Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle torture
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
^Similarly here in the UK. Made In Dagenham was given a 15 rating because of Fuck being said 16 times, yet they would have allowed it 5 times in a 12 rated film. None of them were said in a violent or sexual way, so what makes 16 fucks in context of natural speech from factory workers worse than 5 violent or sexual fucks in a 12 rated film?
^Similarly here in the UK. Made In Dagenham was given a 15 rating because of Fuck being said 16 times, yet they would have allowed it 5 times in a 12 rated film. None of them were said in a violent or sexual way, so what makes 16 fucks in context of natural speech from factory workers worse than 5 violent or sexual fucks in a 12 rated film?
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
The difference in standards for violence as opposed to sex or inappropriate language in film ratings fascinates me.
I read some criticism last year - and frustratingly, I can't remember who wrote it - about its impact on sexualised images of violence in movies. The point was that people panting and moaning in pleasure onscreen will earn you a higher censor rating than people panting and moaning in pain or fear. A lower censorship rating basically means more money.
Ergo, showing a character as sexy, disheveled, and gasping in fear or grunting in rage is a less risky than sexy, disheveled, and gasping or grunting in pleasure. Violence for titillation is thus an easier sell than enthusiastic-sex (which'll get you an R rating). So violence-as-sex-stand-in has become a standard feature of the film industry.
The difference in standards for violence as opposed to sex or inappropriate language in film ratings fascinates me.
I read some criticism last year - and frustratingly, I can't remember who wrote it - about its impact on sexualised images of violence in movies. The point was that people panting and moaning in pleasure onscreen will earn you a higher censor rating than people panting and moaning in pain or fear. A lower censorship rating basically means more money.
Ergo, showing a character as sexy, disheveled, and gasping in fear or grunting in rage is a less risky than sexy, disheveled, and gasping or grunting in pleasure. Violence for titillation is thus an easier sell than enthusiastic-sex (which'll get you an R rating). So violence-as-sex-stand-in has become a standard feature of the film industry.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
I noticed that, too.
I noticed that, too.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
That makes 3 of us.
That makes 3 of us.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
I knew some smartass would point that out. What fucking difference does that make to his argument?
You fail.
I knew some smartass would point that out. What fucking difference does that make to his argument?
You fail.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
What you can say fuck five times in a 12? Wow, I thought it was just once! That was the only bit of Be Cool that was really funny
I'm probably getting my US and UK ratings mixed up.
Interestingly the BBFC originally gave The Kings Speech a higher rating as well, however they, I believe, have now relented in hindsight.
I always thought Southpark the movie made a very good point about how violence was more acceptable than swearing.
That said I'd turn the argument on its head, I don't think there should be more swearing in lower rated films, I'd say there should be less violence in them. It all used to seem much simpler in my youth: U, PG, 15, 18....you pretty much knew what you were going to get from each of those films but now? It seems far more confusing, and I imagine more confusing for parents too.
I don't for one moment think you can, or even should, protect kids from harsh language, especially given how easy it is for them to see the DVD anyway, but cursing, like violence, is losing its ability to shock. I'd always cite Torchwood here. In its first series fucks were thrown around like confetti to the point where it became silly. By series 2 they'd gotten more restrained, and when it got to the point where a character did say fuck, it was actually a powerful moment.
Is it important to show the language of the shop floor in a film like Made in Dagenham? Definitely. Do you need to say fuck 16 times to do that? I'd argue probably not. I mean if you're going to be realistic you'd probably need a lot more than 16 I would imagine! You're going for a feel for the shop floor, and I'd argue that you be achieved as well with sayin fuck five times as 16 or 116.
The BBFC/MPAA really need to take context into account a lot more though.
Is the C word an automatic 18 certificate though?
What you can say fuck five times in a 12? Wow, I thought it was just once! That was the only bit of Be Cool that was really funny
I'm probably getting my US and UK ratings mixed up.
Interestingly the BBFC originally gave The Kings Speech a higher rating as well, however they, I believe, have now relented in hindsight.
I always thought Southpark the movie made a very good point about how violence was more acceptable than swearing.
That said I'd turn the argument on its head, I don't think there should be more swearing in lower rated films, I'd say there should be less violence in them. It all used to seem much simpler in my youth: U, PG, 15, 18....you pretty much knew what you were going to get from each of those films but now? It seems far more confusing, and I imagine more confusing for parents too.
I don't for one moment think you can, or even should, protect kids from harsh language, especially given how easy it is for them to see the DVD anyway, but cursing, like violence, is losing its ability to shock. I'd always cite Torchwood here. In its first series fucks were thrown around like confetti to the point where it became silly. By series 2 they'd gotten more restrained, and when it got to the point where a character did say fuck, it was actually a powerful moment.
