MPAA, fair or unjust?

[Gluttony]

Basically, I request the imput of anyone ho knows about the way movies are being rated and your opinion on the MPAA and MPA as being fair or unjust and unknowing. I ask that you please give me examples if possible but if you cannot, that is fine.

I really need your imput for a good purpose so I hope you will help me.

Is the MPAA fair or is it a crock?

[MotorizedInstinct]

The MPAA is a simmering crock of shit. They constaintly change their rules, sometimes from movie to movie. To get your movie rated you have to pay them, pay them! Small movie companies are obligated to get their movies rated because multi-plexes have a rule that no un-rated films could be shown in their theaters. So basically you are paying someone to chop up your movie. The MPAA actually doesn't cut anything, they "suggest" cuts to the filmaker or studio. They say they don't force anyone, which if taken literally is true, but their influence is so large that they are basically forcing filmakers to comprimise. The actual real job of the MPAA is not to rate films, that's actually a secondary job. Their #1 job is to be a political lobbyist in Washington for the 5 largest movie studio (who by the way started the "indepentant" censor board).
I will say it is better than some countries who's governments directly censors and ban films.

[anybodykilla100]

these guys are a bunch of assholes who censor everthing they can get there greed little hands on.Bottom line there a bunch of censoring jackass

[Moviefan1234]

I have nothing against them. They're just doing their jobs.

[MotorizedInstinct]

Why should there be a job to censor films anyway?
All you need is a basic content rating for every movie so kids don't walk into pornos and that's it. I think its shaddy that a lobbying group parades around like a ratings board and an "indepentant" ratings board at that, when it was created by studios themselves.

[XCoRyX]

MPAA is bullshit,enough said.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by MotorizedInstinct
Why should there be a job to censor films anyway?
All you need is a basic content rating for every movie so kids don't walk into pornos and that's it. I think its shaddy that a lobbying group parades around like a ratings board and an "indepentant" ratings board at that, when it was created by studios themselves.

Yes, they do go overboard sometimes. But the fact remains that some guidence is needed to let parents know what is in a particular movie.

[MotorizedInstinct]

I agree that every movie should have their content displayed (similar to TV shows) so parents can know what is in a film. But who are the MPAA to tell us that a certain movie can only be seen by peopel over 13 or 18? That is taking the power away from the parents. Every person is different, some 13 years olds are mature enough to see R rated films and if their parents feel its ok than no one should stop that kid. There shouldn't be an organization there to say:
MPAA:"Son you're still not allowed in"
Kid: "but my parents said ok"
MPAA; "Well, your parents are wrong we know you better than they do, you can't handle the stuff in this movie"
Kid: "...but i thought the whole point of rating is to help parents?"
MPAA: "Well. you're wrong it's to substitute for parents"
Kid: "'Oh' ok"
MPAA: "Oh' here's a movie you would like Agent Cody Banks. It's great. You'll love it."
Kid: "but..."
MPAA: "YOU'LL LOVE IT!"
Kid: "ok"

[Moviefan1234]

You do have a very valid point. I'm not saying the MPAA should have more power than the parents. What I am saying is that every movie should have it's content known.

[Kaos]

Originally posted by Moviefan1234
You do have a very valid point. I'm not saying the MPAA should have more power than the parents. What I am saying is that every movie should have it's content known.

You're both bring up valid points. I believe that while a movie's content SHOULD be known, it lies with the parents(or it should anyway) to have the final say in what their kids watch. Of course, it would probably help if some parents took an interest in what their kids were doing too.

[Haddonfield]

The MPAA is needed but they go overboards, they take themselves to seriously. Much like the FTC who tell you what you can hear over the radio (Bring back O&A NOW!!!!!!!!!!) They do good in the fact that yes, children and people in general should know what they are in for, yet why force people to change things?

Why force a director to change his vision because its too gory or too out there? Just let them do the movie and rate it the way it falls...then let the studios get there heads out of there ass about NC-17. There is a stigma about that term yet a chunk of flicks would have been slapped with that if it wasnt for the studios demanding a better grade. They want the $$$ and they think they are fucked if the mass audience isnt "allowed" to see it. Fact is anyone at almost any age can see whatever they want.

