HOLLYWOOD/THE MPAA and MOVIEGOERS: The buck MUST stop here! (1 Viewer)

[Matthew Prince]

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!

:star:

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

I still don't get what's so realistic about Aliens vs. predators. Both franchises have been, at times anyways, smarter then average action movie, they still exist in a hyper-reality. One may argue that "cleaner looking violence" compromises the viewer's interpretation of violence as a serious, and painful, thing, but I think "realism" kinda went out the window.

 

[Kami]

Just a thought, but maybe it's only rated PG-13 because there is no swearing and no nudity? Those two things are intant rating boosters. All AvP has is violence really, and a lot of it involves things that aren't human, i.e. no red blood. Just green blood and acid.

There will be some human deaths and I am sure they will be violent, just not excessively gory. I'm not sure how much chest bursting would affect ratings, I would expect any of that to be toned down too.

What other things could bump up the rating? Maybe PG-13 isn't so bad after all considering todays standards. Probably best to wait to see the film.

 

[Matthew Prince]

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 :frowning:, 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.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

Oficially, a teen can see a film (except NC-17) if he/she is accompanied by an adult (over 18). When I was a kid, enforcement of this was extremely lax, though. I regularly went to see R rated films from the time I was 14 without an adult.

 

[RobertR]

Everyone has things he wants to see provided in the marketplace that it doesn't give, simply because not enough people agree with him on what he wants. As others have pointed out, the studios are simply following the dollars. You may not like it, but that's the reality, and it encompasses a LOT more than the MPAA.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

There's no legal enforcement of the ratings in the U.S. and many theaters won't bother carding anyone unless there's been a recent hubub.

 

[chris winters]

I think what is ironic is the fact that many of these "R" rated franchises, like Alien or Preditor, created their fan bases from the kids only now old enough to see a true "R" rated movie. How many of us were under 17 when these movies came out, I know I was. And now when Im much older, and look forward to perhaps an even more adult enstallment to the series I remember as a kid, the new entry is "kiddified" to a frusterating level. This phenomanon is exagerated by the fact the Im much older then I was when I first enjoyed the movies, and the new versions are even less adult. Movies are eventually going to head back as things were before the late 60s counter culture revolution, where everything was sanatized and safe for risk of garnering a rating that may offend a portion of your audience. Films were sanatized then for ideas based on principle, and now they will be for money, and hitting the largest demographic. How many great works of art would be rated r? and how much music, or novels? Good thing we dont have to settle for PG13 versions of everyting in those mediums. Budgets are really whats done away with the R rating. It forces studios to grab at the largest audience. Make a movie for 30 million, and who cares if it only makes 80 million, but make one for 150 million, and suddenly your nervous about not appealing to the dude with only a learners permit in his wallet.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I don't really consider the movies of the '60's sanitized, but just more family friendly. There were a lot of really good films from that era, and they didn't need the cussing, violence or nudity to get a point across and to have you leaving the theater with a smile on your face.

But I see where Hollywood is going, of course. They want to take in the big bucks, and I can't blame them, but I don't think that the way they are going about it is the right way.

If we have to have standards, then I'd change the PG-13 to PG-13, and require a student body card for admission. Of course, the studios are going to have a fit, but maybe they will realize that if they clean up their act, a lot more people would be going to the movies, period.

...and no, I'm not a bible-thumper. Far from it.

I think that if they did make the SBC a rule to get in, they'd find out that the biggest group of people that go to the theaters isn't the teens, or the kids - it's the adults. This would make an 'R' rating more acceptable for the chains, and we'd be able to watch 'adult' movies without a noisy kid sitting behind you.

Glenn

 

[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.

 

[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]

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

 

[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).