$tarr

This is a topic that is addressed from time to time on here, but after watching the Japanese movie "Battle Royale" for the first time today I felt like starting a new thread about it to maybe get some more discussion on the topic.

Now "Battle Royale" is a film that has never been released in theatres or on video in the United States and I had to order the DVD from amazon UK for this reason. Like it or not, the MPAA rating system is at least partly responsible for the fact that it has not been released here in the United States. I know there are other factors that come into play here like the fact that it is a foreign film that deals with a controversial topic which means there is a good chance that the audience here in the states for it would be small. The fact that the MPAA would slap an NC-17 rating on it in it's current form wouldn't help it find an audience though given that many theatre chains won't even carry movies with an NC-17 rating. So an NC-17 rating is basically a death mark for any film that carries it. The solution for any studio wishing to distribute "Battle Royale" here in the states would be to cut out certain parts so that it would get an R rating. Notice I have not said that the MPAA forces studios to censor the movies they distribute. That is because it is not censorship, but that does not mean it's right. Not to mention the fact that the MPAA plays favorites with it's ratings. My source? Watch "Star Wars Episode 2" and "The Matrix." The levels of violence are almost identical and there isn't much else in either one to warn parents about other than a few profane words used in "The Matrix." Yet "Star Wars Episode 2" received a rating of PG and "The Matrix" received an R rating. Could it be that some people on the ratings board are Star Wars fans? Both "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" received PG-13 ratings. Now compare that to "The Matrix's" R rating.

I've always wondered why the MPAA has been given the power to kill a movie with the dreaded NC-17 rating. If i'm not mistaken the rating system was put into place so that parents could better judge what movies they would allow their kids to watch. The only thing that the NC-17 rating does is not allow anyone under the age of 17 to view a certain movie in the theatre whether they have their parents consent or not. The R rating already takes care of the children under 17 group so why do we need the NC-17 rating? Did we lose the purpose of the rating system somewhere along the way?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that the rating system is a bad idea. In fact I think it's a good idea to give parents something to go by without having to watch the movies themselves. What we don't need is an NC-17 rating and biased people to give the movies ratings. Doing away with the NC-17 rating wouldn't be too hard and maybe there needs to be more of an explantaion for each rating so that attaching a rating to a movie would be less guess work.

Well i've run out of steam now so i'll let somebody else pick up the torch and run with it or argue against me. And i'll do my best to try to counter those arguments.

marty888

If the people holding the rights to this wanted to, they could release this directly to DVD - then there would be no need to even submit it to MPAA. And this is probably the type of film that wouldn't really be financially successful as a theatrical release anyway (given the cost of making prints, advertising, etc.) but would probably have no problem finding its audience on home video.

Groucho

The reason Battle Royale hasn't been released stateside has to do with two factors:

1. The owners of the rights want a mint for distribution in the United States.

2. They also demand a theatrical release.

It has nothing to do with the violence of the film. I've seen it msyelf, and the film would easily get an "R" without any cuts.

Rypro 525

Yeah, that was what I was thinking of, it would need an "unrated" to get by here in the states.

Matthew Chmiel

Groucho said it best, the film could easily get a hard R. Even if it got an NC-17, they could easily trim a few seconds out to get an R rating.

It's not the MPAA rating that people will get wild over, it's the content of what's in the film is what will get people wild. In our society, kids killing other kids is not cool. And if there is a movie about it, kids might start shooting each other.

$tarr

I now realise that "Battle Royale" wasn't the best example I could have picked. But does the NC-17 ratings seemingly pointless existance not bother anyone else?

TomOpus

If you do away with NC-17, how are you going to indicate if a movie should not be seen by anyone under 17? "R" doesn't do it, because a young child can still see it w/parents or guardian. It's not a perfect system but it's a "guideline" to be used by parents/theaters.

Submitting a film to the ratings board is voluntary. You can always distribute a film as "unrated". There's a choice and consequences for going either way. If you look at current ratings, they do include a brief reason for the rating. If you need more details about movie content, I suggest screenit.com

Josh-da-man

Isn't NC-17 really a pointless rating?

What's the point of keeping children out of the theater, even when accompanied by parents? Shouldn't it be the parent's choice as to what their children can and cannot see?

It's certainly not something that can be regulated in the home once the NC-17 (or R-rated) film comes out on DVD, VHS, or cable.

DRG

I think the biggest problem with the rating system is that it treats 5 year olds and 16 year olds pretty much the same. Yes, there is PG-13... but is that even enforced? I see plenty of smaller tykes in movies like X2 without their parents. Hell, PG-13 is practically considering a family movie these days by some.

Then there's the R. First, the notion of "unless accompanied by a parent" is silly. Unless the parent has pre-screened the movie and is going to cover there child's eyes of ears when an offensive scene comes up, what's the point? The child will still be subjected to everything. Then the aforementioned lack of age discrepancy. Both a 16 year old and a 6 year old can go see any R rated movie with their parent. So in essence, little kids can go see South Park, American Psycho, or whatever R rated movie, just like a 16 year old.

If they are truly concerned about kids seeing R-rated films, but realize that you can be a bit more liberal with teens, why don't they change the R to be "Noone under 13, 13-16 must have a parent or guardian". Then you could be a bit more liberal with the R-rated content, as the only possible underage audience would be teeenagers at least. I realize this would be difficult to enforce. Theaters would probably need to create a "moviegoer ID" for kids aged 13-16... the parents would have to come in, fill out a form and bring in their kid's birth certificate. But it could be done. If they really wanted their 10 year old to see an R rated movie, well, rent or buy it on DVD when it comes out.

