Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hey MPAA, You Suck!

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Hey MPAA, You Suck! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Hey MPAA, You Suck!

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-06-2002 10:37 PM

The Catholic Church still rates films. Here is the official list of the ratings.

A-I -- General patronage
A-II -- Adults and adolescents
A-III -- Adults
A-IV -- Adults, with reservations (an A-IV classification designates problematic films that, while not morally offensive in themselves, require caution and some analysis and explanation as a safeguard against wrong interpretations and false conclusions)
O -- morally offensive

I have been Catholic for all of my 46 years and don't remember anything about a "C" rating, but maybe it existed in the past and has been changed to "O."

| IP: Logged

System Notices
Forum Watchdog / Soup Nazi

Posts: 215

Registered: Apr 2004

posted 01-20-2007 09:57 PM

It has been 1535 days since the last post.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 01-20-2007 09:57 PM

This seems like a good thread to dredge up for this post... [Razz]

Changes planned to film-ratings system (yahoo news)

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer
Sat Jan 20, 3:52 PM ET

Hollywood's movie-ratings system, which critics call a secretive process that leaves filmmakers in the dark, will implement changes to make it more open and understandable to parents and filmmakers, its overseers said.

Dan Glickman, who heads the Motion Picture Association of America that manages the ratings system, plans to meet with filmmakers Monday at the Sundance Film Festival to discuss the plans.

The most substantive change for directors would be in the appeals process, allowing filmmakers to cite similar objectionable scenes in past movies when trying to overturn what they think is an overly harsh rating that restricts the ages of movie-goers.

The ratings system and its appeals process were harshly criticized in director Kirby Dick's documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which premiered at Sundance last year.

Dick's film said the ratings system was stacked in favor of big studios represented by the MPAA and against independent filmmakers such as those who attend Sundance. His documentary also accused movie raters of conducting an anonymous process in which filmmakers and the public do not know who rates the movies or what standards are used to judge the films.

Arriving in Utah on Saturday, Glickman said the changes to the system were not prompted by Dick's documentary. Glickman said the revisions had been in the works since 2004, when he took over the MPAA from Jack Valenti, who founded the ratings-system in the late 1960s.

"The system works very well. What's clear to us is we need to do a better job of explaining the system, of making sure people know it's transparent, it's not secret, it's open and it's accessible," Glickman said.

At Monday's meeting at Sundance, Glickman will be accompanied by Joan Graves, who heads the MPAA's Classification and Ratings Administration that uses panels of raters to decide if movies should get an NC-17, R, PG-13, PG or G rating.

Among other changes the MPAA plans:

• Posting the names of its three senior raters on the association's Web site. Other raters will remain anonymous, but details on their background, families and where they come from will be posted online.

• Enforcing a policy to ensure that raters have school-age children, which the association's overseers said was important so raters could give parents proper perspective on what might be inappropriate for kids.

• Putting information online about the association's standards for rating movies, along with forms and instructions to filmmakers for submitting movies for rating.

• Providing clearer definitions of movie ratings and sterner warnings to parents about films that might contain material inappropriate for younger children.

Dick said he was glad the association now would allow filmmakers to cite similar scenes from other films in the appeals process, but that other changes were cosmetic and would have little or no effect on making the ratings system more open.

"I don't think this is a decent first step," said Dick, whose "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" comes out on DVD on Tuesday. "A decent first step would be to create transparency around the whole system. Make known the names of all the raters and the people on the appeals board. They say the ratings system is for the public. Well, if it's for the public, the names should be public."

Glickman said he expects the changes to be implemented by March, when he and officials of the National Association of Theatre Owners hold an annual meeting with cinema operators at the ShoWest convention in Las Vegas.

The ratings system will remain under review, particularly as digital technology changes how consumers view movies, Glickman said. As they have for the past four decades, changes will be implemented as needed, he said.

