MPAA Modification

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by wormraper

poor analogy on the gunshot vs. a movie.


as for the bolded part. it has been THEORIZED on the subject. it is still highly debated and nowhere NEAR conclusive. You may BELIEVE that it is proven because it agrees with your ideology but that does not it true. if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt there would be much less debate on the subject then there is now. believe me I've been inundated with those studies as well and there are just as many studies that can point to the opposite.

I say this with all due respect, but you can't come in here and make these claims without the burden of proof. if you are going to claim something, back it up. cite your sources. Utilize evidence to support your hypothesis besides "it's been proven" or "I believe it to be so".

Nicely said.

Unfortunately, people end up drawing their own conclusions, and that's when these sorts of studies snowball into censorship insanity.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I would argue that not being exposed to a healthy amount of sex, has negative effects on the brain.

I wonder why this sort of study hasn't been done.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Since I don't live there in the U.S, I can't comment as to whether your system is broken or not (or whether your idea would work or not), which is why I haven't touched on that in any of my posts so far. Where I've had a problem, is that the subject turned from talking about ratings and introducing a set standard, to someone suggesting that it should be based on the concept of objective morality, where he believes that the morals he lives by are the so called objective standard it should be based on. Whether that individual likes it or not, he needs to understand the fact that many question that standard, and actually think the standard he believes to be objective is in fact subjective. Many people are not religious (I'm not religious) therefore each individuals idea of morals and values will be different. With that being the case, you can't base a rating system on a standard that many don't agree with.

Moving on. I partly agree that the responsibility shouldn't just be on the parents, but most of it should. I think there should be a level of responsibility at the point of sale, but that's it. In no way do I feel that the studios and film makers should share any of the responsibility. Here in Australia our rating system is different to the U.S. I think our system works quite well for movies, but for video games it's terrible. We have no R18+ rating for video games, so from time to time the content of a video game is cut, or it is banned altogether. It is illegal for a business not to abide by our ratings system. Most businesses enforce it, but some are slack and don't enforce it as well as they should, though if they get caught they generally get hit with a large fine for the offense. To the best of my knowledge, cinema's here knock back anyone who is under age from buying a ticket, if they're not accompanied by a parent or guardian, which I have personally witnessed just recently. When I was 15 (which was 16 years ago) I used to get refused entry to "MA15+" films (such as Con Air), so I assume nothing has changed, as close to the same laws still apply today. Imo the studio's shouldn't be held accountable whatsoever, as it goes against their free rights. Movies are a form of art, and the directors vision should not be compromised to conform with censorship, just to meet certain people's expectations.

This is one thing that my idea would solve. If you followed that link, you would see what I mean. I would love to completely overhaul the rating system and have a place, like that site, that would give the content of 3-4 areas (Profanity/Violence/Themes/Sexual Content). This way, no organization is saying what you should or should not see, rather, information is provided, parents can decide. At some point, if it was on a scale on 1-10, (4 areas = 40 total points), any movie above a 30 or 35 or something like that would be treated as the current Restricted Rating.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Funny, as that statement flies in the face of all studies that prove otherwise. A gun is an inanimate object, incapable of hurting anyone without a person with malicious intent wielding it. You really want to minimize suffering? Institute much harsher punishments for those who do CHOOSE to commit crimes.

Yeah, because harder punishment has been proven to work. That's why in countries or states where the death penalty is still adhered to, there's no suffering at all .

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Yeah, because harder punishment has been proven to work. That's why in countries or states where the death penalty is still adhered to, there's no suffering at all .

You misunderstand my use of the term "harsher". The death penalty (as it is today in the US) is not a deterrent because IF the sentence is ever carried out, it won't be for 10-20 years. I'm all for setting a limit of 1 year for appeals and/or new evidence. At the 1 year anniversary of the verdict, a person sentenced to death is...put to death! And not in some "humane" way, either. They should die in the same manner in which they killed their victims.

Change the punishment for rape to physical castration (with a pair of bricks), and see how quickly those crimes diminish. I could go on and on. Unfortunately, we are a wussified "civilized" nation where criminals are given more rights and consideration than their victims. The rest of the country could learn a thing or two from Sheriff Joe Arpaio!

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

You misunderstand my use of the term "harsher". The death penalty (as it is today in the US) is not a deterrent because IF the sentence is ever carried out, it won't be for 10-20 years. I'm all for setting a limit of 1 year for appeals and/or new evidence. At the 1 year anniversary of the verdict, a person sentenced to death is...put to death! And not in some "humane" way, either. They should die in the same manner in which they killed their victims.

