^Isn't THAT censorship?
Should the MPAA rating system be changed?
- Thread starter miraclefan
- Start date
Hmmm... let the ratings make more sense...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlPUc-qvHQ Or let Jack Valenti explain it. ^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGlPUc-qvHQ Or let Jack Valenti explain it. ^^
Wasn't there a rumor that Jack Valenti was a closeted homo-sexsual?
I'd like the NC-17 category to be renamed back to X, that sounds a lot better and cooler. Otherwise, the ratings are OK, although they can cause some self-censorship (you can't stop the studio or filmmaker from wanting the biggest audience) and are sometimes applied arbitrarily or unfairly (most particularly, The Lion King should have been PG), even though a lot of distinctions about what should qualify for what are fairly subjective. While they have some impact, they should just be regarded as a general guide.
The idea of a 2-way split between universal and not is intriguing, it could lead to a more open culture, recognizing that material is there but it's up to the viewer to decide for themselves how objectionable or not it is.
The idea of a 2-way split between universal and not is intriguing, it could lead to a more open culture, recognizing that material is there but it's up to the viewer to decide for themselves how objectionable or not it is.
But my need is for a 15 and 18 system as we currently have to keep out chatty brats and screaming children
That's why we have DVDs & home theatres.
Precisely. Let's get some personal responsibility back out there.
WOW! Can't belive I agree with you there!
Agreed.
It should be obvious from the previews. That should be all the ratings we need.
Given that we have the Internet now, Ratings are really redundant. There must be websites out there that give content summaries geared toward specific demographics, like parents and so forth, that are far more useful than a simple rating.
^IMDB is starting a new system where users can log on and decribe what "violations" occur in each area so folks know exactly what's going on. I haven't found it yet, but I know that there is another site that does the same thing, just not through user-input.
Seriously. "Violations?" Is that the term that IMDB uses? Violations of what? 
Violations of backwardness?Seriously. "Violations?" Is that the term that IMDB uses? Violations of what?
Sorry folks... IMDB doesn't actually use the term "violations", but I was running on fumes yesterday, and couldn't come up with any other term.
^Isn't THAT censorship?
Isn't what censorship? Putting a lid on the FCC? No, that's not censorship, it's common sense. It shouldn't be their business to control content, it's to regulate *communications*. Hence the term, Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission.
I agree 100% with Juan Bolio. That's what the FCC was created to do. Having them regulating frequencies isn't censorship at all, would you like it if you couldn't tune into your favorite radio station because a local nutjob was transmitting his own stuff on that frequency?^Isn't THAT censorship?
Gotcha.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Yes, there definitely needs to be a change. Definitely.
The ratings are age-based instead of content-based. Yes, content is used to judge the rating but the bottom line is the ratings tell parents at which age they think they should let their children see a film. Worse, more and more movies now have to be PG-13 or else the they get the stigma of being a children's films. Not just G but PG as well.
I think the MPAA should have ratings that are age and content based.
The ratings should be ages followed by content discriptors.
C = Intended for Children (replaces G)
N = No or Little Objectionable Content (replaces PG)
13 = Teenagers and Older (replaces PG-13)
16 = Mature Audiences (replaces R)
18 = Intended for Adults (replaces NC-17)
Starting from "13" on, there would also be descriptors where applicable:
S = Sex
V = Violence
D = Derogatory
A movie for mature audiences with sex, violence, and derogatory scenes would be 16-SVD.
Most of the time the movies with a "16" rating would either be 16-S, 16-V, or 16-SV.
An "18" rating wouldn't just be used for pornography. A "Hard R" for violence would become 18-V.
The ratings are age-based instead of content-based. Yes, content is used to judge the rating but the bottom line is the ratings tell parents at which age they think they should let their children see a film. Worse, more and more movies now have to be PG-13 or else the they get the stigma of being a children's films. Not just G but PG as well.
I think the MPAA should have ratings that are age and content based.
The ratings should be ages followed by content discriptors.
C = Intended for Children (replaces G)
N = No or Little Objectionable Content (replaces PG)
13 = Teenagers and Older (replaces PG-13)
16 = Mature Audiences (replaces R)
18 = Intended for Adults (replaces NC-17)
Starting from "13" on, there would also be descriptors where applicable:
S = Sex
V = Violence
D = Derogatory
A movie for mature audiences with sex, violence, and derogatory scenes would be 16-SVD.
Most of the time the movies with a "16" rating would either be 16-S, 16-V, or 16-SV.
An "18" rating wouldn't just be used for pornography. A "Hard R" for violence would become 18-V.
Last edited by a moderator:
^So basically the same as the BBFC system.
'12A' for moderate violence and threat. at the bottom of the poster.
On posters you usually get something like
'12A' for moderate violence and threat. at the bottom of the poster.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
^ I was actually thinking about using "U" for my "N". 
Yeah, it would be along the lines of the BBFC but having additional descriptors after the age rating would be key.
Yeah, it would be along the lines of the BBFC but having additional descriptors after the age rating would be key.