"Like the U.S. Constitution — and I'm not saying we're the U.S. Constitution, of course — the basic framework, the basic document has lasted for over 200 years. It's been changed periodically but the fundamentals have remained," Glickman said. "I personally see no need for what I call revolutionary change."

___

On the Net:

http://www.mpaa.org

| IP: Logged

Dave Macaulay
Film God

Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 01-25-2007 01:17 PM

The MPAA tries to keep independent films out of theatres by giving NC17 ratings at will. South Park's Matt Stone and Trey Parker got the deadly NC17 rating for (independent) Orgazmo and asked the MPAA how to edit for an R rating, they replied that the MPAA never gives reasons for a rating or suggestions for changes. When Matt and Trey made SP:BLU under Paramount they also got an NC17... but the MPAA also supplied a multiple page summary of the problem areas and suggestions on changes to make it an R rating.

Since there has recently been a fairly thorough "outing" of the anonymous MPAA film reviewers/raters their decision to finally officially reveal who some of them are is a bit redundant.

I appreciate some rating system to help decide what film is appropriate for young (and old) people but a secretive industry controlled body doesn't seem appropriate. The Ontario system of government film review and rating looks better to me.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-25-2007 01:31 PM

quote: Kirby Dick in the David Germain AP article
Make known the names of all the raters and the people on the appeals board. They say the ratings system is for the public. Well, if it's for the public, the names should be public.

I can't imagine what difference this would make or what good it would do. All that would result would be a lot of hate mail and other crap being directed at the raters.

The system is fine as is. What needs to be changed apparently is the consistency with which it's applied.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 01-25-2007 01:54 PM

I agree with Mike. The system in place mostly works but it needs to be applied as consistently as possible. I sure don't want a government body involved with rating films either. [Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 01-25-2007 02:04 PM

The system definitely has some problems, but it's better than no system at all, and it's good to see that they're taking steps toward reform.

| IP: Logged

Edwin Sheldon
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Registered: Sep 2006

posted 01-26-2007 12:09 AM

quote:
"The system works very well. What's clear to us is we need to do a better job of explaining the system, of making sure people know it's transparent, it's not secret, it's open and it's accessible," Glickman said.

I call bullshit. As Dick's expose demonstrated, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy. Filmmakers and the public at large know the identity of one member of the Classification and Ratings Administration's review board. The members of the appeals board are known to practically no one. At least, that was the case until This Film Is Not Yet Rated yanked down the cloaks of the MPAA stooges. Does that sound like an "open" and "transparent" process to anyone besides the clowns at the MPAA?

Screw em all. [fu]

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-26-2007 10:38 AM

Warning: NC-17 -- Uncle Frankie hasn't had his morning coffee yet.

What is this Alice in Wonderland bullshit? They find stuff in a film that triggers them to give it an NC17, but then they won't tell the filmmaker what areas caused that rating so he can edit? How's that for Orwellian double-speak!? On the one hand they are all about "protecting" the public from seeing stuff they think is inappropriate, but when a filmmaker is willing to remove what is inappropriate, they won't tell him what it is!? Unless, of course, he's an MPAA member.

I am with Edwin -- I say screw 'em...and I won't tell you with what, but I bet you can guess -- think NC17. [Mad]

Besides, now we have DVDs and we can see the movie the way the director created it without the mind control of the MPAA. [beer]

And here's proof that this bruhaha is all show and no substance:

quote: David Stambaugh
Glickman said. "I personally see no need for what I call revolutionary change."

Yah, well personally I see no need for him to lift his wrinkled sorry ass out of his censorship chair at the MPAA office to come all the way down to Sundance if that's gonna be his starting attitude. [fu]

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 01-26-2007 11:36 AM

The problem with the NC-17 rating is that a lot of theatre chains refuse to play them because they do not want to deal with all the hassle involved with policing the films with that rating.

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 01-26-2007 01:02 PM

I agree with Darryl. You can't really blame the theaters, either. It's not like they're gonna have any marketing support for NC-17 movies. It's just not worth it. But my biggest problem with the MPAA is the NC-17's existence. To restrict a parent from choosing what their children can and cannot see is offensive.

