How the MPAA Controls What You Think

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Mike Shea, Oct 16, 2003.

  1. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    Kill Bill Part 1 is the most violent movie I have ever seen. Blood
    soaks the walls, the floor, even the camera at every opportunity. Kill
    Bill is rated R. Amadeus was recently re-released on DVD and had one
    scene where a main character bares her breasts. This new cut changed
    its rating to R. According to the MPAA, the sight of a woman's breast
    is just as dangerous to young kids as seeing a seventeen year old girl
    disembowel a Japanese business man. The Motion Picture Association of
    America rating system is broken.

    Though violent, Kill Bill is an excellent movie and one that redefines
    Hollywood. While I wouldn't recommend it for anyone under the age of
    15, it is a movie that made our world a better place and definitely
    needed to be made. If they had had their way, the MPAA would have
    removed it from our culture, thrown it into Orwell's "memory hole",
    never to be ever seen or ever heard of.

    The MPAA is an organization who tells you what you are allowed to see.
    They invented an NC-17 rating, a rating more appropriate to Kill Bill
    than R, but because no theater in the country will show NC-17 rated
    movies, no movie is ever released until it receives an R rating.
    Material is cut out of the movie until it receives an R. In an
    interview with Brian De Palma, he described the rating of Scarface.
    One where it was cut and recut to take out the amount of bullets that
    hit the clown in the nightclub shoot out. Eventually De Palma
    threatened the MPAA with lawyers and the movie was shown as-is. The
    MPAA's rating scheme can be manipulated with money and power, just as
    anything else can.

    The Motion Picture Association of America controls what you see.
    Controlling what you see ends up controlling what you say which ends
    up controlling what you think. Violence and sex are removed from
    movies because they are dangerous to children. What determines what
    violence is too extreme? What exactly is the danger? Is Fight Club a
    dangerous movie because it shows fist fights or is it is a dangerous
    movie because it speaks an anti-social message that the removal of
    violence from our society removes a piece of what we are? Is this not
    an important message? If it is dangerous, perhaps it is something that
    needs to be said.

    Violence and the method it is show in cannot be simply categorized
    into neat boxes of G, PG, PG-13, and R. Movies like "The Pianist" are
    far more disturbing than anything you will find in the comic book like
    "Kill Bill". Perhaps it is far more important for us to be disturbed
    over something as horrific as the holocaust, but the loss of innocence
    is just as damaging.

    Good movies cannot be easily categorized as "action", "drama", or
    "comedy". The best movies simply are what they are. Ratings are the
    same way. Trying to affix such a simple one letter rating to an art
    form that is as wide as life is impossible. Just because a movie says
    the word "****" or shows a bare breasted woman does not determine how
    disturbing the movie is or what audience it is intended for.

    Parents are responsible for what their children see. A responsible
    parent will watch or read up on any movie they plan to take their kids
    to see. Taking a 13 year old to see Kill Bill probably isn't wise, but
    in an age where the R rating is almost completely irrelevant, the
    rating alone cannot tell a parent what the content is.

    Far more dangerous is when the rating system is used to censor what we
    are allowed to see. When a beaurocrat from the MPAA decides that too
    much blood will give a movie like Desperado an NC-17 rating, they are
    controlling the content of the movie and controlling who is allowed to
    see it. Taking this idea to its next logical step would assign ratings
    to books and cutting out any violent or sexy books from our
    bookstores. Of course, who determines what amount of sex or violence
    or language is too "disturbing" for the public?

    Censorship is the abolishment of the freedom of speech and worse, the
    freedom to hear. I want to hear what people want to say. I want to see
    the films that people want to make. No middle man should stand between
    me and the material I want to experience. The Motion Pictures
    Association of America should abolish their worthless rating program
    and stick to simple reviews of the content of the movie. Movie
    theaters should show any movie they wish to show regardless of the
    content of the movie.

    No one should control what you see, what you say, or what you think.
    The Motion Picture Association of America is doing just that.

    Mike Shea
    http://mikeshea.net/about/
    http://liquidtheater.com/
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Shea

    Biz Guest

    "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    snipped all the crap.....

    The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
    responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn thing
    they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go see
    their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to cut
    scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
    wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I wanted
    to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good points
    in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the reasons
    why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view. Does
    the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
    definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
    parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
    until that changes, they should exist.
     
    Biz, Oct 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
    their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
    again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
    after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.

    Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
    and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
    to a subjective view is impossible.

    But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
    most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
    NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.

    Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
    created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
    the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
    unbound movies.

    As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
    be happy.

    Mike


    Biz wrote:
    > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > snipped all the crap.....
    >
    > The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
    > responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn thing
    > they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go see
    > their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to cut
    > scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
    > wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I wanted
    > to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good points
    > in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the reasons
    > why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view. Does
    > the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
    > definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
    > parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
    > until that changes, they should exist.
    >
    >
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Mike Shea

    luminos Guest

    You are saying nothing that Roger Ebert hasn't been extolling for decades.

    "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
    > their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
    > again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
    > after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
    >
    > Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
    > and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
    > to a subjective view is impossible.
    >
    > But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
    > most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
    > NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
    >
    > Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
    > created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
    > the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
    > unbound movies.
    >
    > As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
    > be happy.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
    > Biz wrote:
    > > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > snipped all the crap.....
    > >
    > > The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
    > > responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn

    thing
    > > they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go

    see
    > > their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to

    cut
    > > scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
    > > wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I

    wanted
    > > to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good

    points
    > > in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the

    reasons
    > > why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.

    Does
    > > the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
    > > definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
    > > parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
    > > until that changes, they should exist.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    luminos, Oct 16, 2003
    #4
  5. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    He's right.

    luminos wrote:
    > You are saying nothing that Roger Ebert hasn't been extolling for decades.
    >
    > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
    >>their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
    >>again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
    >>after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
    >>
    >>Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
    >>and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
    >>to a subjective view is impossible.
    >>
    >>But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
    >>most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
    >>NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
    >>
    >>Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
    >>created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
    >>the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
    >>unbound movies.
    >>
    >>As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
    >>be happy.
    >>
    >>Mike
    >>
    >>
    >>Biz wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>snipped all the crap.....
    >>>
    >>>The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
    >>>responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn

    >
    > thing
    >
    >>>they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go

    >
    > see
    >
    >>>their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to

    >
    > cut
    >
    >>>scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
    >>>wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I

    >
    > wanted
    >
    >>>to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good

    >
    > points
    >
    >>>in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the

    >
    > reasons
    >
    >>>why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.

    >
    > Does
    >
    >>>the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
    >>>definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
    >>>parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
    >>>until that changes, they should exist.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 17, 2003
    #5
  6. the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
    it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an R?
    It's all about money.
     
    Vlvetmorning98, Oct 17, 2003
    #6
  7. >the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
    >it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an
    >R?
    >It's all about money.


    Better for kids to see Amadeus than the next Adam Sandler film.

    Remove "moc" to reply.


    Whoever says "Nothing is impossible" has never tried to slam a
    revolving door.
    - Willy Walker
     
    Sydney Assbasket, Oct 17, 2003
    #7
  8. On 17 Oct 2003 01:53:36 GMT, oc (Sydney Assbasket ) wrote:

    >>the producers of AMADEUS probably weren't up to paying the MPAA money to give
    >>it a PG-13. why did ORGAZMO get an NC-17 while SOUTH PARK: BIGGER... got an
    >>R?
    >>It's all about money.

    >
    >Better for kids to see Amadeus than the next Adam Sandler film.
    >


    Better for whom? Who decides these things. Kids are overprotected and that's why there's so many brats in
    the world.

