NationStates Jolt Archive

The MPAA evidently thinks now that religion is something that people should be warned about for content - so now the depiction of a religious theme can get you a PG rating as fast as the word "fuck".

So the page I read this on had a new movie rating system, and I thought it would be a good idea if we thought of some more.

The original page is at: http://www.observer.com/20060619/20060619_Bruce_Feirstein_thecity_newyorkersdiary.asp

I thought of GT-13 (gay themed movie potentially offensive to Pat Robertson types), and

AF-13 (America first - movies like Team America, The Green Berets, and any movie that shows the US in a good light, even in cynical jest)

—RH-13: Revisionist History. Contains characters, dialogue and historical conclusions that bear no resemblance to what actually occurred. Sometimes designated OS-13, in honor of Oliver Stone.

—PP-13: Product Placement. Contains images of toys, cell phones, luxury automobiles or other brand-name consumables that may be inappropriate for easily suggestible children under the age of 60.

—CF-13: Conventional Family. Traditionally gendered husband and wife, with 2.4 kids. And a dog. View at your peril.

—VP-13: Vanity Project. May contain OTTA (Over-the-Top Acting), or depictions of MSwFD (Movie Star with a Fatal Disease.) Sometimes rated LD/DA/FaC: Last-ditch desperate attempt for comeback by a fading movie star who’s cut his/her fee to appear in a low-budget film. Occasionally rated VI, for Very Important; somewhat less frequently rated OC-17, for Oscar Contender.

—-IAAF-13: It’s All America’s Fault. Any post-9/11 film with political overtones, wherein we learn that the real threat isn’t Al Qaeda, but a middle-aged white guy working for a sinister corporation (or the C.I.A.) and somehow involves Big Oil.

—S/S-13: A so-so film that got much better reviews than it deserved, mainly because it was better than 99 percent of the rest of the dreck reviewers are forced to sit through every rear. Lord, take pity on their souls.

—PD-13: Pretentious Dissembling. The critics think it’s a boring, badly executed disaster film; the director insists it’s an allegory for the failures of the Bush administration in every human endeavor. May also be rated RS-O (Red State Offensive) at the producer’s discretion.

—PM-13: Post-Modernist. Reconceptualizes the context and social construct of archetypal themes and iconic, beloved characters. Translation: No, Batman isn’t gay. But he sure acts like it.

—FP-13: Franchise Potential. Warning: Viewing this mindless film in a theater will set off an irreversible chain of events leading to a sequel. Particularly offensive to cineastes that are repulsed by films with Roman numerals in the title.

—3M: Murder, Mayhem, Misogyny; or Mutants, Morons, Malevolence. Whatever.

—RP-13: Reviewer-Proof. Contains language, sequences and story elements that will offend the critics, delight the audience and infuriate competing movie studios—resulting in a slew of copycat films 18 months later, all of which will fail at the box office.

—DVD-13: A Renter. Otherwise, may lead to fidgeting and an abrupt exit from the theater. In extreme cases, viewers have been known to beseech the heavens: Why can’t Hollywood make better movies?

Personally, I think a movie deserves an PG rating for any content that encourages or promote superstitions, while full frontal nudity should be allowed in G-rated movies. But that's just because I think parents should worry more about how their child learns values than about sheltering their offspring from every seeing boobies.

The MPAA evidently thinks now that religion is something that people should be warned about for content - so now the depiction of a religious theme can get you a PG rating as fast as the word "fuck".

Ooooh, awesome! How convenient of them to warn me. :)

Personally, I think a movie deserves an PG rating for any content that encourages or promote superstitions, while full frontal nudity should be allowed in G-rated movies. But that's just because I think parents should worry more about how their child learns values than about sheltering their offspring from every seeing boobies.
I don't think movies should have any ratings at all.

If parents don't take the time to research the content of a movie that their children will see, they aren't being parents.

As for everyone else - you know a bad movie when you see one, and can walk out.

I don't think movies should have any ratings at all.

If parents don't take the time to research the content of a movie that their children will see, they aren't being parents.

As for everyone else - you know a bad movie when you see one, and can walk out.
But...but won't somebody please think of the children?!

But...but won't somebody please think of the children?!
Hopefully their parents will think of them.

It shouldn't be the government's job. I believe movie ratings and game ratings to be an infringement on free speech.

I don't think movies should have any ratings at all.

If parents don't take the time to research the content of a movie that their children will see, they aren't being parents.

As for everyone else - you know a bad movie when you see one, and can walk out.
I think ratings are useful, but they shouldn't be used to restrict who can see a movie.

I find it handy to know, without seeing a movie, roughly what level of violence or sex to anticipate. It doesn't usually make any impact on whether or not I see that movie, but it might impact (for example) whether I choose that movie for my first date with a new person. :)

But I don't think kids should be blocked from seeing R movies or anything, and I certainly don't agree with NC-17 movies being so strongly restricted.

Hopefully their parents will think of them.

It shouldn't be the government's job. I believe movie ratings and game ratings to be an infringement on free speech.

Well... it's not the government's job, not in America, anyway.

Both the MPAA and the ESRB are independent organisations and, frankly, their ratings aren't legally enforceable.

Well... it's not the government's job, not in America, anyway.

Both the MPAA and the ESRB are independent organisations and, frankly, their ratings aren't legally enforceable.
They do it out of fear that the government will step in, as it has threatened to do in the past.

It's still them doing it.

Now, here in the UK, it's a different matter, as ratings are legally enforceable.

EDIT: Well, the BBFC ones, anyway. PEGI's voluntary ones aren't.

But...but won't somebody please think of the children?!

Why should I think about you?




;)

all ratings and censorship should be done away with. First amendment!:upyours:

Hopefully their parents will think of them.

