New Zealand classification is also the law.
G, PG, M, All advisory

quote:

---

Thomas, Glad you are out of the closet.

---

I thought all the puns were reserved for Joe and Bob!

=TMP=

 |  IP: Logged

In the U.S., is the ratings system law or not?? If it is law, then doesn't that mean that theaters are obligated to follow it? That would mean that no unacompanied children could see an R rated film, right? But if it is not law, then if theaters wanted to, they would have every right to say "yeah, your child can see it as long as you purchase the ticket." So which is it? I used to work for a major chain, and I was told so many different stories about company policy when it came to ratings. First it was we couldn't let anyone under 17 into an R, no matter what. Then for some reason, we could as long as the ticket was purchased by an adult. Also, the definition of "guardian" changed so many times. First it had to be a parent. But then as long as the minor was accompanied by someone over 18, they could see the movie. Etc, etc.... All these different versions over a two year period at two theaters of the same chain! So which of these versions is supposed to be the correct way?

I gather from this thread that the ratings are not law. If that's the case, theaters would not be fined for violation, right? I'm asking this because I have been told that we would be fined for violation, but I don't understand why if it's not a law.

If it were to become a law in Utah, or any other state, that the owner would go to jail for violations, how would that work with major chains? Would it be the owner of the company, who might live on the other coast?

The MPAA was formed so that the US would create no laws restricting what can go in a film. It was also created to get rid of local censorship boards across the US.

Some local communities have made laws that theatres stick to the MPAA rules but not many.

Theatre companies that are signatories of the MPAA may not show un-rated films and must follow the rules. We are most decidedly not members of the MPAA.

The rules of the MPAA are good and for them most part the rating system works. The only issue is what society deems worthy of restriction. It seems strange that the US finds portrayals of sexuality to be more dangerous than portrayals of violence. Also occasionally the MPAA gets a little wound up about words. But other than that and the fact that Jack Valente is older than God, the MPAA is a good thing.

Obviously if a company has signed on to the MPAA, they have agreed to uphold the code. I as an independent have not, and I know of no other independents of whom I'm in contact with that have either. However, I do enforce the rating system, very strickly, and believe that it is basicly good. It is much better to voluntarily police ourselves then have the government do it.

Although I can't think of a time that I have ever barred a parent from bringing a child into a film that I believed was inappropriate for that age of child, I have many times warned them of the content and suggested that they not bring them in. I usually end the warning with the comment: "The management does not recommend this film for children", and then if the parents still want to take them in, I let them. However, as an theatre OWNER, I do feel a responsibility to the community, and therefore I simply refuse to run films that I think are totally inappropriate for kids. I run very few R rated films unless it is a film almost of total interest to adults. If an R rated film appears to be marketed towards teens or kids it doesn't make it to my screen. The "Private Ryans" get shown, the "SouthParks" do not.

On the other hand though, if you are not a signature to the MPAA, and since there are no laws currently affecting movie admissions, I think that a theatre owner can do pretty much what ever they want. You could make up your own rating system, and unlike the MPAA system that only has the five ratings, you could use an age number either as a suggestion or a restriction, and it could vary from film to film. One film might have an S13 rating meaning it's SUGGESTED not to be appropriate for under 13, while another could be R13 meaning under 13 NOT admitted without parent. There might be another rating like NA13 which would mean NOT ADMITTED under 13 under any circumstances. These could be done for any age such as R15, or NA17 or S14... whatever the theatre owner felt was proper for that film and his community standards. In reality this system would be a nightmare. I wouldn't want to be the one to do it. I'm only suggesting that it would be legal to do if someone wanted to at their own theatre. The only thing that would make it illegal as I see it would be if the theatre owner discriminated by restricting one person and then allowing another on the same rating.