Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

OK, so now I'm wondering why the initial R rating for Raiders isn't showing up on the MPAA CARA site. It seems like the site is pretty comprehensive about listing initial ratings. For example, it lists Poltergeist (1982) as originally having an R, with it changed to PG on appeal. Raiders was released in 1981, one year before, so it seems like the records for that time period are there on the site.

Was Spielberg misremembering the chain of events? Was the sheet of flame added preemptively before submission to avoid an R, and Spielberg is mistaking an "we'll get an R if we don't edit this" decision as a "we got an R and have to edit this" one? Or maybe he misunderstood the editing discussion way back when it happened?

Or is the rating site wrong in not listing the initial R rating for Raiders? Or was Raiders privy to special attention by the MPAA, where the initial R rating wasn't ever formally confirmed, and the edited version was submitted for the formal "initial" rating?

Here's a Variety review of the film from 1981. It makes note of the violence:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117794297/

No note on the film having actually been re-rated, although I don't know if this would've been something Variety would've known about back then. Their review for Poltergeist does not make mention of the re-rating, but is extremely brief.

Also interesting is the trivia I found on how superimposed flames were also used to obscure a scene in Temple of Doom. I suppose this could've been someone confusing the two films, or it could be simply that Spielberg used the same trick on both films.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

but even in it's current PG state the scene is simply horrific to watch, the guy has three blasts of volcanic fire fly into his body, he's screaming as his entire body is starting to burn. People seem to trash this movie just as much as IV, but IV doesn't have this amount of extreme gore, which I think it might have needed - the ant devouring scene seemed to hint at II's over the top moments but simply could not match it.

in regard's to CARA's database, I was just adding some titles that I know had ratings problems, Total Recall, Eddie Murphy's Raw, Eyes Wide Shut, Friday the 13th Part 2, Saw II through VII, Last House on the Left (2008) they make no mention that the films had to be edited to receive their R ratings.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I always thought the MPAA story with Raiders was Spielberg had a consultant who said the exploding head, as it was originally intended would have gained an "R" rating.

I know Scorsese has used past MPAA experiences and possibly a consultant to exploit the MPAA, especially during the filming of Casino. If I remember correctly he said he made the vice scene more gruesome than he ever intended (he filmed the guy's eye popping out) so when he offered to cut it back to it's final state, the MPAA thought it was a compromise.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

The MPAA is useless, let the studios rate their own films.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Scorsese even had to cut 'Taxi Driver' to get it's R-rating. The offing of Joe Pesci's character in 'Goodfellas' was trimmed for it's R-rating, the scene even in it's R-rated form happens so fast, it's a blink and you'll miss it moment - that's because it was alot longer. The stabbing scene in Godfather III had to get trimmed as well to secure it's R. Even though it seems that the MPAA seems lax on violence there's the occasional moment that they feel oversteps what is acceptable or unacceptable to persons under 17. CARA's website doesn't even mention that the whole 'The Wild Bunch' debacle, where the studio released the longer cut, had to submit that version for a rating and the board in turn gave the film an 'X' rating for violence - they successfully appealed.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I almost want to say that you're right.

What the MPAA needs is actual people who know films and competently compare films in understanding what can cross certain lines for those that it may be inappropriate for on basis of age.

How they choose those people...would be very interesting. I'd like to say filmmakers that are "beyond" being bought or favored out. The problem in that is that...well....A LOT of filmmakers are busy as shit.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Solid: have you (or any of y'all) seen This Film is Not Yet Rated - it's an excellent primer on how the MPAA is very hypocritical and over critical - the CARA board likes to say it's screeners are a board comprised of 'parent's' who make their decisions based on what they feel is acceptable and unacceptable to under 17 year olds - well, the movie dispels this myth and pretty much negates the MPAA's policies as well as concluding that they hold a tighter grip on theatrical distribution/exhibition than it probably should.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

No I haven't, but when it was coming out it got my interest.

You wanna give us a the gist of it though?

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

essentially the film board are parents, but their kids are over the age of 17, so they are making decisions based on preconceived ideas and antiquated parental guidelines. The films are rated on a scale of severity of many issues: language, violence, drug use, sex: so really it's film censorship on the grand scale - the MPAA deny it, but it's quite blatant. Violence is more accepted, whereas sex is not - no surprise there. There is more of preconceived animosity from the MPAA toward indie studios/directors than the Hollywood studios. The documentary goes further into more detailed stories from varying directors but ultimately the film is enlightening, informative and maddening how much power the MPAA wields over the film industry in America.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

cool. Again..it's on my list of things to see at some point. That's the part that pisses me off the most. It's people who really shouldn't be looking at these things. They'll think of it on personal/subjective basis.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

This seems like a likely explanation. In the previously quoted documentary, it sounds like Spielberg is saying that Raiders was formally issued an R rating though, hence the confusion.


Yeah, I'm trying to figure out if the CARA database has gaps in it, since it does list initial ratings for quite a number of films, or if films that it was "common knowledge" originally had stronger ratings were never actually formally issued that rating, and that any edits were made pre-emptively.

For example, CARA lists Robocop, Verhoven's first US film, as originally being rated X. It then stands to reason that the studio may have reviewed a cut of Total Recall and made edits before formally submitting it to the MPAA.

Likewise, Saw was originally rated NC-17, which allowed for an "unrated cut" edition on DVD, which sold very well. The sequels may have followed a similar model of shooting and editing a more graphic version for eventually DVD release, without ever formally submitting the more graphic version for a rating.

For Eyes Wide Shut, from what I've read it sounds a lot like Warner may have preemptively changed Kubrick's Final Cut because they were fearful of getting an NC-17 with the initial cut. I think there was a bit of a time crunch for that film in terms of meeting the release date, so they may not have wanted to "waste time" with re-edits and re-submittals to the MPAA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Wi...classification


That said, I found info that the movie Hancock was initially rated R, despite the CARA database not mentioning this.

This New York Times article mentions that two different cuts of Hancock were given R ratings before a final cut was issued a PG-13:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/mo...al/04ciep.html

The IMDB also lists the US rating as "USA:PG-13 (edited for re-rating) (certificate #43295) / USA:R (original rating)"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/parentalguide

The inclusion of the certificate number seems to indicate that this info may have been at least partially taken from the credits of the film. Anyone care to double-check that?

So it's also possible that the CARA database isn't complete in regards to re-ratings.


The certificate number listed for Hancock in interesting, as these numbers are a carry over from the Hays Code, and it's not immediately apparent to me whether the number is unique to a particular edit of a film, or just to a particular film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...proval_numbers
http://stason.org/TULARC/movies/curr...dits-mean.html
http://www.pictureshowman.com/articl...censorship.cfm

List of MPAA certificate numbers:
http://members.chello.nl/~a.degreef/Filmnummers.html

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I have to say that a lot of current releases seem to be pushing the violence level and still maintain a PG-13. I found the violence levels in Taken, Salt, and even some of Unknown to be something worthy of an R. I guess nudity and an extra F-bomb is what it will take nowadays.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

yet if you see the 'R' (unrated) cut of Salt - it's so minute but bloodier than the PG-13 cut, the stangulation is also extended. Even though Saw 3D's most explicit gore was cut to 'R' standards, even the R cut of the film was really pushing the boundary and cusp of R/NC-17

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Sex = bad


Violence = ok

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

For proof of this, look no further than YouTube. Videos with nudity are not allowed, but there's no shortage of clips featuring gore.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

While I don't know if animated movies count, I think the recent Wonder Woman movie was the most violent cartoon I've seen next to Heavy Metal.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

If by "counts" you mean, is pertinent to this discussion, yes. MPAA rated it PG-13 for "violence throughout and some suggestive material."

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I've mellowed out over the years on the MPAA situation. Since it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, and with unrated versions more widely available, it's almost pointless to complain. Especially when so much is allowed through R ratings now, that the mere frames or fleeting seconds added to the unrated version in terms of explicit material doesn't really make much of a difference in impact.

Also depending on the film, sometimes the rated version is better than the unrated version. I think both Drag Me To Hell and American Pie are much better in their rated version than unrated. Since both films have one key scene that is far more effective in the rated version over the unrated. The other changes to both films are so minor, that you'd hardly notice them when viewing, yet the key scenes do stand out and are more lackluster in their unrated form in my opinion.

Speaking of American Pie. That's a great reason to mention one of many reasons I didn't like This Film Is Not Yet Rated. To begin, they show the unrated version of the 'pie' scene which is completely different than the R version of the scene. Yet it still says "R" on the screen and completely ignore the fact that the film was NC-17 before some cuts were made which I felt was misleading.

Also their conspiracy theory that the MPAA is homophobic doesn't make sense. Since many of the films they're comparing (Boy's Don't Cry and American Pie for example) both received NC-17's before some cuts were made. So the MPAA is basically strict on explicitness and tone, not whether it's gay or straight in my opinion. Since tons of heterosexual sex scenes/films have gotten NC-17's before being cut to an R. But if the film admitted that, then their conspiracy theory wouldn't hold up. So I found that misleading since the clips are shown as "NC-17" for gay and "R" for straight, despite the fact both films were cut to an R.

Furthermore, the director of American Psycho complains that the MPAA let the violence go in the film and yet demanded cuts to the orgy scene. Well the reason they could care less about the violence in the film is it was very tame and mostly offscreen stuff. So the orgy scene was the most graphic scene in the film, so it's no surprise it ran into some issues. If she had filmed the violent scenes even 1% as graphic as in the book, then they would've demanded some cuts to them. Pretty simply to understand.

And last of all, when they claim other countries rating systems are superior to the MPAA. They completely overlook the fact that such as with the BBFC, once the censors demand a cut. It must be cut, and their are no alternatives, even if it's rated the highest adults only rating possible. They can still demand cuts, and that's it, their is no option to release it without a rating. Meanwhile at least with the MPAA, their is always the option for unrated releases on home video especially. So while the system is not perfect, it's still better than dealing with a super power censor that dictates what is and is not allowed, and their are no alternatives once their decision is made.

That's just one of many issues I had with this documentary and was so disappointed by it. A good documentary on ratings issues could be made, but this was not it unfortunately. :thmbsdwn:

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

There is a sense that these "unrated/extended" cuts have rather diluted the entire thing. When you buy a DVD advertising "content too hot for theaters" and then discover that it's a matter of literal seconds of a lingering shot, or a line of dialog no more obviously offensive than anything else in the film, you begin to feel that the "unrated/extended" banner is just a cheap marketing ploy. It's worth noting, though, that often those lingering couple of seconds or that one line of dialog are all that the MPAA feel take things "too far." To my mind, this is really the most compelling argument against the arbitrary ratings system: when we can see for ourselves what was apparently "too much" for us to see in a theater and we can't understand what the big deal really was.

"Better" is subjective. I personally think that too many comedies push the envelop out of laziness or because they're more interested in getting a rise out of people than in making us actually think. There's something to be said for those old time comedies that had to be clever in order to be funny. Still, what we're ultimately discussing is about artistic intent. If a screenwriter thought that a particular line was important; if an actor made a specific choice about how he read that line, or if an actress made a choice about how she responded to it; if a cinematographer felt that the camera should stay focused on something; if an editor juxtaposed something seemingly innocuous with something sexual for the sake of arousing us or confusing us...those are all little things that contribute to the artistic statement of the film.

Oh, I think there's something to it. I think for a lot of Americans--especially those middle-aged or older, and particularly conservative ones--the mere mention of the term, "gay" immediately conjures images of sexual debauchery. Say the word, "straight" and they think, "respectability." I can't, of course, prove this, or that the MPAA members foster this mentality but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I just streamed An Education, rated PG-13, about a 16 year old girl who has an affair with an older man. She exposes her breasts to him--though not to us, and we never see them have sex. Had she been a he, or had he been a she, I suspect the filmmakers would have had a harder time securing a PG-13 rating.

