why the sillyness.?

[andyb]

I thought that I might as well post this article verbatim to reduce silly arguments and to have a single point of reference.

As you might expect I totally ignore any and all ratings as I am sure I have seen far worse in every category. However, ratings are there to "protect" the viewer, but from what.? Over the years it has been commonplace for the Yank film board to allow huge amounts of violence and no sex into (choose your film rating).

It is pretty sad when you think about it, I already know half of the answers that will be given, but to be honest I am going back to my book and ny beer, and eventually some sleep (probably including sex. and violence (FYI female readers this is very very common)).

It would be nice to see a sensible discussion (not the first for SPCR let's try ti keep it common), so please avoid national bigotry etc.

Andy

Blue Valentine film 'opened censorship debate'

15 January 11 10:05



By Tim Masters
Entertainment correspondent, BBC News



The director of Blue Valentine has said the recent battle over its certificate in the US has helped open a debate over cinema sex and violence.

The film won an appeal over its adults-only NC-17 rating and was released with an R rating instead.

The marital film drama, which opens in the UK this weekend rated 15, is in the running for two Golden Globe awards.

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are nominated for best actor and actress in a film drama.

US ratings are set by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which originally awarded the NC-17 rating for a "scene of explicit sexual content".

"I think the MPAA made a mistake," director Derek Cianfrance told the BBC this week.

'Sex taboo'

"They were humble and generous to reverse their decision and I have a lot of respect for them for that.

"It's started a big discussion in America about why is sex taboo and why is violence okay. I think the MPAA has to re-evaluate its stance on things.

"I feel like my kids will see far worse things during commercials on football games - violence and guns. Blue Valentine is just about intimacy and emotion. There's very little nudity in the film. It's more about naked emotions."

The film's new R rating means those younger than 17 can see the film if they are accompanied by an adult.

Blue Valentine is the story of the dying relationship between couple Dean and Cindy (played by Gosling and Williams).

It juxtaposes scenes of their courtship, set several years earlier, with painful scenes of marital breakdown in the present.

The filming required Gosling and Williams to undergo hours of demanding sex scenes.

"Michelle and Ryan gave such brave and emotionally naked performances," said Cianfrance.

"I'm so proud of them. I really admire actors that are willing to be vulnerable and willing to take big risks on the screen. They deserve any accolade that comes their way."

He added: "We tried to treat the sexuality in Blue Valentine with responsibility. There are consequences to the sex in the film. We treated the sex as we treated every other scene - with a certain kind of honesty and raw integrity."

The film has been a 12-year journey for Cianfrance. He had re-drafted the script 66 times since 1998. Both Gosling and Williams were attached to the project for several years before it finally started shooting.

'Out of my hands'

"I felt like the movie was cursed, but once it started shooting we were blessed because all these magic moments started happening in front of the camera," said Cianfrance.

Whatever happens at the Golden Globes, the director is keeping an open mind about its Oscar chances.

"Those things are so out of my hands. For the last year I've been on the road supporting the movie. There's nothing else Michelle and Ryan can do.

"The business and the critical acclaim has been amazing and it's heartening to know that something that was so personal to me is now becoming personal to other people."

Andy

[frenchie]

But sex is bad and dirty when my glock (my precious) is so shiny and clean !!!

Over the years it has been commonplace for the Yank film board to allow huge amounts of violence and no sex

Religious lobbying anyone ? Since Adam and Eve did there thing, sex has been a taboo. That's all there is to it. Also, until there is a clear and real separation of church and state at all levels in the US government and institutions, none of that will change.

[CA_Steve]

I think this film explains the MPAA in all it's befuddled glory.

[m0002a]

I don't understand what the complaining is about. Do you really think that a 16 year old should be able to see the original version of the film? If 16 year olds really want to, then they or their parents can rent or purchase the video (or maybe you think parents should have no say in this matter). How much revenue will be lost if 16 year olds cannot see the film?

Much ado about nothing.

[m0002a]

Religious lobbying anyone ? Since Adam and Eve did there thing, sex has been a taboo. That's all there is to it. Also, until there is a clear and real separation of church and state at all levels in the US government and institutions, none of that will change.

I am not sure you understand how things work in the USA. The MPAA rating have absolutely nothing to do with the government. Maybe that is not true for the film rating systems in other countries.

In the USA, you are welcome to start your own rating system and film distribution infrastructure if you don't like the MPAA ratings. After all, we are not communists.

[frenchie]

I am not sure you understand how things work in the USA. The MPAA rating have absolutely nothing to do with the government. Maybe that is not true for the film rating systems in other countries.

We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.

How do you engage in legislative and law enforcement initiatives without the support of a government ?

I don't understand what the complaining is about. Do you really think that a 16 year old should be able to see the original version of the film? If 16 year olds really want to, then they or their parents can rent or purchase the video (or maybe you think parents should have no say in this matter). How much revenue will be lost if 16 year olds cannot see the film?

Much ado about nothing.

