A complaint I don't get

[The Borgified Corpse]

Netflix doesn't just "recommend" shows for certain ages. They apply the TV parental guidelines system, which has been an industry standard for 20+ years (although each content provider is responsible for determining the ratings of their own shows). Streaming service subscriptions such as Netflix have parental control options which specifically use both these TV parental guidelines ratings and MPAA ratings to restrict access to content.

But again, it's an OPTION for PARENTS to use. It's not prohibiting ADULTS from accessing whatever content Netflix wants to provide. Now, there can be arguments made for what level of language, sex, and/or violence is appropriate for what ages. Ultimately, these arguments are very subjective and are going to vary a lot from child to child.

But the big argument that people make against the MPAA is that, by placing an R or NC-17 rating on something, they have unilateral authority to severely handicap its distribution because a lot of movie theaters & big box retailers won't carry movies with an NC-17 rating. I've never heard anyone complain that Netflix has any such limitation or that they've censored their creators because they're worried about what the MPAA or any other advisory board thinks.

 

[Kor]

But again, it's an OPTION for PARENTS to use. It's not prohibiting ADULTS from accessing whatever content Netflix wants to provide. Now, there can be arguments made for what level of language, sex, and/or violence is appropriate for what ages. Ultimately, these arguments are very subjective and are going to vary a lot from child to child.

But the big argument that people make against the MPAA is that, by placing an R or NC-17 rating on something, they have unilateral authority to severely handicap its distribution because a lot of movie theaters & big box retailers won't carry movies with an NC-17 rating. I've never heard anyone complain that Netflix has any such limitation or that they've censored their creators because they're worried about what the MPAA or any other advisory board thinks.

Well sure, in that way, Netflix, CBS AA, etc. are more akin to premium cable television subscriptions than the motion picture-industrial complex.

Kor

 

[CuriousCaitian]

I think the MPAA does have a tendency to be more lenient towards violence than sex and nudity for the simple reason that the culture of the country it's a part of is more tolerant of violence than sex and nudity, to the point it comes across as quite a double-standard. Frankly, from the outside, the US seems almost fixated on violence, the media it produces - TV, film, games - filled with it. Meanwhile, sex and nudity are mostly conflated, suppressed and exploited, the forbidden fruit dangled just out of reach. Even on this very board, sex and nudity are banned in the sponsor-dictated guidelines as 'adult content', but violence and gore go unmentioned, suggesting they're acceptable.

It's worth noting it's not uncommon for a PG-13 film to be given a higher rating by the UK's certification body, the BBFC. Gremlins and Cloverfield were both, for example, rated 15 here, for violent content. To be fair, though, the BBFC aren't exactly the most transparent or consistent of groups, either, and despite expending much thought on the matter, I still don't understand their methodology in rating nudity. The serious scarcity of non-sexualised nudity in films outside France really doesn't help in figuring that out, mind. They're capable of serious aberrations, too, like the infamous Watership Down.

For contrast, there's PEGI, a European body that rates video games, which tends to be more lenient on nudity, and stricter on violence, reflecting general attitudes in Europe. Which approach is better? You decide.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I agree violence, sex and language ratings should be separated, but there need to be some controls in place to stop kids from walking into a theatre and seeing movies their parents are against.

It’s hard for me to guess how I might think if I had kids but I think context would be important. How it’s morally framed would be important too. Like, a strong woman having consensual sex as an equal would concern me less than a fully clothed woman being forced into something. I’d want my children to see examples of healthy courtship behavior.

Also there’s a difference between action movie style violence against bad guys who are fighting back and graphic violence against defenseless people.

Also it matters if the nudity is integral to the story or if it was just put there for titillation.

 

[FormerLurker]

Also it matters if the nudity is integral to the story or if it was just put there for titillation.

The hard part is when it seems gratuitous and you only realize afterward it advances the plot. Fortunately these instances are rare.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The hard part is when it seems gratuitous and you only realize afterward it advances the plot. Fortunately these instances are rare.

There's also debatable cases. Like, some people think the sex scene in Blue is the Warmest Color is gratuitous. But I think it was needed to contrast the earlier scene where the scene where she had passionless mechanical sex with a man.

 

[FormerLurker]

There's also debatable cases. Like, some people think the sex scene in Blue is the Warmest Color is gratuitous. But I think it was needed to contrast the earlier scene where the scene where she had passionless mechanical sex with a man.

