NationStates Jolt Archive

The MPAA annoucned it will be changing how it rates movies after much criticism, ntoably from the independent film This Film is Not Yet Rated. They will also release information about their raters that previously were kept anonymous.

News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_en_mo/film_movie_ratings)
MPAA Website (http://www.mpaa.org)


PARK CITY, Utah - Hollywood's movie-ratings system, which critics call a secretive process that leaves filmmakers in the dark, will implement changes to make it more open and understandable to parents and filmmakers, its overseers said.

Dan Glickman, who heads the Motion Picture Association of America that manages the ratings system, plans to meet with filmmakers Monday at the
Sundance Film Festival to discuss the plans.

The most substantive change for directors would be in the appeals process, allowing filmmakers to cite similar objectionable scenes in past movies when trying to overturn what they think is an overly harsh rating that restricts the ages of movie-goers.

The ratings system and its appeals process were harshly criticized in director Kirby Dick's documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which premiered at Sundance last year.

Dick's film said the ratings system was stacked in favor of big studios represented by the MPAA and against independent filmmakers such as those who attend Sundance. His documentary also accused movie raters of conducting an anonymous process in which filmmakers and the public do not know who rates the movies or what standards are used to judge the films.

Arriving in Utah on Saturday, Glickman said the changes to the system were not prompted by Dick's documentary. Glickman said the revisions had been in the works since 2004, when he took over the MPAA from Jack Valenti, who founded the ratings-system in the late 1960s.

"The system works very well. What's clear to us is we need to do a better job of explaining the system, of making sure people know it's transparent, it's not secret, it's open and it's accessible," Glickman said.

At Monday's meeting at Sundance, Glickman will be accompanied by Joan Graves, who heads the MPAA's Classification and Ratings Administration that uses panels of raters to decide if movies should get an NC-17, R, PG-13, PG or G rating.

Among other changes the MPAA plans:

• Posting the names of its three senior raters on the association's Web site. Other raters will remain anonymous, but details on their background, families and where they come from will be posted online.

• Enforcing a policy to ensure that raters have school-age children, which the association's overseers said was important so raters could give parents proper perspective on what might be inappropriate for kids.

• Putting information online about the association's standards for rating movies, along with forms and instructions to filmmakers for submitting movies for rating.

• Providing clearer definitions of movie ratings and sterner warnings to parents about films that might contain material inappropriate for younger children.

Dick said he was glad the association now would allow filmmakers to cite similar scenes from other films in the appeals process, but that other changes were cosmetic and would have little or no effect on making the ratings system more open.

"I don't think this is a decent first step," said Dick, whose "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" comes out on DVD on Tuesday. "A decent first step would be to create transparency around the whole system. Make known the names of all the raters and the people on the appeals board. They say the ratings system is for the public. Well, if it's for the public, the names should be public."

Glickman said he expects the changes to be implemented by March, when he and officials of the National Association of Theatre Owners hold an annual meeting with cinema operators at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas.

The ratings system will remain under review, particularly as digital technology changes how consumers view movies, Glickman said. As they have for the past four decades, changes will be implemented as needed, he said.

"Like the U.S. Constitution — and I'm not saying we're the U.S. Constitution, of course — the basic framework, the basic document has lasted for over 200 years. It's been changed periodically but the fundamentals have remained," Glickman said. "I personally see no need for what I call revolutionary change."

Finally, the rating system currently in place absolutely sucks. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom's PG rating is one example, although not the best. The ratings are just two narrow and do not account for differences between drugs, sex, and violence, as well as the fact that there should be more than two ratings between 'everyone' and 'no one under 17'.

Sel Appa uses a seven-tier system with modifiers for drugs, sex, violence, etc...

I have never understood the reason for the 'Supernatural Themes' rating, I mean it's sound so puritanical and all, can't such things just go under Horror or Adult themes.

I dunno, I say it should just be up to parents on a movie-by-movie basis anyway. Shouldn't be letting the MPAA be parenting their kids, making those kinds of descisions for them.

What does it matter if the raters have "school-age children" or not? Given what parents allow their kids to get away with these days this is hardly something that fills me with any confidence. I work at a theater and I see plenty of parents who have no issue with bringing their 6yr old to see Saw III. Having children isn't neccessarily going to make you a "fairer" rater.

