violence in R-rated movies and MPAA ratings

[jefferiestubes8]

Even Roger Ebert got involved in the Kick Ass film rating controversy.

Ebert was especially troubled by "Kick-Ass"s' violence, many of it coming at the hands of a potty mouthed 11-old girl.

Will I seem hopelessly square if I find “Kick-Ass” morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point?," Ebert wrote in his 1-star review this week.

and another

"We never thought that we would say this about a movie: but Kick-Ass is too violent . . ." -- Sci-Fi Movie Page.

Hello? The film is Rated R...

http://www.thewrap.com/article/roger-ebert-kicks-kick-ass-controversy-16396

 

[Alidar Jarok]

well, at least it's not just complaining about Hit Girl's potty-mouth. the right-wing hate-rag the Daily Mail was stirring shit about Jane Goldman being the film's co-writer and OMG HOW CAN A WOMAN HAVE A LITTLE GIRL SAY THAT!?!?!?!?! completely ignoring her y'know, dismembering and murdering people left and right...

That's the kind of hypocrisy This Film is Not Yet Rated points out. Shoot someone in the head (but no blood), PG-13; the word Fuck is uttered 3+ times, R.

What about nudity or sex for that matter. Movies, even films for children can be very violent (look at Harry Potter and Narnia) but its considered suitable for children and teens. You can see all kinds of violence in PG-13 movies. But as soon as we get to see a breast, it's R. I never cease to be amazed how nudity can be more harmful than violence.

Then again, that's not entirely true. Titanic was only PG-13, for example.

And Jurassic Park, which has a decent amount of violence, was only PG (I think they decided that its educational value lowered its rating or something).

 

[paudemge]

There needs to be a competing rating system that studios can use, maybe one that makes it perfectly clear what standards they use on how they rate.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

There needs to be a competing rating system that studios can use, maybe one that makes it perfectly clear what standards they use on how they rate.

Do you mean a voluntary ratings system for feature films [only in the United States]?

Every country has their own ratings.

Would this mean the MPAA would not be involved [in the USA] in the ratings at all in your eyes?

 

[John Picard]

For years, movies and movie previews always had the rating logo at the start with nothing more. It's only been in the last decade or so that the stamp has also includes something like: PG-13 - Contains adult situations, mild language, and brief nudity.

We don't need a rating system, like the MPAA since the MPAA is corrupt and in a way has an agenda. Why the hell should a member of the clergy be on-hand for evaluating a film? Although he doesn't have a vote, he is allowed input. If people want to argue that angle, the fine -- let's put a Muslim Cleric on the board and see what happens. A film should be advertised with the brief descriptor that was noted above, but with no rating. If parent groups or other ninnies want to get riled up over it, then tell them the same thing I tell those people who scream about the crap on the radio or the TV -- turn it off, don't watch it, and shut up.

 

[DigificWriter]

As far as Parents Groups are concerned, they are nothing but a bunch of busy-bodies who need to STFU. The film could be branded NC-17 and they'd still bitch. It was these same "outraged" people who caused the development of the PG-13 rating due to "scary and extremely violent scenes" in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

As far as I am aware, it was Stephen Spielberg - not 'outraged parents' - who was responsible for the creation of the 'PG-13' rating, and that he went to Jack Valenti and suggested that there be a rating between 'PG' and 'R' because of some rather harsh criticsm he received because of the content of both Temple of Doom and Gremlins.

As I stated above, take the time to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. Jack Valenti was a puritanical and censorship driven moron. I was in my early teens when Temple of Doom caused the uproar. Busy-body do-gooders were calling radio stations, TV stations -- you name it. Apparently, the so-called violence in ToD was just too much for young children

If parents were the ones pestering Valenti, why would Spielberg specifically state - on several occasions - that he was the one responsible for getting Valenti to create the PG-13 rating? Given what I know of the man (Spielberg), he doesn't strike me as the type of person to claim something if it weren't true, particularly about something as significant - flawed though you might believe the whole system is - as a new rating from the MPAA.