Absolutely. The flip side is when such scenes get left out one way or another. Kirsten Dunst in Crazy/Beautiful was supposed to do a completely nude walk through the house that was the major turning point for her character's spiral out of control. She refused to do it, begging the director to let her do the scene in underwear. Even though she was under contract to do the nudity, he allowed it(why I don't know), and when the film hit theaters, the lack of nudity cost her character arc so badly audiences stayed away in droves, making the film tank. So it can go both ways.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The idea that the MPAA is unfair in its rating of content, or specifically that it is indifferent to violence including intense graphic violence, or thinks that's fine, harmless, for kids while it is extremely restrictive about profanity and sex/nudity.

I think actually mild to light-moderate violence will get PG, moderate to kind-of-a-lot get PG-13 and definitely a lot or more intense R. The same goes for profanity. Maybe it is more restrictive with sex/nudity but that seems harder to be more objective about and also probably to have in only mild or moderate forms-but sometimes that does occur and when it does they do get lower ratings.

I don't see how the reaction to and rating of violence is either mild or milder than to other controversial content.

Man of Steel where a city is utterly destroyed to ashes while two men duke it out... buildings collapse with people inside... thousands and thousands die... the hero snaps the neck of the baddie... PG -13

The King's Speech--a drama about a man being thrust into a position he never wanted having to confront something he feels shame about. No one dies, no explicit violence, but a few naughty words... R.

You know which one I would rather my 7 year old see? And no, it's not the one with Superman.

The rating system is FUCKED up when it comes to violence and nudity.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

The PG-13 rating has become so broad that it's kinda meaningless. And even when it comes to violence, I think that there's some weird distinctions. Like, Daredevil & Terminator 3 both came out in the same year. DD got a PG-13 while T3 got an R. But if you ask me, the violence in DD is far darker and more disturbing and far worthier of an R rating. As far as I can tell, T3 only got an R because of some swear words.

I think some of the confusion comes from the number. If I had my druthers, we would have a PG-15 instead of a PG-13, with a lot of the mass-appeal blockbusters like the Marvel movies falling into a broadened PG rating. Meanwhile, PG-15 would cover a lot of the stuff that's too risque to be PG-13 but so puerile that it mostly appeals to teenagers anyway; i.e. Deadpool, South Park, most anything by Kevin Smith. (Not to say I'm above any of that stuff. I may be in my 30s but I'm fully in touch with my inner-15-year-old.)

I would certainly say that profanity gets far too much consideration in the MPAA ratings. The idea that there's some bright line between one "fuck" and two "fuck"s or between using it as an interjection vs. describing a literal sexual act, that's just ridiculous.

That being said, I think that most of Hollywood and society could stand to pull back on the profanity a little bit; not just the f-word but most of the others too. I'm as much a part of the problem as anyone but I think that it's something to be mindful of.

I agree violence, sex and language ratings should be separated, but there need to be some controls in place to stop kids from walking into a theatre and seeing movies their parents are against.

For the most part, I think that the MPAA does a good job of separating that. If your kids are mature enough to be seeing a movie on their own, they're mature enough to handle most anything that they would see in a PG-13 movie.

Also it matters if the nudity is integral to the story or if it was just put there for titillation.

Rule 34: If it exists, there's someone out there who finds it titillating.

I think that there are multiple dividing lines between different levels of nudity. Honestly, I think that most filmmakers are perfectly capable of implying nudity without actually showing any of the naughty bits. I don't think that breasts or genitalia have any place in a PG-13 movie. (I might make an exception for Graham Chapman's hilarious penis but that's it! ) If you're going to show the naughty bits, I would give it an R. I would only escalate that to an NC-17 if it's prolonged, explicit sex; Blue Is the Warmest Color being a textbook example.

 

[FormerLurker]

Rule 34: If it exists, there's someone out there who finds it titillating.

Actual Rule #34: If it exists, there is porn of it.

I think that there are multiple dividing lines between different levels of nudity. Honestly, I think that most filmmakers are perfectly capable of implying nudity without actually showing any of the naughty bits

As I said in an earlier post, TMP and Sinbad and the Eye of The Tiger managed to pull this off and still be rated G.

I don't think that breasts or genitalia have any place in a PG-13 movie. (I might make an exception for Graham Chapman's hilarious penis but that's it! ) If you're going to show the naughty bits, I would give it an R.

And again, as I said earlier, I've seen at least two films, Looker and The Second Son, that show a female character complete and full frontal, but because of how it was staged, shot, and the scene's plot point, both films were rated PG.

I would only escalate that to an NC-17 if it's prolonged, explicit sex; Blue Is the Warmest Color being a textbook example.