I also think it was very unfair to use Friday The 13th as the whipping boy during the 80's. You can watch some pretty messed up stuff in The Evil Dead, Hellraiser 1 and 2, and even The Texas Chainsaw Masicare (for pure terror) all of these movies are rated R or have versions rated R that show more than Friday the 13th parts 5-8 combined...that just plain ol' sucks.....

[FeverDog420]

Roger Ebert constantly complains about the MPAA's corrupt practices.

Excerpts from his review of Y Tu Mama Tambien:

"The movie is realistic about sex, which is to say, franker and healthier than the smutty evasions forced on American movies by the R rating. We feel a shock of recognition: This is what real people do and how they do it, sexually, and the MPAA has perverted a generation of American movies into puerile masturbatory snickering."

"Why did [director Alfonso Cuaron] return to Mexico to make it? Because he has something to say about Mexico, obviously, and also because Jack Valenti and the MPAA have made it impossible for a movie like this to be produced in America. It is a perfect illustration of the need for a workable adult rating: too mature, thoughtful and frank for the R, but not in any sense pornographic. Why do serious film people not rise up in rage and tear down the rating system that infantilizes their work?

Exactly. The MPAA has been a joke for years, and has obliterated any chance of mature Hollywood filmmaking.

[MotorizedInstinct]

Like Haddonfield said, it is all about money. Studios are not interested in art, but making films that appeal to the largest audience possible. So that means these companies have no balls or guts to make a real statement in their films in fear of offending someone (and someone is always offended when ever a person expressing themselves).

[Pumpkinhead]

The MPAA banned a fucking POSTER. Nuff said.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, the excellent poster for MAY was inexplicably banned, and had to be changed.

[MotorizedInstinct]

Really? I didn't know that. That is just fucked up!

[Kaos]

Yes, I believe it was IZombie who first posted the news here.

[crapgame]

The MPAA sucks big donkey dicks. Personally Ithink Mr. Jack Valenti should be forced to retire, unfortunately the man has a job for life!?! How the fuck does someone get a cushy little job like that . More to the point I dont think anyone should be in a position to enforce thier personel morals on a population that the obviusly are not in touch with. Mr valenti has got to be 108 years old and doesnt have a friggin clue.
I do think films should be rated but rated fairly based on total effect and not one scene. Instead of looking at the entire film these Jack offs are De-facto censoreing what you and I see. Lets all grow up and see movies the way the film makers intended us to see them. If a movie is shit its shit. Period. But if its good I wanna see it warts and all. And for all you parents out there, WATCH YOUR CHILDREN!!! Be involved know whats up and maybe Uncle Sam wont feel he has to be the caretaker of society

[ICP RULZ]

I love the MPAA,I just need to listen to them a bit more often. For example,I just finished watching Cannibal Holocaust. That movie sickened me to no end. That was fucking disgusting what they did to the animals and the rape scenes. Shit,if I was there I would've kicked their asses even if they were just faking it. Shit,I am going to be haunted for life. Next on my list to see is Cannibal Ferox,haha,when will I ever learn

Peace,
Matt

[Juice]

MPAA is bullshit. America does not deserve the title 'land of the free' for several reasons, and MPAA is one of them. I don't need anyone to tell me what I can and can not see. I mean, a lot of horror movies are rated R, wich means kids younger then 17 shouldn't see them. Then why censorate them? Just make sure people with the 'right' ages see them.
What also realy bugs me, is that they got away with the dinner scene in Hannibal, but Cherry Falls was butchered to death by those MPAAssholes. What was that all about? Well, Hannibal had Anthony Hopkins...
Damn MPAA!

[MotorizedInstinct]

Double standards are common when the MPAA are rating movies. Their "rules" change from movie to movie.

[Kaos]

Originally posted by MotorizedInstinct
Double standards are common when the MPAA are rating movies. Their "rules" change from movie to movie.

Yes, one of the statments I've heard them make is: "We rate each movie on an individual basis on it's own merits."

This is weasel-speak for, "We reserve the right to screw over a film because we don't like it and/or we feel the public can't handle it."

After all, who knows what we want(and can handle) better then some large corporation?:rolleyes:

[Corporal_Hicks]

There seems to be some kind of secret underground buisness involved with the MPAA.
A movie with major studio backing may pressure them to get a PG-13 when the film has R content or an R rating when the film has NC-17 content.
Yet a film with little money to back it up will get screwed over.

Or they may have a number limit for each rating.
"Oh we used up our PG-13 rating with Domestic Disturbance, we are going to have to slap Amelie with an R."

[Whiggles]

I don't approve of the MPAA. I totally agree that there is a need for age ratings, but the way the MPAA operates, effectively bullying the filmmakers into cutting their films, is disgraceful. What's doubly sickening is that their continual flaunting of the "we don't censor" mantra means that they rarely tell the filmmakers exactly what they are taking offense to, so the filmmakers have to guess, which often means entire scenes being removed. I also think their system is completely out of whack, and needs to be updated, but that's another story.

[izombie]

Originally posted by Kaos
Yes, I believe it was IZombie who first posted the news here.

Yes I did find that piece of disturbing news a couple of months ago and I thought I saw some men burning books :(

I believe the concept of the MPAA is a good one, ratings are a good thing for concerned parents. And the rating system is slightly better now that they started adding the contributing factors in the rating (violence, nudity, sex etc...) of course I'm still a little baffled by the one call "some sensuality" WTF is that.

BUT In the real world the MPAA is so flawed it is not even funny. Too many times I've seen movies that I really made me wonder how it was not R when it has PG-13 and I've seen R rated movies that I still do not know why they had that rating.

Some of you guys are blaming the MPAA for movie cuts, you might want to re-think that. I would wager money that it is the studios "i.e. the ones putting up the money" that force the directors into making cuts, so they can distribute the movie to a larger audience and make more money, which is what they are in business to do.

[C-Desecration-]

MPAA is bullshit. America does not deserve the title 'land of the free' for several reasons, and MPAA is one of them. I don't need anyone to tell me what I can and can not see. I mean, a lot of horror movies are rated R, wich means kids younger then 17 shouldn't see them. Then why censorate them? Just make sure people with the 'right' ages see them.


Please. Bringing up the goddamn "land of the free" shit is a little trite now (...whoops, didn't mean to come off so hostile). But really, I'm glad certain things are censored, and the G, PG, PG-13, and R ratings as well as NC-17 are good for parents to judge. Yet for some reason, MPAA seems to think it should raise America's kids instead of the kid's parents...which is fucked up.
I'm really undecided on this issue.
However, it is really irritating when certain movies, compared with others, are not R or PG-13. What I mean is, The Ring? Could have perfectly been R. And also the guidlines for the movies are wierd:
Movie 1:
Rated R for brief nudity
Movie 2:
Rated PG-13 for violence, disturbing images, profranity, drug reference, adult situations

[Whiggles]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-
Please. Bringing up the goddamn "land of the free" shit is a little trite now (...whoops, didn't mean to come off so hostile). But really, I'm glad certain things are censored, and the G, PG, PG-13, and R ratings as well as NC-17 are good for parents to judge.There's nothing trite about the "land of the free" line. When people's rights are being infringed in an area that is relatively unimportant such as entertainment, you know something's not right.

Actual censorship cannot be justified, in my opinion. Classification is a good idea, but censorship is technically an infringement on human rights.

[the saw is family]

this is a topic that gets me fired up alot. personally i agree with what some earlier posters said,that in theory the mpaa works. in the fact that i agree that content in films should be made aware to the viewing public. now does that mean certain content should be cut? absolutely not, nothing wrong with awareness,but censorship in art just shouldnt be there. also the piece from the y tu mama tambien review by ebert is dead on,they should create a new rating for adult films. at this point NC-17 is looked at like the X rating was in the late 70's early 80's. also mpaa head Jack Valenti does hold many personal grudges against certain filmmakers. i'll wrap this post up with a quote from abel ferrera(director of driller killer, ms. 45 and other films) the quote was about his film bad lieutenant which recieved an NC-17 rating "NC-17 I'm not even sure what that really means,but it looks good on the poster".

[Jon Lyrik]

The MPAA is full of shit. Hell, it's fine to them for a really violent film to secure a PG-13, but not if it has sex. Give me a freaking break.

[Cyclonus]

Originally posted by the saw is family
also mpaa head Jack Valenti does hold many personal grudges against certain filmmakers.

Is this so? Anyone in particular and why?

[XCoRyX]

the MPAA if also responsible for passing and deciding on poster arts and such,piss me off and are unjust so to say...for instance remember the original 'May' Poster?

[Kaos]

Originally posted by XCoRyX
the MPAA if also responsible for passing and deciding on poster arts and such,piss me off and are unjust so to say...for instance remember the original 'May' Poster?

Apparently, they are art critics as well.:rolleyes:

[XCoRyX]

oh how i forgot....:)

[Boogeyman]

Unjust...but, I dont think that the MPAA censor anything. Its all the filmakers who choose to cut certain material. The only reason the directors cut material is to receieve an R-Rating. I mean, if a movie is NC-17...you loose so much profit,thee really isnt any reason to release the film. Thats why people cut and edit to get an R-Rating...to make more money. If anyone could get into NC-17 movies...there would be a ton of them. Like if Rob Zombie made HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES NC-17, there would be very little profit because you loose so much of your target audience (teens). The MPAA only classifies..they dont edit. But, that doesnt mean that I agree with them 100%. I mean, although it does FORCE people to edit their films...its basically saying "Cut it, so we say its acceptable for an R-rating...or bomb at the box office." I mean, yes, they do help parents keep their kids from very violent material..but sometimes, they go way too far.

later

[Whiggles]

Originally posted by Boogeyman
Unjust...but, I dont think that the MPAA censor anything. Its all the filmakers who choose to cut certain material. The only reason the directors cut material is to receieve an R-Rating. I mean, if a movie is NC-17...you loose so much profit,thee really isnt any reason to release the film. Thats why people cut and edit to get an R-Rating...to make more money. If anyone could get into NC-17 movies...there would be a ton of them. Like if Rob Zombie made HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES NC-17, there would be very little profit because you loose so much of your target audience (teens). The MPAA only classifies..they dont edit. But, that doesnt mean that I agree with them 100%. I mean, although it does FORCE people to edit their films...its basically saying "Cut it, so we say its acceptable for an R-rating...or bomb at the box office." I mean, yes, they do help parents keep their kids from very violent material..but sometimes, they go way too far.

later As far as I'm concerned, someone who says "remove this or get an NC-17" is a censor. The things they don't allow in R-rated movies makes US censorship quite strict, and the problem is that the censored ones tend to get released in the rest of the world as well. There are some exceptions (for instance, Eyes Wide Shut and the latest Bond film, pDie Another Day, were cut in America but released uncut everywhere else), but by in large the rest of the world has to put up with what is a pretty crazy censorship system.

[XCoRyX]

and there IS reason to release an NC-17 film,simply if you've wanted to make one of them cross the lines and boundaries films,or just dont feel like taking anything out.But,i will say,as an aspiring writer and filmmaker,if my film were having a good chance of getting into theaters,and i had to trim 1 or 2 scenes down for a theatrical release,then i would,but i would NOT if it required to trim it to a PG-13 film,or if it required more then 2 scenes to be cut out,from there i'd just release it STV.

[ANTBond007]

The MPAA doesn't cut, nor tell people to cut, studio films. They rate it, and if the filmmaker is unhappy with the rating, he/she makes changes.

If they truly want their film to be released the way it is, they should send it out with the rating it was given.

[XpatrickX]

i'm going to revive this for a sec. Lloyd Kaufman has an interesting pov on this topic...


http://www.troma.com/lk2/Q&A_mpaa/index.php3

[the saw is family]

for cyclonus: jack valenti holds a grudge against kevin smith and has constantly given him shit about his films since clerks. with clerks kevin had to take the film to court to get it reduced to an "R" rating. kevin also had to send jay and silent bob back numerous times for approval with valenti saying one thing and adding another here and there. I can't specifically think of any other examples right now but he's just very hypocritical with the cuts that he "suggests" for films.