http://www.capalert.com/r-13.htm
que?
Manuel, there is too much butter on those trays...No no senor, uno dos tres.
Ah, someone else discovered the joys of Capalert.
Yeah, these Capalert people are a riot, as hilarious as the so-called "Truth for youth comics" I stumbled upon recently too http://truthforyouth.com/standard/main.htm bwhahaha
Damnit, I'm trying to start a Fawlty Towers thing here! Have you people no appreciation for all I do around here? Harumph!
For the longest time I struggled with trying to decide if it was a joke or not. I finally decided that no, it's not. Funnier than most jokes, but definitely sincere.
ROTFLMAO
I just read the "pornography" issue on truthforyouth. There is NO way that's real. It has got to be without a doubt the funniest thing I've ever read in my life.
Lets see what the moral of it was:
"If your father looks at porn then that means he's been in jail in the past and has commited rape."
Can't.......
breathe..........
Too damn funny.
I know it is context of the ratings system, but this line just looks ridiculous:
* "G", "PG", "PG-13" and "R" are registered marks of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
_oll da_n it, now I can't use the lette_s "G" and "R".
On it's face, what is funny or whatever about how standards are changing? The linked page shows real data (we'll assume it is real data) that shows that when 2002's movies are graded by the standard of 1996-1997, PG-13 movies contain a significant amount of R content.
You can choose to like this trend or not, but what is wrong with presenting the information? Is that not what the Internet is for?
The funny thing is R-13. Aliens vs Predator is definatley no R movie but they'd probably label it R-13, lol.
But they are not just "labeling." They are applying the rating 'standards' from 1996-1997 to 2002 movies. It's not arbitrary. All this is saying is that the standard has changed.
*IF* AvP would get an "R-13" by their criteria, that means in 1996, the Movie Association would have rated AvP "R" in 1996.
(again, assuming the data is real and not doctored in some fashion).
It probably is somehow manipulated data, a lot of Christians tryto twist the facts in Evolutionary theories too. It's not that it's an outright lie, just that the stats are lead to some conclusion that doesn't necessarily correlate.
I noticed alot of the "naughty" stuff is exaggerated too whenever some parent(mostly christian) is outraged, like they claim to see pornography as soon as they see a guy without a s**t, in metal everything is satanic, or how in every other word in rap is "f**k" or "s**t", hehehe.
Yeah, you have to watch out for those darn Christians and their lies.
I'm with Ulthar. Anyone who would try to argue that AvP would have got anything but an R rating 10 or 20 years ago is kidding themselves. The rating system is absolutely slacking off, especially for big budget movies. Whether or not you think that's okay or not okay, I find it hard to believe anyone would try to argue about the truth of it.
So what is the real danger in this sinister Christian plot to reverse the trend of slack ratings? What horrible totalitarian future will spring from their efforts? Kids will have to have a parent with them to watch R rated movies... oh the Horror. Somebody stop the American Taliban before they rob our 14 year-olds of their Constitutional right to see people shoot heroin, get raped, and have their intestines pulled out.
I love how whenever a kids do anything wrong, everybody points the finger squarely at the parents; but whenever parents try to get the tools they need to get a handle on what their kids are up to and hopefully avoid bad things, people scream facism.
I mean is it really any skin off anyone on this board's nose if the ratings get tightened up a bit?
Yeah, you have to watch out for those darn Christians and their lies.
There are a fair number on this board...or are you just lying?
I can understand why radical christians are so strictly against porn and naked skin.
Since intimities&sexuality lead to one of the scourges of mankind: marriage...
Quote"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
Ok, what about Matthew 10:34,35 ?
You see, even an atheist can use the bible in a discussion :-P
You see, even an atheist can use the bible in a discussion
Well....duh...here's some help :)
BibleGateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net)
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)
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...
Well, you're taking verse hopeless and woefully out of context :)
but that's probably a bit of topic for now
Yes, and I must admit - as I made the experience already - that this site is not a place for deeper philosophic or religious discussions.
"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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Vermin Boy wrote:
> they
> are an organization of individuals, who base their ratings
> entirely on their opinions of films.
Who are they? Are they Hollywood 'insiders'? For some reason, I always thought of the MPAA as being the major studios self-policing, and hence attributed a higher 'status' to them than ratings imposed by say a government group.
