anybody here think the MPAA ratings system is lacking?

Post Reply New Topic

i believe that if an indy studio/director had helmed "saving private ryan" it would've gotten an NC-17.

MPAA's CARA or the Classification and Ratings Administration is complete out of touch in not only the current generation of American parents, but the American public as a whole. Many films that would have earned a unrestricted rating in other countries, are restricted to 17 and up here just because of few strong words here and there. The entire process of almost secretive, there is no list of who actually serves the administration and no real guidelines on how they classify films.

What is even worse is that there is a huge gap between the PG-13 and R17+ categories that has not been addressed at all. The end result is that many films that would be suitable for teenagers are out of reach of them and they are practically restricted to dumb PG-13 films.

Another good example of CARA's out of touch mentaility is the G category, for a film to be classified G it needs to be Disney pure. The sad truth is that most G ratings are from Disney films. (More like G for Suitable for Grandmothers)

the MPAA/CARA suffers from the same bible belt mentality as what infects Standards & Practices departments at the various american television/syndication networks, when they edit films for television, and usually butcher them in the process. there is a world of difference between american tv censorship and what goes on in other western countries, especially canada up north which seems not to have heard of the bleep button, from what i have heard on canadian radio and tv.

It's puritanism, and the fact that the MPAA/CARA has not reformed or even talked about reforming their own system shows that they are proud of it.

also their sympathizers possess a kind of national smarmy childishness that sees itself as being more mature than the honest adult levelheadedness of other western nations' peoples regarding adult content in entertainments. IOW hypocritical busybodies living in glass houses protesting just to hear themselves roar and to see how mighty they look to themselves in the mirror of the media.

I can't remember specifically, but the other day I saw something advertised that was rated PG but it's contents are quite the opposite.

The OFLC is tight on some titles though. Up to a couple of years ago Cannibal Holocaust was banned here but now available uncut with a R 18+ rating. Salo is the same right now although they passed it with a R 18+(because of all the extra features on the dvd) there are groups (namely right wing church) that are appealing. Gees it like a nearly 40 year old movie and yes there are some gross scenes but don't watch it. Simple as that. It available in the UK and US with no troubles so why not Australia.

I don't think many of you seem to understand the point of censorship: it is to protect children from viewing harmful material. Just because you aren't likely to be disturbed by a 40-year-old movie, it doesn't mean that it's not likely to screw up a child's life completely if they happen to get their hands on it. You cannot begin to understand what it does to a child if you have not experienced it personally.

The system could do with a revamp. I'm not American, but even I can see the R rating is far too broad. NC-17 should be abolished since it actually prevents the films from getting commercial exposure, and there needs to be something before or after the R rating that doesn't spell commercial suicide for any film it is applied to. In short, I think it should be more like the Australian OFLC rating system.

"Blazing Saddles" was NOT one of those movies, it ridiculously got an american R rating even though it had no material which warranted going beyond PG. NO other country gave it such a restrictive rating.



i'd prefer the canadian system, specifically BC.

I remember seeing a film called "The Big Tease," about a gay Scottish hairdresser, that was released in the late '90s. I was annoyed because it was rated R, yet the only bad thing was he swore a few times. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the main character hadn't been gay, it probably would've gotten a PG at worst.

you are right, judging by the following list of movie ratings from around the world, for this particular film:

Certification:
Finland:K-12 | Australia:M | Canada:PG (Canadian Home Video rating) | Argentina:13 | Chile:14 | Germany:6 | UK:15 | USA:R (No. 36390) | Italy:T | Iceland:L

every place outside of america gave this film their equivalent of a PG rating, which just goes to show that american movie raters/bluenose pro-censorship activists are hypocritical prudes. even way back in the 1940s, foreign movies came to america only to be cut to shreds due to their language and innuendo, in addition to realistic depictions of violence which were also routinely censored. blood or injuries were not to be shown on screen, back in the hays office days of strict censorship. in addition to the hays office, there were also local movie censorship boards with even stricter standards tied to fundamentalist religious views of the bible belt. movies depicting dancing and drinking, were often banned in such places. outside of the middle east, no other western countries were so fanatical about movie censorship as america, then and now.

I'm from America and I think it's rather sad how PG rated films are now the new G rating and G rated films now are either terrible or are full of crude humor and butt jokes.

I remember when you could get away with saying "sh*t" in PG rated films ("Short Circuit" was full of this,) and how R rated films back then had so much X rated violent material it would make slasher films today looks ridiculously censored...

PG still allows for the use of "that" word and all its variants, within limits. but if the original theatrical edit of "the exorcist" were submitted for theatrical exhibition code approval today, it would almost certainly get an NC-17, due to today's more conservative public mood. ratings were generally more liberal back in liberal [read: 70s era] times.

The BBFC are generally a much better fit than the MPAA. They still have their faults though and they do occasionally reject films outright, although they haven't banned anything halfway worth seeing in at least five years or so.

They could do to be more lax with their attitude towards porn but I suspect that they have to be mindful of the law when dealing with that sort of material.

the BBFC were more lax especially in the 60s where movies banned in america [or severely cut] were passed uncut and with a general audiences rating. then in sept. '66, when america finally got its own first rudimentary rating system [general audiences or adult audiences only, aka "suggested for mature audiences" red-tag] the majority of films were in the latter category but still cut, even though they were considered general audience fare in europe in their original uncut form.

One of my favorite movies is South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, and I remember hearing that it was originally to be rated NC-17. But the film's producers kept submitting new edits and the MPAA got so sick of screening it they basically gave it an R so they wouldn't have to watch it again.

And this isn't technically governed by the MPAA; these are from the FCC. But I remember finding it sick that, while it was perfectly fine for a luger's death to be repeatedly shown in slow motion at dinnertime on TV during the 2010 Olympics, Adam Lambert kissing a guy onstage (which was shown from far away; you could barely see anything) at an awards show at 11:00 PM on a school night was not.