anybody here think the MPAA ratings system is lacking?

Post Reply New Topic

in theory that is how CARA is supposed to work, and indeed they will never tell a film producer what specific cuts to make in order to down-rate a film. where Québec gets it right is that the raters there are not homophobes or right-wingers as they are in lala land.

In a perfect world movie ratings wouldn't be necessary. Movies could be family friendly or completely realistic or overly obscene for today's standards and no one would give a s**t. The genres would be enough for someone to decide if they think it's appropriate for them or their family/friends.

Unfortunately nudity is shunned artistic or not, violence is a touchy subject (even though it's all around us), bad language "exists", everything must be carefully done as to not offend someone, and it ends up offending someone anyway.

I wish that the human race would just accept everything as a part of life instead of choosing to be offended by things like sex, violence, and language. I think Religion is the root cause, but I won't get into that subject here.

F*ck censorship, it's all about ignorance and artificial human-made standards.

censorship still exists because one group of people wants to control the thoughts of another group of people.

Frankly, I think all rating systems are junk for one simple reason: quit being on the fence! Either make your system legally binding or get rid of it all together. What I mean by that is that a five-year-old kid could get into a PG-13 or R movie. That's because it's not legally binding by any means. In my opinion, use the age-based system found in other countries and only let kids of that age enter the theater. I'm tired of walking into see, say, The A-Team (13) and looking at all the single-digit aged kids in the theater!

in anycase, it is too bad that hollywood couldn't have cobbled together some sort of movie rating system back in the hays office days, that might have spared us some horribly compromised-into-innocuousness movies as well as having allowed some movies to be made that were considered too adult for the times.

i can only think of one movie where america had a milder rating than one issued anywhere else, and that was the original 1962 version of "cape fear" which in america was issued an ordinary general audiences MPAA certification seal, whereas this movie in england had several minutes cut [of the couple's nubile young daughter] and still was rated for adults only.

Contrary to what a lot of people say, PG-13 films have not gotten more intense since the rating was first implemented--in fact, it seems quite the opposite. When Spielberg first submitted The Temple of Doom to the MPAA, they could not decide whether to give it a PG rating or an R, so they created the PG-13 rating for movies that fell between the two. Shortly thereafter, the PG-13 rating was awarded to Red Dawn and The Lady in Red (which were released before Temple of Doom). I doubt any of these movies would get by so easily, these days. Temple of Doom had the heart removal scene, Red Dawn has some intense bloody violence carried out by and against high school kids, and The Lady in Red has full frontal female nudity. These days a movie will get slapped with an R rating if anybody takes a kick to the head (almost happened with the first Transformers film). Most of today's PG-13 films probably would have received a PG rating back in the 80s.

The reason a lot of contemporary horror movies are getting dumbed down to a PG-13 is because of one thing: money. Kids between the ages of 7-16 are perhaps the largest demographic of consumers of entertainment, and with a PG-13 rating they don't even need an adult to accompany them to the movie. It's really frustrating because today the PG-13 rating functions more as a bullseye in order to lure this demographic, disregarding whether or not doing so might alienate a movie's core audience. Tom Rothman, the head of Fox's film division, is notorious for this (along with cutting a film's run time to under two hours in order to fit more daily screenings). He's the reason Live Free or Die Hard got sanitized on the cutting room floor by having the blood digitally removed and the foul language dubbed over. The hardcore fans, meanwhile, have to wait for the UNRATED, EXTENDED CUT to come out on DVD. That's like giving the film's fanbase a big middle finger.

While I do think that trying to appeal to the lowest common demographic ends up dumbing down a lot of our entertainment, I still think that the PG-13 rating is fitting for some movies. I think it would be better if the theaters had to enforce the PG-13 rating like the R rating and require the kids to be accompanied by an adult (either way, they'd sell more tickets), or (preferably) release the unedited version of a movie along with the sanitized version. Most theaters these days show the same film on multiple screens, so I don't understand why they couldn't show multiple versions of the same film (and maybe just show the uncut version in the evening). This has been done in the past with Saturday Night Fever, and recently there have been talks of releasing an edited version of The King's Speech (rated R in America).

i hope to hell they don't stoop to that level. a censored version of "the king's speech" would be ludicrous. it would bypass a major portion of the king's speech therapy methodology. having the king [via looping] say "FUNSTER!" would be just so dumb. equally dumb [ and par for the course regarding reactionary right-wing american taste] is CARA's punishment of the film's producers by slapping the ridiculous "R" rating on a movie as totally innocuous as "the king's speech." NO other country on earth gave this movie anything but a "general audiences with reservations" rating equivalent of PG-13. this is so embarrassing.

