#1  
Old 04-04-2012, 01:12 PM
Why Does The MPAA Still SUCK

I watched 'This movie is not yet rated' years ago and the problem is still the same. Nudity, gay sex, makes a movie either R or NC17 while violence goes down to even G. I don't understand it. Anyway I am starting this thread because I am trying to find other people that agree with me and if you do I would love it if you could sign my online petition to give power back to us in rating some of these movies. http://www.change.org/petitions/tell...ting-of-movies
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2012, 02:42 PM
I am not clicking your link, but I agree with you. Big deal with that movie Bully that is was R rated for a few swear words.

It is part of that whole sex is bad voilence is good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2012, 10:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cranegal107 View Post
while violence goes down to even G.
Well, I don't know about THAT.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2012, 05:01 PM
I hate the MPAA, personally...and it goes far beyond ratings.

Right now, they're doing everything they can to block the availability of digital content to us, the consumer. They've successfully blocked 2 separate attempts at making the technology available to allow us, the people, to rip our own DVDs, much like we can now rip CDs. They've stopped the technology from being manufactured, and they're currently standing in the way of the changes being made in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to make ripping DVDs legal.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-30-2012, 06:52 AM
What is the MPAAs problem with sex?! Sex is a guaranteed R/NC-17 rating whereas you can blow shit up and kill people to your heart's content and get a PG-13.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-30-2012, 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel1980 View Post
What is the MPAAs problem with sex?! Sex is a guaranteed R/NC-17 rating whereas you can blow shit up and kill people to your heart's content and get a PG-13.
The problem is its a bunch of conservative old people running the joint. Like if grandma had the authority to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-30-2012, 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
The problem is its a bunch of conservative old people running the joint. Like if grandma had the authority to decide.
Makes sense, even though it shouldn't be that way. It's fucking nonsense in fact. I also hate the MPAA and it's horse-shit backwards "logic".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-30-2012, 03:59 PM
Im all for a ratings system, but why is it so damn secretive? You could just ask everyone on Rotten Tomatoes to rate it and it'd be the same. but done by people that actually know what theyre doing.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-30-2012, 05:47 PM
the american rating comitee (MPAA) is very old-school and outdated... some R rated stuff ( i.e Don't Be Afraid of the Dark ) should be pg-13. That's why Bruce Willis in the latest Die Hard couldn't say "Hippy Ka-yay motherfucker!" else they would have been hit with an R rating ( citation needed , just what i remember )

they need a middle rating badly ... like a 15+ for example
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-30-2012, 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
the american rating comitee (MPAA) is very old-school and outdated... some R rated stuff ( i.e Don't Be Afraid of the Dark ) should be pg-13. That's why Bruce Willis in the latest Die Hard couldn't say "Hippy Ka-yay motherfucker!" else they would have been hit with an R rating ( citation needed , just what i remember )

they need a middle rating badly ... like a 15+ for example
we don't need to add anything really... we just need to have the system make fucking sense. As is it's completely rediculous
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
we don't need to add anything really... we just need to have the system make fucking sense. As is it's completely rediculous
So how do you propose to make "fucking sense" of a "completely ridiculous" rating system without changes ?

A middle ground rating like 15+ (or 16+) was my idea , what's yours ?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
So how do you propose to make "fucking sense" of a "completely ridiculous" rating system without changes ?

A middle ground rating like 15+ (or 16+) was my idea , what's yours ?
He seems the system by which they come to a decision.

Theres an old story about how Hitchcock was denied a rating once. They told him to edit and ship it back for a re-rating. Being Hitchcock, he did nothing, sent it back anyway, and was granted the rating.

It's ALL subjective. To the point where they could be having a bad day but the film would suffer. Not to mention their COMPLETE bass-ackwards views on sex and violence.

There's no accountability with the system. If they give a film an nc-17 rating, they then have control over how that film does at the box office. NO PERSON outside the creation of art should dictate it that way. Especially ones as insipid as these old, rich, white people, that consistently bring their own agendas to work.

Btw, an MPAA rating is not required for a release. However, the MPAA has gotten in with theater owners SO DEEPLY, they thay've convinced them not to show an nc-17 or unrated film EVER.

How have they done this, you ask? MONEY. It's a system of lobbying, see also: bribery.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-2012, 10:03 AM
It's ran by a bunch of overly-conservative folks who don't have a clue.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-25-2012, 10:35 AM
The whole rating system is a joke, especially since big studio movies get more leeway than independents

I think they should adopt Netflix's rating system. Under the movie details of lots of the movies they have a "common sense rating" all it is an age number, how old you probably should be to see it. There's no need to only have a limited number of rating categories. Each movie is unique and could require a unique rating
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-29-2012, 03:56 PM
It's different when you hear from maybe two or three people how bad something is but when everybody thinks this is an incompetent group of people handling a task this important, then something really has to give.

I've been seeing material in the rating that is completley non-existent. Example: Charie Bartlett(nudity). There was no nudity at all in this film. I've seen lots of this lately. Andrew Dice Clay Stand up in Madison Square Garden rated NC-17, apparently has invisible nudity in it as well. There's countless other movies I've seen bullshit non exsitent material determing a rating.

Excessive smoking I saw on the back of a film determining it's rating. They might have to go back and re-submit an NC-17 to Rebel Without A Cause then if that's the case.
More than half the members here if given the job, would do a hell of alot better then the incompetent backward ass group they have now.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-29-2012, 06:24 PM
Last week , TVA (local station ) showed Independence Day ... it was rated 8+

guess TV got a different rating system than theaters ( was rated PG in theaters in Canada)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
mpaa

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump