Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Prohibiting the Showing of Trailers

This is topic Prohibiting the Showing of Trailers in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001489

Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 09-28-2000, 01:38 PM:

We're seeing a lot in the news lately about how the movie studios will prevent trailers for R rated films being shown with a G rated movie. Is this something the studios have absolute control over? Seems like to me that those running the movie theatres will be the ones ultimately responsible for this. Is it expected that the MPAA will change distribution contracts to enforce this with the theatre owners? It seems as though the MPAA will also start requiring the showing of green bands.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-28-2000, 02:22 PM:

What about a movie that has not been rated yet? How will they handle that? If they started to make more "red band" trailers and restricted them to "R" rated movies, that would be fine. Otherwise this will turn into a MAJOR pain for theaters trying to place trailers.

At least they will start requiring the green band to be shown. I'm all for it.

Posted by Dave Cutler (Member # 515) on 09-28-2000, 02:54 PM:

From what I had heard of the report, it sounded like they were more concerned with the TV ads. Particularly which ads were being shown during times when more kids would be watching. ie. prime time and just after schools let out.

I agree, it is the exhibitors that decided what trailers go on to what. Most theatres try to put on trailers that would interest the audience seeing any given show. If they don't, their are just being stupid in my opinion.

I understand the advertising issues put I still disagree with the ratings arguments. Ultimatly it should be up to the parents what their children see or not see. The rating system should be used as a tool to aid in that decision, not as an absolute. Perhaps ratings should just be more indepth. Someone else mentioned the ratings that stations like HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, and Starz use. That would be a good idea, even with all the jumble of letters I don't have any problems deciphering them.

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 09-28-2000, 04:54 PM:

HELL YEAH, I WANT MY GREEN BANDS BACK!!! Okay sorry, i just miss those little guys. It pains me to cut them off every time.

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 09-28-2000, 05:06 PM:

I am not familiar with the US rating system, but most movies in Australia it is up to the parent to decide what they want their child to see. The exception is R 18+ where you have to be over 18 to see it, this is movies like Boys dont cry or Chopper.

On our posters it has a brief explanation why each movie is rated the way it is, it might say " M Recommended for mature audiences. High level coarse language. Low level violence. Adult themes. Medium level sex scenes." It does then give the person some idea what they are in for.

Paul

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-28-2000, 05:52 PM:

In the UK, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) examines and certificates features, trailers and commercials as being either U (Universal - suitable for all) Uc (especially suitable for children), PG, 12, 15, 18 or 18R (18R is for porn films which should only be shown in premises to which under 18s are never admitted).

By a quirk of British law, these certificates do not have legal force for cinema exhibition. By law, cinemas only have to have a licence from the local government authority (e.g. town or city council). However, almost all such authorities make it a condition of the license that the BBFC certificates are observed, e.g. no under 15s admitted to a 15-cert film. This law dates back to 1909 - the law which brought in the licence system was designed to ensure that cinemas took adequate precautions against nitrate fires, and that they could be closed down if they didn't. But local authorities then started using this law to impose censorship (e.g. 'if you show violent films to under 15s, then we'll take away your licence') and so the BBFC was founded in 1913 to try and standardise the chaos, i.e. to end the situation whereby a film could be banned in one town but shown in the next one. To this day, however, the BBFC remains a self-financing, self-regulating body (although its decisions do have legal force for home video classification).

So if I showed 'Crash' to a load of schoolkids in a cinema, I wouldn't actually be breaking any law!

The way most authorities deal with the trailer issue is that the 'programme' rather than an individual feature has a rating, so if a complete performance is billed as being 15, then no commericals or trailers of with a higher classification can be shown during it. Trailers are given individual certificates according to their content even if the feature hasn't been examined yet. I've never received or shown a trailer without a certificate and I doubt if anyone would attempt to distribute one.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-28-2000, 06:17 PM:

As of today, this is Carmike's Policy:
Only G trailers on G movies
Only G and PG trailers on G movies
Anything on PG-13
Anything on R
We are never to show Red Band trailers without written permission from the home office in Georgia.

Posted by Frank Prete (Member # 627) on 09-30-2000, 06:21 AM:

To expand more on what Paul said, our classifation system is similar to the US system. We have G (general), PG (parental Guidance recomended), M (recomended for 15 plus) M15+ (must be over 15 or accompanied by a parent or gardian) and then R (restricted 18+). Maybe someone could match up the corresponding ratings for the states.

With regard to trailers, our classification board rate the trailers as well as the films. Generally the trailer receives the same rating as the film. A traile cannot run with a lower rated film (eg R18+ cannot run with an M rated film). Trailer can receive exceptions which allows them to run with a film that is classified one step lower (eg M trailer, PG film).

