MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle

from the what-are-they-smoking? dept

Via That Kevin Smith (who has had his own share of run ins with the MPAA over bizarre ratings) comes the story of how the MPAA decided the romantic comedy It's Complicated deserved an "R" rating, because it has one scene that involves two characters (played by Steve Martin and Meryl Streep) who smoke marijuana... and then giggle. Specifically, the MPAA appears to be upset that there are "no negative consequences" to the two characters smoking pot.

Now, I've never smoked marijuana (or ingested it in other forms either), but I'm at a loss to see how this makes something deserving of an R rating. The NY Times article quotes someone from the Parents Television Council -- the group famous for bombarding the FCC with bogus indecency complaints -- who says "The last I checked, smoking pot was still illegal, illicit behavior." Indeed. But, then again, so is blowing up Los Angeles, and "last I checked," the movie 2012 got a PG-13 rating.

The larger point, of course, is just how incredibly out of touch the MPAA is beyond just its laughable ratings system. This is a group that's still trying to break your TV because it can't figure out how to release movies on TV in a reasonable amount of time without doing so (even though its own studios have figured it out). This is the same group that argues that blames tech companies for its own inability to recognize and embrace what technology allows. This is the same group that insists that piracy is "killing" the movie industry as the industry scores yet another box office record. This is the same group that insists that ACTA is necessary, but won't share what its own lobbyists helped write.

The NY Times article admits that the decision to rate this particular movie "R" is more of a political move from an organization that doesn't want to be attacked during the next elections -- and even that should be troubling. This is an organization that will do amazingly dumb things just to stay in the good graces of our politicians, so that it can continue to push through protectionist laws. One simple rating may not seem like a huge deal (and, by itself, it is not), but it's yet another sign in how out of touch the MPAA really is, and how its actions are entirely about protecting its political power and helping its members get favors from the government, rather than anything else.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 7:54am

    It appears as if the MPAA...

    *puts on sunglasses*

    ...has gone to pot.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 7:57am

    Smoking pot makes you giggle? Why didn't I know this?!

    Seriously though, I highly doubt anyone under the age of 18 would ever voluntarily see this movie anyway. I think that's why the producers left the scene it, they realize it won't hurt ticket sales anyway.

    I realize that the MPAA should not have this much authority, but that sort of goes without saying.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:02am

    And even another record...

    In case you haven't checked the numbers, last weekend was the largest box-office weekend of all time, with the top 6 movies all in double-digit millions and a total of over $270,000,000. That's a lot of freakin' money for a "dying" industry.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Ima Fish (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:04am

      Re: And even another record...

      "That's a lot of freakin' money for a "dying" industry"

      But if we eliminated piracy the totals would have been even higher!

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        You=Fool, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 4:09am

        Re: Re: And even another record...

        your right, those poor poor millionairs!!! AWW it really makes me sad to think that my piracy, in any way, effects the exact number of millions going into the movie industries pockets.

        HOW WILL I EVER SLEEP AT NIGHT?!?!?

        I think I might make it...

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Ura Fag, Dec 31st, 2009 @ 7:32am

        Re: Re: And even another record...

        Bolux. People who pirate movies wont go see the movies in theatres anyways. They are normally poor college students like myself who cant afford 10 dollars for nothing. In conclusion piracy doesn't affect ticket sales, if anything it helps dvd sales in the future. With the advances is video streaming technology over the web and lack of hard disk space on most computers there is a decreasing trend for downloading hard copies of the movies and more just watching them online. If the movie is good people will eventually go buy the dvd. I have a crazy extensive dvd collection and almost all of the movies i own i first watched online.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      SomeGuy (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:14am

      Re: And even another record...

      "a total of over $270,000,000. That's a lot of freakin' money for a 'dying' industry."

      But, you're of course neglecting the other financial acrobatics involved. like how they claim each of these movies had a multi-million dollar cost to produce in the first place, etc. etc.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Anti-Mike, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:05am

    You don't get out much, do you?

