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.

[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?

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by cvm

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.

I think there would be a problem with rating films by content. Simply because there are too many different things that too many different people find offensive. There are a lot of very sensitive people out there.

There are the current standard things, sex, nudity, violence, drug use, language, blood, tobacco use etc. But there are many other things that people could get upset about if the system "failed" to warn them.

Too religious (preachy)
Athiest themes
Racist themes
Misogynistic themes
Animal cruelty
Homsexual themes
Incest themes
Too Right wing
Too Left Wing
Genocide themes

The list could go on forever, and I think that it would be too cumbersome to be effective.

I have no answers.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I think there would be a problem with rating films by content. Simply because there are too many different things that too many different people find offensive. There are a lot of very sensitive people out there.

Oversensitive, if you ask me (especially the PC crowd). When the whole "offensive" deal comes up, I often think of this...

Oversensitive Witches - YouTube

[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.

[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?).