No argument here.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

There are a lot of movies that were rated G back in the day that would never get away with that now. Between the transporter accident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and hearing a wounded soldier begging them to not amputate his leg in Gone with the Wind, I just don't know what the MPAA was thinking sometimes.

Or when you go back and look at movies like Gremlins and Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom, which were instrumental in convincing them to create the PG-13 rating, they're pretty tame by today's standards.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Rule 34: If it exists, there's someone out there who finds it titillating.

I think that there are multiple dividing lines between different levels of nudity. Honestly, I think that most filmmakers are perfectly capable of implying nudity without actually showing any of the naughty bits. I don't think that breasts or genitalia have any place in a PG-13 movie. (I might make an exception for Graham Chapman's hilarious penis but that's it! ) If you're going to show the naughty bits, I would give it an R. I would only escalate that to an NC-17 if it's prolonged, explicit sex; Blue Is the Warmest Color being a textbook example.

There's a difference between someone finding it titillating and it only being in there for the purpose of being titillating. Like, in Sopranos it makes sense for scenes to take place in a strip club. In crime procedurals, it doesn't make sense for every single case to bring them in contact with half naked women.

If a woman is relaxing on the beach, it makes sense for her to be in an outfit that shows a lot of skin. If a woman is heading into life or death combat, it makes a lot less sense, and frankly seems dangerous.

And regarding Blue is the Warmest Color, I agree it deserves the NC-17 rating, but if a kid were say 14 or 15 I'd be far more amenable to letting them watch that than letting them watch a movie where a woman is violently raped offscreen. Explicit consensual sex, in my opinion, is far less inappropriate for younger audiences than sex that's violent but less explicit like A History of Violence.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

There's a difference between someone finding it titillating and it only being in there for the purpose of being titillating. Like, in Sopranos it makes sense for scenes to take place in a strip club. In crime procedurals, it doesn't make sense for every single case to bring them in contact with half naked women.

If a woman is relaxing on the beach, it makes sense for her to be in an outfit that shows a lot of skin. If a woman is heading into life or death combat, it makes a lot less sense, and frankly seems dangerous.

Of course, Conan the Barbarian and the 300 Spartans can head into battle wearing nothing but a loincloth and no one says anything.

Whether nudity or near-nudity can be justified in-universe has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for younger audiences. I sometimes hear the term "gratuitous violence" or "gratuitous sex." Those are nonsense phrases because all fiction is gratuitous. Since none of it really happened, it's all an artistic decision as far as how much violence & sex to include. And the rating system isn't meant to judge artistic merit or the validity of artistic intent. It's (ideally) trying to be more dispassionate than that.

And regarding Blue is the Warmest Color, I agree it deserves the NC-17 rating, but if a kid were say 14 or 15 I'd be far more amenable to letting them watch that than letting them watch a movie where a woman is violently raped offscreen. Explicit consensual sex, in my opinion, is far less inappropriate for younger audiences than sex that's violent but less explicit like A History of Violence.

I think that there's a difference between seeing something vs. merely knowing that it exists. And when we're talking about 14ish teenagers, it's important for them to know that violence, including sexual violence, exists. Of course, consensual sex is better than rape. But neither is appropriate to show explicitly to young audiences.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

They’re getting toward the age they’re going to start having it themselves soon, why is a normal bodily function so much worse for kids than violence? Unless you’re coming from a specifically religious moral background.

And I 100% disagree, context is absolutely a factor in whether sex and violence are justified. Yeah, men fighting in loincloths one Sparta makes sense, just like Amazon warriors fighting topless would make sense. Because that’s how they actually fought. Secret agents dressing sexy or anime girls fighting on outfits that look completely impractical makes no sense. When it makes no sense is when it’s objectifying.

A dispassionate rating system that ignores context and framing imposes religiously conservative black and white morality on the consumers. There IS a major important difference between framing nudity because the scene they are portraying would realistically have nudity and framing nudity because they want to drum up the sex appeal.

Normalizing sex is different from normalizing violence, and showing people realistically nude is different from showing men or women in a context that their value derives from their sexuality.

 

[Gaith]

As far as I can tell, T3 only got an R because of some swear words.

Nah, T3 has a few moments of gore (the T-X punching through the cop's stomach in the car, then smashing the other cop's face) plus significant violence (minors being shot just off-frame, Arnold's head getting kicked loose, smashing a sink across the face of a robot that looks like a woman) that puts it above the PG-13 line in addition to the swears.

... Giving The Expendables 3 a PG-13 was insane. EX2 was filled with goons getting blown apart, with CGI blood and limbs flying everywhere, and it was fun in a cartoony way, but EX3 had countless mooks yelping and dying right outside the frame, and the effect was downright ghoulish, as I kept imagining how horrible and gruesome those kills must have been for the camera, as a character, to carefully and conspicuously look away each time.

