I think most studios are in bed with MPAA and usually compromise with them on what to censor and what not to. Its ultimate movie bureaucracy and its a sham. There are many independent movies that get screwed by the mpaa and its clear that they're only out there to better themselves. Many movies like Lord of the Rings with things being beheaded are considered PG-13 when there's more graphic nonsense in there.

One example is with the south park creators when they tried to do Orgazmo and the MPAA gave it an NC-17. They asked what they should change and the MPAA said they could not say because they're not a censorship group. What bull. When the creators did the South Park movie, it was originally given an NC-17 but this time the Paramount studio execs asked what's wrong with it and what should go, and the MPAA provided just that. So this is the hypocrisy many filmmakers make.

I don't see PG-13 comedies or horror movies in theaters. Too me Comedies that are PG-13 just aren't that funny and PG-13 horror movies just piss me off, but I agree that it should not have that big of an effect on the Harry Potter as I really liked HP 3.

No. I used to, when I was under 18 and the difference between R and PG13 (or 18A and 14A) determined whether I had to sneak in or simply buy a ticket. I think the PG to PG13 distinction is used more by parents who take their kids to see a movie than by teens looking for a cool factor, especially since the 13 mark isn't enforceable (is it?). I'm not a parent and mine never censored any content I saw so I can't say for sure. Hopefully some parents and teenagers chime in.

In Ontario Canada, all Harry Potter films have been PG and Bruno is 18A.

@Tim:

Um, Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers were pretty good. Liar, Liar and Dumb and Dumber?. Ever see The Sixth Sense?

Just saying, a rating doesn't mean a thing about the movie and whether it's a comedy or horror, it doesn't mean they should be avoided just because they didn't get an R.

@Roger:

OK, your right with Dumb and Dumber and the sixth sense, I'm not saying I avoid them but I don't pay my money too see them in theaters. Dumb and Dumber is really the only good PG-13 comedy I can think of ( I'm not saying there isn't more) and that's 15 years ago.

Actually, there's no point in seeing the PG13 films in theaters anymore, since that now means that the unrated DVD will be coming out in four months. I don't think ratings mean anything anymore than a marketing ploy now. I remember when Ever After came out, it was not harsh or scary or sexual. It was essentially a PG film, but Fox submitted it to the board to get a PG13 rating so that it could appeal to teenage girls more I guess. Minority Report is another PG13 film that was clearly an R, but alas, Spielberg was on that one and the MPAA are heavily influenced by him (see also Poltergeist's PG). It doesn't really influence me, but I still find the marketing angle fascinating.

@The Check Spot:

Completely agree with that entire comment.

@Tim:

Understood, I see your point.

Overall, I don't look at ratings to determine whether or not I should see a movie in theaters. I mean, G, PG, PG-13 or R can have a decent story in any genre. Trailer and some (key word: some) word of mouth will determine whether or not I'll see a movie in theater or wait til DVD.

I have always being influenced to see a movie by it's rating. I was really disappointed with the PG rating of Harry Potter. But I got to admit that I really liked the third one. With the Rom–Coms i'm not as everybody. I prefer a pg-13 one than an R. Simply because I feel that they stay i the sweet site and not the dirty one. But don't get confused because one thing is rom-com and another one is comedies. For comedies, I do prefer rated R ones. And in the case of action, I'm really not that mad because an action movie is rated pg-13. I even like pg-13 action movies. For me it's the same just that without blood. And The Dark Knight already break that barrier. :P

A good example is "The Ugly Truth". Looks like a normal, boring rom-com (even with Gerald Butler, who still has street guy cred with "300" and "Rocknrolla"), but with a "R" rating, sounds like it has some edge to it.

And PG-13 is getting more violent and "dirty" as years go by.

The only two scenes in HBP that I think really would have earned it an R rating is the Sectumsempra scene (for its blood) and the goblet at the lake scene (for its sheer intensity). However, the movie has a PG, and it apparently still has both scenes in there. Personally, I think it has to do more with a ratings creep than the possibility that it's "lighter" than the previous two installments.

And I do think Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix deserved their PG-13 ratings. GOF because of the scene in the climax in which Voldemort comes back and tortures Harry and the sudden death involved in that scene as well. OOTP because of Umbridge's detention (one of the most disturbing moments in the series, really) and the part where Voldemort possesses Harry near the end. There isn't much blood and gore, but it is actually quite violent, especially mentally, and the images are scary. Remember that "The Others" got rated PG-13 for its frightening moments and thematic elements alone; it didn't show a single act of violence or even a grisly image once in the entire runtime. HP4 and HP5 are rather similar in this regard, only perhaps not as scary.

@JM: Fun fact. The Others, like all Harry Potter movies, was rated PG in Ontario.