|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie Credit Roll
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Brooks
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 900
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 08-14-2010 08:05 PM
I have very mixed feelings about limiting what kids want to see. When I was a kid (although there was only implied nudity, little explicit sexuality and little realistic violence back then), I saw whatever I wanted and I don't think it affected me in any negative way.
I remember that my mother said she would punish me if I went to see Psycho (the movie made her physically ill). I saw it anyway and was disappointed that it wasn't scarier. I was only 11 or 12 at the time.
On the other hand, with my own kid, I severely limited what she could see, and took her to quality films only. She never wanted (and still doesn't want) to see very violent films. Sexuality bothered me less as long as it was implied. Once she was in high school, I let her see anything she wanted. Fortunately, she had very good taste in movies.
Today I see parents taking very small pre-school children into explicitly sexual or violent films. I think these people are nuts. Research has shown that very young children understand much more than we give them credit for, even if they don't have the language yet to express it. My own 14-month-old grandson has been taught a small vocabulary of sign language in an attempt to end communication frustration (he now signs that he's thirsty instead of screaming). One of the things this has taught us is that he understands just about everything going on around him. And he was very attracted to television - even adult shows would take his full attention. My daughter got rid of the TV (they still watch selected shows on the computer.)
But on the other hand, most parents don't give a crap what their kids see as long as it doesn't contain explicit sex. Violence in films is completely accepted, whether it's war violence, monster death violence, or the incredible levels of torture in films like the Saw films. Why we think violence is no big deal, but sex is a very big deal is beyond me.
Personally, I think anyone under 13 should be banned from R-rated films, regardless of whether they're with a parent or not, if only to prevent idiots from bringing babies into theatres who cry during these movies. They'll always be some errors (back in the 1970s, kids who attended the Woodstock music festival were banned from seeing the movie), but overall, I think it would have more benefits than negatives, except for theatre owners and studios who make money from kids seeing movies intended for adults.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rob Ferreira
Film Handler
Posts: 25
From: Conway, NH, USA
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 08-16-2010 01:45 AM
my biggest problem with the MPAA ratings is the double standard they seem to have with everything. If a movie is "historical," it can receive a lesser rating for its content than one that is made for the sheer enjoyment.
The last time I had to deal with this was during the release of The Express, which was released by Universal and was rated a straight PG (according to imdb: Rated PG for thematic content, violence and language involving racism, and for brief sensuality).
The movie was good, but because it was rated PG many parents were trying to bring their children to it. After having several parents walk out (the N-word is thrown around quite often, within the first half hour it's uttered at least 3 or 4 times - not to mention "bullshit" and "goddamn"), I started warning parents that, although it is rated PG, the film is based on and set in an entirely different time period, and that the language is rough for small children, in my opinion of course.
Several people still went, of course, and a few of those people even walked out and had the gall to ask for a refund. But there were a few parents who decided to talk their kids to a different movie, or come back and see it first ahead of time.
My problem is, I know that if this movie had been fictional, or just a different topic in general, the rating would have been PG-13. Hell even GREASE was recently re-rated to receive the PG-13 rating, and that is completely unnecessary because even babies fresh out of the womb have already seen that movie.
Their guidelines are ridiculous, and their standards are all over the board. They should really just disband all together, as it's sad that studios and filmmakers have to worry about ratings in relation to grosses. Maybe if parents just paid more attention to what their children were watching in general, we wouldn't have these problems. With all the websites out there (like kidsinmind, for example) which break down every single little aspect of every single curse, naked breast, and bullet that flies on screen, there is zero reason a parent can't be 100% informed before letting their child/taking their child to the cinema.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 08-16-2010 10:03 AM
The thing with the MPAA is that the organization is funded by the major movie studios. It's not an independent ratings organization and certainly not a government funded/controlled entity. This is part of why the MPAA's standards are "all over the place."
There are clear double standards with how the MPAA treats independent movies compared to major studio releases. They'll slap an indie release with a NC-17 in a heart beat and be very vague as to why the movie got a NC-17 (usually something to do with a portrayal of sex on screen, especially a woman acting like she is enjoying it). If a major studio release is crossing the line the MPAA will be very specific as to what cuts need to be made. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have the unique perspective of being on both sides of this. Their 1990s indie movie Orgazmo was rated NC-17 but arguably had nothing but R-level material -less edgy than I anticipated. Those guys were given specifics on what to cut to avoid NC-17 ratings for South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut and Team America: World Police -both were major studio releases.
The MPAA thinks it is helping major movie studios, but it really isn't. What they're doing is letting cable TV become the top release platform for controversial, boundary-pushing material. The Internet is another wild card. Commercial movies are becoming comparitively more tame, not to mention more predictable with all the sequel-itis, remakes, TV show adaptations, etc. The 2 hour limit is already difficult enough for some stories to work. A mini series on HBO or Showtime could end up being the better release choice for some projects.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic