CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The MPAA Bows Down To Disney
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The MPAA Bows Down To Disney - Page 3

post #101 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:41pm
I have absolutely no problem with my daughter seeing ONCE. It's about as inspiring a film as they come.
Reply
post #102 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:41pm
After today's lesson, I find it sad that directors don't sign contracts that guarantee a certain amount of laughs.
Reply
post #103 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
I have absolutely no problem with my daughter seeing ONCE. It's about as inspiring a film as they come.
If you don't mind me asking, how old is your daughter? Also, this only proves the argument that the movie should be rated R. You've seen it before her and felt it was something your daughter could handle because you know her (according to your last post I believe).

Some parents may disagree and feel that 20+ F-bombs are a tad much, this leaves it open for parental discretion and when kids are 14,15,16,17 it's much harder to control what they can or can't see if the movie theater has no problem letting them in to see it.
Reply
post #104 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:55pm
Snaieke, you do know your kids are exposed to more language at school then they ever will be in films, right? You can't protect them from excessive language. Especially nowadays with the internet, but its always been that way. I remember learning all sorts of great words and slang from the older kids on the school bus.
Reply
post #105 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:57pm
She's 9. And she's heard a lot worse from me in traffic than any movie could ever hope to achieve.
Reply
post #106 of 147
5/16/08 at 6:57pm
I find it hard to see how language can be so upsetting in movies, or other media. Here in Sweden, Once was allowed for all ages, and I highly doubt that any kids seeing it would have been scarred for life.

Granted, English is not our native language, but using curse words on television or radio is really not a big deal, and yet, somehow, our society has not crumbled.
Reply
post #107 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernon Signpost View Post
Not a huge one. I've definitely heard a "cunt" and indeed several "cunts" in a 15 rated movie. I'm not sure that there's any "more than 3 of those and you get an 18 rating" rule. "Fuck" can cheerfully get blurted out in a 12A - but is possibly restricted to a set number, much like the US PG-13 . They're more down on violence than sex these days, but are definitely more lenient towards everything than they were in the 80s.

That said, the BBFC are still a bunch of inconsistent clowns.
The sex and violence issue I definately understand. Profanity I find silly on principal. Are they not just words that are considered crude though they mean the exact thing as their for what ever reason more acceptable conterparts? It's just it's been so ingrained into us as a society that these words are ugly without context as to why.
Sexuality and violence can exist in PG form but as it moves up the scale it needs to grab a higher rating. I don't think more ratings are the answer just so long as there is some consistancy with the way films are categorized by rating. The MPAA is notorious for giving ratings but not telling filmmakers what to cut if they want to achieve a lower rating. I don't think it's out of the way to believe the studio system that runs the works keeps the waters murky for their own uses and gains. There needs to be more openness in MPAA procedures.
Reply
post #108 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:06pm
I have a few questions regarding the article.

1.)Do you believe the film is inappropriate for children under 13 and aren't happy about the PG rating, or are you primarily upset that Disney is appearing to receive favorable treatment (i.e., smaller movies receive undeserved PG-13 ratings)? Or both.

2.)Do you think that the MPAA is too harsh towards sexuality, or too lenient about violence. Or both.

3.)Or, do you find the entire system incomprehensible to such an extent you can make no generalized conclusions about the MPAA's ratings decisions.


I think the entire rating system should be scrapped, except perhaps for "G" or "NC-17" movies (films for which there is absolutely no question of their appropriateness, or inappropriateness, for minors). Instead of PG, G, or R, there should instead be a screen listing all of the content that might be objectionable. Something like what they have for television.

It's ridiculous to try to boil down a lengthy list of factors into a single letter.
Reply
post #109 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:07pm
Wasn't Billy Elliot Rated PG-13 (according to imdb, yes) and that featured a never ending stream of *fuck*.
Reply
post #110 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:08pm
And now we're getting into differences in culture. The US gets antsy about sex, the UK used to get antsy about headbutts and nunchucks, and Sweden is the most laid back place!

And that's what these ratings systems are meant to cater to; the status quo of their respective countries. I can respect and understand that. But when that system is corrupted in order to censor anything that would upset the status quo and become almost an enforcer, you gotta bitch and moan. Help the filmmakers, my ass. The rating is meant to be informational. It wasn't meant to force a film to be something it's not because of demographics and box-office. It's now just another marketing tool that the studios can employ to their advantage. Filmmakers are also finding creative ways to use and circumvent it, but the fact that they have to is frustrating.
Reply
post #111 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:14pm
America is hung up on the wrong things. Growing up I'd see or experience a parental slap or spank in response to swearing. That's a confusing message for a child. Cursing = Bad. Violence = OK.
Reply
post #112 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:20pm
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment, which is tough for me, because I really dislike the MPAA and its coercive, quasi-censorship-y influence.

