Overwritten.net
Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: nickclone on Saturday, May 12, 2007, 03:32:06 PM
-
In a rare alteration of its movie ratings system, the MPAA said on Thursday that the panel that assesses Hollywood movies will begin considering "depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of a historic or other mitigating context." Until now, the subjects that movie raters have primarily considered are violence, language, nudity, and drugs. In a statement, MPAA CEO Dan Glickman said, "There is broad awareness of smoking as a unique public health concern due to nicotine's highly addictive nature, and no parent wants their child to take up the habit. ... The appropriate response of the rating system is to give more information to parents on this issue."
http://imdb.com/news/sb/2007-05-11/
-
Fuck that garbage. What's next? Alcohol?
-
Yes, because we have to protect our children from what they can see every day walking down the street.
-
Oh crap it's happening! Soon the children will all be obsessed with giant pink dinosaurs! Not purple, PINK!
What's next? Characters in high heels are inappropriately seductive, characters eating caviar are suggestive, and anything sucking a lolly pop is highly inappropriate! Let's R-rate 'em all!
-
Check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Its got some good info about the ratings board bs.
-
Check out This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Its got some good info about the ratings board bs.
Info? Is that a movie? A web site? A book?
-
It's movie... I feel like it's a straight out documentary, but I'm drawing a blank.
-
Yeah, its a film documentary. Part of the movie deals with the director actually submitting the film to be reviewed and it of course proves the points the movie tries to make in the process. Basically, the film doesnt fight for there being freedom of speech and no ratings, but more that the ratings board is more open with their decisions. The film also compares scenes in different movies that get different ratings. pretty cool stuff if youre into the whole movie making process.
-
Info? Is that a movie? A web site? A book?
It's a movie. I'm watching it right now. I'm at the part where they hire some private investigators to break into the MPAA's secret lair and find out who the ratings board members are.
-
I personally don't mind strict ratings restrictions. I probably should though, I guess. The way I see it, I'm gonna see a movie that looks good no matter what the rating is.
What does bother me, on the other hand, is how filmmakers and film studios limit themselves based on ratings. I hate when horror movies hold back on violence and gore, or anything else, just to get a PG-13 rating and reach a broader audience.
I'll have to check out This Film is not Yet Rated.
-
Horror movies shoot for an R rating. Now it will be easier to get. Just have one of the characters be a smoker, and you got it.
Here's the crux of the stupidity: You can have Saw and Winn Dixie with an owner who smokes fall into the same category, completely invalidating "R" as a useful rating.
-
Horror movies shoot for an R rating.
Well, not always.
Alien 1979 - R
Aliens 1986 - R
Alien 3 1992 - R
Alien Resurrection 1997 - R
Predator 1987 - R
Predator 2 1990 - R
Alien vs. Predator 2004 - PG-13
Yea, there's a hell of a lot more wrong with AvP than the rating, but I imagine they made a PG-13 movie so people under 17 could go see it, and it would make more money.
But yea, good point about not being able to tell the difference between movies just because someone smoking put one into the R category.
-
Yeah, Cobra's very concise point is right on the money. This kind of thing makes ratings meaningless, so why even have them?
-
Yeah, Cobra's very concise point is right on the money. This kind of thing makes ratings meaningless, so why even have them?
That is actually the crux of This film is not yet rated. The documentary isn't without it's own propaganda, especially if you've seen many of the movies given an "unjust" R rating (storytelling, anyone?) but the two excellent points I learned from watching it are:
1. The MPAA rating system is by design inconsistent and unfair, especially to independent films. A rating is determined by a shadowy panel of unknown people with nothing approaching a set of firm guidelines for determining a rating.
2. Movie studios have made it impossible to market a movie given an NC-17 rating, therefore killing any chance it may have had to be a success, effectively censoring filmmakers.
-
Movie studios have made it impossible to market a movie given an NC-17 rating, therefore killing any chance it may have had to be a success, effectively censoring filmmakers.
And b/c of this, most retailers (Best Buy, WalMart, Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc etc) won't even carry a NC-17 movie. Sometimes, there'll also be an "R-rated" version of the movie released for a film that was originally NC-17 (The Dreamers) or went Unrated b/c they would not accept a MPAA rating (Requiem For A Dream), just to make the retailer happy.
And yeah, you'd have a better chance of finding an "Unrated" movie at a retailer than a NC-17 rated flick.
The biggest problem, I think, w/ the "NC-17" and "R" rating is this -- They BOTH have the same age requirement. Only difference is that at NC-17, no parent can accompany one under 17 into the theater, unlike the R rating.
Who the hell designed this system? NC-17 is a good idea, but maybe the age requirement should be higher? Maybe NC-21?? I mean, the content in "R" and "NC-17" is different. Normally, NC-17 is much more graphic in its actual content -- usually, most NC-17's get that rating b/c of "graphic sex" -- like say Young Adam, The Dreamers, or Showgirls.
Can anybody think of a movie that got NC-17 for violence?????????? That's the other problem. Sex and violence are treated often very different by the MPAA. How an extremely violent movie like Saw didn't get an NC-17 for graphic violence alone is WAY beyond me (it wound up w/ an R-rating, somehow...), yet Young Adam got a NC-17 for graphic sexual content.
-
Can anybody think of a movie that got NC-17 for violence?????????? That's the other problem. Sex and violence are treated often very different by the MPAA. How an extremely violent movie like Saw didn't get an NC-17 for graphic violence alone is WAY beyond me (it wound up w/ an R-rating, somehow...), yet Young Adam got a NC-17 for graphic sexual content.
IMDB has the following information for the "Dead" series, under the heading of "Certification":
Night of the Living Dead- USA:Unrated (1968)
Dawn of the Dead- USA:Open (rating surrendered) (1983) / USA:R (original rating) (cut)
Day of the Dead- USA:Unrated
Land of the Dead- USA:Unrated (director's cut) / USA:R (certificate #41825)
The only one that actually lists an "MPAA" rating is Land of the Dead, so I'm not sure any of the other 3 were submitted. I have read, though, that at least one was submitted, and the rating was rejected because it was given an NC-17. I'm guessing Land has an R rating just because you can get away with more these days. For those who haven't seen these movies, I can't recall any notable nudity or sex, so it's mostly just the violence that affects their ratings.
-
Haha...we watched some of AvP at OWmeet because it just happened to be on TV. That was hilarious.
-
Yeah, the mockery was good times. It was like modern MST3K.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC-17_rated_films