    SpeedByrd PhD
     
    Dr. Speedbyrd :>, Oct 17, 2003
    #8
  9. Mike Shea

    Usenet Guest

    --
    There's only one hope left for the Star Trek movie franchise.
    It is a letter located between P and R in the alphabet.
    "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You are hitting the nail on the head. Parents aren't responsible for
    > their children. There is no way to solve this. I went to see Kill Bill
    > again and there was a ten year old boy behind me with his parents. Even
    > after the hospital pube-covered vaseline tub scene, they didn't leave.
    >
    > Ratings don't matter. People aren't using them to guide their decisions
    > and it is probably because trying to tie a single or two letter rating
    > to a subjective view is impossible.
    >
    > But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
    > most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
    > NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.
    >

    or alos no studio has the balls to release one anyway.
    if a major long awaited film were to carry an NC-17 rating it would still
    get played.
    I would have had South Park listed as South Park : Lean Mean and NC-17!


    > Our only hope is underground films. The more Machinima we have being
    > created, written, filmed, and distributed by an underground film market,
    > the more we can break Hollywood's back and release truly creative
    > unbound movies.
    >
    > As long as an elite group of moralists decides what I can see, I won't
    > be happy.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >
    > Biz wrote:
    > > "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > snipped all the crap.....
    > >
    > > The MPAA is just rating it, one reason is because there are very few
    > > responsible parents left in the world. Hollywood can release any darn

    thing
    > > they want, but they want R or PG-13 ratings to get a larger crowd to go

    see
    > > their movies. That is Hollywood's problem. If Hollywood doesnt want to

    cut
    > > scenes to achieve these lesser ratings to get the younger crowds, they
    > > wouldnt have to. If it was a Holywood A-movie rated NC-17 or X and I

    wanted
    > > to see it, I would have no trouble going to it. You make some good

    points
    > > in your post, but you're way off base and you missed most of the

    reasons
    > > why the MPAA does what it does based on your slightly twisted view.

    Does
    > > the MPAA need to rethink their violence vs. nudity standards? Most
    > > definitely. Does the MPAA need to not exist? NO WAY. The majority of
    > > parents show zero responsibility today raising their "demon spawn", and
    > > until that changes, they should exist.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    Usenet, Oct 17, 2003
    #9
  10. Mike Shea

    Peter Briggs Guest

    Biz <> wrote:

    > The MPAA is just rating it


    Exactly. Think yourself lucky that that's all they're doing. The
    British BBFC have been mutilating movies for decades.
     
    Peter Briggs, Oct 17, 2003
    #10
  11. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    The MPAA makes the filmmaker mutilate their own movies. I don't really
    see the difference.

    A statistically insignificant set of individuals are imposing their own
    moralistic beliefs on the entire country.

    The real question I'd like to discuss is: What can we do about it?

    Mike
    http://mikeshea.net/about/
    http://liquidtheater.com/

    Peter Briggs wrote:
    > Biz <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>The MPAA is just rating it

    >
    >
    > Exactly. Think yourself lucky that that's all they're doing. The
    > British BBFC have been mutilating movies for decades.
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 17, 2003
    #11
  12. Mike Shea

    Moviezzz Guest

    >But the MPAA does censor what we see. NC-17 movies do not exist for the
    >most part, because no theater will show them. If a movie is hit with an
    >NC-17 rating, it is guaranteed to make no money from theatrical sales.


    And that is the MPAA's fault?

    When SHOWGIRLS opened, it played most multiplexes. It proved that an NC-17
    movie could open wide (even though it was a terrible film that bombed at the
    box office). You can find the DVD for sale in all the major retailers.

    The MPAA may be warped when it comes to violence / sex in films, but they are
    not to blame for the fact that NC-17 rating films aren't successful at the box
    office.
     
    Moviezzz, Oct 17, 2003
    #12
  13. Mike Shea

    Moviezzz Guest

    >The MPAA makes the filmmaker mutilate their own movies. I don't really
    >see the difference.


