C'mon Hollywood #171 | Movie News

... fix the MPAA already!
by Sturdy

I hate the Motion Picture Association of America. Not just with that annoying, loud refrigerator hatred, but with an insane passion. Typically, my hatred for the MPAA is buried deep inside because I’m not intimately involved with their day to day dealings. But every now and again you read a story like what happened with ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO and that rage boils back up like a bad case of oral herpes.

Does anyone else find Elizabeth Banks incredibly sexy?

Kirby Dick made a documentary a while back called THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED that really exposed the MPAA for what they are; a sham of an organization. There are no standards, no rules, no guidelines. It’s whatever the random people feel like on any given day. So if one of the guys on the ratings board found out his wife was blowing his best friend, your adult comedy movie will get an NC-17. If the bored housewife with too much time on her hands had a fight with her kid; your family film just got an “R” rating. I have more of these, but basically, when you don’t have any rules or standards to go by, you’re leaving the fate of someone’s films up to chance. In an organization as big and influential as Hollywood, that’s unacceptable.

Yes, he organized a stakeout on the MPAA

Imagine if the Food and Drug Administration had a similar policy regarding which drugs made it to store shelves. Would you feel safe buying that cough medicine? No, you’d buy a book on herbal remedies and hope for the best. Granted, people’s lives aren’t at stake when it comes to movies, but movies are a form of art and the ratings associated with movies dictate who is allowed to see a movie and who isn’t, even if 98% of the theaters in America don’t actually card people or enforce the rules. The point is that an NC-17 rating is the kiss of death for what should be an R rated film and a PG-13 rating can mean big bucks to a family film that should have been rated PG.

Why are there so many shades of green in these preview ratings?

The biggest issue I have is with the varying standards for violence and nudity. Why is it ok to watch 20 people get mowed down with a machine gun, but one penis on screen and everyone flips out? I can serve three life sentences for killing someone, but if I expose myself in public, I just have to spend the night in the drunk tank at the local sheriff’s office. Why is violence so easily accepted in Hollywood, but nudity is not? I’m sure this has some much larger meaning on our society, but I’m trying to stay focused. The biggest kicker is this quote from the MPAA website: “78% of parents with children under 13 found the ratings to be "very useful" to "fairly useful" in helping them make decisions about what movies their children see.” Is that even a real statistic? On a recent poll, I found that 80% of the people polled find that eating is useful in relieving hunger pains. And that’s the best statistic they can come up with to brag about their effectiveness. How have they managed to stay around since 1945?

Because I can’t get enough Banks.

There needs to be a set of guidelines that can be posted or sent out to every director and movie studio. I don’t know what a 13 year old should be allowed to see or shouldn’t, but if we had some guidelines, at least we’d have standards and a level playing field. Of course, not everyone is going to agree on whatever standards are set, but I think most filmmakers will appreciate the effort to set some guidelines. At that point they don’t have to worry about editing and ruining their film to achieve a particular rating. The major studio heads can collectively do just about anything, and it’s time they step in and fix the MPAA. The joke has gone on long enough.

Previous C'MON HOLLYWOOD Columns

• Keep on keepin' on QT!
• No Wolverine at Comic Con!?!?
• Show some class Heigl!
• Leave Robin out of Batman!
• Make Green Hornet already!
• Shut up Spike Lee!

Click here for our C'MON HOLLYWOOD archives...

Source: Joblo.com's Cool Columns

Register to post | Movie Fan Central | Rules / Guidelines

Remain respectful at all times. No writer abuse. For all corrections, suggestions, criticisms, email us instead.

Username:
Password:

Not Registered? Sign-up!

20 discussions Expand all

Show Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Most Popular

 

+0

Beenthere
6:07PM on 08/19/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

It's Rather...

Vagina shot to give you NC-17 than penis nowadays. Explicit female nudity is acceptable only on Late Night Cinemax movies. MPAA is less concerned with male frontals. And violence? You are wrong, they still asked for cuts to get R. Ask Rob Zombie.

