Movie Ratings
Jedah
heard, the motion picture industry is being taken to task by congress
over the R rating. Hollywood's finally admitted to advertising R rated
movies with kids in mind. That's not good.
It comes down to a debate about kids' rights versus adults' rights and
an overused rating systems that isn't working. There are R rated
movies that come out all the time that honestly aren't all that bad if
a kid (and by kid, I mean under 17 and assume the 9-15 year old group
really) sees them. They may have some adult content or violence in
them, but aren't really all that bad (the Mummy).
Two-thirds of all movies that come out have an R rating, however, and
there's a big distinction between, say, Eyes Wide Shut and The Cell and
The Matrix and The Mummy. No studio wants a movie coming out with NC-
17 and a lot of theaters couldn't show the film if they did because NC-
17, according to most legal representations, is the same as "X" when
considering lease restrictions. (Most theaters are leased, even if
stand alone, and the leases specifically forbid "adult's only" movies
such as X, XX, XXX and, of course, NC-17). It just doesn't work.
Let's look at Star Wars (to get on topic). SW nominally gets a PG
rating. But look at TPM...lots of violence, and even though there's
only two scenes of someone really dying (Qui-Gon and Darth Maul),
there's still a lot of fighting-solves-everything involved. It's a PG
movie. Matrix is an R rated movie. Same amout of violence? Pretty
much, just more realistic and not in a Galaxy Far Far Away. Should SW
have an R rating? No, maybe PG-13... but regardless the point is that
there are differences between R rated movies.
The industry calls it "soft R" and "hard R" and expect everyone to know
which is which. That's ridiculous and totally destroys the idea of
ratings in the first place. However, there's one concept being kicked
around right now that may solve a few things, and personally I agree
with it...
A new rating, between PG-13 (which is mostly a flop anyway) and R. PG-
17. What's this rating? It's to tell parents that while the movie may
not be appropriate for children under the age of 17, it's not as
heavily adult as an R rated movie.
I'd feel more or less comfortable taking my kids to see a PG-17 movie
if it looked good and didn't seem to be all about sex and/or violence.
R rated movies I'd reserve for me and my wife and in a way, I'd be
happy to see that. More a division, films for adults, not kids, where
you don't have to worry as much about having a raving group of 14 year
olds screaming at the movie screen. Or worse, an idiot parent taking a
10 year old to a movie that will give them nightmares for years. While
it's all well and good to say parents should be more responsible, we
all know there will always be those who are totally clueless and we,
unfortunately, must help them out.
Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
Jedah
Champion for adults' rights and free speech
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
NeshaKovalick
>
> This seems both topical and somewhat SW related. As you've probably
> heard, the motion picture industry is being taken to task by congress
> over the R rating. Hollywood's finally admitted to advertising R rated
> movies with kids in mind. That's not good.
>
> It comes down to a debate about kids' rights versus adults' rights and
> an overused rating systems that isn't working. There are R rated
> movies that come out all the time that honestly aren't all that bad if
> a kid (and by kid, I mean under 17 and assume the 9-15 year old group
> really) sees them. They may have some adult content or violence in
> them, but aren't really all that bad (the Mummy).
But... why isn't it working? And how is a new rating system going to
make it work better? The problem isn't so much the rating system, as I
see it, it's that teenagers make up such a big market for those R-rated
movies. I'm cynical here... I can't see either the film industry or the
movie theatres willingly giving up that audience.
I'm a *lot* more willing to let kids see movies with some sexual
content, BTW, than violent movies, and I see a big, big, big difference
between TPM and The Matrix. TPM was a movie with *some* fighting in it.
I thought it was probably unsuitable for any child under the age of 5 or
so, but then I don't think any kid younger than that should see ANY
movie in the theatre with the possible exception of Barney or the
Muppets.
The Matrix - which I quite liked - was a veritable monument to the
concept of "gratuitous violence." I don't think that anyone under the
age of 18 should have seen it.
>
> Two-thirds of all movies that come out have an R rating, however, and
> there's a big distinction between, say, Eyes Wide Shut and The Cell and
> The Matrix and The Mummy. No studio wants a movie coming out with NC-
> 17 and a lot of theaters couldn't show the film if they did because NC-
> 17, according to most legal representations, is the same as "X" when
> considering lease restrictions. (Most theaters are leased, even if
> stand alone, and the leases specifically forbid "adult's only" movies
> such as X, XX, XXX and, of course, NC-17). It just doesn't work.
