"Note that these MPAA ratings only apply to "participating" studios and theaters, and does not apply to those who choose not to participate in the system (no one is required to submit their film to be rated by the MPAA)."
If you read this bit of text from m0002a you will notice that the MPAA is essentially an OPT-IN/OPT-OUT way of doing things, that simply means that someone can make a film, NOT have it vetted by the MPAA, release it with NO film rating, and allow people to view it in cinema's that choose NOT to bother with those pesky ratings, and because the film is NOT rated, that then allows that cinema to let ANYONE see that film.?
Now does my "moronic" statement make more sense, at least with the "BBFC" all films are vetted, and all cinema's have to follow the rules, and likewise DVD rental and sales places, opting-out is simply not an option without breaking the law.
I think it was clear what I meant. Child pornography is illegal, but a movie about sex between an adult and a minor, or two or more minors (or a movie about child pornography) is not illegal unless actual (not simulated) sexual activity is depicted and one of the actors in the film that is having actual sex is under 18 (not just playing someone under 18). I am not sure what the legal age is in other countries.
Oh I got the gist of what you "meant" to say, I just sidestepped it, and answered what you actually said, there is a very good reason for that. But first here is what you actually said.
As far as I am concerned, anyone should be able produce any movie they want, except if it depicts acts that are illegal, such as child pornography, etc.
The word "depict" is the interesting one here.
The actual act and the "depiction" of that act can often be considered the same, however there are some serious differences here.
A "dummy" that is lifelike can depict a person in a film, the dummy can have its (fake) brains blown out, therefore it is a realistic (artistic) depiction of a live human being having their brains blown out.
A "scene" in a film can "depict" sex between 2 real people, without them having sex, and without any genetalia being "depicted".
These 2 rather contrasting scenes will often be given the same rating, or even a higher rating for the sex-like scene.
My point is pretty simple, the ratings as they currently stand allow for huge quantities of violence shown in graphic detail (although it is not real), and very little in the way of human nakedness and sex scenes (although it is not real).
What causes the most "harm" watching scences of hardcore violence, or sex without any sex or genetalia being shown. I best point out for the sake of it, that both films have the same rating, and bothe are being viewed by people at or above the given age rating.
If anyone can answer that as the sex scene then you need to see a head-doctor.
Your main occupation seems to be to impose your views on others, even in those in countries (like the USA) in which you (apparently) are not a citizen. This seems strange to me, since your own country (and many others) has its own movie rating system and it would never even occur to me to criticize the way other countries rate movies (with regard to whether children can view them in theaters).
I wish it was my occupation, that would be an awsome job.
People try to impose their views on others all of the time, and they frequently work as well. However some people seem to be so sure that they are right they cant even listen to the other sides arguments (and no I am not talking about myself).
One of the most stupid film ratings in America was for "Team America: World Police". the rating around the world were all over the place, from the viewing age of 11 in Sweden, up to 15 in the UK, 18 in the USA, and even banned in Malaysia.
That goes to show just how different various countries film cencorships are, who is "right" is a never ending question with no single answer, but you have to look at the massive scope of differences, but I find it amazing that its an 18-rated film in the USA, along with films like "Passion of the Christ" that is one of the most bloody and brutal films in recent years.
In "Team America: World Police" there is no realistic sex, nudity, or violence at all, there is a shitload of swearing, and it is a hilarious film, how on earth did it get its 18-rating.???
Read this and tell me with a straight face that the MPAA does NOT have a problem with sex.http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,724286,00.html
Snippet, "Behold puppet love: hot, shiny, and genital-free! ~~~~ ast night, the filmmakers presented Team America to the MPAA for yet another inspection — they need an R rating — but it was slapped again with an NC-17 on account of the plasticized sex scene. ~~~~ TP Matt was like, ''Dude, there's no genitalia, no pubic hairs, no nothing.'' I'm like, ''Dude, you watch. They're totally going to have a problem.'' And they did. I mean, they wanted us to cut all of it — at first they said just missionary position. Not a word about blowing Janeane Garofalo's head off."
A couple more insights into the strange world of the MPAA.http://shorts.nthword.com/2011/01/nc-17 ... lence.html