Random stuff--August 25

It's been 20 years since the PG-13 rating was created in 1984. Has the new rating been good or bad for the movie industry? On the good side, the gap between PG and R was far too broad to be really workable. Certain movies (like Indiana Jones and Gremlins, mentioned in the article, not to mention Jaws--another Spielberg movie) just didn't fit in either the PG or R category. The more specialized movie ratings become, the more specifically you can identify (and judge) a particular movie, inasmuch as movie ratings can be objectively quantified anyway. The current categories are still far too broad, but the MPAA showed some boldness in abruptly creating a new category, and it would be nice if they'd keep going in that direction (most other countries have a wider variety of designations)

On the bad side, though--since everyone knows PG-13 movies make more money than either PG or R movies, filmmakers go to great lengths to get them, making the category even more broad. It's well known that studios will edit originally R movies down to just a hair-breadth on the PG-13 side (or simply put pressure on the MPAA to lower their standards) just to get the rating--leading to 'hard PG-13' movies, where had there not been a financial incentive, they would have been content with the 'R' cut. On the other side, some studios feel PG movies are too 'wimpy' for teenagers (mentioned in the article) and often add more objectionable material than the material originally called for to bump up the rating. (A movie five years ago notoriously dubbed in an 'F-word' into the soundtrack even though it was obvious that wasn't what the actress was actually saying during filming, primarily to make sure it got the PG-13 instead of PG...)

*****

The tangible benefits of getting married and then having kids, instead of the other way around, is discussed here. There shouldn't be any surprise that being chaste before marriage and faithful after marriage has definite secular benefits... I'm not sure the Bush administration's marriage promotion initiative will have much effect--I think it's more important to stay married, not just get married--but we'll see.

*****

Speaking of staying together, here's a (unintentionally) humorous article about famous couples who (*gasp*) haven't split up yet. Note that two of the couple have only been 'together' since 2003--and none of the listed ones are from before 1999. Such is the state of Hollywood romances that couples that have been together for a little over a year are now put on a pedestal as relationships that have "endured against the odds". Hey, as of today, Jennifer Lopez is still married--how come she didn't make the list?