$tarr

You said it yourself, the ratings system is just a guideline for parents so why should there be a rating that won't even allow parents to take their 16 year old to see a film? The R rating tells parents that there may be content in a film that is not appropriate to be seen by anyone under 17. If the parents disagree then so what? The R rating doesn't keep children out of movies even if they do not have a parent with them so do you think an NC-17 rating would do the job any better? The only thing an NC-17 rating does is make a film less marketable.

Matthew Chmiel

I like the Canadian rating system.

G - All audiences admitted.
PG - Parental guidence suggested.
14a - Some material may not be suitable for those under 14. US equivelent to a PG-13, just that those under 14 need an adult.
18a - The US equivelent to an R, and those under 18 need an adult.
R - The US equivelent to an NC-17.

TomOpus

From what I've seen, there have been very few NC-17 movies released theatrically, so maybe all this is a moot point anyway. The whole reason for the NC-17 rating to begin with was to indicate a movie was "adult" but not porn. There ARE some movies that should not be seen by adolecents and there should be a way for theater owners to know which is which. If it wasn't "NC-17" it would be something else... and it would carry the same marketing stigma that NC-17 carries.

I've been through a lot of changes in the rating system... back when "M" became "GP" became "PG". Now the ratings list content next to the rating, so there have been small improvements.

But I don't understand why some newspapers won't allow advertising for NC-17 (and unrated) films. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's another thread

Rypro 525

I remeber advertising for showgirls, even some of the tv ads (of course, too young to really know about the nc17 rating.

$tarr

And some theatres connected to malls can not show NC-17 movies because they are contractually(sp?) barred from doing so. Maybe it's not just the ones connected to the malls.

Groucho

For those of you who don't like the current MPAA system, I'd like to read what you would replace it with.

My only change would be to add a rating called "R-13." This would be for films where anybody over 13 could get in, but under 13 would require a parent. I would use this for films that are a "soft R" now, fine for teens but questionable for younger kids.

Brain Stew

I think that we could probably adopt the Canadian or English system, and it would work just fine.

G
General. All Ages Admitted.

PG
Parental Guidance.
All ages can view.

14A
Anyone under 14 must be accompanied by an adult.
This would probably be for questionable films that straddle the line between R and PG-13.

18A
Anyone under 18 must be accompanied by an adult.
I guess this would work for fairly gory or explicit movies.

R
Restricted. No one under 18 may view under any circumstances.
This would probably be like the NC-17 movie without the stigma.

Groucho

I think the stigma will always be there. "A rose by any name..." Remember...the NC-17 was supposed to be "X without the stigma."

resinrats

They already have this. It is called PG-13.

If you want to use R-13, it would make noone under 13 allowed, even with an adult. Of course then the debates start of which movies should be R and which ones R-13.

Personally, if a movie is R then people under 17 shouldn't be seeing them anyways so I say bar anyone under 17 from seeing it.

NC-17 ratings just makes people think it is porn, even if it is not.

resinrats

Isn't this just another form of PG-13 but using 14 instead of 13?

Red Dog

Again judging by the 3:30 showing of T3 I saw last Thursday, at least 1/3 of the audience would not have gotten in with such a rule.

Groucho

No. Anybody can get into a PG-13 movie regardless of age. My proposed R-13 is different because you'd need an adult if you were under 13. It would be in addition to the existing PG-13 rating.[/B][/QUOTE]

folgersnyourcup

I personally feel that the ratings system is complete and utter crap and a joke. It's horribly inconsistent and wrong.

Take "Titanic" for example. You see Kate Winslet's full (and in my personal opinion disgusting) breasts. It recieves a PG-13 rating and makes gazillions of dollars as millions of people apparently see it many times.

Take a look at the theatrical re-release of Amadeus in Director's cut format. It recieves an R rating??? Why you ask? Because you see Amadeus' wife's breasts in one scene. This R rating was particularly stupid. This is a fascinating movie that children of all ages who have any love for music should be able to see. Putting the R rating on it, while not damning like the NC-17 rating is, completely cut off many people that wanted to experience this movie for the first time.

But why was Titanic given a PG-13 rating even though it had the same thing in it? I have no clue. It doesn't make any sense to me. What about you?

I'm 20 and I'm about damn tired of being fussed at and having to call my parents to come and buy a ticket for my younger brother and themselves so that he can see an R rated movie with me. He is 17 years old and we wanted to go see Amadeus in theatres but unfortunately were unable to because I am not 21. What stupid, stupid rules. I missed seeing it in the theatre because of this. My brother wanted to see it with me and my parents were not available to buy a ticket for him and themselves. If the ratings are meant to be guidelines for parents, why should there be restrictions??

Rypro 525

Maybe showing both gets the R since I only saw one in titanic

Birrman54

usually nudity is allowed when in the context of "art"

Since leo was drawing winslet, you can see her nude and keep the PG13, but a sex scene brings it up to R.

My problem with the R system is mostly that movie theatres charge 13+ year olds as an "adult" and yet a 16 year old can't see an R movie. It doesn't seem to make sense.

birrman54

Iron_Giant

I like the system the way it is.

I like even more the little lines that state what kind of content the movie will have: Nudity, Sex, Language, Violence...

It helps me make choice if I want to see the movie or if my kids should be seeing it.