Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by floren | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

floren

> The Black Cauldron also had a PG rating, a first for Disney

If you ignore 1979's The Black Hole (another flop)

View on HN

Would a flop been able to give us such classic lines as "In, Through, Beyond"?

according to this list, the first was Treasure Island 1950 with a couple more before The Black Hole.

https://doctordisney.com/disney-movies-list-of-years-running...

> Would a flop been able to give us such classic lines as "In, Through, Beyond"?

And don't forget Ernest Borgnine! My elementary school library had the read-along picture book and it always stuck with me, so when I saw it on Hulu recently I had to give it a watch.

Even in '79, Ernest looked old, but that's probably the youngest I've seen Robert Forster. I don't remember when I saw this compared to Star Wars, but I remember really liking the little robot with his beat up companion. I also remember my mom talking about being somewhat shocked by the gore when the "evil" robot used his spinning hands.

That would've been rated well after the fact, since the MPAA didn't introduce film ratings until 1968.

If you make a PG movie without it being called PG, does that mean it's any less of a deviation from the G-rated content? Even the G-rated content wouldn't have had a rating as well, but these would have been noticeably different at the time.

Common misconception on the part of the writer, The Black Cauldron was their first animated feature to receive the rating. It was a notable distinction at the time, and the original cut before Katzenberg took a hatchet to the project would have pushed the rating fairly hard.

Tron in 1982 also got a PG rating. Quite controversial in my mother's circle of parenting friends. "How can Disney release a PG movie like that?" said one parent.

Worth remembering that PG in those days was a very broad rating. _Airplane_ was rated PG and includes a topless scene. Indiana Jones and the Tempke of Doom was rated PG and was pretty gory for the time. Both would get PG-13 or maybe even R ratings today.

An R rating for… displaying a female chest?

PG had plenty of that in the 80s, see Irreconcilable Differences (actually a pretty good movie)

Not saying it is proper or moral or whatever. But that will do it these days. See the auto reply bot here that explains it.

https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-take-for-a-movie-to-get-a...

There was a "clean" version too, with the woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "Moral Majority" on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VeioVSvl1w

I remember the controversy around Temple of Doom. It was the inspiration for PG-13.

I immediately thought of John Carter.

I loved that movie, and everyone I know at least liked it, a lot.

It flopped because of The Lorax, and THAT was massively disappointing.

It also had poor advertising and, reportedly, the director overestimated John Carter's name recognition as a character. Yes, he was a character created by Edgar Rice Burroughs (a name people might recognize, but not be able to place) who also created Tarzan (a name people would recognize). But no connection was brought up between Tarzan (popular, well-known) and John Carter (unknown by the time of the movie).

I didn't see that when it came out, heard it was a flop, and disregarded it for years. Then we watched it over winter break a few years ago, and it's basically the same as Phantom Menace - pretty good action, pretty good but dated effects, pretty ok but miscast lead actor, pretty clunky plot. It might have lost a ton of money, but it's like a B- movie at worst.

But that's the thing. The B-movie budget usually lends a hand in doling some B-movie charms. But Carter didn't, it felt so bland. Maybe I should give it another chance?

If you enjoy the Phantom Menace for any reason, you'll probably enjoy John Carter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com