    No they don't. If a filmmaker gets an NC-17, they can stick with it. If they
    are contractually obligated to deliver an R by the studio, they should have
    known better before shooting the film that such a scene would cross the line.
    I think everyone here can tell the difference between what is R and what is
    NC-17.

    It is so easy to say the MPAA is evil, but if you look at it, they are just
    there to offer an opinion on who the film is appropriate for. They aren't
    evil, just a group of people.
     
    Moviezzz, Oct 17, 2003
    #13
  14. Mike Shea

    Eric R. Guest

    No kidding. What's new?

    -Eric
     
    Eric R., Oct 17, 2003
    #14
  15. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    The "choice" of making a movie NC-17 or not is the "choice" they make on
    success or failure. Only filmmakers who care nothing for money or
    audience would release a movie in NC-17. If you want a movie to be
    actually seen by a large number of people, it HAS to be R or below
    regardless of content.

    In an interview with Brian De Palma on the making of Scarface he
    describes how he had to resubmit the film four times to get an R rating.
    The final time, he brought a bunch of lawyers with him and the MPAA
    accepted his first cut even though they had rejected it earlier. They
    had considered the number of bullets that hit the clown to be a
    determining factor.

    The rules the MPAA applies are subjective. As noted elsewhere in this
    thread, money is the determining factor.

    Listen to Quentin Tarantino on his commentary of True Romance. The MPAA
    found the scene where Alabama gets brutally beaten by Virgil too
    violent, not because of his violence inflicted on her but because she
    fought back.

    That is the MPAA's objective view, don't show women beating up their
    attackers, it isn't flattering enough.

    Mike


    Moviezzz wrote:
    >>The MPAA makes the filmmaker mutilate their own movies. I don't really
    >>see the difference.

    >
    >
    > No they don't. If a filmmaker gets an NC-17, they can stick with it. If they
    > are contractually obligated to deliver an R by the studio, they should have
    > known better before shooting the film that such a scene would cross the line.
    > I think everyone here can tell the difference between what is R and what is
    > NC-17.
    >
    > It is so easy to say the MPAA is evil, but if you look at it, they are just
    > there to offer an opinion on who the film is appropriate for. They aren't
    > evil, just a group of people.
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 17, 2003
    #15
  16. Moviezzz wrote:

    >>The MPAA makes the filmmaker mutilate their own movies. I don't really
    >>see the difference.

    >
    >
    > No they don't. If a filmmaker gets an NC-17, they can stick with it. If they
    > are contractually obligated to deliver an R by the studio, they should have
    > known better before shooting the film that such a scene would cross the line.
    > I think everyone here can tell the difference between what is R and what is
    > NC-17.
    >

    It's nowhere as simple as that. There are so few NC-17 films that I
    don't think anyone knows what, exactly, constitutes a NC-17 rating.
    Henry and June, for example, didn't even receive the equivalent of an
    "R" rating in most other countries, yet in America it was vilified by
    the MPAA and turned into a porn movie. The film tanked because most
    theaters refuse to carry NC-17 films, just as many refuse to carry
    "Unrated" films. Which makes the MPAA basically a censorship board by
    stealth.

    > It is so easy to say the MPAA is evil, but if you look at it, they are just
    > there to offer an opinion on who the film is appropriate for. They aren't
    > evil, just a group of people.


    And if they refuse to rate a film or slap it with an NC-17 rating, it
    will die a quick death as a result.
     
    Tallulah Blanket, Oct 17, 2003
    #16
  17. Mike Shea

    Peter Briggs Guest

    Tallulah Blanket <> wrote:

    > Henry and June, for example, didn't even receive the equivalent of an
    > "R" rating in most other countries, yet in America it was vilified by
    > the MPAA and turned into a porn movie.


    "Henry and June"

    Sigh.

    I so want this on DVD. What the hell is the hold-up?!?!
     
    Peter Briggs, Oct 18, 2003
    #17
  18. Some of my thoughts...

