Roger Ebert wanted an "A" rating for movies

[Canada]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFMcM8II1NM

Roger Ebert wanted an "A" rating for movies between "R" and "NC-17"

[PLG1962]

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

I cant remember the last time I said "oh this film is rated "fill-in-blank" "

[mojo_navigator]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

I cant remember the last time I said "oh this film is rated "fill-in-blank" "

Ratings were/are a political decision and have little or even nothing to do with the actual film itself.

I think this is why film buffs seldom consider it except perhaps in a historic way.

Who is to decide how “strong” an act of violence, for example, is? This is an arbitrary decision determined by a committee imposing their own morality.

Add to that the fact that the concepts of morality themselves differ according to different cultures.

For example during the Hays Code era it was forbidden in the US to show someone being shot in the same frame as the gun.

This of course didn’t apply in countries that didn’t have this restriction.

(msg to OP: apologies for hijacking your thread but this is a potentially more interesting discussion)

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

I cant remember the last time I said "oh this film is rated "fill-in-blank" "

It doesn't matter whether you notice the ratings, you are missing the point. Theatres, studios and distributors do and that's what matters. So an NC-17 will barely get shown, because most theatres refuse to exhibit them. As a result an NC-17 film either barely get distribution or they gets censored like that ludicrous digital masking of Kubrick's Eyes Wise Shut referred to in the article, because Americans apparently can't cope with nudity and soft core sex scenes.

[Foggy]

I watch Pedro Almodavar's Bad Education the other day, and it was insane that it got an NC-17 for some of the sex scenes that are no worse than most films at R. But because it was transgender/homosexual sex scenes it got pushed to the NC-17.

[PLG1962]

Originally Posted by mojo_navigator

Ratings were/are a political decision and have little or even nothing to do with the actual film itself.

I think this is why film buffs seldom consider it except perhaps in a historic way.

Who is to decide how “strong” an act of violence, for example, is? This is an arbitrary decision determined by a committee imposing their own morality.

Add to that the fact that the concepts of morality themselves differ according to different cultures.

For example during the Hays Code era it was forbidden in the US to show someone being shot in the same frame as the gun.

This of course didn’t apply in countries that didn’t have this restriction.

(msg to OP: apologies for hijacking your thread but this is a potentially more interesting discussion)

Last time I took notice of Ratings was when Clerks came out and was rated R [no one under 18 admitted, not that I had to worry about that] it was because you could only say the word "frack" so many times and if you went over it you got a R rating slapped on the film

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I watch Pedro Almodavar's Bad Education the other day, and it was insane that it got an NC-17 for some of the sex scenes that are no worse than most films at R. But because it was transgender/homosexual sex scenes it got pushed to the NC-17.

That's ridiculous. Wasn't Shame also hit with that kind of rating just for showing Fassbender's ding-a-ling?

[Monterey Jack]

The King's Speech is rated R just because of a handful of F-Bombs...meaning this otherwise genteel period piece which otherwise would barely qualify for a PG has the same rating as The Exorcist, Saving Private Ryan and any Saw movie.

Think about that.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by The Debts

That's ridiculous. Wasn't Shame also hit with that kind of rating just for showing Fassbender's ding-a-ling?

Gay sex is somehow more "dirty" than "straight" sex in the eyes of the MPAA.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by The Debts

That's ridiculous. Wasn't Shame also hit with that kind of rating just for showing Fassbender's ding-a-ling?

Yes. If a movie shows male genenatalia it will most likely get an "NC-17"

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

The King's Speech is rated R just because of a handful of F-Bombs...meaning this otherwise genteel period piece which otherwise would barely qualify for a PG has the same rating as The Exorcist, Saving Private Ryan and any Saw movie.

Think about that.

Same for "Planes, Trains and Automobiles". Take away the scene with Steve Martin at the rental car counter, that's a PG film. But, of course in the eyes of the MPAA, it shares the same rating as "Natural Born Killers".