Gays are fine in movies as long as they're comic relief or tragic. If they're meant to be taken seriously without admonishing society at large, though, they make a lot of people very uncomfortable.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

hmmm, why? let's just interject the common stereotype of what a gay character in a film should be ... I don't buy it (and nor should it be)

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Ummm...MinLShaw was referring to the mindset of the MPAA and how the attitudes of the ratings committee affect what ratings are given out, not expressing his personal feelings. The context was made perfectly clear.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

You don't buy it, but, unfortunately, you don't control everyone else's reaction to such a thing. Your personal thoughts really don't mean anything here.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I appreciate Ash chiming in here and vouching for the context of my remarks. My personal beliefs regarding the LGBT community are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but just so you know I'm a Trekkie and a liberal and I've been characterized as "straight, but not narrow." I've been an outspoken defender of gay rights since adolescence. This is why I was so sensitive to the topic of the MPAA's stance in the first place, and why I jumped in here to address it.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

reading that one sentence...I've no idea how it was confusing.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

okay

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

point taken... sorry.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Unrated versions do appear on video, but not in theaters. Also, the existence of unrated cuts may mean that studios and producers aren't as willing the challenge the MPAA ratings as in the past, and instead will just cut it for theatrical and release the "unrated" version later on video. This gives the MPAA more power.

Also, as MinLShaw pointed out, the triviality of some of the changes points to the ridiculousness of the MPAA ratings board some times.

That was a bit misleading, although it's potentially an unintentional mistake. It's also a good example of the bizarreness of the MPAA Ratings board (humping a pie standing up = R, humping a pie lying on a counter = NC-17).

First off, the film made the point that the MPAA is prudish about all sex, straight or gay. They actually point out several movies that had problems with straight sex scenes (such as The Cooler, in which the MPAA objected to a brief glimpse of pubic hair). There's also the fairly funny "thrust counting" montage (about 36 minutes in) that illustrates this.

However, the point of the gay/straight comparison montage wasn't that "the MPAA never has a problem with straight sex", but that given the exact same sex act, with the same level of explicitness (or possibly less in the gay version), the straight scene is in an R rated movie, while the gay scene earns the film an NC-17.

Here's all the comparisons from the montage (about 40 minutes into the documentary):
But I'm a Cheeleader/American Beauty (masterbation), Boys Don't Cry/Single White Female (oral sex), Where the Truth Lies/Single White Female (oral sex), Boys Don't Cry/American Pie (missionary), Mysterious Skin/Unfaithful (doggy style), Henry and June/Sideways (horizontal mambo).

They didn't let the violence go through completely uncut though. She mentions that she had to edit the chainsaw sequence and axe murder scene as well. (56 minutes in)

The MPAA shouldn't demand cuts just because a sequence is the "most graphic," but whether it's too graphic for the given rating. The contention is that the contested sex scene (which wasn't an "orgy", but a threesome) wasn't that graphic, and the MPAA was objecting more to the number of participants and the sexual position than any explicitness (you really only see the women's breasts).

Nobody in the film ever, ever states this. There is a comparison made where one person mentions that the MPAA is more concerned with sex than violence, while the Europe rating systems are the other way around (about 58 minutes in). However, that person doesn't say that even that particular aspect of the European systems is better, and certainly nobody in the documentary states that any other film rating system is better overall.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

it might not have been banned but Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' got a very limited theatrical run and has never been released on home video.

back on the subject of 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' /PG-13 rating:


"A controversy that had been brewing then erupted in the media about what level of violence was appropriate for younger children. Just days before the film's release the MPAA decided on PG, but it's chairman Richard Heffner was reportedly 'delighted' that industry leaders were now favouring a new rating and 'more explanation'. Early ideas for the new rating were PG-2 and R-13, but after all the criticism Spielberg called Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA and suggested that it be either PG-13 or PG-14

'Temple of Doom' became the catalyst for the Motion Picture Association to change it's rating system to include PG-13" (Sid) Ganis says, "because of what was called 'undue violence' in Indy II. That was a pretty big deal"

'Temple of Doom' invented the PG-13 rating' Lucas says, 'It was too gross to be PG, and it wasn't quite gross enough to be an R"

[from 'The Complete Making of Indiana Jones']

and check out page 297, there's a shot of Belloq's exploding head in true 'Scanner's' form: flying brain and head matter in one splattery nasty mess (minus the added fire effect).