IMHO, the american movie rating system, as administered by CARA, is needlessly capricious and complex. movie producers need a hard-and-fast standard to economically guide their editorial decisions. parents and concerned singles need a hard-and-fast guide to the suitability of their entertainments for family and self. if i had my way, i'd replace CARA with a consumer group [selected from a mixture of singles and families married and otherwise, of all socioeconomic classes and occupational fields] that would watch films on a private version of youtube, and the ratings of each rater [could be a variable number, from a few dozen to thousands] would be added together, with the leading [weighted] ratings selection to be awarded the submitted film. if the producer of the submitted film didn't like his rating, he could risk ONE TIME every 6 months, another submission to yet another randomly selected panel that might give him/her either a more lenient or a more punitive rating.
in addition, i'd scrap the existing ratings system with-

*AA = All Audiences, [parental guidance suggested], the equivalent of the present G/PG ratings, with content identical to american [prime time PBS] broadcast television standards, liberal market- and all content would be described on the ratings placard on movie adverts. for example, "ET" and "AI" would be rated *AA-mature themes under my proposed system, as would "the simpsons movie," [mature themes] "midnight cowboy" [mature language, mature themes- it NEVER deserved an R!] and "true grit" [violence]. there would be content descriptors [limited use of non-sexual rough language, mature themes, non-sexual nudity, limited graphic violence]/implied violence] but no explicit sexual content in *AA movies. depictions of drug use/smoking/drinking could only be in long shot and not protracted. usages of the "F" and "S" words would be limited, as well as cautioned on the ratings plackard as "mature language." the aggregate of mature content would be considered, so that somewhat more intense language/nudity/mature dialogue could be traded-off for somewhat more graphic violence while maintaining the *AA rating. in addition, there would be a "young children only" descriptor.

there would be a hard-and-fast guidebook of standards available to any movie producer, to guide editorial content of any proposed movie eventually submitted for rating. any content exceeding the list of permissions in the guidebook would automatically get a higher rating, no exceptions. a mixture of parents and singles of all occupations would guide the authoring of this *AA guidebook, under advice of a psychologist and social worker. any content exceeding the bounds of the *AA guidebook would bump the rating up to the next level, namely-

*MR [age variable from 12-17] = restricted to mature audiences, i.e., teens and adults, no children under 12 [sliding-scale age requirement, up to age 17] admitted under any circumstance, without adult accompaniment. this new rating would encompass present-day PG-13 films, as well as some non-violent R-rated [old system] films. harsh [but strictly limited sexually referent] language would not be a criterion for the new "R" rating. "The King's Speech" [MR-12 -harsh language] would fall under this new *MR rating, as well as movies like the more violent of the Indiana Jones/Raiders [MR-12- violence] series. content descriptors would be adult language, adult themes, graphic violence, MR-17- language, nudity, adult themes], "the godfather" [MR-17- violence/gore, adult themes] and similar films. a limited number of occurrences of the sexually frank "F" and "MF/CS" [sex organ references and such] words would be allowed per film, with any excess booting the film up to the *18 rating.

a producer content-limit guidebook would be freely available for any movie producer seeking editorial guidance for ratings submission. producer "re-cutting" for an altered rating would be allowed ONLY ONCE every 6 months, as there are just too damned many movies and other entertainments to be rated by a limited number of unpaid volunteers, and since the standards were widely advertised in advance. any film exceeding the *MR standards MUST receive the *18 rating. there would be no mature content trade-offs as with the *AA rating. a professional panel of child psychologists/social workers [mixture of married-with-family and single] would guide the authoring of this guidebook.

