anybody here think the MPAA ratings system is lacking?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't watch enough movies to care about the state of the MPAA.

you're right, i just had a memory leak. i hadn't seen the film in 2 decades and i forgot the protagonist was a cokehead. that movie made me want to bathe in clorophyll afterwards.

the rest of the world got to see the uncut version of "basic instinct" and as such it was rated for adults-only over most of the world, with a few countries like sweden giving it a 16+ rating. in my rating system i would've given it a MR-17 LVSN rating. a far more adult film, "dressed to kill" in its uncut state deserved the worldwide 18+ rating it got, and that 's the rating i'd give it also. just my 2-cent's worth, adjusted for inflation.

The MPAA and FBI should butt the FU*K out of people's lives.

are you referring to movie ratings or something else?

Perhaps one of the biggest problems I have with the MPAA is the NC-17 rating. Because of the stigma surrounding the rating (the public equates it with hardcore pornography), most studios won't distribute or market a film that receives an NC-17, and the moral guardians with the MPAA know this, and use it as a way of coercing filmmakers into censoring their movies. Many people affiliated with the film industry (including Roger Ebert) feel it should be abolished.

the problem is the bible belt, which is where the bulk of the newspapers are who refuse to sell ad space to adult movies. bible belt theatres will not exhibit adult movies in the first place, so there is no reason for the local papers to sell ad space for them. if you get rid of the adult rating then what will happen is the communities that these newspaper serve [and which are a reflection of local bluenosed morals] will simply reinstitute local censorship boards. the bible belt is hopeless in this regard. the movie industry would do better to encourage more movie theatres in more liberal parts of the country [or concentrate on more sensible international markets] to make up for any shortfall due to the non-participation of the bible belt.

I think it goes beyond religious morals, as well as ethnic and socioeconomic boundaries. I said in an earlier post that perhaps the most significant factors that shape American morality (for the religious and non-religious) are the parents' desires to protect their children. I live in the Bible Belt, and I know quite a few non-religious people, and they share the same suburban sentimentalities as their WASP neighbors. They know that as consenting adults they do not have to go see an adult film if they don't want to, but they keep them out of their communities because they're afraid their kids will see them.

The audience that the film industry seems to marginalize are the adults that don't have children. To add more to the dumbing down of entertainment is that the film companies (or at least the Big Six--Disney, Universal, WB, Fox, Columbia, Paramount--the independent studios don't seem to do it as much) know that kids are the biggest consumers of just about anything and don't care what the critics say, so they make movies that will not only draw out the kids in droves, but will leave them satisfied and asking for more.

By and large, you tend to find more art house theaters in cities that have larger demographics of young adults, which tend to be college towns like Austin.

the rest of the world wants to protect its children also, but their priorities are much less puritanical than american sensibilities. in general, language sex and nudity are not as much of a concern to the rest of the world, in that they have a more adult [less juvenile] take on these things in the first place- they do frown upon gratuitous violence, especially the sanitized american type which doesn't reflect its actual ugliness, aka cartoony violence. european parents are fully aware that their children hear the foulest of foul language in the schoolyard, and realize that censoring same on tv and in movies is as ridiculous as closing the barn door after the horse escapes.
the movie "blazing saddles" in its original theatrical release, got the equivalent of PG/PG-13 ratings [a G[!] in british columbia circa 1975] over the rest of the world, but only in 1974 america did it receive its ludicrously punitive R rating. this movie had no F-words, no nudity, no violence, hardly anything of an adult nature. what an embarrassment. only america, alone among western nations, still censors the bulk of its movies for public consumption, only america still uses the bleep button [hardly ever used in any other western nation] because the powers-that-be insist on enabling the shrinking violet sensibilities of its adult citizens who can't seem to get the concept of TV rating content descriptors [i.e., tvMA-LNSV - "contains adult language"] or even of just changing the channel if they see something they don't like. only american parents seem to want big brother to police their children's viewing for them. only american adults use childish euphemisms to express themselves- oprah having to say "va-jay-jay" for crying out loud.
the american movie rating system is obsolete and next to useless. the R-rating in particular, is a one-size-fits-all monstrosity that needs an injection of some nuance. but most of all, the censorious american viewing public needs to grow up.

Couldn't agree more. Only in America do we infantilize our culture only so that nobody gets offended or corrupts the children. My mother recently went on a business trip, and her bosses made her and the rest of the employees engage in mindless activities (that had nothing to do with their actual jobs) to reenforce their group mentality, like it was some second grade science project.

According to TV Tropes, George Lucas made Greedo shoot first because of pressure from the MPAA when he rereleased the original Star Wars trilogy in 1997. The PG-13 rating was created after the original release, and the MPAA would have awarded it to the rerelease because they felt that Han shooting first made him seem too sadistic .

all ratings below R [G/PG/PG-13] are basically the same general admission thing, but with warnings. so [aside from restricted ratings] why not have just one general admission for all audiences [GA] rating, with content descriptors? [for example, GA-language, cartoony violence]
or have a variable-age Mature Accompaniment rating in place of the one-size-fits-all Restricted rating? like MA-12->MA-17, depending on content? or a variable-age restricted to mature audience rating [no children under a certain variable age, period- like RM-15 or RM-18]?

Some of the content complaints people are making are getting ridiculous. Over the weekend some family watchdog group said Rango should have gotten an R rating because it depicts smoking. SMOKING! Next thing you know they'll be whining about characters eating trans fats and getting sun tans.

Considering how the MPAA has clearly shown itself to be prejudiced towards LGBT-themed, independent and foreign films, one wonders if there will eventually be an ACLU suit filed against them.

By the way, has anyone seen the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated? It really exposes the faults and double standards of the MPAA.

we have met the enemy, and he is us americans. we continue to be a laughingstock for the rest of the civilized world. we are an utterly childish, infantile nation in oh so many ways.

they are well-protected from lawsuits, from what i've read. but the time is right to try.



yes, that dvd was a consciousness-raiser.