I agree with the idea of a time limit, but repeating the crime against the offender won't bring the victim back. Such barbarism makes us no better than the convicted, and solves nothing. It sounds more like revenge than justice.

Change the punishment for rape to physical castration (with a pair of bricks), and see how quickly those crimes diminish.

See above.

Unfortunately, we are a wussified "civilized" nation where criminals are given more rights and consideration than their victims.

Sadly, that's all too true. Prison should be a place criminals actually fear, not a perverted "playground" where obscenity runs rampant.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I agree with the idea of a time limit, but repeating the crime against the offender won't bring the victim back. Such barbarism makes us no better than the convicted, and solves nothing. It sounds more like revenge than justice.

I know. It's a nice fantasy, but could never truly work in a civilized society. But the way I see it, that's the biggest problem we have with making any sort of headway in reducing crime. Criminals know the system and are able to use it their advantage. It's really no different than households where the parents don't do anything substantive to discipline their children. The kids realize exactly what they can get away with and just "work the system".

The history of man has proven that there will ALWAYS be some level of evil or criminal behavior. That is never going to change, no matter how hard we try or how many "programs" we throw at it. We need to recognize that fact and deal with these problem individuals swiftly and decisively. As long as we continue to coddle them (like the children referenced above), the problem will never get any better.

I still firmly believe in swift justice; something we do not have in our current justice system. When it take 2-3 years to bring someone to trial, violent criminals are released after serving only a fraction of their sentences and death row inmates don't see the gas chamber for 20 years, something is definitely WRONG. If I were an individual inclined to violence and crime, I certainly wouldn't be deterred by our current system. But what do I know?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

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?

here we have 4 ratings.


General

13 or older unless acompanied by an adult
16+

18+




I like the idea of splitting it up (language, sex/nudity, violence/gore, maybe theme as well) but I think a number out of 10 would be too much. Also don't forget that these are not only used as guides to parents but also meant to be rules for the theatres/stores and rental places to observe so there needs to be an age component.

I am not sure how it works now, but I would not mind having four or five squares the last one being an over all rating while the rest representing each sub section.

I.e. for example let's say we use 4 age groups like we have here in Quebec there could be a square that is red for violence and gore divided in 4 (either squares or triangles to make it easy to see) then if it is G for violence it will be 1/4 red , PG/13+ it will be 1/2 red, 16+ it will be 3/4 red and 18+ it will be completely red. This way you have the rating at the end + extra info based on the same "age" divisions explaining why that film got that over all rating (and so parents could more easily decide if the film is OK for their kid)

I think the image you describe (or the 6,8,6) will be too complicated and no one will pay attention to it.

This is one thing that my idea would solve. If you followed that link, you would see what I mean. I would love to completely overhaul the rating system and have a place, like that site, that would give the content of 3-4 areas (Profanity/Violence/Themes/Sexual Content). This way, no organization is saying what you should or should not see, rather, information is provided, parents can decide. At some point, if it was on a scale on 1-10, (4 areas = 40 total points), any movie above a 30 or 35 or something like that would be treated as the current Restricted Rating.

that would never work. Think about it, let's say someone makes a movie with no dialogue (so 0 in profanity), it can be a 10 in all other areas because it is a porn with a necrophilia theme but it would not go above 30. It would be too easy to screw with the final result that way, also, to go more concrete, I don't think any of the Saw films have nudity and I don't remember there being swearing but they are high on violence and gore. Any porn will most likely score very low on violence and gore, and language and theme can be real low while sex and nudity could be high.

[Beerserker]

The best way really is just to advise people what is in the movie. A blanket R or PG-13 rating is pretty useless to all but the laziest moviegoer. What the viewer or parent needs to know is what content is in the movie. Does it have sex/nudity and how much, does it have gore/violence and how much. Same for language and substance abuse. These are all objective things that can be counted and quantified. This info could easily be conveyed in the form of a sliding scale graphic for each of those four categories, much like the one posted at the beginning of this thread. If any of those areas crosses a certain threshold it can be grounds to restrict viewers unaccompanied by a parent.

Themes and subject matter should not be considered for rating because they can not be objectively quantified. People who are that concerned about subject matter should just put in a little extra leg work of their own. If you are a member of group X and want to know if the movie upholds group X's values, visit webpages and reviews and so on that reflect group X's values.

