MPAA Modification

[ScarredLungs]

This thread idea came from a recent discussion on another thread. Although I am very conservative and hold very strong Christian values, this thread is NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP or NOT having certain kinds of movies made. Do not reply if you are going to engage in that discussion. As adults, we all have different tastes and preferences in our movies.

According to Wikipedia, the rating system was created too do the following:

The Motion Picture Association of America's film-rating system is used in the U.S. and its territories to rate a film's thematic and content suitability for certain audiences. The MPAA rating scheme applies only to films submitted for rating. The MPAA rating system is a voluntary scheme not enforced by law; and films can be exhibited without a rating, though many theaters refuse to exhibit non-rated or X-rated films.

I think that it is safe to say, in principal, the rating system has redeeming value. I am going to assume that certain audiences is referring to young children and teenagers. If I am correct in that assumption, the rating should provide a guide for parents to be able to judge if the movie is appropriate from their children. It has been proven that when children are exposed to graphic violence or sex, it can have psychological effects that are negative. Pornography has also been shown to change the brain in negative ways. For example: A young kid should not see Rambo. It is way to violent, but I enjoyed the Directors cut of the movie. Currently we have all see kids in movies that they have no business being allowed into. No rating system can compensate for stupid parents.

There are many examples of movies that should have been rated higher or lower. We could discuss for days on what movies fall into these categories. A movie's rating has no bearing on the quality of the movie.

The question then becomes, in order to make the rating system more accurate, how should it be modified? (Some of these ideas are concepts I came across while searching online)

Possible Solutions to fix the current system:

1. Should it be changed to a G, 12, 15, 18, NC-17 (Mix between US/UK system)

2. Another thought would be to get rid of the rating and just expand some of parental ideas that are currently online. For example:

[Show spoiler]

In this kind of system, the content is rated, and then broken down. This is very similar to how IMBd lists parental content, except done professional. This way instead of a movie being rated R or PG-13, you could say the movie is 6,8,6. (using the above picture)

What are your thoughts?

[kpkelley]

I think the system as is generally works, but there are certainly deficiencies. Context should be taken into account when films are being rated. For instance there is a film currently in battle with the MPAA called "Bully." It has received an R-rating for it's "offensive language," unofficially banning it's target audience from seeing the documentary. If a PG-15 rating allows for more leniency in terms of profanity, then I'm all for it. TBS, anyone who has heard a teenager speak with his/her friends in that past twenty years has probably heard far worse language than the in most r-rated films. IMO, giving "Bully" an r-rating for profanity is akin to given a National Geographic documentary on the tribes of Africa an R-rating for nudity.

I wouldn't mind a parental guide system ala IMDB, so long as there were no additional restrictions placed upon ticket purchasers. Perhaps a general RESTRICTED category could be applied to all films that the MPAA determines are only for adult audiences. There shouldn't be any set guidelines as to what triggers a "RESTRICTED" tag however, allowing the members the latitude to use good judgement. I could easily see a PG-13 action film which may have a level-9 for violence getting a "restricted" rating because of some arbitrary guideline.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I think the system as is generally works, but there are certainly deficiencies. Context should be taken into account when films are being rated. For instance there is a film currently in battle with the MPAA called "Bully." It has received an R-rating for it's "offensive language," unofficially banning it's target audience from seeing the documentary. If a PG-15 rating allows for more leniency in terms of profanity, then I'm all for it. TBS, anyone who has heard a teenager speak in with his/her friends in that past twenty years has probably heard far worse language than the in most r-rated films. IMO, giving "Bully" an r-rating for profanity is akin to given a National Geographic documentary on the tribes of Africa an R-rating for nudity.

I wouldn't mind a parental guide system ala IMDB, so long as there were no additional restrictions placed upon ticket purchasers. Perhaps a general RESTRICTED category could be applied to all films that the MPAA determines are only for adult audiences. There shouldn't be any set guidelines as to what triggers a "RESTRICTED" tag however, allowing the members the latitude to use good judgement. I could easily see a PG-13 action film which may have a level-9 for violence getting a "restricted" rating because of some arbitrary guideline.