 

[John Picard]

As far as I am aware, it was Stephen Spielberg - not 'outraged parents' - who was responsible for the creation of the 'PG-13' rating, and that he went to Jack Valenti and suggested that there be a rating between 'PG' and 'R' because of some rather harsh criticsm he received because of the content of both Temple of Doom and Gremlins.

As I stated above, take the time to watch This Film is Not Yet Rated. Jack Valenti was a puritanical and censorship driven moron. I was in my early teens when Temple of Doom caused the uproar. Busy-body do-gooders were calling radio stations, TV stations -- you name it. Apparently, the so-called violence in ToD was just too much for young children

If parents were the ones pestering Valenti, why would Spielberg specifically state - on several occasions - that he was the one responsible for getting Valenti to create the PG-13 rating? Given what I know of the man (Spielberg), he doesn't strike me as the type of person to claim something if it weren't true, particularly about something as significant - flawed though you might believe the whole system is - as a new rating from the MPAA.

I didn't say they were after Valenti. Both he and Spielberg were catching flack, but specifically the latter because of children, ripping out someone's heart, blah blah blah. My dad, who was in his early 60's by then, thought the uproar was absolutely ridiculous and related to me how people got into a tizzy way back when at the old horror movies or even the some old war movies where soliders said "Hell" and "Damn". Also note that Spielberg has a bit of a jelly spine. After all, he went back and digitally removed the rifles in ET and had them replaced. Can't make soldiers look menacing

 

[Data Holmes]

Spielberg pushed for the pg-13 to prevent ToD from getting an R, which was the only option at the time beyond removal of the "intense and graphic" content from the movie.

He offered the mid rating as a way to save his film and quit the protestations by the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" idiots.

 

[John Picard]

Spielberg pushed for the pg-13 to prevent ToD from getting an R, which was the only option at the time beyond removal of the "intense and graphic" content from the movie.

He offered the mid rating as a way to save his film and quit the protestations by the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" idiots.

*A-Hem* ToD was issued a PG rating. The aforementioned violence and intense scenes resulted in the development of the PG-13 rating so as to "better inform parents"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087469/

Generally credited (along with Gremlins (1984)) with the creation of the PG-13 rating, as many felt the scenes of violence in both movies were too much for a PG rating, but not enough for an R rating. It is widely believed that had Steven Spielberg's name not been on both movies, both may have received an R rating. (The Flamingo Kid (1984) was the first film to be *given* a PG-13 rating, but sat on the shelves for five months before being released.) Red Dawn (1984) was the first motion picture released with the PG-13 rating.

 

[Data Holmes]

JP, at this point it doesn't matter how it came to exist, it is now a major part of the censorship problem.

There should not be ratings. Ratings = Censorship.

 

[John Picard]

JP, at this point it doesn't matter how it came to exist, it is now a major part of the censorship problem.

There should not be ratings. Ratings = Censorship.

I was correcting your error in stating that ToD was going to get an "R" rating.

And yes, ratings = censorship. For example, in Europe, a film with certain elements of violence will get a more harsh rating, while Americans will think , but on the flip side, a film with sex/nudity in America will receive a harsh rating, while Europeans will react

 

[jefferiestubes8]

JP, at this point it doesn't matter how it came to exist, it is now a major part of the censorship problem.

There should not be ratings. Ratings = Censorship.

I disagree.
Ratings inform parents of the content in a film or television program.
In the last decade by adding the type of content to next to the rating a parent can be even more picky if they are going by ratings only without seeing a film first and allowing their child to view the film.

Censorship has only happened in cases on NC-17 films not being shown by exhibitors.

Certain conservative places like Utah were doing things with home video like cutting out nude scenes on the physical VHS tapes of Titanic (1997) and selling them to consumers.