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that violence is tolerated but sex isn't. "Save Private Ryan", "300", "Kill Bill" show a lot of (sometimes sadistic) violence, but they only get an R rating. In the meantime, other movies with barely any sexual content get an R rating too ("Amelie" is a good example). As for "Blue Valentine", I'll just point out that it is not a movie distributed by any of the owners of the MPAA.

In the USA, you are welcome to start your own rating system and film distribution infrastructure if you don't like the MPAA ratings. After all, we are not communists.

OT but what does it have to do with communism ?

[colm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQBRSwZiYS4

[m0002a]

We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.

How do you engage in legislative and law enforcement initiatives without the support of a government ?

The MPAA ratings are not controlled in any way by the government. No film is even required to be submitted for an MPAA rating. With regard to what the MPAA does besides rate movies, I suspect they engage in other activties with legislative and law enforcement agencies with regard to copyright protection and piracy laws. The constitution of the United States of America specifically prohibits Congress (or anyone else) from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that violence is tolerated but sex isn't. "Save Private Ryan", "300", "Kill Bill" show a lot of (sometimes sadistic) violence, but they only get an R rating. In the meantime, other movies with barely any sexual content get an R rating too ("Amelie" is a good example). As for "Blue Valentine", I'll just point out that it is not a movie distributed by any of the owners of the MPAA.

Like the BCS rankings, everyone has their own opinion, and it is impossible to satisfy everyone all the time. But no one is required to have their movie rated by the MPAA.

I will say that with regard to "Saving Private Ryan," it was a realistic depiction of actual significant events in the history of the world (the D-Day Normandy invasion in WWII). I am sure that was taken into account when deciding that it deserved an R rating and that someone under 17 could watch it (but only with parental consent). It would not be surprising that some French find the film too disturbing to watch, but not sure it is for the reasons that you suggest.

OT but what does it have to do with communism ?

As I said before, MPAA film ratings have nothing to do with government in the USA, which obviously would not be the case in a communist society where the government controls almost everything. Also, since we are talking about movies, I thought I would quote a famous line from the "Godfather."

[andyb]

A couple of questions for you m0002a.

Like the BCS rankings, everyone has their own opinion, and it is impossible to satisfy everyone all the time

What is your "personal" opinion on this subject, do you find sex scenes more disturbing than violence scenes.? Does the sight fo a penis horrify you so much that you will tell everyone never to watch that film, and try to get it banned, how about someone having their brains blown out with a gun.? Its all very well telling us all of this riveting (yawn) information about the MPAA and the constitution, but what about you, do you actually have an opinion, because so far you dont seem to at all.

I will say that with regard to "Saving Private Ryan," it was a realistic depiction of actual significant events in the history of the world (the D-Day Normandy invasion in WWII). I am sure that was taken into account when deciding that it deserved an R rating and that someone under 17 could watch it (but only with parental consent). It would not be surprising that some French find the film too disturbing to watch, but not sure it is for the reasons that you suggest.

So a film with a realistic depiction of sex between two concenting adults is NOT an actual significant event in the history of the world (say for example if it was the parents of "Abraham Lincoln", "Adolph Hitler", or "G W Bush", or even "Monica Lewinsky" smoking a certain presidents cigar under the oval office desk).

I am of the opinion that what the http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ are doing is on the right path.

They rate every single film released by any proffesional company (i.e. not home made films and wedding videos) in the UK, they give the film a rating, and now they also say what the film contains, therefore the viewer, or the parents of the viewer can make a more informed descision about whether the want to see the film, or whether they let their children see the film. No doubt you are going to tell me that is a communist idea, but I dont care, it does what it is supposed to and it does a pretty good job of it. This surely has to be the way forward, give people information and let them decide (within the age boundaries of course).

Currently there is way more violence than sex in films, and very often a film with non-graphic sex scenes and no violence end up with the same rating as films with no sex at all, and huge quantities of violence, the balance needs to be re-addressed in my opinion. This is not to say that I want hardcore sex scenes being shown to anyone under the age of 18, I just want fairer, more accurate film classification (everywhere, but specifically in the UK), that is based on "potential harm" caused by someone watching the film, everything from nightmares to someone going nuts and shooting a bunch of people.

Sex is far less harmful to viewers of a reasonable age than violence, there is no doubt about that at all, and who the hell ends up with nightmares about a couple doing some "horizontal jogging", people have had nightmares about the dozens of people killed on the beach in "Saving Private Ryan", and specifically the poor bugger who picked up his own leg after it got blown off.


Andy

[m0002a]

What is your "personal" opinion on this subject, do you find sex scenes more disturbing than violence scenes.? Does the sight fo a penis horrify you so much that you will tell everyone never to watch that film, and try to get it banned, how about someone having their brains blown out with a gun.? Its all very well telling us all of this riveting (yawn) information about the MPAA and the constitution, but what about you, do you actually have an opinion, because so far you dont seem to at all.

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.

What we are talking about is not what you or I think about viewing such movies, but whether a 17 year old minor is allowed to see such a movie in a theater (NC17 - No One 17 and under admitted), or whether someone 16 or younger can it see only with their parents consent (R - Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). 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). Also, you can purchase or rent a NC-17 movie and show it to a minor 16 or younger in the privacy of your home if you wish.