The theater has no business refusing entry of a minor accompanied by a parent to any movie. It is none of their business. I would rather see a parent take their 14 year old to see Pulp Fiction, where he can discuss content and provide influence, than have that same 14 year old watching some IQ eroding MTV crap alone at home on TV. And as far as content having an affect on kids; it's like asking how many x-rays can I get before I get cancer from them. There is no answer. It will be different for everyone, but the vast majority can handle a moderate amount with no effect at all. People should just use their heads and take into account the frequency and the intensity of the bad content your kid sees, and what you provide to balance that. But this is not the job of the state or the part time movie theater employee.

Finally, people really need to understand what the purpose of a study is and what the results mean. No study ever sets out to prove anything. Study's look for correlation. And it can only be drawn after many, many different studies using different methodology indicate the same result. That's it, that is evidence, once you have overwhelming evidence you can consider it proof. But the variables are just too numerous to have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt on anything but the most obvious of relationships. Especially when dealing with human behavior where there are few constants.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

The best way really is just to advise people what is in the movie. A blanket R or PG-13 rating is pretty useless to all but the laziest moviegoer. What the viewer or parent needs to know is what content is in the movie. Does it have sex/nudity and how much, does it have gore/violence and how much. Same for language and substance abuse. These are all objective things that can be counted and quantified. This info could easily be conveyed in the form of a sliding scale graphic for each of those four categories, much like the one posted at the beginning of this thread. If any of those areas crosses a certain threshold it can be grounds to restrict viewers unaccompanied by a parent.

Themes and subject matter should not be considered for rating because they can not be objectively quantified. People who are that concerned about subject matter should just put in a little extra leg work of their own. If you are a member of group X and want to know if the movie upholds group X's values, visit webpages and reviews and so on that reflect group X's values.

everything is subjective. Would anyone rate a pint of blood in a bag at a scene of some person giving blood in a hospital the same as a pint of blood splattered against a wall after an off scene ruthless murder (just to remove the actual violence)? what is the conversion between t!ts, a$$ and pu$$y shots and wouldn't the shot composure also count(i.e. full on pic of t!ts vs a shot in a dressing room where someone in the background and out of focus is changing costumes?). I am sure we would all characterise some words differently, so what is the reaction between them if we assume damn is not as bad as MF how many times will we need to here damn so that it is the same as some other film where the guy says MF). Substance abuse is the same, will a guy drinking/smoking be as bad as someone doing coke?

Also I disagree, theme is extremely important, I had no issues showing the Saw films to my nephews that are into horror films (I guess they took after their uncle) but I did not think Hard Candy was appropriate for them. like I pointed out before a pint of blood in a hospital scene is not the same as a pint of blood from murder, a boob in a changing room is not the same as a it being visible because a rapist grabed and ripped the shirt. Out of all I think Theme is the most important.

The theater has no business refusing entry of a minor accompanied by a parent to any movie. It is none of their business. I would rather see a parent take their 14 year old to see Pulp Fiction, where he can discuss content and provide influence, than have that same 14 year old watching some IQ eroding MTV crap alone at home on TV. And as far as content having an affect on kids; it's like asking how many x-rays can I get before I get cancer from them. There is no answer. It will be different for everyone, but the vast majority can handle a moderate amount with no effect at all. People should just use their heads and take into account the frequency and the intensity of the bad content your kid sees, and what you provide to balance that. But this is not the job of the state or the part time movie theater employee.

I disagree, it is like saying a bar has no business refusing drinks to a minor accompanied by a parent, there needs to be rules for public places, they are not the same as things done in the privacy of ones home. First of all how does a theatre (or bar) even know if it is a parent (as opposed to some other person/adult, like an uncle, grand parent, some stranger that they gave 10$ to say OK, the parent of one of the kids but not his friends that are also there, a babysitter or older sibling...). Second (more true for movies than bars) what happens if a person brings in a kid and it ruins the experience for the other people (let's say in a horror film the kid gets too scared and screams or cries?).

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

everything is subjective. Would anyone rate a pint of blood in a bag at a scene of some person giving blood in a hospital the same as a pint of blood splattered against a wall after an off scene ruthless murder (just to remove the actual violence)? what is the conversion between t!ts, a$$ and pu$$y shots and wouldn't the shot composure also count(i.e. full on pic of t!ts vs a shot in a dressing room where someone in the background and out of focus is changing costumes?). I am sure we would all characterise some words differently, so what is the reaction between them if we assume damn is not as bad as MF how many times will we need to here damn so that it is the same as some other film where the guy says MF). Substance abuse is the same, will a guy drinking/smoking be as bad as someone doing coke?