Exactly. That is where a double standard comes into play. In a cut and dry sense, Nudity is Nudity. Why give ratings when we could just explain the content. To trigger a Restricted Rating, there could be an accumulation score. I.e. if using my original example, anything with a 25 or higher is restricted.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by cvm

Exactly. That is where a double standard comes into play. In a cut and dry sense, Nudity is Nudity. Why give ratings when we could just explain the content. To trigger a Restricted Rating, there could be an accumulation score. I.e. if using my original example, anything with a 25 or higher is restricted.

You'd still run into issues. For example, 9 Songs has tons of sex and nudity, but virtually no violence or profanity, and only some mild alcohol and tobacco usage, with a tiny bit of cocaine. It probably wouldn't total up to 25.

On the other hand, a film like Super 8 has a lot of violence with some mild profanity, a few sexual references, some references to drug use, etc. It could easily pull in a total exceeding 25 with a high number in the violence category. In fact a lot of coming of age teen films would fall into that category.

[wilky61]

It's interesting how the current R-category includes movies ranging from The King's Speech to Project X.

I think we need to take movies on a case-by-case basis and think about for what ages the depicted content would be appropriate... something like The King's Speech shouldn't be tossed under the R-umbrella because of some blanket statement rule about the F-word... So I would advocate some kind of rating system that uses numbers like 18, 15, etc.

[Chordata]

I have 0 problems with the MPAA ratings. I only wish studios wouldn't change their movies just to fit them into a lower (or higher) rating.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by wilky61

It's interesting how the current R-category includes movies ranging from The King's Speech to [i]Project X[/i].

I agree. This is a great example to show how broken the rating system is. One can not go by ratings, they must go by content.

[Uniquely]

Anyone interested in this subject needs to watch the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated. It explains a lot about why the ratings have become so much more conservative over the past 30 years. Movies that got an R rating in the 70's, like Coming Home, would today be forced to be edited or get an X rating for briefly showing frontal male nudity. There are people serving on the ratings board who simply do not fit the criteria for serving. The ratings have become completely arbitrary, and are now much more based upon what the raters themselves find personally distasteful rather than any fixed definable criteria. It's really pretty infuriating when you think about the fact that there is a very small group of people out there who literally get to decide what we can and can't see in a movie. Very few (if any) artists are going to stick with their vision and take an X or NC17 rating, and lose their oppurtunity for a wide relase.

[AutomaticDriver]

Originally Posted by cvm

[Show spoiler]This thread idea came from a recent discussion on another thread. Although I am very conservative and hold very strong Christian values, this thread is NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP or NOT having certain kinds of movies made. Do not reply if you are going to engage in that discussion. As adults, we all have different tastes and preferences in our movies.

According to Wikipedia, the rating system was created too do the following:



I think that it is safe to say, in principal, the rating system has redeeming value. I am going to assume that certain audiences is referring to young children and teenagers. If I am correct in that assumption, the rating should provide a guide for parents to be able to judge if the movie is appropriate from their children. It has been proven that when children are exposed to graphic violence or sex, it can have psychological effects that are negative. Pornography has also been shown to change the brain in negative ways. For example: A young kid should not see Rambo. It is way to violent, but I enjoyed the Directors cut of the movie. Currently we have all see kids in movies that they have no business being allowed into. No rating system can compensate for stupid parents.

There are many examples of movies that should have been rated higher or lower. We could discuss for days on what movies fall into these categories. A movie's rating has no bearing on the quality of the movie.

The question then becomes, in order to make the rating system more accurate, how should it be modified? (Some of these ideas are concepts I came across while searching online)

Possible Solutions to fix the current system:

1. Should it be changed to a G, 12, 15, 18, NC-17 (Mix between US/UK system)

2. Another thought would be to get rid of the rating and just expand some of parental ideas that are currently online. For example:

[Show spoiler]

In this kind of system, the content is rated, and then broken down. This is very similar to how IMBd lists parental content, except done professional. This way instead of a movie being rated R or PG-13, you could say the movie is 6,8,6. (using the above picture)

What are your thoughts?

I agree with #2. (I know where that picture came from. I actually use that website all the time. ).

But like I said in the other thread. While that website is really good. It is not always 100% accurate. Example dealing with Language: Forrest Gump. I know that movie says God's Name in Vain at least 4 times. Yet on there, they never mention there are religious profanities. They say," one f-word,several scatological and anatomical terms are used, insults and derogatory racial references."