Vagina shot to give you NC-17 than penis nowadays. Explicit female nudity is acceptable only on Late Night Cinemax movies. MPAA is less concerned with male frontals. And violence? You are wrong, they still asked for cuts to get R. Ask Rob Zombie.

 

+0

rilocay
11:39PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Nicely put.

They should follow the ratings system in Australia, as Mister_Noir says, it's shit for games...but for film's it makes alot more sense.



Jus remember, whent he ratings system is fixed, your going to have ALOT more tenny boppers in a theatre at a film you wanna enjoy.

Nicely put.

They should follow the ratings system in Australia, as Mister_Noir says, it's shit for games...but for film's it makes alot more sense.



Jus remember, whent he ratings system is fixed, your going to have ALOT more tenny boppers in a theatre at a film you wanna enjoy.

 

+0

JLDFilms
11:33PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

ANOTHER DUMBASS PROBLEM

Okay, why is that you can be 17 to see an R rated movie but you have to be 18 to buy it on DVD?

Okay, why is that you can be 17 to see an R rated movie but you have to be 18 to buy it on DVD?

 

+0

Mister_NOIR
10:31PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Digg

Wow, I was slacking off at work just now and noticed that this article made it to the front page of Digg. Don't get with JoBlo articles too often, good job Sturdy.



As for the topic at hand, here in Australia we have a backwards-as-fuck classification system too. While they do seem a little more lenient with films, games are ALWAYS getting banned, or at least censored in order to...

Wow, I was slacking off at work just now and noticed that this article made it to the front page of Digg. Don't get with JoBlo articles too often, good job Sturdy.



As for the topic at hand, here in Australia we have a backwards-as-fuck classification system too. While they do seem a little more lenient with films, games are ALWAYS getting banned, or at least censored in order to comply with classification guidelines. There's been at least 4 banned so far this year (including Postal 3) and the reasons they give for banning games always seem invalid given that other games have managed to get away with similar things.



Eg: A reason for banning Postal 3 was for its simulated intravenous drug use, that enhances a player's ability... Just like in BioShock, which had no problems getting past the OFLC (Office of Film and Literature Classification)



Bureaucrats the world over need to re-evaluate what's important in the realm of censorship, methinks.

[+] Full Comment

 

+0

J. Burton
10:26PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Sex and Violence

I've been pondering this question for years. Why the hell is violence more accepted than sex in this country? I have yet to get an answer to why RAMBO gets an R, and Smith's porno comedy gets an NC-17. Can any politician explain this? Will a teenager's head explode if he or she see's a vagina or penis on a giant screen? Is it to help prevent the spread of STDs and pregancy? Or is it for...

I've been pondering this question for years. Why the hell is violence more accepted than sex in this country? I have yet to get an answer to why RAMBO gets an R, and Smith's porno comedy gets an NC-17. Can any politician explain this? Will a teenager's head explode if he or she see's a vagina or penis on a giant screen? Is it to help prevent the spread of STDs and pregancy? Or is it for religious reasons? Does anyone on this board think teenagers shouldn't see sex on the big screen?



It's okay to show people killing people, but not making people. It's a strange strange place we live in.

[+] Full Comment

 

+0

Halik
10:25PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

JimDaTwit

Your gonna write on Joblo that people should stop going to the movies and buying dvds? lol. Seriously the longer I live the easier it is to realize why "intelligent" life hasn't contacted us.

Your gonna write on Joblo that people should stop going to the movies and buying dvds? lol. Seriously the longer I live the easier it is to realize why "intelligent" life hasn't contacted us.

 

+0

JimDaTwit
10:18PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

I think the MPAA sux. I think if people would STOP going to the movies and STOP buying DVDs that maybe they would get the message!



JT

[link]

I think the MPAA sux. I think if people would STOP going to the movies and STOP buying DVDs that maybe they would get the message!