And most studios don't want to release a movie with a G or PG rating,
because teenagers avoid them and teenagers are the age group which
attends the most movies. That's what causes a lot of movies with
verrrrrry slight adult content to get bumped up into PG-13 or R ratings.
I can't see that changing because the ratings system changes.
And *that* is going to be the big difficulty in any system. I won't
take my preteens to any movie rated PG-13, nor will I allow them to
watch the video. OTOH, I'll take my teenager to any serious movie she
wants to see. And, uh, I confess that I allowed her and her friends to
watch American Pie but they had to listen to my lecture on why it was a
stupid movie *first*.<G> For that matter, I shocked the local librarians
by signing a form saying that the teenager was allowed to check
*anything* out of the library that she chose. Did you know that many
major library systems *still* do not allow even teenagers to check out
adult books without specific permission?
But some people are not willing, or able, to provide that kind of
supervision. I don't really understand it, myself. The problem is that
it isn't just a difficulty for that particular family - we've ALL got to
live with those kids. I often wonder what has become of the little boy
who related the plots of all the Freddy Krueger movies to my daughter
when they were in 1st grade...he had problems then and I bet he's got a
lot more problems 10 years later.
You can come up with any rating system you want. I can't say that I
have any real problem figuring out which movies are okay for my kids and
which aren't. I just don't see how you enforce the system, especially
when there is so much profit involved.
>
> Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
> Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
> stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
>
> Jedah
> Champion for adults' rights and free speech
>
Nesha
Policrat'
> This seems both topical and somewhat SW related. As you've probably
> heard, the motion picture industry is being taken to task by congress
> over the R rating. Hollywood's finally admitted to advertising R rated
> movies with kids in mind. That's not good.
>
> It comes down to a debate about kids' rights versus adults' rights and
> an overused rating systems that isn't working. There are R rated
> movies that come out all the time that honestly aren't all that bad if
> a kid (and by kid, I mean under 17 and assume the 9-15 year old group
> really) sees them. They may have some adult content or violence in
> them, but aren't really all that bad (the Mummy).
>
> Two-thirds of all movies that come out have an R rating, however, and
> there's a big distinction between, say, Eyes Wide Shut and The Cell and
> The Matrix and The Mummy. No studio wants a movie coming out with NC-
> 17 and a lot of theaters couldn't show the film if they did because NC-
> 17, according to most legal representations, is the same as "X" when
> considering lease restrictions. (Most theaters are leased, even if
> stand alone, and the leases specifically forbid "adult's only" movies
> such as X, XX, XXX and, of course, NC-17). It just doesn't work.
>
> Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
> Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
> stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
>
> Jedah
> Champion for adults' rights and free speech
Hmm... in the UK, we have a '15' rating which kinda fills the role you're
suggesting for 'PG-17' (although under-15s are barred flat out... in theory
at least), and works quite well...
But IMHO the problem isn't with the ratings, it's with education. Two major
reasons kids are 'affected' or 'influenced' by the stuff the adult world
doesn't want them to see are (a.) because they know the adult world's stuck
it on the top shelf; and (b.), because they don't have the intellectual,
critical or aesthetic faculties to deal with it.
Just my jam-jar...
Pol'
Wes Hutchings
Jedah <vade...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe
old
> Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose
the
> stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
A rating will not improve the situation. Changes in ratings have
always increased childrens exposure to that materil because it
then becomes taboo and parents tend to pay less attenetion to the
issue.
wes
>
> Jedah
> Champion for adults' rights and free speech
>
Jedah
No, but then you're not a movie exec looking down the barrel of
congress on an election year ;)
Teenagers do make up a large part of the market for R rated movies.
The thing is, you've got two problems here - one, can anyone
automatically tell, from the rating R that the film is a Sixth Sense
style adult movie or an Eyes Wide Shut near porno? Second, if you have
a "friendlier" rating, might not the parents who wouldn't allow their
kids to see an R rated movie let them go see something of a lower
rating?
> I'm a *lot* more willing to let kids see movies with some sexual
> content, BTW, than violent movies, and I see a big, big, big
difference
> between TPM and The Matrix. TPM was a movie with *some* fighting in
it.
