The MPAA Ratings System Needs Replacement

[HG Revolution]

OK, we all know the MPAA system isn't consistent, and in particular, the whole idea behind the NC-17 rating is broken. I have yet to see any of the changes they were announcing back in January go into effect. Now, Aang Lee's Lust Caution is going to be the next film to suffer the backlash from an NC-17 rating. Does the content deserve that rating? Perhaps, but it's theatrical and rental prospects are unfairly doomed because of it. I think it's time for this failed system to be replaced.

For a replacement, instead of a vague categorization with little account for parent's personal values, each film would get a rating for violence, for sexual content, and for suggestive behavior (drugs and language) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a non-issue and 5 being extreme. That way, someone with a higher tolerance for one category and a lower tolerance for another would know exactly what they're getting into. For example, a movie like Lord of the Rings would receive a 4 for violence, but a 1 for sex and a 2 for behavior. As for physical restrictions, I don't know exactly how it would work. Maybe movies with at least one four require children 13 and under to go with a parent and movies with at least one five require all minors to go with a parent. Anyway, it'd be harder to outright remove films from theaters with a system like that.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I don't see it worth being changed. The rating system TV uses is like that, sorta, and people find *that* too complicated to use.

[tucsoncoyote]

Actually it is rather interesting.. Because why did the NC-17 rating come about? It's because originally we had the 'X' as in 'X'-Rated.

As I recall only one 'X' Rated movie ever was produced, an that is of course Midnight Cowboy, and even though the movie was successful, I think what happened is that we had the introduction of all the "Adult" movies and how they used and Abused 'X' to it's full potential.

Now as for NC-17, Siskel and Ebert really hated the idea of NC-17.. They wanted to use the A or AO rating... but the MPAA in all it's wornderful ignorant wisdom dumped us on the NC-17.. And again just like Midnight Cowboy, we had I believe Showgirls who was NC-17. (mostly for the nudity I might add).

But as for the MPAA Rating? and the TV ratings? they're sort of like the Comic Book code of 1952. They're toothless, and one thing that keeps a lot of movies in the 'R' Rating is because they don't want the dreaded 'Red Letter" of either 'X' or the 'NC-17' Rating.

As for PG-13? You can thank Spielberg for that one, as it seems he made Indiana Jones and he thought it was personally more violent and graphic than what the PG rating gave.. In fact he even stated he wouldn't take his children (who were under 13 at the time), to the movie. So in a way you can see how that got started..

But Frankly is the MPAA Ratings out of date? Yeah I think they are. Why? Because Like I stated a Lot of Movies that get an 'R' usually have to cut a lot out to keep out of the danger zone of NC-17.

Frankly I think the MPAA needs to reconsider how to do their ratings.. so maybe then also TV could do the same.. Because honestly.. would any parent let their pre-teen kid to go see a PG-13 movie? Of course not, but a PG? It's normal for them to go in droves.. and in fact theaters today don't even card kids... so I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kids get into R rated movies.. After all if the theaters don't care, what is their bottom line? Selling tickets no matter what the age.

And if you think G is bad? it's not bad.. It's really the fact that the Disney Stigma that makes it feel like it's a kid's movie.

So in the end.. The MPAA rating is flawed.. and needs a major overhaul I feel.

:coyote:

[Rolling Cloud]

As for PG-13? You can thank Spielberg for that one, as it seems he made Indiana Jones and he thought it was personally more violent and graphic than what the PG rating gave.. In fact he even stated he wouldn't take his children (who were under 13 at the time), to the movie. So in a way you can see how that got started..

Wasn't that just for Raiders of the lost ark? and, for the violent ending?

[SirLemming]

I think they're more or less doing what you're talking about by adding the content descriptors below the ratings. These days it's easy to see if a movie is, like LOTR, rated PG-13 for fantasy violence, which to many parents is acceptable given the context; or if it's more like I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, rated PG-13 for sexual content and crude humor, which many parents would prefer to keep their children away from.

If anything, they should probably beef up the PG and PG-13 ratings. PG-13 often feels too much like heavy PG (I mean, Bean? Seriously!), and many movies that shouldn't really be rated R get edited down to PG-13. Allowing a few more swears in PG-13 movies probably wouldn't be such a bad thing. And context should matter more too. All ratings systems emphasize content over context.


