How does the MPAA rate movies? (1 Viewer)

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Parents can be quite irresponsible, but they should be allowed to make their own judgements about what their kids should and shouldn't be allowed to see. The MPAA shouldn't have any restrictive powers, only advisory ones. As long as parents are present (to prove their active role in deciding that the film is appropriate), the children should not be barred from seeing any film. Surely it's stupid to take that responsibility from them; it doesn't accomplish anything, since a parent can bring the film home for the kid later. Additionally, the field of psychology has a long ways to go before we can conclusively say (and agree) that violent films, films with sex, or films with bad language are bad for children. Intuitively we say there are, and there are doubtlessly a plethora of studies to support (and deny) it, but none of the studies could possibly be conclusive, there are too many factors. I think Hannibal is acceptable for a 12 year old (dunno about the seven year old), if the parents discuss the film intelligently, and provide a context for the shocking scenes. Different children are ready for different things at different ages, and certainly there are plenty of people that argue that exposing children is better than sheltering them. Thus, I feel that the law, and industry self-regulation, should have no say in what children can and cannot watch (with parental consent, anyways), and that the NC-17 rating is an abomination. Nothing should be stricter than R (though it might be good to have something stronger, but with the same restrictions).

 

[Matt Vielkind]

Who the hell cares all the ratings are total BS.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I can't agree with keeping the MPAA. I have heard that 'R' rated movies are made and then sent to the MPAA for recommendations on what has to be removed to make it PG-13.
So much for calling a movie 'art'. Ok, I know that they do that just to get more bucks, but if any child wants to see a movie, it isn't hard at all. One example would be to have them set up the VCR for a night when it is on, and switching the channel to the correct one before they crash. Then they just watch it after school the next day with their friends.
But I do agree to the violence vs. nudity. I thought we were done with the Victorian Era. I'm just waiting for a major studio to come out with a major hit and bypassing the MPAA altogether. The theaters would have to be nuts not to accept it, and the studio could recommend a PG rating, or whatever is appropriate.
Glenn

 

[Dominik Droscher]

But I do agree to the violence vs. nudity. I thought we were done with the Victorian Era. I'm just waiting for a major studio to come out with a major hit and bypassing the MPAA altogether. The theaters would have to be nuts not to accept it, and the studio could recommend a PG rating, or whatever is appropriate

Glenn, this is exactly what I am waiting for. I don't like it to be let down by a movie which promises a lot and then see that it is PG13. I am not just talking about violence (I hate it when violence is toned down for a PG13 rating meaning less realism and impact like in Pear Harbor e.g.) or nudity but especially about language.
Another movie where I strictly disagree about the rating is Almost Famous. I am glad the studio decided to go with the R rating instead of an edited PG13 movie. "Rated R for language, drug content and brief nudity" ... come on.
Rating in Germany 12 and in Sweden and Spain even 7.
------------------
-Dominik Dröscher ICQ: 25318265
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes."

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

The studios would never abandon the MPAA. They love it. Aside from the fact that it keeps the Congress out of their hair through self-regulation (most of the time), it is also is the organization that all the major hollywood studios have formed to deal with Washington, and concerns like piracy. In any case, as bad as the MPAA is, I prefer it over government intervention.

 

[KyleK]

I just saw Air Foce One, and after it was over, the first thought that popped into my head was "That was rated R?" It had violence, which according the MPAA is okay, some swearing, one f-word and got an R rating. The Abyss has violence, lots of swearing, one f-word and some nonsexual nudity, and got PG-13! It boggles the mind.

 

[Adam_S]

I"m curious if anyone knows a good site where i could find out info about the ratings systems used in countries other than america, i"m doing a short opinion paper for a school project on the ratings system soon, and the more info i can find out about the different types of systems out htere, and how their countries arrived at them the better!

 

[Richard Kim]

I finally got around to seeing The Goonies last night, and I must say, it this was released today, it would definitely be PG-13 instead of PG, what with the occasional swearing and sexual innuendo. Nowadays the PG rating is almost like a like an endorsment as a family film.

