anybody here think the MPAA ratings system is lacking?
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
november 1, 1968, was the start of the formal american movie ratings system. before then, there was a seldom-used "adults-only" MPAA certificate given to movies judged to be adult in nature, which meant the theatre exhibiting this type of movie had to restrict attendance to those 18 and older- in september 1966 this was replaced by the "suggested for mature audiences" [attendance still restricted to 18 and over] red tag which ended upon the advent of the ratings system 2 years later. the problem with the rating system then and now, however- is that it is more influenced by politics than about content per se- unpopular minority opinions/political incorrectness or depictions of unpopular groups usually earn a movie [submitted to Code And Ratings Administration vetting] a more punitive rating than strictly indicated by its content, at least compared with other countries' formal movie ratings criteria. one case in point- the mel brooks comedy "blazing saddles"- in 1974 it was rated R [restricted- below 17 with adult accompaniment only] even though there was no nudity, no graphic violence, no adult language- just vulgar humor. the same movie in canada [in 1974] was given a [BC ratings board] G [general audiences] rating.
if i were running the show, this nonsense would stop. movies would be rated strictly per content with no political considerations. blazing saddles warrants no more than a PG-13 at worst, and that is the rating i would have given it.
I dunno enough about the MPAA, but I can't say that the Australian equivalent, the OFLC, is (except where video games are concerned).
That being said, I have found myself bemused by at least one rating assigned by the OFLC. One Doctor Who story, The Two Doctors, is rated G. Now, this story features aliens called Androgums who want to eat humans, at least two other aliens (these nes being Sontarans) dying horribly with goop running down their faces like it's their innards, one unfortunate human character getting eviscerated (although you only see blood, and not much at that), and the Doctor deliberately using cyanide to kill an admittedly homicidal Androgum. Not to mention this Androgum previously playing with the severed leg of a Sontaran. Now, I dunno about you, and I am certainly no Mary Whitehouse, but that ought to rate a PG rating, not a G rating.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
if it were submitted to CARA for a rating, it would most likely get a PG-13 due to the gore.
it could be that in australia, the OFLC viewed the doctor who as something akin to a fairy tale with no adult content and rated it as such. but from what i've read about the OFLC, they tend towards restrictive ratings for anything with pervasively brutal violence, whereas the same material in america usually gets an R [under 17 requires adult accompaniment]. it is the opposite thing here with sex and nudity and language getting an NC-17 or an R whereas the same material in the commonwealth nations usually gets a more lenient rating.
if it were submitted to CARA for a rating, it would most likely get a PG-13 due to the gore.
it could be that in australia, the OFLC viewed the doctor who as something akin to a fairy tale with no adult content and rated it as such. but from what i've read about the OFLC, they tend towards critical scrutiny [read: 18A ratings] for anything with pervasively brutal violence, whereas the same material in america usually gets an R [under 17 requires adult accompaniment]. it is the opposite thing with sex and nudity and language.
It's not exactly gory in the usual sense. The Sontarans bleed green, and the blood seen with the character being eviscerated is a trickle rather than a gusher, although there was an earlier story, The Brain of Morbius, that had a character get shot in the guts, and blood explodes from the poor sod's stomach.
Actually, a story from much earlier in the season that featured The Two Doctors, Attack of the Cybermen, got an M rating. It is the only Doctor Who story released in Australia that I have seen to get an M rating (your PG-13). That, and the VHS release of the TV movie. The only reason I can think of off-hand that it got that rating was that one character has his hands brutally crushed by two Cybermen during an interrogation, and you see blood pouring down his hands.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
Yes.
Now, I support the government aiding parents. I like the idea of a rating system, it allows parents to see what their children are playing/watching without having to extensively view it themselves. However, the rating system shouldn't attempt to make judgments on age. I know countless parents who take this age rating as the gospel, completely ignoring that some children are more mature than others or that (*gasp*) the MPAA may not be entirely correct in their judgment.
You can't go wrong with labeling the content, as long as you're specific. Some games have the possibility of violence, but don't encourage or even punish it. Such a game isn't as bad as a game which, in order to play it, forces you to kill people, yet it gets the same sticker. The system is lacking in this regard.
Furthermore, NEVER EVER make the MPAA rating legally notable. A child should be able to go to store/cinema without their parents and purchase the damn product, any good parent will keep on eye on what their kids are doing. It's not the governments job to set rules and strict regulations for parents. And don't even get me started on the Satanic concept of not releasing a game at all because it's rating is "too high". I'm looking at you, Australia!
In short: Parental support, yay! Parental coddling, no!
Epilefftic
Deinonychus

Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 350
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
I don't mind the ratings system so much. As I'm over 21 I mostly ignore them as they have no affect on me. Being over 21 means I can also bring whomever I choose into R-rated movies at the theater, as well as gift them with M-rated video games.
It's fine to limit stuff to children, so long as the parent still reserves the right to subject them to it (in regards to media).
_________________
"In the end, Darwin always wins" - Me
I don't like it when I watch a film with a rating of 12 when it should be at least a 15. Or when a 15 is filled with bad language and sex and should've been an 18.
_________________
Am usually bored so PMs are welcome!
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ...
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
the thing about americans is our puritanical history, so anything with swearing, nudity/sex, and blood/gore is always going to get a more punitive rating than the same thing in other countries. the movie "the exorcist" is a case in point, as this movie barely avoided an "X" rating but most other countries gave it the equivalent of a PG-13 at worst.
the thing about americans is our puritanical history, so anything with swearing, nudity/sex, and blood/gore is always going to get a more punitive rating than the same thing in other countries. the movie "the exorcist" is a case in point, as this movie barely avoided an "X" rating but most other countries gave it the equivalent of a PG-13 at worst.
Uh, actually, The Exorcist did get a high OFLC rating over here. R18+, which is basically, I think, an equivalent of an NC-17 rating by MPAA standards.
Some ratings seem arbitrary, others don't. And there is also the question, in terms of rating violence, of impact versus gore. The Dark Knight seems a case in point. PG-13 in the USA, and M15+ over here in Australia. But, although most of the time, the violence is very bloodless or censored by cuts (the 'pencil trick' and the death of Gambol after the Joker's 'Why so serious?' monologue), it is still pretty damn freaky and high-impact. And that's not mentioning Two-Face.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
there were many other countries which gave the exorcist no worse than a PG-13 equivalent-
South Korea:15 | Italy:VM14 (director's cut) | Brazil:14 | Canada:14A (re-rating) | Spain:13 | Japan:PG-12 | Mexico:B (2000) | Canada:13+ (Quebec) | Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) (2000 re-release) | Canada:AA (Ontario) (2000 re-release) | Chile:14 (re-rating)(2000)| France:-12 (director's cut) | Hong Kong:IIB | Italy:VM14 (re-release)| Norway:15 (2000) | Sweden:15
i believe that the OFLC is nearly as strict as CARA [MPAA] on some movies, but yes, there doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason as to why this is so.
there were many other countries which gave the exorcist no worse than a PG-13 equivalent-
South Korea:15 | Italy:VM14 (director's cut) | Brazil:14 | Canada:14A (re-rating) | Spain:13 | Japan:PG-12 | Mexico:B (2000) | Canada:13+ (Quebec) | Canada:14 (Nova Scotia) (2000 re-release) | Canada:AA (Ontario) (2000 re-release) | Chile:14 (re-rating)(2000)| France:-12 (director's cut) | Hong Kong:IIB | Italy:VM14 (re-release)| Norway:15 (2000) | Sweden:15
i believe that the OFLC is nearly as strict as CARA [MPAA] on some movies, but yes, there doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason as to why this is so.
I didn't see a BBFC rating there.

*a quick search of the BBFC site later...*
The BBFC (the British ratings system) rated it an 18 for the director's cut of The Exorcist. Not that I personally disagree with such a rating. But it's interesting to see some sort of consistency between the three main English-speaking countries of the world.
Interestingly enough, the BBFC put a PG rating on Doctor Who: The Two Doctors. And a bloody 'U' certificate on Attack of the Cybermen! That's the equivalent of a bloody G rating! Arrrgghh!! ! Still, that shows that the OFLC makes decisions more or less independently of the BBFC.
_________________
(No longer a mod)
On sabbatical...
Anyone interested in this topic should check out the movie "This Film Has Not Been Rated", it backs up some of what auntblabby is saying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated The film exposes the MPAA for the corrupt censors they truly are.
You also can look at the rating a film is given and put it in context of it's time. When "Blazing Saddles"(I haven't seen the movie, yes, I know..."Boo, hiss!") was released it may have been given an R-rating because it was pushing the boundaries at that time. For instance 1969's "The Wild Bunch" had to be cut for violence in order to achieve an R-rating. When the restored director's cut that included all the violence originally removed to secure an R-rating was submitted to the MPAA in the mid-90s it received an R.
Non-studio films are given a much harder time than studio products. The MPAA is also subject to the whims of the public and critics. Films made for adults must meet the MPAA's criteria that "a child may see this". Say "Bye-Bye" to adult or challenging subject matter.
The 1968 "Planet of the Apes" has bare butts, guns and violence, apes whipping people and a G rating! You could never get away with that now. Early '80s films like "Clash of the Titans" and "Dragonslayer" had PG ratings with brief nudity, plenty of blood/violence, and some scary/intense moments. After the PG "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"("heart ripped out of chest" setpiece anyone?) we got the PG-13 rating in 1984. Then in 1990 the NC-17 replaced the dreaded X-rating. However, thanks to the moral majority the NC-17 rating was pretty much killed in the crib. Groups protested Blockbuster, newspapers and theaters that dare have anything to do with NC-17.
In the past decade the MPAA has really lightened up on violence. I think a lot of it has to do with CGI, since it doesn't look as intense as actual practical effects. Now that I think about it, films that used practical make-up effects like "High Tension" and "Kill Bill Vol 1" had to be cut to receive and R-rating.
Sorry for babbling.......
Oh and you can say the "F" word once in a PG-13 film as long as it's not used as a verb.
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
CARA is certainly right-wing. they are the modern version of the hays office censors, who use not a blue pencil but instead the bludgeon of reduced potential audience size and revenues.
but i still wonder how different are canadian and american audiences, that the canadians thought it inoffensive and deserving of no more than a G rating, while the americans thought it shocking sufficient to warrant an R rating?

before 1985, there were a few F-words in PG films as well, and even the occasional veiled depiction of sexual intercourse. "Planet of the Apes" came out in April 3, 1968, before the advent of the ratings system later that november. if my memory serves me right, it had the red "suggested for mature audiences" tag which meant that a theatre owner had the discretion to ban children from seeing it if it was thought appropriate. and charleton heston had to fight to keep the [hays office remnant MPAA] censors from cutting his final line, "god-damn you all to hell!"
auntblabby
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,798
Location: the island of defective toy santas
a movie which somehow avoided the standard [for violent movies of the time] "suggested for mature audiences" red tag was john wayne's "The Green Berets" despite it being the most violent film he ever made. it was later rated G upon the advent of the rating system in november 1968- a totally inappropriate rating, IMHO.