HOLLYWOOD/THE MPAA and MOVIEGOERS: The buck MUST stop here!

I know I've only made a few posts but I'm mad. MAD! I tell ya.

You know what done it? Finding out that the new Alien V Predator movie was a PG-13. A f****n' PG-13! Check here if you don't believe me.

I just thought what the hell is going in Hollywood today? A film that could be a possible franchise based on dark, scary and gory movies has been turned into a desperately teenage friendly movie, designed to catch as many 13 and 14 year old as possible! The people at FOX should be ashamed of themselves!

The same thing happened with King Arthur. The script was written by David Franzoni, who wrote Ridley Scott's Gladiator, which practically revived the swords 'n' sandals epics and I'm sure the film was shot to be more graphic than it was.

Even in an interview, Jerry Bruckheimer promised not to hold back on the gore and sexuality... but lo and behold, the movie is a PG-13 with rumours ALREADY going around that Antoine Fuqua was hinting at doing an R-Rated Director's Cut on DVD. Makes you sick doesn't it?

Every year, but particularly in the Summer it happens, movies that are obviously meant for adults, that deal with sex, violence or strong language are heavily edited for the "kids" or "target demographic".

Damn, what happened to the producers' and directors' vision, where a film was just made, submitted for a rating and whatever it got that was it and it got released! Films with heavy sex, violence and strong language (and those "themes") were R and films without that were PG/PG-13!

Sometimes I look back to the '70s and '80s and think at least we had execs and producers with balls back then!

We had Die Hard, Predator, Commando, Rambo, Lethal Weapon, Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Wild Bunch, The Shining, A Nightmare On Elm Street, etc... yes, those films may have been of varying quality, but at least the filmmakers believed in giving ADULTS at good night out!

That's why sometimes I thank God I live in England, because we have the BBFC. The British rating board is SO MUCH better than the MPAA it's unreal!

A quick history though. In the late '70s and '80s, a guy called James Ferman was in charge of the BBFC, much like your Jack Valenti, unfortunately, he was very conservative and observed the 'video nasty' craze at the time (cheap and nasty exploitation flicks made quickly and released straight to video, before ratings existed) and blocked a lot of movies from coming out. Controversial movies were heavily cut and others were simply banned. Unusually, he was in charge for 15+ years which is longer than a Director is supposed to be...

After he left in the late 1990s - IMPORTANT - a guy called Andreas Whittam Smith took over and was far more liberal (now Robin Duval is the new Director and he is similar to Mr Smith). Under his reign, many banned and heavily cut movies were re-submitted and PASSED! Among others, The Exorcist, Evil Dead 1 AND 2 were released again alongside the so called 'video nasties' which were let through with only 'minor cuts' than before and all new genre & boundary breaking movies were passed UNCUT like IRREVERSIBLE...

As well as the above the British ratings were relaxed and the 12 and 12A (similar to the PG-13) categories were introduced. They were primarily used for comic-book movies & summer blockbusters so producers & directors could push slightly harder with the action and set pieces for Spider-Man, X-Men, The Hulk, etc...

The MAIN reason why I love the British rating system (and just not because I live here ) is that it follows common sense:

Our U is equal to your 'G'

Our PG is equal to your 'PG'

Our 12 is debatable: over 90% of the time it matches your 'PG-13'... BUT YOUR 'PG-13's can sometimes be slightly too violent and become a...

(Our) 15, which is where you should pay attention. A 15 would match your 'R' because it would most likely have plenty of strong language (f-words, s-words, a LIMITED amount of m-fs and very FEW c-words). 15's are mostly applied to general action movies (The Rock) and thrillers (Spartan, Patriot Games), sex comedies (American Pie movies), martial arts (Mortal Kombat, Romeo Must Die) and strangely enough 'ghetto' movies (Friday). Then there is the 'final' rating...

Our 18, which ALSO matches your 'R'. In James Ferman's days most 18's were cut, but nowadays they are rarely. '18's in the UK are always more graphic adult movies, with more sex, nudity, violence or swearing (your typical '80s movie night out! ) They range from Blade 2 to Battle Royale to Pulp Fiction to Basic Instinct to Sexy Beast to Freddy V Jason to Goodfellas, etc...

Now here is a main point to American moviefans and Hollywood: THERE IS NO SHAME IN AN ADULT ('18') RATING! If a film is given an 18, then so be it! In England, 18-year-olds and above go to the movie theatre/cinema and just watch it! The film doesn't suffer from a stigma around an 'adult' rating, that's just the audience it's intended for! The Hollywood producers AND execs need to get a grip on this 'NC-17' nonsense!

"Oh, our movie got an NC-17, that means we can't get the teenage audience we want!" Boo-hoo! (Teenagers make up to the majority of the moviegoing 'demographic - any movie they go (or their parents take them) to = $$$$$!)

Even around Europe people respect and understand their country's movie ratings systems and it's no suprise that producers normally release 'International Extended/Uncut' versions over here...

And because of all this and the advent of DVD, it means that (studios want?) producers and/or directors frequently choose to submit and release a PG-13 OR light 'R' rated movie at the movie theatre/cinema and then IN ADVANCE announce that they will release a 'hard R' or 'Unrated' version on DVD. Is that spineless, or what? Unsurprisingly, the extra versions always have only small changes to the movie...

