Do you concur with MPAA ratings on recent movies

[mugs]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: manowar821
Accurate? I think they're too harsh. Let's get rid of the rating system completely and just make parents do their job, and parent.

That's the whole point, the rating system tells parents about the contents of the movie so they are better equipped to do their jobs.

Not really. The rating system is arbitrary.

Not only that, but it's also the system used by the state to decide whether or not a movie is legally obtainable by someone under the age of 18. It's ridiculous. It's nanny state BS.

If I sent my kid out to pick up a movie, he/she should be able to rent an R rated movie. Fuck what the moral majority wants, it's my family, right?

Wait - what state has laws about who can buy what movies? Other than pornography, which isn't even rated by the MPAA.

You mean you've never been to a movie rental place and had them card you or someone you know for looking under 18, while trying to rent an R rated movie? Minnesota, for sure, since I live here. I know that other places do it, too, but only from word of mouth.

This isn't something I looked into intensely, because I thought it was fairly common. Thus, my disgust.

Edit: OH, and movie theaters!

I never said that I've never been carded when going to the movies. I asked you what state has a LAW that requires it. There is a big difference between voluntary enforcement and government-mandated enforcement.

 

[jandrews]

umm ya i watched bridge to teribithia with my girlfriend and one of the f'ing kids dies what the hell!!! There should be a special rating for dead children.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: K1052
That wasn't the original intention of the rating system though it has grown into that in many respects. The goal was always to prevent the government from getting involved in censorship of the film industry by self-regulating (even in an arguably lax way). The rating system turned into a marketing tool to be wielded in addition to regulation.

Also, a film does not have to be reviewed for rating by the MPAA. Most indie films aren't and I wouldn't say that unfairly disadvantages them since exhibitors will play unrated films anyway.

Given that Jack Valenti was a high-ranking government official prior to taking over the MPAA and creating the ratings system, it could be argued that the ratings system was never really industry self-regulation. (edit: okay, sure, the ratings system doesn't carry force of law either, if that was your point).

Being unrated doesn't unfairly disadvantage? What are you talking about? That significantly limits distribution on every level. Granted, indie is never going to be able to compete with the big studios when it comes to production and marketing budgets, but being unrated almost always means no major national distribution, no mall megaplex showings, and no Walmart DVD sales. Those are some pretty big disadvantages.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: vulcanman
Does that mean when hollywood releases a PG-rate movie in the theaters ... parents go and check it out first before letting their child see it ?

If you have that little faith in the rating system, yes.

Alternatively you could not allow your children to see movies at the theater. No one's making them go...

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: K1052
That wasn't the original intention of the rating system though it has grown into that in many respects. The goal was always to prevent the government from getting involved in censorship of the film industry by self-regulating (even in an arguably lax way). The rating system turned into a marketing tool to be wielded in addition to regulation.

Also, a film does not have to be reviewed for rating by the MPAA. Most indie films aren't and I wouldn't say that unfairly disadvantages them since exhibitors will play unrated films anyway.

You must be talking about really fringe indie stuff. Most "normal" indie films are in fact rated. Occasionally they reject the rating and are shown as unrated, though.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: K1052
That wasn't the original intention of the rating system though it has grown into that in many respects. The goal was always to prevent the government from getting involved in censorship of the film industry by self-regulating (even in an arguably lax way). The rating system turned into a marketing tool to be wielded in addition to regulation.

Also, a film does not have to be reviewed for rating by the MPAA. Most indie films aren't and I wouldn't say that unfairly disadvantages them since exhibitors will play unrated films anyway.

Given that Jack Valenti was a high-ranking government official prior to taking over the MPAA and creating the ratings system, it could be argued that the ratings system was never really industry self-regulation.

Being unrated doesn't unfairly disadvantage? What are you talking about? That significantly limits distribution on every level. Granted, indie is never going to be able to compete with the big studios when it comes to production and marketing budgets, but being unrated almost always means no major national distribution, no mall megaplex showings, and no Walmart DVD sales.

