The MPAA - Stay or Go?

[DjfunkmasterG]

There has been so much debate recently about the MPAA here in the USA, particularly having to do with the R and NC-17 ratings. A lot of filmmakers are beginning to complain about their films being slapped with NC-17's but then another film with equal amounts of violence, sex etc etc gets marked with an R.

Some family groups are up in arms that movies are becoming more hard core and the R rating isn't covering all the aspects of these films nor is it keeping children from seeing these films as most theaters aren't asking for ID.

The MPAA wants to start using the NC-17 moniker more frequently, but they screwed up the marketing of that rating so bad that it is as bad as the X rating. 80% of newspapers and TV stations in the USA will not run advertising for NC-17 films because the NC-17 rating is usually slapped onto films with very explicit sex, but the MPAA board has been trying to hand it out more frequently to violent horror films.

The MPAA wants to compromise by coming up with the R-17 rating to replace NC-17. The new R-17 rating would have the same guidelines as the NC-17, but the MPAA states it will remove the stigma of the NC-17. How is all I ask? How can you change NC-17 to R-17 and expect everything to be different, especially when you clearly state the guidelines will be the same. You know this means that media outlets will still refuse to advertise films because now they know R-17 is the new NC-17. I think we should do away witht he rating system, because it is what it was designed to be which is a guide systems for parents. It has become the axis of censorship in the US film industry.

So, cast your vote ont he poll and leave us your thoughts on the EVIL MPAA.

(Apologies for my poor use of spell check in the poll questions)

[bassman]

I had to go with "Frankly DJ, I don't give a damn". With the use of DVD's these days, even if a film is edited for theater, we get the unrated deal only about 3 months later.

It doesn't really bother me all that much, but I do see the MPAA going down in the future.

[Terran]

Did you watch This Film is Not Yet Rated.....those people rating films are villians!

[capncnut]

As Bass said, the unrated DVD is out a few months later so why care? I could slag off the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) but since they now allow hardcore porn, I don't think I'll bother. :D

[Terran]

As Bass said, the unrated DVD is out a few months later so why care?

Well why care?....some movies never get made or get budgets to be made well because of the MPAA....

I think thats a reason to care

[Danny]

if there anything like the bbfc ove rhere, which weve been studying at college lately (but not this week adn next since its half term, boooong!:lol: ), and those kinda ratings are necessary in most cases, granted youve allready gotta be tweaked for a movie to "make you kill" but the difference between an 18 and a u is certain points, all of which in my opinion are valid, though the c word (whch as a gentlemanly slob-hermit i never use;) ) has been lowered to a 15 classification, there there for a reason and theres 100 different people from all ethnic backgrounds to judge them to make sure a 6 year old isnt watching audtition or something, if its the same over there i say yes, only for the gudielines they suggest, better than having to screen every film yourself before you let it get near the reach of a toddler.




my parents didnt and im still having flashbacks to fritz the cat:|

[bassman]

Well why care?....some movies never get made or get budgets to be made well because of the MPAA....

I think thats a reason to care

With the use of DVDs these days.....I doubt that's a problem anymore.

[coma]

Did you watch This Film is Not Yet Rated.....those people rating films are villians!
It shouldnt be some big secret and the church should have no say at all. The board should change and not be a bunch of old bags.

And it IS defacto censorship, making them change stuff which being all coy and vague to the filmmaker. It is way less restrictive than it used to be , but its lack of independence from the major studios is a probelm leading to bias

and JAck Valente is a total dickhole.

[EvilNed]

The MPAA are censorship dicks. I want them gone on principle alone, even IF DVDs get released unrated a few months later.

Conservative religious nuts with nuclear family values and morals who blame everything on media. They've got to be so damn dumb thinking media causes any kind of violence. People were killing each other before the Lumiére brothers were even born.

Also they are much stricter on horror films than they are on any other kind of films. Take Saving Private Ryan. Rated R. If that was a horror flick, they would NEVER get away showing that much gore.

[MinionZombie]

I said guidelines, but I'm kinda bordering on disbanding them too...

Basically, they need proper people behind it (also saw that "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" doc, and man ... what a bunch of dicks the MPAA are...)

Anyway, an entirely new staff, this whole idea of it being 'parents' behind it is dodgy from the start, and they don't even stick to it like they say (as seen in that doc). The films should be analysed by professionals in the industry.

Also, the puritanical stance against sex has to go.

