Has The 'R' Rating Become Too Slack?

[TheAxeGrinder]

After seeing my two fave horror icons go at it this summer, and even before that, seeing Death systematically pick off a group that cheated death in wild events, to seeing guys get hacked up by a chainsaw wielding cannibal, it makes me start to wonder: has the MPAA started to slack off? No offense, I love how the studios have begun to push the envelope in terms of the gore in their films, and censorship sucks no matter what you call it. But is it getting to be pushed too far? I know that the ratings system has evolved over the years, from when the stuff that went on in The Exorcist was considered to be very controversial, to it being almost tame now. Have we as a society come so far that we have pushed the level of violence so much that it no longer frightens or even affects us? It's not just in movies, but in video games. I don't know how many of you schmoes have played Manhunt for the PS2, but if you have, you know what I'm talking about. Very brutal, and very unforgiving. I'm not saying that we should stop making this stuff, but I'm not saying that we should continue. I mean, how much more graphic can gore get? Will we begin to see stuff that is so mean spirited and cruel that it begs the question of why?

[rilocay]

You have a good point.
Last year when learning about evolution, i wondered if with all the stuff chicks take to lessen the chances of them getting pregnant that eventually through their kids it could fuck them over and stop them from having kids completely...

But yea, i think it should just go a bit tamer and stuff because, it will eventually end up really fuked. Like what would peace loving aliens came down in ten years time and saw dis shit? I wonder wat they would think of us with all this gore. Ahwel, we will see where dis goes.

[p1phillips]

I read somewhere that the extreme violence in Final Destination 2 got past the censors because they were just accidents. If it had been another person inflicting that mayhem, there would have been more cuts. It was some sort of censorship loophole that the FD2 people exploited to, IMO, brilliant extremes.

Other than that, I don't think I could really comment for sure whether the R rating is getting too slack. It's weird what can get past and what can't (another example - Scream kept getting sent back for cuts, but Scream 2 got past without any cuts, and I thought part 2 was more violent). I think a lot of it has to do with the almighty dollar - films will get passed if there's more certainty the film will do well. For example, the TCM remake here in Australia was originally supposed to be rated R (the equivalent to your NC-17), but after it was a big hit in America, it was knocked down to an MA (the equivalent to your R). They didn't have to worry as much about it being offensive, because lots of Americans had already gone to see it and approved it for mass consumption.

Overall, though, films are getting more violent, there's no doubt about that.

But put one nipple on TV....

[pyscho dude]

Yeah I agree about that nipple remark. I don't think the MPAA is getting too slacky. I mean yeah some of these movies are pretty violent but their still nothing compared to movies of the past like Dead Alive or Day of the dead. Actually I don't find the recent films really that gory at all.

[countchocula]

The MPAA is inconsequential, as more and more films are finding their way onto DVD uncut. They're also inconsistent, which is a staggering understatement. It seemed as though they endorsed graphic violence in the early '80s (Friday the 13th), only to bowdlerize it in the late '80s (The New Blood). They'll probably become less permissive as the decade progresses. Their platform on what is and what isn't "too much" is just as fickle and volatile as the stock market.

[Harry Warden]

This is a great idea for a thread. I indeed remarqued that the R rated films kept more violence than before.

But is it too slack?.. How about f*ck no! I was becoming tired of the MPAA assholes that kept cutting all the good stuff in films. When I pay 9$ to see a horror flick, it's because I want to see horror. It's my choice. Stop telling me what I can and cannot see.

Dario Argento once said that films were pieces of art yet no one cut out parts of paintings or sculptures that might be considered offensive.
I agree with him.

Stop cutting all the good stuff out!

[TheAxeGrinder]

That's a couple good points you brought up there, Harry. No one likes having your art censored, no matter how graphic it is. However, when you start up a conversation such as this thread, you eventually have to get into the fact that some kids are going to see these films, some of which aren't old enough to handle them. Now, it's a different game.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
seeing Death systematically pick off a group that cheated death in wild events *FD sense tingles* :)


I had also thought about this, it's very true . . . it's a possible revolution.