> I thought it was probably unsuitable for any child under the age of 5
or
> so, but then I don't think any kid younger than that should see ANY
> movie in the theatre with the possible exception of Barney or the
> Muppets.
> The Matrix - which I quite liked - was a veritable monument to
the
> concept of "gratuitous violence." I don't think that anyone under the
> age of 18 should have seen it.
>
The Matrix had a lot of violence, but not a lot of gore or blood. Is
it really in the same catagory as Scream or even Nightmare on Elm
Street?
> >
> > Two-thirds of all movies that come out have an R rating, however,
and
> > there's a big distinction between, say, Eyes Wide Shut and The Cell
and
> > The Matrix and The Mummy. No studio wants a movie coming out with
NC-
> > 17 and a lot of theaters couldn't show the film if they did because
NC-
> > 17, according to most legal representations, is the same as "X" when
> > considering lease restrictions. (Most theaters are leased, even if
> > stand alone, and the leases specifically forbid "adult's only"
movies
> > such as X, XX, XXX and, of course, NC-17). It just doesn't work.
>
> And most studios don't want to release a movie with a G or PG
rating,
> because teenagers avoid them and teenagers are the age group which
> attends the most movies. That's what causes a lot of movies with
> verrrrrry slight adult content to get bumped up into PG-13 or R
ratings.
> I can't see that changing because the ratings system changes.
>
Well in truth it's not the studio who decides the rating. They guess,
and cut out parts of movies to fit ratings. Yes, a studio could still
try to force R's on everything...but if people stop letting their kids
go to R movies and instead let them go to the PG-17's, where do you
think the focus will be? And if the standard for the two are
different, then the same movie, which could be R or PG-17, will have to
cut what makes it R if they want to sell to PG-17.
I knew all the plots to Freddy movies...and all the Friday the 13th,
and the Blob, and the Thing, etc., etc. I'm not a homicidal maniac
(except on every third Tuesday...) Did the kids who saw Psycho in the
50's go nuts? Did the kids who danced to Elvis become pawns of Satan?
I used to be one of the people who didn't understand why people
couldn't control what their kids saw or did...then I got kids. I'm a
responsible parent, I take care of my kids and there are movies I don't
let them watch. On the other hand, there are times I can't control
what they are watching, like when they are at their biological father's
house, or when they are with the sitter (recently fired) who didn't
care what they popped into the VCR. Not everyone can monitor their
children 24-7.
> You can come up with any rating system you want. I can't say
that I
> have any real problem figuring out which movies are okay for my kids
and
> which aren't. I just don't see how you enforce the system, especially
> when there is so much profit involved.
>
I don't think enforcement's the issue. Theaters could more strictly
enforce the R rating now. They don't and they won't. And the point of
ratings really aren't to enforce, they are supposed to inform. Would I
feel better taking a kid to a PG-17 than an R rated movie? Yes. Would
I let a teenager go see a PG-17 movie...if I thought they could handle
it, sure. That's the point...I'd know what the general content is. R
right now is such a broad band that you can't possibly know, from the
rating, what the movie might contain, and whether or not you should or
could take a kid to it. Sure, the easy answer is "don't ever take the
kid", but that's narrow minded. Hell, I went to see R rated movies as
a kid, and yes, it was a thrill. I remember going to see Teen Wolf
which was, at the time, R rated (yup, I remember it!) So trying to ban
kids altogether just won't work.
As an example of what I mean about information in a rating. I never
ever heard a damn thing about the movie Three Kings before it came
out. I watch TV and all, but never caught an add, didn't know anything
but the fact George Clooney was in it (because the theater proudly
proclaimed it). It was an R rated movie. Would it be o.k. to take the
kids to? I don't know... I know that Sixth Sense, also an R rated
movie, would scare the crap out of them. I know, on the other hand,
that they love the Matrix and I don't have a problem with them watching
it any more than I have a problem with them watching Sailor Moon. So
which is it? How do I know from the rating? If it were PG-17, I'd
know. If it's R, I know I don't want to take my kids.
The rating's not for the kids...it's not for the theater...it's not for
the studios. It's for the parents wanting to know what the hell a
movie is really like. It's funny...TV shows have a more complete
rating system than movies! Go figure!
