I almost did it..... (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

There are hardly any "NC-17" flicks, but the argument was that the Canadian "R" was superior to the American "R" because the former doesn't allow in anyone under 18. Changing the American "R" to match that system would simply mean it's the same as "NC-17". Why would they change a classification to match one they already have?

 

[Chad R]

Funny. I remember my wife's boss complaining that she took her 10 year old to see that for his birthday expecting just a horror movie and was shocked, absolutely shocked, that it had all of that sex in it. It's okay that the kid sees the violence, but not the sex.

That's when my wife came up with the idea that American's ideology of sex and violence is so backwards. It is very likely that in any person's lifetime he/she will have several experiences with sex. Hopefully, they will never have any violent experiences. But we continue to shun sex and allow our children to absorb violence by the spoonful.

 

[Francois Caron]

Just a note that the Canadian ratings are NOT nation-wide. Movie ratings fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The rules vary widely from province to province and has produced some very bizarre decisions in the past such as the movie "The Tin Drum" which was banned in Ontario, but was broadcasted regularily on the Quebec government-run television network.

 

[Julian Lalor]

And people have sex every day, so why not let them in on some hard core porn after the serial killer movie. I thought not.

 

[Dennis Castro]

Hilarious!!!!

 

[Robert Anthony]

"but they ARE arguing in favor of more sensitive parenting, "

And that's none of our business. In the least.

The movie industry should worry themselves about entertainment, and the government should worry about the governing of the country. Neither should the two join together and interfere with how a family chooses family outings. a 6 year old at Monster is pretty out there, yes. That can't be denied--but isn't this ALSO, on one level, implying that kids who watch movies like monster are apt to imitate? Isn't this an argument that many of you here don't believe in? Or are we saying that a movie can have the power to be interpreted as child abuse? That bringing them to this movie is akin to smacking up your child and locking them in a closet?

I mean, what ARE you guys really saying here? I don't think I'd like that a parent is taking their kid to "monster," either, but is that really comparable to neglect? To abuse? The content is over the head of the kid and not appropriate--but is it DAMAGING? Is the childs welfare being harmed at all?

Since when is it the MPAA's responsibility to parent children? Why is OUR personal opinion of a total strangers parenting decisions enough to suggest THE GOVERNMENT get involved with this? Hell, the R rating says "not suitable for viewing under 17 without parent or guardian." If the MPAA thought the movie wasn't suitable for viewing under 17, PERIOD, then they wouldn't have given the movie an R.

And what's to say the government would do a better job judging that criteria than the MPAA?

That's knee-jerk reactionism, and it's overblown. Way overblown. If you want to be a butt-inski and ask some total stranger why they're taking their kid to a movie about serial killers, you go right ahead. that's YOUR prerogative. Don't make YOUR prerogative a course of law when it certainly doesn't need to be.

 

[Ricardo C]

Robbie, in what way did my brief post suggest I support government-regulated ratings, or anything else in your little Orwellian monologue? Just curious.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Sorry, when I use "you" in most of my long-winded rants, it's not the specific "you" but the general--and your posts don't really reflect what I think the majority of posts FOR this thinking are saying--Your quote just happened to be the one that best served as a springboard for the "orwellian monologue" (not really orwellian, but I get what you're saying)

Apologies, man. Didn't mean to confuse anything.

Oh, and if you're going to shorten my name, please call me Bobby. or Fatboy.

Once again, apologies.

 

[Ricardo C]

I did consider using Fatboy, but I was worried people wouldn't get it and think I was being insulting

No offense was intended by the use of "Robbie", it's just what I usually shorten Robert to (well, not shorten, since they have the same amount of letters... Funny, that). Apologies.

 

[Dennis Castro]

What I'm saying is that every time some type of tragedy like Columbine or the moron's who tried to imitate Jack Ass happens, the entertainment industry gets blamed. Yet time and time again I see parents exposing there children to this type of material.

I do believe that being exposed to a film such as Monster can, not always but can have a effect on a child who is not mature enough to handle it.

 

[James T]

Rating system.

Canada = US(equivalent)

General(G) = Family(F)
Parental Guidence(PG)= Same
14A = PG-13
18A = R
R = NC-17

It's more or less the same. The big difference is that most movies in the states are rated 'R' while in Canada are rated 14A. Movies like the Matrix(all three), T3, The last Samuari were all rated 14A in Canada and R in the states. But the Canadian R is given to more movies than the NC-17 is given out in the states. The most recent that I recall is Kill Bill.

14A can handle excessive violence like in T3. Nudity and drugs are what gives a film in Canada an 18A rating. For nudity it has to be a few scenes as a quick glimpse won't really count(T3).

Someone already mentioned it, but maybe the states needs to change the age at which a child can attend an R-rated movie, even with an adult.

 

[MartinTeller]

Kinda jumped to conclusions there, didn't you? I don't have a problem with my kid seeing porn. It's just sex. What made you so sure I would object?

How's that egg on your face taste?

 

[Robert Anthony]

"What I'm saying is that every time some type of tragedy like Columbine or the moron's who tried to imitate Jack Ass happens, the entertainment industry gets blamed. Yet time and time again I see parents exposing there children to this type of material"

I do get your point there, and maybe as a self-protective measure, it kind of makes sense--but there's a big difference between kids not being paid attention to, and a parent being there WITH the kid at a movie. That's a huge difference, I think. I mean, we can talk extremes and specific exceptions to the rule, (for instance, lets' check back on those kids who saw Monster in 5 years and see what happens) but the main point is, as we've heard before--the kids were troubled BEFORE they saw the movie, the movie wasn't what edged em over or MADE em do anything, and I seriously doubt that the large majority of troubled kids are the kind that would have parents with them at the movie theater anyway.