Yea, that is one of the reasons why he was chosen. The fact remains that the rating system is not law nor are the Rating Boards government appointed. The industry also self regulated prior to the MPAA rating system through the Production Code which eventually became outmoded.

It does not limit distribution, content limits distribution. Most "indie" or "art" films have limited appeal and these are the ones most likely to be distributed without going before the Rating Board. There are a number of distributors that handle these films.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: K1052
That wasn't the original intention of the rating system though it has grown into that in many respects. The goal was always to prevent the government from getting involved in censorship of the film industry by self-regulating (even in an arguably lax way). The rating system turned into a marketing tool to be wielded in addition to regulation.

Also, a film does not have to be reviewed for rating by the MPAA. Most indie films aren't and I wouldn't say that unfairly disadvantages them since exhibitors will play unrated films anyway.

You must be talking about really fringe indie stuff. Most "normal" indie films are in fact rated. Occasionally they reject the rating and are shown as unrated, though.

Both happen can happen depending on the film. For the real indie or art market a rating is almost meaningless.

 

[davestar]

As people've mentioned, the ratings need to become more granular. Whether that means you index every curse, gunshot, and pelvic thrust or rate movies on a finer scale (PG-6, PG 10, PG-13, PG-15, R-17, etc) I don't know. I see two main positives coming out of such a change: parents would have a better understanding of what's in the movie without having to see it themselves and the PG-13 imperative (ie studios must make PG-13 movies to bring in the widest audience) would be broken.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: manowar821
Accurate? I think they're too harsh. Let's get rid of the rating system completely and just make parents do their job, and parent.

That's the whole point, the rating system tells parents about the contents of the movie so they are better equipped to do their jobs.

Except it doesn't. The current rating system is antiquated and useless, especially with the way they're rated by the MPAA. As stated earlier, violence won't get something rated nearly as high as nudity. How does that make sense?

A better system might be one which lists the actual "offenses" of any given movie and let the parents decide what level is appropriate rather than these ridiculous blanket ratings which are the opinions of a group of morons, and have no basis in fact. Facts would be

Fuck: 2
Shit: 13
Female Frontal Nudity: 2 sec
Decapitations by sword: 159

Compare that to

PG-13

And tell me which system is more useful for parents.

For the record, there are already video chains that do this, and it works very well: Example

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: davestar
As people've mentioned, the ratings need to become more granular. Whether that means you index every curse, gunshot, and pelvic thrust or rate movies on a finer scale (PG-6, PG 10, PG-13, PG-15, R-17, etc) I don't know. I see two main positives coming out of such a change: parents would have a better understanding of what's in the movie without having to see it themselves and the PG-13 imperative (ie studios must make PG-13 movies to bring in the widest audience) would be broken.

I agree with this...there is too large of a developmental gap between ages 13 and 17. Canada is not great in this regard either...we have G, PG, 14A, 18A, R. Most R-rated movies fall under 14A or 18A (the more violent ones get 18A). Most PG-13 movies get a PG rating here.

Many European countries rate movies in only 2-3 year increments (ex. 8, 10, 12, 15, 18 or 10, 12, 14, 16, 18)

 

[PottedMeat]

Screw the MPAA ratings system, they don't even entertain you.

For a true ratings system consult the Christian Analysis of American Culture Ministry Project

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: davestar
As people've mentioned, the ratings need to become more granular. Whether that means you index every curse, gunshot, and pelvic thrust or rate movies on a finer scale (PG-6, PG 10, PG-13, PG-15, R-17, etc) I don't know. I see two main positives coming out of such a change: parents would have a better understanding of what's in the movie without having to see it themselves and the PG-13 imperative (ie studios must make PG-13 movies to bring in the widest audience) would be broken.

The ratings already do tell you the reason it received the rating though. They can't give you a detailed list - it has to fit on a movie poster and on an SDTV screen. If a movie is rated R for strong violence, language, sexual content and drug use, I know pretty much what to expect when I see that movie.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: manowar821
Accurate? I think they're too harsh. Let's get rid of the rating system completely and just make parents do their job, and parent.