There is a difference between make-believe violence and cursing/nudity in films. People getting killed or injured on screen actually isn't real, and that can be explained to any child old enough to understand make-believe versus realty. Cursing, nudity, well, that is "real." Now, is our society hung up on those issues? Certainly, but there is a distinction to be made.

As for sexual content, telling someone that an Orc "wasn't really chopped in half" isn't quite the same as saying "Mickey Rourke didn't really fuck that chick from the Cosby Show in Angel Heart."
Reply
post #113 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:24pm
It's one thing to have a sexually explict scene, but something else where you have nudity in a non-sexual context. Unfortunately, here in the US nudity has been so connected with sexuality that people can't/won't separate them.
Reply
post #114 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdrow View Post
It's one thing to have a sexually explict scene, but something else where you have nudity in a non-sexual context. Unfortunately, here in the US nudity has been so connected with sexuality that people can't/won't separate them.
I'm not saying nudity or sexuality are handled properly in the U.S., or that we don't have a cultural problem with their depiction in popular art, I'm just saying there is a distinction between pretend violence and other forms of "adult" content.
Reply
post #115 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
Wasn't Billy Elliot Rated PG-13 (according to imdb, yes) and that featured a never ending stream of *fuck*.
Poster says its R
Reply
post #116 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
Poster says its R
Yeah, I think imdb said edited, I didn't know it even existed. Still, just another example of a movie that never should have been labeled with an R.
Reply
post #117 of 147
5/16/08 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I'm not saying nudity or sexuality are handled properly in the U.S., or that we don't have a cultural problem with their depiction in popular art, I'm just saying there is a distinction between pretend violence and other forms of "adult" content.
Took me a few times reading you're previous post for the point to dawn on me. Yeah, definitely, and even within those distinctions there's more distinctions that can be made. You can even have surprisingly explicit sex depicted without nudity. Looking at something like Psycho you can have terrible acts of violence without gore.
Reply
post #118 of 147
5/16/08 at 8:49pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I have a few questions regarding the article.

1.)Do you believe the film is inappropriate for children under 13 and aren't happy about the PG rating, or are you primarily upset that Disney is appearing to receive favorable treatment (i.e., smaller movies receive undeserved PG-13 ratings)? Or both.

2.)Do you think that the MPAA is too harsh towards sexuality, or too lenient about violence. Or both.

3.)Or, do you find the entire system incomprehensible to such an extent you can make no generalized conclusions about the MPAA's ratings decisions.


I think the entire rating system should be scrapped, except perhaps for "G" or "NC-17" movies (films for which there is absolutely no question of their appropriateness, or inappropriateness, for minors). Instead of PG, G, or R, there should instead be a screen listing all of the content that might be objectionable. Something like what they have for television.

It's ridiculous to try to boil down a lengthy list of factors into a single letter.
The MPAA favors the big studios, especially when it comes to their big releases. They are too harsh on sexuality and non-sexual nudity. Insanely too harsh.
Reply
post #119 of 147
5/16/08 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
I think the entire rating system should be scrapped, except perhaps for "G" or "NC-17" movies (films for which there is absolutely no question of their appropriateness, or inappropriateness, for minors). Instead of PG, G, or R, there should instead be a screen listing all of the content that might be objectionable. Something like what they have for television.
IMDB has something similar. A Parent's Guide on a number of movies that list out the potentially objectionable content.

It's actually kind of funny. For instance, if you wonder if Speed is appropriate for children in terms of alcohol/drugs/smoking:

"At a gala held for the two police officers, attendees formally drink champagne. Both of the officers clearly get drunk at the end of the party."

Frankly, I doubt parents would really want to use this method for every single movie between the two extremes.
Reply
post #120 of 147
5/16/08 at 11:52pm
No offense, but I'm with Devin on this one- I think most of us really don't give a shit about your kids, people.
Reply
post #121 of 147
5/17/08 at 12:14am
The Christians are a powerful lobbying group. Studios know that if there's something that taps into that market, they'll work to make it easier for them to see it. I think a more fitting example of how fucked up the MPAA is is the R rating Passion of the Christ got. I have never in my life seen a more violent and sadistic film in my life and it got by with an R? The "plot" of the movie is seeing a man get whipped, beaten and nailed to a cross for 2 hours. Forget about the religious subtext for a minute and that's what this was about. That was an open and shut case for an NC-17 if ever there was one.
Reply
post #122 of 147
5/17/08 at 4:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor View Post
Whether or not the BBFC ban occasional films, they're not at the mercy of the big studios the way the MPAA are, and actually approach their job with something resembling objectivity most of the time.
Like letting some old hag who never watched any of the films in question decide what everyone can't watch? You have heard of the Video Nasty debacle in the 80s, right?

