MovieChat Forums > Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Discussion > Would it be PG-13 today?

Would it be PG-13 today?

posted a year ago by enriquesingh (1787)
15 replies | jump to latest

I know the story about Temple Of Doom being among movies responsible for PG-13's creation.

Wondering if Raiders would be rated PG-13 if that rating had existed a couple of years prior?

It's obviously not as violent and graphic as Temple, but I recall the scene where the bald man gets killed by the plane's propeller, even though you don't see him getting injured you do see blood being splattered everywhere. Also the melting effect at the end product of the Ark is kinda scary-ish (Mama from 2013 had something similar as its climax and that was PG-13), there's also some sexual talk... not explicit but with some pedophilic undertones between Indy and Marion during the bar scene.

I think yes.

[–] liscarkat (17183) a year ago

Pedophilic? That's nuts.

[–] enriquesingh (1787) a year ago

Marion is very upset and has hold a +10 year grudge against Indy because he was having sex with her when she was just 16 and he was 27... he "apologizes" by saying something like I did not meant to hurt her... and then everything is quickly forgotten.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7524) a year ago

Pedophelia is when a man or woman wants to have sex with a kid who hasn't hit puberty yet. So it's not pedophelia. I do agree that stating he had sex with her at 15 years of age would up the rating.

[–] spurtle467 (1520) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] DarthAckbar (1337) a year ago

actually when Lucas was writing, he imagined it as 14 and 24

[–] EleazarHisSon (672) a year ago

I think so. It seems that only the mildest kid movies are rated PG today. It kind of makes you wonder what is even the point of the G rating.

The Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are rated PG-13, and Raiders is darker than they are, IMHO.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7524) a year ago

I agree. It feels like a majority of animated movies are PG these days.

[–] EleazarHisSon (672) a year ago

I hadn't reflected on it until now, but I just found out that G-rated movies basically don't exist anymore. What do you know.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=eRso2eH7rco

So it seems there has been an inflation in the MPAA rating system, where PG is now the old G and PG-13 is the old PG.

[–] spurtle467 (1520) a year ago

"It's obviously not as violent and graphic as Temple"

I disagree, I think it's as violent if not more so. People get shot in the head, faces melt and blow up, a man is shown impaled by spikes, someone gets chopped up by plane propellors off camera. Why is Temple worse? Because a guy has his heart removed? He's shown to be completely fine after that. Thematically I guess it might be considered worse but not in terms of moments of violence.

Anyway it probably would be a PG-13 by today's standards. There's no sex, nudity, or much profanity that I recall, but there's enough violence in there.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7524) a year ago

I agree. It doesn't help Temple had a much lighter tone compared to Raiders.

[–] ccr1633 (1485) a year ago

It would be mainly because of the exploding heads and melting faces at the end. The pugilistic Nazi boxer getting splattered by the airplane propellor would also be a factor.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16715) a year ago

It'd be a had PG-13 probably. Even in '81 the movie was almost rated R for Belloq's head exploding.

[–] Luffy (852) a year ago

The GiF of Belloq's head exploding should be rated R.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16715) a year ago

I think because it was obscured (kind of) by fire, it got a PG by the skin of its teeth.

[–] TheArgentinian (6677) 10 months ago

No way. I was surprised by the violence. If you pay attention to modern PG-13 movies, when people get shot, they cut away. This one had people get shot in the head.