'Harry Potter' has been rated PG by the MPAA

[Horror whore]

The MPAA gave Harry Potter a PG today here in the U.S....I'm not to thrilled about it, because the book contains some un-PG-ness violence...

No way Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets or Harry Potter and The Goblet Of Fire get PG's...They have way too much violence and death in them...

If you read the book will you be mad if the cut some violence out??

[ak]

I think the main thing of importance here, from the actual studio point of view, is that these films are marketed toward children, just as the books were, and are hugely popular with the younger age groups. It's great that Chris Columbus has given it a sort of dark look, but anything other than a PG would be suicide for such a film that kids so dearly love.

[Witchproject]

I wont be angry that this film is rated PG. What -Im- angry about is that they made a film out of this cheezy Fantasy novel rip-off. Its an embarrassment to the genre, just as Dungeons and Dragons was.

[Nate6]

It was directed by Chris "Home Alone-Bicentennial Man- Mrs. Doubtfire" Columbus, the KING of making movies un-necessarily sappy.

Don't forget however, the Harry Potter series was conceived and marketed for kids; a PG rating is a smart thing, unfortunately it probably will compromise any hoped-for dramatic intensity.

[RICHARD GALAMBOS]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nate6:
It was directed by Chris "Home Alone-Bicentennial Man- Mrs. Doubtfire" Columbus, the KING of making movies un-necessarily sappy.

Don't forget however, the Harry Potter series was conceived and marketed for kids; a PG rating is a smart thing, unfortunately it probably will compromise any hoped-for dramatic intensity. </font>IS IT RATEDPG FOR FRIGTENING VIOLENCE/FANTASY ACTION AND SOME THEMATIC MATERIAL/ELEMENTS.

[FlickJunkie]

I don't really care if it's rated PG. The books are pretty much PG anyway. There really isn't any PG-13 violence in the book, what are you talking about.

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by FlickJunkie:
I don't really care if it's rated PG. The books are pretty much PG anyway. There really isn't any PG-13 violence in the book, what are you talking about.</font>

Not in book 1...But in book 2, 3, &4 we got people being petrified, killed, having their legs ripped open, getting thier hands chopped off, and just plain dropping dead...and J.K. Rowling said the next three novels are going to be worse than all four combined...

[dh1989]

I think they should have made "Harry Potter" PG-13. It is aimed at mostly 8-15 year olds. And adults too. Movies like "Jurassic Park 3" and "The Fast And The Furious" both were PG-13 aimed at those age-groups and were both mega blockbusters.

[Tuukka]

So you are saying that they should have made the movie more violent than the book to receive a PG-13 rating?

[Tuukka]

...For example Jurassic Park had gore in it. Remember the scene where the leading woman founds the hand of Samuel Jackson? Does the first Harry Potter book has stuff like that?

[Scorchlord]

Not as such, no. I think PG is fine for the first one.

I don't remember hands getting ripped off or legs ripped open in the other books, though.

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
I don't remember hands getting ripped off or legs ripped open in the other books, though.</font>

It's in the ending of book 4.......

[FlickJunkie]

I guess, all I will say now is that, okay, so "The Sorcerer's Stone" is rated PG, that's fine because in that book there was no real "violence" that would garner it any rating higher than a PG. But the others might be that. We'll just have to see.

[James Logan]

Hey, it's not about violence, it's about the effect it can have on kids. I mean, if they read the book, it's not gonna be too different in the movie. And besides, it can be HOW they show the violence. I mean, if it's not showed straight in the face of the audience...
And, of course, with Chris Colombus's way of makin' movies...