Absolute nonsense from the MPAA!!!! (1 Viewer)

[Evan Case]

Yep, definitely some hypocrisy from the MPAA.
After all, which one these two covers is more detrimental to America's mental well-being: this one or this one? Yet the latter was allowed to make it through the MPAA's scrutiny.
These incidences of double standards must stop.
Evan

 

[Malcolm R]

There's nothing in that poster that any kid hasn't already seen in "A Nightmare Before Christmas." Sally is constantly sewing her body parts back together.

 

[Bill J]

Evan,

 

[ThomasC]

evan, how dare you post that!

 

[Mitty]

Well as far as nudity goes, IIRC a womens breast or buttucks may be shown in a PG-13 movie as long as they are not touched in a sexual manner. Like in say Titanic, when he is drawing the picture her breats are not being groped at all, but when they go into the carriage to have sex they don't show anything.

That is the great irony of the MPAA's punch-drunk checklist approach. That scene was most certainly in a sexual context, hell it was dripping with sexuality, but the MPAA allows it to get a PG-13. Show a woman getting a breast exam or god help us, a gynecological exam, a film will get an R or, in the latter case, an NC-17, yet the context is completely non-sexual.
It sure does seem like more inclusive ratings are for sale by the MPAA. The above, for example. And it sure seems like Indie films don't get the same kid-gloves treatment as the majors. I'll never forget going to see Batman Forever, with its PG-13 for "strong stylized action" instead of just the usual "violence" and having the girl I saw it with laughing and saying "I wonder how much that rating cost!"
The thing about movie posters is that you can't "rate" them like a film and, in theory, keep younger viewers from seeing them. They're out there for EVERYONE to see, so the MPAA has to decide if it's alright for anyone to view. Lion's Gate probably just doesn't have enough pull with the MPAA yet, like the majors. Of course, none of the majors would even try to slip a poster like that past the MPAA, abhoring any sort of controversy like they do.

 

[Patrick G]

So, does Jack Valenti and his crew do nothing but watch movies from 8-5 every day, or does another group actually view the pictures and report to Valenti, or how does it work exactly?

 

[Damin J Toell]

So, does Jack Valenti and his crew do nothing but watch movies from 8-5 every day, or does another group actually view the pictures and report to Valenti, or how does it work exactly?

Ratings are done by the Classification And Rating Administration (CARA), which is a body of the MPAA, like the relationship between ESRB and IDSA for videogames. CARA's raters are supposed to be anonymous laypeople.

DJ

 

[Malcolm R]

Valenti has nothing to do with the viewing and rating process. He's just their arrogant, obnoxious mouthpiece.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm personally much more offended that the entire U.S. film industry feels it must bend to the every demand of one clueless individual (Jack Valenti) and his band of "moral guardians".

It's because Valenti, like Satan and Saruman before him, can sweet talk people into anything. Just look at the field day he's had with Congress I shall leave it at that, lest I push forum boundaries.

 

[Eric F]

Releasing a movie unrated would be the kiss of death because all the big chain theaters would refuse to run it.

Not only that, but releasing an unrated video would be the same because Wally-world wouldn't stock it either.

 

[Malcolm R]

Releasing a movie unrated would be the kiss of death because all the big chain theaters would refuse to run it.

So if the next "Spider-Man" movie were released unrated, no one would show it?

By and large, the studios don't seem to have a problem with the MPAA. Most of the skirmishes and arguments seem to come from directors. But if the studios did want to get rid of the rating system, they could just band together and release everything unrated. Then theaters and video stores would have no choice unless they wanted empty auditoriums and stores.

 

[Ted Todorov]

By and large, the studios don't seem to have a problem with the MPAA. Most of the skirmishes and arguments seem to come from directors. But if the studios did want to get rid of the rating system, they could just band together and release everything unrated. Then theaters and video stores would have no choice unless they wanted empty auditoriums and stores.

The studios ARE the MPAA. It will exist so long as they want it and they do want the MPAA as well as ratings system.
Something like Spider-Man CAN NOT be released unrated because the studios (Sony/Columbia in this case), as MPAA signatories are required to submit ALL their films to be rated. Only companies that are not MPAA signatories -- the true indies -- can release unrated material.
Unrated movies as well as NC-17 movies can not be shown in many shopping malls where most chains have their theaters, due to explicit contracts between the chains and the mall owners.
A ratings system of one kind or another is clearly necessary: I don't know of any country that doesn't have one. I just think that our ratings system is absurdly strict when it comes to sex and absurdly lenient when it comes to violence.
Who are the ratings people? -- rotating groups of parents selected by the MPAA. How they are picked, I have no idea. One of the cheif defects of the system is that these parents seem to be chiefly guided by what they might find *embarrassing* to view while sitting next to their children rather than what would be *harmful* to their kids...
Ted

 

[Jan Strnad]

I think that Adam S hit the nail on the head: it's the use of childlike imagery, I'm willing to bet, that got this poster canned.

Jan

 

[JasenP]

Hmmmmmm....
http://us.imdb.com/Posters?0144120
Major studio release vs. Small distributor
I get it now.

 

[Philip Klein]

everyone should ask themselves this question, do you want the studios to police themselves, or the Federal Govt. to police the studios?

 

[Louis C]

One of the cheif defects of the system is that these parents seem to be chiefly guided by what they might find *embarrassing* to view while sitting next to their children rather than what would be *harmful* to their kids...

Well put Ted.

You get an 'R' for cutting off a woman's breast, but a 'NC-17' for kissing it.

 

[Brenton]

How about the line "There are no good whores"? Maybe that's another bit that annoyed MPAA? Only why is there an "L" instead of "R" there...

I can't tell if you're joking, but that says "There are no good wholes".