Also I disagree, theme is extremely important, I had no issues showing the Saw films to my nephews that are into horror films (I guess they took after their uncle) but I did not think Hard Candy was appropriate for them. like I pointed out before a pint of blood in a hospital scene is not the same as a pint of blood from murder, a boob in a changing room is not the same as a it being visible because a rapist grabed and ripped the shirt. Out of all I think Theme is the most important.



I disagree, it is like saying a bar has no business refusing drinks to a minor accompanied by a parent, there needs to be rules for public places, they are not the same as things done in the privacy of ones home. First of all how does a theatre (or bar) even know if it is a parent (as opposed to some other person/adult, like an uncle, grand parent, some stranger that they gave 10$ to say OK, the parent of one of the kids but not his friends that are also there, a babysitter or older sibling...). Second (more true for movies than bars) what happens if a person brings in a kid and it ruins the experience for the other people (let's say in a horror film the kid gets too scared and screams or cries?).

wrong, there is a major difference. there is legal precedents for underage alcohol consumption. there is NO legal issues with movie ratings. it's nothing but a formality and a common policy. Legally kids can go into an R-rated movie. it's just been theater policy for decades to restrict it out of politeness to the MPAA ratings system.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

wrong, there is a major difference. there is legal precedents for underage alcohol consumption. there is NO legal issues with movie ratings. it's nothing but a formality and a common policy. Legally kids can go into an R-rated movie. it's just been theater policy for decades to restrict it out of politeness to the MPAA ratings system.

yes and no. You are right in the US it is a matter of voluntary for films while legality for bars and even then there are differences( for example the first time I went to Chicago I got carded at a bar even though I was 29, something that had not happened for many years prior even when I was in the US. I later found out that Chicago requires carding no matter what age.). But there are places where there is no drinking age (or different rules depending on buying or drinking) and there are places where movie ratings are not voluntary (like here, where the governments gives the rating and every place - theatre, rental, store, must follow the rules)

Even at that what use are ratings if they hold no sway. Let's face it, when was the last time you went to see a film with your parents, or the first time you went to see one without one?

[Beerserker]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

everything is subjective. Would anyone rate a pint of blood in a bag at a scene of some person giving blood in a hospital the same as a pint of blood splattered against a wall after an off scene ruthless murder (just to remove the actual violence)?

Do you understand that one of those is violence and one is not? If you do then I am not sure where you are going with this unless you are trying to frame my argument into something it is not.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

what is the conversion between t!ts, a$$ and pu$$y shots and wouldn't the shot composure also count(i.e. full on pic of t!ts vs a shot in a dressing room where someone in the background and out of focus is changing costumes?). I am sure we would all characterise some words differently, so what is the reaction between them if we assume damn is not as bad as MF how many times will we need to here damn so that it is the same as some other film where the guy says MF). Substance abuse is the same, will a guy drinking/smoking be as bad as someone doing coke?

Once again, I am not sure where from my argument you assume that the intensity of the scene is not to be considered. Three topless scenes are obviously less intense then the one scene in the opening of Antichrist. That one scene alone should be enough to restrict a movie from minors. I am simply saying that rating should be based on things that can be quantified so there is a level playing field.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Also I disagree, theme is extremely important, I had no issues showing the Saw films to my nephews that are into horror films (I guess they took after their uncle) but I did not think Hard Candy was appropriate for them. like I pointed out before a pint of blood in a hospital scene is not the same as a pint of blood from murder, a boob in a changing room is not the same as a it being visible because a rapist grabed and ripped the shirt. Out of all I think Theme is the most important.

That is a good example of exactly why theme should not be considered in ratings. Theme is purely subjective. Should a movie about gay people get an R rating because certain people think it is unwholesome? And in the example you gave I would be just the opposite. I would rather let a minor see Hard cCandy than Saw, but that is probably moot because a minor will likely not want to see a movie with "adult" themes that does not have violence or nudity. I doubt 13 year olds would take too much effort to try to see The Woodsman.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I disagree, it is like saying a bar has no business refusing drinks to a minor accompanied by a parent, there needs to be rules for public places, they are not the same as things done in the privacy of ones home. First of all how does a theatre (or bar) even know if it is a parent (as opposed to some other person/adult, like an uncle, grand parent, some stranger that they gave 10$ to say OK, the parent of one of the kids but not his friends that are also there, a babysitter or older sibling...). Second (more true for movies than bars) what happens if a person brings in a kid and it ruins the experience for the other people (let's say in a horror film the kid gets too scared and screams or cries?).

