MPAA Says Smoking Will Play A Role In Film Ratings (1 Viewer)

[AaronMan]

Malcolm, you can't even go "Unrated". Unrated films are treated pretty much like an NC-17 or an X. Regardless of the content. They have guidlines for such films. I love how the MPAA says their rating system is voluntary and not a requirement. BULLSHIT. If you choose to go Unrated, theaters will most likely not accept your film (unless its an art house), your limited on when and where you can advertise it, Various retail chains will not carry the DVD/VHS version. Its a huge financial risk to go beyond an R rating. And now, it looks like the R rating is in danger of becoming taboo. The MPAA's rating criteria is completely arbitrary and biased toward convervative views.

Parents should not go by the MPAA rating system at all. Throw it out the window. Instead, parents should find out actual information about by...wait for it...DOING RESEARCH ON A MOVIE YOUR CHILD IS ABOUT TO WATCH. Good lord, is that too much to ask?

It makes me sick to even think about the MPAA. The system is broken, plain and simple.

 

[Chris]

If you really want to be scared about how the process works, watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" Incredible behind the scenes of what happens in getting ratings. Craziness.

 

[Bob_L]

Yes. That's absolutely the purpose of a film ratings system: to push a social agenda.

:rolleyes

 

[Jon Martin]

As far as the voluntary, it is voluntary for independent studios. My multiplexes often show smaller films without ratings.

But how is any of that the MPAA's fault? If they feel a film is worthy of an NC-17, it isn't their fault that the studios are afraid of it.

There was a conference at Sundance this year, with the MPAA and filmmakers, about how studios should "Embrace the NC-17". They haven't. They should be blamed more than the MPAA. If they are serious, about wanting to make mainstream films for adult, they could start to.

Only one mainstream film has ever been given the rating and released that way, SHOWGIRLS. In my area, that played at all the mulitplexes. You can find it today in Best Buys and Circuit City. When the special edition box set was released, Circuit City had a standee for it. It was a terrible film, and bombed, but it showed that theatres may accept it.

All the other films that have been given the rating have been arthouse films.

Why?

This is a youth driven culture, and the studios known this. They know that those under 17 make up a big part of the R rated audience. They would rather have a film rated PG-13 than R. Forget about NC-17.

But, if they release a film NC-17, they cut out a large segment of the moviegoing public (often making it unprofitable).

And as for stores not carrying a film, has anyone been to Wal Mart DVD shopping? Do they carry most Criterion titles? Foreign titles? Anything that isn't among the top 100 selling titles? They sell a lot of titles, yes, but they don't sell every title. I don't know why people always cite this as an example where over 95% of the DVDs released aren't carried by them.

 

[AaronMan]

Jon, thank you for proving my point. Duh! Of course its a youth driven market! Everybody knows that, right? Are we all on the same page now?

I was talking about the rating system from an artist's or filmmaker's point of view, not a studio's. Your right, the studios will cave in when they can see that they aren't going to make as much money with a harder rating. So they pressure their artists, the directors, to change their film so the studios can try and make more money. Its appalling.


"Showgirls" probably got the NC-17 because the studios didn't care. They probably knew it was a shitburger. Bad publicity because of the NC-17 was only going to help "Showgirls". I can almost guarantee you that the few people who went to the theaters to see "Showgirls" only went to see it to see what "all the fuss" was about and not about the actual film. "OOOOOh.....Look! Its rated NC-17! We might see something naughty!"

Now, for example, if "The Departed" was threatened with an NC-17? I can guarantee you it would have been trimmed down to get an R. Why? Because the studio would have known they had a good movie on their hands. They don't want to take the chance having the "The Departed" being a martyr for the NC-17. And I can bet Scorsese for damn sure wouldn't want to edit his film, but at the same time he'd be super pissed because the MPAA and their ambiguous guidlines deemed it was too much for an R rating. He wouldn't want people saying, "Hey there's that movie with the NC-17." or, "Hey that was pretty good, why was it rated NC-17?" He wants them talking about the film's story. To the general public, the NC-17 has that "just below an X" vibe connotation. Which it shouldn't, but it does. And with each little thing they nickle and dime the R rating for, like they are doing with this smoking nonsense, its close to becoming another NC-17.