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> > would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
> > Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
> > stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
> >
> > Jedah
> > Champion for adults' rights and free speech
> >
>
> Nesha
>
Jedah
Rocky Horror is still R rated...
Nick Coghlan
>
> Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Jedah:
>
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> > would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
> > Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
> > stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
> >
> > Jedah
> > Champion for adults' rights and free speech
>
> suggesting for 'PG-17' (although under-15s are barred flat out... in theory
> at least), and works quite well...
Australia is similar:
G
PG
M(15+)
R(18+)
Most movies that come out are M-rated - R-rated seems to fit what Jedah
described as "hard R" in the US.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
===========================================================
Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia
ICQ#: 68854767 | ncog...@email.com
Mobile: 0409 573 268 | http://oneofthesedays.not.there
"It is better to deserve honours and not have
them, than to have them and not deserve them" -Mark Twain-
===========================================================
Adam Burakowski
Jedah wrote:
Man, I've been seeing R movies since I was just a little kid, and I'd have
to say I'm *better* for it. Lots of great movies are R rated, yet(I take a
big influence from some movies, I'm a huge movie fan, as shown by my
gigantic DVD collection(200+))they have shaped the person I am in a positive
way. If I had been shut off from them, well who knows how I would have
turned out. :)Besides, I have never told my parents what I'm going to go
see. If I did, it wouldn't be the truth. Admittedly, that's more due to
family problems, *however*, if a teenager did want to see a movie, they
could very easily lie about it. :)
>
>
> > I'm a *lot* more willing to let kids see movies with some sexual
> > content, BTW, than violent movies, and I see a big, big, big
> difference
> > between TPM and The Matrix. TPM was a movie with *some* fighting in
> it.
> > I thought it was probably unsuitable for any child under the age of 5
> or
> > so, but then I don't think any kid younger than that should see ANY
> > movie in the theatre with the possible exception of Barney or the
> > Muppets.
> > The Matrix - which I quite liked - was a veritable monument to
> the
> > concept of "gratuitous violence." I don't think that anyone under the
> > age of 18 should have seen it.
> >
>
> The Matrix had a lot of violence, but not a lot of gore or blood. Is
> it really in the same catagory as Scream or even Nightmare on Elm
> Street?
I'm in agreement with you here. They're not the same type :)
Exactly :)Then they'd have to go and release the censored and uncensored
version on video later. Which doesn't seem like a problem, but what happens
when an adult by mistake buys the uncensored for their child, then they go
into a big huff about it? It's bound to happen.
I never saw AP in theatres, just on the uncensored DVD later. Sure it was
stupid, but it was still funny :)
Even my parents found it funny for some reason, they were laughing their
asses off(I could hear them from upstairs).
Whenever I have kids(hahahahaha, not for a lonnnnng time :) I'll let them
see what they want, but indeed, a speech would be in order before they see
certain things.
> For that matter, I shocked the local
> librarians
> > by signing a form saying that the teenager was allowed to check
> > *anything* out of the library that she chose. Did you know that many
> > major library systems *still* do not allow even teenagers to check out
> > adult books without specific permission?
> >
> > But some people are not willing, or able, to provide that kind
> of
> > supervision. I don't really understand it, myself. The problem is that
> > it isn't just a difficulty for that particular family - we've ALL got
> to
> > live with those kids. I often wonder what has become of the little boy
> > who related the plots of all the Freddy Krueger movies to my daughter
> > when they were in 1st grade...he had problems then and I bet he's got
> a
> > lot more problems 10 years later.
> >
>
> I knew all the plots to Freddy movies...and all the Friday the 13th,
> and the Blob, and the Thing, etc., etc. I'm not a homicidal maniac
> (except on every third Tuesday...) Did the kids who saw Psycho in the
> 50's go nuts? Did the kids who danced to Elvis become pawns of Satan?
In agreement here too :)I'm a huge horror movies buff. I love action
films(I must've watched Blade for some mindless entertainment 15+ times),
and I play violent games too.
Of course, I *am* a very violent person. But I have been since before those
negative influences. I also know how to control it from years and years of
trying. I used to get into fights every single *day* back in grade school.
Before the bad influences. *I* was just bad. :)
I'm still just as violent, but my *character* has changed, and I take it out
in more positive ways. I never feel the need to go out and cut people up
with my sword(which I do own :) after I watch Blade.
