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.

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...

Doesn't sound like a damn thing will change.

I think you're misinterpreting it. It seems that it's simply a recommendation for parents. Maybe this will allow for movies that would previously be rated NC-17 to be given an R with a qualifier.

Hopefully it means that there will be a new rating between R and NC-17:

R+ (We Mean It, Get a Fucking Babysitter)

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.

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.

I like the appeals system. The other thing about the warning doesn't mean dick.

:up: 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.

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.

I don't get it. How are they not warning them now? They added the content descriptors.

I've been hearing audio disclaimers on some trailers now.

So they will still probably let violence be acceptable and sex sheltered.

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!

:lol:

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 whole <s>censorship</s> 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.

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.

I agree NC-17 should just become R (restricted] and previous R's should just be PG-16's, that would wake up America if and when those previousily NC-17 rated movies pop up and parent's and shocked to see hardcore sex and explicit violence, the retort: "ah... it is a restricted movie'

I would urge caution before we are so quick to dismiss our freedoms out of hand, even the unpleasant ones. For instance, most people despise the KKK and everything they stand for, but in a land of the alleged free, are we not compelled to support, even defend, their right to free speech? Is it not key to a free society that everyone's perspective be allowed? Sure, it's easy to throw out freedoms that you don't benefit from directly, but next time, who's to say someone who doesn't profit from a freedom of yours won't work to throw it out? It seems with each passing year of my life, I see more freedoms taken away from American citizens and less new ones provided in exchange. Sometimes (though I recognize we're millions of miles beyond most countries) it seems like the line "land of the free" is little more than marketing hype. Personally, I'll deal with a million fucked up parents making bad choices than Big Brother thinking He's got the Master Plan for all of us as parents.

The latter point is immaterial; we all know if theatres do not support MPAA guidelines, they stand to be penalized. 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.

"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.

I don't think it clearly indicates that whatsoever. It sounds to me like it's going to be something as innocuous as a voiceover along the lines of "this film may not be suitable for anyone under the age of 17". There's a huge difference between a "warning" and a "restriction".

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?

I think the difference is children under 17 can still be admitted to the new R-rated movies when accompanied by a parent. NC-17 means no children, with or without parent.

Most of America's movie theater chains won't carry NC-17 movies because of the stigma attached to them...this would be a way to get those movies into those theaters.

Well, I feel kids shouldnt be allowed in any movies, but thats a whole other argument waiting to happen :D...

That's already true of rated-R films; what's the damn difference? Why does this new rated-R need to exist?

Apparently because too many adults are taking their kids to R-rated movies and are shocked, shocked, by the level of violence, language and sex in such movies, and why didn't the MPAA warn them somehow?

the MPAA does... in small print under the film's said rating, apparently it's too much to ask for parents to read and know why a film is rated as such.

I know they do, my post was intended to be read as sarcastic, although I do think there are people who really do think like that.

I sat behind those folks. Two parents with about 5 kids under 10 between them. Why not take them to a "comic book movie?" Sin City was the perfect choice. :rolleyes:

There are many clueless parents out there. Even with a description, the ratings don't mean much anymore. Enforcing the no admittance-period on some films sounds okay to me on stuff like Sin City or Kill Bill. I'm all for the "land of the free" but those people out there, that shouldn't be procreating in the first place, NEED someone to tell them what's up.

I don't see theaters enforcing squat anyway. All they see is $$$, and right now, AFAIK, they are hurting for theater goers.

but the problem is a much larger society problem, we are treated like children where everything has to be spelled out and when something offends us, we point fingers at that person/entity responsible. No wonder the MPAA bows down to public pressure and gives the all the power to 'censor' filmmakers who buck the trend and depict graphic violence and sex. If DLP were ever to get it's head out of it's ass, maybe studios could release alternate versions of films (as is the case of the video market) in cost effective digital non print form.

While I am loathe to defend the MPAA, the alternative to them is much worse. And with the ability to go around the MPAA on DVD/HD DVD/Blu-ray, they're wield much less power than they used to.

The most likely alternative to them is much worse, that of a government controlled, and possibly enforced, rating system. I'm sure many of us could think of MPAA alternatives that would be better, even if it's just an improved version of the MPAA.

Movie studios have had the ability to "go around" the MPAA for far longer than just the advent of DVD. I think there were some unrated versions of movies released on VHS and LD as well. Most studios have never had to submit their movies for ratings from them at all, although not doing so has traditionally limited theatrical venues at least.

It's like the "V-chip" ... There's no way to make it or film ratings idiot-proof. When they cut out the gory bits, or the naked bits, or the violent bits... the MPAA leads some idiots to believe R movies aren't so bad. Then they're "shocked" when they are. Too f-ing bad -- maybe next time they won't be so stupid.

BTW worst than the MPAA? Network TV.

And precisely why network TV is worse is because it's under FCC, i.e. government, control.

You're right, the most likely alternative is what I meant.


They had the ability to go around for a while, but never with a format as massively accepted as DVD. Almost every DVD these days has an "unrated" release. Even laserdiscs didn't have nearly as many alternate cuts as we can find on DVD. My point is that DVD has given filmmakers a mass medium of dissemination for their uncut works in a way that effectively diminishes the power the MPAA has. VHS was big, but it was never viewed as the archive medium that DVD is.

The only real problem with the R rating as it stands today, is that too many films that should be a PG-13 end up with an R rating because the word fuck is used more than 2 or 3 times. Or a PG caliber film like Whale Rider gets slapped with a PG-13. It ends up diluting the impact of the ratings.

It's funny to compared US ratings to ratings in other countries.

Annaud's The Lover was originally rated NC-17 here, but OK for kids 12 and over in Germany.

In France, Showgirls was OK for 12-year olds. :lol:

It should be noted that in those countries though, the age restrictions are actually enforced. For example, in France, nobody under 12 can see the film at all. Even if Showgirls was an R here, that's still just "suggested," and an under-12-year-old could see the movie with a guardian. The only way to keep all under-12-year-olds away in this country is to rate something NC-17.

I'd actually be somewhat in favor of the proposed "hard-R" having an actual age restriction at around age 13 or so if it meant less films that would've been rated NC-17 get that rating or go through editing to get the current R rating. However, to compare one country's ratings to another's is problematic at best.

Furthermore, while the MPAA can seem overly prudish when it comes to sex and language compared to other countries, at least we can see near whatever we want, while the filmmakers always have the option of bypassing the MPAA completely, which isn't really an option in Germany or France.

Really? I'd say VHS was as widely accepted.

I don't see see how whether the format was viewed as "archival" has any relevance to whether or not the studios had a way to "go around" the MPAA system. Theatrical releases are certainly not considered to be in any way "archival" to the masses, yet one would argue that a major motion picture being released theatrically unrated would be a big deal, would one not?