MPAA Finally Agrees To Make Small Changes To Movie Rating Systems

from the about-time dept

While they insist that last year's movie that blew the lid off the highly secretive process of movie ratings, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, (which of course received an NC-17 rating), it appears that the MPAA is finally willing to open up a little in the ratings process. The newly proposed system would name the three senior raters, rather than keep everyone totally secret. The other raters wouldn't be revealed, but there would be some more info on their backgrounds. They would also insist that raters have school-aged children so that they have a better feel for what's appropriate for children of that age range. They would also clarify some of the rules and the process for getting rated -- and what the ratings mean. Some of the other changes would include more stringent warnings against taking kids into R rated movies and finally allowing filmmakers who are appealing their ratings to cite other films as examples for why they feel their film was rated unfairly. Unfortunately, this seems pretty weak overall. Basically, they're letting people have a tiny peak in, but aren't really changing much at all behind the secretive process, and not doing anything to prevent the main problem the film outlined: that the system highly favors big studio productions, rather than independent films. It's also not at all clear why there should be 10 people who have the power to completely modify how a film can be marketed based on how they feel about the film. In an age where group-based rating systems are common, it seems like there could be a much more effective solution for movie ratings, perhaps even taking into account regional or local differences in community standards and tastes.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 12:50am

    just watched that movie...

    ya, this seems like they are trying to do something, but not really doing anything. in fact, i think it should be taken out of the MPAA's control, simply because the MPAA is the studio's, and it's unfair to non-studio companies, not to mention, their secrecy is rather unnerving.

    but, video games have the same problem. the ESRB is a ratings board run by the largest stores that sell games, and so they get to control what gets sold, since an AO rating (adults only) basically kills any game. it's funny too, because if you look at the ESRB site and see what has gotten an AO rating, it's all because of sexual content. (Thrill Kill did have sexual content, even though not listed)

    i just think it's another sign about how screwed up America is. kill as many people as you want, make it as graphic as you want, just as long as there is no sexual content.

    America's moto:
    Sex is Bad. Violence is Good.
    Now let's go start a war!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Ultra Sarcasm, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 1:22am

    20th Century destined to be the best century ever.

    What great progress we've made over the years. We've learned people in control of large, predatory orginizations like to hide the truth. We've learned specifically:

    Cigarettes are unhealthy.
    Eating too much will make you overweight.
    If you don't pay your bills, your credit score will go down.
    Movie ratings were put together by a bunch of out-of-touch cronies.


    Who or what do I need to credit for these great advances? Sarbanes-Oxley?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Miguel Buddle, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 2:02am

    While they insist that last year's movie what?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 3:42am

    Re: 20th Century destined to be the best century e

    "Movie ratings were put together by a bunch of out-of-touch cronies."

    Does anyone who commented on this article have children?

    If anything, I want the ratings system to err on the side of caution. I don't want my children to see material that is inappropriate. I count on the movie ratings to be the first line of defense in that regard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Ed, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 4:10am

    be a parent, for a change...

    Instead of just dropping your kids off at the mall for a free day of "babysitting", you could actually go with them to the movies. Maybe you could actually get online to a free website like IMDB which has a wealth of information on movies, even those that are not even out yet. These actions would prove far more valuable and accurate than some arbitrary rating system. The biggest problem is that so many people have stopped being a parent and instead are trying to be their child's "friend", relying on the schools and government to do their "dirty work" for them.

    When a movie that has buckets of blood and gore, grisly murders shown in detail, and mass slaughter of innocent people gets an "R" or even a "PG-13" rating, but another that is a beautiful love story that just might have a love scene crafted with passion and artistry, with the briefest of nudity, gets an "NC-17", just what does that message tell your children?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 4:23am

    Start being a parent

    that's the biggest problem today, too many people are too busy to actually do their duty as a parent. how about people just stop having kids if they aren't ready to be parents and do it properly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    R.E. Christian, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 4:41am

    Parents and ratings and 21st century

    In the 21st century its time movie ratings went the way of the dodo bird. They are simply not needed.

    No, "..don't care about the children!" I don't have 'em, don't want 'em ,and happliy don't have to worry about them showing up unwanted either. Being a geek/nerd has its benefits.

