NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people I go to church with absolutely will not watch an 'R' rated movie nor will they allow their children to do so. I know a great many people follow this strategy and while I won't argue against its effectiveness in keeping stuff away from your home and kids, I personally see a flip side to the coin that makes it worth taking a closer look.

The MPAA and ESRB ratings are assigned by people who may, or may not, share the same beliefs and priorities that I do. Some movies are rated 'PG' that I think should have been rated more strongly, and some 'R' rated movies I've seen are well worth watching.

The same goes for games. Medieval II:Total War is rated T and yet I have no problem letting my 12 year old son play it. It's a really good strategy game and I suspect the reason has to do with the violence. For a mass combat wargame, individual soldiers are depicted and animated surprisingly well.

What I'm getting at is this: I think my own judgement is more valid than that of the MPAA or ESRB in terms of what I feel is apropriate for MY kids. There are 'R' rated movies I have no problem with them seeing, and there are a few 'PG' movies I'd steer them clear of. As a parent, the responsibility is mine for my kids' upbringing and to me, it isn't enough to just keep away anything that may even remotely be disturbing to them.

Sometimes, disturbing is a good thing. My son has asked me to let him watch Schindler's List. I think it would be a mistake to disallow that.

/soapbox

What do y'all think?

In the UK, that's exactly what the 12a classification is for, although most people just ignore them anyway, and that includes parents, I think. I'm fairly sure I was the only kid in primary school whose parents didn't let me have any video/game I wanted (good parenting, I think) but I had no problem getting into a few films at the cinema under age once or twice.

You misspelled ESRB.

Also I don't think my parents ever cared too much about what I watched or played.

I have yet to forgive my parents for sticking to PG 13 when Jurassic Park came out...

You misspelled ESRB.


Thanks. I fixed it in the post.

I guess I had the anacronym 'MSRP' on the brain as the wife and I bought a minivan last weekend ;)

The MPAA/ESRB are secretive committees made up of rich douchebags completely disconnected from the real world.

I can't recall being denied a movie or game due to ratings, though I do believe my parents controlled what I saw to some extent. I do think that personal taste plays a role in this - when I got Unreal Tournament several years ago, I was so disturbed by the gore level I turned it down. I don't like excessive gore or sexuality. When we borrowed Grand Theft Auto from our neighbor, my mom was disgusted by it. She didn't force us to stop playing completely, but she did ask that we not play it when she was around.

The thing is, my parents consider both movies and video games to have positive aspects. They are movie connisseurs of a sort, having introduced me and my brother to several older films (some of which I liked, some of which I didn't like). And they are never going to forget that my interest in history was started by Age of Empires.

As for my kids, I'll probably restrict their entertainment, but not excessively. I won't use hard-and-fast rules, but rely in instinct and judgement. Hell, I might come to NSG and ask about a game or movie.

If the ratings were made by random average people then I'd hold them to be helpful suggestions and little more, basically "This is what the average person thinks". Which won't help people whose idea of what is and isn't acceptable isn't average, but there's only so much they could do.

However, I don't know how the MPAA and ESRB come up with their ratings, so I won't say that about them.

In any case, if I were a parent I'd think I'd go to see the movies/play the games myself first. After doing that for a while I'd probably get a sense of how the ratings work and then just go by them.

T (for games) is approximately the same as PG-13 (for movies), which is generally for people aged 13+. So mature twelve-year-olds should have no trouble, while it's not suitable for immature older people (such as Jack Thompson).

I just wish they would have a more useful system - something like "contains prolonged Adam Sandler" so I knew which films to avoid.

The way they do their ratings is just silly.
afaik (correct me if I'm wrong), they have a list of things that can't be shown or said. Say or show the wrong thing and you get slapped with an M rating.

This is why in AvP movie, you don't see any human deaths - done solely to ensure it kept it's PG13 rating and thus maximise profits (since 13 yr-old boys would be the only ones interested in that tripe that was AvP).

The way they do their ratings is just silly.
afaik (correct me if I'm wrong), they have a list of things that can't be shown or said. Say or show the wrong thing and you get slapped with an M rating.

This is why in AvP movie, you don't see any human deaths - done solely to ensure it kept it's PG13 rating and thus maximise profits (since 13 yr-old boys would be the only ones interested in that tripe that was AvP).

The way movies are rated pretty much doesn't make any sense anyway. PG-13 has become the golden rating, just edgy enough to be cool. Of course, usually the movie is tripe to begin with.