That's the whole point, the rating system tells parents about the contents of the movie so they are better equipped to do their jobs.

Except it doesn't. The current rating system is antiquated and useless, especially with the way they're rated by the MPAA. As stated earlier, violence won't get something rated nearly as high as nudity. How does that make sense?

A better system might be one which lists the actual "offenses" of any given movie and let the parents decide what level is appropriate rather than these ridiculous blanket ratings which are the opinions of a group of morons, and have no basis in fact. Facts would be

Fuck: 2
Shit: 13
Female Frontal Nudity: 2 sec
Decapitations by sword: 159

Compare that to

PG-13

And tell me which system is more useful for parents.

This would be awesome. It would not only give the parents the information they can use, but it could rearrange how we think about nudity vs. violence in movies entirely.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
For the record, there are already video chains that do this, and it works very well: Example

IMDB has it too

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Screw the MPAA ratings system, they don't even entertain you.

For a true ratings system consult the Christian Analysis of American Culture Ministry Project

:laugh:

"igniting anal wind then being incinerated"

 

[0roo0roo]

counting f*cks is stupid.
context does matter.
swearing in saving private ryan isn't the same as swearing in pulp fiction.
so making the rating system even more granular will tend to make it pretty ridiculous.
esp with the mpaa behind the driver seat.
watch this documentary on the system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
anyways if your 13 yr old kid can't handle pg 13 and doesn't have a decent reality filter yet, u've failed at parenting already.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: K1052
Both happen can happen depending on the film. For the real indie or art market a rating is almost meaningless.

Are you talking about locally made films shown at festivals and museums?

 

[DivideBYZero]

It's dimwits like this that mean we have this under all movie posters:

Rob Schnieder is; A CARROT!! Rated PG-13

Warning: Contains mild panic. Moderate use of the word Sandwich. Simulated violence with a baguette. Some scenes contain references to sharp edges which may worry some viewers.

 

[vulcanman]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: vulcanman

Originally posted by: Deeko
Really? You're concerned over "she grabbed my butt"? Come on now, that's ridiculous. Its PG, not G. They actually SWEAR in PG-13, and can show brief nudity, you know that, right? Hardly the same as "she grabbed my butt"

Concur. Evidently, there is grave hypocrisy ... in that, we are ok with PG and PG-13 movies that denigrate women (FYI - I am a dad) ... but are shocked when kids grow up abuse/beat their wives and girlfriends ?

And that applies to sex as well - Ok to show it ... but vehemently disapprove of kids who engage in it.

This may come out sounding harsh, and I don't mean to flame, but you sound to me like you are absolutely the worst type of parent out there. You have an extremely strict view of what should or should not be allowed,

Pardon me if I sound rude ... but you really should take the time to understand the original post. I am not suggesting we take legal steps to forbid all kids from watching inappropriate movies. A large majority here concur that the MPAA system is broken.

Its not MPAA's responsibility to censure ... its the parents responsibility. If you are fine with your 8yr old daughter watching American Pie ... you have the right to do so. Similarly, if I choose not to have my 8yr old exposed to moral decay ... I should have the right to do so.

What I would like to see is a better grading system to more accurately reflect the content in movies ... not a subjective rating ... but an objective and quantifiable one (like someone here stated).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: vulcanman

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: vulcanman

Originally posted by: Deeko
Really? You're concerned over "she grabbed my butt"? Come on now, that's ridiculous. Its PG, not G. They actually SWEAR in PG-13, and can show brief nudity, you know that, right? Hardly the same as "she grabbed my butt"

Concur. Evidently, there is grave hypocrisy ... in that, we are ok with PG and PG-13 movies that denigrate women (FYI - I am a dad) ... but are shocked when kids grow up abuse/beat their wives and girlfriends ?