    If your a parent then its TIME *YOU* PARENT! The government is not your nanny nor is some ratings board either. You need to GO TO THE MOVIE and see it first if you want to let your rugrat see it or rent it first or how ever you get movies. Same with TV.

    Movie ratings and changing content for release in a theatre only to have an "unrated" or "directors cut dvd" is a waste. The whole system screams CENSORSHIP to me and thats just not acceptable in the US, and shouldn't be tolerated by any one.

    Sex, drugs, violence, nudity all happen in the real world daily. You can shelter your little deliquents and see what that does to them or maybe you can step up and do YOUR JOB and BE A PARENT. Parenting takes work and effort and may take away from some of your free time and resources and money. (Why I want nothing to do with them, and I would be a poor parent so even more reason.)

    There are some real crud films out there, like the slasher genre. Don't get it, don't like it, so I...... don't watch them. If thats your thing great. I am not running around screaming it should not be made or released or it should have some stupid rating. Put an NC17 label on something and I am more likely to watch it simply because of it. I've seen movies get that and I've seen R movies with more sex and nudity than that.

    Maybe its better you just stay inside your little gated HOA Nazi communites because the real world is obvisouly too NC17 for you. We'll see about having some disney crap air dropped in for you.

    Directors quit submiting your works for ratings, and then the whole process will go a way! I don't go to theatres so I only get DVD's. Release straight to DVD and screw the ratings. Put your art on the DVD and don't accept and tolerate censorship!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Gunnar, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 5:07am

    To be fair

    This Film is Not Yet Rated does have a lot of sex scenes in it.

    The real problem is theater chain's refusal to show NC-17 movies. That is where the censorship comes from. There is no reason a movie should ever get more than an R rating. For an R movies children can see movies only with a parents permission, so it's not like removing NC-17 takes any control out of the parents hands.

    "If anything, I want the ratings system to err on the side of caution. I don't want my children to see material that is inappropriate. I count on the movie ratings to be the first line of defense in that regard."

    You have an internet connection. Use it.

    And, if you had seen "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" onlya few of the 12 reviewers had school aged children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Wolfger, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 5:10am

    messed up priotities

    I would rather have my children see an orgy of passion than an orgy of blood. The MPAA ratings board feels the opposite. We do not need a ratings system, we need a system that explicitly spells out the content of the movie, so that parents can decide what is appropriate for their own children, and not anybody else's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Pengwin, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 5:19am

    Why not jsut tell us whats in the movies?

    Why cant they just say what is in the movies instead of a rating, it would be nice to see a little tag that said mild swearing' and 'fighting' instad of an M rating. I know in Australia that this is sometimes displayed at the side of the rating and i refer to it more than the actual rating its given :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Sanguine Dream, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 5:30am

    I say do away with the rating system

    When a film gets its rating there is a small caption underneath that the narrartor of the commercial reads along with the rating itself. Just use that little caption to tell what kind of material is in the movie.

    If the movie has sexual content instead of trying to decide NC-17, R, or XXX just say, "This film contains lots of gratuidous sexual content." That way the parents know not to let the kiddies see it, the directors won't feel cheated, and the ratings board still gets to feel good about themselves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Mr. Parent, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 6:14am

    RE: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    You are a fucking moron.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 6:33am

    Re: RE: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    #1 great comment!!
    #2 who are you talking about/to?
    #3 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU IDIOT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Parent101, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 7:29am

    Re: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    No, "..don't care about the children!" I don't have 'em, don't want 'em ,and happliy don't have to worry about them showing up unwanted either. Being a geek/nerd has its benefits.

    Benefits like downloading porn and wanking all by yourself?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    pvilleSE, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 7:36am

    Parenting and ratings

    I feel we need ratings to protect the children out there who's parents don't raise them right, sorry but as a society we have the duty to the society, so I think ratings are important.

    But as a parent(in my 20's) I realize the usefulness of the web and Christian radio. Back were I grew up the radio station gave you a family's point of view run down on the new movies and it was more valuable than ratings ever could be. So if you are a good parent you should always check the family point of view review on a movie before taking your kids to see it or letting them go see it.

