Gun Violence in American Movies Is Rising, Study Finds
Source: New York Times
A study set for publication in the December issue of Pediatrics confirms what some of Hollywoods sharpest critics have suspected: The level of gun violence in the top-selling PG-13 movies has been rising, and it now exceeds that in the most popular R-rated films.
Violent encounters with guns occur, on average, more than twice an hour in the best sellers in both ratings categories, according to researchers, who worked with support from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
In all, the researchers examined 945 movies, counting the appearances of overall violence in each five-minute segment of a sampling of films that ranked among the top 30 at the domestic box office from 1950 to 2012. Perhaps not surprisingly, the results reported by Brad J. Bushman of Ohio State University, and Patrick E. Jamieson, Ilana Weitz and Daniel Romer of the Annenberg center showed that violence in American films had more than doubled in that time.
But the authors also found that episodes of gun violence in PG-13 rated films had been rising since the rating was introduced in the mid-1980s, and it now surpasses the violence in R-rated films, which are technically not open to young viewers unless they are accompanied by an adult.
Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/media/gun-violence-in-american-movies-is-rising-study-finds.html?from=business
kardonb
(777 posts)whenever I see an ad for a new movie or TV-show , and it contains someone pointing a gun , I make a point NOT to see that show . When it hurts the producers in the pocket book , they will learn soon enough to change the contents of their movies .
Unfortunately , there are a lot of people who relish violence and goriness , but that does not mean they have to be pandered to .
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Sadly, I know people that are smugly happy about that. They would much rather have their kids see multiple murders than 5 seconds of an actor minus clothing.
I would much rather that teenagers were sneaking into movies that were rated R for nudity than violence.
dookers
(61 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Guns should not be glamorized.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)that was only reversed after a campaign - but it had a couple of rude words in it!
The film, about a woman searching for the son she was forced to put up for adoption, had initially been rated 'R' for two instances of bad language.
...
The MPAA reversed its original decision following a media campaign that saw Dame Judi resurrect her M character from the James Bond series in an online sketch.
...
Harvey Weinstein, whose company is distributing Philomena in the US, paid tribute to Bond producer Barbara Broccoli, current 007 Daniel Craig and Skyfall director Sam Mendes who "gave permission to spoof the ratings system using the M character".
...
Weinstein had previously said that although the film would not necessarily appeal to children, the PG-13 rating was important for adults in certain areas of the US who would not consider going to watch an R-rated film.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24938350
And there's the absurdity - it's a film that you won't find children trying to sneak into, because it's got no violence or sex. It's not an action film at all. But two naughty words? Oooh, we can't have 16 year olds hearing that without an adult to hold their hand!
bemildred
(90,061 posts)And yeah, the ratings mean nothing. You just never know when a bit is nakedness is going to pop up, and the noise, the swearing, the enraged people waving guns around like magic wands, it's cartoonish, and ultimately boring and unpleasant to watch. And then there are all the product placements, even on the premium channnels with "no advertising" you are going to watch lots of actors using all the latest gadgets and eating all the latest processed food, and smoking the latest cigarettes, and so on.