It is up to the cinemas to enforce this. Lets face it, we are the ones who put the trailers in. We are the one who are responsible for checking suitability of content.

Same goes for ads as well. I was recently in the situation where I was being asked to run a Club X ad with Big Mommas House. Sorry, no can do was the answer to the advertising company.

Frank.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-30-2000, 06:32 AM:

>>With regard to trailers, our classification board rate the trailers as well as the films. Generally the trailer receives the same rating as the film. A traile cannot run with a lower rated film (eg R18+ cannot run with an M rated film). Trailer can receive exceptions which allows them to run with a film that is classified one step lower (eg M trailer, PG film).<<

Frank,

Do you know this for certain? I have never heard that the board censors the trailers. If that is the case, why can't we run what we want to run with what? The trailers are the same version as the US on the most part and they get a 'all audiences' rating also for the most part although the tag at the head does state the movie's real censorship also.

The censor issue with trailers here is so undefined that it might as well not exist. It only does exist because a few years back some dip at a multiplex in Sydney decided that running a trailer for Ghost (complete with Patrick Swayzee's covered in blood) would be the ideal trailer to run with the latest Disney film.

Sheesh!

If we could get a 'this film has been classified for all audiences...the feature has been classified...' etc tag intead of those stupid things that are on there now, we would be able to advertise films to their group audiences (eg: action movies) instead of having to just match them because of their ratings.

The only reason they get a run at my theatre is so I can show off how clean they are thanks to Filmguard.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-30-2000, 07:08 AM:

Technically, a film isn't rated until just a few weeks before its release. So, for example, a movie like Pearl Harbor has no rating. Does that mean nobody can show trailers for it before anything but an R-rated film (just in case it gets an R rating)?

Of course, any filmmaker with half a brain knows what rating his movie's going to get while he's making the movie. Because of the potential for earning (and the fact that the summer of 2000 was such a financial disappointment) I'll bet Pearl Harbor will show up with a PG-13 rating in May. Nobody will be surprised by the MPAA's decision. Still, technically, the film has no rating. So what do you do with the trailer (under new guidelines)?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-30-2000, 09:06 AM:

If anyone figures out how to enforce this policy (doutful) and actually attempts to do so (more doutful), this will have the unpleasant side effect of hurting the NC-17 rating and making it even less of a viable option for film producers. This, of course, will result in even more pressure for the MPAA to grant "R" ratings to films that really should be "NC-17" (which, of course, happens already because various newspapers refuse to accept advertising for NC-17 movies.)

What about "unrated" films? Many of these are foreign films or limited-distribution films and don't necessarily have offensive content in them. Take the example of a Canadian production from 1994: "Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould"; this is an absoutely brilliant film which, except for some veiled drug references, is totally nonoffensive and would be entirely appropriate for any age group. Would this new MPAA "policy" prohibit showing trailers for something like this just because it happens to be "unrated"?

The whole thing sounds pretty silly if you ask me, but then I tend to think that the whole US ratings system, in its present form, is pretty silly...

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-30-2000, 02:01 PM:

Would this new MPAA "policy" prohibit showing trailers for something like this just because it happens to be "unrated"?

My guess is... of course it would! The MPAA wants as many films as possible to submit to the MPAA system (and, don't they have to pay the MPAA to give them a rating too?). Power and money, fellas. Those two words will answer most of your questions.

Why are politicians suddenly having trouble with movies during this election season? I mean, they're holding hearings to find out about test audiences for Judge Dredd? It's a 5 year-old movie which was a bomb in the United States. Why couldn't they have been outraged last summer when kids were seeing There's Something About Mary and South Park? After all, those were popular movies with teenagers and those movies tried to break new boundaries for bad taste in R-rated movies. But, no... the politicians didn't get too upset until they saw a toss-up election on the horizon.

Posted by Tom Kroening (Member # 201) on 09-30-2000, 05:38 PM:

The way I understand it, trailers don't depend on movie ratings, or what the movies are going to be rated. Like "Next Friday" had red band trailers but it also had Green band trailers. So If a trailer turns out ot be rated R, the studio could make a new cut of a trailer.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 09-30-2000, 06:50 PM:

Just so we're on the same page...

Yes, the green band trailers are supposed to be approved for all audiences... including G, I suppose. But because of the pressure being put on Hollywood right now, some are saying they won't advertise R-rated films by putting trailers for them in front of G or PG-rated features. So... this goes beyond the green band seal of approval.

Am I understanding this situation correctly?

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-30-2000, 07:51 PM:

YES! Prosecute anyone who cuts off green bands!

What I really want though are the BLUE bands back, plus I always liked the old rating tags at the end of movies better with that white stripe across.