*18 = adults only, nobody under 18 years of age, under ANY circumstances. these films would be totally uncensored and in segregated suites not accessible [nor with visible marquees] to younger people. these films would be totally adult in nature, and would probably include some present [old system] R-rated films such as "basic instinct" [for adult themes, adult language, graphic violence, nudity, sexual references, perversity] and "scarface" [for graphic intense violence, intense adult language, adult themes]. "slasher" films would occupy this rating, as would traditional pornography. there would be no need for explicit content descriptors, since by definition *18 movies would contain any type of adult content in greater explicitness and degree than the milder ratings.

by law, newspapers would be obligated to accept the adverts for *18-rated films, but the adverts would only have to have the name of the film and a list of stars, and a website url so interested viewers could investigate for themselves. this would remove a major stumbling block to movie producers accepting adults-only ratings for their films, that of the punishing prospect of puritanical newspapers refusing to accept adverts for such films.

i would sure appreciate feedback on my proposal.

Oh man. This is perhaps the most depressing article I have ever read on Cracked.com (I never thought I'd ever say that). Reason #2 will make you vomit, and reason #3 might make you have a coronary.

do away with MPAA as well as CARA, start from scratch.

the late chicago tribune columnist mike royko had an interesting movie ratings suggestion- he thought there should be only two ratings, A or X- A= all audiences above a certain age, and X= only folk above a certain age. simple, and not appreciably worse than the present american system. after all, all ratings from G to PG-13 are essentially just the same glorified general audiences [G] rating. the only audience age restrictions come with R and NC-17, so why not just have a general audiences rating and a restricted rating? that would be so much simpler.

I think the original purpose for the MPAA rating system was to act as a spectrum that measured a film's potential to corrupt a child's innocence (or make them cry or give them nightmares), with the G rating representing the least amount of objectionable content and X/NC-17 representing a moral event horizon for objectionable content. I also think that the reason that Americans can tolerate violence in films but not sex is because (for the most part) mature, responsible people don't ordinarily commit acts of violence, whereas the vast majority of mature, responsible people do have sex. The parents don't think that their children aren't mature enough to have sex, and for the most part I'd have to agree with them (maybe if they didn't infantilize them with abstinence only education we would have a lot less problems with unwanted pregnancies and STDs, but I digress). And drugs are another issue altogether, because the general consensus in America is that only criminals use drugs, which is why casual drug use is almost always portrayed in a negative light (except for alcohol and tobacco because those drugs are cool ).

But as I said before, the goal for most movies now is to make as much money possible (as opposed to telling a good story). The problem is adults mostly care about story, character and subtext, and generally won't see a movie if the general consensus is that it isn't any good, so the studios now try to make every movie critic proof by infantilizing the film as much as possible so that kids will not only want to see a film but enjoy it no matter how bad it is (because for the most part kids only care about the superficial qualities of a film). I suppose one could argue that the MPAA rating system is designed with kids and mind, while the star rating system is geared towards adults.

I think the idea of labels like G and NC-17 are too arbitrary and vague. The main problem is that they are only designed to tell audiences WHO can see a film or who would be the ideal audience without saying much about its objectionable content. The labels are also (by and large) issued according the subjective morals of each ratings board member. I think instead of a label there should be a scale that rates a film's objectionable content in an objective fashion with very specific guidelines, say on a scale of 1-4. It would look something like this:

Violence | #
Language | #
Nudity/Sex | #
Scat | #

These ratings would be seen on promotional material for a film (posters, etc.) and any film that gets a 4 on any scale would require that a minor be accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Violence
1--Permits cartoonish violence
2--Permits bloodless violence (including dismemberment like in Star Wars); martial arts violence (but no kicks to the head); permits bloodless injury to groin and butt; bloodless animal-on-human violence; bloodless animal-on-animal violence; no human-on-animal violence
3--Permits some bloody violence (from gunshots, stabbings) that does not depict injury to eyes, throat or genitalia; permits kicks to the head; breaking of bones (without depicting blood or bone); permits removal of 2 fingers/toes; bloodless torture; burning dead bodies; bloodless cannibalism (i.e. they have to cook the person before he/she is eaten); bloody animal-on-human violence that does not depict dismemberment; bloody violence against animals by animals; any human-on-animal violence so long as it is not depicted in a sadistic manner
4--Graphic violence that depicts heavy bloodletting, dismemberment, decapitation, disemboweling, skinning, burning alive, bloody torture, surgical gore/organ removal, bloody cannibalism, rape, genital mutilation, etc.; violent deaths of children; sadistic animal cruelty; real violence (such as in a documentary)

