Over at Offsprung.com (who snagged the list from allmovie.com), there's a humorous collection of ten of the most ridiculous reasons the MPAA has ever given for film ratings. You know, the list of offenses they put underneath a "PG" or an "R," to give parents a better idea of what exactly their child will be subjected to. (And then the parent can say, "Hmm, 'extreme pervasive graphic violence, including shootings, stabbings, beheadings, disembowlings, and castrations?' Oh well, as long as my son won't see a boob!"). I personally love it when the MPAA has to go all out with their rating descriptions, when it's clear that they just find a movie wrong on every level. When I see a full paragraph under that "R" rating, I know that it's probably a film I need to see. Take Grindhouse, for example. Rated R for "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity and drug use." A grand slam!

My favorite MPAA reason on the allmovie list is probably the one for Twister, which was Rated PG-13 back in 1996 for "intense depiction of very bad weather!" The 1994 Jamie Lee Curtis thriller Mother's Boys was Rated R for "language and a mother's sociopathic behavior." Number one on their list is the Nick Nolte snoozer Jefferson in Paris, which was rated PG-13 in 1995 for "mature themes, some images of violence, and" -- get this -- "a bawdy puppet show!" That's fine and good, but while we're on the subject of hardcore marionette action, I prefer the reason given for Team America: World Police's R Rating -- "graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets." The allmovie list is a solid one, although I'm fairly certain I've seen even funnier rating descriptions elsewhere. If you guys know of any, please share in the comments.

MPAA leader Dan Glickman had a lot more to say about the ratings system this week during the ShoWest film exhibition and distribution convention. As you remember, the MPAA unveiled revisions to its system earlier this year, and since then it has had to continually explain, clarify, defend and fine tune its changes due to confusion and dissatisfaction. One thing that continues to be unclear, though, is if the MPAA is more interested in removing the stigma of the NC-17 rating or in altering the perception that an R-rated film is perfectly suitable for all ages. On Thursday the Classification and Ratings Administration, which operates the ratings system for the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), revealed a new advisory for the R rating that it hopes will be a better warning to parents. It will read: "Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures."

Additionally, some theater chains are looking to go further and ban very young children from R-rated movies, a practice already observed by many art house cinemas. NATO head John Fithian also spoke about the ratings system at ShoWest, and it is apparent that theater owners have their own ideas regarding the subject. First he stressed the importance of having theatrical releases rated by the MPAA in order to perform well. Even though the NC-17 rating has a stigma attached, movies released with that rating earn more money than those released without a rating. He also claimed that without the ratings system we'd possibly have to deal instead with a government-run system of censorship.

Finally he made a request for Hollywood to stop releasing special unrated editions of DVDs -- or at least stop marketing them as being better because they are uncensored. He said that this practice undermines the authority and purpose of the ratings, plus it emphasizes the idea that for some movies it is better to avoid the theater and to wait for the more complete DVD. I guess we'll have to see if the studios abide by this request, but just be warned there may only be one version of Knocked Up, so you might as well just go see it in the theater. Grindhouse, on the other hand, will probably need an unrated DVD no matter what.

One year ago, the MPAA's film ratings system was exposed for being unfair and inconsistent. This was thanks primarily to the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated, which screened at Sundance. Now, without acknowledging that film's possible influence on the decision, the MPAA is announcing a change in the ratings process and procedures. A campaign is set to begin at Sundance on Monday, when Dan Glickman will be joined with Classifications & Ratings Administration head Joan Graves to officially go over the revisions.

Variety has the list of changes, which includes the decision to publicly post the standards that must be met to receive a particular rating. Also added to the appeals process is an allowance for a filmmaker to compare his film's content with another lower-rated film's content in order to make a consistency argument. Other parts of the revision include a description of the still-anonymous ratings board members and new rules for the eligibility of those members.

In case you aren't aware, the American film ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) are a voluntary system by and for parents. Not only do they tell people what is and what isn't appropriate for their children, depending on their age, they also give basic details of what type of content has influenced each film's given rating. Information on a movie's rating can be found in its advertisements, most film reviews and a special search-engine-powered website (www.filmratings.com). What more could a responsible parent or guardian ask for? How about MPAA Dan Glickman comes over your house and describes each new release and its assigned rating ... every week?

Unfortunately the man is just too busy saving the world from pirates of Pirates to do that, but he's going to do the next best thing: send you an email. Parents (and non-parents, I'm assuming) can subscribe to the new "Red Carpet Ratings" service, which sends out one email each week giving a rundown of what is coming out. The service is designed to keep (lazy) parents informed of each new movie's rating, though chances are they will also include plot synopses, which will additionally serve to market new family films (as well as other films for the parents to see on their own), even if unintentionally.

It should be end of discussion on the matter of Facing the Giants receiving a PG-rating from the MPAA. As I mentioned earlier this month, the filmmakers were under the impression the rating was given because of "religious elements." But as Martha reported in an update, the MPAA straightened the issue out and there was no appeal. Now everyone should be happy, right? Oh wait, the politicians still aren't. What do they have to do with ratings? Nothing officially, but that doesn't stop them from sticking their noses in. Roy Blunt and other members of Congress are so concerned with the MPAA's decision they are urging a close evaluation of the board's practices.

Let's see if we can understand why this is still not clear to them. After hearing about the initial complaint, Blunt wrote a letter to MPAA head Dan Glickman which said, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that the MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and violence." There's his first misunderstanding. He seems to think that G-rated movies have gratuitous sex and violence. His second misunderstanding obviously came when Glickman replied, insisting that the movie was not given a PG because of religious content. Oh, and just to clear it up to our readers, too, the rating was said to be given for mature discussions, including one about pregnancy.

According to The Guardian, The British Board of Film Classification (like the MPAA for the UK) is trying to extend their rating system to the internet. With sites like YouTube and Blinkx showcasing and indexing videos online without any sort of indicators to their content, the group is afraid that too many viewers are seeing things they would rather not. The BBFC doesn't wish to censor or block any sites or videos, just put up some kind of label that warns people about the presence of things like sex, violence and language. A spokesperson for the Board cited a compilation of videos entitled Terrorists, Killers and Middle East Wackos, which contain actual killings and attacks, saying that the material would have been banned in the UK via the Obscene Publications Act, had it been in any other format besides the web.

I can see where the BBFC is going with this, but I don't really understand how it could be possible. Considering the videos are not only available to British viewers, any system they planned would conflict with the rest of the world. They say the logical scenario would be to advise companies who run the sites, which I think is unlikely to work. Anyway, if the BBFC or another organization implements a rating system for the internet, chances are it will be more of an advisor of which videos are more indecent. Although the proposed system would not be a guide to parents so much as a guide to viewers, it would be the very antithesis of child protection.