I mean, I CAN see both sides of this, I just don't see how making the rating system a governmental mandate will remedy the situation we're all apparently frightened of. Especially since the reasoning behind this kind of call is spurred by a snap judgment of a stranger with his/her kids at an R rated movie. It's not much to go on.

Besides which, I've seen kids raised in a "not normal" way, and turn out perfectly fine. I've seen kids raised pollyanna pure and end up in Girls Gone Wild 18. There's just too many variables and too many uncertainties and differences of opinion in how to raise a family that something that locked down and rigid, it just reeks of governmental interference to me. And I don't think R rated movies and kids and parents watching them together warrant that level of interference.

oh, and Ricardo: No offense taken, man. when your preferred nickname is "Fatboy" you don't get pissed too easily at the other mutations of "Robert."

 

[Dennis Castro]

Well, I'm not calling for a government mandate; I would be strongly opposed to that as I am a strong proponent of free speech and expression.

It's just that I can't help but think. Are these the same parents that blame the entertainment industry when there children do something wrong?

 

[Julian Lalor]

Come back when you actually have kids and we'll talk. At the moment, your comments are meritless because you're talking in the abstract. You could as easily say you're going to permit your kids to drive your car when they're 3. It's meaningless until you have them in front of you and you've got to make the decision.

 

[Mike<R]

q]Probably because it is grounds to have your child taken away from you. Showing a 5 year old porn and extreme violence is clearly abuse[/q]

Is showing a 5 year old violent movies and porn against the law? How violent does a movie have to be before a child is taken away. I don't think letting a child watch a R rated film would get your child taken away, NC-17 or XXX yes but not R. Besides not all films are rated the same Bad Boys 2 is far worse in the gore and violent content than Matrix Revolutions. Porky's is far worse in the sex and nudity than Supertroopers. When I was a child my parents took me and my two younger siblings to R rated films all the time and none of us have done anything bad. I think it is a parents resposiblity to see a movie then determine if a child should watch it. I would also hate to see the government step in and regulate movies. Personally I would not take my daughter to see a film that was to violent, gory, or too much sex until she could understand what she saw. I also would rater she saw nudity without the sex, and violent or gore within a totally fantasy world like in Alien or Underworld or Freddy vs Jason not a movie like House of 1000 Corpse or Bad Boys films more grounded in reality. My daughter really really wants to see Freddy vs Jason but she will have to wait awhile. I think I would rather have her see F v J than some of the really bad children's movies out there(all dogs go to heaven, pokemon) .

Never have done this and probably never will. If we can not find a babysitter than we wait for the dvd(Kill Bill):frowning:
It should be the parnents resposiblity to watch what their kids see, hear, and do, not the theater owners or the government. But that is just my little opnion and I have been wrong once or twice. Wow this is the longest post I have ever written I think.

 

[Malcolm R]

It should be, but so many parents fail miserably at many "parenting" tasks, including monitoring their child's entertainment choices, that it can become a burden on the rest of society (through violence, crime, delinquency, etc.) which then has to take action through regulation.

The concept of parenting has become lost in the past 20 years. Most people now just seem to pop 'em out of the womb then let them run wild for 18 years until they can kick them out of the house so they become someone else's problem.

 

[John Doran]

sure. and parents should expose their children only to those things that will not adversely affect them. and people should drive carefully and soberly so as not to harm anyone else. and people should pay for everything they take from stores. and....

in an ideal world everyone would actually do everything they ought to do. but it's not, so they don't. which is why we have the law.

 

[Cees Alons]

How come you believe that? It isn't. Young children do not know what sex is exactly or "how it goes", but of course they're curious, as to all things grown-ups do. THAT as an education is misleading, to say the least. It's not what grown-ups do when they have sex.
Many parents want their children to learn things the proper way, and at the moment they can relate to them.

Cees

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

I think parents give too much credit to their children at these young ages. Every parent I talk to and I include my sister in this scenario, believe their kids are the most intelligent and mature kids around. But kids at this age still do not understand what is real and what is not when it comes to watching movies and cartoons.

When my niece, who is 3 watches Monsters, Inc (not Monster) all she sees is cute colourful characters on the screen and they do funny things. She doesn't understand the premise of the movie regarding scary monsters in the closet and under your bed. If she were a few years older and able to grasp the concept of what the monsters are doing in this movie she would probably be freaked out believing there could be monsters in her bedroom at night, then I think my sister and her husband would think twice about the content she watches.

Also I would like to throw in my own childhood experience. When I was 4 years old my concept of what a mouse looked like was Mickey Mouse and Jerry. I thought all mice had big rubbery ears and walked on 2 legs. One night in our basement my dad found a mouse running around. I stood on the stairs and he asked me to look out for the mouse so he could catch it. When this small creature scuttled across the floor I pointed to it and asked my dad what that was, and he responded that it was a mouse. I was confused as to why that was a mouse, when everything I see on tv showed otherwise. After he had disposed of the mouse, I then asked him questions about the Mickey Mouse I knew on tv and the mouse in the basement and he was very open with me that what I see on tv especially in cartoons is not real.


Paul