The point of ratings SHOULD be, imo, nothing more than information; "here's what you can expect from this movie." At that level, it's hard to argue against. But again, the standards for the boundaries between the ratings have to be, well, standard. And uniformly applied.
I did not realize certain sudios/distributors got different ratings than others. That's certainly an issue.
Well, yeah-- PG-13 didn't even exist until the late 80s (it was created specifically for either Gremlins or Temple of Doom-- I don't recall which). This is another testament to the MPAA's biases-- I highly doubt the issue would have come up if either of those were anything but a high-profile blockbuster (or, more to the point, didn't have Speilberg's hand in them).
And, to be fair, you see a lot of stuff in PG films from the 70s and 80s that would warrant an R today. Hell, 1968's Planet of the Apes was rated G, despite having full rear nudity and humans stuffed in museums. Not claiming moral high ground on either side-- Just saying you'd never see that today.
On the same subject Vermin,
One of Planet Of The Apes' most famous lines would never get a G rating either. 'Damn' would definently put it in PG territory
Well, yeah-- My point was just that they have no legal authority, only cultural.
I agree with your point about objectivity. As much as it pains me to say it, on a conceptual level, the CAP system is actually a step in the right direction-- Working on a numerical scale, rather than going with one's gut. Their problem is that, in practice, that is NOT what they're doing. They are profoundly biased, much more than the MPAA. I have a problem with any rating system governed by a specific religious ideology-- if you're going to label a movie for having "Offense to God," why not offense to pagans? If a rating system warns for "occult" content, what's to stop them from labeling movies with, say, Jewish themes, or more likely, Islamic?
I mean no disrespect toward Christians; I'm just saying that, if you want to classify movies with religiously offensive content, you need to cover it across the board.
Thanks, Vermin. That was a considerably more eloquent and informative version of what I was trying and failing to say.
VB and Brother R: Thanks for the info on MPAA. What you describe is most definitely de facto censorship because theaters won't carry movies without certain MPAA ratings. More egregious is the uneven application of ratings. I was always of the opinion that Reservoir Dogs should ABSOLUTELY have been NC-17 (and I personally like the movie).
As for CAP, they're just providing a service for a very specific audience: the kind that is concerned with Christian values (as a certain substantial group of Christians define them - I personally am a Christian who does not agree with everything I saw on the site). Their ignoring of the value sets of other religions or world views doesn't stem from bigotry, it stems from customer focus... and unlike other online websites (both Christian or non-Christian), they're pretty up front about where they're coming from. Arguing that CAP reviews are biased is like arguing that Andrew's reviews are biased - of COURSE they are. That's what their readers are looking for. And I'm sure there are Jewish and Muslim and Environmentalist and Communist and whatever groups out there that also provide their take on how their values are depicted in movies. And there's nothing in the world wrong with that.
"I think we'd a agree that murdering a person based on group status is wrong, so that is a value."
I should hope we'd agree that murdering a person on ANY basis is wrong!
:)
ulthar, I think you and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, but one place I'd differ with you is the idea that we EVER had a moral consensus in this country. I think the whole Civil War is one big ugly piece of evidence of that. No country as ethnically and religiously heterogeneos and economically and geographically diverse as this one is ever going to have a moral consensus that isn't fleeting. What we have had for certain periods of our history is the large scale public acceptance of a seeming moral consensus that was enshrined in popular culture, public education, and political discourse. We sort of had that during the depression through the 1960's. It was framed on one side by the suffrage movement and prohibition, and on the other by the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam (note: one noble cause and one total waste of time and effort on each side). I think we've been struggling to get back to that ever since because it is very comfortable to have it, especially if you have children to raise. I think we'll probably reach a consensus like that again someday, though it might seem impossible in the ugliness of contemporary political discourse. The best people can do is find like minded people and band together to reinforce their own valuse in their own lives, much like evangelical Christians have done on the CAP site, and creative, open-minded cinematic masochists have done on this one.
Well, I do agree that pure consensus has probably never existed (and probably never could). Got a book recommendation for you: "The Cousins Wars" by Kevin Phillips. The premise of this book is that the English Civil War, The American Revolution and the American Civil War are all 'battles' in the same 'war,' and that the underlying cause, or link, is predominantly religion.