Overall, though, I don't think the MPAA system is too bad, compared to things like the video game ratings system. As far as the NC-17 thing goes, that's really the fault of the theaters and the distribution companies. There's always going to be a highest rating that inevitably gets associated with the most extreme movies. It's inherent to a ratings system. What you suggested wouldn't change that; there'd still be a highest. A movie with all of the content ratings at maximum would be looked down upon just as much as an NC-17 movie, most likely. (Or maybe even just a high sex rating.)

As long as there's any ratings system at all, it's up to the constituents to be bold enough to allow the maximum rating to be used.

I guess the only solution would be to set the bar for the highest rating low enough that it encompasses a huge amount of movies, too many to ignore. Somehow I don't think that would work, though. Not sure if I can give a good reason for why.

[HG Revolution]

Overall, though, I don't think the MPAA system is too bad, compared to things like the video game ratings system. As far as the NC-17 thing goes, that's really the fault of the theaters and the distribution companies. There's always going to be a highest rating that inevitably gets associated with the most extreme movies. It's inherent to a ratings system. What you suggested wouldn't change that; there'd still be a highest. A movie with all of the content ratings at maximum would be looked down upon just as much as an NC-17 movie, most likely. (Or maybe even just a high sex rating.)

The MPAA system is worse than the ESRB IMO. Less consistant, and the AO rating is much more sparingly given than the NC-17, at least.

I'd think three rating systems would make it harder for bans to be done, actually, since it'd invoke more debates over sex vs. violence and such without a single letter kiss of death which most people don't even know the meaning of. A lot of mainstream R-rated movies would get a 5 or two anyway, and I don't think theaters would wanna push those away.

[DarthGonzo]

As for PG-13? You can thank Spielberg for that one, as it seems he made Indiana Jones and he thought it was personally more violent and graphic than what the PG rating gave.. In fact he even stated he wouldn't take his children (who were under 13 at the time), to the movie. So in a way you can see how that got started..


Actually, I thought Gremlins was responsible for that one.

[HG Revolution]

Actually, I thought Gremlins was responsible for that one.

Both films came out around the same time, and together caused the push for the PG-13.

[Zorak Masaki]

Actually it is rather interesting.. Because why did the NC-17 rating come about? It's because originally we had the 'X' as in 'X'-Rated.

As I recall only one 'X' Rated movie ever was produced, an that is of course Midnight Cowboy, and even though the movie was successful, I think what happened is that we had the introduction of all the "Adult" movies and how they used and Abused 'X' to it's full potential.


:coyote:

Actually, werent "A Clockwork Orange","Fritz the Cat", and "Street Fighter (the sonny chiba one, NOT the video game one)" all originally rated X? IIRC, it wasnt until they were rereleased that they became R-rated.

[HG Revolution]

Actually, werent "A Clockwork Orange","Fritz the Cat", and "Street Fighter (the sonny chiba one, NOT the video game one)" all originally rated X? IIRC, it wasnt until they were rereleased that they became R-rated.

Yes, but they weren't successes with the X rating.

[William C. Maune]

OK, we all know the MPAA system isn't consistent, and in particular, the whole idea behind the NC-17 rating is broken. I have yet to see any of the changes they were announcing back in January go into effect. Now, Aang Lee's Lust Caution is going to be the next film to suffer the backlash from an NC-17 rating. Does the content deserve that rating? Perhaps, but it's theatrical and rental prospects are unfairly doomed because of it. I think it's time for this failed system to be replaced.

For a replacement, instead of a vague categorization with little account for parent's personal values, each film would get a rating for violence, for sexual content, and for suggestive behavior (drugs and language) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a non-issue and 5 being extreme. That way, someone with a higher tolerance for one category and a lower tolerance for another would know exactly what they're getting into. For example, a movie like Lord of the Rings would receive a 4 for violence, but a 1 for sex and a 2 for behavior. As for physical restrictions, I don't know exactly how it would work. Maybe movies with at least one four require children 13 and under to go with a parent and movies with at least one five require all minors to go with a parent. Anyway, it'd be harder to outright remove films from theaters with a system like that.

