Not sure why there's a debate over this. At the time, there wasn't a PG-13 rating, so it was either an R or a PG, and I think it would be completely reasonable for the MPAA to say that a head exploding with that much graphic detail would push it out of PG territory. So the studio had a choice to make, and made it. What exactly is the hub-bub all about?
Kathryn: Both Raiders and Scanners came out in 1981, so one didn't really proceed the other. Additionally, Scanner (due in large part to the exploding heads) was Rated R, so at least the MPAA was being consistent. Any rating system is going to be objective - some ppl will agree w/ their decisions and some won't. Personally, I think all we can ask for is consistency, and it seems that in this case, they were.
Not sure why there's a debate over this. At the time, there wasn't a PG-13 rating, so it was either an R or a PG, and I think it would be completely reasonable for the MPAA to say that a head exploding with that much graphic detail would push it out of PG territory. So the studio had a choice to make, and made it. What exactly is the hub-bub all about?
Kathryn: Both Raiders and Scanners came out in 1981, so one didn't really proceed the other. Additionally, Scanner (due in large part to the exploding heads) was Rated R, so at least the MPAA was being consistent. Any rating system is going to be objective - some ppl will agree w/ their decisions and some won't. Personally, I think all we can ask for is consistency, and it seems that in this case, they were.