Is the current U.S. movie ratings system effective?

[TMC1982]

There have been a bunch of good discussions on the problems of the rating system. Several people have noted that PG used to allow for a lot more sex (and gore) in the past.

 

[Grootster]

I think I've said it several times on this forum, but I feel like the rating system needs to be tweaked. Almost nothing is rated G these days, and I don't understand the point of having that category is if it's not used regularly.

I feel like more animated movies (pretty much every Pixar/Disney/Illumination, etc) should be G. Force Awakens or Captain America-level movies should be PG. PG-13 should be for edgier action movies like Rogue One or Lord of the Rings. R can pretty much stay what it is.

I've heard arguments against this, but I still would like to see the rating system revised like this. Every movie will have something that someone objects to. A modern PG animated movie like Despicable Me really doesn't have anything worse than Lion King, which is G (and probably a lot more traumatic).

 

[Herofan]

I think the rating system is working pretty well. Most action blockbusters are rated PG-13 and most parents take their young children to watch them anyway, generally without leading to offenses, complaints or controversy, parents generally not bothered by action-violence as long as it's not particularly intense or graphic. While not the ratings themselves, films' reviews and/or marketing I think do tend to convey which PG-13 films are darker and more intense in their tone, including violence, and so which parents may want to be more cautious about (for example TDK sequels and Craig Bond films, which despite being so noted were still successful).

It seems pretty irrelevant to me that pre-mid-'80s, with the introduction of the intermediate PG-13 rating, PG films had more violence, a new intermediate category will and probably should change perceptions of what what was previously less-intense than R means.

I do think The Lion King should have been rated PG, that it wasn't seems like favoritism to Disney. That Captain America and LotR are both rated PG-13 does feel a bit odd, LotR being a much higher/stronger PG-13 if not the upper limit, but they're probably not so different that the same classification is outright wrong.

 

[chaseter]

Captain America has gun deaths and LotR has heads being chopped off. A 6 year old doesn’t need to see that. I think the ratings system is fine...it’s the parents.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Eeeh..I always thought the rule that live action action=PG-13 and animated content is PG.

With the PG-13-the rating actually means PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED so anything below exploding body parts and excessive blood is more or less up for grabs.

If I had a kid, I would go to commonsensemedia or screenit and have a quick review of the violence (and other stuff) and decide there.

If you want more PG movies, invest in the Disney live action films that aren't by Gore Verbinski. Don't just whine that a rating that's been around for over 30 years isn't "yours" anymore "they put boobs in my bloodbath "

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think the addition of the PG-13 rating in the 80s backfired. The idea originally was that you had your all audience movies, your movies that contained material that might be sensitive to some real young viewers, and then your movies for adults. Then there were complaints that films like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were too violent for the PG, but not really R so they added a rating in between. What ended up happening is that PG-13 became the new PG, and PG and G basically became "for Grandmas and Babies." As a result G might as well not exist today, PG is what G used to be, PG-13 is what PG used to be, and R is the same. So nothing ended up changing. Today we are in the situation where getting PG rating is a negative and a G might as well be the kiss of death for getting any sort of audience because a large block of the audience views them as just for kids.

 

[Greens]

I guess the system itself isn't that bad, though the rules by which the ratings are decided are arbitrary as ****, but the CONSEQUENCE of the system is bad. It means that PG-13 is seen as the standard and R-rated is seen as a risk to studios. I feel like without these ratings movies would be on a more equal footing.

 

[Elayis]

I think the addition of the PG-13 rating in the 80s backfired. The idea originally was that you had your all audience movies, your movies that contained material that might be sensitive to some real young viewers, and then your movies for adults. Then there were complaints that films like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom were too violent for the PG, but not really R so they added a rating in between. What ended up happening is that PG-13 became the new PG, and PG and G basically became "for Grandmas and Babies." As a result G might as well not exist today, PG is what G used to be, PG-13 is what PG used to be, and R is the same. So nothing ended up changing. Today we are in the situation where getting PG rating is a negative and a G might as well be the kiss of death for getting any sort of audience because a large block of the audience views them as just for kids.

Yep. Makes me wonder if the creation of a PG-15 would even be worth it.

 

[Herofan]

I guess the system itself isn't that bad, though the rules by which the ratings are decided are arbitrary as ****, but the CONSEQUENCE of the system is bad. It means that PG-13 is seen as the standard and R-rated is seen as a risk to studios. I feel like without these ratings movies would be on a more equal footing.