T (for games) is approximately the same as PG-13 (for movies), which is generally for people aged 13+. So mature twelve-year-olds should have no trouble, while it's not suitable for immature older people (such as Jack Thompson).

There used to be a K-A rating (Kids to Adults). I don't know the specifics, but it just kinda vanished before the turn of the century. Probably got folded into "E."

As for Thompson...he couldn't handle Pac-Man. He'd claim it's all about getting children to pop pills and listen to bad techno music.

you mean to say it wasn't?!
how do you explain the 80s, then?

I was hoping someone would catch that ;)

you mean to say it wasn't?!
how do you explain the 80s, then?

It's the other way around. Popping pills and listening to bad techno music caused pac man. Well, that and not eating all of the pizza you ordered.

As for Thompson...he couldn't handle Pac-Man. He'd claim it's all about getting children to pop pills and listen to bad techno music.
you mean to say it wasn't?!
how do you explain the 80s, then?

The ESRB sucks.
1. It dosen't have anything between "T" and "M" which both destroy all humans and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of war both needed.
2. The rerating of Oblivion.
3. It even fails with it's current ratings (Although this could be considered a matter of opinon) Halo did not deserve to be rated "M"!

3. It even fails with it's current ratings (Although this could be considered a matter of opinon) Halo did not deserve to be rated "M"!

Well Halo didn't deserve worldwide acclaim, two sequels, god knows how many books, and a movie(eventually), so there you go. ;)

Realism is all that matters to me.

Well Halo didn't deserve worldwide acclaim, two sequels, god knows how many books, and a movie(eventually), so there you go.
It's all because everyone loves Master Cheif's armor. Admit, you love his armor too!:p But with all seriousness, it is a pretty good game. Maybe not the perfect score winning, Sequel spawning, #1 in all respects game that the fans would have us believe, but it's still pretty good.

I'd have no problem with letting a 12 year old child of mine play an 18 game. After all, once they're in Secondary school the only difference in knowledge of all matters is practical application!

There was a documentary on the working of the MPAA... Hell if I could remember the title.

I personally don't like MPAA and ESRB. There far too many movies that end up being slaughtered so that they obtain a more family-friendly rating, ruining the creators original intention. And even if they don't, they end up having 23 different versions along with the directors original cut, so that when i go rent a movie I must check its not a lame cut version.

I think those ratings are a good idea but people shouldn't pay so much attention to 'em, which is the reason production companies worry if their movie gets an R over a PG, and then "encourage" the film makers to cut their creation. And its all because parents don't want to take responsibility for their kids education, they dont want to have to explain things a more mature movie may prompt their kid to ask (of course, i'm not talking a about letting a 4year old see a porn movie or a psychological thriller about a serial killer), they just want to leave their kids in front of the TV so that IT educates them, all the while having each thing the TV shows have rating so they know what to let 'em watch, they dont sit next to their child and see if that G rated movie is good or indeed for all audiences, they just check the rating, and leave the TV to mind their kid.

So parents go to the MPAA/ESRB/whatever and say "hey how come? i want YOU to tell me what my kids can see so I don have to worry about it. I don care if its a stupid movie which promotes no values or deep-thinking, as long as its kid-friendly."

As you say "My son has asked me to let him watch Schindler's List. I think it would be a mistake to disallow that." Well I wish most parents were like you.

considering sex is rated worse than violence one has to wonder (the choice is school shootings or school orgies)

I personally think your better off making your own judgment (since its your kid I presume) though really you should be able to trust say a 14 year old with an 18 rated movie

A lot of people I go to church with absolutely will not watch an 'R' rated movie nor will they allow their children to do so. I know a great many people follow this strategy and while I won't argue against its effectiveness in keeping stuff away from your home and kids, I personally see a flip side to the coin that makes it worth taking a closer look.
My sister is like that. She says she'll never watch an R-rated movie in her life. She thinks drinking one sip of alcohol makes you an alcoholic. Etc...

I personally think a new system needs to emerge for movies that highlights how much drugs, sex, violence, action, language is in a movie. Some parents would be ok with violence but not sex. Others would be ok with sex but not violence.

My mate and I are on Church Council and play Grand Theft Auto after the service!

I dislike the ratings system. The ratings shouldn't have to be advertised with the movie. If parents aren't sure if their kids should watch a movie, they should decide it for themselves. Most people wouldn't take government advice on what punishments are appropriate for their children, why are they so eager to take government advice on what entertainment is appropriate for their children?

There was a documentary on the working of the MPAA... Hell if I could remember the title.

