I think yes, they are a little bit more accepting. The only film I noticed that had DC's Landmark's E Street theatre being restrictive was the comedy 'Another Gay Movie' advertised at the box office - "17+ audiences only" I think the first week of release had alot of under 17 year old teens seeing this movie.

[Side comment: regarding theatre chains and rating's controversies]:

I remember the controversy over the extreme violence of 'Saving Private Ryan' that some chains in the DC area denoted in the Washington Post Movie Listing's that the film's violence would be a problamatic for under 17 year olds - ignoring the fact that the MPAA did find this to be R-rated and that 17 year olds could see this with a parent of adult guardian. I would think that this type of advertising is illegal. As far as I know 1980's 'Cruising' was the only other film where chains expressed their displeasure in a film's violence level and sidestepped the MPAA's official R-rated classification of the film.

However, most theaters will card for those independent films that are unrated regardless of content or not. I got carded for the theatrical releases of Touching the Void and Super Size Me -- both went out unrated during their theatrical release, both ended up uncut with the PG-13 on DVD.

The proponets of an offical 'hard R' rating can shove it in my opinion

Since there is no need for such a rating and it will NEVER solve the 'problem' with stupid movie goers. If a parent still decides to take their kid to some 'hard' R rated film with strong sexual and violent content. And then bitch up a storm over their kid seeing a breast or something. That is their own stupid careless fault and not the filmmakers or ratings board.

Also since the current ratings system is good enough in terms of age recommendations. There is no need to toss something in between "tame R" and "hard R" and "NC-17". Since will people under a certain age not be allowed into "Hard R" films? That's not fair and goes against the R rating itself. Which just recommends 'under 17' year olds to be accompanied by an adult/guardian. So they can't say "Hard R" is only for 15+ with an adult and anyone under 15 can't get in evein with an adult.

And don't tell me "NC-17 can just be for sexually explicit films whether it's hardcore porn,or strong graphic simulated sex". Since the NC-17 isn't supposed to be an 'adult' 'porn' 'sex' only rating. It applies to all content,including violence and language.

So there is no need for a 'real Hard R' rating'. Their is more than enough information about the content of a film today, in the rating reason descriptions. Many reviews, many parenting/moral watch dog conservative sites which less all 'objectionable' content.

So if a stupid lazy parent ignores all those easily accessible information. It's their own damn fault, if they take their kid to the film and the kid can't handle the material. Or the parent is just prudish about a tame glimpse of a breast and tries to shelter their kids at all costs from that 'filth', while indulging them in violence and gore.

I think we should make the distinction between Unrated and Not Rated films. Plenty of old films prior to the MPAA system are Not Rated. Therefore these films that don't have a content problem can go with Not Rated and films that have shucked the rating because they got an NC-17 or due to extreme content can go with Unrated.

Anecdotally, yes, it does seem that way. However, I'd like harder evidence. It could be that NC-17 films aren't seen playing at theaters that often simply because there are so few of them.

I don't know about advertising, but I do know that Marcus Theaters doesn't allow kids 6-years-old or under into R rated movies at all, which is more restrictive than the rating itself is. Ratings enforcement is voluntary, so I don't think there's anything "illegal" about the theater enforcing more restrictive age requirements or age recommendations.

It's unlikely that any movie rating system would completely eliminate complaints. However, a better implemented system does have the chance of reducing the number of complaints.

True, but at least the filmmakers and ratings board would have the "hard R" rating the film got to point to as a strong(er) warning of content. Meaning it'd be less likely parents would get confused about the level of explicit content in the film, and the film industry would have a stronger defense against accusations of inappropriate content.

Obviously some people disagree, which is why there is talk about another rating, whether it be "PG-15", "Hard R," or some other age delineation. Also, when a film like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles gets the same rating as Hostel, anyone can see that the R rating currently contains a wide range of films of varying "appropriateness."

Proponents of "hard R" would agree with you there.

It's unknown. The MPAA has proposed "Hard R" as simply a rebranding of the NC-17 rating, so then it would be. Others have suggested alternative age recommendations/restrictions for the rating.

True, which is why it would be a new, separate rating.

The age restriction on R rated films is actually a bit more than a "recommendation." Theaters are supposed to enforce it.

