MPAA Targets Batman

[James Harvey]

I read this article a few weeks back on some website (can't remember) and I meant to post it but kept putting it off. Anyways, here we go. The MPAA (Motion Pictures Association of America) is considering loking back on some films from the late 80s and early 90s and re-rating them for future video/cinema rereleases, either dropping the PG-13 down to PG or up to R. I read that BATMAN RETURNS would be one of the movies they'd up to an R. Now, my question is...why up the rating? I think the PG-13 suits it. There's no bad language except for one or two words, and the vast majority of the violence is bloodless. There's no reason to. This is just another example of the stupidity behind the MPAA. Comments?

[Mr. Obsession]

Maybe it would be for the directors cut? From what I hear while the cut scenes do make it a much better film they also make it a darker (not that hard to do ) and more violent film. So if that's the case then maybe it deserves the R rating.



insert edit: Oops, I misread the previous post. I was thinking FOREVER not RETURNS.

[Salvor]

Thank god we don't have that in France... ahh, the liberal and democratic American model...

[watsonlives]

i would like to see a DVD with added footage. a directors cut mabey

[optimal321]

Oui, les americains peuvent ete tres stupid quelquefois. Mais toi, tu habites en france ou les films ne "rated" pas trop mauvais. Hope that made sense!

[Calhoun07]

Personally, and this may shock those of you who have read my previous posts about how I hate the ratings system on the old boards, but I'm ok with this. Well, I'm ok with it if they LOWER the ratings, but raise the ratings? How can you tell a kid who used to watch Batman, "Sorry, Timmy, but this one is now rated R." ??????? Doesn't make sense!

As times change, so should the ratings. Does anybody on here think Last Tango in Paris is still deserving of an X rating? (hasn't that one been reduced to an R anyway?) I am not saying I am in support of the ratings boards methods, but if they are going to be around, I think that certain movies should be re-rated. But for the most part, I think the ratings should be lowered either from an R to a PG-13 or from PG-13 to a PG.

The article gave no reason for Batman Returns being upped to an R? Could it be because it promotes things that today's "zero tolerance" polocies don't promote??

[James Harvey]

All that I can remember is becuase of all the deaths, Penguins semi-graphic death scene, and (my favorite) "child endangerment". There wer emore but only those I can remember off the top of my head. The MPAA has become real strick on some movies, and slack on others. The MPAA needs to be revamped. Didja know that EVIL DEAD 2 was rated X, but brought down to an R awhile back? The MPAA at work...

[Nightwing]

Evil Dead? The movie or the new title of the MPAA? See that? I'm starting to react to the MPAA's idiocy with humor instead of that unfortunate incident with the MPAA meeting house, a water cooler, and a spork. It wasn't me!

Well, in the past few days there have been some adolescent deaths in the news, as well as developed stories of each, so I don't by the child endangerment thing. Are we going to slap an NC-17 rating on the Batman Beyond episode "Bloodsport" for little Matt's sake?

Little Timmy sat on Santa's lap last December and asked for a firetruck. Janet, a doll. Me? 10 minutes alone with the entire structure of the MPAA. That's all I could ever want in the world!

[Vigo Sprax]

I don't even think my copy of Evil Dead II has a rating on it.

Screw the ratings system, does anyone really care about it? Most of us are (or look) old enough to see an "R" rated movie and even when I wasn't I was fine with either going with an older parent/sibling (Or having them purchase/rent the item).

If you ask me, "R" rated movies should be reduced to 16 & older.

[Calhoun07]

I hardly ever know what a movie is rated when I watch it. I just watch what I think I will like. Ratings are trivial and meaningless, but I can see why a higher rating would be a kiss of death to a director who is trying to reach a younger audience.

I would have to search for the article, but Roger Ebert did one about this some time ago (I actually posted it on the old boards, if any of you recall) and he pointed out a movie that was rated R that was about a seventeen year old kid and all the things he faces as a teenager, and it is rated R. Well, the people who would benefit most from that movie would be TEENAGERS who ar restricted from seeing it because of an R rating, and Ebert went into how the movie only depicted what kids today are exposed to anyway. On the other hand, there was a movie about something decidedly more violent and adult themed with more swearing and nudity and violence in it that some how passed by with a PG-13 rating but Ebert said that most teenagers would have no interest in that movie.

I really do think the ratings board either has lost touch with reality or they are under the influence of too many lobbyist factions who want their opinions enforced and to reflect the ratings. It's gotta be something, because it sure isn't common sense guiding these jokers.

[James Harvey]

I just thinkit's ridiculous how the MPAA rates movies. I can get into along rants on how they miss rated movies and for all the wrong reasons. How did NUTTY PROFESSOR 2 get a PG-13 and SCARY MOVIE get an R? (NC-17 anyone?) I'll search down the article.

[Calhoun07]

This is where the article was orginally posted. I am sure it is an archive there.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert.html