This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated?

My mother didn't care about ratings. If she did, she wouldn't have let her 11 year old daughter rent an R-rated movie... several actually...IT, Pet Cemetary, Tom Knockers, Carrie... and let her watch said movies unsupervised.

The MPAA and ESRB ratings are assigned by people who may, or may not, share the same beliefs and priorities that I do. Some movies are rated 'PG' that I think should have been rated more strongly [snip]

Can you give some exemples?

My mother didn't care about ratings. If she did, she wouldn't have let her 11 year old daughter rent an R-rated movie... several actually...IT, Pet Cemetary, Tom Knockers, Carrie... and let her watch said movies unsupervised.

Stephen King thing?

There was a documentary on the working of the MPAA... Hell if I could remember the title.

This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated?

Yes. I started a thread on the film last month. Some of the startling revelations in the film have been addressed, but not all of them (it was released in 2006). For example, no longer are MPAA Ratings Board members allowed to stay on the board when their children turn 18 (some of the old guard had "kids" in their 30s, and one had no kids at all after losing custody in a divorce). That's been fixed.

However, I don't know if one of the glaring iniquities has been addressed (CToaN would know) -- the fact that the head of the Ratings Board would be one of the eight who voted on ratings. In the case of a 4-4 tie, the head of the board would vote again, thus making the rating a matter of one person's opinion.

My mother didn't care about ratings. If she did, she wouldn't have let her 11 year old daughter rent an R-rated movie... several actually...IT, Pet Cemetary, Tom Knockers, Carrie... and let her watch said movies unsupervised.

Stephen King much?

Stephen King thing?

Stephen King much?

Yes actually. I was reading his stuff in grade 6 for the most part as well.

I watched other R-rated stuff and no one ever said I couldn't...

Hell, the first time I ever encountered an issue with ratings I was 22 and a clerk tried to card me for buying manga that was rated M. I just looked at him and said I was buying it either way. He just sold it to me.

As you say "My son has asked me to let him watch Schindler's List. I think it would be a mistake to disallow that." Well I wish most parents were like you.

You honor me. Thank you!

Can you give some exemples?

Experiencing a brain fart... I will post later when I remember ;)

Y'see, if I have kids, I'll just do the easy thing and not let them watch movies or play video games. Or use a computer without supervision. Or watch TV unless I pick the program. Or use electronic devices besides a cell phone that is forbidden to call anyone but myself and their mother.

And this is why I will never be a parent.

The way I see it, sheltering your kids isn't doing them any favors.

As my kids get older, I am more permissive about what they see on TV/movies/games. When I think they'r eold enough to handle the material, I cease restricting it. I figure if they're over at a friend's house or stumble upon something on late night TV or the Internet, I want them to already know how to handle it.

In my extended family are people who don't let their kids read Harry Potter or watch movies of that sort. Just imagine what other stuff they're not allowed to see. To me that's foolish. When these kids get out on their own the world isn't going to pull any punches just becase they were sheltered growing up.

I'm of mixed opinion. I fully agree that the MPAA has a downright goofy method of rating that too often puts good movies out of reach of those who ought to see them: Iron Giant, for instance, the best children's movie in the last 10 years, was rated PG and was kept away from children who really ought to see it. But at the same time, I also think that we get the ratings we deserve: a lot of people really are, however dumbly, more concerned about sex than violence, and as such, the ratings board reflects that better than would an alternative such as a return to the Hays Commission.

Yes actually. I was reading his stuff in grade 6 for the most part as well.

I watched other R-rated stuff and no one ever said I couldn't...

Hell, the first time I ever encountered an issue with ratings I was 22 and a clerk tried to card me for buying manga that was rated M. I just looked at him and said I was buying it either way. He just sold it to me.

That's the spirit!

I personally think a new system needs to emerge for movies that highlights how much drugs, sex, violence, action, language is in a movie. Some parents would be ok with violence but not sex. Others would be ok with sex but not violence.
This makes sense. Ratings should be useful for determining what'll be in the film without having to watch it. They won't be 100% accurate, of course, but I don't think anyone expects them to be.
I dislike the ratings system. The ratings shouldn't have to be advertised with the movie. If parents aren't sure if their kids should watch a movie, they should decide it for themselves. Most people wouldn't take government advice on what punishments are appropriate for their children, why are they so eager to take government advice on what entertainment is appropriate for their children?

The ESRB and MPAA don't have anything to do with the government. The idea behind having ratings has been so people can get an idea about whether the movie/game is suitable without having to part with their money. At least, that's what I thought.

