Usefulness of the MPAA

This exactly. I think theusualsuspects is either not understanding me or choosing to warp my words. The rating system doesn't exist to prevent my child from seeing films. The theaters may choose not to let him in without a person of age, but that's a safeguard to protect their business, the same as putting a wet floor sign out after someone has mopped. The rating is there for me to decide, without me having seen the film, if my children should watch the film or not. Period. The MPAA doesn't rate the tone of a film, like maybe they should, but I can still count on certain things not showing up in most PG-13 films. And I know if it's rated R then I should not let my 8-year-old watch it.

__________________

The truth is that I find many PG-13 films which seem like PG films while others seem they should be rated R. I've also seen a few R-rated movies which seem much softer than big-budget PG-13 ones. Even so, You've found a way for the MPAA to work for you, so I've nothing against that.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

This is true, but when you take the context of the film into consideration it's not that tough knowing what to expect. For example, I know when a superhero film or something like Transformers comes out that I can probably take my kids to see it. When I see something like Batman Begins and see that it's a bit more mature than most films I can know to watch the sequels before letting my son watch the film. I don't think I want him watching The Dark Knight yet, but I don't have a problem with Iron Man (despite the womanizing!).

It's not just that I go by ratings, but it's also what i know about the films themselves that helps.

I guess living in another country makes it different for me cause I look at other ratings from other sources, not just one. The MPAA isn't reliable to me, their R rating covers way too far a range of films.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

But that range is still entirely something I don't want my younger children to watch. That's why I don't have a problem with it. I know there'll be violence/sexual situations/language/etc. that my kids shouldn't see. It doesn't matter if it's something fairly tame like The Matrix or something like 9 Songs, I know it's outside of what my younger kids are prepared for.

To be honest, I'm amazed more people don't agree with me. Am I the only MoFo-er with kids?

My biggest problem with the MPAA is how it's much stricter with sex than violence. A movie could get just a PG-13 if it has a lot of violence and nothing else, but if there's any sex or nudity, a film is all but guarrenteed the R. I know if I had kids, I'd be much more worried about violence. My personal stance is that it needs reform due to that, its secrecy, and because it's significantly losing relevance (an NC-17 like Shame actually played in a fair amount of Multiplexes). I do, however, think its still superior to government film censorship and don't feel that the MPAA could legitimately be called censorship.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

I'm not talking about younger kids, like your 8 year old. I'm talking about teenagers.

When did you take sex education in school? When did you learn the Easter Bunny and Santa weren't real? When did you realize that violence in film/TV wasn't real?

Teenagers are, for the most part, far more mature than most people give them credit for. There's got to be a ton of really rough things in an R-rated film for a teen not not see it. My son watches The Walking Dead. He's seen Commando and The Lost Boys. So what?

The only place, IMO, where the MPAA really helps is with younger kids. I'd say about 7-12 range. The pre-teen years. This is when you really need to be cautious with what your children watch simply because a lot of it is still outside their realm of understanding. Once a kid hits high school age they've taken classes in school that reveal more than any Hollywood film.

Here ya go!

If this is the film we're going to get hung up on, why don't we simply fix the schools that won't allow kids to see r-rated films instead of trying to fix the rating system.

It's my understanding that this is a film that teens should see, but schools won't show it nor will they take kids on a field trip to the theater to see it, because it will most likely be rated R. Why don't we just have the parents sign a permission slip for them to see an r-rated film? I watched the near r-rated version of Glory when I was in the 8th grade. What the hell is wrong with kids seeing this in their school or on a field trip?

If the film does receive an R rating, other than the above concern, what does it really matter? If parents want their kids to see the film, they will see the film! Making it PG-13 isn't going to make a bunch of kids go see it instead of seeing whatever stupid tripe they were going to see anyway. Are there really young kids out there who would choose to go see this film if dropped off at the theater? Really?!?

Bottom line, the makers of Bully should just release it with an R-rating and have faith that the parents who want their kids to see the film will take them to see it. Those are the only people who will get kids into the theater for this film even if it was rated G.

That goes along with my point about the MPAA's growing lack of prestige. Hell, this Bully controversy is getting so much publicity that more parents are likely to have their kids see it anyways, regardless of rating.

And that is a good thing. Good on, you, MPAA! You're helping the cause of fighting bullying!

I know this is an old thread but I just have to comment.

I've had a problem with MPAA for a long time, mainly for two reasons.

Firstly, its not an independent rating system. The major studios have far too much influence and the fact that the ratings appeals panel is made up of senior studio members confirms that.

Secondly its so secretive. You don't know who works for them and rates the films, but mainly they will not disclose their reasoning for the rating they've given. The BBFC does it here Parents BBFC. Its not hard.

What also concerns me is the way the whole industry (including distribution) has organised itself that any film rated NC-17 cannot get as wide a theatrical release as an R rating and also companies like WalMart wont sell them. It becomes a form of censorship.

__________________
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist – Verbal Kent

Three very good points that I was planning to bring up in my research paper. The MPAA definitely requires a great deal of reform, but I don't think it should be abolished completely.

I totally agree. You defiantly need a ratings system in place so the public can make an informed decision. But I believe that that system should also be as transparent as possible, it should have clear guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable for each rating and finally those age ratings should be enforceable.

I completely agree. We need the system to be more quantitative and less qualitative. There is too much room for subjectivity which naturally lends itself to unfairness. We need transparency, and an understanding of their methodology. today it seems like submitting to the MPAA is like shooting in the dark - sometimes you have no idea what you are going to hit.

no such thing.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.