[shrrshrr]

Hey all,

My co-workers and I were discussing the fact that someone took their toddlers to Farrenheit 9/11, and that the audience booed the guy (the kids were crying and saying that they were scared). The guy told everyone off and the kids stayed.

See, now, I have a problem with that. Kind of like when I saw Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon - during the sex scene, you could sort of feel the audience get into it when a plaintive voice rose up from the front of the theater asking, "Why are they doing that?"

Freakin' hilarious, but I question anyone who takes a toddler (this kid couldn't have been more than 4 or 5) to such a film.

So my question is whether or not you think the US ratings system works, what's good about it, what's bad about it, and when it's ignored or abused.

All opinions welcome.

[Mr. Impatient]

Okay, first of all, the situations to which you are referring do not have a real reflection of the ratings system. The ratings system is nullified by the presence of a parent or guardian, which is why the toddlers were present in those cases.

taken from Filmratings.com: G General Audience. All ages admitted. This signifies that the film rated contains nothing most parents will consider offensive for even their youngest children to see or hear. Nudity, sex scenes, and scenes of drug use are absent; violence is minimal; snippets of dialogue may go beyond polite conversation but do not go beyond common everyday expressions. PG Parental Guidance Suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children. This signifies that the film rated may contain some material parents might not like to expose to their young children - material that will clearly need to be examined or inquired about before children are allowed to attend the film. Explicit sex scenes and scenes of drug use are absent; nudity, if present, is seen only briefly, horror and violence do not exceed moderate levels. PG-13 Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard. R Restricted-Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age varies in some locations). This signifies that the rating board has concluded that the film rated contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their children to see it. An R may be assigned due to, among other things, a film's use of language, theme, violence, sex or its portrayal of drug use. NC-17 No One 17 and Under Admitted. This signifies that the rating board believes that most American parents would feel that the film is patently adult and that children age 17 and under should not be admitted to it. The film may contain explicit sex scenes, an accumulation of sexually-oriented language, or scenes of excessive violence. The NC-17 designation does not, however, signify that the rated film is obscene or pornographic.

Also, the ratings system is strictly voluntary. A film is not required by law to get a rating at all.

As for whether or not it works... I don't know. In my family, we don't go by the rating system so much. We prefer to watch a movie ourselves before determining whether or not the children (whomever they may be) can watch it. This even goes for animated movies.

The reason we do this is because we have discovered several movies that have gotten ratings of PG or PG-13 that we felt should have been rated R.

Does the system work? To a degree.
Is the System perfect? Not at all.

The system should be used as a guideline, and not as a general rule.

Also, there is the matter of the individual. Some children can watch a movie that is rated R and not be adversely affected by it. They can understand what is going on (at least enough for the film to make sense), and are mature enough to accept the content. Other people, even those over the age of 18, should be limited to only G or PG ratings, becuase they are not mature enough to handle anything more than that.

[UnsilentMajorty]

The other part of this issue that must be addressed up front is the hypocracy of mainstream Hollywood when it comes giving ratings to certain films just to get the younger/teen audiences to go see them (since they view them as the most viable segment of the population with a lot of disposable income versus adults whom have mortgages, car payments, kids of their own, etc).

They hypocracy -- in the strictest sense -- Is that a movie may have two "F-Bombs" and that automatically gets it an R-Rating even if every other thing in the film is "mild", I.E. no sex, no violence, not even "mature subject matter"...

Yet a movie that is full of violence -- sometimes graphic violence like a horror, or war movie -- Has almost full frontal nudity (male and female), but only ONE "F-Bomb" can actually skate by with a PG-13.

Like Mr. Impatient said, just look at some of the recent films that got PG-13 ratings simply for marketing purposes:

-King Arthur - Epic, brutal battles set in Mideval England

-Congo - People being eaten/beaten to death by giant apes; Apes' limbs being blown off by laser beams; A full-scale revolution (war) at the air port when they land; etc.

-All James Bond Movies - Illicit sex (not graphic); Violence; Partial-Nudity; etc.

What it comes down to is this (99.9% of the time) when we're talking about the ratings system and mainstream Hollywood:

If it is a well known director doing a franchise film -- like LOTR; Spider-Man; I-Robot; ID4; etc...