As retarded as the MPAA are, their ratings are guidelines; it's up to the studio to decide what they want to keep in their film or to sacrifice to tone down the rating. This is driven by economical concerns (i.e. getting the most asses in seats to make the most money on the film). The BBFC led to people's fucking homes being raided by cops. you could get busted for owning something like Cannibal Holocaust as though you were pushing crack to schoolkids.
Reply
post #123 of 147
5/17/08 at 4:34am
Thread Starter 
The BBFC is a de facto governmental organization.

Quote:
Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, all video releases not exempt (music, documentary, non-fiction, etc.) under the Act must be classified, it being illegal to supply any recording that has not been certified. Certificates can restrict release to any age of 18 or under, or to only licensed sex-shops. The government currently designate the BBFC as the authority for certifying video releases.
Reply
post #124 of 147
5/17/08 at 5:32am
My parents took me to see LETHAL WEAPON 2 in the theater when I was 8. I didn't turn into some social misfit. Although I'm sure Snaieke would say they were being unfit parents.
Reply
post #125 of 147
5/17/08 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
The BBFC is a de facto governmental organization.
Only when certifying video releases, not theatrical ones.
Hence why I said theatrical previously.
The topic was, after all, about theatrical certification in the first place.
Not to mention that there's a substantial difference between an independent organisation fulfilling a governmental mandate and one that's government-founded and run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
As retarded as the MPAA are, their ratings are guidelines; it's up to the studio to decide what they want to keep in their film or to sacrifice to tone down the rating. This is driven by economical concerns (i.e. getting the most asses in seats to make the most money on the film). The BBFC led to people's fucking homes being raided by cops. you could get busted for owning something like Cannibal Holocaust as though you were pushing crack to schoolkids.
I fear you're factually wrong.
The BBFC had nothing to do wtih the criminal prosecutions pertaining to the "video nasties" scandal. At all. It was entirely the work of the DPP.
The video recordings act that wound up designating the BBFC as the body in charge of video certification was passed in response to the scandal, but this only came into effect after the prosecutions and the scare were over.
Reply
post #126 of 147
5/17/08 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xagarath Ankor View Post

I fear you're factually wrong.
The BBFC had nothing to do wtih the criminal prosecutions pertaining to the "video nasties" scandal. At all. It was entirely the work of the DPP.
The video recordings act that wound up designating the BBFC as the body in charge of video certification was passed in response to the scandal, but this only came into effect after the prosecutions and the scare were over.
Then substitute DPP for BBFC in my post and it remains true. It was ridiculously, horrifyingly Orwellian.
Reply
post #127 of 147
5/17/08 at 10:53pm
No offense to you Devin; I agree with you on most of your points.... but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post

No newspaper will carry ads for NC17 movies.
In fact, I had seen the ads of LUST, CAUTION on New York Times and Los Angeles Times. Even James Schamus himself said that only the newspapers of two places refused to carry the ads of this movie.


Like several other NC-17 movie, LUST, CAUTION is doing much better on DVD market. But like what Greg Clark said to SHOWGIRLS...... LUST, CAUTION is making money on DVD the same way porn makes money on home video.
Reply
post #128 of 147
5/18/08 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KABONG View Post
No offense, but I'm with Devin on this one- I think most of us really don't give a shit about your kids, people.
That's a bit silly, though, because you don't have to pay attention to the ratings either. And it's not exactly unreasonable for parents to ask for some sort of shorthand so they know what their kids are seeing.

The problem is that the rating system itself is bizarrely lopsided (though honestly, it's hard to imagine a rating system that wouldn't be in one way or another) and that it's so completely tied to the economic prospects of a movie.

I'm not really sure there's a good way to fix this. Particularly when so many aspects of the problem are voluntary, adopted by studios or theaters or advertisers, not any central entity.
Reply
post #129 of 147
5/18/08 at 12:58pm
The comment about NC-17/Unrated films being advertised in papers is true. At least in Seattle from my experience. I know I've seen ads for Shortbus when it was about to be released.
Reply
post #130 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:11pm
Is it true that Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17/Unrated movies in the states? Here in Canada, the nearest Blockbuster has shit-tons of unrated versions of R-rated movies, and a few that explicitly state their NC-17 rating (Bad Lieutenant and The Dreamers come to mind).
Reply
post #131 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:25pm
That wasn't true during the time I worked there (99-05). We definitely carried the unrated versions of movies including The Dreamers.
Reply
post #132 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:31pm
I think it's pretty clear that Devin's not talking about papers in New York or L.A. , both of which are "industry towns", or Seattle, which is more progressive, but the Midwest and Southern papers, many of which will not run ads for NC-17 movies, period.
Reply
post #133 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
That wasn't true during the time I worked there (99-05). We definitely carried the unrated versions of movies including The Dreamers.
No unrated version of THE DREAMERS

There are only two versions of this movie: NC-17 version and R-rated version.
Reply
post #134 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chans View Post
No unrated version of THE DREAMERS

There are only two versions of this movie: NC-17 version and R-rated version.
This is a very pointless post, either you got what I meant or you are very dumb.
Reply
post #135 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:45pm
From what I know, Blockbuster do carry unrated movies, but they don't carry NC-17 movies.... It is irony, I know....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Is it true that Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17/Unrated movies in the states? Here in Canada, the nearest Blockbuster has shit-tons of unrated versions of R-rated movies, and a few that explicitly state their NC-17 rating (Bad Lieutenant and The Dreamers come to mind).
Reply
post #136 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
This is a very pointless post, either you got what I meant or you are very dumb.

