I've Had It With the MF'in MPAA and Their MF'in Hypocrisy!!
Filed under: Fan Rant
Let's say you're watching a horror film in which six or eight people get skewered in relatively explicit fashion. By all accounts, that film should be Rated R: Adults only, unless a parent decides different. That's an example of how a ratings board does good work: They see that a flick called "Saw" has "graphic, extreme violence" and they decide that their 12-year-old can live without that sort of stuff for a few more years. And obviously the same holds true for rampant profanity, nudity, sexual situations, or drug abuse. Some stuff simply isn't meant for kids, period.So obviously I have no problem with a "ratings board," in theory, but in practice? Sheesh. The one we currently have (the MPAA) is so broken, so twisted, and so confused that I'd like to call for a complete do-over. Fire the whole staff, raze the whole damn building if you have to, and start over from scratch. Because I say the MPAA is either A) monumentally clueless, B) stunningly corrupt, or C) a combination of both. Hell, this is a group that created an "adults only" rating, and then did all it could to make it into the new "porno" label. I can hear your eye-rollings already, and I can't really blame you: Serious film fans have been complaining about the MPAA's blatant hypocrisy for years now, and if you thought that Kirby Dick's ballsy documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated was going to usher in a new era for the MPAA ... sorry to say you were dead wrong.
Anyone out there see Paranormal Activity? Why was that rated R? For a few random F-bombs. That's the only reason the MPAA gave ... despite the fact that numerous PG-13 films also have F-bombs. Hell, the whole freakin' Austin Powers trilogy is nothing but one long d!ck joke, but since PG-13 flicks make (a lot) more money than R-rated ones, the studios get all sorts of breaks when it comes to the ratings board. (Yes, Paranormal is owned by one of those big studios, so my point is sort of fuzzy there, but that's what happens when I type angry.)
By now you've probably seen a trailer or clip for Roland Emmerich's upcoming 2012, a promo piece that doesn't even come close to offering a clue to the film's PLOT, but boy does it jam a distressing amount of carnage into two minutes. Have a look right here:
Wow, look how awesome that is! Thousands of little people being squished, squashed, and pitched into the underground inferno of San Andreas! That looks FUN! I can't wait to show it to my kids!
Or they can just go see it themselves, because ... it's PG-13.
Now, I'm obviously no prude when it comes to cinematic violence. If I had a son, I'd happily raise him on a steady diet of age-appropriate horror and action films -- because I freaking loved that stuff when I was growing up. Nor do I have a problem with "disaster carnage," as I loved the insipid Irwin Allen flicks when I was younger. It's not the content I have a problem with at all.
The problem I have is with a self-appointed censorship board that tells the entire country that profanity is evil, that a naked breast is vulgar, and that human sexuality is more nefarious than rampant violence. My problem is with a handful of shameless rubber-stampers who kowtow to whatever studio leans on them when their next potential blockbuster shows up. I'm sick of base, leering violence being perfectly OK with the ratings board, dammit, and it's high-time we hold them accountable for their b.s.
From their patently unfair game that bends over for the studios while holding the "indie" distributors to a much higher standard to their clear and clueless "free pass" they give to bloodless carnage, the whole group just stinks to high heaven. If the studios are truly interested in a ratings system that actually SERVES their customers, then I say the MPAA has to be rethought, revamped, or (best of all) replaced entirely -- by a group of people who actually care about serving the moviegoers.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-03-2009 @ 3:19PM
jim said...
I don't have kids, so I pay no attention to ratings. But, if you think things are seriously flawed, how about listing all the movies you've seen in the last 6 months along with their official rating and what rating you'd give them? You don't need to explain your rating. Let's see how many differ and let the readers weigh in on who called it better.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 6:40PM
Matt said...
Well said Scott,
If anyone hasn't seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated," it's absolutely worth viewing to see how skewed the rating system is.
I'm in my mid twenties and haven't been carded at a theater in years, but the stigma of ratings often dictates how well a movie will do or what kind of release it gets.
As such, the MPAA gets to play a heavy hand in determining what films will be allowed to do well, and what films will get to die a quiet death in theaters.
Ohh that evil Jack Valenti!
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 1:45AM
Jerald Brewer said...
I think the torture-porn/gorno movies should get an "X" rating & the people who produce & flock to see this sh*t go off to Cambodia & live with the Khmer Rouge (sic) or tribal warlords in Afghanistan.
HBO & Blockbuster proudly display this crap on their channel & aisles. An Oscar winning actor once noted that Jack Valenti & his band of clueless blanks known as the MPAA had not much of a problem with a movie cutting off a woman's breast but if an exhibition of it was cause for much concern.
Hitler would be proud of Eli Roth & the Saw sickos.
(But also I would've given the last 2 Batman films for unrelenting dark tone & intensity. They are not for kids & are 2 of the best films of the century.)
But then again I'm just a TV news photographer who has seen some very graphic stuff in real life.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 4:04PM
Josh said...
So according to this article Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which features the destruction of the Earth, should have gotten an X-rating.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 4:12PM
George McBain said...
It is a point of the gratuitousness of the act and the depiction of that suffering.
11-03-2009 @ 4:08PM
George McBain said...