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

the Asian markets are also alot more lenient on film violence, two examples being, John Woo's Hard Target released in uncut form and Kill Bill Vol. 1

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I can think of one sex scene as of recent that surprised me in how semi-explicit it was - the rug munching scene from Black Swan how this differed from the oral sex scene from Blue Valentine (which got the film it's initial NC-17 rating) baffles me - it's reverse sexism: lesbian oral sex: good, straight couple oral sex: bad

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Here's an interesting article about the disparity in ratings between those two scenes (at least initially):
http://www.popeater.com/2010/12/07/b...cenes-ratings/

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

wait, that was the scene that got it??? I thought it was the so called "emotional rape" scene/shot.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

It's the Internet. Misunderstandings happen. We're cool.

Again, I can't speak to the MPAA members specifically, but I am an active member on another forum devoted to sexuality. The current social continuum goes something like this:

Heterosexual couples in non-sexual situations are your vanilla baseline
Homosexual couples in non-sexual situations are edgier because, by default, being gay = sexually active in the minds of the public

Lesbians are either considered a youthful phase/indiscretion (like sneaking beers before you turn 21), or they're pure fantasy for heterosexual males (all heterosexual males perceive all women as sex objects, don'tcha know?)

Gay males are "icky," because they don't excite heterosexual men. "Queens" are okay because they're non-threatening and appeal to straight women as pals. Youthful gay males are more accepted, but older gay males are often regarded as potential child molesters. It's unfair and misguided, but there it is. Notice Brokeback Mountain featured two fairly young lookin' dudes with clean shaved faces. Try to make that movie with two 40 year old guys with scruffy beards and see who's willing to finance it.

Bisexuals are derided even among the LGBT community because they're poorly understood. Too often, it's misunderstood that being bi means being in a state of denial about being gay, or that one is "selfish" by wanting partners of both genders. I applaud the writers of House for trying to dispel some of those misconceptions with the character Thirteen.

Trans-gendered people have it worse than anyone else. They're often regarded as freaks of nature, and those who wish to change their physical sex because they don't identify with with the corresponding gender are often resented by people who simply do not comprehend how a person can be born with one sex but identify as the other. Like many things in our society, it's something that the public simply has no patience to try to understand.

You should be able to see MPAA ratings reflect this general guide.

Oh, and while we're at it, the sex scene that stunned me was in A History of Violence. I have never seen a couple 69 in a mainstream film before!

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

whats semi amusing is that on the commentary, Cronenberg actually brings it up that he believes its the first ever 69 ever in a mainstream film

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

There's some conflicting information. In theory, nobody's ever expected to know what key scenes were the "tipping point" so to speak. However, here's on article that cites the scene you mention as the problem one:
http://www.deadline.com/2010/10/shoc...lentine-nc-17/
Now, it's possible that the MPAA listed both sex scenes as ones they had objections to. Which one was the true "tipping point" we may never know.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Agreed. It would most likely be slapped with an R for "tone" or "theme".

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

Considering all of this, you would think they would resubmit the film and have it formally changed to PG-13. It really is too strong for PG. Jaws should probably be PG-13 too.

I vividly remember when Poltergeist was released and it was mentioned on TV that the movie had originally been rated R but was changed to PG on appeal. That's another one that was a big head-scratcher for me. I saw it in the theatre opening weekend, and one teenager literally ran out of the auditorium when the face-ripping scene came on. He couldn't watch it.

I liked the movie, but it was another case of the ratings system breaking down.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

I find it interesting that Indy II created the PG-13 rating but was not given the rating itself. I think Red Dawn was the first to have that honor. For a while I remember most initial PG-13 movies were basically ones that could have been PG but had more intense levels of violence or a flash of breasts. Seems like full breast shots automatically take you to R nowadays.

Re: MPAA to revise their rating system
 

When you have someone like Spielberg behind a movie, you can get away with alot more.
Who else has had 2 of their R rated films shown uncut on network TV (Saving Private Ryan & Schindler's List).