Film Ratings and Censorship in the U.S.: What are your opinions?

[Chris K.]

As much as this discussion has been brought up a few times and in the recent forum "When movies become two violent", I feel obligated to go through this with everybody here who is at least interested in this type of discussion.

With all this political correctness and censorship talk, what are your opinions on the censorship and film ratings board (MPAA) here in the U.S.?

I won't get into it right now because I would like to hear it from you first before I give my two cents.

[Susan]

MPAA ratings need to go. They are based on old traditions that one can categorize a film. The fact that today there are so many contraditions to the PG-R-PG-13 rule is very irritating. Some films are hurt with an R rating that dont' deserve it. Some films with a PG aren't suitable for younger audiences like they might promise. It's misleading, it hurts pictures, it's biased, and it's outdated. You asked. ;-)

[ErikJ]

I agree. When I take my son to see a PG movie and I have to be worried if it's going to be too violent or too much cursing, it's become too much. I even get that with G rated films.

[John]

I hate censorship and I consider the MPAA ratings a form of censorship. Studios cut movies in order to get a more acceptable rating and they can slap an NC-17 rating on anything they don't like and be reasonably sure that the studio will cut it.

 I think the ratings should be done away with in favor of a brief listing of letters for any objectional content like the guide does;

V = Violence
N = Nudity  (possibly N2 for full frontal nudity)
L = Bad language
D = Drug use
S = Sexual situations

[J.R.]

Of course John, you're suggesting a modern movie would have full frontal. No, the heady 80's are over and we don't see that anymore...sigh. Anywhoo, the  MPAA, like the FCC, is a self-appointed organization that tells us what's offensive instead of letting us decide for ourselves, and those opinions are often hampered by financial or political factors. It's idiotic. Many promising films such as Romero's Resident Evil were scrapped solely because they'd have to be unrated, and no studio will release an unrated movie. If you see ads for a film with gun-toting commandos and steamy bewdroom scenes, it's a safe bet you shouldn't bring the younguns. The MPAA has even gotten pretty lazy, allowing graphic violence and f-words into PG-13s.

[Lee]

I don't think the MPAA is completely at fault(they do a good job most of the time) I think the big problem is parents not doing all they can to check out a movie and make sure it's appropriate for thier kids. There have been movies I've gone to with my parents(when I was younger) where there was certain things they didn't think I should see, but they didn't blame the movie, they just didn't know enough about the movie. Although I must say that the MPAA does seem a little strict at times(How did Legend Of Drunken Master get an R rating?! Jurassic Park was more violent and was PG-13!).

[systemcr4sh]

I'd agree with a rating system that just tells you whats in the movie. PG / PG-13/ G movies get away with too much, and sometimes R rated movies don't have that much wrong with them and could be PG-13. But using something like L for language isn't  enough they would have to have levels because of mild language and hard language and thats alot more complicated then slapping a PG-13 on a movie because they use 'f**k' once or twice, or there is a very short scene with nudity (a good example being Critters 2, some swearing and a scene with nudity but its still PG-13), I think that parents shoud check something like screen-it.com before taking kids to movies. I saw a family leave Lord Of The Rings (which was PG-13 if I recall) saying "Lets go buy all the books!". I don't think that the books are good for little children. For one they are huge books, and they have alot of violence in them, More than the movie I have heard. Thats just my opinion.

[Nick]

Lee wrote:

> I don't think the MPAA is completely at fault(they do a good
> job most of the time) I think the big problem is parents not
> doing all they can to check out a movie and make sure it's
> appropriate for thier kids.


This here is a great point...when I worked in a video store I had parents ask me all the time about whether or not this movie would be ok for their kids..etc..etc..I had one woman come in and yell at me because she let her 14 year old daughter watch Any GIven Sunday and was angry there was frontal male nudity....now I know other parents that watched this with their kids and had no proble, just blocked their eyes....I think Lee only touched on the problem, most times parents see the rating and take it as gold....while a ma-14 movie is fine for kids with certiain parents it may be deemed terribly in appropriate for a different family...Parents need to do the foot work ...but I agree that The MMPA does a good job normally....

-Nick

[Andrew]

The FCC and MPAA are a little different.  The FCC is a federal entity, while the MPAA just holds the copyrights on using letters like "R" and "PG" to rate a film's suitability for viewers.

Here is something that really worries me:
A new bill introduced into the House

The short story about the new House bill is that copyright holders would be able to conduct DOS (Denial of Service) attacks against people distributing copyrighted content.  I despise this because it is already illegal in the first place and the bill lets a copyright holder be judge and jury.  Seriously, screw that.  I do not think the law would ever hold up to a Supreme Court challenge, but best to stop things like this before they happen.  I already wrote my Congressman.  Anyone worried about this should as well:  Look up your Representative

Why am I so worried?  Well, how about if I write a review slamming "Battlefield Earth" as crap.  The copyright holder decides that my review infringes, so they start DOSing my server.  And, until I get the case heard in court, they are totally within the law.

