What's funny is that I've seen that argument made before, but always from the other direction. Some are arguing that the PG-13 rating is getting "dilluted" by allowing more and more violence in it that would previously have earned the film an R. Or that PG is becoming the new G as studios try to make their films so they earn a PG-13, which is "edgier" than a PG but isn't any more restrictive.

I don't think that movie is OK for anyone of *ANY* age. :crap:


I'd be up for a harder enforcement of "R" ratings, even if i grew up watching R films (at home).

If they go for harder enforcement of R-rated films, studios will run away from making them completely and we will be stuck watching PG-13 films for the rest of our lives.

No, we don't all know that. Penalized how? Theater chains do not belong to the MPAA and are not beholden to the organization. In fact, one of the major theater chains in my area have an explicit policy of allowing children under 17 into R-rated movies without accompaniment, as long as the parent has OK'd it in advance. The MPAA doesn't like it, but can do nothing about it.

Here's a link to the policy I'm talking about. Scroll down to the gray box under the R rating description.

The MPAA should follow examples from other ratings boards around the world. For instance, there should be a classification between PG and R.

I can't believe that there are some who suggest getting rid of ratings all together! Am I seriously supposed to go into a movie with my child completely blind as to the content?

Yes, there are morons out there. I still have flashbacks of the little girl sitting with her hands over her face at Species 2 by herself because her mother couldn't find enough seats and chose to sit with her boyfriend!!!! But not all parents are like that. My daughter cannot see any R-rated movie (she's 8 c'mon!), but I even like when the trailer on PG-13 movies kind of breakdown the content. More information helps me make better choices. As we know, there is a difference between a comic book movie, say Batman Begins versus The Fantastic Four (I wouldn't let her see the former because I knew she'd be scared at the darker content). So I'm all for the change, it's not a perfect system but it's better than nothing.

There is, it's called PG-13.

Yeah, the MPAA can always do a better job, but it's not like it's an easy process. For example, why do Open Range and Crank have the same "R" rating? Open Range has a little bit of gun violence towards the end. Crank is like...F bombs everywhere, boobies, tons of violence.

But then again, each movie lists different content, so that's where personal judgment enters. It's just hard to know how much of the stuff they're talking about. For example, Crank lists "pervasive language." Now I had known that that meant hearing the F bomb every two seconds, I probably would've passed on this. Just not my thing...

Where children should not be allowed
1) R rated movies
2) Near me
3) Restaurants
4) In public

Now that I'm well over 17+, I'm all for banning kids in Rated R movies, they generally the ones annoying me in the theater.

That being said, it would have sucked if I was under 17.

:lol: :up:

You forgot:

5) On planes

So you enjoy having children around when you watch your R-rated movies?

Pretty much. Most people seem to forget that the R rating means Restricted. The MPAA's description of the R-rating

"In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about this film before they allow their children to accompany them. An R-rated film may include strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above, so parents are counseled in advance to take this advisory rating very seriously."

That covers any NC-17 film ever made. Anyone that takes their kid to an R rated film has no right to piss and moan about content because they where warned. In this internet age, Anyone can find out the "objectionable" content of a movie with a few minutes of research.

As long as they keep their mouth's shut and cell phones off, I don't care who's sitting next to me in the theater - its not my right to determine what other people can or should watch.

The problem with completely eliminating the NC-17 is that th MPAA would then not have any recourse when a film is submitted that is completely objectionable, like say porn. The latest hardcore sex romp that is prohibited by law to be sold to minors would earn an R rating.

I'm fine with NC-17 continuing to exist if this new "Hard R" rating means less films will be subject to the NC-17 ratings or cuts to earn an R. Heck, I'm even fine with just keeping the rating system as it is if newpapers and theater owners grew some balls and allowed these "harder then R" films to be advertised and shown.