And that applies to sex as well - Ok to show it ... but vehemently disapprove of kids who engage in it.

This may come out sounding harsh, and I don't mean to flame, but you sound to me like you are absolutely the worst type of parent out there. You have an extremely strict view of what should or should not be allowed,

Pardon me if I sound rude ... but you really should take the time to understand the original post. I am not suggesting we take legal steps to forbid all kids from watching inappropriate movies. A large majority here concur that the MPAA system is broken.

Its not MPAA's responsibility to censure ... its the parents responsibility. If you are fine with your 8yr old daughter watching American Pie ... you have the right to do so. Similarly, if I choose not to have my 8yr old exposed to moral decay ... I should have the right to do so.

What I would like to see is a better grading system to more accurately reflect the content in movies ... not a subjective rating ... but an objective and quantifiable one (like someone here stated).

The problem with that is that morality is not objective. I am fine with abortion from a moral standpoint; many people are not. How can you expect to have a universal ratings system that assesses content objectively on a subjective subject? That doesn't even make sense.

I mean, ok, I guess you could count the number of profanities, or sexual innuendoes, or bare breasts or gun shots, but what does that tell you? Your own example of someone saying "grabbed my butt" doesn't even rate on my morality chart, but you feel it is enough to drive a PG to PG-13. When it came time to tally up, you would count that as a clear innuendo, I would ignore it completely, and we're right back to the subjective nature of the topic. How are raters, made up of individuals just like you and me, supposed to cater to such a large disparity of what people consider moral?

Not to mention, counting offensive material quantitatively does not work. Bad Lieutenant shows exactly one flaccid penis in a non-sexual way, and that was enough for an NC-17. Schindler's List shows dozens of flaccid penises in a non-sexual way and that's an R. If we were to count, the ratings would be flipped. Doesn't make sense. Context is so important to the content we see, and thus the inherently subjective nature of movie ratings.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
I remember watching a PG13 movie from back in the mid-80s where the f-bomb was dropped a couple times. I don't think movies are really pushing it any more than they have in the last 25 years.

You should go rent the original Logan's Run. It got a PG back when it came out, but it would easily get an R now.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: vulcanman

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: vulcanman

Originally posted by: Deeko
Really? You're concerned over "she grabbed my butt"? Come on now, that's ridiculous. Its PG, not G. They actually SWEAR in PG-13, and can show brief nudity, you know that, right? Hardly the same as "she grabbed my butt"

Concur. Evidently, there is grave hypocrisy ... in that, we are ok with PG and PG-13 movies that denigrate women (FYI - I am a dad) ... but are shocked when kids grow up abuse/beat their wives and girlfriends ?

And that applies to sex as well - Ok to show it ... but vehemently disapprove of kids who engage in it.

This may come out sounding harsh, and I don't mean to flame, but you sound to me like you are absolutely the worst type of parent out there. You have an extremely strict view of what should or should not be allowed,

Pardon me if I sound rude ... but you really should take the time to understand the original post. I am not suggesting we take legal steps to forbid all kids from watching inappropriate movies. A large majority here concur that the MPAA system is broken.

Its not MPAA's responsibility to censure ... its the parents responsibility. If you are fine with your 8yr old daughter watching American Pie ... you have the right to do so. Similarly, if I choose not to have my 8yr old exposed to moral decay ... I should have the right to do so.

What I would like to see is a better grading system to more accurately reflect the content in movies ... not a subjective rating ... but an objective and quantifiable one (like someone here stated).

Pardon me for mentioning it, but your original post:

I am troubled by the language and adult themes in recent PG movies. Are parents losing the battle when it comes to regulating what their kids watch ? Especially, when some PG-13 / PG rated movies are more riskque than some R rated movies.

...says nothing of the sort. You simply state, "Are parents losing the battle when it comes to regulating what their kids watch?". The answer is no. /Thread

 

[DangerAardvark]

Kids should be sheltered from shitty movies. Letting an 8 year old see a Rob Schneider movie should be considered neglect.