The NC-17 rating doesn't remove the movie from theaters itself, it's just that a lot of theaters choose to not show NC-17 movies. However, there are still plenty of "art house"/independent theaters that don't choose not to show those movie and will air this movie anyway.

Even if they did the ratings as you proposed, theaters could just as easily choose to show movies that receive a "5" in one or more categories.

[HG Revolution]

Even if they did the ratings as you proposed, theaters could just as easily choose to show movies that receive a "5" in one or more categories.

At least with discernible categories, it's not as easy to be blind as seeing one symbol describing the whole film.

[Peter Paltridge]

If some parents can't figure out the ratings we have now, they'd be COMPLETELY LOST with three different ratings at once.

There is no perfect rating system; there is nothing that can satisfy parents and allow movie producers to make what they want at the same time.

[Lord Dalek]

Yes, but they weren't successes with the X rating.Actually Clockwork Orange was a major success despite the X-rating (which was still in its early stages at the time and was basically what we would consider an R-rating). Also the X-rated Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider were huge successes.

I can't see why Lee isn't pushing for an unrated rating for his latest film outside of arrogance on his part. The NC-17 is more or less a negative branding on a film now with very few pictures (Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Cronenberg's Crash are the exceptions) managing to overcome it and break even. With that sort of rating you're also basically taking away any chances of getting video store shelf space too limiting exposure.

[William C. Maune]

I can't see why Lee isn't pushing for an unrated rating for his latest film

Now that you mentioned it, I'm surprised by that as well. Requiem for a Dream went the unrated route and it did pretty well.

[Strollymonster]

The movie "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was actually a pretty good insight to the insanity/inanity that is the MPAA. There's no solid guidelines, only the consensus opinion that a clandestine cabal of unknown people decide. They don't have to account for their decisions at all.

My opinion? They should just have Congress pass some all-encompassing Media Rating Act that will create a council of elected/accountable officials that review all media and give it a clear rating based on a set of published and known guidelines. With any luck they might just take the ESRB system over the unnecessarily complex MPAA system.

[SirLemming]

My opinion? They should just have Congress pass some all-encompassing Media Rating Act that will create a council of elected/accountable officials that review all media and give it a clear rating based on a set of published and known guidelines. With any luck they might just take the ESRB system over the unnecessarily complex MPAA system.

Are you sure that's wise? Currently it's a voluntary system. Bringing government control into it could be a very bad thing.

Plus, they have way more important things to do, or that they should be doing.



BTW, if you don't understand how the "voluntary" system works, I think that means that nobody has to get a rating, but they usually do so that stores and distributors and theaters will know how to sell them. Unrated is always an option, and actually, with the advent of DVD, it's becoming a more popular and acceptable option. It seems to be good for sales, considering how many movie DVDs boast about being unrated whereas in reality they're probably only unrated because they've added 1 minute of footage that the MPAA hasn't seen.

[The Weed Of Cri]

I get the vapors every time someone talks about replacing the MPAA, largely because most of the people who have done it in the past were either politicians who wanted more control over film content, or disgruntled filmmakers who didn't get the rating they wanted on their film and are squawking out of childish malice. The latter can be safely ignored and the former must be feared.

The Big Question is: what do we replace it with? Jack Valenti spent years setting up and honing a self-regulatory agency that did not advocate open censorship. Not everybody was happy about it, but not everybody will be happy about anything. A new agency would face the same challenges, with the added complication that today's filmmakers have fewer inhibitions about what they are willing to commit to film, and a more vocal populace wanting to put in their woefully uninformed two cents (I worked as an Operations Manager for a movie theater chain for seven years, and I guarantee you that the people who complain the loudest about what their kids see in movies are the same ones who pay the least attention to ratings and who, in instances I've witnessed myself, have literally no understanding of what those ratings mean). Any new ratings or advisory board would be potentially more complicated and difficult to understand (and justify). The only agency that can set up that kind of bureaucracy is short time is the government who, coincidentally, is the last agency we should be trusting with the job.