Is it important to show the language of the shop floor in a film like Made in Dagenham? Definitely. Do you need to say fuck 16 times to do that? I'd argue probably not. I mean if you're going to be realistic you'd probably need a lot more than 16 I would imagine! You're going for a feel for the shop floor, and I'd argue that you be achieved as well with sayin fuck five times as 16 or 116.
The BBFC/MPAA really need to take context into account a lot more though.
Is the C word an automatic 18 certificate though?
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
I wouldn't put all the blame on the MPAA, I think this is a failing with the American people as well. People would throw more of a fit over an F-bomb or boobie on TV than they do with gory violence. Look at what happened at the Super Bowl.
I wouldn't put all the blame on the MPAA, I think this is a failing with the American people as well. People would throw more of a fit over an F-bomb or boobie on TV than they do with gory violence. Look at what happened at the Super Bowl.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
Ha! Didn't notice that!
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
Personally I think it's all about context. Fuck and cunt can be used in ways that aren't offensive or shocking. "Now then, you funny old cunt what the fuck you been doing with yourself." can be just friends talking in a light hearted way but compared to "I'm going to fucking knife you, you cunt!" said with a threatening manner makes all the difference to how acceptable they are.
I would also disagree with you on the level of shock that can be had from swearing. You cite Torchwood, so I will as well. The first series they swore all over the place and it was juvenile and not at all shocking, however in the second series they swore less and in the context of Gwen and Rhys having an argument Rhys uttering "I fucking hate you sometimes" was a bit of a shock. Again, I think it's the context that makes the impact greater or lesser.
I am surprised with what it's possible to get away with at all ratings nowadays. Fuck can be said in a PG, Cunt in a 15. 12 rated movies have as much violence as 18 rated ones when I was a kid. I don't think it's particularly a bad thing, just surprising to me.
As for Made in Dagenahm I agree with the producer of the film on this, after the first one you don't notice it because it is natural speech, cutting them would serve no purpose because once it is said it's not going to get worse he doesn't change it from natural speech to threatening behaviour at any point so why should it make any difference if it's 1 or 1000? Cutting would serve no purpose but keeping them did keep a more authentic feel than suddenly changing from "Oh fuck off" to "Oh bugger off" because they had reached the limit.
What you can say fuck five times in a 12? Wow, I thought it was just once! That was the only bit of Be Cool that was really funny
I'm probably getting my US and UK ratings mixed up.
Interestingly the BBFC originally gave The Kings Speech a higher rating as well, however they, I believe, have now relented in hindsight.
I always thought Southpark the movie made a very good point about how violence was more acceptable than swearing.
That said I'd turn the argument on its head, I don't think there should be more swearing in lower rated films, I'd say there should be less violence in them. It all used to seem much simpler in my youth: U, PG, 15, 18....you pretty much knew what you were going to get from each of those films but now? It seems far more confusing, and I imagine more confusing for parents too.
I don't for one moment think you can, or even should, protect kids from harsh language, especially given how easy it is for them to see the DVD anyway, but cursing, like violence, is losing its ability to shock. I'd always cite Torchwood here. In its first series fucks were thrown around like confetti to the point where it became silly. By series 2 they'd gotten more restrained, and when it got to the point where a character did say fuck, it was actually a powerful moment.
Is it important to show the language of the shop floor in a film like Made in Dagenham? Definitely. Do you need to say fuck 16 times to do that? I'd argue probably not. I mean if you're going to be realistic you'd probably need a lot more than 16 I would imagine! You're going for a feel for the shop floor, and I'd argue that you be achieved as well with sayin fuck five times as 16 or 116.
The BBFC/MPAA really need to take context into account a lot more though.
Is the C word an automatic 18 certificate though?
Personally I think it's all about context. Fuck and cunt can be used in ways that aren't offensive or shocking. "Now then, you funny old cunt what the fuck you been doing with yourself." can be just friends talking in a light hearted way but compared to "I'm going to fucking knife you, you cunt!" said with a threatening manner makes all the difference to how acceptable they are.
I would also disagree with you on the level of shock that can be had from swearing. You cite Torchwood, so I will as well. The first series they swore all over the place and it was juvenile and not at all shocking, however in the second series they swore less and in the context of Gwen and Rhys having an argument Rhys uttering "I fucking hate you sometimes" was a bit of a shock. Again, I think it's the context that makes the impact greater or lesser.
I am surprised with what it's possible to get away with at all ratings nowadays. Fuck can be said in a PG, Cunt in a 15. 12 rated movies have as much violence as 18 rated ones when I was a kid. I don't think it's particularly a bad thing, just surprising to me.
