Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: When did "Approved for All Audiences" become "Approved for Appropriate Audiences"?

This is topic When did "Approved for All Audiences" become "Approved for Appropriate Audiences"? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002448

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-25-2010, 08:35 AM:

Anyone else notice this on green bands? Did I miss something? When did that change? Seems like a silly thing to me. Who decides what audiences are "appropriate"? It kind of gets the MPAA off the hook when you can no longer say "They approved it for ALL audiences" when some over zealous parent complains. Now all of a sudden they have a legitimate complaint that they believe that particular audience is "inappropriate" for that trailer.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-25-2010, 08:42 AM:

I've no idea when it happened, but probably related to almost all "children's" movies being rated PG.

Here is some BS about advertising from the MPAA's official site:

quote:
In the theater, our objective is to give parents a reasonable expectation that if they are comfortable enjoying the content of the feature film they have chosen to see with their children, then they will be comfortable with the content of the trailers preceding it. Movie trailers featuring stronger content are permitted to run only with compatible features. We also are working closely with filmmakers to allow them to reach their target audiences in innovative ways. For this reason, you may see advertising with stronger content on television only at certain times, on certain channels or with certain programs, or on specific websites depending on the content of the advertising, including sites which are intended only for adults, as well as on restricted websites.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2010, 11:04 AM:

It started happening about a year ago. There was a NATO email about it. As usual, they tried to spin it to say that "it gives the exhibitor more flexibility" or some such nonsense, but in reality it makes the green band completely meaningless.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-25-2010, 12:02 PM:

For the paranoid, it is probably a way for distributors to completely control what trailers get played with their movies, at least in the digital realm. They just develop a list of trailers and then set up some sort of blocking code to prevent from playing trailers they don't want shown with their features.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2010, 07:41 PM:

Astually the distribs have no control whatsoever what trailers you play, unless they embed them directly onto the feature film file, and even then it could be manually bypassed.

Sometimes there are contractual obligations to play certain trailers but that still requires the theatre to playlist the trailers involved.

This has been my experience, at least.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-26-2010, 11:41 AM:

Well, as I said, for the paranoid;>

I'm curious to know if this is at least theoretically possible. It seems as a programming matter it would be simple. And in contractual obligations as you mentioned and complete control.

Profitable and or practical are two different beasts.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-27-2010, 08:59 AM:

And . . . . if you're not "Appropriate" it is your duty to leave! [thumbsup]

Louis

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-27-2010, 09:34 AM:

When did Rated "M" change to Rated "GP"? When did Rated "GP" change to Rated "PG"? When did Rated "R" change from banning children under age 16 to age 17? When did the MPAA show any consistency in rating selecting a film's rating?

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 11-27-2010, 11:40 AM:

1970. 1972. 1970.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-27-2010, 12:45 PM:

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin
When did the MPAA show any consistency in rating selecting a film's rating?

As the ratings by design are without rules or standards, they can't possibly be consistent over the years. They are, afterall, only suggestions for parents made by other parents. Or mostly parents, I guess they get a few none parents on the ratings board now and then.

In short, the ratings are meaningless and should be ignored by adults. Not being a parent, I'll leave it to others to speak to their usefulness in selecting movies for the kiddos.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-27-2010, 01:25 PM:

Martin is correct. I did the new screening rooms for the MPAA and had a chance to meet most of the ratings board. There are indeed no written rules, only a very brief "guideline" as to certain things that would push a movie into a more restrictive rating.

There are NO single (without kids) raters, there is a mix of "moms and dads" as well as ethnicities. All were over the age of 30. (I'd say average age was 45-50.)

Two direct questions I posed to them were: Why did "The Right Stuff" end up with a PG (or was it PG-13) rating when "fuckin-a bubba" was said (as well as a direct callout of pussy, and not the cat) was used? (Formerly any use of the f-word or derivatives was an automatic "R"). The answer was that since "fuckin-a bubba" wasn't a direct sexual reference, it was only said a few times in the 3-hours plus, and the movie had no other factors (sexuality, graphic violence) it did not warrant an "R" rating. Fair enough.

The second question was "Why (for a long time) was full-frontal female nudity only worthy of an "R" but ANY full-frontal of a male, for even a second, was automatically an "X" (or "NC-17")?

There was a lot of hemming and hawing but the answer was pretty much "just because." I guess a guy's junk was somehow more horrifying and sexual (even when limp) than a woman's pootinanny. [Big Grin]

(I find a guy's junk to be more funny that sexual most of time anyways.)

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-27-2010, 01:38 PM:

The bigger issue with the ratings is that independent films are rated with a much stricter standard than major studio releases. Major studios are also more likely to successfully appeal a rating they don't like with no, or minimal, changes than an independent release. Either the content is appropriate, or it is not. Unfortunately they seem not to rate films that rate it that way.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-27-2010, 08:57 PM:

Watch the documentary called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"- if you can get Netflix instant streaming it's available on there. It points out TONS of inconsistencies with the rating system which are pretty amusing. I've never understood all the hate for the NC-17 rating- Blockbuster refusing to carry movies with that rating was the main reason for avoiding it, but now that Blockbuster's on the way out (I've always boycotted them for that reason) it doesn't seem as big a deal. Part of the documentary has them submit it to the MPAA for a rating and of course they give it an NC-17 since they show clips from a few movies that were rated NC-17 (like "this movie was rated NC-17 because of THIS"- cut to clip) , and they make a big stink about not being able to appeal it.