The movie "This Film is Not Yet Rated" was actually a pretty good insight to the insanity/inanity that is the MPAA. There's no solid guidelines, only the consensus opinion that a clandestine cabal of unknown people decide. They don't have to account for their decisions at all.

I must respectfully disagree. That movie was hissy fit propaganda. There are no solid guidelines, because that would hamper the appeals process (yes, there is one. Speilberg successfully appealled the NC-17 ratings originally given to "Saving Private Ryan") and if you get too specific about how much needs to cut contingent on getting a favorable rating, it is a form of censorship. The people making the ratings are "unknown people" so they cannot be bribed, like the people whose TV-viewing habits decide the Neilsen ratings. And they are not held accountable for their decisions to protect them from lawsuits from studio lawyers who may want to recoup the losses from a colossal flop by suing for damages. All this is common knowledge to anyone with access to a good search engine. Why do suppose none of it is mentioned in "This Film is Not Yet Rated.?


My opinion? They should just have Congress pass some all-encompassing Media Rating Act that will create a council of elected/accountable officials that review all media and give it a clear rating based on a set of published and known guidelines. With any luck they might just take the ESRB system over the unnecessarily complex MPAA system.

As much as I would like to see a bunch of septugenarian Congressmen debate how many seconds of Halle Berry's next money shot would mark the line between one rating and another, it ignores the fact that government's primary function is to perpetuate the government. In the year I was born, the U.S. Tax Code was 267 pages long. In 2001 (when I actually researched this) the Tax Code was 42,840 pages long. And I'm not that old. How long will it be before a government movie code gets similarly complex?

[HG Revolution]

I must respectfully disagree. That movie was hissy fit propaganda. There are no solid guidelines, because that would hamper the appeals process (yes, there is one. Speilberg successfully appealled the NC-17 ratings originally given to "Saving Private Ryan") and if you get too specific about how much needs to cut contingent on getting a favorable rating, it is a form of censorship. The people making the ratings are "unknown people" so they cannot be bribed, like the people whose TV-viewing habits decide the Neilsen ratings. And they are not held accountable for their decisions to protect them from lawsuits from studio lawyers who may want to recoup the losses from a colossal flop by suing for damages. All this is common knowledge to anyone with access to a good search engine. Why do suppose none of it is mentioned in "This Film is Not Yet Rated.?

Maybe having unknown people makes sense for preventing bribes, but as This Film... also showed, it also creates the danger of having unqualified board members. Also, if the system worked, then there'd be no real excuse to sue for damages. The appeals system is more hard than it should be. I mean, for the longest time, they wouldn't even let you reference other films in your appeal cases (they said that they were changing that back in January this year, but I haven't heard anything since of those changes going into effect). If creating a new system is too difficult (though other country's systems make more sense to me than the MPAA; for example, in Japan's system, only graphic hardcore pornography warrants more than an R rating), then at least they should add in Ebert's idea for an "A" rating inbetween the R and the perhaps unavoidable extreme stigma of the NC-17.

[DarthGonzo]

Meh, the ratings system is fine the way it is, especially now that they have specific notes in the rating regarding what the film contains. I see no reason to change it.

[Doggeh]

Meh, the ratings system is fine the way it is, especially now that they have specific notes in the rating regarding what the film contains. I see no reason to change it.

I agree. Theres no point in changing it.

I work at a theater and a majority of the time I'm out in the box office. The only time I ever card is for R rated (we don't get the NC-17s) movies. We don't need to for PG-13 or under.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Twenty or thirty years ago Airplane was getting away with topless females and the 's' word in a PG, but now...


Anywho, I think the only probably is what or what does not constitute a PG-13. While Singer wanted a PG rating for Superman Returns he, in return, got a PG-13 rating while the much more violent and action packed Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, got a PG rating. If anything the line between the two ratings need to be more clearly defined, or at the very least, given looser regulations or whatever...

[HG Revolution]

Meh, the ratings system is fine the way it is, especially now that they have specific notes in the rating regarding what the film contains. I see no reason to change it.

