censorship priorities: sex vs. violence

[paws the great]

Originally Posted by Despare

That way when ignorant and lazy parents need a babysitter they don't have to worry about finding an "appropriate" movie anymore. Just toss in anything and go have fun baby!

Becouse of my age.......I can buy or watch any movie at any time!The MPAA rating system is for the protection of CHILDREN!It's not perfect,but it's better than nothing.

[Riff]

Originally Posted by Despare

That way when ignorant and lazy parents need a babysitter they don't have to worry about finding an "appropriate" movie anymore. Just toss in anything and go have fun baby!

Yeah, I remember how many times customers at the video store would bitch at us for letting them rent things for their kids that were inappropriate. I always wondered why they thought it was my job...

[Riff]

Originally Posted by paws the great

Becouse of my age.......I can buy or watch any movie at any time!The MPAA rating system is for the protection of CHILDREN!It's not perfect,but it's better than nothing.

As I've said before, the problem with it is that it's arbitrary, based on the whims of the current review board. It's the old Supreme Court argument of "I know porn when I see it". The system is worthless without consistent standards. It results in movies being watered down to meet the random standards of a system that no one enforces. The MPAA is utterly pointless.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by Riff

The MPAA is utterly pointless.

Without it we would have government censorship which would be 10 times worse...

[Riff]

Originally Posted by Despare

Without it we would have government censorship which would be 10 times worse...

True, I just want an actual system of regs in place for the MPAA so it becomes more consistent. Course, my luck, any rules they put in would make it more strict...

[Despare]

Originally Posted by Riff

True, I just want an actual system of regs in place for the MPAA so it becomes more consistent. Course, my luck, any rules they put in would make it more strict...

And it would be tougher for them to change which means we probably wouldn't have seen Grindhouse, Devil's Rejects, or the Saw movies without an NC-17 rating which would destroy their box office numbers and prevent other envelope pushing films from seeing wide releases and making any money. Their "hard R" concept even seems pretty good...

[Riff]

Originally Posted by Despare

And it would be tougher for them to change which means we probably wouldn't have seen Grindhouse, Devil's Rejects, or the Saw movies without an NC-17 rating which would destroy their box office numbers and prevent other envelope pushing films from seeing wide releases and making any money. Their "hard R" concept even seems pretty good...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing for stricter ratings, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the current system. The changes it makes over time have actually made it stricter over the years in some ways, more lenient in others. The NC17 rating is a good example. It was designed to give a rating higher than R that didn't designate porn. The problem is, it's viewed by theatres as being on about the same level as X. Most theatres won't show NC17 movies, but having the rating gives the MPAA an option to rate something worse than R so it has to be cut further.

[Despare]

Originally Posted by Riff

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing for stricter ratings, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in the current system. The changes it makes over time have actually made it stricter over the years in some ways, more lenient in others. The NC17 rating is a good example. It was designed to give a rating higher than R that didn't designate porn. The problem is, it's viewed by theatres as being on about the same level as X. Most theatres won't show NC17 movies, but having the rating gives the MPAA an option to rate something worse than R so it has to be cut further.

A LOT of that is the fault of the theaters and companies who refuse to let their films play at theaters that show NC17 movies. It's not the MPAA but rather the whole system that has flaws... just like anything. NC-17 movies can be brilliant such as Bad Lieutenant but most people simply will not get a chance to see them. This "hard R" should give theaters the option to play movies with more violence and sex without having to display the dreaded NC-17 rating on their marquee.

[paws the great]

Originally Posted by Riff

As I've said before, the problem with it is that it's arbitrary, based on the whims of the current review board. It's the old Supreme Court argument of "I know porn when I see it". The system is worthless without consistent standards. It results in movies being watered down to meet the random standards of a system that no one enforces. The MPAA is utterly pointless.

Who would you like to see judge the content of films?


Do you think the government would do a better job?The filmmakers?


:)

[Riff]

Originally Posted by paws the great

Who would you like to see judge the content of films?


Do you think the government would do a better job?The filmmakers?


:)

I'll always side with the filmmakers...:D

No, what I'm grumbling about is the lack of consistency... filmmakers are required to meet standards that have a lot of gray areas, then are forced to cut their work to fit the current interpretation.