitting for their age group.

  6. The problem with the ratings system is that in can take 1 scene of frontal nudity to get an R rating but you could have buckets of thong clad women and remain PG-13. What moves a movie from one category to another is not necessarily based on percentage of content “x” to the length of the movie.
    As another example of how it can be manipulated severe bloodshed shot in black and white is more acceptable than a little bloodshed shot in color.

  7. I cannot stand this preaching about violence in movies, it’s the same reason you don’t see good cartoons anymore. And by good cartoons, I mean the classic cartoons full of slapstick and hilariously bizarre humor. Shows like “Tom & Jerry”, “Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies”, “Animaniacs”, “Freakazoid!”, etc.

    This PG pure era has gotten under my skin. As mediocre as the final product of “Son of The Mask” turned out to be, it at least TRIED to bring back that classic cartoon humor and it did in some parts.

    • …It’s a news story. Do you also think it’s “copying” when we report casting news that has been reported on other sites?

      • Not at all, but the writing here has plummeted over the last year.

        Just sayin’… or rather, “ranting”

        • Plummeted how?

          A lot of the time, it seems the staff here want to make sure they have all the facts before posting an article and other times, it could depend on when they see something worth writing about and how they write it up for us to digest.

          A true copy and paste job would be to post what was said then say “come to your own conclusions” instead of Hannah putting her own thoughts into the piece.

        • @John

          How many different national networks are there that have their own news broadcast? ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and much more in my neighborhood. They all report the same thing.

          When there is a shooting down the road, there are 5 or 6 different news vans there covering the story, each from a different network.

          Locally, I prefer FOX news. Not nationally though… there IS a difference.

          For movie and entertainment news, I tune into ScreenRant.

          • For relaxing times… make it Screen Rant time.

            • Do we have to wear official Screen Rant merch too? I could totally do that.

            • Lost in Translation? :D

            • That better be on the Front of Site soon haha.

    • If it’s topical and relative then similar stories will show up on similarly themed websites.

  8. the “blood” clolour has alot to do with ratings too. Red is bad blue green or whatever is acceptable even though its still “blood” like spock bleeding in the og star trek is ok but not kirk…

  9. When I think about TDK mentioned on here about it’s rating,etc. I think about that theater shooting during TDKR with that guy wanting to be a real-life Joker in his own mind. Not just the theater but rigged his apartment didn’t he? Wasn’t the first time someone took their films too far as two kids pulled their own real-life Scream murder after the first film came out. Of-course Scream is a R-rated film but still no difference a R rated film or PG-13 film these days.

    • I really don’t take much stock in those claims though unless James Holmes actually mentioned wanting to be The Joker.

      It reminds me of the trials Judas Priest took part in back in the 80s where Rob Halford said you could find anything in backwards played songs, then proceeded to prove his point by making them listen out for a nonsensical lyric he found in one of his own songs played backwards and the case was dismissed.

      It’s just a case of one person being offended and others jump on the bandwagon without actually looking into it first and this study seems to be along the lines of “this is why movies are turning people into violent killers” rather than the logical route of “proof movies DON’T warp people’s minds”.

      • I remember he wanted to be his own Joker. Not the Joker with Green hair rip off. It was why his hair was a different color. People are always gonna think movies turn people into killers & there will always be the logical route as you say. Kinda how the door swings both ways sorta speak medathor.

    • the movie could have been rated r or g the guy is a wack job wouldn’t have made any difference he still would be able to watch it and if you look at that have a 12 years old watch let’s jason or freddy, and goes on a killing spree becaus of the movie no the guy who claim wanted to be the joker and rigged is appt is in age to watch r movie so those who claim it’s should be rated r are nonsense

      • Sometimes when comes to a CBM like TDK, it’s the tone that some whack job gets a kick outta taken movies too far because he’s not all up there. No-one that I recall went on a killing spree because they were thrilled over Nicolson’s Performance as the Joker or that film’s tone being taken so serious realistic,etc. That guy wanted as I understood it wanted to make his own two sequences inspired by a PG-13 film.

  10. There’s the way WB let the Batman franchise go down hill in the first place which most people mostly blame Schumacher for the “Family Friendly” direction. All Schumacher is guilty of is nimples,codpieces, bad scripts for his films. WB & McDonalds were stupid to sell Batman Returns toys based off a PG-13 film in the first place so of-course dumb parents take their kids to see that film.

  11. I’d have to say the Hunger Games really pushed its PG-13 rating. And it’s only gonna get worse with catching fire and mockingjay. I enjoyed the books, and read them in middle school, and didn’t have a problem with the violence. When I watched it in theaters and actually saw children killing children, it was pretty intense. I don’t think thirteen year old me would have been up for that.

    • Well, that’s why Battle Royale was rated 18 over here when it released in 1999. Japanese schoolchildren killing each other as part of a yearly, national game with bows and arrows and other weapons was pretty brutal to watch.