Or someone sold his/her soul in order to make R a more hardcore rating.

[izombie]

Just a note (not defending the MPAA) but they do not tell you what you can and can not see. It's the movie studios who make the ultimate decision, for example.

Lets say another useless hollywood film company is making a hip/funny new horror movie or another shity remake and they are shooting for a PG-13 release so they can get a bigger market in the seats.

The MPAA reviews it says it's an R, greedy executives have the cuts made to get a PG-13 so they can get a larger demographic into the theaters.

Now I'm not saying money is bad (wish I had more of it) studios are in the business to make money, not cater to our every celluloid whim. So as long as bland pg-13 and shitty remakes are making them money that is what they will continue to produce.

Honestly I see more PG-13 movies that I have no idea how in the hell did not get an R rating and a good number of R ratings that could have been PG-13.

My biggest bitch with the MPAA is the inconsistency with which movies are rated by them.

Axegrinder also makes a valid point, but that can also be said about content on the internet etc. You can't really hold the film makers and the theater responsible for kids sneaking into a movie he/she was not supposed to see. It seems more and more people want to find someone else to blame, "oh it was that violent video game and that music they listen to...", how about no you were shitty parents.

I also believe there should be consistent ratings with reasons that make sense, WTF is mild sensuality. We need the Joe Bob Briggs movies rating system:

This movie is PG-13 it contains:

3 Fart jokes
4 uses of the word fuck
10 uses of the word shit
10 generous helpings of clevage
2 camel toes
1 guys hairy ass
15 instances of 3 Stooges violence
2 smoked joints
4 requests for intercourse
1 request for a BJ

Ok it still might not be perfect, but if a parent is that concerned about what their children watch, listen to, hang out with they will take an active roll.

Oh god I sound old.....<sniff> kids never grow up.

[rtatick]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
That's a couple good points you brought up there, Harry. No one likes having your art censored, no matter how graphic it is. However, when you start up a conversation such as this thread, you eventually have to get into the fact that some kids are going to see these films, some of which aren't old enough to handle them. Now, it's a different game.

If an arguement is made that they shouldn't let things by in an R rated movie because "some kids are going to see" some of the movies, then why don't we just abolish the rating system alltogether? The R rating is to keep kids from going in without their parents and it's an enforcement issue, not a ratings issue.

I agree with izombie, I think they should come up with exact standards that they follow for each rating. I'm not saying it will be easy, but they should try. More support from theaters should be given to the NC-17 rating that would allow more violent films to be more widely distributed. As Roger Ebert constantly says, there should be a rating in between R and NC-17 that would basically be a film too harsh for an R, but not rated NC-17 for sex. This new rating may allow adults to see the more violent films that aren't butchered for an R rating and would prevent parents from bringing children in.

The MPAA is a inconsistent aristocracy that needs a complete overhaul.

[TheAxeGrinder]

Originally posted by rtatick
The MPAA is a inconsistent aristocracy that needs a complete overhaul.

You summed things up right there. Although what I think has happened is that the MPAA has wised up somewhat in terms of the gore in horror movies, which is an essential part of the movie in some cases. What kind of movie would the remake of TCM be if the MPAA enforced their will upon the production to the extent that this film would become a glorified Leatherface? But regardless of whether the MPAA has wised up or not, there is still the case of those people who shouldn't see these types of movies. I'm not a parent, but 13 or 14 year old kids just shouldn't see people's heads being squished, regardless of it being a movie. Even still, people who are mentally ill, who aren't educated enough to discern reality from fantasy should be screened. If not, and people start doing crazy shit, they'll probably blame it on those who have no defense, namely the horror movies and their fans. Then the MPAA will get riled up again and start butchering films like they were during the '80's and '90's.