    Mike, this is another one of those cases where the theoretical and the practical don't meet up.

    Political correctness is a major issue worldwide. It's why we don't have "black people" anymore, but "african americans". The only acceptable way to use the term "pack of fags" is when you are in the UK buying smokes. Heaven forbid that anyone even mention the N word. We all know the result of referring to a group of women as "nappy haired hos".

    The reality is that certain things irk certain vocal groups. These groups are the reason why it took 30 or so years for TV to be allowed to show a married couple in the same bed. Some things are just not considered acceptable, and these groups will loudly complain and make a huge freaking stink for nothing. Pot smoking is one of those things that these groups tend to go all wild on.

    Rmember too, all an R rating does is require a parent to attend the movie with the children. It doesn't bar anyone unde 18 from seeing the movie (that would be NC-17), it provides parents with a safety mechanism that allows them to choose what their children can and cannot see. If a parent is fine with the concept they can take their kids to see the movie. If they are not, they know that the children will not see the movie.

    The whole rant about "break your TV" is just so misplaced. It is really too bad that you have so little imagination on these issues that you are down to scare mongering.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Ima Fish (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:18am

      Re: You don't get out much, do you?

      The anti-mike manages to be highly articulate without actually saying anything. Is is a politician? A PR person?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        The Anti-Mike, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

        Back
        Caught you lookin' for the same thing
        It's a new thing check out this I bring
        Uh Oh the roll below the level
        'Cause I'm livin' low next to the bass C'mon
        Turn up the radio
        They claim that I'm a criminal
        By now I wonder how
        Some people never know
        The enemy could be their friend guardian
        I'm not a hooligan
        I rock the party and
        Clear all the madness, I'm not a racist
        Preach to teach to all
        'Cause some they never had this
        Number one, not born to run
        About the gun...
        I wasn't licensed to have one
        The minute they see me, fear me
        I'm the epitome - a public enemy
        Used, abused without clues
        I refused to blow a fuse
        They even had it on the news
        Don't believe the hype...

        Yes
        Was the start of my last jam
        So here it is again, another def jam
        But since I gave you all a little something
        That we knew you lacked
        They still consider me a new jack
        All the critics you can hang'em
        I'll hold the rope
        But they hope to the pope
        And pray it ain't dope
        The follower of Farrakhan
        Don't tell me that you understand
        Until you hear the man
        The book of the new school rap game
        Writers treat me like Coltrane, insane
        Yes to them, but to me I'm a different kind
        We're brothers of the same mind, unblind
        Caught in the middle and
        Not surrenderin'
        I don't rhyme for the sake of of riddlin'
        Some claim that I'm a smuggler
        Some say I never heard of 'ya
        A rap burgler, false media
        We don't need it do we?
        It's fake that's what it be to 'ya, dig me?
        Don't believe the hype...

        Don't believe the hype - its a sequel
        As an equal, can I get this through to you
        My 98's boomin' with a trunk of funk
        All the jealous punks can't stop the dunk
        Comin' from the school of hard knocks
        Some perpetrate, they drink Clorox
        Attack the black, cause I know they lack exact
        The cold facts, and still they try to Xerox
        Leader of the new school, uncool
        Never played the fool, just made the rules
        Remember there's a need to get alarmed
        Again I said I was a timebomb
        In the daytime the radio's scared of me
        'Cause I'm mad, plus I'm the enemy
        They can't c'mon and play with me in primetime
        'Cause I know the time, plus I'm gettin' mine
        I get on the mix late in the night
        They know I'm livin' right, so here go the mike, sike
        Before I let it go, don't rush my show
        You try to reach and grab and get elbowed
        Word to herb, yo if you can't swing this
        Just a little bit of the taste of the bass for you
        As you get up and dance at the LQ
        When some deny it, defy if I swing bolos
        Then they clear the lane I go solo
        The meaning of all of that
        Some media is the whack
        You believe it's true, it blows me through the roof
        Suckers, liars get me a shovel
        Some writers I know are damn devils
        For them I say don't believe the hype
        Yo Chuck, they must be on a pipe, right?
        Their pens and pads I'll snatch
        'Cause I've had it
        I'm not an addict fiendin' for static
        I'll see their tape recoreder and grab it
        No, you can't have it back silly rabbit
        I'm going' to my media assassin
        Harry Allen, I gotta ask him
        Yo Harry, you're a writer, are we that type?
        Don't believe the hype
        I got flavor and all those things you know
        Yeah boy, part two bum rush and show
        Yo Griff, get the green black red and
        Gold down countdown to Armageddon
        -88 you wait the S1Ws will
        Rock the hard jams - treat it like a seminar
        Teach the bourgeoise, and rock the boulevard
        Some sau I'm negative
        But they're not positive
        But what I got to give...
        The media says this