You can ALWAYS, absolutely, positively count on it getting a PG-13... Even when the initial TV teaser ads say, "This film has not yet been rated".

It's marketing. Plain and simple...

And marketing that feeds into America's hypocritical, Puritanical system of values (it's okay to show people blowing each othe r away, but show two people naked and making love and it's "morally wrong and corrupting the youth of America" ).

Another factor that is either a result of this and/or the cause (or both) is that a lot of films know exactly how to walk this fine line and purposeful DESIGN their film/story that wa, so it has the maximum amount of stuff they can get away with, without going into R-Rated territory...

And even it does during the intial cut... A lot of times all it takes -- if it is a major studio release -- Are multiple resubmissions to the ratings board (The MPAA) with a fee *hint, hint* -- To get them to give them the most "favorable" rating the studio needs to make a profit.

It's basically "buying" whatever rating you want/need", regardless of whether it actually fits the film...

Which brings me back to what I said about the hypocracy of the system and how I believe it does NOT work the way it was intended simply because market forces and those in control at the major studios know how to work (around) the system to get what they want.

As far as younger viewers and films...

That's a whole other conversation that we've had on this board multiple times, so I am not going to go into that at this time...

[ROCKSTAR]

Originally posted by Mr. Impatient Okay, first of all, the situations to which you are referring do not have a real reflection of the ratings system. The ratings system is nullified by the presence of a parent or guardian, which is why the toddlers were present in those cases.

I respectfully disagree there.

When a parent takes his kids to a movie it is mostly based on a rating, because they believe it's "ok" to do it. I don't think parents taking their children to the movies nullifies the ratings because kids 15 and under need their parents to get to the movies anyway (dropping them off or going with them) even if it's rated G.

Also, the ratings system is strictly voluntary. A film is not required by law to get a rating at all.

True. But do you believe that if ratings didn't exist a law wouldn't have been made to warn movie goers of explicit material? It happened in the 80s when CDs with bad words and adult themes were branded so parents would know what their kids were buying.

The system should be used as a guideline, and not as a general rule.

I agree with this and watching a movie before hand. Take Peter Pan for instance... It's a pretty intense movie because the themes are so adult by nature. Sexual tension between Wendy and Peter? Maybe some parents would just try to keep it away before their kids pick up on it and start asking questions which answers would lead them to grow up too quickly and start thinking in a different light.

It's marketing. Plain and simple...

Of course it is! It's the money. The Fast and the Furious is an R rated movie but its makers played around with the ratings system and cut some scenes and language just to let pre teens and their money in...

R rated movies (or higher) are rare box office smashes because they have such a limited audience! It's the younger crowd the one going at the movies every week. It's pure economics!

[Mr. Impatient]

UnsilentMajorty mentioned hypocrisy... It made me think of something else that I find interesting about the ratings system.

A female can do a scene involving full frontal nudity and the film gets a rating of "R" if that bad. There are a couple of movies which feature full frontal nudity of females and they only get a rating of PG-13. If a man does a scene involving full frontal nudity, it always gets alt least an R rating, and sometimes even an NC-17. Most that don't get the NC-17 rating are because the character who is nude is in the background or shadows, or both.

And, when I said that parents nullify the rating system... It sounds to me, from the descriptions given, that the kids were obviously not mature enough to deal with the subject matter in those cases, making me believe that the parent should not have taken the children, whether or not their decision to do so was based on the rating of the movie.

[shrrshrr]

Um...yeah, I thought you'd all presume that I was aware of the functionality and credibility of the US ratings system. I was just citing examples to start a discussion (my opinions of the system were not explicitly stated).

Guess I wasn't that clear.

In any case, yes, the double standard of male and female nudity is just one example of they hypocrisy of the system.

That being said, I always felt the system was in place to give the general populace (not just parents) an idea of the content of the film. Sure, a parent can go with you to see an R-rated film, but should they take you at all, especially if you're under the age of say...12? Is that appropriate?

And if it's not a suitable deterrent, what would be? Is a deterrent necessary (my thoughts are that while a direct causal relationship may not have been established I think violence and graphic sex in the media, including films, desensitizes people to the experiences thereby possibly negatively impacting their own perception of what is or is not appropriate levels of sex and violence - but this is a slippery slope and I tread it carefully).

