Originally Posted by
mgcsinc
According to the MPAA, here's what PG-13 means: "Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13."
PG-13 — Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13. A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.
That said, the film is then edited further for airline use.
Originally Posted by
waxearwings
Update from Fallows: Short version--UA has not responded to his inquiries.
On Tuesday morning I wrote to United Airlines' media relations office about the incredible but apparently true story of a pilot who made an unscheduled landing at Chicago's O'Hare airport, on a flight from Denver to Baltimore, so that police could come aboard and take away parents who had complained about what they considered a risque and violent movie being shown on the overhead screens in front of their two small sons.
In my note I identified myself as a reporter; sent them the item I had done; gave them the real names of the complainants and the reported real name of the pilot; gave my phone and email contact info; and said I would give equal prominence to whatever they said in reply.
It is now the wee hours of Thursday morning, and ... so far nothing. I'll let you know if I ever hear back. Maybe United's CEO Jeff Smisek will address it in one of the promotional videos by him that all passengers get to see before take-off.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...irline/274649/
My opinion of the writer continues to deteriorate.
He publishes what is clearly incomplete information and only contacts the airline afterward. He then blasts the airline again because, within a mere 48-hours, they have not provided him with complete information on what occurred.
He sounds like the back end of a donkey to me for his arrogant behavior in regards to this incident.
Originally Posted by
Weez_1000
^
I've seen several posts in this thread that suggests the parents should bring an ipad or should just cover their eyes etc etc. I've flown thousand of segments over the years and watched hundreds of movies on flights and never once have I seen an extremely violent or sexually explicit scene on a plane. I've seen a few that were close to the line but they were always on the private AVOD screens and I could change the channel at any time.
I have no idea what the airlines side of the story is but showing Alex Cross on the drop down screens with poor or no censorship on a plane is using extremely poor judgement on the airlines side. UA may have had a real and legitimate reason for removing the passengers but to suggest the parents should have a contingency plan in a case like this is absurd.
I agree with you on the first paragraph. As to the second, it certainly was edited. What no one has discussed is how extensive that editing was.
Which I guess is not surprising because with as big of a turd of a film this apparently is, no one other than the kids were apparently watching it.
Originally Posted by
mgcsinc
This. Europeans may be less "prudish" about sex, but they worry more about kids seeing violence.
I can only imagine the outrage we would have seen on this thread if a single breast had been bared on the screen.