R-13 huh?

[Fearless Freep]

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Jesus in Matthew 5:27,28

You might not like the results, but I think more often than not, 'radical Christians' are just coming from a radical Christ

[Wence]

Ok, what about Matthew 10:34,35 ?

You see, even an atheist can use the bible in a discussion :-P

[Fearless Freep]

You see, even an atheist can use the bible in a discussion

Well....duh...here's some help :)

BibleGateway.com

Although I'm not really sure the relevance of your reference.

Mostly I was just trying to point out that it's non too surprising for 'radical Christians' to be against nudity in film;it is rather consistant with their teacher's beliefs



Post Edited (04-08-05 19:56)

[Wence]

I ment it that way:
if `radical christians´ comes from a radical christ then read good old Matt10:34-36

but... wait... is this the christ me and you was told? brotherly love? ups! sounds more like war - as you can read it.

If you want some examples referring to marriage:
1. Corinthians (german: Korinther) 7:7 and  7:29
5. Mose 25:12
Passages worth to think about...

[Fearless Freep]

Well, you're taking verse hopeless and woefully out of context :)

but that's probably a bit of topic for now

[Wence]

Yes, and I must admit - as I made the experience already - that this site is not a place for deeper philosophic or religious discussions.

[Eirik]

"Yes, and I must admit - as I made the experience already - that this site is not a place for deeper philosophic or religious discussions."

It's probably also not a place for cheap shots at groups of people who have differing religious beliefs either.  I don't want my kids watching soft core porn until they're old enough to understand both what's going on and what the consequences of what's going on are.  If you think that's radical Christianity, I think you need to reconsider your definition of "moderate secularism."

I like to think I am culturally savvy enough to know what movies my kids should see and shouldn't see without the help of a website (for the record, my oldest is only seven), but I can understand how some parents might not have time to keep current on movies.  So they have websites to go to that they trust to give them some guidance.  How is this radical?  How is this "declaring war"?  How is this in any way offensive to you?

If you think Christian websites are campy, well frankly I'm not going to disagree.  But to classify anything you don't like or agree with as "radical"?  Well that's...  well.... unfortunately I guess that's becoming the American way (yes, yes, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, I know).

[Brother Ragnarok]

No, the stuff about how the ratings system is changing is completely true.  
That, however, is the only fact presented on what is otherwise a foaming-at-the-mouth religious nutter site.  The funny stuff is in the individual reviews.  Consider, if you will, the fact that the recent remake of "Freaky Friday" scored as badly on this guy's ratings system as most porno movies would.  The man is not entirely in touch with reality.

[Brother Ragnarok]

But the R-13 thing is only scratching the surface.  As I said, no one is arguing that the ratings haven't changed, but everything has changed.  They wouldn't show murder footage on the news 30 years ago, either.  Again, the comedy is in the guy's reviews.  His system has absolutely no sense of proportion.  A teenager mouthing off to their parent gets very nearly the same rating as a full-frontal sex scene.
Also, I don't think anyone would argue that movies do need to be rated.  Parents have to know they can't take their 6-year-old to Kill Bill (even though most of them seem to anyway, but that's another rant).  The problem I and every other rational person has with the MPAA is that they're not just a ratings board, they're a censorship board.  They don't just give you a rating, they force filmmakers to cut things out of their movies.  They're a small group of people judging everyone's entertainment by their moral standards and they don't have to answer to anyone.  I don't care what letter is in the little box at the corner of the movie poster, but I do care that an entirely unrestrained censorship organization is allowed to chop pieces out of movies as they see fit, essentially forcing their viewpoint down the throats of everyone else.

[Eirik]

Brother R:  I admit I didn't look past the rating stuff on the website, but again, its a site for people of a certain religious bent (and zeal) to go see if a movie will meet their standards.  For some people (not me by the way), a kid mouthing off to his dad is, while not as offensive, just as good a reason to not let a kid see a movie as a sex scene.  It isn't easy raising respectful kids these days, but the world would be a lot nicer if it was.  Anyway, if you get a kick out of people who think differently from you, by all means keep reading.

As for the MPAA, I would argue that they are not a censoring organization.  If a director cuts something out to get a PG-13 instead of an R, or an R instead of an NC-17, then that's his business.  To my knowledge the MPAA never forces anyone to edit stuff out.  Sounds like your beef is with the studios and producers and directors themselves, because they're the ones compromising their art for a wider audience (and - surprise surprise - a bigger pay day).  Anyway, in this day and age of DVDs and directors' cuts it's a moot point anyway.

Please let me know if I'm wrong about the MPAA - I am not entirely familiar with how that organization is staffed or funded, or with what their exact powers are.  I figured they just watched a movie, tagged one of five possible ratings on it, and advised the producers how they could get a lower rating if they wanted one.  As I understand the process, it is flawed, but it's not censorship.

[trekgeezer]

I have no problem with this kind of informational website. I only get into ranting mode over people who think their version of morality should be shoved down everyones throat.

This site does have a point, the PG-13 rating has slipped into what used to be R territory. The reason for this is that the MPAA is exist to promote the film industry. In other words they are in the business of making sure the film industry is making every red cent they can make. PG13 ratings get the crowd they want, teenagers. These are the people who attend movies the most and a PG13 gets them in the door without an adult. So, I am quite sure a lot of pressure is put on the ratings board to get movies under the R rating.