As for Made in Dagenahm I agree with the producer of the film on this, after the first one you don't notice it because it is natural speech, cutting them would serve no purpose because once it is said it's not going to get worse he doesn't change it from natural speech to threatening behaviour at any point so why should it make any difference if it's 1 or 1000? Cutting would serve no purpose but keeping them did keep a more authentic feel than suddenly changing from "Oh fuck off" to "Oh bugger off" because they had reached the limit.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
FUCK FUCK = PG13 rating
FUCK FUCK FUCK = R rating
Just look at our election last night, the USA is a really fucking fucky fucker fuck dumbass country.
I tried to fit more swears in there than in most movies with an R ratings.
This pissed me off with the movie Moon, it got an R rating because it said "fuck" four times in five minutes. The rest of the 90+ minute movie was almost PG like!
FUCK FUCK = PG13 rating
FUCK FUCK FUCK = R rating
Just look at our election last night, the USA is a really fucking fucky fucker fuck dumbass country.
I tried to fit more swears in there than in most movies with an R ratings.
This pissed me off with the movie Moon, it got an R rating because it said "fuck" four times in five minutes. The rest of the 90+ minute movie was almost PG like!
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
I wish we could go back to not having ratings for films. The system is nonsense, and far less relevant in the age of the internet.
With internet, I can find out the movie's basic content in a minute without even referencing the rating. Independent websites could still rate the films, and we'd see less of this bullshit of films being toned down to meet a desired rating. You could say the rating system keeps kids from seeing the films, but they can always sneak in or watch it at a friend's house or download it.
I wish we could go back to not having ratings for films. The system is nonsense, and far less relevant in the age of the internet.
With internet, I can find out the movie's basic content in a minute without even referencing the rating. Independent websites could still rate the films, and we'd see less of this bullshit of films being toned down to meet a desired rating. You could say the rating system keeps kids from seeing the films, but they can always sneak in or watch it at a friend's house or download it.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
If you want a real eye-opener regarding the MPAA, watch the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which pretty much establishes the ratings as meaningless and random. Not to mention obsolete in this age of downloading and streaming. I mean, can Netflix really tell if an R-rated movie is being downloaded by a 7 year old? Of course not.
Attempts at revising and updating the MPAA have pretty much failed - with the NC-17 fiasco being the biggest example. Unfortunately they can't do away with it completely because then there will be pressure put on governments of all levels to step in and decide what people can and cannot see. (I'm waiting for such a move from groups like the Parents Television Council, even with the existing TV ratings system.)
Indeed, say what you like about the MPAA, I've never heard them demand that a film be censored. All they say is "if the film stays like this, it will get an NC-17 or an R". It's then up to the filmmaker to decide whether to keep the film as-is or attempt to go for a more commercially attractive rating. The fact they have to even consider that shows that the moviegoing public needs to do some growing up, since there are many who are conditioned to be scared away by R or NC-17 ratings (even PG-13 - there will be kids who won't be allowed to see the Harry Potter film coming out in a couple weeks because of its rating). All they see is the letter and they're too lazy to do research - dead-easy with the Internet - to find out exactly why a film was rated this. Someone with brains should be able to work out that The King's Speech isn't a "bad R" film, while something like Saw is (pun 100% intended) a no-brainer. But too many people just see the letters, and get spooked by them because they've been conditioned.
Never mind that I've seen some G-rated movies that frankly shouldn't be G-rated. The 1956 Ten Commandments is a great film, but no way does it justify a G with its violence and sensuality.
The MPAA isn't the only one. Some of the rating decisions made in the UK by its Board of Film Classification are insane and over there a difference between a 12 and a 15 rating actually does make a difference between whether a product is even released. The 1996 Doctor Who TV movie couldn't be released to home video until a gunshot was edited out to drop its rating from 12 to PG.
Alex
If you want a real eye-opener regarding the MPAA, watch the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which pretty much establishes the ratings as meaningless and random. Not to mention obsolete in this age of downloading and streaming. I mean, can Netflix really tell if an R-rated movie is being downloaded by a 7 year old? Of course not.
Attempts at revising and updating the MPAA have pretty much failed - with the NC-17 fiasco being the biggest example. Unfortunately they can't do away with it completely because then there will be pressure put on governments of all levels to step in and decide what people can and cannot see. (I'm waiting for such a move from groups like the Parents Television Council, even with the existing TV ratings system.)