    First, it's important to keep in mind that the MPAA is an industry
    association, not part of our government. Technically speaking, no
    censorship is taking place.

    From reading the posts so far, most people are saying that parents need to
    be responsible for the content their children experience. However this is
    exactly where the MPAA (is supposed to) come in...as a guide for parents to
    use.

    Now keep in mind how movies and the movie going experience has evolved over
    the years. In the 70s, most movies did fit into G, PG, R, or X. Movies
    that had more adult themes usually had more adult language, and an increase
    in violence and/or sex.

    So back then, it kinda made sense to tell your kids that they could only see
    G movies, or PG movies as they got older.

    Later, additional categories were added as well as brief descriptions.

    Also keep in mind, there were far fewer movies released each year back then
    and far fewer screens available. So when a movie came out with a rating
    that a parent usually wouldn't let their kid see, it was usually
    investigated more thoroughly or watched with the parent because there were
    fewer choices available. Now, if a kid wants to watch a movie that the
    parents find objectionable due to the rating, the parent can point to a
    bazillion other movies at the gigaplex.

    So does this work? Well, probably not very well and certainly there are
    other rating systems that work much better and/or are more thorough. See:
    http://www.commonsensemedia.org/

    It's a tough call, fewer categories results in a one-size fits all mentality
    which doesn't always work. Too many categories confuse the average person.

    Whatever the method, there always will be *some* system. Either it's too
    curt or too verbose, but either way there will be *some* form of review used
    as a guide.

    After all with movies today, there is the MPAA rating, but there are also
    any number of reviews available in magazines, newspapers, Websites and other
    parental guides.

    So get rid of the MPAA and some other non-industry run organization or
    company will take its place.

    The fortunate thing is that movies are shot and submitted to the MPAA with
    the ability to edit and re-submit. So movies shown in theaters that have
    been edited for a rating, can easily now be shown in their original format
    on DVD. This is so common now, I'm not even sure any movies *don't* feature
    edited-for-rating content when released on DVD.

    Even more fortunate about this system is that it does mean pushing the
    envelope further. It used to be that when producing a film, they would have
    some respect for the boundaries of the ratings so they wouldn't waste money
    on scenes that they'd have to cut.

    Now, they're more inclined to shoot it and submit the full version for the
    rating, and edit it down until it gets approved. Those extra scenes that
    were cut are no longer a waste of money, but are now pure DVD marketing
    goodness.
     
    MR_ED_of_Course, Oct 18, 2003
    #18
  19. Mike Shea

    Mike Shea Guest

    You bring up some very interesting points. It is quite possible that a
    more rigid objective rating system would be far worse than the
    subjective one we have now.

    While it is not mandated by the government (if it was, welcome to North
    Korea) it is censorship in practice. There is a movie, it gets an NC-17
    rating, filmmakers cut stuff to make it R, it is released. That is
    censorship regardless of the process or people involved.

    I think DVDs and home theater systems can break this business open.
    Unrated movies can be released and sold at more outlets regardless of
    their content. Movies can be produced and distributed far cheaper than
    before. HDTV cameras, Machinima, DVD burners, these can let a kid with
    $2000 tell his story and distribute it over the net. As the tools get
    better, the ability for creative minds to use them will get better.

    I want to get away from producers who are ex-hair dressers of Barbera
    Strisand. I want to get away from a "who you know" business of greasing
    palms and schmoozing. The Godfather was almost never made because of
    idiots in Hollywood. The better movies get outside of it, the better
    off we will be. And the further from the censorship of the MPAA we will be.

