User:Meaty85203/PG Up Notable?

From Homestar Runner Wiki

< User:Meaty85203(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Meaty85203 (Talk | contribs)
(Created page with 'This is almost the exact same as Talk:Up (2009 film)#MPAA rating ==The Talk== I heard Up was going to be rated PG, I think that shou…')

Current revision as of 00:37, 2 July 2009

This is almost the exact same as Talk:Up (2009 film)#MPAA rating

[edit] The Talk

I heard Up was going to be rated PG, I think that should be mentioned here. 74.33.174.133 ([[talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Ratings aren't important unless they're something controversial. Alientraveller (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, film ratings are not part of the FILM:MOS. As Alientraveller stated, unless there is an encyclopedic reason to mention it, a film's rating is unimportant and should not appear. SpikeJones (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's the second Pixar film to get a PG rating. If that's not significant enough why the crap is it noted on the Harry Potter pages? Meaty85203 Talk To Me... Serously 22:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And WALL-E was the 8th film to get a G rating... in other words, so what? (a) it's not significant. (b) ratings are not part of the FILM:MOS. (c) MPAA ratings do not apply to non-US releases, so therefore inappropriate for an international encyclopedia. (d) just because the Harry Potter pages mention it does not mean that they are correct, per a/b/c above. SpikeJones (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, there was some kind of controversy with the new rating of Harry Potter. I haven't heard anything for this film, though. BOVINEBOY2008 02:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
"[The Goblet of Fire] was the first Harry Potter film to receive a PG-13 rating in the US, the preceding films have been rated PG or its international equivalents...."
Header, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film)
Thus why the heck aren't we allowed to have a rating significance. When I said 2nd Pixar PG, it's because that had a form of significance, as much significance as that crap there, we slap in somewhere "This was the second (the first being The Incredibles) to get a PG rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. Meaty85203 Talk To Me... Serously 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because something exists elsewhere in WP doesn't make that correct; therefore we will not use Harry Potter pages as a reference here. The flaw in your argument about listing that this is the 2nd PG film is what do we do when Pixar released a 3rd, 4th, or 10th? Red Dawn was the first PG-13 film, but we don't say that Terminator Salvation was the 250th PG-13 film to be released. Besides, the MPAA ratings system is meaningless on a worldwide stage (it's too US-centric), which is why its use in film articles is discouraged in WP. SpikeJones (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should be listed because the majority of the Pixar films have been rated G, and honestly, they're not going to have many PG films in the near future, 1904 might be (which I feel shouldn't be released) but, other than that they make *mostly* G movies. And the Salvation comment is just plain freakin' nonsense. Meaty85203 Talk To Me... Serously 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(←) A PG rating for a childrens movie is nothing special. You also have no idea if future Pixar movies will have a PG rating. The Potter movie having a PG-13 while the other are rated PG is notable and was covered in the press. I doubt any press coverage will come from this movie's rating. Therefor there is no point in mentioning it. EdokterTalk 22:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

Now, you may be wondering, what the Crap is this doing, it states that I got kinda in a fight on the Wiki page for Up (2009) talk page (Not The First Time). This states a problem on the brianrietta and Strong Bad Email Statistics page, in confusion of what a Second's Significance is. If you have anything you want to ask me, do it on my Talk Page

Personal tools