    And for those parents who don't raise their kids to listen to them I think we need to fix the rating system, maybe take some of the advice of the family oriented reviews into consideration, not like it really matters to those without a family what the rating is, I think adults can judge on there own by reading a bit about the movie first. Just like before I rent a movie for myself I read why the movie got the rating on the back of the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Dam, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 7:40am

    Ratings Are A Guide.....

    Not an absolute. Many of the readers here probably won't remember the uproar when E.T. was released. Parents everywhere figured it was a great movie for the kids, hell, it was rated PG so what could be bad? Maybe it was Elliot, while arguing with his brother, calls him "penisbreath". There were many parents that were up in arms over this and why not? They didn't bring their youngsters to the movies to hear that.

    It's not about the word so much as it is the sneak attack. It's exposing youngsters to things they don't need to be exposed to as children, but smartass directors like Spielberg figure it's OK, everyone talks like that.

    Another poster here made the comment that violence is OK, but sex is not. Spielberg, in his desire to show the Hollywood PC crowd how PC he is, had the scene where the Feds are chasing the kids changed to remove the guns in the re-release. Of course "penisbreath" is still there. So violence is out, but sexual content is OK for young kids, because they all talk like that, right?

    Wrong. Hollywood is out of touch with the mainstream. They pander to the lowest common denominator because that's all they know how to do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 7:41am

    Christian radio?

    that's the other thing, they need to get religion out of politics. it's ridiculous that in today's society religious zealots are still allowed to influence policy so much. there is no way that should be allowed. but then the Christian way is to kill all those who oppose your view point and declare how moral they are while every one else is immoral.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    NoKids201, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 8:13am

    Re: Re: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    Aww, poor little parent is threatened by others choices.

    This married geek is never having kids either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Joel G., Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 8:41am

    Re: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    Naive views expressed here! First, you and so many enlightened and intelligent grown-ups out there assume that adults are somehow magically immune to the effects of violence, sensuality, crime, deceit etc. Is it how tall one is? how mature(?), how old--what makes adults any less suseptible to that material? Why have you drawn your line at slasher flicks? It's not simple preference--cuz there's probably some great slasher flicks that were even less slasher than films in other genres that you have seen.
    So spare us the whole, "I"m so grown up that no one could ever influenece my descisions/behavior/preferences. I'm my own person with total control over what I do/say/value etc. The fact that life is NC-17 rated as you claim (and mine isn't) is largely due to adults in society thinking that somehow at age 17, 21 or 40, that they are independent of, and above any influence of what they eat, see, listen to.
    Don't kid yourself. We're all both a product and a creator of the societies we live in. My view is that these things go in cycles, but is now (on a downhill slope) only becoming more corrupt, violent, hopeless, sensual, than it has been in a long time.
    I, for one, both try to parent my kids, and restrict my own viewing habits for my own good, my family's good, and society's good.
    Ratings, as lame and lax as they have become in most cases, help to some degree, but I certainly can't rely on them anymore and use other review sites to get more useful info. I'd still rather the films didn't include the "adult" content at all--no one would stop going to films if it didn't exist!, but why we feel we need to create so many stories/films about the basest of human desires, behavior and instincts is not surprising as it's what sells to mindless, non-self-censoring masses (sheep--baa-aaaa) that shell out their $$$ for whatever pleasure-seeking drivel is shovelled underneath their nose or paraded in front of their eyes. (and I'm not always able to resist myself, but I try and am fairly successful).
    So don't draw your line at snuff films. Excersise a little human decency and draw you line muuuuch further back. Vote for your wallet for films with intrigue, suspence (even explosions-gasp!) that doesn't show mankind at it's vile-est.
    -JG

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Poomer, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 8:43am

    Re:

    : ScytheNoire :

    I thought you were talking about the Muslim ideology! :p

    Ommm Shaanti Ommm ~.~

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    DS, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 8:46am

    Re: I say do away with the rating system

    Can anyone give me an example of a movie that received an NC-17 or R that was, in fact, appropriate for children under 17? All the rating system does is tell you what age group can and can't see a movie. What is wrong with that? We impose age limits on a lot of things.