[John Mullets]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
I'm not a parent, but 13 or 14 year old kids just shouldn't see people's heads being squished, regardless of it being a movie.

Eh, why? I'm 14 and I've seen Braindead, Story of Ricky, Premutos, Evil Dead, etc. and I've only murdered two people.

[X-Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by John Mullets
Eh, why? I'm 14 and I've seen Braindead, Story of Ricky, Premutos, Evil Dead, etc. and I've only murdered two people. 14 and 2 people? You're with the big boys now man. Most schmoes have an average of 8 muders when they hit 14. :)

[pyscho dude]

I agree there should be a rating between the R and NC-17 or perhaps create a rating that's above R for films that contain high levels of gore.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
I'm not a parent, but 13 or 14 year old kids just shouldn't see people's heads being squished, regardless of it being a movie. Even still, people who are mentally ill, who aren't educated enough to discern reality from fantasy should be screened. If not, and people start doing crazy shit, they'll probably blame it on those who have no defense, namely the horror movies and their fans. Then the MPAA will get riled up again and start butchering films like they were during the '80's and '90's.

The MPAA shouldn't pander to the mentally ill. If a film is slapped with an R rating, it should be geared towards mature adults. Those of legal age shouldn't be deprived of age-appropriate entertainment just because some nutjob with a fitful, malignant upbringing can't separate fantasy from reality.

[TheAxeGrinder]

Originally posted by countchocula
The MPAA shouldn't pander to the mentally ill. If a film is slapped with an R rating, it should be geared towards mature adults. Those of legal age shouldn't be deprived of age-appropriate entertainment just because some nutjob with a fitful, malignant upbringing can't separate fantasy from reality.

That may be so, but people have become pussies when it comes to blaming no one but themselves. Instead, they go and put the blame on someone or something that's an easy target that everyone will clamour over, like Columbine. Or the case where a guy killed a kid, skinned him and cooked his skin, thinking it would give him powers or some stupid thing like that, citing the movie Warlock as reference. Regardless of whether or not you like Warlock, the point is that the 'bleeding hearts' blamed the movie for giving this guy the idea, when in reality the guy was off his rocker. While this may have little to do with the R rating becoming slack, it may be that whereas the R rating states that a person over 18, regardless of their mental capacity or stability, can see the film. Should the rules be redefined, saying that those who are over 18, who are mentally unstable should be restricted from viewing the film unless they are proven to comprehend what's transpiring on the screen? The same would apply to those same unstable people with those who are under 18.

[HeavyK]

I have a way to see if the MPAA is getting more lenient. Sudmit Day of the Dead for a rating and if it comes back with an R uncut then Yes, the MPAA has definetly become more lenient.

Anyways i think this all depends on the times. In the 70's films like Bay of Blood and others got through easily with an R. In the mid to late 80's the MPAA got extremely strict with violence because of all those whining politicans blaming violence in society on stuff like movies and music. By the end of the 90's they started getting lenient again. As of right now the MPAA has it a strict attitude about sex and nudity and a lenient one for violence. For example Freddy Vs. Jason would have never got an R rating 5 to 10 years ago and if Titanic were resudmitted today, it would get an R because of it's nudity.

[MickeyKnox]

Originally posted by countchocula
The MPAA is inconsequential, as more and more films are finding their way onto DVD uncut. They're also inconsistent, which is a staggering understatement. It seemed as though they endorsed graphic violence in the early '80s (Friday the 13th), only to bowdlerize it in the late '80s (The New Blood). They'll probably become less permissive as the decade progresses. Their platform on what is and what isn't "too much" is just as fickle and volatile as the stock market.
Well said!

[pyscho dude]

That would be weird if Day only got an R rating but I highly doubt it.

[charles lee ray]

I think the MPAA is too strict on gore. The Dawn of the Dead Remake went through many cuts because of too much gore... thank God that there will be an Unrated DVD!!!