I too have reservations about the so called Religious Right in this country, but they have the right to voice their opinion. My only problem come when they try to stifle my right to voice mine.

[ulthar]

As a member of the "religious right," I find I spend most of my time trying to understand my OWN morality, and how God wants me to live MY life.  What you (or anybody else) does is between you and God.

(I know others that have a different view of their faith).

But there are, of course, limits to this.  What if you were advocating the wholesale murder of a large group, say blacks or homosexuals?  Do you think it would be my 'stuffing my morality down your throat' to call that wrong and to try to stop you?

The problem is that we've gotten away from values.  Now, so it's not misunderstood what I mean by that, I'm using the sociological definition that a 'value' is a CONSENSUS of opinion within a society of what is right and wrong.  I think we'd a agree that murdering a person based on group status is wrong, so that is a value.

Where we've lost our values is in areas such as profanity on tv, work ethic, etc.  We, as a society, have lost that CONSENSUS, the COMMON belief of what is okay and what is not okay.  I'm not argueing a side about what the common belief should be, I'm just saying we have broad disagreements on many issues.  Somehow, our society is continuing to evolve, which must have the sociologists really interested.

My problem with the devaluation (for lack of a better word) is that there seems to be a mentality of "if I think nudity on tv is okay, everyone should see it," without much sense of repect for those in the other camp.  Personally, I think the lowest common denomenator, such as broadcast media, should be the most neutral.  Not having nudity on tv does not hamper someone else's right to see the nudity on cable, etc.

The rating system is like this, too.  If I wanted to watch a movie with my 2 year old, one that is not going to teach her foul language and demean love and intimacy, that is just as much my 'right' as someone else's right to watch it.  The rating system gives me a chance to 'prescreen it.'  But that rating only has value if it is based on a standard.  I've mentioned this before: the commentary on "The Day After Tomorrow" DVD was atrocious with foul language - far worse than what was actually IN the movie.  There was no separate rating for the commentary, and I got taken by surprise.

Again, back to my original point: my faith is a guide for me, on how to live my life.  Since my daughter is my responsibility, for the next 16 years my faith is a guide for her life as well.

I enjoy 'chatting' with everyone on this board, even those who might disagree on politics or faith topics; it's a great board.  I hope noone here thinks I try to push my "morality" (whatever that may be, I ain't no saint I can tell you that) on anybody.

[trekgeezer]

Where did that killing a large group of some minority come from? You didn't hear that from me now did you?

I have no problem with people of faith, I have a problem with self righteous pricks who think you should believe what they believe even if it means forcing you to.

Don't go ranting on me, if you don't want your kid seeing something, that is your choice. TV's have channel changers and off switches. Movies have enough advance screenings and reviews available so you can screen what they watch.

I was making a point that the PG13 rating does now let through stuff that used to only be in R rated films. The movie industry is just about money and they really don't care what you or I think.



Post Edited (04-11-05 08:36)

[ulthar]

trek_geezer wrote:

> Where did that killing a large group of some minority come
> from? You didn't hear that from me now did you?
>
>

No, not at all.  I was just using an example.  It was a long weekend, and I was VERY tired; sort of a stream of consciousness post.

It was the FIRST thing I thought of when I read about imposing morality.  My only point was perhaps there are times when 'morality' should be imposed - in those cases where there is a broad, widely held belief regarding what 'morality' is.  Our present day conflicts on 'morality' arise, imo, because of the disagreements of where moral lines lie.

Sorry if I was not clear.  I was not projecting my extreme example onto you at all.

[Vermin Boy]

The problem with the MPAA isn't that they're "slacking" or "puritanical"-- it's the facts that they now wield wholly undue power, and that they're anything but objective.

Despite appearances, the MPAA is not a government group; they are an organization of individuals, who base their ratings entirely on their opinions of films. However, their word is taken as gospel, and mainstream theaters refuse to play movies that haven't been rated. This can be problematic for independent filmmakers, as submitting a movie to be rated costs a pretty hefty chunk of change.

Another problem is that, back when they started out, they copyrighted every rating except X. In the beginning, there was no social stigma against an X rating-- it was simply accepted that you shouldn't take kids to see an X-rated movie (see: Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange). However, since they failed to copyright the X, the then-fledgling porno industry began using it indiscriminately, and soon the two became inextricably linked. Realizing the problem, the MPAA switched to NC-17, but the damage had been done-- as far as the public was (and still is) concerned, NC-17 = X = pornography (If you're up in arms about their standards slipping, you probably want to start here). Mainstream theaters still refuse to show NC-17 movies, so if you're a filmmaker, and you want your movie shown, you better damn well do whatever it takes to whittle it down to an R. Hence, accusations of censorship are not without base.

Finally, it's a fact that the MPAA holds biases-- not only in what sort of thing they allow, but who they allow it to. When Robert Rodriguez first submitted El Mariachi, he got an NC-17. Puzzled, he asked his agent how that could be, when Reservoir Dogs, which came out at the same time and was much more violent, got an R. Their response: "Oh, that's a Miramax film. The MPAA loves them."

Sorry for the long-windedness, but I thought I should set the record straight. It's a fundamentally flawed system, plain and simple, and while I'm not sure they intend to be proponents of censorship, that's certainly the effect.