 

[Artur Meinild]

On-topic: Inconsistent!
Off-topic: To wank = To jerk off! (watch Bottom for proof!)
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~

 

[Patrick Sun]

The leadership of Jack Valenti must go.
------------------
PatCave; HT Pix; Gear; DIY Mains; DIY CC; Sunosub I + II + III; DVDs; Link Removed

 

[TheLongshot]

The funny thing about mentioning J&SBSB in this thread. I saw it with my girlfriend the other night. She thought it should have been a PG-13 film. Yes, the language is strong, but no stronger than what the average teen hears in school every day. There is very little violence in the film, and no nudity.
I still find the phobia that MPAA has against nudity and sex rather amazing. Requiem For A Dream gets an NC-17 for not the rampant drug use in the film, but for a sex scene. Almost Famous gets an R for a few seconds of nudity.
The MPAA is also highly inconsistant and their standards have changed over the years. Jaws was a PG film. You'd think if it got made today it would be an R film?
The ratings are also useless for judging what is appropriate for you or your kids. Each rating can contain a wide variety of things. I'd rather have a rating system that actually was informative of what is in a film.
The MPAA also claims that they don't censor films, but the studios know the consiquences of getting certain ratings for the audience they are trying to go for. They know that in general, R rated films don't make as much as PG and PG-13 films. They also know that NC-17 is certain death for a film, since theaters won't play it and places won't advertise it, since there must be something wrong with it.
The thing is, tho, the MPAA is a nessicary evil. Why? Would you rather have the government create an agency to decide what we should see or not? Personally, that scares me. I'd rather see Jack Valenti out and the MPAA reformed rather than something worse.
Jason
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[MickeS]

Adam_S: here is a link to Link Removed

While I most likely wouldn't bring my children to see 'Hannibal', if I had children, I can't presume to know what everyone else's children are like and what they can handle.

When I saw it, there was a child at the age of 3-5 years old there. Do you think that parent made a conscious, thoughtful decision when she decided that the 5-year olds time would be best spent watching a cannibal serial killer for 2 hours?
/Mike

 

[MickeS]

Would you rather have the government create an agency to decide what we should see or not?

Of course not. Here's what should happen: MPAA should go. A government agency responsible for putting age restrictions on movies should be created. The guidelines should be very firm, consistent and easy to follow, so everyone knows what the rules are, in other words exactly the opposite of how the MPAA is.
NO censorship should be allowed, only age restrictions. Everything rated "allowed for everyone 18 and over" could be as violent or as sexual as the movie maker wants.
Why would this be better? Because the theater chains would no longer be in the stranglehold of the MPAA, and it would be easier for them to justify showing "adults only" movies. We as a movie going adult public would be much better off.
/Mike

 

[TheLongshot]

You mean the same government that blames the media and video games for the ills of our society? You trust the government far more than I do. I also don't like your "age restriction" idea. Age has nothing to do with what is appropriate for not for a kid, since some kids mature faster than others. And don't tell me no editing would go on. It goes on all the time in England. (Or it used to, at least)
Personally, I'd get rid of all of the age restrictions. They are all meaningless anyway. I would give individual ratings on the levels of violence, sex, profanity, and any other categories that might fit in there. Parents can use this as a guide as to whether or not their kid should see this. The current rating system does not do this. I also don't trust the government to not censor content because some conservative fuddy-duddy doesn't think anyone should see this because it offends his/her sensibilities.
Jason
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[Jun-Dai Bates]

Having age restrictions is a form of censorship, and a rather strong one. No company will give a serious budget to a film that only adults can see (there are a couple of exceptions to this), and any film that gets an adult rating (the equivalent of X) will be cut. Having the government involved is definitely worse, especially with the government we have today, and the recent school shootings.
As for consistency, how much consistency can you expect when you take thirty volunteer parents (I made this number up), sit them down to watch a film, and have them vote on a rating? It simply won't happen. If you want consistency, then you may as well ask for Jack Valenti to abandon the volunteer parents thing and simply rate the movies himself. I don't like that idea myself.
Right now I don't want the system to change. If the MPAA disbanded, the government would step in. If the MPAA took away the restrictions (particularly for NC-17), the government would step in. The government might even step in anyways, they've threatened to do so in the past, and if any government is going to step in, the one we have now would be the most likely candidate. I definitely don't want the MPAA to make stricter ratings. What I do want is for the volunteer parents to make better decisions, and that's about all.
Oh, the other thing I would like, would be for censored films to be released simultaneously with a director's cut (the full NC-17 version, or whatever), but that would probably be bad business. Certainly they could do it on DVD (I'm thinking specifically of Eyes Wide Shut, right now).

