Movie Ratings

[Debra Cebulski]

Hello all,

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Lita wrote:

>::shrug:: But Reloaded is only the most recent example I can
>think of--probably the most horrifying one I've seen was the
>parents with two toddlers at The Cell.
I can top that - I saw a mother dragging two toddlers to see South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.  The theater knew what they were getting into with this film - you had to show ID twice: once at the box office and again as you entered the theater.  I tried to warn the wayward mother about the movie's content, but she wouldn't listen.  The first song is relatively tame.  At least she had the sense to leave during the second song, which is, erm, rather extreme in its profanity (funny, though!).  A father and six-year-old stayed for the whole thing, and he left the theater singing "Blame Canada".  

>But, back to HP--I don't think that getting a PG-13 rating
>in US would hurt the franchise that much. I don't really
>think many parents pay much attention to the ratings.
I don't think it would hurt the franchise at all.  The percentage of adult readers of HP is large and going up all the time.  PS/SS came out in 1997 in the UK and 1998 in the US.  A ten-year-old child who picked up book 1 at first publication would be 15 or 16 now - the age Harry is in OOP.  Harry's child audience is aging with him.  Instead of being forever ten (think Bart Simpson), Rowling is allowing Harry to grow up.  

I think the only thing the WB could do to harm the franchise would be to dumb down the movies in a vain attempt to keep them "child-friendly".  This would be an insult to the characters, the readers of the books, the actors, and the author.  

Rowling has said from the very beginning that this series of books was not written specifically for children, and that Harry would be aging a year in each book.  If the WB didn't listen to her, that's on them.  

JMHO,

Best regards,

Deb.