The fact NC-17 films are essentially banned from the majority of theaters, and a lot of utterly insipid judgments (Whale Rider PG-13 for a half-second sight of a bong? Ma Vie en Rose rated R for the same type of "brief mild language" used in the PG-rated Beetlejuice? South Park not being allowed to use Hell in the film's title while nobody objects to Hellboy? A brief sex scene in American Psycho being somehow more offensive than the brutal murders in the edited version of the same film? And why the hell is it OK to show male masturbation in G-rated trailers when a woman even talking about masturbation results in an R?) would prove otherwise.

[HG Revolution]

I work at a theater and a majority of the time I'm out in the box office. The only time I ever card is for R rated (we don't get the NC-17s) movies. We don't need to for PG-13 or under.

The problem is exactly that: you don't even get the NC-17s.

[SirLemming]

Twenty or thirty years ago Airplane was getting away with topless females and the 's' word in a PG, but now...


Anywho, I think the only probably is what or what does not constitute a PG-13. While Singer wanted a PG rating for Superman Returns he, in return, got a PG-13 rating while the much more violent and action packed Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, got a PG rating. If anything the line between the two ratings need to be more clearly defined, or at the very least, given looser regulations or whatever...

This is sort of why I'm suggesting that the ratings be beefed up. I think we have enough ratings for the system to work, but PG-13 and R are overused. Pretty much all of the superhero movies really should be PG. Even Batman Begins only seems to have the -13 because it's generally gritty and scary-looking; there's barely any sexual content or profanity, and the violence, while intense, is far from brutal or bloody. It could be shown on network TV with minimal, if any, edits.
And with the possible exception of that one scene in Reloaded, the Matrix trilogy is pure PG-13. I guess realistic guns are looked down upon, but the way they're used is really over-the-top fantasy stuff and not too bloody. The R rating for Revolutions is particularly baffling. What reasonably mature teenager would be damaged by seeing anything in that movie?

If we beefed up the lower ratings a bit, the R rating would become the "hard R" that many critics and filmmakers have been pushing for.


I guess the other component that has to work to make things better here is the parents. That's who the MPAA is really afraid of. Irresponsible parents will take their kids to a PG movie because they're allowed to, assuming that someone would force them to leave their kids behind if there was something in the movie they wouldn't want their kids to see. What they need to understand is that what's good for some kids isn't necessarily good for their kids -- it's their job to figure that out. Parental Guidance means just that.

[The Weed Of Cri]

Maybe having unknown people makes sense for preventing bribes, but as This Film... also showed, it also creates the danger of having unqualified board members. Also, if the system worked, then there'd be no real excuse to sue for damages. The appeals system is more hard than it should be. I mean, for the longest time, they wouldn't even let you reference other films in your appeal cases (they said that they were changing that back in January this year, but I haven't heard anything since of those changes going into effect). If creating a new system is too difficult (though other country's systems make more sense to me than the MPAA; for example, in Japan's system, only graphic hardcore pornography warrants more than an R rating), then at least they should add in Ebert's idea for an "A" rating inbetween the R and the perhaps unavoidable extreme stigma of the NC-17.

Unqualified by whose standards? Motion pictures are a consumer-targetted commodity. Who's more qualified to judge what is appropriate for the public: members of that public who have no dogs in the race, or people within the industry whose primary concern will be how their next film will be judged?

You can't reference other films in an appeals process for the same reason you can't reference other people's crimes at your own trial: because it's irrelevant to your case, which must stand ultimately on its own merits.

If the filmmaking community wants to lobby for changes in the current system, they have the means to do so. It's been done several times in the past. When I was kid, the four basic ratings were G, GP, R, and X. And I don't even remember what "GP" stands for; I only know it was replaced with PG (which I'm sure made sense to someone). But in less than forty years, the system has been changed no less than four times. Don't throw out what can be fixed.

[HG Revolution]

Unqualified by whose standards? Motion pictures are a consumer-targetted commodity. Who's more qualified to judge what is appropriate for the public: members of that public who have no dogs in the race, or people within the industry whose primary concern will be how their next film will be judged?

You can't reference other films in an appeals process for the same reason you can't reference other people's crimes at your own trial: because it's irrelevant to your case, which must stand ultimately on its own merits.