I think most R-rated films include quite a lot of violence, sexual content and profanity so even without ratings remotely-honest marketing of them would alienate significant parts of the audience and the films would still be disfavored by studios. But they can still be made if on a smaller budget.

Today we are in the situation where getting PG rating is a negative and a G might as well be the kiss of death for getting any sort of audience because a large block of the audience views them as just for kids.

G does have that association (a lot of people thinking it'll be bland, a good, entertaining film would have at least some edge) but I don't think PG is viewed as a negative (there there's more awareness that there's a lot of variation in what gets that rating and why and feeling that stuff mostly intended for children can still be good and not only for them).

 

[chaseter]

Yep. Makes me wonder if the creation of a PG-15 would even be worth it.

Because they make ID’s for 13 and 15 year olds lol...

 

[terry78]

I can't even recall a G rated movie outside of maybe those DisneyNature movies about monkeys and pandas and ****.

 

[scarlet-witch]

My issues with the rating system are only between R and NC-17. I think it's a ridiculous double standard when certain films get hit with an NC-17 rating because they have scenes of homosexuality, for example when an opposite sex scene would get an R.

Mysterious Skin is a good example. That film is hard to watch, but I don't think it really deserved an NC-17 compared to other films that got a hard R.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Because they make ID’s for 13 and 15 year olds lol...

Theaters just let anyone in anyways. They don't care if a 12 year old sees Deadpool. The ratings are best used merely as guidelines for parents.

 

[chaseter]

My issues with the rating system are only between R and NC-17. I think it's a ridiculous double standard when certain films get hit with an NC-17 rating because they have scenes of homosexuality, for example when an opposite sex scene would get an R.

Mysterious Skin is a good example. That film is hard to watch, but I don't think it really deserved an NC-17 compared to other films that got a hard R.

Any showing of genitals during a real or acting sex act should be NC-17. That’s porn.

 

[2kt09]

3 John Hughes movies:
16 Candles (1984), Breakfast Club (1985), & Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)

• The PG movie has a kid casually mouthing off obscenities as if he'd fit right in with the cast of It
• The R movie has no gore, no graphic sex, and probably had as many cusses as the PG movie
• The PG-13 movie...

The ratings are best used merely as guidelines for parents.

That's what I found hilarious about folks getting worked up over the R.

 

[scarlet-witch]

Any showing of genitals during a real or acting sex act should be NC-17. That’s porn.

IIRC no genitals were shown during any sex scene in that film?

 

[scarlet-witch]

Any showing of genitals during a real or acting sex act should be NC-17. That’s porn.

ETA: Indie Wire has an interesting article on films that were rated NC-17 and whether or not they deserved it, that I can't link due to language, but it's easy to Google.

 

[chaseter]

IIRC no genitals were shown during any sex scene in that film?

I don’t know what that film is and I wasn’t referencing any film in particular...just making a statement in regards to the discussion. I’ve not seen Mysterious Skin.

 

[Thundarr]

There's no problem with the ratings themselves IMO. It's the method by which the films get rated that's total BS. Watch the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. The arbitrary means by which the movies get rated are completely insane. There is so strict set of rules which says "This makes the movie PG. This other thing will bring the rating up to PG-13. And if you do this the movie will be rated R." There are general guidelines, but they are ignored nearly as often as they are followed. And even if the majority of the panel at the MPAA agrees to rate a movie PG or PG-13, the head of the MPAA can veto their decision and say that the film is NC-17.

Here are some of the insane rules that the MPAA have.

1) The members of the MPAA panel have to keep their identity a secret.

2) They have to be of a certain age, and have children of their own (this rule actually does make sense, however the MPAA ignores this as often as not).

3) They have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so that they can never discuss what goes on during the rating process, even after they leave the panel.

4) If the rating is not to the film maker's liking, he can file to appeal the ruling. However during the hearing he is not allowed to ask any questions of the MPAA, compare his movie to other films with similar content that had lower ratings, or record the hearing in any way.