Does that make sense?

Of the four people on the board who are posting on this thread, I think we're all aware of the pitfalls of the system and the broader implications (let's face it - you three are pretty sophisticated film viewers!).

[mh67511]

I think a great example is Austin Powers. Those movies are FULL of crude, sexual material, but yet they get a PG-13 rating. A movie like Air Force One got an R rating (I think) and it DID NOT deserve that ratings AT ALL.

As far as nudity goes, I have only seem boobs in R-rated movies and the showed full female nudity in one independent R-rated movie I saw. I've never seen full male nudity in an R-rated movie.

Researchers Cite 'Ratings Creep' on Movies

Good article on the issue.

[UnsilentMajorty]

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Mh67511 about "Air Force One".

That movie is ADULT material:

The President's plane is hijacked by hardline, ex-Soviet Soldiers who want their toppled CO to be re-instated as the (wrongful) president of their country... And will kill any and everyone in their way to do it.

In addition, the actual movie has the Secretary of State being shot in the head -- at point blank range in a close-up shot -- When the Terrorists don't get their first set of demands.

It then depicts the (female) Press Secreatry being killed at point blank range (although, you don't see it, you HEAR the defeaning gun shot over the plane's PA system).

In addition, the rest of the film is the President taking out the terrorists one by one with hand-to-hand combat and other tricks he improvises using the plane's inventory that includes strangulation, blunt objects (beatings) and other acts of violence.

The reason I went into such detail about what is actually IN the film (even if you've seen it) is because sure, the PREMISE sounds "fine" -- In fact, it DOES sound like a PG-13 rated film -- And could have been "okay" for younger aduiences if some of those things were toned down...

However, the EXECUTION of the picture -- as it stands -- is a hardcore, in-your-face action movie that is inteded for ADULT audiences and that includes the graphic violence that depicts the things I mentioned above.

"Air Force One" deserves the R-Rating simply because it was meant for adults and NOT very young children who may actually be FRIGHTENED by the things IN the film (the executions; gun battles; etc) AND, more imporatntly...

Who may not be old enough to distinguish between fantasy and reality when the level of violence in movies is depicted is so REALISTICALLY GRAPHIC as it is in such films like "Air Force One".

I think, and not to put words in her mouth, this is what Shrrshr was actually trying to start a discussion on:

Does the ratings system actually work as intended and shield people (kids) from real world acts of violence and other unpleasant things that may be in a movie...

Or is it just lip service that the movie industry (and society as a whole) uses to say we are being "responsible" with the things we do allow (or not allow) young people or people in general to see?

[mattia]

I totally disrespect people who bring kids to an R rated movie...the one thing I love is when a movie gets an R rating and I dont have to hear the giggling or obnoxious teen set.

[bizkitprinzess]

The ratings don't work because no one pays attention to them.

When I was 14 or 15 I could go to Blockbuster and rent or buy r rated movies without question (I look about my age and always have) and even now I buy a youth ticket at the theatre ('cause I cans still get away with it for a little while, and I don't want to pay the extra dollar) and they let me into r movies.

On IMDB when you look at the Alternate scenes half the action movies have headbutts cut in the UK versions to secure a PG-13 rating there. The headbutts are actually soemtimes in the North American comercials.

I think taking any kid to a documentry, especially one like Farrenheit 9/11 is more just bad parental judgement then anything to do with the ratings.

[migamoo]

Originally posted by mh67511 As far as nudity goes, I have only seem boobs in R-rated movies and the showed full female nudity in one independent R-rated movie I saw. I've never seen full male nudity in an R-rated movie.

It seems like a lot of movies now a days have female nudity in them. Both R and PG-13. And male? There are a few out there, I can tell you some if you want.

Personally, I think the ratings system is outdated. There can be a movie that is PG-13 and have about 50 cuss words in it, but a movie that is rated R has 1 cuss word (most likely the F-word) and nothing else is "wrong" with it. It's just wrong. The only reason I see the ratings system sticking around is so that the people in Hollywood can make money. They slap and PG-13 rating on a movie and no one will think twice about sending their kid to see it because they think it's ok. When most of the time, it probably isn't.