Poor comparison, there is no parallel to be drawn here. Alcohol consumption can be deadly and is proven to have permanent effects on younger individuals. That argument is non sequitur. You are clearly of the opinion that movies are as dangerous as alcohol and are willing to give more control of your life over to the government for the sake of protecting "the children" from these deadly movies. Sure some kid could go with his cousin or something to see an R rated movie. It happens all the time. Who cares? Like has been discussed over and over; there is no, and will never be proof that seeing this stuff is dangerous. Why? Because there is no strong correlation or it would have been demonstrated by now. EDIT The point here being that people take reasonable measures to protect minors. Not go all crazy and restrict parental rights based on a notion that other people know what is best for your kids.

[Beerserker]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a boob in a changing room is not the same as a it being visible because a rapist grabed and ripped the shirt. Out of all I think Theme is the most important.

And in this example one would get a higer rating because of the intensity of the scene and the fact it includes rape. Rape is not really a theme.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

I am simply saying that rating should be based on things that can be quantified so there is a level playing field.

Exactly. That is what I am trying to say.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think the image you describe (or the 6,8,6) will be too complicated and no one will pay attention to it.

Anything that would be put in place, people would get used to. Many would complain first

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Any porn will most likely score very low on violence and gore, and language and theme can be real low while sex and nudity could be high.

Porn is currently not the same scale as other kinds of movies in the rating and should not even be in this conversation.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes and no. You are right in the US it is a matter of voluntary for films while legality for bars and even then there are differences( for example the first time I went to Chicago I got carded at a bar even though I was 29, something that had not happened for many years prior even when I was in the US. I later found out that Chicago requires carding no matter what age.). But there are places where there is no drinking age (or different rules depending on buying or drinking) and there are places where movie ratings are not voluntary (like here, where the governments gives the rating and every place - theatre, rental, store, must follow the rules)

Even at that what use are ratings if they hold no sway. Let's face it, when was the last time you went to see a film with your parents, or the first time you went to see one without one?

last time I went to films with my parents was about 8. didn't go for a while then in highschool (about 14) we started going all the time. if we wanted to get into an r-rated flick we just did the standard "buy a ticket for a lower rated film and sneak into the r-rated one".

as to your argument. The ratings groups in each country are run separately. that's why Canada actual has legal implications. here in the U.S. the MPAA has no legal standing and is only an advisory committee. unofficially they have sway but legally the rating system is nothing but a guideline or informatory rating. Basically each's country's rating systems are different and have different implications. in the U.S. and many other countries their ratings systems don't have any legal implications (shouldn't in my opinion)

and as to your last statement. the reason for Ratings are to inform you of the level on content. they are their so you know what you're getting into, nothing more

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

Do you understand that one of those is violence and one is not? If you do then I am not sure where you are going with this unless you are trying to frame my argument into something it is not.

not at all, did you read what I wrote? The second scene has no violence, it was all off screen. So it can't get a rating on violence when it is not there.

Once again, I am not sure where from my argument you assume that the intensity of the scene is not to be considered. Three topless scenes are obviously less intense then the one scene in the opening of Antichrist. That one scene alone should be enough to restrict a movie from minors. I am simply saying that rating should be based on things that can be quantified so there is a level playing field.

counted and quantified are two different things obviously the person(s) giving a rating should have a reason for it, my point was simply that it is not as simple as as saying one swear word, two swear words, three swearwords. And saying in movie X those three topless scenes are less intense than that one scene in the opening of Antichrist is subjective, what if someone else said it is only as bad as 2 topless scenes or someone else worst than 100 topless scenes (I have not seen the film so I can't say what I would think of it or even what topless scenes we are comparing to, like I pointed out before a background shot out of focus is not the same as full frontal nudity) ?