    We have to have some baseline standards. And you know full well that if the ratings went away and kid went to see a movie that would have been rated R, you would have parents suing theaters left and right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Not a retard, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 9:13am

    Re:

    Hello left field....

    Darwin was right, as long as some of the dumbasses here don't reproduce, it will be survival of the fittest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    John, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 9:13am

    Some comparisons

    Just some comparisons:
    (Look these up on IMDB for a full description.)

    "Whale Rider": story about a Maori girl who wants to be a leader and contains a strong message about female empowerment. Rated PG-13 for slight drug use and language.
    "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle". You know what it's about... and contains a strong message about how sexy the three leads are. Rated PG-13 for "jiggliness".

    Both movies given the same rating.
    (As a side note, this rating caused critic Roger Ebert to speak out against the MPAA after they told him he couldn't say that Whale Rider was a good family film, simply because it was rated PG-13.)

    "Brokeback Mountain": a love story between two male cowboys. Winner of a few Oscars. Rated R.
    "Hostel": one of the most gory, bloody mainstream movies. Rated R.

    Both movies given the same rating.
    Granted, both of these movies contain adult subject matter and I wouldn't take young kids to either one, but the current rating system makes no difference between a well-made love story and a gorefest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 9:32am

    this all comes down to a moral issue. who can limit our morals? what is NC-17 to you may be PG-13 or R to me. What may be excessive may be "normal" to you.

    where do we, as a society, set the limit. i had a discussion on a trip about sex offenders. how do we set an age limit on sexual consent? back 100 years ago, 14yo's were getting married and having kids. it was normal. now, a 14yo means pedophile. so as a society, we have decided that you must be 16, 17 or 18 to be able to consent to sexual activity.

    we have said that you can vote on your leaders and go to war for your rights at 18, but have to wait 3 more years before you can consume a beer (or any alcohol) legally.

    this comes back to how our american society has developed. while many people may not like it, the majority of people agree/accecpt the social beliefs set forth. i'm sure you can find places around that share your views.

    but as it stands, we have the mpaa to set up these standards. until there is enough public push, it will remain

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    wtf?, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 10:56am

    Holy rotten opinions batman

    Wow, just wow...

    Ok, for the sake of total disclosure:
    1.) Not a parent
    2.) Would like to be one day
    3.) Married (so 2's actually a posibility)
    4.) Likes movies a lot

    OK, while I think that the rating system is anything but perfect, I have to admit that I'm a little surprised by the animosity on both sides of this argument. I grew up in a house that had less problem with violence in movies than sex, but that's because the boundaries of reality and fiction are much less blurry from the stand point of violence than they are in the case of sexual content. By the same token, Quake was a staple of my childhood video gaming experience, and as such, I totally see things from that point of view. I can understand how some people might have less problems with sex than violence, but frankly, I'd rather my children watch something they know is NOT real, as opposed to being exposed to something "pornesque".

    With that said, the rating system really doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other. Corporately I can see how it might limit competition and that I see as being a bad thing.

    Movie ratings SHOULD accomplish the following things.

    1.) Rules for entrance into a movie (children shouldn't be able to get into them on their own)
    2.) Inform watchers reasons for ratings.

    I've seen ratings that say "PG-13 for brief nudity" OK, I can totally handle that sort of a rating. But just PG-13... wtf does that mean?

    Someone mentioned that movies could be rated purely by watchers instead of the MPAA. An interesting concept but it has flaws as well. There still has to be some body of watchers who preview it, and essentially have the same issue all over again.

    The MPAA's secrecy on this topic is a little... well odd. It reminds me of a tech-dirt post I read yesterday concerning the RIAA and how they essentially just want control (on a sociopathic level) and this is essentially the same thing.

