MPAA to revise their rating system
#1
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
MPAA to revise their rating system
From IMDB:
MPAA To Revise Ratings System
The Motion Picture Association of America, always resistant to changes to its movie ratings system under its previous chief, Jack Valenti, is now planning to make some key alterations to the system, Daily Variety reported today (Wednesday). The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult. Another change will allow a filmmaker to cite scenes in another movie when appealing a severe rating. In an interview with Variety Dan Glickman, who succeed Valenti in 2004, said that the organization had been influenced by criticism of its ratings system presented in the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which debuted at the Sundance film festival last year. Glickman plans to discuss the new revisions of the ratings rules with independent filmmakers attending this year's Sundance festival, which gets underway on Monday, Variety said.
MPAA To Revise Ratings System
The Motion Picture Association of America, always resistant to changes to its movie ratings system under its previous chief, Jack Valenti, is now planning to make some key alterations to the system, Daily Variety reported today (Wednesday). The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult. Another change will allow a filmmaker to cite scenes in another movie when appealing a severe rating. In an interview with Variety Dan Glickman, who succeed Valenti in 2004, said that the organization had been influenced by criticism of its ratings system presented in the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which debuted at the Sundance film festival last year. Glickman plans to discuss the new revisions of the ratings rules with independent filmmakers attending this year's Sundance festival, which gets underway on Monday, Variety said.
#2
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Seantn
The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Wow; so now parents aren't allowed to have the final say in matters pertaining to their own children. Ah, it's so great to live in America, the land of the free...
#5
DVD Talk Hero
Hopefully it means that there will be a new rating between R and NC-17:
R+ (We Mean It, Get a Fucking Babysitter)
R+ (We Mean It, Get a Fucking Babysitter)
Last edited by Numanoid; 01-17-07 at 11:19 PM.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Wow; so now parents aren't allowed to have the final say in matters pertaining to their own children. Ah, it's so great to live in America, the land of the free...
That said, I don't know what you were reading, but the story says nothing to indicate parents don't have the final say. It simply says the revamped ratings will warn parents more strongly.
In fact, the MPAA has never governed what parents can and can't do. It has always been up to the theaters to "enforce" the ratings.
#8
DVD Talk Hero
to the appeals change, when I heard "no citing" in This Film Is Not Yet Rated I was actually somewhat dumbfounded.
Also, the R rating needs some minor revision, RESTRICTED isn't exactly descriptive to a lot of the, erm, parents out there. "This film is not suitable for children under 17" is more fitting.
Also, the R rating needs some minor revision, RESTRICTED isn't exactly descriptive to a lot of the, erm, parents out there. "This film is not suitable for children under 17" is more fitting.
#9
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
Wow; so now parents aren't allowed to have the final say in matters pertaining to their own children. Ah, it's so great to live in America, the land of the free...
#13
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Next stop, Earth.
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't think kids should be allowed into R rated movies period, whether the parents want them there or not. It's pretty damn irresponsible, as well as inconsiderate to the other theatergoers. Get a babysitter or stay home!
#15
DVD Talk Hero
Just do away with the fucking ratings system.
With cable TV and home video, it's completely pointless to have the NC-17 rating that bars anyone under the age of 17 from the theater when they can watch the same thing on cable TV or on a DVD with or without their parent's consent.
The whole G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 thing is just completely pointless these days, and it sucks because it's become little more a big marketing gimmick when the studios try to shoot for a certain rating (mostly PG-13). And the whole "UNRATED EDITION" thing has gotten out of hand as well.
Just release the goddamned movies the way they were supposed to be released. Get rid of the wholecensorship ratings board and just let the studios put on content warnings as they see fit.
When you have a theatrical window of only a couple of weeks, and then DVDs that last forever, it's ridiculous to have these ratings that cater to movie theaters.
With cable TV and home video, it's completely pointless to have the NC-17 rating that bars anyone under the age of 17 from the theater when they can watch the same thing on cable TV or on a DVD with or without their parent's consent.
The whole G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 thing is just completely pointless these days, and it sucks because it's become little more a big marketing gimmick when the studios try to shoot for a certain rating (mostly PG-13). And the whole "UNRATED EDITION" thing has gotten out of hand as well.
Just release the goddamned movies the way they were supposed to be released. Get rid of the whole
When you have a theatrical window of only a couple of weeks, and then DVDs that last forever, it's ridiculous to have these ratings that cater to movie theaters.
#16
Moderator
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
Just do away with the fucking ratings system.
With cable TV and home video, it's completely pointless to have the NC-17 rating that bars anyone under the age of 17 from the theater when they can watch the same thing on cable TV or on a DVD with or without their parent's consent.