That is a good example of exactly why theme should not be considered in ratings. Theme is purely subjective. Should a movie about gay people get an R rating because certain people think it is unwholesome? And in the example you gave I would be just the opposite. I would rather let a minor see Hard Candy than Saw, but that is probably moot because a minor will likely not want to see a movie with "adult" themes that does not have violence or nudity. I doubt 13 year olds would take too much effort to try to see The Woodsman.

there will always be disagreements between what can be handled and by whom. Personally I find vulgarity to be a bit of a joke, in my opinion every kid out there knows every swear word (probably in multiple language) before the end of the first year. In Europe I have been to many beaches where tops are optional and so just gowing to the beach means you will see breasts, why would it being in a movie click up the rating? because subjectively too many people are prudes over here. As for Hard Candy vs Saw, I know my nephews and I thought they could easily handle saw (after all it is a lot of gore with just a bit of real violence and even it is for the most part exaggerated) and they could handle it. On the other hand even though Hard Candy is a good film I am not convinced that they can handle it. An other time when those three nephews were here, they wanted a horror film and since the youngest (11 at the time) liked Zombieland, I decided to put in Shaun of the dead (another comedy/zombie film) but he could not and after a few minutes asked us to stop it so we changed to something else (I think it was zombieland but not 100% sure anymore, i is probably recorded in the October horror thread what I changed to)

Themes might be harder to judge, You won't get a disagreement from me, but in the end they are the most important to be rated since blood and a tit won't bother someone and give them nightmares but what happens in the film might if they are not psychologically ready to deal with it.

Poor comparison, there is no parallel to be drawn here. Alcohol consumption can be deadly and is proven to have permanent effects on younger individuals. That argument is non sequitur. You are clearly of the opinion that movies are as dangerous as alcohol and are willing to give more control of your life over to the government for the sake of protecting "the children" from these deadly movies. Sure some kid could go with his cousin or something to see an R rated movie. It happens all the time. Who cares? Like has been discussed over and over; there is no, and will never be proof that seeing this stuff is dangerous. Why? Because there is no strong correlation or it would have been demonstrated by now. EDIT The point here being that people take reasonable measures to protect minors. Not go all crazy and restrict parental rights based on a notion that other people know what is best for your kids.

Everything and nothing is dangerous, my parents are Greek, my Grandparents are Greek, the drinking age here is 18 and with fake ID I started going to the easier to enter bars when I was 17. I did not die even though when I was a teen every time I would go to my grandparents or there was large gathering someone would pass me a shot of Raki (Greek version of Grappa) a glass of wine or a beer. And my guess if you ask any other Greek, Italian, French, German.... they probably have had the same experience.

In the end anything can kill or ruin someone’s life, but usually it is a sign there is something wrong with the person and not the act itself. The kid that drinks himself to death is the exception, the same way the kid that watched Teenwolf and decided to try car surfing because it looked cool on film and died.

The problem is you decided to believe all the stupid crap about drinking and you have no problems restricting parental rights on that but you don't believe the stupid crap about films and so you don't think parental rights should be restricted.

Personally I think there are stupid people in the world and there are societal and parental rights. I think at home a parent should be allowed to think their kid is old enough for a drink or a film but in a public place it is a public place and what is better for society should prevail and if that it that a kid that is 15 is too young to have a drink, then so be it and if it is that a kid is too young for a particular film then so be it as well.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

And in this example one would get a higer rating because of the intensity of the scene and the fact it includes rape. Rape is not really a theme.

then you don't understand what I meant by theme or how it is used (at least here). In Psycho, you see a Knife, you see a curtain being pulled down you see blood in the tub. There is no real violence in that scene, but there is the insinuation of violence (the theme of that scene). In this scenario, I did not say you see a rape, which i would agree would be different then nudity, I said it is a ripped shirt because of a rape, maybe the person escaped, maybe she did not but it was not shown on screen, either way the reason (theme) for her being topless is important and some people could have a bigger issue with it. It is just like the blood example, a scene with someone donating blood does not have violence, but neither does a scene where a room is splattered with the same amount of blood if you don't see it happening especially if there isn't even a corps there but they should not be considered the same for blood and gore just because there is the same amount of blood in both situations and 0 violence.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

Anything that would be put in place, people would get used to. Many would complain first

maybe, but I don't think so, I think it needs to be easy and simple. Here films get a rating and possibly advisories
"Not suitable for young children," "Vulgar language," "Violence," and "Explicit sexuality."

but as far as I know people don't take the time to go through them. That is why I think it needs to be simple. If you read my post you would see that I agreed with you but I think out of 10 just gets overly complicated. I think having a global rating (easy for theaters) and subdivisions for each aspect (Language, violence/gore, sex/nudity, theme) makes a bit more sense. Let me ask you this, you have language as one of them, explain to me what 0,1,2....10 would mean for language, then imagine how complicated it gets for rating the films and as a parent to know what is the difference between 6,8,6 and 7,7,6 or 6,7,7 or 7,8,5.... that is why I thought using the same divisions we have now (the 4-5 ) would be simpler while showing why it got that rating.