My own opinion is that becasue of the Internet, just about any child with any brains can find hard core pornography pretty easily, the MPAA rating system doesn't really do what was intended anymore. But this is a free country, and if those private companies who run it and enforce it in their theaters what to keep the system, then I don't see under what grounds anyone could deprive of them of their rights to run their business the way they want. Freedom does not mean that you have the right to prevent others from raising their minor children the way they want to.

[m0002a]

...people have had nightmares about the dozens of people killed on the beach in "Saving Private Ryan", and the poor bugger who picked up his own leg after it got blown off.

Are you suggesting that people not watch it? What about actual films of bodies (dead or alive) in Nazi concentration camps?

I personally think that teenagers should see accurate depictions of factual events of the Normandy D-Day invitation and Nazi concentration camps as part of their education. If it gives them nightmares, that just means they are not barbarians like the perpetrators of those events, and those who wish to deny them.

Anyone who thinks that one of the problems of American society is that children are not exposed to depictions of sex is mentally challenged. Just about all of them are exposed to hard core "pornography" on the Internet.

[andyb]

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.

Well thats bollocks for a start, let me think for one second of a film that depicts child pornography that is not banned in the USA, Lolita, there are many more.

Then lets have a look at just a few films starting with the letter "A" that depict "acts that are illegal".

A-Team, film and TV series.
American History X
Assault on Precinct 13 (both versions).

What we are talking about is not what you or I think about viewing such movies, but whether a 17 year old minor is allowed to see such a movie in a theater (NC17 - No One 17 and under admitted), or whether someone 16 or younger can it see only with their parents consent (R - Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian)

We agree on this point.

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).

That is moronic.

Also, you can purchase or rent a NC-17 movie and show it to a minor 16 or younger in the privacy of your home if you wish.

Yes you can, but that is up to the parents, likewise they can do all sorts of things in the privacy of their own home, that does not make it a sensible thing to do.

My own opinion is that becasue of the Internet, just about any child with any brains can find hard core pornography pretty easily, the MPAA rating system doesn't really do what was intended anymore.

So because someone can look at whatever they want on the internet, the movie ratings system should be ignored.? Is that what you mean.?

But this is a free country

In some ways.

and if those private companies who run it and enforce it in their theaters what to keep the system, then I don't see under what grounds anyone could deprive of them of their rights to run their business the way they want.

So you think that its OK for some companies to rate films however they like.? They could choose to rate violent films as a "U" and let everyone in, is that what you mean.?

Freedom does not mean that you have the right to prevent others from raising their minor children the way they want to.

Thats why the world us full of fucked-up people, because some people dont have any morals, decency or brains, and should be neutered before they pollute the gene pool further.


Andy

[andyb]

Are you suggesting that people not watch it? What about actual films of bodies (dead or alive) in Nazi concentration camps?

I am "suggesting" that sex is less harmful to viewers of a sensible age than violence, but that they are not given ratings that match that point.

Do those "actual films" of real human corpses glorify.? No they dont. Are they displayed for "entertainment".? No they are not. Should they be shown.? Yes they should because it is knowlege and history, although I do believe that they should have warnings and/or be shown at later times of the day than they often are, ditto news showing "real" violence and real corpses.

I wont bother replying to the rest of it, as you are just changing the subject.


Andy

[HFat]

Cool down andy!

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).

That is moronic.

What does it achieve to be insulting?
That was a reasonable point. I'm sure you have reasonable grounds to believe it's not relevant or something but what's relevant in an unstructured converstation is subjective. Greater understanding might have been achieved by explaining why this sentence pissed you off. Maybe it's not worth the effort to explain yourself but in that case I believe it would be better to write nothing instead of venting your frustrations on someone else.

I'm surprised to read that Hollywood produces "accurate depictions of factual events" by the way. I think I'd sooner let a young kid watch a WWII documentary featuring archival footage, interviews and such or even a violent fantasy movie than a war movie. That said, there are some atypical war movies like "Merry Christmas" (about WWI) which are more suitable for children.

[m0002a]

Well thats bollocks for a start, let me think for one second of a film that depicts child pornography that is not banned in the USA, Lolita, there are many more.

Then lets have a look at just a few films starting with the letter "A" that depict "acts that are illegal".

A-Team, film and TV series.
American History X
Assault on Precinct 13 (both versions).

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.

Likewise, the fictional depiction of murder, theft, etc in a movie is not illegal (am I having to explain this to an adult?).

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).

[andyb]

"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


Andy

[HFat]

Now does my "moronic" statement make more sense

No. "Moronic" is meaningless so we have to guess your meaning. And it's not easy to guess in that case.

A couple more insights into the strange world of the MPAA.

There'a a reason the MPAA behaves that way and it isn't all that strange. There are lots of people in the USA who do not want their kids to see sexual scenes. So the MPAA panders to them. It's partly serving the customer, something which is of course commendable. But it's also partly caving to public pressure. And that's perhaps objectionable because you might not want loony minorities to have a disproportionate influence as compared to people who are not passionate about the issue. But you don't have to use their ratings if you don't like them. And if you're concerned about the influence bigots are having on movie ratings, I think you should be more concerned about their political influence.

[m0002a]

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.

No, it does not make sense to me. You seem to fixated on the desire that everyone have the same thoughts and opinions as you, and that other countries conform exactly to the value systems of your own country (or of yourself).

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.

I disagree. I don’t think there is any good reason for it other than you like to be argumentive in general, and like to attack the USA in particular. Your discussion about “depiction” is pretty much a non sequitur, except when you change gears and correctly note that different countries have different views about how much sex and/or violence they allow children to view in films.

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.

I guess that is debatable; however, I prefer to let each society, country, or even local government answer these questions themselves. In the USA, the primary concern is make sure parents understand what is in the film so they can decide whether to allow their children to watch them. In that regard, the MPAA film rating itself is not sufficient, but also the reason for the rating (sex, violence, langueage, drugs, etc) must be specified by the MPAA along with rating.

I wish it was my occupation, that would be an awsome job.

Awesome for you maybe, but not awesome for everyone else.

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).

Again that is debatable and your opinion. Other people may have different opinions.

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.

The final released film was rated R in the USA, so anyone 17 or older can view it in a theater (or any age if accompanied by parent or guardian). So you are incorrect about the 18 age limit.

The British Board of Film Classification has no comparable rating as a R that includes “unless accompanied by parent or guardian.” The British classifications are 12, 15, 18 (among others), and the relevant MPAA ratings are PG-13, R (17 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian), NC-17 (18). So the rating scales are not the same (in addition to the fact that different societies may have different opinions about the amount of sex and/or violence that want to allow their children to see).

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.???

It didn’t. It got an R rating in the USA. You didn’t see original submitted film that would have got an NC-17 and the R rated version is the one rated 15 in the UK.

Also note that in the USA, the unrated (original version) is usually released on DVD to those who want to view it (which along with cable showings, is how most people see the non-blockbusters these days anyway).

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

No one claimed that MPAA do not take sexual content into consideration. Why does it bother you that different societies have different views on what they allow their children to see? Maybe the world would be better off and have less violence if you (and others) just accepted that fact.

[andyb]

No, it does not make sense to me. You seem to fixated on the desire that everyone have the same thoughts and opinions as you, and that other countries conform exactly to the value systems of your own country (or of yourself).

I will not glorify that statement with a reply, simply because it has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand, if you dont want to talk about the subject then dont bother replying at all.

I guess that is debatable; however, I prefer to let each society, country, or even local government answer these questions themselves.

Are you not capable of either forming your own opinion, or at least taking an existing one and going with that because you believe it to be correct, I find people without opinions frustrating.

In the USA, the primary concern is make sure parents understand what is in the film so they can decide whether to allow their children to watch them. In that regard, the MPAA film rating itself is not sufficient, but also the reason for the rating (sex, violence, langueage, drugs, etc) must be specified by the MPAA along with rating.

So it is basically the same as the BBFC (who are far from perfect), but has huge leniancy with violence, but almost none to nakedness and sex.

Again that is debatable and your opinion. Other people may have different opinions.

Many people do, you dont, feel free to express an opinion on this matter that goes beyond "I will leave it to the MPAA, or any other countries film board".

The final released film was rated R in the USA, so anyone 17 or older can view it in a theater (or any age if accompanied by parent or guardian). So you are incorrect about the 18 age limit.

Yes it was changed (eventually, read the link I added about it), but anyone under the age of 18 needs to be accompanied by someone aged 21 or over.

The British Board of Film Classification has no comparable rating as a R that includes “unless accompanied by parent or guardian.” The British classifications are 12, 15, 18 (among others), and the relevant MPAA ratings are PG-13, R (17 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian), NC-17 (18). So the rating scales are not the same (in addition to the fact that different societies may have different opinions about the amount of sex and/or violence that want to allow their children to see).

We keep on coming back to this point of agreement, and a general recognition that different countries will give different ratings, and indeed have different rating systems. The BBFC is not at all perfect, dont think that I am only bashing the MPAA.

No one claimed that MPAA do not take sexual content into consideration. Why does it bother you that different societies have different views on what they allow their children to see?

Because "in the land of the free" you are not, neither am I, and the reason for that is draconian religious bullcrap( the religious element can be left at this single point), mingled with a large quantity of lobbying, bribes, threats and politics, that all get in the way of having a sensible ratings system. Again its not just the MPAA, Islamic states and dictatorships do the same thing to an even stronger degree, and North Korea has only just shown its first ever western film (edited a lot).

I have no problem voicing my dislike of such things, even if I cant change it, why not discuss it.?

[m0002a]

Yes it was changed (eventually, read the link I added about it), but anyone under the age of 18 needs to be accompanied by someone aged 21 or over.

As I tried to explain to you above, you are off by one year on the R MPAA rating:

R - Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian.

Because "in the land of the free" you are not, neither am I, and the reason for that is draconian religious bullcrap( the religious element can be left at this single point), mingled with a large quantity of lobbying, bribes, threats and politics, that all get in the way of having a sensible ratings system. Again its not just the MPAA, Islamic states and dictatorships do the same thing to an even stronger degree, and North Korea has only just shown its first ever western film (edited a lot).