JT

[link]

 

+0

JesseNick
10:16PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

The biggest problem is that this country is full of two very different types of people: liberals and conservatives. Hypersensitive hardcore religions and the open-minded intellectuals. City-dwellers and people living out in the middle of nowhere. I'm tired of people living out in some hick bible belt town helping to dictate what I can see. In the name of protecting children, everyone is having...

The biggest problem is that this country is full of two very different types of people: liberals and conservatives. Hypersensitive hardcore religions and the open-minded intellectuals. City-dwellers and people living out in the middle of nowhere. I'm tired of people living out in some hick bible belt town helping to dictate what I can see. In the name of protecting children, everyone is having their eyes covered. Completely different sets of values. That's really the root of the problem, the MPAA is a symptom.

[+] Full Comment

 

+0

HoyleHaw
9:36PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

NEVER GETS OLD

Seems every six months or so these guys pull one that REALLY pisses off the movie fans.



I actually do think that a very small margin of the population can be affected by movie content, and different people will be affected by different things. However, that has little bearing on the great masses of moviegoers (aside from maybe language).



Oddly enough, the one...

Seems every six months or so these guys pull one that REALLY pisses off the movie fans.



I actually do think that a very small margin of the population can be affected by movie content, and different people will be affected by different things. However, that has little bearing on the great masses of moviegoers (aside from maybe language).



Oddly enough, the one objection I used to find was the biggie was language. Which is arguably the least mind-shattering of all content to be put under the label.



The original censors pre-Jack Valenti were a bunch of good Catholics and Puritans who came down hard on glorified gangster movies and gratuitous cleavage. While Valenti and the MPAA helped modernize American cinema the same types of people have figured heavily in the ratings. And while Puritans are no strangers to some of the most sadistic forms of torture, blatant sexuality has generally been considered taboo. And since pornography is infamous for being graphically sexual, loads of simulated pornographic sex would cause heads to roll.



I can only chalk it up to quantity, since last year's "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" contained a fairly infamous ass-banging sequence at the very start. The director I can think most likely to push the envelope on bodily functions would be Todd Solondz, who usually goes with the unrated label rather than submit his work with the NC-17 on it.



Is it right? No. Though I could totally see Smith doing an unrated. But he says he's contractually obligated to turn an R-rated film in to the studio. So damn!

[+] Full Comment

 

+0

spikeshinizle
9:31PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

"I have more of these, but basically, when you don’t have any rules or standards to go by, you’re leaving the fate of someone’s films up to chance."



*Holds up coin*

"You're R"

*Turns coin over*

"You're NC-17"

*Flips coin...*

"I have more of these, but basically, when you don’t have any rules or standards to go by, you’re leaving the fate of someone’s films up to chance."



*Holds up coin*

"You're R"

*Turns coin over*

"You're NC-17"

*Flips coin...*

 

+0

NuclearMisfit
8:34PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

I think as long as nobody is sexually assaulting minors in movies, itll be ok and the MPAA shouldnt force directors to harshly cut their films.



What other guidelines do you think they should rate the quality of movies on?

I think as long as nobody is sexually assaulting minors in movies, itll be ok and the MPAA shouldnt force directors to harshly cut their films.



What other guidelines do you think they should rate the quality of movies on?

 

+0

anomaly7
8:13PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

I completely agree that the rating system is bogus. How come DVD movies are allowed to not be submitted to the MPAA but films in theaters have to be? However, even if there were "set guidelines" to rating movies I'm sure just as many problems would exist. It just seems like a lose/lose situation.

I completely agree that the rating system is bogus. How come DVD movies are allowed to not be submitted to the MPAA but films in theaters have to be? However, even if there were "set guidelines" to rating movies I'm sure just as many problems would exist. It just seems like a lose/lose situation.

 

+0

NuclearMisfit
8:02PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Even if NC-17 enters the realm of porn ratings

It still allows us who are of age to enjoy a fine piece of ass....er cinematography.



I agree with Natty on the views of the ratings. Its just plain stupid. Ill see the movie regardless on the rating.