I agree with you on 2012 ... the same with Knowing. Seriously, I am a fan of horror and suspense movies, but the scenes in that of devastation (the plane crash with people burning, the subway! where people get mowed down) was ridiculous. And, like Jim, I don't ever pay attention to ratings, but I was surprised when I just looked up Knowing and saw it was PG-13 ... those scenes alone (along with Nic Cage's acting, the horror) should have pushed it to an R in my mind.
These scenes are one step removed from Final Destination deaths.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 4:11PM
Matthew said...
I don't have kids either - but I do pay attention to ratings - not because I only watch rated R movies but because the ratings system is, or should be rather, a way to know what to expect when going into a movie...unfortunately - with the current MPAA rating system, there is no standard...the ratings that the MPAA dishes out are based on values of a select few that I believe, does not properly reflect current society - therein lies the real problem...
I mean any rating system that states a shot of a naked breast is worse than a decapitation (even without blood spatter) is seriously backwards - and, one could argue, is resulting in the youth of today being so numb to the real world violence out there
Just my two cents - but Scott, I hear you and hope that the system changes soon
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 4:14PM
Josh said...
I look forward to the upcoming rerelease of Star Wars, to be rated NC17 for all the people killed when the Death Star blows up.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 10:33PM
cablebfg said...
People there is a graphic depiction of numerous deaths... right? Oh, wait, it's just a shop of the thing ITSELF blowing up? That's right.
11-03-2009 @ 11:19PM
AJ Muller said...
That's you twice now, right, Josh? I would assume so.
Let me make this clear: you don't understand the point Scott is making.
Let me make this CRYSTAL clear: you don't understand his point. . .simply because you don't want to.
Either you are seriously stupid, or are trying very hard to be. Regardless, so sad for you.
"Obtuse!. . .is it deliberate?"
This makes me very sad. Scott, you made a very good point; it was both intelligent and insightful. Too bad some people are only going to see what they want to see.
Then again, that's kind of what you were angry about, isn't it?
Me too, man. At least we're not alone.
Yet it's nice to come into contact with such an open mind. . .it broadens one, doesn't it?
11-03-2009 @ 4:44PM
lw said...
A lot of it has to do with the dvd/video market. A director can make his vision of a movie, then bitch about having to cut things out in order to get the appropriate rating(whatever that rating is). He can then announce with a lot of fanfare 6 mos later that the upcoming dvd is his "original uncut/unrated"
version not seen in theaters. Now everyone wants to go right out of course and purchase the movie to see what all the fuss was about.
This type of system just seems to feed on itself and I agree that it sucks, I just don't know what you could do to fix it.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 5:47PM
Christian M. Howell said...
Wow, that trailer was total overkill - no pun intended. The whole aircraft scene was like the scene where the guys tries to outrun the boulder rather than jumping out of the way.
Planes, I do, believe go UP. It's like they took ID4 and multiplied by 20.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 7:05PM
madgamer said...
Come on now! You should know that you get 2 F-bombs per PG-13 movie (depending on the connotation, eg. no directing it towards one's mother). 3 gets you the R rating. period. So you could make the happiest Disney film ever and if it had 3 rapid-fire F-bombs, WHAM, R rating. This is because, CLEARLY, 2 uses of the word is benign while 3 uses could be permanently scarring to a minor's fragile psyche.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 10:06PM
The Mutt said...
Clearly the MPAA has never met an actual 12-year-old. Grab one at random and ask him what his favorite Youtube clip is and he will likely answer, "Dude! That one where they set that guy's crotch on fire and they're all like screaming Oh F*ck! HolySh*t!"
What really disturbs me is when I see things like Rated R for Smoking.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 8:58AM
Kevin said...
Why does that "really disturb" you?
11-05-2009 @ 3:01PM
Taylor Barratt said...
agreed on the smoking notation.
If they're going to have that, why not note any popping of any type of medication or overeating of food..
Hell why not just the eating of foods high in sodium.
"Rated R for Language, Sexual Situations and Eating a Microwaved PizzaPop"
They're all hazardous to your health right? Smoking's stupid but not worthy of a ratings notation. Bloody special interest groups!
11-03-2009 @ 10:16PM
cablebfg said...
I agree with one point in particular. Why have an NC-17 rating if that is essentially the death penalty on a film? Why can't mature, violent, and sexy films get an NC-17 rating and be deemed OK to see for the mass consumer.
Also, I am fed up with the excessive allowance of violence while nudity, in a completely loving or consensual manner, is deemed entirely inappropriate.
Then again, we are a country that utilizes scare tactics and pushes abstinence instead of actually informing our children about STIs and contraception. We view sex as "dirty", and push that message, yet our kids have more unprotected sex than most developed nations.
Fine message we are sending. Hell, just buying condoms can often feel like a walk of shame.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 8:38AM
ArmandoValle said...
In total agreement. These have been my own thoughts about the MPAA for my entire adult life. Sad to hear things haven't changed. We teach our kids that a nude person is worse than someone being sawed in half. That's magnificently fucked up.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 11:22PM
Garrett said...
Since the MPAA started blatantly being homophobic I was agreeing with you. "Get Real" got an "R" rating only because it's gay.
Things need to change, but I noticed there are few solutions offered...
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 12:10AM
ML said...
I agree. Aside from the problems I have with the relative "protection" that the MPAA believes various categories merit (violence vs sex, for example), it's long been obvious that the MPAA doesn't apply it's own so-called "standards" with anything approaching consistency. I suppose Congress could step in, but I expect that would only make a bad situation worse.
Reply