I have no problem voicing my dislike of such things, even if I cant change it, why not discuss it.?

Here are some observations about this discussion:

1. Do you have any children? If not, then why do you care? If you don’t have any children then I doubt that you can understand why parents don’t want their children to view movies with strong sexual content.

2. You claim to be against censorship, but you said it was moronic that movies in the USA don’t even have to be rated by the MPAA. That suggests to me that even though you claim to be against censorship, in reality you just have a different set of values that you want to impose on everyone else. This merits a some serious discussion IMO, and is significantly more important than the differences in ratings between the MPAA and ratings used in other countries.

3. Even though it is optional that films in the USA be rated by the MPAA, apparently it is legally required in the UK that all films be rated by the British Board of Film Classification. Maybe that government mandate is also another much more important topic of discussion rather worrying about how much violence and/or sex the MPAA allows for the various ratings. Also, according to what I read, local governments in the UK can legally impose their own more stringent restrictions on films overriding the BBOF ratings.

4. As I previously explained, the ratings don’t have much effect on what we are allowed to see because in the USA virtually all movies that are edited to get a R rating are released on DVD in their original uncut version as UR (Unrated). Here is the link for you to purchase Team America: World Police – Unrated version:
http://www.amazon.com/Team-America-Unra ... B0007Y08IS

The Team America: World Police Unrated DVD only costs $8.99 USD from Amazon with free shipping if you purchase $25 or more in the same order (there are lots of other Unrated versions of films you can order at the same time). So you seem to worrying about a problem that doesn’t even exist for Americans. If it is a problem for the Brittish, then don't fault the MPAA about that.

[andyb]

As I tried to explain to you above, you are off by one year on the R MPAA rating:

R - Restricted. Children Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian.

You are quite right, I was getting muddled by the difference of wording from what I am used to. e.g. NC-17 no-one 17 and UNDER admitted (i.e. an 18 and above only, in the UK its simply a rating of how old you need to be to watch it, i.e. 18 + no-one 17 and under admitted).

I would like to see a similar rating bracket in the UK to the "R" rating, we have a similar one but thats a "12A" rating, works in the same way, but for much younger kids.

1. Do you have any children? If not, then why do you care? If you don’t have any children then I doubt that you can understand why parents don’t want their children to view movies with strong sexual content.

Not yet, but I care because I have a concience, and if I am left in a room with some kids at someones house (it does happen), I feel obliged to make sure that they arent getting up to too much mischief, including watching things that they shouldnt be watching.

2. You claim to be against censorship, but you said it was moronic that movies in the USA don’t even have to be rated by the MPAA. That suggests to me that even though you claim to be against censorship, in reality you just have a different set of values that you want to impose on everyone else. This merits a some serious discussion IMO, and is significantly more important than the differences in ratings between the MPAA and ratings used in other countries.

I dont like censorship for the sake of it, however this happens all of the time, and there is little I can do about it, but please note that is "for me personally", I fully believe in censorship if it is done correctly, and for the right reasons for others (e.g. children). So in a way you are quite right, I do want to "impose" different values on different groups of people, but that is for 2 quite distinct reasons. 1.) I have censorship imposed upon me by others, and I dont agree with it, so I would like to "impose" my values on those people instead (of the right age of course). 2.) I feel (personally) that the rules that govern censorship are not even rules so much as "guidelines", which means that they change for every single film (and even who makes the film), and I think that they are wrong, and have (obviously) chosen to voice my opinion on the matter.

3. Even though it is optional that films in the USA be rated by the MPAA, apparently it is legally required in the UK that all films be rated by the British Board of Film Classification. Maybe that government mandate is also another much more important topic of discussion rather worrying about how much violence and/or sex the MPAA allows for the various ratings. Also, according to what I read, local governments in the UK can legally impose their own more stringent restrictions on films overriding the BBOF ratings.

That is one of the most shocking things that I discovered in this topic, that MPAA ratings are not a national requirement backed up by a legal system to help protect the very people that the MPAA (and other ratings agencies) are there to protect - children. Its essentially a law system that is passed down to the individuals selling tickets, or renting DVD's. This works in exactly the same way as people who sell Alcohol and Tobacco, and I am amazed that it is not enforced in the USA in the same way, hence my description of it as "moronic". It seems to me that if compared to the sale of Tobacco and Alcohol, some shops would simply be able to sell "unrated-brand of beer/fags" to anyone of any age, that is as silly as the lack of film age restrictions and ratings in the USA.

4. As I previously explained, the ratings don’t have much effect on what we are allowed to see because in the USA virtually all movies that are edited to get a R rating are released on DVD in their original uncut version as UR (Unrated). Here is the link for you to purchase Team America: World Police – Unrated version:
http://www.amazon.com/Team-America-Unra ... B0007Y08IS

Again, that might happen in the USA all of the time, but not in the UK, there is often an "unrated" version as well, often sold a bit later than the original release. Here is the version for sale in the UK, I couldnt see down the list an unrated version.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Team-America-Wo ... 767&sr=1-1

However I did note that the version sold in the USA was 1-minute longer, but so was the "rated" version. I dont know what was going on here.

http://www.amazon.com/Team-America-Poli ... 979&sr=1-8

So you seem to worrying about a problem that doesn’t even exist for Americans. If it is a problem for the Brittish, then don't fault the MPAA about that.