[raj]

I do oppose censorship, in fact I find it quite frustrating to watch a good bad movie on tv, only to miss some parts because they were cut out to allow it to be shown on basic cable (HBO et al., aren't worth the money for me.)

A *voluntary* rating system is fine, though the current system is to broad.  Sort of like using a chainsaw for surgery.  A N-1, N-2, N-3 for nudity, L-1, L-2 . . . etc. for language, violence, sex, gore et al., would be better, IMO.  How about an S-1, S-2, S-3 for suckage?

[jmc]

I dunno, this used to be a topic that was more important to me, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer decent movies being made by the big studios.  As long as I can watch crazy import stuff, I don't really care about how the crappy movies made in the US are rated.  

Also, it seems like a lot of the stuff on DVD is included, even if it was cut out of the original release.  And failing that, usually you can buy boots of the foreign editions of movies, that tend to have less material cut out.  

The denial of service is scary, but it seems like it's focused more towards the people who offer bootlegged copies of entire movies for download.

[Vermin Boy]

The real problem with the MPAA is that the ratings are subjective and the people giving them are biased. When Robert Rodriguez' "El Mariachi" originally recieved an NC-17, he asked his producer why the much more violent Reservoir Dogs got an R. The response: "Reservoir Dogs was released by Miramax. The MPAA loves them." Similarly, when Lloyd Kaufman asked the MPAA why Troma's War got an NC-17, the response was "It's a horrible movie."

On a sidenote, I have to wonder why the MPAA even bothers to keep the NC-17 around; its connotations have become so negative that anyone who gets one either cuts it down to an R or releases it without a rating. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a film rated NC-17?

[raj]

Probably NC-17 works as a threat & pr.  "Cut that scene down or you get an NC-17" and "See, we are concerned about inappropriate content, we got people to cut out some content."

Makes you wonder if some folks decide to film a scene, knowing the MPAA will object, so they'll cut it, and the MPAA will let them keep another scene in.  Or get away with a scene in a different movie.  

And for some reason, people call me cynical.

[Greywizard, The Unknown Movies]

"Makes you wonder if some folks decide to film a scene, knowing the MPAA will object, so they'll cut it, and the MPAA will let them keep another scene in. Or get away with a scene in a different movie. "

Yes, this has happened on several occasions. When Martin Scorsese was making "Casino", he shot additional footage of a head-crushing torture sequence that involved an eyeball bursting out of a head. He never intended it to be in the finished product, but filmed it just for the purpose you stated. The article I read about it interviewed one of the effects artists on the movie, who stated that Scorsese apologized to the effects crew that all the work they were doing for this effect was only for this purpose. The effects artist was actually cool about it, stating that he and his buddies knew and understood the game Scorsese was playing.

While I do agree the MPAA ratings system needs to be greatly reformed, there is one potential problem with rating movies by violence, sex, nudity, language, etc. People might object to the fact that since there is no longer any age limits with the ratings, a kid might tell his parents that he's going to see the kiddie movie "Fuzzy Bunnies", but might instead go to see "Max The Axe Hacks And Whacks" instead. Still, I think rating by those features overall is a better way.

[John]

>The short story about the new House bill is that copyright holders would be able
>to conduct DOS (Denial of Service) attacks against people distributing
>copyrighted content.

 I hate to be the one to tell you this, but today the government exists to protect large corporations and they don't give a s**t about ordinary people. of course this is only a temporary solution until they can get their puppets in congress to pass the law that requires hardware copy protection to be built into every electronic device capable of viewing or copying any kind of media.

 Are you aware that Micro$oft, along with Intel and other companies are working on a 'trusted' computer design? The software portion of it will be called Palladium. The idea is that there will be copy protection built right into the hardware in the form of a 'fritz' chip (named after sneator Fritz Hollings AKA Disney's senator) that wouldn't allow unauthorized programs to run. They're trying to convince people that it will put an end to viruses, but its real purpose is to impose strict DRM (digital rights management) on everything from software to text files. They could make software/songs/movies only work a certain number of times before you have to pay again. Or only for a limited time, or even just disable it out of the blue when they feel it's time for you to upgrade. I've even heard that they'll be able to erase files by remote control if the copyright holder decides to take the file out of circulation, or someone at the FBI decides that it's illegal. By 'trusted' they mean that the big corporations trust your computer not to let you do anything they don't approve of. You won't even be able to change the date.

>Makes you wonder if some folks decide to film a scene, knowing the MPAA will
>object, so they'll cut it, and the MPAA will let them keep another scene in. Or get

 Actually, the makers of Southpark, Bigger, Longer and Uncut said that they never expected the scenes with Satan and Saddam Hussein to get by the MPAA. They said they figured they'd have to cut thos scenes and would be able to get some others by. Strangely, the ratings board didn't have a problem with them.