NC-17 isnt the kiss of death for Zach and Miri a PG-13 rating is..



And Elizabeth Banks is delicious!

It still allows us who are of age to enjoy a fine piece of ass....er cinematography.



I agree with Natty on the views of the ratings. Its just plain stupid. Ill see the movie regardless on the rating.



NC-17 isnt the kiss of death for Zach and Miri a PG-13 rating is..



And Elizabeth Banks is delicious!

 

+0

snoopmish
1:51PM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Great column!



By the way...it's the religious prudes who throw a fit about anything that has to do with "sex" that cause it to get stricter rating than violence.

Remember..sex is dirty and bad....violence is just the almighty's wraith.....or what ever.

Great column!



By the way...it's the religious prudes who throw a fit about anything that has to do with "sex" that cause it to get stricter rating than violence.

Remember..sex is dirty and bad....violence is just the almighty's wraith.....or what ever.

 

+0

Natty
11:20AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

POOR RATING SYSTEM ANYWAY

I don't get all the distress over this. I think that the scenes in Zack and Miri must have been pretty raunchy and so an NC-17 is (methinks) deserved. I know that it seems odd that violence is accepted more than sex when it comes to the movies, but remember the 14 teenagers who decided to get 'knocked up' together at the end of last year; most likely inspired by Juno and the afforereferenced...

I don't get all the distress over this. I think that the scenes in Zack and Miri must have been pretty raunchy and so an NC-17 is (methinks) deserved. I know that it seems odd that violence is accepted more than sex when it comes to the movies, but remember the 14 teenagers who decided to get 'knocked up' together at the end of last year; most likely inspired by Juno and the afforereferenced movie.



However, I do feel that the rating system over in The States (I'm English) is pretty dumb, isn't it something like a kid can see a movie with violence and sex with his parents due to the 'R rating' but if that movie is REAL VIOLENT, he cannot see it until he is (NC)17? Over here we just have it so that if a movie is violent or sexy; the kid cannot see it.



I also don't think that movie producers and directors should be to concerned with the ratings - "oh no! our movie won't make money because 7-year-olds won't be able to rush with their parents to see Katie Morgan(?) getting dry-slamed" - sounds pretty sick doesn't it.



Of course, I apologise in advance if I have been ignorant as to how the American rating system works.



P.S. Elizabeth Banks is indeed very attractive.

[+] Full Comment

 

+0

FNDanny
10:52AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

True Dat...

Hopefully someone comes to their senses and saves Zack and Miri. Why should we have to wait about 6 more months just to get the film they way it should be shown just because the MPAA has a stick up their (censored)!

Hopefully someone comes to their senses and saves Zack and Miri. Why should we have to wait about 6 more months just to get the film they way it should be shown just because the MPAA has a stick up their (censored)!

 

+0

TarantinoArchiv
10:26AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

the MPAA is such a sham really. Film ratings all over the planet are somewhat screwed (I live in Germany, they cut down Rambo 4 so much I fell asleep, but hey I can watch soft porn on free TV), but the MPAA is really ludicrous. Down with the violence, up with the lovin' I say!

the MPAA is such a sham really. Film ratings all over the planet are somewhat screwed (I live in Germany, they cut down Rambo 4 so much I fell asleep, but hey I can watch soft porn on free TV), but the MPAA is really ludicrous. Down with the violence, up with the lovin' I say!

 

+0

porkchopexpress
8:33AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Right on, Sturdy. I agree with every syllable and gotta love me some Banks

Right on, Sturdy. I agree with every syllable and gotta love me some Banks

 

+0

drexxell
8:31AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Psst: It's "Food and Drug Administration", not "Federal Drug Administration". But the point is still valid.

Psst: It's "Food and Drug Administration", not "Federal Drug Administration". But the point is still valid.

 

+0

ElderPredator
7:39AM on 07/29/2008 Add as a friend | MFC profile

Mmm.....Banks

Man oh man, I want more Banks too!

Man oh man, I want more Banks too!