MPAA Modification

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

Yes, yes everything is subjective.

The more I think about it, that this is not correct in this discussion. There should be nothing subjective at all. This thread was not created to discuss how the MPAA should enact or push morals, but rather, how to modify the system so it can be of use to parents.

**NEW IDEA**

Under each rating there could be a few items:

1. Nudity
2. Sexual Content
3. Graphic Sexual Content
4. Strong Language
5. Violence
6. Graphic Violence
7. Blood and Gore
8. Thematic Elements
9. Crude Humor

They already put a few under the rating, but they have so many that they loose meaning. Things like Quirky Situations, Mild Peril, Fantasy Action (how does this influence the rating?), etc. The list goes on.

Here is why it is not subjective. Using swearing as an example. Every society deems some words as swear words. So, a movie with a lot of swearing has "Strong Language". Parents could then look it up, at a centrally located site and see the actually content of "Strong Language". One parent may be totally fine with their kids seeing it and others not so much. You could also use Nudity as an example. Saying this film has Nudity is not subjective. It is a fact. You go look up the movie and it is non sexual in nature i.e. "national geographic tribal stuff". At that point the content becomes subjective to each parent and they can decide from there.

Basically I think if we scrap the current system and add a few labels (as i listed above as ideas), and create a central site for exact details, it would work. Parents would be happy since they can find content and studios would be happy since they would not feel as restricted by ratings.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

The more I think about it, that this is not correct in this discussion. There should be nothing subjective at all. This thread was not created to discuss how the MPAA should enact or push morals, but rather, how to modify the system so it can be of use to parents.

but it i9s always subjective. Let me ask you a simple question, there is a movie and through the whole movie a guy is not wearing a shirt, is that nudity? then why would a different movie with a girl not wearing a shirt for a second contain nudity. They are both equally nude, but subjectively we think of the topless girl as being naked while not the guy.

**NEW IDEA**

Under each rating there could be a few items:

1. Nudity
2. Sexual Content
3. Graphic Sexual Content
4. Strong Language
5. Violence
6. Graphic Violence
7. Blood and Gore
8. Thematic Elements
9. Crude Humor

They already put a few under the rating, but they have so many that they loose meaning. Things like Quirky Situations, Mild Peril, Fantasy Action (how does this influence the rating?), etc. The list goes on.

but that is it, and my main beef, the same is here (like the example showed above) but in the end people want something simple and I think having to read so much will mean most people will skip it and ask "what is the difference between violence and graphic violence" just as much as you asking who care s about Fantasy action.

Here is why it is not subjective. Using swearing as an example. Every society deems some words as swear words. So, a movie with a lot of swearing has "Strong Language".

but that is still subjective. Like I asked Beerserker, how many damns = one Mother F..... I look at the back of Matador and it says "coarse language" and honestly I have no idea what it means.

Parents could then look it up, at a centrally located site and see the actually content of "Strong Language". One parent may be totally fine with their kids seeing it and others not so much. You could also use Nudity as an example. Saying this film has Nudity is not subjective. It is a fact. You go look up the movie and it is non sexual in nature i.e. "national geographic tribal stuff". At that point the content becomes subjective to each parent and they can decide from there.

but you are assuming people have nothing better to do than go to your on-line place, if everyone did that for every film why would you need ratings at all? when I go to buy films (BDs at the store), if it is a film I want I get it, but other films I check the front pic and the back cover before deciding I don't feal like going to CVMs rating site where there is a full breakdown of damn was said 22 times, b!tch was said 10 times f@ck 22 times when I click on vulgar language and if I click on nudity there is 10 breast shots, 3 ass shots...

Basically I think if we scrap the current system and add a few labels (as i listed above as ideas), and create a central site for exact details, it would work. Parents would be happy since they can find content and studios would be happy since they would not feel as restricted by ratings.

I disagree, I think parents want ratings, it becomes an easy "no it is X and you are only Y" also you are missing something obvious, like I pointed out earlier, once someone is pre-teen they tend to go to films by themselves, even though ratings are ineffective (sneak into a different film) at the end of the day it helps them feel better.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The issue is that what you want already exists there are many different "parenting" sites that give more info.

This comes around to my original question. These sites have been created since the rating system is broken. It can not longer be used effective source to judge content. You have made some good points which I can not answer since

I disagree, I think parents want ratings, it becomes an easy "no it is X and you are only Y" also you are missing something obvious, like I pointed out earlier, once someone is pre-teen they tend to go to films by themselves, even though ratings are ineffective (sneak into a different film) at the end of the day it helps them feel better.

I think parents want a rating system that actually works.

Here is a key problem with the current rating system:

- A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority

http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatin...ting_rules.pdf

They should not be allowed to vote and change the rating. You and me and everyone on this site probable has different views. These people on the board, can allow their personal views to change a rating system by voting. Since it is not always the same group who do every movie, it is quite conceivable that, with a different group, Kings Speech (a great movie I might add), could have voted to change it to PG-13, despite guidelines. I don't care what the system is, I just want clarity and consistency.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

This comes around to my original question. These sites have been created since the rating system is broken. It can not longer be used effective source to judge content.

Yes and no, if it was as simple as “it is broken” there would only be one site. The reason there are so many is why I don’t think your idea can work. People that tried the existing sites decided that those sites “do not represent what I think” and started a new one.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but a zealous Muslim might not want their kids watching films where people are enjoying a drink or are sitting in a bar, a Hindu/Vegan might not feel they want their kid watching a film where someone is eating meat, an Atheist might decide they don’t like something with religious overtones, and a Christian a film that makes fun of Christian beliefs. Disney released song of the south on DVD in Europe, but decided some African Americans might see it as racist and so they did not release it here and don’t have plans to ever do so. I am sure an African/Amazonian tribe and people used to topless beaches might feel different about a boob on the screen than people that grew up surrounded by Burkas or Niqabs. There is this guy on an other site that won’t watch any film with a remote “environmental” theme because it is all a massive conspiracy.

They should not be allowed to vote and change the rating. You and me and everyone on this site probable has different views. These people on the board, can allow their personal views to change a rating system by voting. Since it is not always the same group who do every movie, it is quite conceivable that, with a different group, Kings Speech (a great movie I might add), could have voted to change it to PG-13, despite guidelines. I don't care what the system is, I just want clarity and consistency.

Agree, except that I think rating something is extremely difficult and society changes. So ratings have to evolve with the times. I would not expect a woman bathing in something other than to be judged harshly because that was as much flesh as a respectable woman could shown in public when film began, or for all bedroom scenes to have separated twin beds because some time ago it was considered too suggestive to show parents in the same bed together in a TV show/film.

You also missed one important thing in your quote

the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous

Plus my understanding, from the way that it is written, is that it needs a 67% of the rating board to agree that it is PG-13 and not just the raters of that film.