>
>
> I used to be one of the people who didn't understand why people
> couldn't control what their kids saw or did...then I got kids. I'm a
> responsible parent, I take care of my kids and there are movies I don't
> let them watch. On the other hand, there are times I can't control
> what they are watching, like when they are at their biological father's
> house, or when they are with the sitter (recently fired) who didn't
> care what they popped into the VCR. Not everyone can monitor their
> children 24-7.
Personally, I'm of the view that, after a certain point, I wouldn't control
what my kids(if I had any)would watch. If anything, I would explain the
situation, or watch it with them, or whatever. Similar to how I'd also give
my kids a very broad viewpoint on drug and sex issues. Since I've grown up
around a lot of people that did/do pretty much everything out of both
catagories, I have a large understanding of them. I had to give my brother
the drug speech, because of the crap they spew in schools about them. (Mind
you, I have never used myself, and I'm not interested, when I gave my
speech, I gave it from a non-biased viewpoint), same with the sex talk.
>
>
> > You can come up with any rating system you want. I can't say
> that I
> > have any real problem figuring out which movies are okay for my kids
> and
> > which aren't. I just don't see how you enforce the system, especially
> > when there is so much profit involved.
> >
>
> I don't think enforcement's the issue. Theaters could more strictly
> enforce the R rating now. They don't and they won't. And the point of
> ratings really aren't to enforce, they are supposed to inform. Would I
> feel better taking a kid to a PG-17 than an R rated movie? Yes. Would
> I let a teenager go see a PG-17 movie...if I thought they could handle
> it, sure. That's the point...I'd know what the general content is.
Personally, I'd like it if it was posted *why* it was R or whatever rating.
In some ads it has a tiny little thing that says why, but not usually.
Maybe a description in ads quickly of why it's rated that way.
> R
> right now is such a broad band that you can't possibly know, from the
> rating, what the movie might contain, and whether or not you should or
> could take a kid to it. Sure, the easy answer is "don't ever take the
> kid", but that's narrow minded. Hell, I went to see R rated movies as
> a kid, and yes, it was a thrill. I remember going to see Teen Wolf
> which was, at the time, R rated (yup, I remember it!) So trying to ban
> kids altogether just won't work.
Teen Wolf was R? I remember watching that a while back, I liked it :)
>
>
> As an example of what I mean about information in a rating. I never
> ever heard a damn thing about the movie Three Kings before it came
> out. I watch TV and all, but never caught an add, didn't know anything
> but the fact George Clooney was in it (because the theater proudly
> proclaimed it). It was an R rated movie. Would it be o.k. to take the
> kids to? I don't know... I know that Sixth Sense, also an R rated
> movie, would scare the crap out of them. I know, on the other hand,
> that they love the Matrix and I don't have a problem with them watching
> it any more than I have a problem with them watching Sailor Moon. So
> which is it? How do I know from the rating? If it were PG-17, I'd
> know. If it's R, I know I don't want to take my kids.
Again, this is where my "warning" thing comes up :)Three Kings was quite
good btw, I didn't think it would be...but it surprised me.
I'd want my kids to get a good scare while they still could ;)
I've been trying to find a movie that's "scary" for the past few
years...nothing going. I was really hoping Blair Witch would do it for me,
I watched that on DVD too. Lights off, sound high so I could hear
everything, various other ambient things that I set up...nothing. I got
bored of that so quickly. I even watched it all the way, just in case I was
wrong....nope.
>
>
> The rating's not for the kids...it's not for the theater...it's not for
> the studios. It's for the parents wanting to know what the hell a
> movie is really like. It's funny...TV shows have a more complete
> rating system than movies! Go figure!
>
> > >
> > > Anyway, this is just my two cents. I mean, I think a PG-17 rating
> > > would work well, eliminate a lot of confusion, and heck, maybe old
> > > Uncle George can make EPIII fit into such a rating so we loose the
> > > stupid "wizard" and "poodoo" comments.
> > >
> > > Jedah
> > > Champion for adults' rights and free speech
> > >
> >
> > Nesha
> >
>
> Jedah
> Rocky Horror is still R rated...
And it still rocks :)Can't wait for my annual October watching of it ;)
If only a local theatre would play it. I'd even go in costume.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Adam Burakowski