I am not exactly "worried" about the issue as it has no direct effect on me. But it does have an affect on a lot of people, in exactly the same way that homosexual people cant get married (or even have a civil partnership) in most of the world, but it does have an affect on them, and I would like to see the world become a better place, which means that some of these things will need to change in some way.

My interest is purely for the betterment of humankind (in my opinion), and to point out some of the many strange and downright stupid descisions that go on that affect millions of people. Things dont have to affect me personally for me to want to help change something.


Andy

[m0002a]

That is one of the most shocking things that I discovered in this topic, that MPAA ratings are not a national requirement backed up by a legal system to help protect the very people that the MPAA (and other ratings agencies) are there to protect - children. Its essentially a law system that is passed down to the individuals selling tickets, or renting DVD's. This works in exactly the same way as people who sell Alcohol and Tobacco, and I am amazed that it is not enforced in the USA in the same way, hence my description of it as "moronic". It seems to me that if compared to the sale of Tobacco and Alcohol, some shops would simply be able to sell "unrated-brand of beer/fags" to anyone of any age, that is as silly as the lack of film age restrictions and ratings in the USA.

The MPAA ratings are primarily meant to provide information to parents so they can determine what they will allow their children to see. The major studios and major theater chains claim to enforce the MPAA ratings, but there is no law requiring it that I know of. There probably are state and local laws (that may vary by state and locality) that require persons to be 18 for hard-core porno. But MPAA does not rate porno films.

I was at Walmart yesterday and noticed lots of Unrated versions of DVD's that were originally released as R for theater distribution. I doubt that all cashiers would catch that, and Walmart has a self-checkout lane, so not sure how they could prevent a minor from buying one unless it is programmed into their computers (like wine and beer) for a cashier to check their id and make sure they are 18 for NC-17 and 17 for R rated DVD's.

Considering the amount of hard core porno on the Internet, that is probably a much bigger concern for parents these days.

[andyb]

The MPAA ratings are primarily meant to provide information to parents so they can determine what they will allow their children to see. The major studios and major theater chains claim to enforce the MPAA ratings, but there is no law requiring it that I know of. There probably are state and local laws (that may vary by state and locality) that require persons to be 18 for hard-core porno. But MPAA does not rate porno films.

I was at Walmart yesterday and noticed lots of Unrated versions of DVD's that were originally released as R for theater distribution. I doubt that all cashiers would catch that, and Walmart has a self-checkout lane, so not sure how they could prevent a minor from buying one unless it is programmed into their computers (like wine and beer) for a cashier to check their id and make sure they are 18 for NC-17 and 17 for R rated DVD's.

Considering the amount of hard core porno on the Internet, that is probably a much bigger concern for parents these days.

Although there are numerous problems with this whole issue, I dont suggest that anyone simply sweeps it under the carpet because of its flaws (self service checkouts, and cashiers that dont care/cant be bothered), but rather enforce it.

Obviously this brings me straight to the next issue, the internet is essentially untamable (it was designed that way afterall) and as such it allows people to easily bypass much of the ratings (and associated security if it exists) by simply gaining the material another way. This is as far as I am concered a seperate issue, take for example the age limit on Alcohol and Tobacco, its readily available by other means to kids. And for some it is actually easier for them to get "banned" narcotics, or at the very least no more difficult.

So do we tackle the problem of kids watching snuff videos, and hardcore porn (or even 2 girls 1 cup) on the internet as a seperate issue.? Or do we simply abandon all ratings alltogether simply because kids and the internet (and mobile phones) are impossible to manage.?


Andy

[HFat]

You keep confusing ratings and enforcement. And you call things "moronic" when you don't understand them.
Enforcement through blanket legal requirements is unnecessary and destructive. It's not only about the freedom of children. You're talking about restricting the ability of shops to deploy labor-saving technologies! Such laws end up hampering all of us.
You want the government to manage what children are able to purchase when they are allowed to wander downtown unsupervised with money to burn in their pockets? Most theaters will voluntarily control what they allow children to watch in a reasonable manner considering their location and the cultural context. And parents who disagree with the prevailing practices will be in a better position to raise their children according to their values if there are no restrictive laws.

The internet is not unmanageable. It wasn't designed to be unmanageable.
After surrendering any responsibility about the main issue, you're in no position to lecture other people or to try to impose pointless laws on them. No doubt that won't stop you. It sure isn't stopping politicians.

[andyb]

You keep confusing ratings and enforcement.

NoI dont, I have been quite clear on that point, I personally believe that in this case they should be directly linked as they are in the UK,anything less than that is almost worthless.

And you call things "moronic" when you don't understand them.

I now understand how the ratings sytem doesnt work in the USA, and I still think it is moronic (refer to the above statement).

Enforcement through blanket legal requirements is unnecessary and destructive.

Such as, murder, physical abuse, drugs control, movie ratings, if you want to draw a line feel free to do so, but actually do it, say what else you think the above statement of yours relates to.

It's not only about the freedom of children.

The freedom of children to watch people fucking and murdering and torturing each other.............

You're talking about restricting the ability of shops to deploy labor-saving technologies! Such laws end up hampering all of us.

Classic example of someone trying to claim that I said things that I obviously didnt say, for clarification people, just read my last post.

You want the government to manage what children are able to purchase when they are allowed to wander downtown unsupervised with money to burn in their pockets?

In the same way that I want to control what muslim fanatics lay their hands on, freedom should still have a guiding hand, and the ability to give a slap, and say no from time to time. Lets add a little parental respect to this mix as well, not just respect to the parents but from them. And no I dont think its a great idea to let kids wander downtown unsupervised with money in their pockets, especially when you havent mention the age of the kids, the time they are out, where they are going, and how much cash they have, if you have kids and dont think of those points, you should be neutered and have you kids given to someone else as you are obviously not fit to be a parent.

Most theaters will voluntarily control what they allow children to watch in a reasonable manner considering their location and the cultural context.

........What can I say taht is not too offensive. I know "dont be an idiot", of course they will, do you really need me to explain to you basic economics.?

And parents who disagree with the prevailing practices will be in a better position to raise their children according to their values if there are no restrictive laws.

I dont even know what that means, feel free to use many more much shorter words, and if that was a question rather than a statement then feel free to use one of these items called a "question mark" ?

The internet is not unmanageable. It wasn't designed to be unmanageable.

Not if you are the United States Government and science labs and universeties. However you might have noticed that it has escaped its original boundaries. And there is no single point of control, and never will be without "an evil worldwide totalitarian dictatorship", or caliphate (which is the same thing).

After surrendering any responsibility about the main issue, you're in no position to lecture other people or to try to impose pointless laws on them.

What, make sense man.

No doubt that won't stop you. It sure isn't stopping politicians.

Of course not. a.) I give a shit, you are obviously "anally retentive". b.) If no-one lectured people, or voiced new ideas and imposed laws (pointless or otherwise) then we would never have evolved. If you think that statement is wrong I suggest that you should live in the jungle, eat leaves, and try to devolve yourself within a single human lifetime.

You have just reduced my opinion of yourself to almost nothing, and I can only hope that I forget about your utter stupidity soon, I would like you to continue your trend of fence-sitting, and non-comittal of opinions, feel free to continue to trash peoples arguments with utter bullshit.

Have a good nights sleep, and get back to me when you have eaten some "clever" food, and had a "sensible" drink for breakfast.

Andy

[jamotide]

It is really simple. The USA was founded on violence, it starts very violent wars every 5 years or so and 10000 people get shot per year due to crime. Violence is normal to them, so it is not outrageous to display it.

As for why sex is so disturbing, that is because many of the european settlers were puritan vegetable folk (quote from black adder for dramatization) that resent any mention or even hinting towards even the possibility of sex or arousal.

Potential harm to any underaged is no consideration at all. I fondly remember the Janet nipple Jackson incident, funny stuff.

[alleycat]

It would be great if we could keep these discussions civil. What's the point of name-calling and putting down entire countries? Seems kind of childish to me.

I don't understand why sex and nudity are considered harmful. Actually, the idea that sex is harmful is itself harmful. It is a perversion. As a child I was introduced to nudism by my parents. At the time it seemed perfectly normal and I believe that I have grown up to become a healthy well-adjusted adult despite (or perhaps because of?) this.

The whole "sex is harmful" meme is like a virus transmitted from parent to child. The parent is uncomfortable about themselves and sex, then this insecurity is passed to the child who then grows up with sexual hangups, then passes it on to their children etc.

[andyb]

It is really simple. The USA was founded on violence, it starts very violent wars every 5 years or so and 10000 people get shot per year due to crime. Violence is normal to them, so it is not outrageous to display it.

As for why sex is so disturbing, that is because many of the european settlers were puritan vegetable folk (quote from black adder for dramatization) that resent any mention or even hinting towards even the possibility of sex or arousal.

I believe that your point is valid, and has a bearing on the topic to some degree.

It would be great if we could keep these discussions civil.

It would, but we have allready gone beyond that, so to keep this civil (from me at least), I shall not reply to any more posts unless they are actually worthy of a response.

What's the point of name-calling and putting down entire countries? Seems kind of childish to me.

Yes it was and is childish, I have removed the offending material, and I apologize to anyone who has read it already, I have left my rant towards Hfat, as I simply dont see it as offensive, only as the truth, and truth outweighs offence in my mind and on this occasion.

I don't understand why sex and nudity are considered harmful. Actually, the idea that sex is harmful is itself harmful. It is a perversion. As a child I was introduced to nudism by my parents. At the time it seemed perfectly normal and I believe that I have grown up to become a healthy well-adjusted adult despite (or perhaps because of?) this.

Well said. Although I do have one question (without judgement), when you say "nudism" do you mean that as it is now commonly ment (public nuditiy in an area restricted to people who are all nude, e.g. nudist beaches and holiday camps), or simply not covering up totally and all of the time whilst at home.?

The whole "sex is harmful" meme is like a virus transmitted from parent to child. The parent is uncomfortable about themselves and sex, then this insecurity is passed to the child who then grows up with sexual hangups, then passes it on to their children etc.

Agreed, personal perceptions of the world around them differ for a number of reasons, and the parents are heavily involved in that influence.


Andy

PS: did you get the following from Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion", it sounds very familiar.

The whole "sex is harmful" meme is like a virus transmitted from parent to child.

[m0002a]

It is really simple. The USA was founded on violence, it starts very violent wars every 5 years or so and 10000 people get shot per year due to crime. Violence is normal to them, so it is not outrageous to display it.

As for why sex is so disturbing, that is because many of the european settlers were puritan vegetable folk (quote from black adder for dramatization) that resent any mention or even hinting towards even the possibility of sex or arousal.

Potential harm to any underaged is no consideration at all. I fondly remember the Janet nipple Jackson incident, funny stuff.

Violence is taken into consideration when the MPAA rates films, contrary to you claim.

MPAA Ratings of G, PG, and PG-13 are warnings to parents and are not enforced by theaters until the R (Under 17 Require Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian) or NC-17 (Must be 18). Hinting of sex or arousal would be a G or sometimes a PG rating (not even PG-13).

Regarding Janet Jackson's nipples, that would have been rated a U for ugly (you "fondly remember" ?). The big thing about that incident is that she lied about it, as we all know it was no accident.

[m0002a]

Although there are numerous problems with this whole issue, I dont suggest that anyone simply sweeps it under the carpet because of its flaws (self service checkouts, and cashiers that dont care/cant be bothered), but rather enforce it.

I am still not convinced you understand how it works in the USA. Or maybe you just don’t accept that it is voluntary in the USA?

I am also not sure you understood my comment about Walmart, in that they are not required to enforce MPAA ratings (which means for R and NC-17 films only), but they may choose to enforce it voluntarily (like many large theater chains in the USA). But I noted that even though they may choose to enforce it voluntarily, there may be some loopholes at self-checkout lanes (although they do flag wine and beer sales at self-checkout for id verification).

The one thing that the USA federal government does enforce, is that the producer of any films depicting actual sexual intercourse or similar acts, must have records on file verifying that all performers at least 18 years of age. (This does not apply to the soft-core porn where simulated sexual acts are performed). I believe that in many (or maybe all) states or local areas you must be 18 to purchase hard-core pornography, but these films are not rated by the MPAA.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the MPAA ratings:

“The Motion Picture Association of America's film-rating system is used in the U.S. and its territories to rate a film's thematic and content suitability for certain audiences. The MPAA system applies only to motion pictures that are submitted for rating. Other media (such as television programs and video games) may be rated by other entities. A voluntary system not enforced by law, it is one of various motion picture rating systems used to help parents decide what movies are appropriate for their children.

In the U.S., the MPAA's rating systems are the most-recognized guide for parents regarding the content of movies, and each rating has been trademarked by MPAA so that they are not used outside of motion pictures. The MPAA system has been criticized for the secrecy of its decisions as well as for perceived inconsistencies.

Contrary to popular belief, MPAA ratings carry no force of local, state, or federal law anywhere in the United States. The MPAA's rating system is administered by the Classification & Ratings Administration, which is not a government agency. MPAA ratings only serve as a consumer suggestion by a group of corporate analysts. After screening films, their personal opinions are used to arrive at one of five ratings. Theater owners voluntarily agree to enforce corporate film ratings as determined by the MPAA, which in turn facilitates their access to new film releases.”

Anyway, it seems to me that a more valuable discussion would be as to why you think the government should enforce MPAA ratings (as governments in some other countries apparently do with their own rating systems). Most Americans don’t think this is the function of the government, and that it should be left to parents and/or private institutions (theaters, retailers, etc who voluntarily want to enforce the ratings).

Obviously this brings me straight to the next issue, the internet is essentially untamable (it was designed that way afterall) and as such it allows people to easily bypass much of the ratings (and associated security if it exists) by simply gaining the material another way. This is as far as I am concered a seperate issue, take for example the age limit on Alcohol and Tobacco, its readily available by other means to kids. And for some it is actually easier for them to get "banned" narcotics, or at the very least no more difficult.

So do we tackle the problem of kids watching snuff videos, and hardcore porn (or even 2 girls 1 cup) on the internet as a seperate issue.? Or do we simply abandon all ratings alltogether simply because kids and the internet (and mobile phones) are impossible to manage.?

Maybe not the Internet per se, but Internet Browsers (primarily led by MicroSoft IE) are designed to maximize revenues of the portals, not to effectively shield minors from inappropriate content. The “shielding” part was an after-thought that was slapped on after the horse left the barn, and it is not easy to reliably prevent minors from viewing inappropriate sites (or prevent websites from capturing personal data from people who visit the sites).

Comparing the ease of illegal purchase of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs with the accessibility of Internet porn by minors is a bit absurd IMO.