Meanwhile, at least two Disney movies have been mis-rated in recent years. Tomorrowland features tons of violence, including an extended, very disturbing sequence of the heroine bashing in a robot man's head with a baseball bat, and got away with a PG. Meanwhile, The Finest Hours, a true story of a legendary Coast Guard rescue, has no human-on-human violence at all, and maybe a few very mild swears, but got a PG-13.

So... yeah. The MPAA is a bunch of clowns.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

They’re getting toward the age they’re going to start having it themselves soon, why is a normal bodily function so much worse for kids than violence? Unless you’re coming from a specifically religious moral background.

And I 100% disagree, context is absolutely a factor in whether sex and violence are justified. Yeah, men fighting in loincloths one Sparta makes sense, just like Amazon warriors fighting topless would make sense. Because that’s how they actually fought. Secret agents dressing sexy or anime girls fighting on outfits that look completely impractical makes no sense. When it makes no sense is when it’s objectifying.

A dispassionate rating system that ignores context and framing imposes religiously conservative black and white morality on the consumers. There IS a major important difference between framing nudity because the scene they are portraying would realistically have nudity and framing nudity because they want to drum up the sex appeal.

Normalizing sex is different from normalizing violence, and showing people realistically nude is different from showing men or women in a context that their value derives from their sexuality.

Whilst sex is normal and many young people are undoubtedly having it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate for them to see other people having it. Talking about it is one thing but seeing it is different (as is the degree of how much you see of it). It's the same with nudity. Everyone knows what a naked person looks like because we've all seen ourselves naked. But that doesn't mean that it's always appropriate to see other people naked. We all take showers and use the toilet but these are private things that we do behind closed doors. When we see fictional people do these things, we're crossing a line of propriety. That's not to say that we can never see these kinds of things in fiction but it's worth being aware that we're looking at a fictional person in a way that we would never do with a real person.

It's the same with violence. Death, assault, rape, & murder are all things that happen to real people on a daily basis. When these things happen to real people, it's an unequivocal tragedy. When they happen to fictional people, we're using their lives & their tragedy for our own entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that because that's the whole point of fictional people. But again, we need to be aware that that's very different from how we would treat violence against real people.

(ASIDE: Maybe that's the reason why TV & movies for young children is predominantly centered around cartoon characters, puppets, & talking animals-- to teach children the difference between the fictional characters on the screen and the real people that they know in their real lives and that they can & should be treated differently. It's OK to blow-up Elmer Fudd. It's not OK to do that to a real person.)

Although, I'm having trouble reconciling your arguments that sex is normal but sexually appealing images are immoral. It takes a very limited perspective to think that, just because someone is sexually attractive, that it's their only attribute as a human being.

 

[Kor]

There are a lot of movies that were rated G back in the day that would never get away with that now. Between the transporter accident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture and hearing a wounded soldier begging them to not amputate his leg in Gone with the Wind, I just don't know what the MPAA was thinking sometimes.
...

As "Gone With the Wind" predates the MPAA ratings system, it received the MPAA "G" rating in 1971. As I mentioned earlier, the "G" rating was simply a different thing back then, than what it would become in the 1980s. "General Audiences" was a broad range of viewership, and did not automatically equate to "kids only."

Kor

 

[suarezguy]

Shifting ground, isn't it kind of odd and misleading that for video games the E (for Everyone) rating is more the equivalent of PG than, what it implies, of G?

I think with video games we've come to accept that E pretty much is equivalent to both G or PG, or there's no real G equivalent, I think an interesting parallel to the idea that we should maybe have fewer categories for film ratings.

 

[EnderAKH]

Whilst sex is normal and many young people are undoubtedly having it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate for them to see other people having it. Talking about it is one thing but seeing it is different (as is the degree of how much you see of it).

Other than cultural taboo, why?

It's the same with nudity. Everyone knows what a naked person looks like because we've all seen ourselves naked. But that doesn't mean that it's always appropriate to see other people naked. We all take showers and use the toilet but these are private things that we do behind closed doors. When we see fictional people do these things, we're crossing a line of propriety.

Other than cultural taboo, why?

 

[MacLeod]

One of the issues with any rating system is that one or more persons have to rate it and/or set the criteria for what is acceptable any rating, and naturally people can disagree on those. That's not to mention attitudes can change over time so what our parents found unacceptable twenty years ago we might be more tolerant of today.