Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

First off, any film that has close ups of the violence on a football field should not be a "G" rating regardless of its other content.
Secondly any film with "strong emotional" content should not have a "G" rating.
One of their statements:
"Football players in the film are not the only ones receiving bumps and bruises. From helmet-crashing clashes on the field to the challenges of relationships, to strained finances, betrayal, forgiveness, and uncommon faith, this movie elicits strong emotions."

I have visited their site and watched their clips and read their blurbs and with out doubt it is "evangelical" in content.

Story: A white plus oeros, white helmeted, christian school, football team takes on the much more black, with black jerseys, "Giants" foot ball team (David and Goliath theme).

What the Christian Right has too understand is the the Congregationalist in Vermont, and the Muslems in Detroit, and the Jews in Atlanta, and Buddahist in Las Vegas may not want their children to be sand bagged by a "Christian message" movie that was rated "G". With a "PG", they are alerted to at least pause and see what it is about, and then it is there decision and their responsibility.
Offensiveness is in the mind of the beholder. I can see where many would find this kind of movie offensive, regardless of the intent of those making the film.
 

We disagree.

The ratings system, I think, is meant to alert people of content that is potentially profane, or obscene, not merely "offensive." To lower the bar to mere offense would have "Bambi" get a PG rating because her mama (daddy?) got shot, which is offensive to some people. "Old Yeller," too, because the dog dies and is upsetting to almost everyone.
 

From the MPAA site:
"G" Rating:
"This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a certificate of approval nor does it signify a children’s film. etc..."

That's "Contains ...nothing in theme..that would be offensive to parents..."

Yep, I think by definition offensive themes count towards a "G" rating.
 

ER said: "We disagree.."

We? What, you're the Queen of England today?
 

Re, "in the view of the Rating Board"

Then I disagree with the rating board.

Re, Queen of England crack ...

Ha! Well, then ROWR, SNARL-SNARL! Yer full of crap! :-)

("Thank you, thank you," ER said, after his imitation of certain semi-regulars here.)
 

Have to go with ER on this, and heartily apologize for the cowardice of my co-irrelgionists on the MPAA. I'm more appalled by, say, the G-rated Disney's Little Mermaid (even apart from ruining a beautiful and honest Anderson tale)than Christians doing a proChristian movie.
 

Actually, after watching the cheerleaders do their mid-air splits, it maybe should be a PG-13.
 

Well, you know, in the Unitarian church we have a brochure about religious education that says on the front cover, "If you don't tell your kids about religion, they'll learn about it on the street." My childed compatriots in the UUA probably wouldn't forbid their kids from seeing that movie, but they might want to talk with them about it afterwards and would be glad for the heads-up. And PG covers "mature themes," which would kind of describe a kid having a soul audit.

Aw hell, it sounds like such a dopey movie the UU kids probably wouldn't go see it anyways. This is a tempest in a teapot.

The racial undertones described by your first poster sound a little creepy, though.
 

Tyanks for stoppin' by, Witch!