      • I think they’re just doing it PG-13 because the books were advertised for young adults (at least in America) and they don’t want to lose that “young audience” everyone seems to want by giving it an R-rating. In the third one *spoiler ahead* a bomb gets dropped on a group of children. Don’t know how they’ll swing that.

        • Yeah, the original Battle Royale book and movie that the Hunger Games writer blatantly ripped off (despite her arguments to the contrary) weren’t aimed at young adults so that’s why the book and the two movies (original based on the book plus a sequel to the first movie) got to slip by unrated with close up images of bombs exploding in buildings full of children and arrows going into children’s bodies and throats being cut.

          • Yeah I’ve heard that The Hunger Games is basically Battle Royale with a bad love triangle. But I’ll still be “catching” catching fire.

  12. All I have to say PG-13 movies now seem more violent than what they were in the 90′s & 80′s. No doubt. That includes CBM.

    • Yep.

      It was mentioned before now that I think about it, either a newspaper article or a TV show mentioned earlier this year that we’ve become desensitized towards violence now due to the images on the news.

      I’d say that 9/11 changed things because that was the day we first saw live deaths and suicides en masse (others happened in prior decades but that was the big one) and since then, we’ve seen all kinds of atrocities and the 24 hour rolling news channels have helped it to air with warnings about distressing scenes.

      I mean, this Sunday, the last episode of Karl Pilkington’s Moaning Of Life will show a dead body during a ceremony and the TV planner warns you about it in the episode description. That part of the episode would never have aired on TV a decade ago.

      I also saw the remake of I Spit On Your Grave in the DVD section of a major retailer a few days ago, right next to the Disney Blu Rays.

      We’re becoming far more relaxed about things that would’ve been seen as “adults only”.

      • Agreed. As people mentioned before above. Parents is another problem themselves regarding what their kids watch, especially what they see in the theaters. Need to do their homework before seeing a particular movie if any doubts. I read how parents walked their kids outta all 3 Nolan’s Batman films. Heck I seen under age kids in R-rated films.

  13. It’s called drugs, anti psychotics, misdiagnosis, and the Dr. Spock child rearing. I don’t necessarily blame movies. Yes there is a problem with violence and sexual content. But… *shrugs*

  14. another example was that both smokey and the bandit and scanners and alien 2 were all rated G which was totally inappropriate especially the nude scene in smokey. now we have R-12 rating which is perfect for keeping little kids out of R films but still need PG-18 rating for little kids sneaking over to those movies like castaway which was so incredibly violent and racist. rape scene not excluded.

    • You mean Deliverance or some other movie?

      I can’t imagine a secret version of the Tom Hanks classic Cast Away with racism, rape scenes and violence. Then again, he was alone on an island for several years with only Wilson for company…

  15. Yeah why is it that you can have all the violence you want and still get a PG-13, but show a pair of bare breasts instant R?

    • Yep, that’s weird.

      I guess today’s movies blend so much into each other regardless of rating that it doesn’t feel the same as yesteryear when we’d have an 18 rated movie like Robocop or a 15 rated movie like Die Hard and be able to tell the subtle differences and understand why one movie got one rating and another was given a different one.

      Although I tend to find that US ratings are a lot harsher. R ratings there should generally be the same as 18 ratings here but we’ve had R rated movies given the 15 certificate (American Pie comes to mind) as a movie that people from the age of 15 and upwards can view without a parent or guardian present.

  16. Don’t give it much thought but it’s probably right because people in this country will give anything to do with sex an r but they’re very easy on violence

  17. Um…no.

  18. It’s all about blood and guts. Somebody can get riddled with hundreds of bullets or stabbed repeatedly as long as there’s no blood. The MPAA has no idea what they are doing. None of their standards are consistent and they make up rules on the fly.

  19. Steven Bonebrake

    Pg-13 more violent than R? Ask the raid redemption

  20. Toby Vetters

    I find it hard as hell to enjoy a pg13 horror movie on opening night with all the stupid teenagers/kids in the audience that scream bloody murder everytime a light goes off in the movie. Which sucks cuz I love horror movies opening weekend. But I honestly have quit going to pg13 movies opening weekend

  21. Akash Shetye

    Depends on what you define as violent. I’ve heard that the MPAA defines violence as blood, well if so, then this isn’t shocking, blood does not have to be there for violence to exist.

  22. The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Live Free or Die Hard, The Avengers Assemble, The Hunger Games, Gravity more violent than Die Hard 1-3, Beverly Hills Cop 1 and 2, Terminator 1 and 2, Rambo IV and The Expendables? No way.

  23. I’d agree with that, yes. R ratings generally are reserved for language and nudity (you know, the things that really hurt people), but PG-13 is nothing but explosions and violence.

  24. Ross Mckenzie

    Depends on what your watching

  25. More violent? Sure. More sanitized? Sure. Does it matter? No…

  26. Sean McNally

    Not surprising at all. Just less gore.

  27. Josh Turner
  28. Victor Creed

    depends on the type of violence. some pg-13 movies might have a higher body count, but without blood and gore, it’s just not the same.