Personally, I think the PG-13 rating should be dropped. It was a good idea at the beginning, but its being abused like crazy. When it originated, it was supposed to be "just slightly above PG." Maybe one or two things are questionable. Nowadays, its "just below R." Studios are saying, "How much can we cram in before its an R?" Films should be forced to go G, PG, or R. I've seen quite a bit of stuff over the years in a PG-13 that I would put in an R. And today, PG is the new G. Remember how PG films, in general, used to be relevent? Now, the PG rating is mostly just kiddie fare. Instead of a PG movie being something everyone can actually enjoy, as opposed to having their intelligence insulted, its now a movie only a 6 year old could tolerate.

Can you see how one might think the MPAA is a bit screwed up? Maybe it had good intentions when it started, but its clearly in need of an drastic overhaul.

Ugh. Stop the planet, I want to get off.

 

[TravisR]

No offense but you probably want to calm down or you're gonna have a heart attack.

 

[AaronMan]

Thanks, Dad.

 

[JeremyErwin]

It took 6 "fuck"s to get Gosford Park up to an R, so "as tough on smoking as they are on language" doesn't mean much.

And so what? If it means that the riffraff are kept out of the theatre, perhaps we could enjoy going to the movies once more...

 

[John Doran]

seems like a bit of a tempest in a teacup to me...

is anyone here going to avoid a movie because no-one in it smokes?

does anyone think that a(n otherwise artistically accomplished) movie is going to be refused to be greenlit by the studios because it has no smokers in it?

so what's the problem, exactly?

(...i was gonna make a similar post in the "The MPAA and my local pastor disapproves of nudity and violence" thread, but i couldn't find it. strange, that.)

 

[JeremyErwin]

It's just one more step away from the uncensored, uninhibited movies that most of us consider ideal. If the director wants to include something in a production, why frustrate him with censorship?

 

[JeremyErwin]

Hi, I'm John Waters, and I'm supposed to announce that there's no smoking allowed in this theater.

 

[John Doran]

it's no more censorship than me standing in front of my local theatre with a billboard decrying a particular movie...

censorship is something that is done by the goverrnment - legislation made and enforced by the elected representatives of the people; the MPAA is a private (i.e. non-governmental) body whose rulings are not (legally) enforceable by public officials.

basically, the MPAA is not all that different from the Moral Majority, or any other public association that attempts to shape public life by the application of social or economic pressure...

if i convince a bunch of people across the US to boycott films with nudity, is that censorship?

 

[JeremyErwin]

Be my guest. You'll be competing with the "Celebrity Nude Data Base". I just think that the MPAA should get out of the business of rating films.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

The MPAA is not in anyway, shape or form a "public association". It is an industry group.


Would it be so terrible to simply release films with the HBO style info? If your community starts banning films, that's a great litmus test to determine if that's a community worth living in. Its what they want anyway. Let them have it, let filmmakers have their freedom, and let everyone else make up their own mind.

I think we'd even get better films if the releases had to be staggered to accommodate local censors instead of carpet bombing them into 4200 theaters they way they do now.

The MPAA is obsolete. Get rid of it.

 

[John Doran]

yes, it is, if (as i did) one uses "public" as an antonym for "governmental". hence, my parenthetical use of "non-governmental" as an explanatory aid.

 

[John Doran]

i don't disagree; it's just that one cannot reasonably ground such a belief in an opposition toward "censorship".

 

[Jon Martin]

Are you kidding???? Do you know how expensive that would be? Movie companies complain enough about the cost of prints, but having to meet with hundreds of little civic groups, which would be run by religious groups, would not only be costly but far more damaging to the end product than the MPAA.

The MPAA exists for parents. If you are over 18, and not in the industry, you shouldn't care what a film is rated. They are far from obsolete. They are needed.

Go back and read what film distribution was like in the early 60's. Do you really want to go back to that????

I just find it funny that people often think that extreme content means better films. The 1930's created some of the greatest films of all time. And all of those would have been rated PG.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

I don't know if you are referring to me with this, but if so its a strawman. I am not advocating for more "extreme content". In fact, I think doing away with the ratings might actually reduce some of the more ridiculous content, since there would be none of the pressure "push the boundary" of a rating category.

 

[Jason Seaver]

And certain films can't be made without it, or at least not as well.