Aren't those ratings sorta meaningless, legally. Sure, people use them to decide what their kid sees, but the theaters and stores selling DVDs can admit or sell to who they like. Seems like theaters can void the entire process themselves if they wanted.

If the film industry didn't self-regulate, the government would take over the censorship themselves, and have said as much.

Aren't those ratings sorta meaningless, legally. Sure, people use them to decide what their kid sees, but the theaters and stores selling DVDs can admit or sell to who they like. Seems like theaters can void the entire process themselves if they wanted.

Yeah actually I bought an R-rated movie from Target once...I thought they kept those off the shelves...

If the film industry didn't self-regulate, the government would take over the censorship themselves, and have said as much.

That was the rationale when the Hays Code was put into effect, but I doubt the government would want to or try to regulate to the same level the film industry has currently self-regulated if they decided to step in.

I never had a problem how films were rated and just felt those people just needed something fresh to bitch about. What a pointless waste of good time.

I never had a problem how films were rated and just felt those people just needed something fresh to bitch about. What a pointless waste of good time.
The problem is that an R-rating can cut down the number of screens a movie opens on by a third, which can have a drastic effect on the success or failure of a film.

When you add that weight to the leverage that a studio has on screens, being able to package lesser films on the promise of the larger blockbuster later that summer, it has a cumulative effect on edging out smaller productions and independent films. When the process is arbitrary, you get things like Clerks, which got an initial rating of NC-17.

That's actually a problem.

That was the rationale when the Hays Code was put into effect, but I doubt the government would want to or try to regulate to the same level the film industry has currently self-regulated if they decided to step in.
With the Hayes Commision it wasn't "or we're going to" but that they already were. The Catholic Decency League (I may have fucked up their name, I don't feel like looking it up right now) was already editing films in order to be played in certain states and an early court decision (later reversed) had ruled that films where not protected speech.

I dunno, I say it should just be up to parents on a movie-by-movie basis anyway. Shouldn't be letting the MPAA be parenting their kids, making those kinds of descisions for them.

The problem, they would argue, is that the parents would then have to pre-screen every movie themselves before letting their children see it. With the rating system if their kids see something objectionable the MPAA can at least say, "Look, we told you that shit was in there."

I'd like to see them move away from the whole age-rating thing. Just tell us what potentially offensive material is in the movie and use adjectives to indicate the severity. For example: mild profanity, gory violence, frequent depiction of drug use, etc.

I'd like to see them move away from the whole age-rating thing. Just tell us what potentially offensive material is in the movie and use adjectives to indicate the severity. For example: mild profanity, gory violence, frequent depiction of drug use, etc.


I see no reason to do that, the age rating things works fine as is. Getting rid of it may harm childrens movies but allowing a way to mask content not suitable for kids. No mask, just be upfront and say it may not be suitable for some age groups.



POST 666! ALL HAIL THE UNDERWORLD OF DEMONIC POSTERS!

You honestly thought i'd give you a real link?:rolleyes:

You honestly thought i'd give you a real link?:rolleyes:

Huh?

I see no reason to do that, the age rating things works fine as is. Getting rid of it may harm childrens movies but allowing a way to mask content not suitable for kids. No mask, just be upfront and say it may not be suitable for some age groups.



POST 666! ALL HAIL THE UNDERWORLD OF DEMONIC POSTERS!

Interestingly enough the blanket age rating system is what allows things to be masked. The reality is that there are things that bother different parents, and by not having a transparent and consistant system regarding what gets that blanket age rating system then something that wasn't offensive to the rating body but is offensive to another parent has in fact been masked.

With the adjectives, similar to the rating system that movie channels have used (that, lets face it, determined if you where going to watch that movie at 1am on Cinemax...N/AC? Aw yeah, Cinemax Soft Core!) will actually identify what may or may not be offensive and allow the parents to make a determination on the appropriateness of the film on their own instead of relying on a shadowy group of strangers to make an arbitrary decision that this film is okay for kids over 13 and this one isn't.

Huh?
I'm just being a bit crafty.;)
Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12234316&postcount=40)