Indeed, say what you like about the MPAA, I've never heard them demand that a film be censored. All they say is "if the film stays like this, it will get an NC-17 or an R". It's then up to the filmmaker to decide whether to keep the film as-is or attempt to go for a more commercially attractive rating. The fact they have to even consider that shows that the moviegoing public needs to do some growing up, since there are many who are conditioned to be scared away by R or NC-17 ratings (even PG-13 - there will be kids who won't be allowed to see the Harry Potter film coming out in a couple weeks because of its rating). All they see is the letter and they're too lazy to do research - dead-easy with the Internet - to find out exactly why a film was rated this. Someone with brains should be able to work out that The King's Speech isn't a "bad R" film, while something like Saw is (pun 100% intended) a no-brainer. But too many people just see the letters, and get spooked by them because they've been conditioned.
Never mind that I've seen some G-rated movies that frankly shouldn't be G-rated. The 1956 Ten Commandments is a great film, but no way does it justify a G with its violence and sensuality.
The MPAA isn't the only one. Some of the rating decisions made in the UK by its Board of Film Classification are insane and over there a difference between a 12 and a 15 rating actually does make a difference between whether a product is even released. The 1996 Doctor Who TV movie couldn't be released to home video until a gunshot was edited out to drop its rating from 12 to PG.
Alex
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
Believe it or not, they actually blurred a contestant's mouth on SURVIVOR a few weeks ago, presumedly because she mouthed something unprintable.
Don't want to offend the lip-readers in the audience!
Believe it or not, they actually blurred a contestant's mouth on SURVIVOR a few weeks ago, presumedly because she mouthed something unprintable.
Don't want to offend the lip-readers in the audience!
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
The fun thing about censorship in the form of bleeping and blurring is that it creates the illusion of swearing and nudity when there is in fact none of that. So it's pretty much countereffective.
The fun thing about censorship in the form of bleeping and blurring is that it creates the illusion of swearing and nudity when there is in fact none of that. So it's pretty much countereffective.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
The MPAA is fucked up and has no concept of rationality or even the "pulse" of the nation. Listen to the "Clerks" commentary track done with Kevin Smith (I think it was Clerks, may have been Dogma) where he complains about the MPAA's take with the first cut of the movie, he goes back and makes some fairly minor changes and presto-change-o he gets a lower rating.
The MPAA also is harsher on violence than it is on language and sex. I bet it's ran by a bunch of prudish church ladies or something. There's also a lot of secrecy around the agency that's just absurd. There was a nice documentary about the MPAA that was made and released a few years ago that revealed how screwed up their system is not to mention hypocritical at times.
A "better system" is needed for telling parents and viewers what's in a movie. Or perhaps just dispense with the whole "Rated PG-13, Rated-R, whatever" thing and just straight-out tell people what content is in the movie and let the people decide who's capable of seeing it.
The MPAA is fucked up and has no concept of rationality or even the "pulse" of the nation. Listen to the "Clerks" commentary track done with Kevin Smith (I think it was Clerks, may have been Dogma) where he complains about the MPAA's take with the first cut of the movie, he goes back and makes some fairly minor changes and presto-change-o he gets a lower rating.
The MPAA also is harsher on violence than it is on language and sex. I bet it's ran by a bunch of prudish church ladies or something. There's also a lot of secrecy around the agency that's just absurd. There was a nice documentary about the MPAA that was made and released a few years ago that revealed how screwed up their system is not to mention hypocritical at times.
A "better system" is needed for telling parents and viewers what's in a movie. Or perhaps just dispense with the whole "Rated PG-13, Rated-R, whatever" thing and just straight-out tell people what content is in the movie and let the people decide who's capable of seeing it.
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
It also tends to be call attention to the offending topic. There was another recent SURVIVOR ep where they kept blurring this guy's crotch. I like to think that, ordinarily, I wouldn't have even been looking at the guy's crotch, but it was hard to miss the big blur hovering between his legs the whole scene!
Similarly, I might not have even noticed Jane muttering to herself off in the lower corner of the screen--if they hadn't made a point of blurring her mouth when her teammate got voted off!
It also tends to be call attention to the offending topic. There was another recent SURVIVOR ep where they kept blurring this guy's crotch. I like to think that, ordinarily, I wouldn't have even been looking at the guy's crotch, but it was hard to miss the big blur hovering between his legs the whole scene!
Similarly, I might not have even noticed Jane muttering to herself off in the lower corner of the screen--if they hadn't made a point of blurring her mouth when her teammate got voted off!
J
Jetfire
Guest
Re: Massive MPAA fail: some f-bombs in therapy worse than testicle tor
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3w1yV4Ehg[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3w1yV4Ehg
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3w1yV4Ehg[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di3w1yV4Ehg