Porn is currently not the same scale as other kinds of movies in the rating and should not even be in this conversation.

I use porn loosely, what I mean is take any film with a lot of sex and nudity (a 10 in your chart) but that might have a 0 violence/gore and very low in vulgarity. The same way you can have a horror with a 10 in violence and gore but low in vulgarity and 0 in sex and nudity.

[Beerserker]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

counted and quantified are two different things obviously the person(s) giving a rating should have a reason for it

So you don't have to go the the trouble of reading the post I'll highlight.

Originally Posted by Beerserker

The best way really is just to advise people what is in the movie. A blanket R or PG-13 rating is pretty useless to all but the laziest moviegoer. What the viewer or parent needs to know is what content is in the movie. Does it have sex/nudity and how much, does it have gore/violence and how much. Same for language and substance abuse. These are all objective things that can be counted and quantified. This info could easily be conveyed in the form of a sliding scale graphic for each of those four categories, much like the one posted at the beginning of this thread. If any of those areas crosses a certain threshold it can be grounds to restrict viewers unaccompanied by a parent.

Of course it is not as simple as count them up. How much is not the same as how many. Note that I did say counted and quantified.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

, my point was simply that it is not as simple as as saying one swear word, two swear words, three swearwords. And saying in movie X those three topless scenes are less intense than that one scene in the opening of Antichrist is subjective, what if someone else said it is only as bad as 2 topless scenes or someone else worst than 100 topless scenes (I have not seen the film so I can't say what I would think of it or even what topless scenes we are comparing to, like I pointed out before a background shot out of focus is not the same as full frontal nudity) ?

Yes, yes everything is subjective. Somewhere, someone will say a live beheading is better than seeing a pair of boobs. You can split hairs here all day long but it's a bit pointless. Any rating system will be flawed but the point is to get info to viewers as to what is in the movie, and how strong is the content.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Themes might be harder to judge, You won't get a disagreement from me, but in the end they are the most important to be rated since blood and a tit won't bother someone and give them nightmares but what happens in the film might if they are not psychologically ready to deal with it.

Everything and nothing is dangerous, my parents are Greek, my Grandparents are Greek, the drinking age here is 18 and with fake ID I started going to the easier to enter bars when I was 17. I did not die even though when I was a teen every time I would go to my grandparents or there was large gathering someone would pass me a shot of Raki (Greek version of Grappa) a glass of wine or a beer. And my guess if you ask any other Greek, Italian, French, German.... they probably have had the same experience.

In the end anything can kill or ruin someone’s life, but usually it is a sign there is something wrong with the person and not the act itself. The kid that drinks himself to death is the exception, the same way the kid that watched Teenwolf and decided to try car surfing because it looked cool on film and died.

Your anecdotal evidence about teen drinking is very compelling.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The problem is you decided to believe all the stupid crap about drinking and you have no problems restricting parental rights on that but you don't believe the stupid crap about films and so you don't think parental rights should be restricted.

No I just tend to try and base my opinions on solid evidence. In the case of minors consuming alcohol the subject is not even up for debate. Opinion does not enter in. It is case closed. Consuming alcohol before full brain maturity leads to damage. Of course how much is consumed comes into play.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Personally I think there are stupid people in the world and there are societal and parental rights. I think at home a parent should be allowed to think their kid is old enough for a drink or a film but in a public place it is a public place and what is better for society should prevail and if that it that a kid that is 15 is too young to have a drink, then so be it and if it is that a kid is too young for a particular film then so be it as well.

No the point here is; is the activity the minor is engaged in a dangerous activity. Drinking, yes. Watching movie, no. I am not for anarchy but I am wary when someone wants to do something "for the protection of the people" when there is no evidence the people are in danger.

I don't know man, your argument is all over the place. We should restrict viewers at movies, but you take kids to see Saw. We should restrict based on Theme and subject matter when there is no way to fairly do so. I'm not sure how what you propose is better than the finger-to-the-wind way it is done now. I just agree with the folks that are trying to level the playing field when it comes to ratings and give viewers info as to what is actually in the movie.