Posted by Frank Prete (Member # 627) on 10-01-2000, 12:21 AM:

John,

I think that the trailers get rated at the same level that the film has been rated at. So in effect, no they don't rate the trailers, but the trailers do carry a rating. That's why we see the yet to be classified on lots of trailers. In that situation I don't think that there is any hard and fast rules about what you can screen what with, and common sense should be used. That said, common sense aint so common.

I also think that our classification board does give out the exemptions for trailers so that they can be run with films of a lower classification. Regardless, a trailer with a rating on it (this film has been classisfied M etc) cannot run with a lower rated feature film.

Maybe someone out there may have closer dealings with the classification board and may know the exact letter of the law.

Frank.

Posted by James Smith (Member # 656) on 11-11-2000, 03:07 AM:

Frank,

Trailers are classified as either "Passed" or "Not Passed". Then when the film is classified, the trailer will get that rating. There are execptions, and sometimes kids movie trailers rated PG can be shown with a G rated movie.

Look at www.oflc.gov.au for more info. Do a database search for the film "Chopper" for a good example.

Posted by Michael Cunningham (Member # 210) on 11-11-2000, 02:09 PM:

As to someone's question about how the American rating system stacks up:

G - General (suitable for all audiences)

PG - Parental Guidance (some material unsuitable for very young children)

PG-13 - Parent or Legal Guardian must accompany children under 13

R - Restricted (Parent or Legal Guardian must accompany children under 17)

NC-17 - (was X) No children under 17 admitted

Not Rated - kind of a general warning, as in we haven't watched it, watch at your own risk

Of course, none of this has the force of law. It is a voluntary program established by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and theatre owners / operators. As for trailers, there are two ratings. Green Band - approved for all audiences and Red Band - use only with R or NC-17. That's the only guide and also has no force of law.

-Mike

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-11-2000, 03:52 PM:

PG13...Parents are not forced to accompany their kids that are under 13. Anyone can go.

Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 11-11-2000, 05:10 PM:

Hello James,

welcome to the forum, good to see another Melbournian, there is a few of us now.

Paul Cunningham

------------------
And f**k jazz too!

Legend of 1900

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2000, 05:46 AM:

Here is the official website for the Motion Picture Association's Classification and Rating Administration (CARA):
http://www.filmratings.com/

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by David Kilderry (Member # 142) on 11-14-2000, 03:18 AM:

This is really a can of worms. I feel here in Australia the trailer should be rated. In holidays we have "G" rated shows running with hardly any trailers because there is nothing we can run with them.

Likewise an "R" trailer does not even have the chance to be promoted on screen unless it is with other "R" shows. If they cut a trailer without the offending material it could be shown in "M" and "MA" films.

Yeah, how many projectionists from Melbourne actually do contribute here??? I know of plenty more lurkers from this city too.

David

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-14-2000, 06:28 AM:

Didn't the "R" rating used to say something like; "Under 17 requires accompanying parent or *legal* guardian?"

Without the term "legal," the MPAA has weakened the theaters ablity to enforce it's own rules. Which is probably the intent. We've had several cases where an older brother wants to let in his younger brother in to a film, but we were able to prevent it. Without the term "legal," I'm not sure if we can anymore.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-14-2000, 07:03 AM:

John:

The http://www.filmratings.com site lists the R rating as "R - Restricted, Under 17 Requires Accompanying Parent or Adult Guardian". I guess enforcement depends upon how your state defines "adult" and "guardian". But don't most theatres maintain the right to refuse admission to "Anyone", at their discretion (within applicable anti-discrimination laws)?

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-14-2000, 11:21 AM:

As I said, I thought it used to say, "Legal Guardian." I must have looked at thousands of posters, but now I can't say for sure if the word "legal" was used or not.

But, if the MPAA did drop it, why? It just looks bad, especially at a time when the whole subject is being looked at closely by the government.

Also, while it's true "we reserve the right to refuse admission," that's pretty tough going when someone is right in your face, with a lobby full of people. They will always challange the definintion of a word or phrase. It's hard enough to enforce the rating system without it being undermined from within the industry.

Maybe I'm overdoing it, but while "legal" is a small word, it did define the scope of the "R" rating to include local law. Theaters could say, "The local law decides who is/is not a parent or adult guardian, not us."

Without that word, it's open to indivual interpretation and inconsistancy. ("That other manager let me in last week...")

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-14-2000, 03:12 PM:

I'm 99% sure the term "legal guardian" used to be on the R rating explanation. Regardless, that still doesn't help much when a parent of one kid brings 20 of his friends (all under 10) to an R rated movie and says "for the duration I'm watching these kids, I AM legally their guardian..."