    So in my opinion, there does obviously need to be a rating system. The internet is probably still going to be the best solution for learning about the content of a movie. The rating system should ALWAYS say why it's rated the way it is. And I don't see why the MPAA needs to do the rating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    frankthetank, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 11:23am

    i can see why the mpaa does the ratings. better than having the studio doing the rating. i've heard several studios say they send several copies to the MPAA to get a specific rating. either the pg-13 or r as to get the "target" audience.

    however, to have a secret process is well, silly. there should be an independnt board with a set guidelline on how to rate movies. kinda like the supreme court for movie ratings. they view the movie, give it a rating, and offer oppinions as to the reasoning. this board can be made up of church leaders, gamers, lawyers, parents, "young adults" and the like.

    still the fact of the matter is that when you label something, there is always going to be someone with a problem. i.e. White Pride rallies. Free speach or Hate speach? (ovbiously that's an extreme example) you get the point?

    so, keep the ratings, but open up the reasoning behind the decision

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    PhysicsGuy, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    wow, nice sensationalist comment. how you err in so many ways.

    1. First, you and so many enlightened and intelligent grown-ups out there assume that adults are somehow magically immune to the effects of violence, sensuality, crime, deceit etc.

    -more so then children are certainly. there's two psychology courses you should take, first the intro psych course which is usually a prereq to a child psych course. you'll learn there's a large difference in distinguishing fantasy from reality between children and adults. it's where part of the concept of maturity comes from. a well functioning adult should be able to view a violent act in a movie and have an understanding that it is not real, therefore it does not result in the same psychological impressions that witnessing an actual violent act would. children up to a certain age cannot as easily distinguish fantasy from reality, the violent act witnessed on screen would be as real to them as witnessing an actual violent act. however, past a certain age, the lines between fantasy and reality becomes distinguishable and then it comes down to social memes that dictate what we consider proper for a child/teenager to see. unfortunately america has a very skewed perception on what is appropriate, however, this is what the rating system attempts to define and is what its downfall is. as has been stated it would be much more effective to simply list the potential objectionable content and let parents decide what is appropriate to let their children go out and see.

    2. My view is that these things go in cycles, but is now (on a downhill slope) only becoming more corrupt, violent, hopeless, sensual, than it has been in a long time.

    -i suggest you take a history class. you'd learn some interesting things. one being that society as a whole is moving in the opposite direction from what you proclaim. at the moment, sensationalist individuals, like yourself, and a sensationalist media only seem to highlight the corrupt, hopeless, sensual (and why is sensual necessarily a bad thing? music can be a sensual experience, would you consider music to be bad?). this does not mean that society as a whole is moving towards those things, it's merely that our attention is being directed towards those things, which isn't bad of course, but it creates the illusion in ill-informed individuals like yourself that society is on a downward spiral when it's not.

    3. I'd still rather the films didn't include the "adult" content at all

    -i suggest you move to a country like north korea, you wouldn't have to worry about such things.

    4. but why we feel we need to create so many stories/films about the basest of human desires, behavior and instincts is not surprising as it's what sells to mindless, non-self-censoring masses

    -find me a shakespeare tragedy that isn't about a base human desire. by your logic anyone who enjoys hamlet or macbeth are sheep. do you think romeo was truly in love with juliet when they had "relations", or rather, wasn't it just basic youthful lust that they killed themselves over? sure, the studios don't put out quality scripts anymore but the concepts aren't that dissimilar from what they've always been. i can name countless greek tragedies that are about basic human desires and, funny, greek arts are considered high among the fine arts. ever hear of the story of oedipus? frankly, it's human nature to express... wait for it... human nature. you can try hide in a little shell and think that everything is roses and dandelions, but human nature is what it is and your warped perception of reality won't change that. hell, some of the finest works of art and literature are about nothing more than base human desires.

    so before you start trying to proclaim pseudo-psychological ideas, inaccurate historical analysis, or complete nonsense about human nature, try attending a psychology, history, or humanities class. it would do you a world of good to get outside of your little box.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Sanguine Dream, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 12:30pm

    Re:

    I agree that labeling something will create problems. Which is why I posted earlier that I think the system should be done away with. I can argue that my movie was rated unfairly but I cannot argue wheather or not there is sexual content in my movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    yx, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 12:36pm

    missing the point

    This is to those that came forward to try to defend the current system:

    You totally missed the point. The problem isn't that there are ratings. The problem is that the ones who are deciding what gets rated what are corrupt bastards.