The whole G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 thing is just completely pointless these days, and it sucks because it's become little more a big marketing gimmick when the studios try to shoot for a certain rating (mostly PG-13). And the whole "UNRATED EDITION" thing has gotten out of hand as well.
Just release the goddamned movies the way they were supposed to be released. Get rid of the wholecensorship ratings board and just let the studios put on content warnings as they see fit.
When you have a theatrical window of only a couple of weeks, and then DVDs that last forever, it's ridiculous to have these ratings that cater to movie theaters.
With cable TV and home video, it's completely pointless to have the NC-17 rating that bars anyone under the age of 17 from the theater when they can watch the same thing on cable TV or on a DVD with or without their parent's consent.
The whole G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 thing is just completely pointless these days, and it sucks because it's become little more a big marketing gimmick when the studios try to shoot for a certain rating (mostly PG-13). And the whole "UNRATED EDITION" thing has gotten out of hand as well.
Just release the goddamned movies the way they were supposed to be released. Get rid of the whole
When you have a theatrical window of only a couple of weeks, and then DVDs that last forever, it's ridiculous to have these ratings that cater to movie theaters.
that's wishful thinking. At this point, the MPAA wields too much power, and there's nothing anyone can really do about it. The MPAA decides on alot of things other than just assigning a film it's rating. Trailers and advertising also fall under MPAA approval. At one point, some theatre chains, newspapers and even Target, Walmart wouldn't show/advertise/stock a movie if it didn't have a MPAA rating - thankfully this has lessened. But on the whole, what has to change, are the actual raters of the films and hypocrisity on subject, visual depiction. The MPAA are prudes when it comes to sex, graphic violence is okay, but sex/nudity: no. The appeals process must also be less strict and annonymous and cost effective to the studio/distributor.
#17
Moderator
Originally Posted by RichC2
to the appeals change, when I heard "no citing" in This Film Is Not Yet Rated I was actually somewhat dumbfounded.
Also, the R rating needs some minor revision, RESTRICTED isn't exactly descriptive to a lot of the, erm, parents out there. "This film is not suitable for children under 17" is more fitting.
Also, the R rating needs some minor revision, RESTRICTED isn't exactly descriptive to a lot of the, erm, parents out there. "This film is not suitable for children under 17" is more fitting.
#18
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Joe Molotov
Land where you're free to watch an adult movie without a lot of 5 year olds running amok. That does sound like a great place to live.
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
You don't have to go to many R-rated movies for proof that some parents are either incapable of or unwilling to make good decisions when it comes to raising their children.
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
That said, I don't know what you were reading, but the story says nothing to indicate parents don't have the final say. It simply says the revamped ratings will warn parents more strongly.
In fact, the MPAA has never governed what parents can and can't do. It has always been up to the theaters to "enforce" the ratings.
In fact, the MPAA has never governed what parents can and can't do. It has always been up to the theaters to "enforce" the ratings.
#19
Moderator
"The trade paper said that the MPAA will now warn parents that some R-rated movies are not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult."
Key word: warn.
And if you're really determined to show your kids I Spit on your Grave or similar, you can always wait and rent it on DVD.
Key word: warn.
And if you're really determined to show your kids I Spit on your Grave or similar, you can always wait and rent it on DVD.
#20
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The 7-8-Triple6, Texas
Posts: 3,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
The former point could be my error in reading comprehension but, to me, to state we now have a rating of "not suitable for younger people -- whether or not they are accompanied by an adult" pretty clearly indicates that under 17 will not be allowed whether there's a parent or not (in effect, it would replace NC-17 or exist alongside it as the exact same thing, but with a different name, perhaps in an attempt to block youth attendance from twice as many movies as now). If it doesn't, and I'm misreading it, then this represents a difference which makes no difference and is, therefore, no difference. Attendance with either R-rating would/could be identical.
#21
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Fair enough, but from a ratings perspective, I fail to see what the quantitative or qualitative difference is between a movie unsuitable for 17 and under unless you are accompanied by an adult and one that is unsuitable for 17 and under whether you are accompanied by an adult or not. More critically, I see zero, zilch, nada difference between this new version of the R-rating and the curent NC-17 rating, so what's it meant to accomplish?
#22
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The 7-8-Triple6, Texas
Posts: 3,620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
More critically, I see zero, zilch, nada difference between this new version of the R-rating and the curent NC-17 rating, so what's it meant to accomplish?
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
More critically, I see zero, zilch, nada difference between this new version of the R-rating and the curent NC-17 rating, so what's it meant to accomplish?
#24
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by porieux
Personally I don't think kids should be allowed into R rated movies period, whether the parents want them there or not. It's pretty damn irresponsible, as well as inconsiderate to the other theatergoers. Get a babysitter or stay home!
#25
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by antennaball
I think the difference is children under 17 can still be admitted to the new R-rated movies when accompanied by a parent.