It shouldn't be the government's job. I believe movie ratings and game ratings to be an infringement on free speech.

I think that saying movies and games cant be rated is an infringement upon free speech.

I think that saying movies and games cant be rated is an infringement upon free speech.
How so?

all ratings and censorship should be done away with. First amendment!:upyours:

Stop me if I'm wrong, but the First Amendment only stops the Government from doing it, not the companies themselves. The MPAA, for example, consists of major Hollywood studios.

Or, y'know, you could get rid of the rating system entirely and leave it to the parents to enforce viewing rules.

How so?
I'll go out on a limb here and say that Not Bad means that:

It is a infringement on the Freedom of Expression of the people doing the rating to not allow them to rate the movies/games. Especially if the ratings are voluntary, and parents can allow their children to view/play if they so desire. (For example, by accompanying them to the theatre, or buying/renting the movie/game.)

Personally, I think a movie deserves an PG rating for any content that encourages or promote superstitions, while full frontal nudity should be allowed in G-rated movies. But that's just because I think parents should worry more about how their child learns values than about sheltering their offspring from every seeing boobies.

Yeah, but when I hear full frontal nudity, what I think of is: http://www.celebritycd.com/angieeverhart/angie20.html



Not: http://www.geocities.com/gregariousmonks/Wilford-Brimley-03.jpg


And I agree on seeing boobies- They should be displayed upon demand.

Not: http://www.geocities.com/gregariousmonks/Wilford-Brimley-03.jpg
But Mr. Brimley comes with a satisfaction guarantee!

all ratings and censorship should be done away with. First amendment!: upyours :
How do ratings violate the first amendment?

How do ratings violate the first amendment?
Actually they don't. It's putting restritions on what minors, who have fewer rights than adults as it is, can see. As an adult over 18 it puts no infringments on you, but if you are a minor, then the MPAA says that you, as a child in the legal sense, should not see this movie. I get the feeling that the only ones complaining are angsty teens who can't get into r rated movies because they are still considered children, which is true to an extent.

But Mr. Brimley comes with a satisfaction guarantee!


I hope he is never able to satisfy me.

Actually they don't. It's putting restritions on what minors, who have fewer rights than adults as it is, can see. As an adult over 18 it puts no infringments on you, but if you are a minor, then the MPAA says that you, as a child in the legal sense, should not see this movie. I get the feeling that the only ones complaining are angsty teens who can't get into r rated movies because they are still considered children, which is true to an extent.
I figured as much.

How about one rating:

I propose "Raise-Your-God-Damn-Children-Well-And-It-Wont-Matter-What-Movies-They-Watch" as a universal rating.

How about one rating:

I propose "Raise-Your-God-Damn-Children-Well-And-It-Wont-Matter-What-Movies-They-Watch" as a universal rating.
R.Y.G.D.C.W.A.I.W.M.W.M.T.W. is a bit long. Why not B.A.F.P.Y.(Be A Fucking Parent Yourself)?

How about one rating:

I propose "Raise-Your-God-Damn-Children-Well-And-It-Wont-Matter-What-Movies-They-Watch" as a universal rating.

That means that parents might just have to notice their children. As long as children take away a parents precious time, it'll never happen.

That means that parents might just have to notice their children. As long as children take away a parents precious time, it'll never happen.
"It takes a village to raise a child" -Native American proverb.

"It takes a village to raise a child" -Native American proverb.

Bullshit. It takes two caring parents to rasie a child.

Bullshit. It takes two caring parents to rasie a child.
2 caring parents who must hold a job sometimes 2 to take care of the child. Jobs take time, which translates to not being able to be with the child as much. I don't think it's that parents don't care but that they can't make the time. It's freakin' hard to make time when you work. Can you imagine having to work a desk job all day with a boss that yells at you, makes you work over time, and then go home tired just so you can support the kids you supposedly don't care about? I do admit there are a lot of bad parents out there such as moms on welfare who buy their kidss $300 nikes.

"It takes a village to raise a child" -Native American proverb.
"It takes a Hillary to make up an urban legend"

If parents don't take the time to research the content of a movie that their children will see, they aren't being parents.


I'm not sure how it is done in the US, but in the UK the BBFC has moved to a more advisory role that helps parents research a film in advance. Which is why posters will also have a little, short descrption of objectional material in a box.

Hardley anything to get excited over or call for removal over.

But I know precious little about the US and MPAA, other then film makers seem loath to risk getting anything above an "R"

"It takes a village to raise a child" -Native American proverb.

"But the rest of us villagers have other stuff to do."

Bullshit. It takes two caring parents to rasie a child.
Why not one?

Why not one?

Point in your favor. I was raised by one parent after my dad died when I was 11. By herself with no damn village involved.

"It takes a village to raise a child" -Native American proverb.


I dont believe that- the last thing I want is outsiders deciding what would be good for my children.
Loving,attentive parents and a network of good friends and relatives, but fuck the village.

I dont believe that- the last thing I want is outsiders deciding what would be good for my children.
Loving,attentive parents and a network of good friends and relatives, but fuck the village.
A village was rarely more that 200 people. So you would be follwing that philosophy. :P

Now, here in the UK, it's a different matter, as ratings are legally enforceable.

They are enforcable by local councils, not the BBFC. Councils also have the right to not listen to the BBFC.

Examples would be Mrs. Doubtfire being shown as a PG in some areas even though the BBFC advised that it should be a 12.

Councils can also move in the other direction and ban films even if they are passed by the BBFC. For example Crash (David Cronenberg's film not the recent one), which is still banned from being shown in some councils.

I think movie ratings should be based on IQ rather than age. Think about it: "I'm sorry, sir, you're not smart enough to watch this film. Perhaps you'd enjoy the Vin Diesel movie in the next theater?"