The BBFC (the British equivalent) used to be a complete bunch of dicks, but since 1999 when they had a major shake-up, they've been on the up and up and have really chilled out and let some major milestone films through.

Films like Baise Moi, Irreversible and 9 Songs would have been banned out-right from the off and would have remained that way infinitely. After the 1999 shake-up there was an onslaught of previously banned films being released at long last (like A Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist and Texas Chainsaw Massacre) - did we all go mad? Nope, we enjoyed finally being able to see these films, the works of fiction.

You guys seriously need a proper high-end rating too, I always thought that the R rating was stupid, kids shouldn't be getting brought into theatres to see adult movies, mainly because of the kid factor, it's just annoying. If they still wanna see them - save it for TV or DVD.

Here in the UK we have the "18" rating, and thats for those of that age and older and nothing else, films still do business, obviously less than your average family flick - but that's hardly surprising is it?

The idea of letting kids in to see an R flick just to make extra cash is a load of wank to me. If I wanna go watch a slasher flick I wanna be watching it with fellow adults, not a bunch of necking teens throwing popcorn around and acting like ADD-addled, like we always see in movies with a scene in a cinema (do American audiences really act like that?! :eek:)

British audiences are so reserved by comparison, they're polite and only erupt when everybody else is doing so, we're very respectful that way.

On a different note though, I remember going to see Fantastic Four, and yeah, it's technically a family movie, but some family brought along their BABY ... yes, to a cinema with REALLY LOUD NOISES!!! How is a baby going to appreciate the film?! It's too young for it - much like a bunch of kids are too young to properly appreciate/understand many R rated films.

Anyway, it was crying and crying and all this sh*t until one of the parents took it outside - at last. They were obviously there for their son (but this was like 9pm kick off on a school night! :eek:), but clearly the sensible thing would be pick a weekend matinee and just take the boy, leave the baby with one of the 'rents or a babysitter, GEEZ!

Anyway, the MPAA are retarded, at the very least they need a major shake up and slap about the face with the common sense glove, at most they need replacing with a proper panel of industry insiders.

[EvilNed]

I remember going to see Fantastic Four

Now why did you go and do something like that?

[MinionZombie]

Now why did you go and do something like that?
To gawp at Jessica Alba of course ... doi! :p

I mean, dude ... come on...:)

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PF/PF_1226091_999~Fantastic-Four-Jessica-Alba-Posters.jpg

[DjfunkmasterG]

I just watched, This Film has Not Been Rated, and to be honest I will never submit another film to the MPAA again. Deadlands 2 will never be submitted, it ain't worth the bullsh!t.

[Terran]

I just watched, This Film has Not Been Rated, and to be honest I will never submit another film to the MPAA again. Deadlands 2 will never be submitted, it ain't worth the bullsh!t.



They must be destroyed!

[coma]

They must be destroyed!
Call out the Smog Monster!

[EvilNed]

To gawp at Jessica Alba of course ... doi! :p



Good answer. :D

[MikePizzoff]

I never quite understood the difference between R and NC-17. I mean, you have to be 17 to see an 'R' rated film... so WHAT GIVES?

[MinionZombie]

NC-17 is only for those over 17, whereas with the "R" rating, kids can get in to see it as long as they're accompanied by an adult - therefore, that means more ticket sales, which means more money, and that's one of the reasons why people want an "R" rating for their horror movie...i.e. LAME. :rolleyes:

NC-17, for some reason, has the stigma of being pornographic, and what I really think is lame, is that certain places won't advertise such films, that is PATHETIC, really puritanical too...NC-17 just means it's a hardcore film, and "hardcore" doesn't always mean porn...:rockbrow:

Geez, the American rating system is as retarded as the broadcasting system - e.g. why are we still only mid-way through the respective latest seasons of The Simpson's, Family Guy, Two and a Half Men etc when they all kicked off in f*cking SEPTEMBER 2006 - answer - the scheduling is PISS POOR. Weeks on top of weeks, where no new episodes are shown, flung about left and right ... lest we forget the THREE MONTH GAP between episode 6 and episode 7 of season 3 of Lost...:rockbrow:

Yep ... the MPAA is that retarded. :mad:

[LouCipherr]

The MPAA, along with the RIAA and the FCC need to be disbanded completely. I think just about everyone here knows the reasons why.