If memory serves me correctly, I remember Ebert pushing for the A rating going all the way back to when "Angel Heart" was released in 1987. They had to trim some from the sex scene towards the end to get an R and prevent an X at the time (NC-17 didn't show up until 1990).

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I watch Pedro Almodavar's Bad Education the other day, and it was insane that it got an NC-17 for some of the sex scenes that are no worse than most films at R. But because it was transgender/homosexual sex scenes it got pushed to the NC-17.

GBF is your standard teen comedy, no worse than Mean Girls in content or whatever, but because the lead character is gay and the humor is more gay-oriented, it got an R rating. No violence, no sex, no nudity, no f-bombs.

[Ray Jackson]

I always laugh at Tobe Hooper recounting how he once asked the MPAA how he could shoot the meat hook scene in Chain Saw Massacre in such a way that would get him a PG rating.

...that dude was nuts.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Canada

Yes. If a movie shows male genenatalia it will most likely get an "NC-17"

Not true, unless erect.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

Depending on my mood, I do. Sometimes I don't want to see more adult rated movies or TV shows, sometimes I do. So looking at my collection or potential purchases it helps to see the ratings.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

I cant remember the last time I said "oh this film is rated "fill-in-blank" "

I do. I watch the ratings very carefully. That being said, I do not let a rating deter what I watch. Content determines that.

I find it interesting how the rating system changes and it was messed up. I had a pretty intense thread awhile back discussing how the rating system needs a huge over haul here in the USA.

[spanky87]

I think our rating system in Canada is the best. We have an "A" rating but I've never seen it used. Most R rated American films get a 14A rating. NC-17 is usually R. And since someone mentioned King's Speech in this thread it's worth noting that it received a PG rating here.

G – General Audience – Suitable for all ages.
PG – Parental Guidance – Parental guidance advised. There is no age restriction but some material may not be suitable for all children.
14A – 14 Accompaniment – Persons under 14 years of age must be accompanied by an adult.
18A – 18 Accompaniment – Persons under 18 years of age must be accompanied by an adult. In the Maritimes & Manitoba, children under the age of 14 are prohibited from viewing the film.
R – Restricted – Admittance restricted to people 18 years of age or older.
A – Adult – Admittance restricted to people 18 years of age or older. Sole purpose of the film is the portrayal of sexually explicit activity and/or explicit violence. In Alberta, the A category is used only for sexually explicit products. Manitoba and Ontario do not have this category, Manitoba uses a barcode labelling system for Adult home videos while Ontario has a Restricted-Adult Sex (RX) rating for home video products. In British Columbia, the A symbol is a red octagon rather than a blue diamond.

[Will.]

This reminded me of how much I miss Ebert. The only critic I ever really loved.

[StevenHarvey1990]

Originally Posted by PLG1962

If I may take over this thread I have a question how many here actually take notice of ratings ?

As a Horror fan it's very important to me. While an R or NC-17 rating doesn't necessarily mean a film will be good it saves me a lot of time because I find that 9 out of 10 PG-13 Horror films are completely and utterly useless and a total waste of time. There are exceptions of course, such as the instances where the film is more about atmosphere and psychological 'scares' than violence etc.

In addition to just Horror films, I like movies to be 'Adult' and have the freedom to explore certain subjects in-depth and as authentically as possible, which you don't get from PG-13.

It's a big deal to me as I've seen so many films that feel undercooked or that they're holding back or missing something just to get a lower more accessible rating, and it ALWAYS hurts it. Obviously there are some films that don't need to have a more adult rating ie. Star Wars.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

The King's Speech is rated R just because of a handful of F-Bombs...meaning this otherwise genteel period piece which otherwise would barely qualify for a PG has the same rating as The Exorcist, Saving Private Ryan and any Saw movie.

Think about that.

The studio may have very well wanted an R rating for The King's Speech. The ratings are about marketing as much as anything else. A PG rating conveys something about the film that may have hurt it at the box office.