Matthew Prince

I like what you're saying Glenn. When films are CLEARLY offering adult material, then it's only right that proof of age should should be requested so that only ADULTS get in to see these movies without annoying underage teenagers.

(I'm not gonna argue the point of Action movies, R-Ratings, budgets & box-ofice because many of you have explained it here. I have an alternative thread I'll start up on Action movies alone.)

chris winters

Another problem with the ratings system, which I dont think has been mentioned, is its well documented bias towards violence over sex. You can have people dieing, shooting each other, getting stabbed, having fist fights, getting angry, blood thirsty, or out for revenge all safely within a PG13 movie, but show one breast and all hell breaks loose, let alone people making out or feeling a bit horny.

Movies are like books, except you can\'t set your\' drink on them, well.. unless its a DVD...oh nevermind

RichardK

oh never mind

Matthew Prince

I've read about this... Actors and producers always complain about this...

So the American rating board is concerned with how graphic scenes of a couple having consensual sex are, than it is with multiple people (usually men) being shot all over, blown up, eviscerated, kicked, punched, bones broken, etc... in a movie?

Everyone knows Commando. I bet the MPAA 'laughed' as Arnie destroyed a bad guy's base camp by setting off numerous explosions and gunning dowm lots and lots soldiers in one graceful move, or when Bruce Willis punches a guy's nose into his brain in The Last Boy Scout, or Charles Bronson goes on the rampage in the Death Wish sequels (I hear #3 is the most violent )

Adam Lenhardt

No. It's advisory. As long as they attend the film with a parent, any age can see an "R" film.It was only an example of one such service. Regardless, it does it far better job of informing parents about content and is far less restrictive (and thus holds none of the pressure of an MPAA or BFCC)This I can certainly agree with. The problem is that human nature dictates that the most restrictive rating will hold a certain stigma about it, legitimate or not. The "NC-17" rating exists because the "X" had such a stigma. Now the "NC-17" rating holds the same stigma. The vast majority films rated NC-17 are either cut down for the "R" or released unrated and shown only in the arthouse venues.As do I. My feeling is that these things run in cycles. The current generation of parents grew up with too much freedom, and so are opressive on their own children. The next generation with have grown up under opressive parenting, and so will be far less constrictive with their own children. On the other hand, parents' groups like the PTC and their ilk now have unprecedented access to communication and media attention. I don't know if that trend can be overturned. My ultimate feeling is that once this latest battle of morality vs. majority has run its course, we will see a return to less striped-down entertainment.There are still violent movies made. I know that the UK is more uptight about violence than the US (as opposed to our fixation on open sexuality). Perhaps that is part of the problem as well? I see shows on television now that are far more violent than most modern action flicks (though there are exceptions).While I agree that there are plenty of teenagers that are annoying theatergoers (I'm friends with some), there are plenty of teenage theatergoers who are quiet and respectful as well. And these days, atleast around here, the loud obnoxious asshole with the cellphone is more likely to be an adult than a teenager.

Brian_J

How dare they make movies for money! I want it to be R for me!

Brian

Zed\'s Dead Baby...

XBOX Tag: DreadMantis

clayton b

I do not understand, nor do I agree with the ratings system today.

How is it that a film like The Passion of the Christ can get away a R rating, but if you show a naked woman, and maybe a simulated sex act for 30 seconds you run the risk of an NC-17 rating? I mean what's worse? Showing someone having their skin whipped off of their body or showing a naked human being? The Passion gets an R rating, but Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back had to be edited down just to receive an R rating? And there was no nudity and hardly any violence in it. They wanted to give Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back an NC-17 just because they even dared to 'talk' about sex acts?

It just baffles me as to what earns an R rating and what doesn't. Take Jerry Maguire (an R rated film). It has a brief sex scene with no real nudity, that plays for comedy more than sensuality, and one naked male rear end. And of course profanity. But on the other hand it has no acts of violence in it. Yet films like the LOTR trilogy have violence and dead bodies all over the place and they only merit a PG-13.

I'm not saying that violence should be rated harder, I'm just saying that sexuality and language should be rated easier. What's a worse thing to show a younger teenager? Someone being shot or the word fuck? A man being flogged to death or a stoner talking about anal sex?


As far as hollywood dumbing down films to get a Pg-13 instead of an R to increase their box office goes, I do think that in some cases it's a problem. In some films like X-Men 2 I don't believe that more blood and gore would have added to the film. I don't see how seeing blood dripping off of Wolverine's claws and such would have made for a more exciting film. But on the other hand, sometimes graphic depiction of violence is necessary to get the point across. Saving Private Ryan would not have been nearly as effective if it were edited down for a PG-13. And there are plenty of examples where a more violent, graphic depiction of events would make the film more effective, but instead they edited it down for a PG-13 just to try to up the grosses (The Alamo comes to mind).