 

[MickeS]

I understand your concerns, and I agree with them to some degree. I still stand by my suggestion though.
/Mike

 

[Ken Chan]

It's the frikkin' third millenium: if parents want to learn the content of a movie, they can go to screenit.com and get a blow-by-blow account if they want. Then you could abandon MPAA ratings all together. (I'd miss Jack "Boom Boom" Valenti's occasional pearls of wisdom, though.)
But, as I believe someone on Monty Python said, there's one small problem: parents want to be able to drop off their kids at the theater, and know that their kids will not be allowed to see certain films. (Of course, theaters actually enforcing the ratings is a recent development.) Maybe small kids should always have guardians with them -- and maybe under a certain age, not allowed in theaters at all, but that's a whole 'nother topic -- but teenagers should be able to see movies by themselves, as long as the movies are not clearly adult-only.
So maybe all you need is a self-applied adult-only rating, which would be rare anyway. You could also have something like rottentomatoes.com where critics could vote as to whether such a rating is missing, and the result could be taken as the industry standard and enforced by theaters.
//Ken

 

[Cees Alons]

Isn't the MPAA rating purely advisory for parents? And only binds the theaters to the extent that they are not supposed to admit unaccompanied minors to movies rated "to highly" for them?
In other words, if the practice is exactly like it is here, parents do have the last word, because they could always choose to accompany children, who will then will be allowed in.
Or is that different in the US?
On the other hand: I don't have a high opinion of the responsibility of some parents in this respect!
Cees

 

[Chuck L]

In an above posting some mentioned age restrictions instead of rating and stated that they hated censorship. Wouldn't age restrictions still be a form of censorship.
I personally know that there are 30 year olds that don't have the mind set to watch a movie rated "R."
Part of the problem, and a big part, is that parents are spending more time worrying about what the media is protraying in films and on television, than what they are the 'offensive' things that go on in their own home.
Any parent that brings their child to a movie that they haven't properly researched should never blame a movie for their ignorance or the result that it has on their child.
Most recently, my partner and I were called upon to babysit the 7 year old child of my conservative Christian neighbor while she went to church because the child was sick. We has playing when she came up Friday the 13th Part 2, it was considered that we turn it off, BUT, I told the child that if she didn't want to watch to lay on the loveseat in the other direction.
I personally believe that IF we HAVE to have the MPAA, it should be an elected position with certain term limits. That way you don't have the same crew for 30 years dictating what people should have the right to see.

 

[AdrianJ]

Isn't the MPAA rating purely advisory for parents? And only binds the theaters to the extent that they are not supposed to admit unaccompanied minors to movies rated "to highly" for them?

Cees is right. There is no legal binding to the MPAA ratings; however, many states have started discussions about legalizing the ratings and attaching punishment to theaters that do not abide by them. There has always been an informal agreement that theaters would enforce the MPAA ratings in order to keep the government from getting involved.
The problem isn't with the rating system at all. It's with theater owners that will not show NC-17 movies. Since the change in the rating system, I've only been able to see one NC-17 rated movie, Requiem for a Dream, and the theater I saw it in had it listed as R-rated, but it was the NC-17 or unrated version. But for theater owners, it all comes down to revenues and since teenagers are the largest part of their audience, it doesn't make since for them to show anything above PG-13 or for them to enforce the R-rating restrictions. The theater I attend has an odd way of enforcing them. They have an attendant stand out in front of the auditorium until the movie starts, but as soon as it starts, the attendant is gone and the teenagers rush in. What a waste!
------------------

Adrian Jones