Dead bodies are left where they lie, and gory deaths occur unexpectedly outside of the brutal competition. But of most consquence is the change of protagonist from stoic hero Katniss to cunning and unreadable Coriolanus.
In this latest novel, an orphaned Snow is still technically part of the upper-classes, but is himself struggling to survive. Rather than participate in the fighting, he's conscripted to mentor a tribute from District 12, for whom he inevitably develops romantic feelings.
But if readers think they know how things will go from there, they'd be mistaken. Snow is as unpredictable as the book's plot, and his deeply complicated sense of morality makes the themes harder to unravel. As a result, the story feels as if it's intended for a more mature audience who will appreciate its challenging aspects, and won't mind its relative lack of spectacle. It's been 13 years since The Hunger Games hit bookshelves, and many of the YA fans who fueled the books' and movies' popularity are now in their late 20s, 30s, or 40s.
While the franchise has enjoyed some enduring cultural relevance, there's no reason to assume that this generation's year olds will be the demographic most eager to line up for tickets to a prequel about an elderly villain, even if he is played by a handsome young star on the rise. If the studio and the artists behind the movie want to create something that does the book justice, a focus on adult audiences and an R rating would give them the freedom to do so.
Simply put, a PG rating means a year-old can go to the theater with friends to watch "The Hunger Games" and see gruesome, bloody battles between teenagers noting the violence is likely something they've already seen in video games and other films with or without a parent. But this same kid isn't able to sit in a theater with those same friends and watch "Bully" because of a few expletives. Ratings do influence the potential audience a film will get, and can therefore affect their success or failure, monetarily speaking.
But, money shouldn't always be Tinsel Town's only concern or the basis of a film's success or failure.
The broad reach a powerful film like "Bully" could have may be potentially thwarted by the restrictive rating. Before there's an outcry about how parents need to parent and simply go with their kids to watch this particular 'R' rated film, I agree they should, but for different reasons than the four f-bombs as the MPAA's narrow guidelines dictate.
It would be better if parents watched "Bully" so they could discuss with their children this serious and dangerous behavior afflicting our youth — not just to cover their ears when f! If the ratings issue doesn't lose steam in the wake of the blockbuster box office "Hunger" is expected to draw, then "Bully" might have a chance to cast a wider net and make an impact of a different sort: to raise public consciousness about the real hostility kids are inflicting on other kids — bullying.
Do you think "The Hunger Games" has an adequate rating taking into consideration the degree of violence and age of the perpetrators? And should the R rating for "Bully" be softened so that a younger audience can watch without needing a parent sitting next to them covering their ears? I agree with TheWrap's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and provide my consent to receive marketing communications from them.
BIO Suzette Valle. A romantic triangle is a small diversion from the main plotline, which admittedly holds your attention entirely during the over two-hour runtime. Teens who have read the books will undoubtedly be interested in viewing this solidly produced movie that contains only a few mild profanities and a kiss between young characters.
Although the script may also spur important discussions about freedom, the consequences of war and, ironically, our insatiable appetite for viewing violence in media, parents should still be cautious. Violence: The premise of this film revolves around a competition where two-dozen adolescents are forced to fight to the death until only one survives. They are provided with a variety of weapons except guns to accomplish this task. Scenes show teens maiming and killing each other, yet explicit details of blades and arrows puncturing bodies are shown on only a few occasions.
Other combat scenes feature a rapidly moving camera or editing that cuts away to obscure violent details. Blood effects are frequent, including close-ups of gory wounds. Some teens band together and plan their offense. The coordinators of the event are dishonest and manipulate the rules of the game and emotions of the contestants. Animals are hunted and killed. Sexual Content: A teen boy and girl have an obvious attraction to each other.
Another teen boy and girl become fond of each other and eventually share a kiss. Other characters are seen drinking socially. By this measure, the yearly Hunger Games and the totalitarian state of Panem could justify an R based on certain interpretations. Yet, it's the second note on violence under the PG explanation that is often observed the most, as it much easier to see.
For every film it rates, the MPAA explains reasons for the rating, but they don't say what kept it from earning a restricted rating. We're left to assume that the PG for "Catching Fire" is mostly the product of showing little blood and cutting away from violence. With all film ratings, the ratings board takes into account the context in which material is presented and tries to rate the film the way they believe most American parents would rate it.
And it's important to remember that PG means 'parents strongly cautioned' — it's a strong warning to parents that a film contains elements they may want to take into account before their children see a film.
0コメント