I'm all for guidelines and warnings (hell, they put 'em on CD's) - I mean, how else would I keep my son, who is 11, from seeing something like The Devil's Rejects? :lol: but the whole rating system is just a moot point. Warn people of the content, but let the people make their own educated decisions as to whether to view the movie or let their kids, etc. view it.

[Danny]

i dont see why the u.s doesnt follow the same rules as the uk film wise, the bbfc's latest overhaul means the ratings are much farer and have changed with the times, over here weve got

E - everyone, only used in music dvd's or the like.
Uc - anyone under 3 years old
U - universal, not even "mild peril", suitable for anyone over 3 years old
PG - parental guidance, aimed at people 8 or older, but has mild languageg adn violence adn each parent should judge if its fit for there child to watch
12 - no one under 12 years of age
12A - anyone over 12 or under if they are with an adult, which was created for films like spiderman 2 (the first film to use it) adn the lord of the rings, basically to rake in more moolah and i dont foresse this one lasting long
15 - noone under 15 years of age
18 - noone under 18 years of age
R18 - the "bow-chicka-bow-wow" films only allowed to be sold in sex shops

read more on em here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/general/index.php

but the gist is simple enough ,100 people from all backgrounds between 18 and like 65 who judge a film on its merits, its content and how offensive it is, and if it would be offensive in another culture as well, thats what the mpaa shoudl do to.

[DjfunkmasterG]

i dont see why the u.s doesnt follow the same rules as the uk film wise, the bbfc's latest overhaul means the ratings are much farer and have changed with the times, over here weve got

E - everyone, only used in music dvd's or the like.
Uc - anyone under 3 years old
U - universal, not even "mild peril", suitable for anyone over 3 years old
PG - parental guidance, aimed at people 8 or older, but has mild languageg adn violence adn each parent should judge if its fit for there child to watch
12 - no one under 12 years of age
12A - anyone over 12 or under if they are with an adult, which was created for films like spiderman 2 (the first film to use it) adn the lord of the rings, basically to rake in more moolah and i dont foresse this one lasting long
15 - noone under 15 years of age
18 - noone under 18 years of age
R18 - the "bow-chicka-bow-wow" films only allowed to be sold in sex shops

read more on em here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/general/index.php

but the gist is simple enough ,100 people from all backgrounds between 18 and like 65 who judge a film on its merits, its content and how offensive it is, and if it would be offensive in another culture as well, thats what the mpaa shoudl do to.

10 ratings to our 5. If that was the case I will stick with the MPAA.

[Danny]

not to make you sound simple but theres 9 on there.....:|

[MinionZombie]

*ahem*

To get pedantic, I believe it was the first Spider-Man film to be used with 12A initially. :sneaky:

There may be a whole list of ratings there, but the BBFC rate fairly and evenly and, a very key point, they are open to the public. You don't have to hire a private detective to find out who is doing the rating. Pre-1999 they were a bunch of dicks, mainly because of the big man at the top, after that period they've gotten progressively cooler and much more modern and relaxed. They still have a big issue with violence connected to sex and vice versa ... sometimes rightly justified, sometimes a bit puritanical, but as far as consensual sex in mainstream films go, they're pretty damn laid back ... even R18 is fairly laid back, although that's where you'll find the classic BBFC hefty cuts ... mind you, just download your porn! :lol:

As for mainstream (anything 18 and under), bans are a thing of the past, and cuts are once in a blue moon ... and a fair few of that small number at distributor imposed (e.g. Severance would have been 18 for one small clip, but the distributor chose to take it out to get a 15 rating ... no doubt to pull in the Shaun of the Dead audience ... was a good film though, but Shaun was loads better ... mind you, Severance wasn't about zombies - but it was a horror comedy, so therefore they got a lot of "it's like Shaun" nods from critics/advertisers).

[EvilNed]

Here's how Sweden works, it's a bit complicated, so bear with me:

7 - Anyone can see it, kids under 7 need a parent.
11 - People under 11 can see it with their parents.
15 - Only people over 15 allowed.

Phew! Well, that's that.

7 is for anything that doesn't contain violence. 11 is for films that contain mild violence or destruction, such as godzilla. 15 is for films that contain more extreme violence and fast paced action, as well as plenty of blood.

Sex and profanity is not something they bother with. Films with sex or nudity in them will still get passed for 7.

As for cutting, the Swedish Film Institute hasn't censored (or banned or cut) a film since 1995 I think. Infact, I believe it's more or less officially stated that they never will ever again. However, they sometimes make small cuts in films that are borderline 15 so that it can be released under 11. But when they release it on DVD later, it's fully uncut. I've only experienced this once, however, and that was when I saw LXG.