    Mike


    MR_ED_of_Course wrote:

    > Some of my thoughts...
    >
    > First, it's important to keep in mind that the MPAA is an industry
    > association, not part of our government. Technically speaking, no
    > censorship is taking place.
    >
    > From reading the posts so far, most people are saying that parents need to
    > be responsible for the content their children experience. However this is
    > exactly where the MPAA (is supposed to) come in...as a guide for parents to
    > use.
    >
    > Now keep in mind how movies and the movie going experience has evolved over
    > the years. In the 70s, most movies did fit into G, PG, R, or X. Movies
    > that had more adult themes usually had more adult language, and an increase
    > in violence and/or sex.
    >
    > So back then, it kinda made sense to tell your kids that they could only see
    > G movies, or PG movies as they got older.
    >
    > Later, additional categories were added as well as brief descriptions.
    >
    > Also keep in mind, there were far fewer movies released each year back then
    > and far fewer screens available. So when a movie came out with a rating
    > that a parent usually wouldn't let their kid see, it was usually
    > investigated more thoroughly or watched with the parent because there were
    > fewer choices available. Now, if a kid wants to watch a movie that the
    > parents find objectionable due to the rating, the parent can point to a
    > bazillion other movies at the gigaplex.
    >
    > So does this work? Well, probably not very well and certainly there are
    > other rating systems that work much better and/or are more thorough. See:
    > http://www.commonsensemedia.org/
    >
    > It's a tough call, fewer categories results in a one-size fits all mentality
    > which doesn't always work. Too many categories confuse the average person.
    >
    > Whatever the method, there always will be *some* system. Either it's too
    > curt or too verbose, but either way there will be *some* form of review used
    > as a guide.
    >
    > After all with movies today, there is the MPAA rating, but there are also
    > any number of reviews available in magazines, newspapers, Websites and other
    > parental guides.
    >
    > So get rid of the MPAA and some other non-industry run organization or
    > company will take its place.
    >
    > The fortunate thing is that movies are shot and submitted to the MPAA with
    > the ability to edit and re-submit. So movies shown in theaters that have
    > been edited for a rating, can easily now be shown in their original format
    > on DVD. This is so common now, I'm not even sure any movies *don't* feature
    > edited-for-rating content when released on DVD.
    >
    > Even more fortunate about this system is that it does mean pushing the
    > envelope further. It used to be that when producing a film, they would have
    > some respect for the boundaries of the ratings so they wouldn't waste money
    > on scenes that they'd have to cut.
    >
    > Now, they're more inclined to shoot it and submit the full version for the
    > rating, and edit it down until it gets approved. Those extra scenes that
    > were cut are no longer a waste of money, but are now pure DVD marketing
    > goodness.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Mike Shea, Oct 18, 2003
    #19
  20. Mike Shea

    Biz Guest

    "Mike Shea" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You bring up some very interesting points. It is quite possible that a
    > more rigid objective rating system would be far worse than the
    > subjective one we have now.
    >
    > While it is not mandated by the government (if it was, welcome to North
    > Korea) it is censorship in practice. There is a movie, it gets an NC-17
    > rating, filmmakers cut stuff to make it R, it is released. That is
    > censorship regardless of the process or people involved.


    Mike, heres another spin on what you claim is censorship:
    They "test" a movie, and it doesnt do well, so they re-edit it to make the
    testing crowds like it more. That movie has just been censored by your
    strict definition, IMHO. There has to be compromise in whatever system
    that gets used, and you seem to think that any compromise is blatantly
    censorship. Again , they do not have to re-edit to get a lower rating, that
    is their choice. IMHO, thats what has to change in Hollywood, as well as
    some modernizations to the current ratings system. The biggest thing that I
    find so ironic is heavy violence and some gore is allowed much more leeway
    than ANY forms of nudity, which to me is really screwed up.
     
    Biz, Oct 18, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Horner
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    554
  2. Careers
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    638
    Ben Measures
    Jan 31, 2004
  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=

    I think I will get this and I think I will get that

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=, Mar 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    530
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?mark=5Fdigital=A9?=
    Mar 18, 2006
  4. thingy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    thingy
    Nov 6, 2006
  5. danbloom
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    385
    Spamm Trappe
    Mar 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page