I wonder how many more movies will be released on DVD this year and next as 'Director's Cuts', 'Unrated' or 'The Parts You Could Never See!' (sound familiar?)...

Until the Hollywood big heads come clean, the MPAA applies some common sense and the Studios, Producers & Directors stop being so cowardly, WE should all view ANY big-budget/big-star movie with sceptism...

End of rant...

I'm glad I sparked off a healthy debate!

But to respond:

Let me tell you that the BBFC is made up of people from all walks of life, all races, male and female, with differing age gaps. They go 'on the road' FOUR times a year to schools and colleges to explain what they do and speak to children and parents!

In Britain, most people PREFER an age limit on a movie, as it indicates straight away where the movie is going. Also, since 2003, there are caption boxes like yours that show how much sex/nudity, violence or bad language there is.

With the 12A and ratings in general, British parents are particularly concerned with bad language. Of course, in real life it's unavoidable, but in teen films they don't want their kids to hear it. They take issue with violence as well.

It's also true that some of the greatest movies of all time have been rated a PG or less - like On The Waterfront, Gandhi, The Third Man, Citizen Kane, Toy Story, etc...

But when you see a film that should clearly be more realistic and it's softened and quickly edited to meet the straight-jacket requirements of a family friendly rating, that pi$$es me off!

To Adam Lenhardt - No matter what country a filmmaker is in, they are ALWAYS going to want to get the widest audience for their films. You criticise the BBFC and say that they take away the responsibility away from the parents (with 'age-enforced' ratings) and trim certain movies here and there. So what do you think the PG-13' is ?

And the (majority of) parents here defintely know the ratings of what films their kids want to see. If a film advertised is '15' and a father with two 10 and 12 year-old kids turn up to the box office asking to buy tickets, the assistant has to point out it is a 15, and that he or she can't sell the tickets for the children (It's breaking the law). And if the father wants to complain he can contact the manager.

You, I and everyone else KNOWS that Studios are desperate to stay within the boundaries of the PG-13. And if the MPAA got even tighter they'd HAVE to follow suit No matter what anyone says, I will ALWAYS prefer the progressive BRITISH system as it makes sense and I bet if you had our system, there would be much less pressure on Studios and Producers!

To Adam Lenhardt - we could meet in a cafe and argue this all day... but... I'll finish this by saying:

YOU SAID: But it's still an oversimplification. Not people within age groups come from the same perspective and maturity. What's suitable for one 15 year old may not be suitable for another. That's why having advisory ratings is so important, rather than mandated ratings.

I SAY: STILL, in America teenagers are restricted by the R rating, if they're under 17 they can't see the film. Isn't that a mandated rating?

YOU ALSO SAID: Is this not the problem of all ratings systems? They make distinctions - usually arbitrary ones - so the parents can avoid taking the responsibility of checking out the content for themselves. With sites like screenit.com, there's no excuse for such laziness.

I SAY: I've checked the ScreenIt.com website and frankly it's FAR too detailed. Even to the point of ruining the film.

YOU THEN SAY: An advisory rating which allows parents to show their children films they deem appropriate, assuming they're willing to take the responsibility to attend the movie with them. Same as 'R' - also an advisory rating and rightfully so.

YOU ALSO SAY: Films aren't cigarettes, their only power is content, and the content a child is exposed to should be at the sole final disgression of the parent that has spent the last 'n' number of years raising them.

I SAY: Ok...

I SAID: You, I and everyone else KNOWS that Studios are desperate to stay within the boundaries of the PG-13. And if the MPAA got even tighter they'd HAVE to follow suit No matter what anyone says, I will ALWAYS prefer the progressive BRITISH system as it makes sense and I bet if you had our system, there would be much less pressure on Studios and Producers!

YOU SAID: This is fundementally wrong. The fact that there are cuts at all from the American releases proves that. If there were less pressure, the studios would just take the higher rating and avoid the trims.

The only reason there's as little pressure as there is from the British system is because Britain is a secondary market for Hollywood films. As America is the primary market, it's America's system that puts the most pressure on studio bean counters.

And for the reasons I've laid out above, I can't think of the British system as either progressive or sensible. Well intentioned perhaps, but certainly not progressive.

I'LL SAY: I admit NO rating system is the best and you've made very good counterpoints. But the truth is I started this thread because I really wanted to complain that films were being compromised by the Studios' demand to stay within certain ratings and how the MPAA/Studios have cultivated an kind of fear/sceptism around the NC-17 and R rating.

I'll be honest with you. I just want to see more ACTION MOVIES and THRILLERS again like we used to get in the late '80s and '90s. They're the most exciting thing in the cinema for me. They'll always be a place for animation like Shrek 2, comic book movies like Spider-Man and adventure like Van Helsing (or maybe not...), but I just miss the buddy-buddy cops, the tough mavericks, smart-a$$ wisecracks, saying something funny before you punch them , car chases, shoot outs, BIG explosions, etc...

I don't even go to the cinema that much anymore , I only go to see the BIG-budget blockbusters and many of them are so bland! Maybe it's too much test-screening and execs chipping in THEIR IDEAS (too many cooks syndrome...). I prefer to watch (the last?) truly great movies like The Rock, True Lies, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Scarface and Bad Boys (but NOT #2) on DVD.

You can call me shallow, but I know what I like and it's NOT out there.