They tried getting Postal 2 banned. Videogames is everyones new Scapegoat. But the court threw the case out.

[coma]

not to make you sound simple but theres 9 on there.....:|
TOO MANY!
Got to keep it simple


Here's how Sweden works, it's a bit complicated, so bear with me:

7 - Anyone can see it, kids under 7 need a parent.
11 - People under 11 can see it with their parents.
15 - Only people over 15 allowed.

Phew! Well, that's that.

7 is for anything that doesn't contain violence. 11 is for films that contain mild violence or destruction, such as godzilla. 15 is for films that contain more extreme violence and fast paced action, as well as plenty of blood.

Sex and profanity is not something they bother with. Films with sex or nudity in them will still get passed for 7.

As for cutting, the Swedish Film Institute hasn't censored (or banned or cut) a film since 1995 I think. Infact, I believe it's more or less officially stated that they never will ever again. However, they sometimes make small cuts in films that are borderline 15 so that it can be released under 11. But when they release it on DVD later, it's fully uncut. I've only experienced this once, however, and that was when I saw LXG.

They tried getting Postal 2 banned. Videogames is everyones new Scapegoat. But the court threw the case out.
Nice! I likes it:)

[Danny]

in france however in depth shots of penetration during sex can still be a U.





dirty bar-stards:lol:

[MinionZombie]

How is having 9 ratings complex though? Surely it makes things easier, as there are far less borderline situations to come across, because there are more ratings to 'play with'.

As for 12A, that's fairly rare use, only used on films that would be PG, but are perhaps just a bit too much for some (Lord of the Rings fell into this category, the adverts famously noted that kids under 8 should be discouraged from viewing the films in the cinema).

The Swedish seem pretty chilled out, which is cool ... found it strange with sex/nudity coming into "11" rated films ... odd ... just a cultural clash I guess.

hehe, Postal 2 ... such a fun game (interestingly there's new research that has come out showing that (generally) well balanced and adjusted kids - i.e. the vast majority - aren't affected at all by violence in games. Only kids who have problems are affected by such games - which makes sense, and just proves what the pro-gaming side have been hammering on about for years and years.

I wonder what the Postal movie will be like? ... hmmm ... a Boll-ock movie I might actually watch/make it through...

Ooh, speaking of videogame-to-movie conversions, Hitman: The Movie is underway, and no Vin Diesel in sight (yay) ... instead, Timothy Olyphant ... interesting choice...and not a sniff of Boll-ock in sight...maybe it'll be at least passable/not bad.

[Danny]

of course you can be vilent as hell as long as its not against humans.

case in point the cartoon samurai jack, a wandering samurai killing people, surely not on cartoon network right?, so they change the enemies to robots and they get a PG.
same goes for lord of the rings, loads of violence but its goblins that bleed black blood so it gets a lwoer rating, least thats how it works in the u.k

[MinionZombie]

The first LOTR got a PG anyway, that caused a fuss and it was all 12/12A from then on. :sneaky: The overall tone of the film wasn't that dark or that violent either, but the second and third were rather dark and actually a little bit scary here and there...

Then of course there was Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles ... good that they've long since given up on that lameness and it's back to normal ... well ... sort of, it's gone all txt msg now...you seen the ad, "TMNT". :rolleyes:

If an ad exec actually mentioned txt msg'n at ANY point in that meeting I'd love to know and be guided towards their location so I could give them a slap.

I blame txt msg'n for obesity! :lol:

*charges forth in a Daily Mail style crusade manner ... misguided but generally well meaning* :p

[LouCipherr]

7 - Anyone can see it, kids under 7 need a parent.
11 - People under 11 can see it with their parents.
15 - Only people over 15 allowed.


Now that is a rating system I could live with. :D

[EvilNed]

The Swedish seem pretty chilled out, which is cool ... found it strange with sex/nudity coming into "11" rated films ... odd ... just a cultural clash I guess.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203166/

Rated R in the US. In Sweden it's from 11, which pretty much means anyone can see it. Kids can see it with their parents. And this film features frontal male and female nudity, as well as plenty of sex scenes.

Incidently, it's also a pretty funny film. But I just pull it as an example. Nudity is something we're all born with. Why shy it away from kids? Should they not be allowed to look in the mirror either then?