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Dementia (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

          Dude, you're just to tiring to bother trying to read.

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

          What the hell?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          harbingerofdoom (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

          yay...
          you have managed to quote public enemy.

          +1 copypasta
          [/rolleyes]

           

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

        •  
          icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:34pm

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

          So hold on a minute...

          The Anti-Mike thinks it's perfectly acceptable to copy-paste an entire public enemy song, and not add any words of his own, to make his point?

          And yet, you angrily defend copyright on a daily basis... Did I miss something?

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 2:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

            In fact, know this in advance A-M:

            Anytime you defend copyright in the future, I will link to that comment. And until you explain exactly why whatever you are defending is different, we can all happily ignore everything you say.

             

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

        •  
          identicon
          The Anti-Mike, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 3:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

          Sorry folks, that's not me. Just the usual anonymous coward in mom's basement being an ass.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            The Anti-Mike (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 3:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

            Just to fix the issue, I am now in blue. No more imposter children

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 4:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

              Sorry A-M, if you actually cared about consistency and impostors, you would have signed up when you first started arguing every single post on this site. I do not for a second believe that the public enemy post wasn't by you - it seems right up your alley of idiocy, hypocrisy and not adding anything of value to the discussion.

              Maybe you should start a new account, because right now your name tells us that you have no intention of being objective or impartial, and that you will oppose anything written by Mike regardless of any other factors.

              If you participate in the discussion in a more constructive way, you might find people actually start listening to you, because I suspect that buried inside all your ridiculous rants there are probably some reasonable points that, even if I don't agree with them, are worthy of discussion and debate.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                The Anti-Mike (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

                Here's a classic, a picture of a room full of all the people who care what you think of me:

                http://www.faqs.org/photo-dict/photofiles/list/3215/4275empty_room.jpg

                I participate very constructively. In fact, two of my biggest detractors (Mike himself and Dark Helmet) will both tell you that I make them at least take a moment to think about their positions.

                From my standpoint, I can read the stories Mike posts and almost always find an alternate (and usually simpler) explanation for what has happened or is going on. Too often, Mike is fast to jump to a conclusion either to slam whatever group he is hating on this month, or to build a less than factual foundation for later claimed that will be treated as "facts" (he usually links saying "we have already shown that...").

                If Mike's concepts and ideas were without reproach, I would have nothing to write about.

                So if you aren't enjoy my posts, well, skip them.

                 

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

                •  
                  icon
                  Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?

                  I may have understated it somewhat, but I believe I did acknowledge that you sometimes have something to contribute. But I also really don't think I've ever seen you concede a point, not even a tiny one - and you seem to like making personal attacks against Mike and the TechDirt readership. Which really makes discussing anything with you an unpleasant experience, even if it does occasionally make one "take a moment to think". And I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way.

                  But hey, I never said you had to care. Interact with others how you will.

                   

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

  •  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:08am

    To be fair, in 2012, no one blows anything up. Nature does it, which isn't illegal. Though your point still applies, of course, to practically any other movie with an explosion.

    I think the smoking pot -> R-rating thing is ridiculous indeed, but at the same time, it reminds me of people's complaints against Google dropping them from its indexing/penalizing their pageranks, etc. Doubtless Google is enormously important for many websites to be found, but you can't rely solely on one other company to be the fuel for your business.