I heard that 3 F-words automatically got you an R, but All The President's Men has it a bunch of times (all non-sexual) and that was PG (there was no PG-13 rating yet) and Gunner Palace (a documentary) got a PG-13 just because someone thought the movie was overall educational for kids who might want to join the military.

The "Appropriate Audiences" thing on trailers is stupid- they should have just come up with something other than a red-band that says that it can't be shown with G-rated movies.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-27-2010, 11:49 PM:

Can you find inconsistencies in movie ratings? Sure. Does the system still work? Absolutely. The most important thing that the MPAA does is prevent government censorship. Beyond that, if a parent truly cares, then it's certainly means something that a Will Ferrell movie is rated G or PG-13 or R.

If someone sees a PG-13 movie and enjoys it and THEN says, "I guess every PG-13 movie will be okay for me and my kids," then they will be proven wrong. I'm glad the system doesn't work for people who refuse to use their brains.

As for "appropriate audiences," yes, this is a laziness on the part of the MPAA and a way to pass the blame for offense material in trailers which wasn't allowed in the past. Then again, the movie makers are the ones pushing for more "inappropriate material" in trailers. So it's their fault and the MPAA is just letting them advertise in the way they want to.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-28-2010, 10:06 AM:

quote: Greg Anderson
The most important thing that the MPAA does is prevent government censorship.

Actually, the First Amendment does that. Though you have to fight to make it work. Just look at how obscenity for children laws are worded and think of all the PG movies you know of that are in violation.

The MPAA is a lobbying group for the motion picture industry. They do what lobbying groups are designed to do: get the government to work to their advantage. It is to the MPAA's advantage not to have politicians getting involved in the content of their movies, but to their advantage to have the government extend and enforce copyright, so the MPAA does things that keep the politicians happy, like maintaining a ratings system...and spreading money around.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-28-2010, 07:30 PM:

The First Amendment doesn't preclude laws regarding obscenity. It could be easy to say that many things available in R-rated movies could be classified as "material harmful to minors" but you still don't have government censorship of the movies.

Yes, the MPAA is more strict when it comes to independent movie makers. But the independent movie makers bring that upon themselves because, generally, they are a lot more self-indulgent when it comes to nudity, foul language and violence anyway. The big studio movies are still heavily influenced by simple-minded folks who are worried about the box office and not the director's or writer's sense of self-expression.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-28-2010, 08:11 PM:

But you can have gov't censorship anytime an ambitious DA or AG decides to go that route. The MPAA can't do a thing (other than provide defense money) about it. The ratings have no legal basis, they are just a suggestion to parents from the motion picture industry.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-28-2010, 10:33 PM:

I don't get what the big stink over the 'approved for all audiences' tag versus the 'approved for appropriate audiences' tag is all about. When I controlled the trailer programing decisions I always programmed what I thought was appropriate for the movie. Who in their right mind would put a trailer for a movie that is R rated (and says so on the green band) on a G rated movie for example and then use the lame 'approved for all audiences' excuse to a complaining parent? Its not like the parent is going to suddenly realize 'Oh yeah, I shouldn't be upset my little kid got scared over age inappropriate content in the trailer, the MPAA said it was alright'; the parent is STILL going to be upset and even though you think you're *I-Win* button of waving the green band in their face is going to make them not be angry at you you're wrong.

Green and red bands are all we need, lets not make it more complicated by adding orange, yellow, blue, or pink with purple dots bands please. If you are responsible for programming trailers just use common sense and don't rely on the crutch of a green band to justify your mistake to an angry parent.

Now of course that having been said there will always be idiots who are a bit too prudish and will complain about the littlest thing they think is inappropriate; nothing will satisfy these people anyways and certainly not some arbitrary green band.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2010, 11:03 PM:

quote: Tony Bandiera Jr
Why (for a long time) was full-frontal female nudity only worthy of an "R" but ANY full-frontal of a male, for even a second, was automatically an "X" (or "NC-17")

This is easy. It's because a male's sexual reproductive organ is hanging outside of his body, whereas a woman's isn't and is usually covered by hair to boot. (And even if it isn't covered, you still can't see much unless you're in a major closeup.)

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-29-2010, 01:14 AM:

Dustin, the problem is that those overly prudish people now have an argument with YOU, and not the MPAA. Before it was the MPAA that clearly stated during the green band that they declared the trailer as approved for ALL AUDIENCES. All audiences means all audiences - period. There was no reason to argue before. Now all of a sudden there is and the argument will be "who decides which audiences are appropriate?" And the assumption is that it's YOU. So now you will be taking the heat. Seems silly to me. I mean if we needed an orange band for PG-13 or a yellow band for PG or whatever, then they should have created that without blurring the line on the green band. That just seems like a disservice to everyone except the studios and the MPAA.