Unqualified by their own standards. The MPAA says they hire parents of children under 18 to rate the films. The children of most of the raters are over 18, if they have children at all. Personally, though I wouldn't want people in the film industry on the board, I think it might improve things to hire child psychologists. That's what some of the European ratings systems do, if I'm correct.

Other films are relevant to your case. I mean, if one film gets a PG for the same reason another film gets an R, then something is certainly bizarre. Maybe it's just me, but hypocrisy is a big personal pet peeve of mine. Dan Glickman has actually acknowledged this and said he wanted to change this along with the make-up of the board, but I've yet to hear anything happen, so I'm somewhat doubtful.

[Wounded_Dragon]

I guess the other component that has to work to make things better here is the parents. That's who the MPAA is really afraid of. Irresponsible parents will take their kids to a PG movie because they're allowed to, assuming that someone would force them to leave their kids behind if there was something in the movie they wouldn't want their kids to see. What they need to understand is that what's good for some kids isn't necessarily good for their kids -- it's their job to figure that out. Parental Guidance means just that.


I've seen parents bring their babies into R-rated movies now. I don't see a new system changing these kind of people.

[SirLemming]

I've seen parents bring their babies into R-rated movies now. I don't see a new system changing these kind of people.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Without their help making the system work, change might be useless or even impossible.

[Doggeh]

I've seen parents bring their babies into R-rated movies now. I don't see a new system changing these kind of people.

Oh yeah. That happens a lot. I saw a couple bring their toddler aged kids into Superbad just last week.

[Peter Paltridge]

What's the most bizarre R attachment you've ever seen?

My vote is for Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, which contains a few bloody punches and one swear word. Even its trailer got a Red Band and there was NOTHING bannable in that trailer.

[The Clown Prince]

Wasn't that just for Raiders of the lost ark? and, for the violent ending?

Actually, it was for Temple of Doom. The way I've always heard it the PG-13 rating was created because of that film specifically for the heart ripping out scene because it was felt that it was too intense to be PG, but not intense enough for an R rating. But in the end Temple of Doom was rated PG. Gremlins, as someone here mentioned came out in 1984 and was rated PG, the same year as Temple of Doom. The Last Crusade came out in 1989 and was PG-13 and Gremlins 2 came out in 1990 and was PG-13.

Robocop almost got an X rating because of the scene where ED-209 blows the guy away in the board room was drawn out a little too long and graphic, and Murphy's long and grisly death was also a little long and graphic. Small edits were made to shorten those scenes up, but now that unedited version has been made available since the Criterion DVD edition and the now released 20th Anniversary DVD.

Spielberg just this year successfully appealed an R rating for what was thought to be for Transformers because of too much intense and drawn out action, but reports weren't clear if this was the case and indeed if the rating was for Disturbia. Shia Lebeauf spoke about it, but it wasn't mentioned what film indeed it was for.

Spielberg is a BIG name in Hollywood and if he feels he has been wronged, he will fight for it. We've seen it before as someone already mentioned Saving Private Ryan. Hell, Spielberg got the FCC to let it be shown unedited on ABC two/three years ago.

Every system is flawed, and I have my opinions about the MPAA, but currently it seems to work for the most part. I don't agree that when an NC-17 is given the stigma means it will be a failure because theater owners won't touch it. Owners don't want the "controversy" or possible pickets by overzealous parents or religous groups. They don't want to man up either and actually do the work to enforce that no one under 17 gets in. All it takes is to post an usher outside a theater showing an NC-17 at all times to check ID everytime someone tries to walk in. People who are adults ARE adults and can make up their own mind if they want to see an NC-17 or not. If it wasn't for home video, NOBODY would get to see such work.

I tend to think that too many members of the MPAA are parents and teachers and that an equal amount of people with, without, work with, or don't work with kids should be a part of the board. We might see a more fair system.

It's funny how we treat sex and violence in the U.S. We've seen PG-13 films push the boundary for violence and frightening images. It is more intense than it used to be. But throw sex in any film and it's almost an R rating. However in Europe, it's the opposite. Sex and nudity is more tolerated in film and on TV, and it's violence that's shunned upon.

The U.S.'s movies get a lot of play in foreign countries. Does anyone know what the figures are or maybe an average of how many films get tight ratings because of how many "violent" films we tend to prouduce?