Some parents would be ok with violence but not sex. Others would be ok with sex but not violence.

It's better if you combine them ;)

The way I see it, sheltering your kids isn't doing them any favors.

As my kids get older, I am more permissive about what they see on TV/movies/games. When I think they're old enough to handle the material, I cease restricting it. I figure if they're over at a friend's house or stumble upon something on late night TV or the Internet, I want them to already know how to handle it.

In my extended family are people who don't let their kids read Harry Potter or watch movies of that sort. Just imagine what other stuff they're not allowed to see. To me that's foolish. When these kids get out on their own the world isn't going to pull any punches just because they were sheltered growing up.

All I have to say is...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Terrific.gif

I've been watching R movies since I was 12 and playing MA games since I was 8. Usually violence and blood/gore isn't much of a problem. My parents know that I'm not a violent kid so they don't really care. However, anything with sexual content I usually don't watch with my parents just because it's awkward. O_o

A lot of people I go to church with absolutely will not watch an 'R' rated movie nor will they allow their children to do so. I know a great many people follow this strategy and while I won't argue against its effectiveness in keeping stuff away from your home and kids, I personally see a flip side to the coin that makes it worth taking a closer look.

The MPAA and ESRB ratings are assigned by people who may, or may not, share the same beliefs and priorities that I do. Some movies are rated 'PG' that I think should have been rated more strongly, and some 'R' rated movies I've seen are well worth watching.

The same goes for games. Medieval II:Total War is rated T and yet I have no problem letting my 12 year old son play it. It's a really good strategy game and I suspect the reason has to do with the violence. For a mass combat wargame, individual soldiers are depicted and animated surprisingly well.

What I'm getting at is this: I think my own judgement is more valid than that of the MPAA or ESRB in terms of what I feel is apropriate for MY kids. There are 'R' rated movies I have no problem with them seeing, and there are a few 'PG' movies I'd steer them clear of. As a parent, the responsibility is mine for my kids' upbringing and to me, it isn't enough to just keep away anything that may even remotely be disturbing to them.

Sometimes, disturbing is a good thing. My son has asked me to let him watch Schindler's List. I think it would be a mistake to disallow that.

/soapbox

What do y'all think?

when my son was of an age to be barred from certain movies and games i took the ratings as warnings, which is how i think they are meant to be taken.

if a movie has an R rating, it has it for a reason. i would check that movie out before i would take my ....10 year old.. to it. same with pg-13. i dont think i ever denied my son the opportunity to see a pg move though.

anyway, there were a few R rated or pg-13 rated movies that i felt was OK for my son to see. letting some nameless faceless group make that decision for me would have been silly.

Going back to the religion side of things, the only time I've been thoroughly confused by someones attitude to sex and violence was when I was staying at the house of some Dutch/Taiwanese Christian Evangelicals (long story). We ended up watching War, with Jet Li. It's pretty violent, with people being shot stabbed beaten and generally sliced up in a fairly graphic manner. This was all fine, however and the family wasn't bothered at all. Then some woman took her top off. This causes the son to dive for the remote, apologising to his parents profusely for allowing boobs to be seen on their screen. I've never understood this idea that slicing a bicep steak is fine, but a breast is some sort of crime. Very strange.

I've been watching R movies since I was 12 and playing MA games since I was 8. Usually violence and blood/gore isn't much of a problem. My parents know that I'm not a violent kid so they don't really care. However, anything with sexual content I usually don't watch with my parents just because it's awkward. O_o

I understand that. The firs drive-in movie my parents took the whole family to see was a double feature:

Slap Shot and Animal House.

Yeah. I grew up knowing perhaps a bit more than I should have according to most parents, but I've never regretted it. In fact, I thank my parents for it regularly.

Going back to the religion side of things, the only time I've been thoroughly confused by someones attitude to sex and violence was when I was staying at the house of some Dutch/Taiwanese Christian Evangelicals (long story). We ended up watching War, with Jet Li. It's pretty violent, with people being shot stabbed beaten and generally sliced up in a fairly graphic manner. This was all fine, however and the family wasn't bothered at all. Then some woman took her top off. This causes the son to dive for the remote, apologising to his parents profusely for allowing boobs to be seen on their screen. I've never understood this idea that slicing a bicep steak is fine, but a breast is some sort of crime. Very strange.

Yep, them humans are really weird creatures. Or is it stupid creatures? I must say I'm more inclined towards the later...