Sunrise Family Video, that was removing Kate Winslet's nude scene from Titanic videos. "The staff would cut them with scissors,"

2003 SOURCE

There has even been a documentary made about it in 2009.
'Cleanflix' exposes Utah's conservative culture to the world

This is an example about sexual scenes and profanity though not violence specifically.

 

[Data Holmes]

JP, at this point it doesn't matter how it came to exist, it is now a major part of the censorship problem.

There should not be ratings. Ratings = Censorship.

I disagree.
Ratings inform parents of the content in a film or television program.
In the last decade by adding the type of content to next to the rating a parent can be even more picky if they are going by ratings only without seeing a film first and allowing their child to view the film.

Censorship has only happened in cases on NC-17 films not being shown by exhibitors.

Certain conservative places like Utah were doing things with home video like cutting out nude scenes on the physical VHS tapes of Titanic (1997) and selling them to consumers.

Sunrise Family Video, that was removing Kate Winslet's nude scene from Titanic videos. "The staff would cut them with scissors,"

2003 SOURCE


There has even been a documentary made about it in 2009.
'Cleanflix' exposes Utah's conservative culture to the world

I disagree to your disagreement. Content advisories inform parents of the content within the film, ratings do nothing of the sort.

The only thing that ratings do is provide a way for the ratings board to censor projects, content, and people they do not like. In doing so they hamper the creative process.


Ratings need to die!

 

[emacs]

I never cease to be amazed how nudity can be more harmful than violence.

same here; i find it quite bizarre.

 

[John Picard]

JP, at this point it doesn't matter how it came to exist, it is now a major part of the censorship problem.

There should not be ratings. Ratings = Censorship.

I disagree.
Ratings inform parents of the content in a film or television program.
In the last decade by adding the type of content to next to the rating a parent can be even more picky if they are going by ratings only without seeing a film first and allowing their child to view the film.

Censorship has only happened in cases on NC-17 films not being shown by exhibitors.

Certain conservative places like Utah were doing things with home video like cutting out nude scenes on the physical VHS tapes of Titanic (1997) and selling them to consumers.

Sunrise Family Video, that was removing Kate Winslet's nude scene from Titanic videos. "The staff would cut them with scissors,"

2003 SOURCE

There has even been a documentary made about it in 2009.
'Cleanflix' exposes Utah's conservative culture to the world

This is an example about sexual scenes and profanity though not violence specifically.

Go back to my earlier statement. It wasn't until the last decade or so that the rating was accompanied by a brief summation of the "reasons" why the movie garnered that rating. I've seen PG-13 movies over the years that I couldn't understand weren't R rated or even PG. For the longest time, there was the assumption that the reason a movie was rated R was for the following: adult language, strong sexual content, and/or violence or even a combination of all three.

 

[Aragorn]

Ratings have gotten a little more lenient over the years. For example, Young Guns was R while Young Guns II was PG-13, yet there was really nothing different about them -- no F-bombs, only backside male nudity (and Young Guns II also had female backside nudity), no showing what really happens when bullets hit a body. And the second movie came out just two years after the first one.

 

[Scotty]

What about nudity or sex for that matter. Movies, even films for children can be very violent (look at Harry Potter and Narnia) but its considered suitable for children and teens.

Can we keep this thread to violence specifically and not just censorship of content overall?

Why?

 

[Emher]

And Jurassic Park, which has a decent amount of violence, was only PG (I think they decided that its educational value lowered its rating or something).

Nope, it was PG-13.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Alright, I'm apparently mistaken (I think I saw it on wikipedia, so that serves me right). I guess I saw a PG-13 movie when I was 5, but I'm not sure what that says about me

 

[Scotty]

Alright, I'm apparently mistaken (I think I saw it on wikipedia, so that serves me right). I guess I saw a PG-13 movie when I was 5, but I'm not sure what that says about me

According to the MPAA, you're traumatized for life.