When REQUIEM FOR A DREAM came out, I took my mom to see it. She thought it was excellent, and thought it was important to bring her teenaged daughter back to see it. When I told her she couldn't, she was outraged.

R is a good rating. As long as theaters strictly enforce it, it gets the job done. Anything beyond that is just talking down to parents, limiting box office, and compromising the filmmaker's work.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 01-26-2007 04:37 PM

quote: Edwin Sheldon
The members of the appeals board are known to practically no one. At least, that was the case until This Film Is Not Yet Rated yanked down the cloaks of the MPAA stooges. Does that sound like an "open" and "transparent" process to anyone besides the clowns at the MPAA?

I ask again. What POSSIBLE good would it do to reveal the names of the people making the ratings?

And if the names were revealed, what person on this earth would want the job for more than five minutes, with the phone continuously ringing off the hook with whiny crackpots who do't like the rating some movie got?

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 01-26-2007 05:03 PM

Under normal circumstances, providing background info on their raters would be enough. But considering the fact that up until this point they have been lying about their raters' backgrounds, providing their names might help to keep them honest.

| IP: Logged

Edwin Sheldon
Film Handler

Posts: 95
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Registered: Sep 2006

posted 01-26-2007 05:13 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I ask again. What POSSIBLE good would it do to reveal the names of the people making the ratings?

The point is the CRA think their process is "open", when it clearly isn't. Even if the contact information for the raters and appeals board members should be kept secret, what possible motivation could there be for keeping their notes secret?

quote: Mike Blakesley
And if the names were revealed, what person on this earth would want the job for more than five minutes, with the phone continuously ringing off the hook with whiny crackpots who do't like the rating some movie got?

Why not keep their phone numbers secret and have a system set up whereby a filmmaker could call up the raters to set up a teleconference discuss a rating? There are ways of setting such things up without the general public being able to harass the raters.

quote: Mike Schindler
Under normal circumstances, providing background info on their raters would be enough. But considering the fact that up until this point they have been lying about their raters' backgrounds, providing their names might help to keep them honest.

I totally forgot to mention this point. You are correct. The MPAA insists that all raters have children under the age of 17, when most of the raters Dick exposed only had children over the age of 20.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-26-2007 10:58 PM

I agree that making the reviewers' names public wouldn't be very productive -- what's it the public's business? The rating is what it is. Either they take its suggestion or they don't.

On the other hand, it's quite a different story re: the filmmakers. Independent filmmaker should know who it is that's deciding the fate of their project, decisions that involve huge amounts of money. Wouldn't you want to know who is making decisions about something that could substantially impact your livelihood? I sure would.

As for the phones ringing off the hook and panel members getting harassed, that's probably an exaggeration. It would only be a handful of releases that would wind up with a controversial rating, and haranguing individual panel members wouldn't make sense. What they need is a real a means of challenging a ruling that is impartial and open and which the independent filmmaking community trusts to be fair and impartial, a review where the filmmaker can present his case, possibly have a second set of reviewers who the ruling could be appealed to -- THAT would be where the give and take should happen -- IF such a system were put into place -- not by trying to influence one or more of the reviewers.

As for the need to have the judges have children, that's patently absurd. In fact, I think that's a BAD idea. Are these decisions based on an objective set of well defined criteria? Or are they based on what the reviewers "feel" is inappropriate? If the criteria are clear and delineated in depth, then ANYONE should be able to apply them to a film. Allowing some vague "gut reaction" of a reviewer to be the measure of his vote is highly subjective and unfair -- how do you argue someone "feeling?" And if they CAN'T codify and define the parameters by which they come to their final rating, other than, "Gee, I wouldn't want my little Brittney watching that stuff," then the whole business is a pile of dog poo. Might as well give Father Adelfio's little alter bell to them and let them ring it every time they feel offended. Molto stupido.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.