    Also, please explain to me why a random set of parents is better suited to decide what is suitable for watching than, for example, child psychologists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    frankthetank, Jan 22nd, 2007 @ 1:29pm

    yx....

    i don't belive i'm defending the current system.

    i believe i stated how the current system can be improved. no one single person or set of like-minded people will be able to determine what a random grouop of different-minded people should watch.

    i stated that a group of different-minded people should be consulted for inputs of ratings, and thier thought process be reveled.

    however it is easy to explain why a random set of parents is better suited than your child psychologists. the reason is that we as a society have allowed them to be. even though they may not have formal training for such decisions, we believe they have a child's best inerest in mind. we say they can and will influenc us, and ya know what? we let them. so our decision to let them decide is what makes them better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Nb, Apr 8th, 2007 @ 3:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Parents and ratings and 21st century

    Everyone listen CAREFULLY to PhysicsGuy!!!!
    I personally think the rating system implanted in the American society is absurd. How can 16 year olds be allowed to have sex but not watch an R-rated movie because of visible nipples?! Think about it!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Everyday Joe, May 14th, 2007 @ 3:50pm

    America is run by religious zealot prudes and the

    Anyone with common sense knows what they should shield their children from (that is, if they are genuine parents and not slackers that let Uncle Sam or the W.W.J.D. crowd take care of them). Of course, there are a lot of idiots out there having kids, so sometimes common sense gets "bred out".

    Here's the real problem:

    Most responsible people want to raise their children right, but have lost control of that right to the media and a "political correctness" movement spearheaded by idiots, churches, and the government.

    Allow me to elaborate...

    First, all of a sudden the wimpification of America has become a priority for a minority in our society. Namely, religious zealots, media and marketing slime, those detestable "people without children of their own with a psychology degree who insist on telling us how to raise ours", and good old "Uncle Sam", who is being *bought* by all of the above.

    Second, here's a little tip for all you parents out there: Any moron can have a child (for god's sake you gotta get a *license* to drive or get married, but not have kids?), but it takes a real parent to produce a responsible adult from that child. That means: parent! Don't be a spectator to your children growing up, take an active role in molding that child of yours into a decent human being!

    Third, TAKE BACK YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS FROM THOSE NINNY "Time out does better, and you should *reason* with your children so you don't warp their fragile little minds" crowd WHO WOULD USURP your parental and HUMAN obligation to raise your children as you see fit. Since when did the government and media know what's best for your kids? Whoop that ass when your kids screw up and deserve it, and support parent's rights by telling the Government to stay out of your business and let YOU raise your kids. I'm not saying beat your kids bloody or abuse them, nay nay! I'm saying when done responsibly, corporal punishment *can* be productive. There's a biological reason why we have pain, it teaches that there is a consequence for our actions, in addition to telling when you've been injured!

    You don't stick your hand in boiling water or a fire after the first time you feel what it feels like to be burned, so obviously you *learned* something, right?

    Maybe if we were allowed to spank our children again, be parents and decide *what* is best for our children, we would have more control, and gee, things like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings might not happen!

    That being said... I support the industry self-regulating itself by providing information as to *why* a film/product is rated as it is, and allowing us as adults and parents to regulate what our children see and hear until they're of an appropriate mental state not necessarily based on age, but a maturity level that YOU as a parent can decide (just because you're 14 doesn't mean you can't be mature beyond your years, and be trusted by your parents either!) but don't you think that it's time to stop trying to shield our children from things in the name and sake of religion based on a hypocritical, arbitrary scheme and took that control *back*?

    For instance, take just nudity and sex alone in regards to ratings... Is it gratuitous and lewd in nature, or presented purely as something more innocent? Sure, I don't think the 1 to 15 crowd should be allowed to see full frontal nudity/sex in an overtly sexual context at all without your parental consent, but why is it a chick's boobs flip out on a movie and it gets an R rating, yet I have seen african tribeswomen on PBS during midday with big bojoobies flapping away in a National Geographic documentary! But there comes a time when people are going to have to stop being so damned prudish in our country. Sex happens, otherwise we'd all not be here! Our bodies are our bodies, no other creature on this planet has the *CONCEPT* of nudity, yet we seem to think it's unnatural to see nudity? By god we see it every time we bathe, what's the stigma from? Religion and morality imposed upon society, that's what.

    Europe at least has a more mature approach about sex and nudity than we do, thank the puritanical religious cults for our current views.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Keith, May 15th, 2007 @ 11:33am

    Re: Christian Radio? (You will get your wish)

    You will get your wish. I don't believe America was ever intended to be a theocracy, but I have noticed that pretty much everything that would at least appear to be amoral in our society, like abortion (See, Holocaust), teen pregnancy, and crime, certainly seem to have proliferated in the past 100 years. Ever since God died (good luck with that), America will continue down the road that you seem to welcome and the end will be collapse and/or destruction for it. Fret not, the people like yourself that apparently have everything good and wholesome and meaningful to live (again--good luck!), will ensure that America descends down the tubes. Wait for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Navid, Apr 8th, 2008 @ 8:05pm

    Today's rating system is so stupid.

    Sex and language, for instance - is that harmless? Sure, kids shouldn't view either, but to an adult, hearing the word "fuck" does nothing.

    Sex, likewise, is supposed to be beautiful - the result of love.

    Yet sex is a taboo in today's society, absolutely censored in most movies.

    Yet we're allowed to watch men saw each other's heads off, torture each other in every possible way, basically, the extremest form of hatred there is?

    Our ratings system and our values both are fucked up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    SigMickelson, Nov 5th, 2008 @ 10:01pm

    Propaganda

    You can't begin to make sense of the ratings unless you know what the function of movies is in the US.

    Hollywood is the US government's most useful tool for conditioning the herd ever since WWII when the Office of War Information commandeered Hollywood and Disney to make training and propaganda films.

    The USG social researchers know damn well what violence does to children and is intentionally-INTENTIONALLY- using it to get military recruits and desensitize the population to prevent their being shocked by real war gore which happened during the Vietnam War. 'Never again, ' as they say.

    The CIA specializes in using media for governance and social control. And most of the big movies and television shows you know of are CIA scripts written to maintain the gender role models and stereotypes that produce predictable behavior.

    During the Cold War, the goal of keeping the country in a permanent war mentality without freaking people out about nukes which might turn them pacifist was the main goal.
    A hero/anti-hero formula based on gender was concocted-
    >subliminal positive framing of the capable,virtuous, loyal male
    >subliminal negative framing of the uncapable, sinful, disloyal female.
    This is the reason for all those father-only tv shows and why Disney is all about father because mom is dead/missing.

    By the early 1960s there was lots of stuff to hide from the public to maintain 'national resolve' so elements of counterpropaganda were mixed into the Sacred Male Warrior propaganda.

    So subliminal framing of news cycle events is embedded in most of the products hitting your local psynema-
    >subliminal positive framing of government cover stories
    >subliminal negative framing of whistleblowers

    There's also sneakier cognitive stuff used as counterpropaganda which utilizes inoculation theory and interference theory to make idealized memories stronger than those of things we shouldn't know about, a form of information jamming in culture war.

    Greg Rambo was a serious whistleblower against the National Guard that shot four students to death at Kent State 1970.
    So his name was hijacked and given the attributes of the trigger-happy men he was trying to get prosecuted.
    See how that works? Movies and tv are full of this trick.

    Spielberg is one of the biggest Hollywood spooks operating.
    All his films are text book examples of militarist propaganda and scandal-hiding counterpropaganda.
    For instance, in 1981 the head of the DIA told Congress that yes, there were US POWs left behind in Vietnam. Oops. And the Vietnam War Memorial was to be commemorated in late 1982. So Spielberg put out two movies that hijacked the themes "left behind" (E.T.) and "missing" (Poltergeist).
    The Pentagon had destroyed missing pilots' authentification codes which they are supposed to use to be rescued so they couldn't..."phone home" from Vietnam. Get it?
    Remember all the US military images on the tv in Poltergeist?
    Typical spook movie devices.

    Does this board know anything about this stuff? Seems not.
    No, it is never 'just a movie.'
    Yes, they are designed to mess with children's minds.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This