Yes, maybe you are right and I'm fucking dumb.

I just want to state again that Fox had never released unrated version of THE DREAMERS.
Reply
post #137 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chans View Post
Yes, maybe you are right and I'm fucking dumb.

I just want to state again that Fox had never released unrated version of THE DREAMERS.
I was responding to Slade, I am sure you are correct, but pointing it out does nothing to invalidate or reinforce my point. So you must be trying to be a dick.
Reply
post #138 of 147
5/18/08 at 2:53pm
Wouldn't Blockbuster in Canada go by the applicable ratings system used in whatever province the store happens to be located in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Is it true that Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17/Unrated movies in the states? Here in Canada, the nearest Blockbuster has shit-tons of unrated versions of R-rated movies, and a few that explicitly state their NC-17 rating (Bad Lieutenant and The Dreamers come to mind).
Reply
post #139 of 147
5/18/08 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
I was responding to Slade, I am sure you are correct, but pointing it out does nothing to invalidate or reinforce my point. So you must be trying to be a dick.

I didn't want to invalidate or reinforce your point; I just wanted to give some additional infos.
Reply
post #140 of 147
5/19/08 at 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post
Wouldn't Blockbuster in Canada go by the applicable ratings system used in whatever province the store happens to be located in?
Actually not sure. The Canadian ratings system is weird; similar enough to the MPAA's to be confusing when it varies from province to province An American Werewolf In Paris, for one random example, is rated 14A (adult accompaniment for anyone under 14) in Alberta, and R (no one under 18 admitted at all) in Ontario. Go figure.
Reply
post #141 of 147
5/19/08 at 1:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Is it true that Blockbuster doesn't carry NC-17/Unrated movies in the states?
No. They carry Unrated versions of flicks (dvd releases). But that may not be what you're asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
I think it's pretty clear that Devin's not talking about papers in New York or L.A. , both of which are "industry towns", or Seattle, which is more progressive, but the Midwest and Southern papers, many of which will not run ads for NC-17 movies, period.
In all fairness, those towns don't allow their youth to get "foot loose" either.
Reply
post #142 of 147
5/19/08 at 2:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
In all fairness, those towns don't allow their youth to get "foot loose" either.
They wear their Sunday shoes all week long.
Reply
post #143 of 147
5/19/08 at 4:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
No. They carry Unrated versions of flicks (dvd releases). But that may not be what you're asking.
It was what I was asking, thanks. For some reason I was under the impression that if a DVD is available R-rated or Unrated, BB will always carry only the R-rated, in the US at least. Wasn't there an R-rated video cut of Showgirls for this purpose?
Reply
post #144 of 147
5/19/08 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
It was what I was asking, thanks. For some reason I was under the impression that if a DVD is available R-rated or Unrated, BB will always carry only the R-rated, in the US at least. Wasn't there an R-rated video cut of Showgirls for this purpose?
I'm not sure...but maybe they've changed their strategy recently b/c it's hard NOT to get the Unrated version* these days. They tout it like it's a badge of honor.




*Of any particular movie...not just Showgirls.
Reply
post #145 of 147
5/19/08 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Then substitute DPP for BBFC in my post and it remains true. It was ridiculously, horrifyingly Orwellian.
That's fair, and you'd have my agreement.
Reply
post #146 of 147
5/19/08 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
It was what I was asking, thanks. For some reason I was under the impression that if a DVD is available R-rated or Unrated, BB will always carry only the R-rated, in the US at least. Wasn't there an R-rated video cut of Showgirls for this purpose?
I think this changed around 2002, but I could be wrong. Theres also two kinds of Blockbuster stores: Corporate and Independent. I worked for an independent one which did not have as many rules regarding movies that could be stocked, breaks for employees, the amount of free rentals you get (7 a week!), uniforms, etc....basically, they just paid to use the Blockbuster name. It's one of the few Blockbusters I've ever seen with a healthy stock of Criterion DVDs.
Reply
post #147 of 147
5/19/08 at 11:03am
Children should be outside commiting crimes, not indoors watching films with naughty words in.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The MPAA Bows Down To Disney