    This applies to the MPAA as well, even though it's fundamentally a very different organization from Google. It's unfortunate that the MPAA would make such a stupid decision, but if that one detail is going to harm your movie beyond repair (which it doesn't actually seem it will -- back to your point of this being exemplary of a larger problem rather than a large problem on its own), then you need to figure out a different way to get your movie to the people who are going to watch it.

    Granted, there is still the problem that the MPAA's decision affects who can _legally_ see the film, which is not the case with something like Google, and that's somewhat troubling. However, it's quite obvious that if minors want to see an R-rated movie, they're going to find a way (easily) to see it.

    So, yeah, troubling in principle because of the legal hand the MPAA plays in things, but if they're going to make decisions such as these, it seems to me that the studios are just going to have to figure a way around them. Despite studios' generally proven inability to adapt, I have a feeling this is something they would find a way to overcome.

    And I thought "historical smoking" was a ridiculous warning.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Yakko Warner, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:33am

      Re:

      Granted, there is still the problem that the MPAA's decision affects who can _legally_ see the film, which is not the case with something like Google, and that's somewhat troubling.

      It's not the case with the MPAA's decision, either. Contrary to popular belief, the MPAA's rating system is not legally binding or enforceable. You cannot get arrested for selling an R-rated ticket to a minor. The MPAA may fine the theater or punish them in other ways (e.g., withhold the next big blockbuster film from distribution to that theater), but it's not illegal.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Robert Ring (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:37am

        Re: Re:

        I stand corrected. I'm not as knowledgeable about such things as I should be.

        Thanks for clarifying.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 4:29pm

        Re: Re:

        True. However it could be argued that the MPAA has created a de facto law with their ratings by engineering an ecosystem in which a) nobody can disagree with them without it being financial suicide and b) the average movie-goer rarely (if ever) considers (or is even aware of) the fact that movie ratings come from a private organization's entirely subjective and opaque review process.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:09am

    This is very frustrating. We have to be able to rely on the age ratings on of films in order to judge whether they are suitable viewing for minors. This kind of action brings the whole thing into disrepute... or I should say further into disrepute.

    It is ridiculous that you can have films full of violence such as Dark Knight which get a PG 13 and a film where two adults giggle after smoking pot which gets an R rating. That they consider mild drug use to be more morally corrupting then dozens of murders perhaps says a lot about the people of the MPAA.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:26am

      Re:

      I agree with the inconsistency being ridiculous. It's OK for the Joker to murder people left and right, but not OK for two adults to smoke pot? Personally, I don't see anything "funny" about people running around cheating on their spouses (which seems to be the entire premise of this movie), which also seems to me to be a worse transgression than smoking pot.

      Reminds me of the old George Carlin routine, "What if we replaced the word "Kill" with the word "Fuck" in all those old movie cliches...

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:23am

        Re: Re:

        Reminds me of the old George Carlin routine, "What if we replaced the word "Kill" with the word "Fuck" in all those old movie cliches...

        To Kill A Mockingbird would seem pretty odd with Kill replaced. =]

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dan, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:24am

    The MPAA main charter is invalid anyway

    The hindrance the MPAA is became apparent when having the "Unrated" version of a movie became a bonus worth advertising.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:34am

      Re: The MPAA main charter is invalid anyway

      >the "Unrated" version of a movie became a bonus worth advertising.

      Strange, I always saw it as an IQ test.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Chip, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:26am

    Smoking something

    Mike, I always thought your views on intellectual property were proof you were smoking something. ;-) Have a great New Year!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Anti-Mike, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:30am

    Declaration

    I hereby completely, unequivocally and totally retract everything I have said on this site. I have what you might call multiple personality issues, and my troll side has gotten a bit out of hand. Apologies for that. I'll try to keep him from shilling anymore, but he's a stubborn one, that part of me. Always disagreeing just for disagreement's sake. It's stupid, really, but what can you do? Anyway, I'll see if I can't stuff him back into his box.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:31am

    Right...

    "Now, I've never smoked marijuana"

    Oh come on....really? Didn't try it? Even once? Or is this some Bill Clinton overvaluing how much people would care if you said you did?

    I mean, it even sounds defensive, since there was no reason for that statement to even be included in the post.

    Nice try, Cheech :)

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:32am

    While I don't do illegal drugs (and I also avoid legal drugs as much as possible) and I don't encourage the use of illegal drugs, I do think the war on drugs is a complete failure and should be stopped. What I do in my free time is none of the governments business and it is certainly none of their business if I choose to use something like marijuana for medicinal use or to grow my own and even sell it (which I do not do and I do not encourage people to break the law, but I do want the law to be changed) beyond perhaps a sales tax of course.

    However, that's not to say drug use should not be regulated. To the extent that your drug use can harm others it should be regulated (ie: drunk driving is illegal and it SHOULD be).

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      wnyght, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      agreed. though i do not use it myself either, (im allergic), i doubt we will see pot legalized anytime soon as long as the lumber companies have something to say about it.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:12am

      Re:

      Driving drunk doesn't harm others, it simply raises the chance to harm others. Similar to talking on a cell phone, eating a hamburger, fiddling with your radio, or being very young or very old while driving.

      What should be illegal is hurting others. Passing additional laws don't actually improve anything.

      Do you really have a problem with a guy driving at .08 BAC if his actual driving is actually safe?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 4:33pm

        Re: Re:

        I do see your point, but it's a little idealistic. The fact is that the whole challenge of writing laws is exactly what you are pointing out: nothing is truly black and white, but society also demands a somewhat quantifiable sense of justice and "illegal" versus "illegal" or else we would all be subject to the whims of individuals. As such, writing laws is all about trying to draw those lines that are oh-so-difficult to draw, and though the end result is never perfect, I don't think drunk driving laws are particularly problematic...

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Dose'o Reality, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:59am

    propaganda

    In most cases, smoking pot would yield such a mood. A person is likely to giggle a little bit. That's just human biology.

    What should the audience expect - smoke a joint and your knee blows out all of the sudden?

    Such propaganda agenda reminds me of how the Nazi governed films in the 40s.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 11:47am

      Re: propaganda

      or the US in the 50s...

      grow hemp for your country one year...marijuana makes you crazy the next. you can thank the DuPont plastic industry for the current cannibis stereotypes.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Jason, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:18am

    Big deal

    I can't for the life of me come up with any reason anyone under 17 would be even remotely interested in this movie.

    Heck, I'm way over 17 and I'm barely interested in it.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:19am

    Confused

    Is mother nature to be held criminally for 2012, or is Hollywood?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    interval, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:32am

    Look, its time to call the war on drugs what it is, a war on impoverished (not poverty) people. 20+ years of this nonsense and what have we got? A whole lot of poor people in jail and a ridiculous rating system. I guess if Martin & Streep had started jamming needles into their arms and then shot each other the picture would have had a more decent rating. This country's asinine attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, sex, and violence are embarrassing. For all the things I find reprehensible about Europe the one thing they seem to have it together one are social mores.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:37am

    "Figuring prominently in the brouhaha are other depictions of marijuana in cinema, particularly the scene in the 1980 comedy “9 to 5” showing Dolly Parton, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin getting high and raiding the refrigerator. Its rating was PG."

    That kinda makes sense in their ratings system. There are clearly negative consequences to smoking pot in that instance: the next day, they'll find out they are running low on groceries.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    deadzone (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:54am

    MPAA is Rated R

    I think the MPAA should classify themselves as Rated R.

    Their slow and certain death is very disturbing and gory to witness as they continue to make one bad decision after another in an attempt to prop up their old business model that doesn't work anymore.

    Course Violence is A-OK to them. Nudity, sex, or drugs though? Bad news.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    a, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:03am

    a

    There are not any negative effects of smoking a joint. Why does the MPAA want people to lie?

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Overcast (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:12am

      Re: a

      There are not any negative effects of smoking a joint. Why does the MPAA want people to lie?

      It's the accepted 'official position' of the Government, I guess.

      Funny, because pot is the ONLY pain killer you cannot overdose on. But it's also the ONLY 'medicinal substance' that the Pharmaceutical companies don't make either...

      hmmmm.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re: a

        "Funny, because pot is the ONLY pain killer you cannot overdose on. But it's also the ONLY 'medicinal substance' that the Pharmaceutical companies don't make either..."

        You forgot the most important part of that equation, the one that keeps it illegal:

        It can pretty much be grown by ANYONE....

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 11:49am

          Re: Re: Re: a

          I long for the day were I can buy some marlboro greens for a third of the current street prices. lol

           

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

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:10am

    Anyone pays attention to MPAA ratings?

    I typically don't notice them, nor did I care about them when my kids were young.. I preferred to see the movie first. They are pretty meaningless.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Devonavar, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:36pm

    Not a one time thing...

    "One simple rating may not seem like a huge deal"

    This isn't one simple rating. Off the top of my head, "Everything's Gone Green" was rated PG in Canada and R in the States ... The PG rating is correct. The *only* objectionable material in the film is the portrayal of a grow op, but that's enough to make the anti-drug bias clear.

    I have no strong feelings for pot, but it seems like a dumb thing to censor...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    A good study

    Everyone (in this crowd, who already hasn't) should watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated," a relatively scathing workup of the MPAA and its rating policy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 12:48pm

    View...

    I hope the MPAA has a plexiglass stomach so the poor %#1(8& can see out!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:04pm

    just remember...
    horrific violence is OK just as long as they dont say any naughty words!







    or smoke any pot...

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Chucklebutte (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:12pm

    useless

    The ratings are useless and they ruin cd/dvd covers, fucking lazy parents!

     

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

  •  
    icon
    lux (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    RE: RE: Right

    Oh come on....really? Didn't try it? Even once?

    Nope, sorry. I'm really just not interested.

    Carl Sagan used marijuana for the purpose of enlightening. What's good enough for Carl is good enough for me.

    "Sagan was a user of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[41][42] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:45pm

      Re: RE: RE: Right

      Please please PLEASE let's not turn this into a debate about the benefits of marijuana. It's good for some, not for others; there are a few out there who should probably give it a try, and a few who probably never should have started; it has played a role in the birth of some very wonderful ideas and some incredibly stupid ones. Let's just leave it at that.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    aXisDenIEd, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 1:06am

    Marijuana's twin talent

    We forget that marijuana is only the 2nd "drug" with least side effects. Although the placebo effect was likely greater in the far past then today, it is increasing exponentially then our recent past. Marijuana is a supurb partner in helping to achieve self-healing. Look how many people of all ailments are being aided by marijuana regardless if it's directly useful with your ailment. Of course there would not be a rush to back marijuana if it also was a "drug" that wouldn't be needed for many eventually. I don't know about anyone else, but majority of prescripts I was told I needed were for life not temporary. Big difference to the company trying to make something off the people that aren't growing or have access themselves.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    aXisDenIEd, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 1:13am

    Marijuana's twin talent

    We forget that marijuana is only the 2nd "drug" with least side effects. Although the placebo effect was likely greater in the far past then today, it is increasing exponentially then our recent past. Marijuana is a supurb partner in helping to achieve self-healing. Look how many people of all ailments are being aided by marijuana regardless if it's directly useful with your ailment. Of course there would not be a rush to back marijuana if it also was a "drug" that wouldn't be needed for many eventually. I don't know about anyone else, but majority of prescripts I was told I needed were for life not temporary. Big difference to the company trying to make something off the people that aren't growing or have access themselves.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Clarissa, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 7:55am

    Do any of you know... where the wardrobe was from?
    Please let me know.
    clarissabotha@ymail.com

     

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


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