Way, way back in the day, there was a revolutionary concept made about movies: Teens have a higher sensibility about flicks than younger kids. Somewhere in-between PG movies (usually consisting of pre-pubescent kids who act smarter and wiser than adults being lead through a sort of thrilling adventure with not so great a risk) and rated R movies was a gap. Because of the second Indiana Jones movie (where a heart is pulled out of a living man and many other scary things--monkey brains for desert!) and Sixteen Candles (a shower scene with actual naked boobies!), there was established a middle ground for movies called PG-13.

No real age requirement (not many 13-year-olds have IDs), but a warning to discriminating parents that there might be a little extra naughtiness or danger than your regular kiddie fare. The first PG-13 movie I saw (and one of the first flicks that got this new rating) was The Sure Thing. Instead of being about a guy who wants to get the girl (in that we all want a girlfriend type of way), this was about a guy who was on a road trip TO GET LAID. On the way, of course, he falls for his hitchhiking side-kick who proves her mettle by flashing her breasts to oncoming traffic (what a thrill that .5 seconds was). I went with a friend, who was armed with his Air Force Kid ID just in case our age was questioned. It wasn't and suddenly there were some great movies (occasionally) that pushed the PG envelope just far enough.

An interesting thing happened last year. Not only was it an election year (and the entertainment industry didn't want to get Gore's panties in a bunch about explicit content in movies, music and the like), but it was a turning point. In light of the tobacco industries decades long attempts to get kids to buy cigarettes by using cartoons and subtle penis jokes, the movie industry realized they might get hit for the same thing. When Scream came out in 1996, it sold primarily to the teen market, even though it was rated R. Hyped incessantly on MTV and filled with teen hotties like Jennifer Love Hewitt and Drew Barrymore, kids went to it in droves and helped (along with a few other films including Clueless and Romeo + Juliet--the later also rated R) bring in a five year reign of teen flicks.

Last year, following a few tense days in the congressional hot seat, the entertainment industry agreed to curtail their marketing of R movies to teens. What happened has been profound. Scissors were used wholesale and many movies that should have been light adult fare (Gone In 60 Seconds, Coyote Ugly and Dude Where's My Car? for example) were changed to PG-13 movies. The original quality of these movies cannot truly be measured (I'm not sure if any of them could have been saved with more T & A), but at least they might have been a little less insulting.

Now there are two types of R movies: ones that come out and make money like gangbusters (Scary Movie, Hannibal) and those that die a diseased monkey's death (Say It Isn't So, which used the unprecedented tagline of "They're not really brother and sister, but won't it be funny if they think they are and they're in love?" --the answer to that question, by the way, is no).

Teens will go to whatever movie they can get into. And most of the time, they get into those "evil" rated R flicks if they're tenacious enough. I saw Robocop (incredibly violent, but a great movie, nonetheless) when I was 15 and it hasn't really damaged me more than any of the other crazy things I did as a kid.

But because the studios can't sell rated R movies to kids anymore (instead of advertising during the afternoon teen-fest TRL on MTV, they have to advertise during "Jackass" after 9 or 10 at night--supposedly to older viewers, but who over 14 would watch "Jackass?"), they're just chopping them and putting them out as PG-13-ers. Making bad movies even worse and causing most adults to really wonder what kinds of movies we're supposed to watch. Do they really only want discriminating adults to watch movies during that three month period between Christmas and Oscars because the rest of the time it would be insulting to pay $10 for any of the other crap on the market?

Would anyone have really wanted to see Gladiator if no one got impaled or if the gladiators only got hurt really bad instead of killed? Or if Hannibal Lecter didn't make incessant jokes about how good someone was going to taste when he ate--whichever body part he was particular to at the time? And what would American Pie have been if all of the sex jokes were cut out? Or There's Something About Mary without the "hair gel"?

There's got to be a better way. I don't think we need an R-16, but the age requirement should be lowered. It's not like movies suddenly become so sophisticated when they are Rated R, it just means there are violent or sexual scenes that kids shouldn't watch. But 16 year olds? What haven't they seen? I didn't learn what a 69 was in a movie theater, I learned at soccer practice when I was 13. And since you can rent whatever you want at video stores and watch whatever you want on cable, why is it that theaters have to police their patrons?

But mostly, do they have to insult us by cutting all the fun out of Rated R movies and releasing it as a PG-13 (as if it's the same quality of movie) so they can get all the teeny-boppers to go without sneaking in?

Matt Worley is forming the consumer group Discriminating Movie Going Adults Who Don't Like To Be Insulted (D.M.G.A.W.D.L.T.B.I. for short) for all of those concerned about this alarming trend.