Language
1--No profanity; permits the use of the word "butt" in its regular context (no butthead or butth--e)
2--Permits use of the words a--, d--n, h--l, s--k; infantilized references to genitalia (weiner, hoo--hoo, cha-cha, nuts, balls) not in a sexual or scatological context; no references to sexuality; no racial/derogatory slurs or hate speech
3--Permits the use of the words s--t, god---n, p--s, p---y, d--k, pr--k, a-----e, t--t; racial/derogatory slurs and hate speech; mild references to sexuality that does not explicitly describe any sexual act (i.e. reference to penetration, etc.); max five f--ks not used in a sexual context
4--Gratuitous f--ks, c--t, c--k, c--------r, m----------r, c-m, p---------r; explicit references to sexuality

Nudity/Sex*
1--No nudity/sex
2--Permits brief depictions of a person's butt; people in their underwear; implied sexuality (showing pre/post-coital activities, but not the actual act of coitus); no animal sex
3--Permits depictions breasts not in a sexual context (such as breastfeeding, bathing or in depicting upper body nudity as a social norm such as in some tribal cultures); prolonged depictions of a person's butt; no genitalia; can show moderate coital activity (no breasts or genitalia are depicted) between TWO parties; pre/post coital activities between more than two parties; coital positions are restricted to missionary, reverse missionary, upright face-to-face positions; permits implied oral sex/masturbation; permits animal sex; no bestiality
4--Depictions of breasts in a sexual context; depictions of genitalia in any context; graphic depictions of coitus in any position with any number of people; graphic depictions of oral sex/masturbation; sex with animals**

*films depicting real sexual acts forbid any persons under 18 from entering
**none of the above guidelines discriminate between depictions of heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual relationships

Scat***

1--Permits depictions of snot, boogers and earwax that is not consumed; spitting is allowed so long as it is not in a sexual or violent context; eating of unusual foods that do not include consumption of blood, urine, feces, sexual fluids; no depictions of urine, feces or sexual fluids; no dunking heads in toilets; no stereotype characters; no drug use
2--Permits depictions of urine and feces that are not consumed (but may be thrown, stepped in or dumped upon a character); consumption of snot, boogers and earwax; dunking of heads in CLEAN toilets; may depict the consumption of tobacco and alcohol; permits nonviolent deaths of children; no consumption of blood; no depictions of sexual fluids; no depictions of rotting flesh; no stereotype characters;
3--Permits consumption of urine, feces and blood (as long as it is not real); dunking heads in dirty toilets; kissing an animal on the mouth; depictions of rotting flesh; permits stereotype characters; may depict consumption of cannabis and pills; consumption of heavier drugs is permitted as long as it is portrayed in a negative context; no depictions of sexual fluids
4--Permits depictions of sexual fluids and any objects/fluids that may be used in a sexual context; casual consumption of heavier drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines, heroine, hallucinogens; transgressive subject matter (ex. pedophilia)

***Gross material and other offensive material

So a movie like Toy Story would receive straight 1s, while Basic Instinct would receive all 4s, Austin Powers would likely get a 2 for violence, a 3 for language, a 2 for nudity/sex, and a 3 for scat.

NOTE: Filmakers could edit their movie's content to get a lower rating on the scale if they wish.

Last edited by TheSnarkKnight on 07 Mar 2011, 2:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

i didn't know BI had any scat in it. anyways, your plan combined with the mike royko plan sounds like a fully-fleshed-out plan to me.

I'm pretty sure Basic Instinct had casual drug use (of cocaine), but I might be mistaken.