Keeping it somewhat on topic, I'd say consensus is easier to achieve in smaller social groups (ok, so that's obvious). If one community prefers movies without overt nudity or foul language, the rating should provide them with info to know that. That is, *IF* we are going to have a rating at all, it should mean something. For example, the drive-in we go to shows only 'family friendly' movies, though some of their second features stretch this quite a bit; the FIRST flick of a double showing is geared to smaller kids. Anyway, they stay packed all summer, so at least in THIS example, a movie does not have to have a bunch of R-ratedness hidden in a PG-13 rating to pack a theater.
This is much, much harder to achieve nationally in a country as large and diverse as the US. What those in Hollywood consider 'normal' I often consider either weird or even disgusting. What I consider normal, many New Yorkers would probably consider plain and boring.
The MPAA is a trade association just like the RIAA. Ratings aren't all they do (they also go around suing the fans just like the RIAA). The reason they have the ratings system is because the industry was threatened into it by the government.
This is another self policing industry, which it should be because I don't think the government has any business telling people what they can watch, read, or say.
The problems with the rating system are just what has been presented here.
I was a kid in the 60's when ratings first started and back then what was rated X, then would probably be played pretty much uncut on TV today. So standards have definitely changed.
I would say if a private organization wants to set up a ratings system of their own, more power to them. The MPAA ratings are no longer a good way to determine what objectional material might be in a movie.
Sounds like an interesting read -- the premise sounds pretty strong to me.
I absolutely think the ratings should be more informative and more evenly applied. I would have no problem with expanding the number of possible ratings to further describe a movie. After all, Porky's and Alien were both rated R but not exactly for the same reason... Just like the reason for Raiders and the Breakfast Club's PG ratings are different. I'd probably let my kid see Raiders' goofy cartoon violence and minor gore at an earlier age than the Breakfast Club's profanity, sexual innuendo, and kind of scary-depressing (for kids) themes. I just think a kid would be ready for one before the other.
Eirik wrote:
> I would have no problem with expanding
> the number of possible ratings to further describe a movie.
I like the 'grading' done by some newspapers and web sites, where each area is graded say 1-5. Areas might include adult theme, adult language, sexual situations, nudity, gory violence, etc, etc. This lets one see exactly WHAT might be objectionable (or desirable) in a given movie.
And it's done by individuals, not movie studio insiders or government. Maybe with a few 'trusted' web sites providing such a service, we don't really need the MPAA rating system anymore, as I think this thread has pointed out it is corrupt and unevenly applied.
Actually, I think the PG-l3 rating, and someone can correct me, was created after the stir caused by the rating given to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." And, while I have not seen it, the scene that caused the most stir in the film, was the scene where the man had his heart cut out of his body. Again, someone can correct me, if I am wrong.
I know what you mean by films that were once rated G and PG are now getting more restricted ratings. And alot of it has to do with the amount of violence in a film. A good example (IMHO) would be "The Green Berets." What does it have in it? Shootings, stabbings, impalings, and seemingly every other kind of violence in it. And when it was first released, it had something like a G or PG rating, which would now be a PG-13 or R rating.
On the other hand, films that have to do with the subject of sex, such as "Midnight Cowboy" would seem to ge getting less restrictive ratings. Originally, rated X. It is now receives a R rating.
As do the premiere movie channels. Before the film starts, they will show what is the MPAA rating for the film, then they will give their explnation of why the film received that rating. I believe the explanations are . . .
AL=Adult language
AS=Adult situations
N=Nudity. Also
BN=Brief nudity
R=Rape
V=Violence. Also
GV=Graphic violence
An example, that I can remember, would be for "Lair of the White Worm," which is reviewed at this site. Which is rated R by the MPAA, and the explanation, by the premiere movie channels, for it is . . .
AL=Adult Language
AS=Adult situations
N=Nudity
R=Rape
GV=Graphic violence
Of course, this explanation only occurs at the start of a film, as they run their films uninterrupted and uncensored, If you turn on a film after the beginning, there is usuall,y no warning of what you might get.
Your right about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The heart scene is what caused all the stir.
For some reason, I'm remembering Dennis Quaid's "Dreamscape" as the first ever PG-13 movie.