"They" can do pretty much whatever they want. However, I don't think I've read of anyone proposing the age restrictions that you have indicated here.

Your statements (as I understand them) seem contradictory. If the rating reason descriptions truly give "more than enough information," what need is there for the other review sites that list even more information? Those sites exist because for some people, the MPAA ratings and reasons don't give enough information.

The only "easily accessible information" is the rating and reasons, which are on all the advertising. The other information is less accessible, especially to parents who can't afford a computer/internet access.

True, although I could understand the frustration a parent might have if they feel the movie rating didn't fully warn them about the content in the film.

Well, to be fair, that's their prerogative, although the MPAA already covers the difference with their rating descriptions, differentiating "nudity" and "sexual content" from "graphic violence."

There isn't a distinction besides semantics. "Un" means "not" so "Unrated" means "Not Rated." And since the choice of which to use is unregulated, since it's not a rating but a description of a lack of one, it's up to the studios to decide which to use.

For example, the Spiderman 2.1 Extended cut is labeled as "Unrated" on the DVD box, even though none of the added footage would cause the movie to be rated R, much less NC-17, had it been submitted. In contrast, The Larry Sanders Show sets have the label "Not Rated," despite containing copious swearing and other material possibly not appropriate for minors, seeing as it was an HBO show.

Further confusion arises when the studios decide to get creative and called their not rated unrated versions of a film by some other name, such as Wedding Crashers' "Uncorked" version, which is described as being "Not Rated" on the back of the box.

There is a distinction that should be made, however, and it's this: When the FTC (and, by extension, everyone responding to the FTC's report) refers to "Unrated" DVDs, they're specifically focusing on Unrated versions of films previously rated R. In those cases adequate warning would be needed, and is given in the studio's description in some way of the version being more explicit than its theatrical counterpart.

Also, while older films were technically released "unrated," the vast majority of them were released after approval under the Hays Code, which means none of the material in these films should exceed that of a PG, or at worst a PG-13 film. On the Casablanca SE box they don't even bother putting a "Not Rated" label on it.

Well, you know, those unrated editions of Dodgeball, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State and Pitch Black are just so borderline pornographic.

Well, Crimson Tide is about things that are long and hard and full of sea-men

There is no need for a "PG-15" or any other ratings for that matter. That is where the problems come from and no new ratings whether lower or higher will solve a damn thing!

And comparing an older film rated R for only swearing, and something rated R today for a variety of other things is not fair. Since severity of ratings change from decade to decade. Very little graphic violence/gore was allowed in R rated films when Planes Trains and Automobiles was released.

And also I'd like to point out that there is nothing 'wrong' with Hostel earning an R rating. The actual graphic violence is very brief and did suffer a few trims. The rest of the violence in the film, of which wasn't that much. Had plenty of cut aways/reaction shots and sound effects implying the horror that was happening, without becoming too graphic.

Also regarding Planes Trains...., if that was released today. And there was information on it, stating it's only R rated for one scene of excessive swearing. And is otherwise a harmless film that anyone could see, even if under 17. You should have no problem deciding to take your kid to the movie or not.

If the MPAA ever becomes more relaxed on language like other countries. The films like Planes Trains.., and The Blues Brothers could easily be PG or PG-13. But with how uptight people are regarding language alone. I don't see that ever happening in the U.S. So I see nothing 'wrong' with Planes Traines, or The Blues Brothers being R rated for language. Despite otherwise being quite appropriate for teens to see and so forth.

And you can't assume just because one movie from one genre, shares the same rating with a film from another genre. That they are both the 'same' in content. Which is why you're PTA and Hostel example doesn't work and is unfair.


They're two different films, rated R for very different reasons. And a person in my opinion would have to be a moron, to take their kids to Hostel and be 'offended' by the content. After all, just reading a plot synopsis, or review, or even catching glimpses of the tv spots. Would be more than enough to say "Hey wait a minute, this seems more appropriate for adults than kids, i shouldn't take my 5 year old too this!".

So stop expecting all films to be 'family friendly' regardless of ratings. I'm happy that some what 'adult' content has worked it's way into R rated films again. Since they've seen quite 'tame' and 'safe' for far too long. That it's no wonder, some people are shocked when something 'strong' comes along with an R rating.

