Badmovies.org Forum

Mise-en-scene Crypt (http://cryptspace.blogspot.com/2009/06/mpaa-part-of-problem.html) starts the week off with an article that probes the mystery of ratings, the MPAA, and dares to ask what it all means.  Ratings are something we take for granted. Perhaps it's time that changed.

Let us know what you think.  Whether you are a parent who's ever felt movies like LAND OF THE LOST with it's blitzkrieg ad campaign unfairly targeted the youth demographic despite not being suitable for children, even when accompanied by an adult, or are a teen who thought your parental units were over reacting we want to hear from you.  If you've ever been to a movie that you felt was unfairly saddled with a rating it didn't deserve, we want to hear from you.  Whether you agree or disagree with the article, we want to hear from you.

http://cryptspace.blogspot.com/2009/06/mpaa-part-of-problem.html

If you get a chance, you might want to see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated". It goes in debt about the MPAA and how they hold their meetings in secret. It also goes into how independent films seem to often gather a rating of "R" or "NC-17" than ones produced by studios.
Here is a link the the film's IMDB listing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/)

Excellent article - karma!  I think this single statement:  "raters attempt, as much as possible, to mirror the views of a contemporary cross-section of parents in the country" explains why I've never paid a damn bit of attention to ratings.  I disagree with much of what a cross-section of parents think.  And I disagree even more with what people who would label themselves "typical" think.  Grotesque violence is A-OK, the values of the politically far left are not only actively encouraged, but jammed down your throat - but smoke a cigarette?  Drink a beer?  Verboten!   I'm always disgusted by the brainless herd instinct of humans, and these folks specialize in that to the point where they would actually call themselves a mirror to the views of a cross section.

What's even more appaling is Hollywood's mentality of trying to FORCE movies into the mold of what they think will be the most lucractive target demographic; which at present is the 'tween market.  Which means the PG-13 rating.  I just posted a news blurb about how John Carter of Mars is GO! (http://cosmic-cinema.blogspot.com/2009/06/john-carter-of-mars-is-go.html) at Cosmic Cinema.  Note the ONE quote I choose from all the news articles is the director stating his intent to make this a "PG-13" movie.

Understand this is a movie that's not even out of the PRE-PRODUCTION stage and the director is more worried about a target demographic than he is about doing a faithful adaptation of the source material.  That tells you what Hollywood cares about, it's milking the golden calf and nothing else.

It didn't always used to be this way.  Once upon a time, before the MPAA, movies were actually intelligently made.  The Hayes Code may have been censorship writ large but directors manages to make decent movies in spite of it.  Now it's just a cookie cutter assembly like where hack directors use a checklist of what a marketing department has told them has "market appeal".

I hear that a lot, and what I think is that the violence in films is less imitatable, reason being that calm stuff like drinking, having sex is more relateable to the average viewer than murder, which is obviously something an average viewer would relate to to the point of being affected by it.

I read something on the IMDb that might work better to apply to personal taste however, it would probably be a lot less confusing than what we currently have. Instead of having one-size-fits-all ratings, the system should reveal the basics, and have a simple content guide as a "rating" instead, say whether movies have so much violence or what not... Might have more "spoilers", but all in all it should be more beneficial.

The worst censorship system ever, hands down, was the South African Publications Control Board whose reign of terror lasted from 1933 to 1994.

They banned what they found offensive which was just about anything and everything. :hatred:

The Dark Knight was rated PG-13 and that is one instance where I felt that the rating didn't hurt the movie at all.  In fact there were a lot of people that felt it deserved an R rating.  It's all really just a matter of opinion really. The only rating that I feel is wasted is the NC-17 rating. It was designed to replace the X rating in terms of movies that were strictly for adults but not pornography.  The problem is that most theaters outside of the arthouse circuit refuse to carry NC-17  or unrated films.  So the rating still caries the modern stigma of an X rating which is pointless.  I also love how the MPAA traditionally has let almost as much violence be put in R rated films. But show some actors engaging in graphic simulated sex for a minute or two and you get stuck with a NC-17.  But I will admit that the MPAA has been more like it should since the former head Jack Valenti stepped down and retired. 

Actually I feel that both the PG-13 and NC-17 rating are pointless, especially since the R rating isn't exactly all that well enforced.  But like I said in the article the ratings system aren't about content they're about demographics and marketing.

Personally, I could care less about the MPAA. I don't believe in censorship of the Arts (including film). However, as a parent, I watch everything before I let my daughter watch it. I'm not saying that films should be or not be rated...i think as parents would should take better responsibility as to what we expose our kids too....

One thing that really disturbed me was I went to the theatre to take my mom to see Passion of the Christ. The theatre was full of toddlers and little kids in church groups screaming thier head off in fright. I was so disgusted I walked out. When will people stop relying on popular opinion and actually think for themselves....