There was another time they said a movie used the word 4 times. Yet, I have seen that movie 2 times and never once heard the word.

With that being said. Maybe they should get a few people to watch the same movies(instead of only having one guy). Then after the movie, they show each other their notes. Therefore, they can make sure every movie, is 100% acurate before posting it.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

I agree with #2. (I know where that picture came from. I actually use that website all the time. ).

But like I said in the other thread. While that website is really good. It is not always 100% accurate. Example dealing with Language: Forrest Gump. I know that movie says God's Name in Vain at least 4 times. Yet on there, they never mention there are religious profanities. They say," one f-word,several scatological and anatomical terms are used, insults and derogatory racial references."

There was another time they said a movie used the word 4 times. Yet, I have seen that movie 2 times and never once heard the word.

With that being said. Maybe they should get a few people to watch the same movies(instead of only having one guy). Then after the movie, they show each other their notes. Therefore, they can make sure every movie, is 100% accurate before posting it.

Ya, it is a good site. There are many others like it. I haev recently used that one and a few others to cross check for your above stated reasons. I think the concept would work though.

[OrlandoEastwood]

I personally loved the rating system in Germany, but not with the censorship that goes on though. In Germany, the rating system is 0, 6, 12, 16, 18. And in Germany, at the theater I would go too, it wouldn't matter if you were with your parents, you couldn't get in if you weren't old enough. I tried to go see Kill Bill Vol 1 when it came out and it was playing and the theater got it in both English and German. So, my dad and I went and the lady said in the best English she could; "He cannot see it. He is not old enough by law." We were like; "Oh, $#!t!"

[wormraper]

I think the ratings need to go. if they were nothing but advisory ratings that would fine. but the MPAA has gotten so influential that they pretty much dictate what can or can't be in a film and studios are so worried about covering all their bases they capitulate to them.

I think a film maker needs to make the movie how he sees fit and let the chips fall where they may.

[toddly6666]

For the MPAA to be really efficient, ratings should be updated every year to home videos (dvds, blu-rays). Just like a price tag sticker, updated rating stickers should be slapped on the cases. There are plenty of movies from the past that are rated PG that should be rated PG-13 or R and there are plenty of movies from the past that are rated PG-13 or R that should now be PG.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Uniquely

Movies that got an R rating in the 70's, like Coming Home, would today be forced to be edited or get an X rating for briefly showing frontal male nudity.

Have to disagree with this after watching the Hangover 2 this weekend. Several parts were serious sausage-fests, yet the movie kept an R rating.

I actually think the ratings system has become more liberal in what is allowed at every rating level. It used to be that you'd NEVER hear the F-word in anything but an R-rated movie. Now, it's being used in many PG-13 movies (IMO) because "they can" up to the limited number of times it's allowed.

Not making a judgement, just an observation.

[KubrickFan]

Since you don't have a rating system for books or music, why rate movies at all?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Since you don't have a rating system for books or music, why rate movies at all?

exactly

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Since you don't have a rating system for books or music, why rate movies at all?

Music has an "explicit content" tag for albums containing language which may not be appropriate for younger listeners.

It may be a legal issue for the theaters. I've never bother to read the small print on the tix at the local theatre.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

Music has an "explicit content" tag for albums containing language which may not be appropriate for younger listeners.

It may be a legal issue for the theaters. I've never bother to read the small print on the tix at the local theatre.

It's not a legal issue. if you read the MPAA site they are an advisory committee only. They've just ended up taking over the entire movie making industry.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by wormraper

It's not a legal issue. if you read the MPAA site they are an advisory committee only. They've just ended up taking over the entire movie making industry.

It may not be a legal issue for the studios, but it could be one for the theaters.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by wormraper

It's not a legal issue. if you read the MPAA site they are an advisory committee only. They've just ended up taking over the entire movie making industry.

This has allowed their opinions to dominate the ratings. This in turn, has lead to defining which demographics will probably see a movie and how directors shoot/edit a movie and how studios release a movie. Film should be art, which should be expressed however the director/studio imagines it. < If that were the case, I still think there should be some kind of explanation, rather then a rating that defines the content of a movie.