The Clown Prince

[RedKnight]

Meh, I don't think it's worth changing. Sure, some people complain and some ratings are absolutely ridiculous, but it all comes down to personal decisions at the end of the day. You'll always have some parents complaining no matter how you rate, simply because tastes, values and principles vary so much from family to family.

Any type of rating system can only serve a a rough indicator, IMHO. In that respect, the MPAA system is just fine, I think.

[HG Revolution]

Meh, I don't think it's worth changing. Sure, some people complain and some ratings are absolutely ridiculous, but it all comes down to personal decisions at the end of the day. You'll always have some parents complaining no matter how you rate, simply because tastes, values and principles vary so much from family to family.

If parents are always going to complain, at least you could then try to appeal to filmmakers by actually getting NC-17 films released.

[SirLemming]

What's the most bizarre R attachment you've ever seen?

My vote is for Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, which contains a few bloody punches and one swear word. Even its trailer got a Red Band and there was NOTHING bannable in that trailer.
My vote still goes to the previously mentioned The Matrix: Revolutions -- it has less blood than the CB movie. Some of the violence is kinda "ouch" but it's hardly graphic. And there's even less sexuality in it -- CB did have one almost-shot of Faye's boobs and some disturbing scenes between her and Vincent. It shouldn't be R-rated, but I think Revolutions is more baffling. It doesn't have a profanity-laced song in the credits (the original Matrix used Marilyn Manson's "Rock is Dead" in the credits, which has 4 F words), and it doesn't have a sex scene.

[HG Revolution]

The lamest excuse ever for an R rating would have to be the French film Ma Vie En Rose. What was it rated R for? "Brief mild language". WTF? There was one slur and an F-bomb or two, but it was all subtitled, and nothing more than what most PG-13 films get away. If there's an unspoken reason for its rating, it's that the MPAA was nervous about the film's transgender themes. A shame it got rated R, since it's actually a very good film for tweens to watch with their parents.

[Mynd Hed]

What reasonably mature teenager would be damaged by seeing anything in that movie?

EVERYONE who saw that movie came away damaged, but it had nothing to do with the amount of sex, violence, or language. (-:

[Punisher]

EVERYONE who saw that movie came away damaged, but it had nothing to do with the amount of sex, violence, or language. (-:-_-

Matrix Revolutions>You

[James Bester]

-_-

Matrix Revolutions>You
Wow......nice insult. How old are you?

And I think pretty much everyone knows that Matrix Revolutions was terrible. Dude, if you find that entertaining, then I suppose you find punching yourself in the face to be even more entertaining.

[Punisher]

And I think pretty much everyone knows that Matrix Revolutions was awesome. Dude, if you don't find that entertaining, then I suppose you find punching yourself in the face to be entertaining.Fixed for great justice

[James Bester]

Fix'd for great justice
That's cute. That's real cute. Changing my posts to make my opinion seem different for your own amusement. I believe that's a violation of Toonzone and I hope Jizzi boob girl Kury bans your ass!!

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Fixed for great justice

You're just making his point. Quit with with childish acts and get back on topic, 'kay?


Now, where was I?


I think what's really funny is just how spineless the MPAA can be. Spielberg and Lucas seem to be able to be the ones rating their movies (RotS, Indiana, etc.) which I think is really funny.


Speaking of Indiana, I REALLY have to watch those films.

[James Bester]

Speaking of Indiana, I REALLY have to watch those films.
Nah, I wouldn't. They're pretty gay to tell the truth.

[Punisher]

You're just making his point. Quit with with childish acts and get back on topic, 'kay?Yeesh. Would some chocolate help you deal with your period?

Nah, I wouldn't. They're pretty gay to tell the truthI wouldn't say gay as much as overrated to the point where someone new to the franchise is going to be really let down if they have high expectations.

[James Bester]

I wouldn't say gay as much as overrated to the point where someone new to the franchise is going to be really let down if they have high expectations.
Uh, I digress. They are flamingly homosexual. As in you'd rather look at Zechs' transvestite fantasy pics than watch those things.

[Tanooki]

thread derailment plus trolls? yeah. we have a mess here, folks