This is one of several people who feel under 17 should not be allowed into R rated movies period. As a father of three (15,13,12) my kids have only seen a handful of R rated movies. I closely monitor whatthey watch , what games they play, etc.

On several occassions I have taken or allowed them to see a R rating because frankly I personally dont believe they are that bad. My youngest is a dancer and we watched "billy elliot" I still think it got a bad rating and find nothing offensive in the film .

When my oldest was in sixth grade she watched "Glory" during her civil War period. There was violence but she was mature enough to handle the content and we had some great discussions stemming from the film.

i could go on and on.

i dont need someone to tell me what is appropriate for my kid, to tell me what my children can handle. Each child develops different, some are more mature, and some can handle content of differing degrees better than others. Its up to the parents to monitor and make choices based on their own kids.

The MPAA rating system is a guideline but it should not be a hard and fast rule. It just REALLY scares me to think what kind of influence an arbitary organization can have on content allowed to children. I can see a huge problem there with outside influences, and personal bias' of the voters playing a part in the process.

The problem lies with irresponsible parents and not with ALL kids. Kids should be treated like ANY other patron. If they are obnoxiouos kick them out. You rarely see crappy patrons asked to leave a show. THAT is true problem some of you have, not with the ages of the viewers.

why even use the old ratings, why not just have a number followed by a plus sign: 5+ 6+ 7+.... 20+ etc.

every single movie can be judged precisely and the age is stated right in the rating. it takes no interpretation.

Having a rating for each age seems a bit overboard to be, especially because movie ratings aren't precise, and really can't be. The ratings are subjective, based on a general idea of what age group the film would be best for, and how much warning about content is needed. Really, is a film deemed acceptable for a 7 year old really going to be that much different than a film deemed acceptable for a 6 year old or an 8 year old?

Also, putting specific ages on the ratings would give the impression to parents that a rating like 6+ would mean the film is acceptable to all six year olds and up, which may not be true, depending on content, what the kid can handle, and what the parent deems acceptable. While some parents may bemoan the more general ratings being used now like G and PG, it puts the responsibility where it belongs: on the parent. Age specific ratings may cause a lot of parents to absolve themselves of the responsibility of judging a film themselves as long as their kid is the right age for the rating.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I'm bumping this thread because it seemed more appropriate than creating an entirely new thread. To put in perspective just how permissive the MPAA is about violence, I want you to take a look at the explanation for the R rating given to Restrepo:

"Rated R for language throughout including some descriptions of violence."

I just don't even know what to say, other than there is clearly a basis for a sequel to This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Kings speech is a perfect example of how fucked up the mpaa is. That film shouldve been pg-13 but cause of a few swear words it unfairly gets slapped with an R!

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

The AV Club recently did an inventory of 15 films with questionable ratings. The King's Speech was included:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/this-...us-mpaa,48587/

Note that the list was created while Blue Valentine was still rated NC-17, before the producers successfully appealed it and got the same cut re-rated to R.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I just wish that a studio would stand up to the MPAA and release a movie to theaters as both a PG-13 and R-rated version.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

There have been a few movies released in multiple versions, Saturday Night Fever was cut from an R to a PG to get more box office.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

funny you bring that up...SNF in it's PG form was the version I first saw on VHS. My mother honestly doesn't follow wtf ratings are from when she saw films or exact details on them so...to her it was the same. As kid..it kind of felt off in a way. Not until later did I find out it's actually R.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

The producer later said it was a terrible choice and that the PG cut ruined the film. I've only seen the R-rated cut so I wouldn't know.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

it also works in the opposite way, producers of 'Chariots of Fire' actually balked at receiving a G rating and added an expletive in post production to get it's eventual PG rating.

interestingly the expletives in 'Gunner Palace' got the film an R-rating, it appealed and was granted a PG-13, that's film language is on par with 'The King's Speech' if not a bit more extreme

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

They left out 1 glaring omission. Whale Rider. I remeber Ebert even talking about it on At The Movies and showing the single scene that garned the PG-13 rating on there TV-PG show. How the heck can a scene be PG-13 in theaters but be PG on TV without altering?