And that stuff is just what I can remember off the top of my head from the documentary. There's likely a whole lot more. And the hypocrisy is just insane. Like showing dozens of people getting gunned down will get you an R rating at worst, but add a scene with a naked woman and all of a sudden it's NC-17. Sometimes two different movies with virtually the exact same scene in them can have two totally different ratings. For example Jason Biggs *********ing in American Pie gets that movie an R rating. Have a girl *********ing in But I'm A Cheerleader (in a scene that's far less graphic, BTW) and THAT gets the movie an NC-17 rating. The Kevin Smith movie Jersey Gile, which is INCREDIBLY tame in comparison to his Jay & Silent Bob movies, nearly got an NC-17 rating because the head of the MPAA "Didn't want her 16 year old daughter to hear Liv Tyler talking about *********ion". Scream kept getting slapped with an NC-17 rating, despite whatever cuts Wes Craven made to the film, until Wes told them that the movie was a comedy (so apparently all of that swearing and violence is too much for a horror film, but it;s okay for a comedy).

The MPAA needs to have a transparent rating system, where the film makers and the ratings panel can discuss the film being rated and decide together what the rating should be. The MPAA needs to have a set standard for exactly what makes a film which rating, and stick to that. The decision should be democratic, with the majority vote getting the decision. If the film maker files an appeal, then he should most certainly be allowed to ask the MPAA any questions that he wants, and be allowed to compare his film to other similar movies that had been given lower ratings.

Until the system by which the movies are rated itself gets fixed, the ratings themselves are rather meaningless.

 

[Thundarr]

There's no problem with the ratings themselves IMO. It's the method by which the films get rated that's total BS. Watch the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated sometime. The arbitrary means by which the movies get rated are completely insane. There is so strict set of rules which says "This makes the movie PG. This other thing will bring the rating up to PG-13. And if you do this the movie will be rated R." There are general guidelines, but they are ignored nearly as often as they are followed. And even if the majority of the panel at the MPAA agrees to rate a movie PG or PG-13, the head of the MPAA can veto their decision and say that the film is NC-17.

Here are some of the insane rules that the MPAA have.

1) The members of the MPAA panel have to keep their identity a secret.

2) They have to be of a certain age, and have children of their own (this rule actually does make sense, however the MPAA ignores this as often as not).

3) They have to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so that they can never discuss what goes on during the rating process, even after they leave the panel.

4) If the rating is not to the film maker's liking, he can file to appeal the ruling. However during the hearing he is not allowed to ask any questions of the MPAA, compare his movie to other films with similar content that had lower ratings, or record the hearing in any way.

And that stuff is just what I can remember off the top of my head from the documentary. There's likely a whole lot more. And the hypocrisy is just insane. Like showing dozens of people getting gunned down will get you an R rating at worst, but add a scene with a naked woman and all of a sudden it's NC-17. Sometimes two different movies with virtually the exact same scene in them can have two totally different ratings. For example Jason Biggs *********ing in American Pie gets that movie an R rating. Have a girl *********ing in But I'm A Cheerleader (in a scene that's far less graphic, BTW) and THAT gets the movie an NC-17 rating. The Kevin Smith movie Jersey Gile, which is INCREDIBLY tame in comparison to his Jay & Silent Bob movies, nearly got an NC-17 rating because the head of the MPAA "Didn't want her 16 year old daughter to hear Liv Tyler talking about *********ion". Scream kept getting slapped with an NC-17 rating, despite whatever cuts Wes Craven made to the film, until Wes told them that the movie was a comedy (so apparently all of that swearing and violence is too much for a horror film, but it;s okay for a comedy).

The MPAA needs to have a transparent rating system, where the film makers and the ratings panel can discuss the film being rated and decide together what the rating should be. The MPAA needs to have a set standard for exactly what makes a film which rating, and stick to that. The decision should be democratic, with the majority vote getting the decision. If the film maker files an appeal, then he should most certainly be allowed to ask the MPAA any questions that he wants, and be allowed to compare his film to other similar movies that had been given lower ratings.

Until the system by which the movies are rated itself gets fixed, the ratings themselves are rather meaningless.

 

[Steyin]

Only problem I see is that a lot of R-rated films aren't like the good ole days when they actually warranted an R rating.

 

[TheVileOne]

To me it's not the ratings system that's bad. It's the people who assign the ratings.

 

[Greens]

Any showing of genitals during a real or acting sex act should be NC-17. That’s porn.

No, it's not.

 

[chaseter]

Yes it is...softcore porn or hardcore porn is....porn. Penetration doesn’t only make it porn. The way they get around that for R is by not showing genitals during humping scenes.

 

[Greens]

Yes it is...softcore porn or hardcore porn is....porn. Penetration doesn’t only make it porn. The way they get around that for R is by not showing genitals during humping scenes.

Porn's purpose is to elicit arousal.