Funniest/dumbest MPAA ratings

[ABleedingCorpse]

Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.

The Amish people, seek them out and start a life.

 

[Rishi]

Here's what has always baffled me about the MPAA and filmmakers who have a problem with it's ratings...

Getting rated by the MPAA is OPTIONAL. From what I recall, you don't have to submit your film to the MPAA before it is released. HOWEVER most theaters and media outlets will not carry or advertise a film that has not been rated. So if these filmmakers were truly offended by the MPAA's suggestions, and if it really is an artistic endeavor, they would release the film unrated with all the material they wanted to include in their film. Box office receipts be damned.

But, of course, filmmaking is (for the most part) a money-making venture. And in order to ensure your future as a filmmaker, you have to put out films that will make money. So that's why they always feel oppressed by the MPAA.

Also, I could never get over how Star Wars: Attack of the Clones got a PG with MULTIPLE on-screen decapitations.

On that note, if someone with a bonafide hit (Star Wars, Transformers 2, or maybe the next Batman movie) didnt submit their movie for a rating, I'm sure they could change the situation. No theatre would refuse those movies

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
anyone watched THIS MOVIE IS NOT YET RATED?
i dont knwo if everything is true but i got me thinking. i thought that there are rules on the paper to rate a movie. but if it is true then people who are rating movie at the MPAA can do whatever they want to do.
plus they say that there are no names. the names can nto go public because this would influnce their ratings. the funny thing is that one guy is a screenwritter. plus they have meeting with studios.

from what i understand big movies (summerblockbuster) are different. because there is tons of money in the game.
and now it makes sense why TDK was PG-13 with this villain

Spoiler

after watching this DOC i also understand why max payne got an R for the ''tone''.

from what i understand Memoirs of a Geisha,LOTR would have to be R.

and the best part? you can do NOTHING about it. nothing. if they say no its NO.

I've seen this doc many times and it blows my freaking mind. To think, how far we've come, there is still a thing called the MPAA. It's all politics and money and who's name is attacted to what and when it really comes down to it, is the opinon of what? 13 people? 13 people's opinion decide what is right and wrong for you to see. And if the studio has enough pull and money, things can get done. If not, you better be quick with scissors.

To think that even an R rating still demands directors to edit their films is amazing. To go that far to still have these people say that even adults need to be told they can't see certain things is ridiculious. Insane. Chaos.

By the way, did you just so happen to watch this on IFC???

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

On that note, if someone with a bonafide hit (Star Wars, Transformers 2, or maybe the next Batman movie) didnt submit their movie for a rating, I'm sure they could change the situation. No theatre would refuse those movies

You actually make a very good point. If Nolan wanted to, he could by pass the MPAA and theaters wouldn't dare turn away that film. That's a very good point. But how many films are guerentee'd blockbuster money makers?

 

[souvlaki]

You actually make a very good point. If Nolan wanted to, he could by pass the MPAA and theaters wouldn't dare turn away that film. That's a very good point. But how many films are guerentee'd blockbuster money makers?

For a Batman film it's doubtful he'd get away with it. Nolan has a lot of freedom at WB right now, but once the soccer moms and religious groups started protesting and threatening to boycott because a Batman film doesn't have a rating (and I have no doubt whatsoever they would) WB would give in and submit it to the MPAA without hesitation. A Batman film without a rating would probably be more controversial than a Batman film with an R rating.

For a non-Batman film Nolan could probably get away with it, but I doubt he'd really care enough to not submit it to the MPAA. All of his other films have been rated R anyhow, and WB has never pressured him to censor his films for the MPAA outside of the Batman franchise.

 

[JLBats]

I don't know anything about Cronenberg, but I too believe that sex scenes are almost always (99.9% minimum) completely pointless. A prime example of this is the original Highlander, where there's a drawn-out scene between Connor MacLeod and Brenda Wyatt. throughout the story, we get the point that she's in love with him; the sex scene just wasn't necessary. As for the violence (beheadings galore), it still bothers me a bit, but I understand its use as a primary story point. In the film's third sequel, Highlander: Endgame, there's another sex scene, this time between Duncan MacLeod and his new bride, Faith, on their wedding night. They could have toned it down, not to mention the point where Duncan stabs her with a sword, to make her immortal. Yes, it sets up their future rivalry, but if they must have it, then use it sparingly, and add proper rating descriptions. Is that really too much to ask?

You're an idiot. What tells you more about a character than the way they have sex? Than the way they touch another person?

 

[Sam Fisher]

Sorry, but sex scenes are uneeded. There are other ways we can learn more about a character.

 

[dude stannis]

Sorry, but sex scenes are uneeded. There are other ways we can learn more about a character.

Not always. The Terminator sex scene really showed the love between Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor. If you cut the sex out of Basic Instinct the film would last 30 seconds.

Other times men just like to see boobs.

 

[Alien Anal]

how ridiculous
sex is a part of life.. heck sex is life

i personaly think watching someone engage in a sex act is far more needed than seeing someone get eye burnt with a oxy torch

 

[dude stannis]

how ridiculous
sex is a part of life.. heck sex is life

i personaly think watching someone engage in a sex act is far more needed than seeing someone get eye burnt with a oxy torch

Depends what floats your boat I guess.

I am getting sick of this mentality that everything has to happen off screen. It's stupid. People have sex, maybe not a lot of people here (Friendly j/k), but most people do. It can cover a range of things like characters emotions and it can further a story.

Plus, if you don't like nudity there something wrong with you.

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

Depends what floats your boat I guess.

I am getting sick of this mentality that everything has to happen off screen. It's stupid. People have sex, maybe not a lot of people here (Friendly j/k), but most people do. It can cover a range of things like characters emotions and it can further a story.

Plus, if you don't like nudity there something wrong with you.

For real. Something is wrong with a person when they don't want to see some people get it on. I can understand if it's preference and all to not want to see it, but you can't expect everyone to think like you and therefore, sex in movies should always stay because if you take it out forever...R rated film sales will disappear.

 

[Alien Anal]

im sure this has been asked here before
but what would you rather your child watch

A movie that is more violence orientated or a movie more sex orientated ( i dont mean porn so dont try)

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

For my child? They're going to watch re-runs of LazyTown until they're 18.

 

[Alien Anal]

Mine will be watching Seventh Heaven untill they are 35

 

[Ash J. Williams]

Suprised no one mentioned the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

 

[dude stannis]

im sure this has been asked here before
but what would you rather your child watch

A movie that is more violence orientated or a movie more sex orientated ( i dont mean porn so dont try)

Both. My dad let me watch Predator at the age of five. I loved it. To this day it remains a favourite of mine. But thanks to good parenting I didn't go around calling other kids in school ugly motherf***ers nor did I go around skinning people and collecting their skulls as trophies.

As for sex scenes, kids normally find them funny. "LOL look it's somebodies bum! LOL they're gonna get cooties"

 

[BatMatt]

Suprised no one mentioned the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

it was, and in fact, quoted on this page

 

[TMC1982]

Not to get off on much of a wild tangent here, but I think the MPAA's rating restrictions have become too relaxed in the last 15 years or so. Films that would've once recieved an R rating without question, are now sneaking by with PG-13s, and even a few are being rated PG! Take Rush Hour for example. It was Rated PG-13 for action, violence, shootouts, and language. Well, in my opinion the film should have been rated R, mainly because of Chris Tucker's mouth. I lost count after the third use of God's name as a swear word, not to mention every other saying that popped up in the film. I understand the use of swearing to an extent, but IMO any use of God's name as a profane term should earn any film an automatic R rating, similar to how the "F-bomb" usually boosts a film's rating from PG to PG-13, or R if its more than once. In the case of Rush Hour, the shootouts should have pushed it towards an R rating even further.

As for other ratings issues, I don't think the descriptions are accurate enough. For example, the MPAA uses stuff like this: "Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence/gore, gruesome images, sexuality, drug use and language." This was used for Freddy vs. Jason, a film which I made the terrible mistake of seeing a few years ago, and will never watch again. I was hoping they'd take it back to the thriller-film roots of horror films in general...apparently the makers thought differently. To this day I still feel like throwing up because of this movie. For anyone who's seen it, you'll probably realize the only mention of sex in the descriptor is "sexuality". They should have used something like "repeated scenes of explicit sex and nudity." That was some really sick stuff, not to mention all the blood...which, by the way, they actually warned against properly. Why warn folks about buckets of blood, and practically ignore the sex factor? God as my witness, I hate it when films lure folks in with crap like that. I don't know anyone aged 25 that needs to see all that stuff (both sex and blood), let alone 17!!!

By contrast, in 1986 the MPAA gave a PG rating to Ferris Bueller's Day Off. This was the year that the PG-13 rating was established, and R had been around for a while, too. I was watching it again recently, and was shocked to discover how much swearing was in that film (a fact I hadn't noticed until now). Considering the lack of explicit sex, blood, gore, or violence, I'd have been satisfied with this earning a PG-13, although I don't believe there's a 13-year-old child in the world who should be exposed to repeated uses of God's name as a profane term. Just because the world at large says "It's okay, no big deal", doesn't mean it's the truth.

The PG-13 rating was actually established in 1984 in response to the violence that was in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Gremlins". "The Flamingo Kid" was the first movie to receive a PG-13 rating, but "Red Dawn" was the first movie to actually be released with said rating.

 

[TMC1982]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
anyone watched THIS MOVIE IS NOT YET RATED?
i dont knwo if everything is true but i got me thinking. i thought that there are rules on the paper to rate a movie. but if it is true then people who are rating movie at the MPAA can do whatever they want to do.
plus they say that there are no names. the names can nto go public because this would influnce their ratings. the funny thing is that one guy is a screenwritter. plus they have meeting with studios.

from what i understand big movies (summerblockbuster) are different. because there is tons of money in the game.
and now it makes sense why TDK was PG-13 with this villain

Spoiler

after watching this DOC i also understand why max payne got an R for the ''tone''.

from what i understand Memoirs of a Geisha,LOTR would have to be R.

and the best part? you can do NOTHING about it. nothing. if they say no its NO.

Honestly, I thought that "Batman Returns" was way more violent than "The Dark Knight":

Spoiler

*Penguin biting that man's nose
*Catwoman slashing the mugger's face (with the camera getting a close up)
*The Batmobile's exhaust setting the fire breathing Red Triangle Circus member ablaze
*Penguin shooting his fat clown henchman at point blank range
*Max Shreck pushing Selina Kyle out of the window
*Catwoman puncturing Batman in the stomach with one of her nails
*Max Shreck shooting Catwoman (as well as an unmasked Batman) in the stomach area at point blank range
*Catwoman slashing an unmasked Batman across the cheek
*Batman's sadistic looking smirk when he's about to blow up the Tattooed Strongman
*A baby Penguin murdering the family cat
*The Ice Princess falling to her death
*Catwoman electructing Max Shreck

 

[Rishi]

Are we sure no edits were made to TDK? I remember seeing pictures of a knife sticking that card to the fake batman, but in the movie it wasn't there

 

[chaseter]

Sorry, but sex scenes are uneeded. There are other ways we can learn more about a character.

Not unless that character is a sex craved maniac. What is wrong with sex scenes? They can always be done tasteful or go all out and make them dirty.

 

[chaseter]

Are we sure no edits were made to TDK? I remember seeing pictures of a knife sticking that card to the fake batman, but in the movie it wasn't there

When Batman shoots out his razor plates at the end when the Joker was over him was clearly edited...so was the part when he sliced Gamble's mouth. It was too quick and looked a bit choppy.

 

[dark_b]

im sure this has been asked here before
but what would you rather your child watch

A movie that is more violence orientated or a movie more sex orientated ( i dont mean porn so dont try)

in the doc THIS MOVIE IS NOT YET RATED they say that a movie that has a sex scene will get faster a N-17 rating then a movie where they cut your penis,head,body parts,.....
so it looks like that if you kill someone its R but if they show a women having an orgasm( not between the legs but just the face) then its N-17.

they need to protect the kids. because in america they dont have ''the internet''

in europe its the other way around. they are more against violence then sex. which is normal i guess

 

[dark_b]

Honestly, I thought that "Batman Returns" was way more violent than "The Dark Knight":

Spoiler

*Penguin biting that man's nose
*Catwoman slashing the mugger's face (with the camera getting a close up)
*The Batmobile's exhaust setting the fire breathing Red Triangle Circus member ablaze
*Penguin shooting his fat clown henchman at point blank range
*Max Shreck pushing Selina Kyle out of the window
*Catwoman puncturing Batman in the stomach with one of her nails
*Max Shreck shooting Catwoman (as well as an unmasked Batman) in the stomach area at point blank range
*Catwoman slashing an unmasked Batman across the cheek
*Batman's sadistic looking smirk when he's about to blow up the Tattooed Strongman
*A baby Penguin murdering the family cat
*The Ice Princess falling to her death
*Catwoman electructing Max Shreck

yeah i agree with that. batman returns was more dark. but two face was still waaay to dark for a PG-13 movie. if it was a low budget movie i think it would not be PG-13.

 

[Sentinel X]

^I also thought Batman Returns was like one of the scariest movies I saw when I was younger...the part with the princess falling to her death and Max's BBQed body creeped my out.

Although The Dark Knight was violent for a PG-13 it still deserved its PG-13 rating. If they showed blood and brain matter when Joker shot someone in the face...then yeah, I can see the reason for the R.

However the most violent PG-13 film I've seen is probably Beowulf, I know its animated but that film should've been rated R...people get their limbs ripped off, impaled, someone even gets his head chewed by Grendel really slowly.