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

you should try to see it in it's PG form.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I remember a similar thing when Parental Advisory stickers started showing up in music. I forget the name of the singer but at the time it was one of those guys that used to be popular but faded from view but he got one of those on his new album and it ended up selling a lot better than he few previous albums.

Might have been some country singer. I don't know. They started with the stickers about 20 years ago, so my memory is hazy of the specifics of music I don't listen to.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Part of the MPAA ratings rules are that you can't release the same film in different rated cuts theatrically simultaneously. There has to be a minimum 3 month gap between releases. The idea is to avoid consumer confusion, or kids pulling some sort of bait-and-switch on their parents.

Here's a discussion about this we had a few years ago:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...-versions.html

And here's the rules, Section 4, parts C through F:
http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatin...ratings/rules/

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

PG and TV-PG are from different rating systems that are ruled by different ratings boards, the MPAA CARA for theatrical ratings, and the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board for TV ratings.

With theatrical ratings, every movie has to be submitted to the MPAA for review by the board, who decides the rating for the film.

With TV ratings, the producers or broadcasters of the content assign the rating they think is appropriate, although the Monitory Board is responsible for ensuring that the ratings are applied accurately and consistently.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/faqs.htm

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has three nude scenes with women and one with a man submerged in water, his penis floating about. That earns a PG-13.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Yep makes no sense at all. But kudos to the MPAA for actually giving an approriate rating for once.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Found one notable error in the article. Temple of Doom has not been re-rated PG-13; it's still PG. (I didn't think it had been re-rated, and I checked it on filmratings.com).

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

^ Temple of Doom though was one of the films that initiated the MPAA to rethink it's ratings - Spielberg has always pushed the ratings board, notably the face ripping in 'Poltergeist' and the heart rip from 'Temple' - the MPAA initially gave 'Raiders' an R-rating over the shot of Belloq's head exploding, it was eventually given a PG rating with the post production adding of the fire over the offending splatter effect.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

The AVClub article proper does mention Gremlins and Temple of Doom for being the impetus for the PG-13 rating, but not Poltergeist.

Poltergiest is mentioned in this list of "The Top 10 Most Inappropriate PG Movies":
http://www.spike.com/blog/top-10-most/96357

Some specific articles on how the PG-13 rating was created, with the Time articel from 1984:
http://www.seattlepi.com/movies/1875...3rating24.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6639-2,00.html

This is mentioned in the trivia section of IMDB, but I can't find any other evidence for this. Interestingly, IMDB has a similar story in the triva section for Temple of Doom"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...6639-2,00.html
This article from 1981 mentions some mild controversy that stemmed from rating Raiders PG, but there's no mention of it having been re-rated:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0wQ...=0CGAQ6AEwCDgK
(Kiplinger's Personal Finance - Dec 1981 - Vol. 35, No. 12)

Searching the film ratings database only shows one rating ever for Raiders: PG. This is in contrast to movies like Blue Valentine, Casino, and Clerks, where it notes the initial rating was overturned on appeals, and Boys Don't Cry and Evil Dead 2, where the film was re-edited and resubmitted:
http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/ratings/

So the database appears to be comprehensive, so if it doesn't list Raiders as having an R rating originally, it probably didn't.

Re: "Raiders" rating
 

The notion that "Raiders" was ever considered for an "R" rating comes directly from Steven Spielberg. On the DVD extra "The Light and Magic of Indiana Jones," he discusses Belloq's end:

Incidentally, speaking as a parent of school age children, I don't give two fucks about MPAA ratings. I just try to steer my kids away from shitty movies as much as possible.

Re: "Raiders" rating
 

What time into the documentary does he say that?

Edit: 3:47 minutes into the 12 minute documentary.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

lol...that was quick.