Ashley

[shrrshrr]

Originally posted by UnsilentMajorty I think, and not to put words in her mouth, this is what Shrrshr was actually trying to start a discussion on: Does the ratings system actually work as intended and shield people (kids) from real world acts of violence and other unpleasant things that may be in a movie... Or is it just lip service that the movie industry (and society as a whole) uses to say we are being "responsible" with the things we do allow (or not allow) young people or people in general to see?

Yep, that just about sums it up.

I'd add the question of whether or not parents should be more active in screening what their kids see, which isn't as much of a no-brainer question as it might initially seem...

Originally posted by bizkitprinzess I think taking any kid to a documentry, especially one like Farrenheit 9/11 is more just bad parental judgement then anything to do with the ratings.

Yeah - I agree with you, and I can't believe you could rent R-rated films at Blockbuster! They're just so freakin' wrong in so many ways.

But parental guidance is key - if you want your kids to be overexposed (hey, the medical community has proven this with numerous studies) then let them see films not intended for younger viewers.

In fact, let's put R material on late-night TV so that any kid can watch it! Yeah, that's what we should do.

Don't get me wrong - I think shows like Nip/Tuck are innovative and dare I say it...entertaining. But there's NO WAY I'd let my 10 year old niece watch it. But what happens when her parents go to bed? Hopefully they've instilled enough sense in the kids that they'll use good judgement on their own.

The same applies to movies - it really is about good judgement, and not just parental. Teens want to be adults so badly - and this is a quick and easy entry into that realm.

Originally posted by Fieryangel Personally, I think the ratings system is outdated. There can be a movie that is PG-13 and have about 50 cuss words in it, but a movie that is rated R has 1 cuss word (most likely the F-word) and nothing else is "wrong" with it. It's just wrong. The only reason I see the ratings system sticking around is so that the people in Hollywood can make money. They slap and PG-13 rating on a movie and no one will think twice about sending their kid to see it because they think it's ok. When most of the time, it probably isn't. Ashley

Yes, that would be my opinion, too - I think it's extremely outdated and needs a serious overhaul. I mean, how many "G" movies are out there, now? Back in the 70s there were many family oriented (not just kid-oriented) G-rated films. The "PG" films were actually PG - as in, you couldn't get in without parental guidance (at least not ina rural area). And "R"? Forget about it - that was similar to slapping an NC-17 on a film (okay, I'm overstating it, but you know what I mean). Just sayin'...

[summerbug]

Perhaps they should do something like they do with television ratings instead of G, PG, PG13, R, NC17. I think we've all noticed the inconsistencies in this and sexism, etc. etc.

So perhaps, while it might be "too complicated" and get lots of complaints...a less simplified rating system might be what is needed IF ALL you want is a guideline of what the content of the film is - V=violence/MV=mild violence L= Language D=Dialogue and whatever other things you would like to signal out - drug use, mild drugs, etc.

Under that system the WHOLE purpose would have to be just to make the viewer aware that there was some sex or lots of sex in a movie. You would have to get into at least two degrees...mild and whatever.

In no way should any of those things be a deterrent. Well, since there is mild nudity this is the age limit, etc. I'm talking about IF content is your concern.

[GenL]

Originally posted by summerbug Perhaps they should do something like they do with television ratings instead of G, PG, PG13, R, NC17. I think we've all noticed the inconsistencies in this and sexism, etc. etc. So perhaps, while it might be "too complicated" and get lots of complaints...a less simplified rating system might be what is needed IF ALL you want is a guideline of what the content of the film is - V=violence/MV=mild violence L= Language D=Dialogue and whatever other things you would like to signal out - drug use, mild drugs, etc. Under that system the WHOLE purpose would have to be just to make the viewer aware that there was some sex or lots of sex in a movie. You would have to get into at least two degrees...mild and whatever. In no way should any of those things be a deterrent. Well, since there is mild nudity this is the age limit, etc. I'm talking about IF content is your concern.

I totally agree

[BIGDave]

People are going to watch whatever they want to see. I mean if you pay between $7.00-10.00 to see a movie, you can go and see any movie showing if the usher or parent or whoever is not paying attention to whatever flim you go into to watch.