And as I said before, there is NO need for more ratings. Since it will not solve a damn thing. Since people will still bitch "Why did this get a PG-15 and not a PG-13?" etc etc. It's pointless, worthless and won't help at all!

The ratings in and of themselves are perfectly fine. The ignorance and sheer stupidity of people when it comes to NC-17, and the the way the MPAA plays politics when it comes to rating movies are the problem. And Roger Ebert's suggestion for an "AO" rating will just get the same response that NC-17 did.

I think we should go back to the original rating system of "G," "M," "R" and "X" with the lone exception of maybe changing the "X" to an "A" (for adult) since the X rating has become a stereotype for porn.
All this PG, PG-13 and now a possible PG-15 business simply waters the system down.

I think just two categories are necessary - N and NN

Naive - For people who want to think the world is a happy, fluffy place.
Not Naive - For everyone else.

That about sums it up, perfect way of saying it.

its 2007 for christ sake! (oops hope i didn't offend anyone by saying christ).

And what "problems" are those exactly? It's hard to say whether or not additional ratings will help solve, or at least mitigate, certain problems if you don't define what you feel the problems with the current system are.

Considering that both films share the same rating, I'd say it's extremely fair to compare the two. I picked those two films specifically to show the two extremes in terms of content: one film that would be PG-13 if but for some swear words, and one film that, as you point out, was trimmed just enough to avoid an NC-17.

Now, I never said there was anything wrong about either film earning an R rating, especially given the current rating system. However, there's no denying there's a huge disparity between the two in terms of content, which is why it's not surprising that some may want an additional rating so that these two films, or films like them, aren't lumped together by rating into the same group, which you consider to be "not fair."

The R rating doesn't assume the two movies are the same in content, they assume the movies are the same in appropriateness for minors. I can see why parents could get confused when some movies that are barely more explicit in content than a PG-13 film is given the same rating of appropriateness as a film that just is barely not explicit enough to be barred outright from minors.

I would think that Poltergeist wouldn't be appropriate for a 5 year old either, and yet, as a PG rated film, there's no age restrictions or even recommendations beyond the "parental guidance" that ET got.

In fact, Poltergeist is a really good example because it was initially rated R but was re-rated PG after appeal. The disparity in the PG rating at the time, which varied from just slightly more explicit than a G rated film to films that were almost rated R, led to the creation of a rating in between that has at least kept the amount of complaints about the age appropriateness of PG rated films at a minimum for the past few decades.

And TV spots, as well as general trailers, can be somewhat misleading, as they can't actually show any content that caused the film to get an R or higher rating. So those aren't typically a good base for judgment on whether an R horror film is significantly worse than, say, a PG-13 horror film.

nobody has said all the ratings had to be "family friendly." In fact, a lot of people don't want the new rating to be "family friendly" at all, but more restrictive in some way than the existing ratings.

I don't really buy this. There have been films that have been pushing the boundaries of what is "acceptable" in an R rated film since the rating first came into existence.

While there will certainly be at least some people always complaining about ratings, an additional rating might cause a situation where there are significantly less people complaining about it than now.

Spielberg's films have always pushed the MPAA's buttons, from Jaws - which would nowadays be rated PG-13 for the level of intensity and blood that flows. 'Temple of Doom' helped form the PG-13 rating - critics balked at the heart pull and submersion into lava scenes. 'Private Ryan' and some of the more extreme explicit violence in 'Schindler's List' pushed the R-rating. Even ET's mild profanity a couple of 'shits' 'douche' and the infamous 'penis breath' - I'm sure parent's were a tad surprised in the frank dialogue.

The original original rating system didn't include the "X" rating at all, but it was added due to pressure from theater owners, who felt they needed a fully restrictive rating to protect against possible charges of obscenity. Then PG-13 was added when parents complained about the level of objectionable content getting into PG rated films. In other words, while the original ratings were theoretically nice, the ratings were changed because of incidents that arose from actual practical application of said ratings.

And "adult film" has been a euphemism for porn for years, so I fail to see how the "A" rating would be looked upon better than the X or NC-17 ratings have.

PG was just a renaming of the M rating due to confusion over what "Mature" meant (some thought it was worse than R). Of those three ratings you've listed, only PG-13 has so far been an actual addition, and I fail to see how it "watered the system down."