The MPAA is so $#%ing stupid!
- Thread starter Cracker Funk
- Start date
I think (for once) this isn't the fault of the MPAA.
They did the same thing with Bruno, if I remember rightly (at least they did in the UK) and it was almost exclusively a financial decision.
I've said before that I disagreed with the rating of The King's Speech here in the UK. The swearing was prolonged and for comic effect. On the posters it says 'swearing in a speech therapy setting' which is plain nonsense. That's not in there to illustrate how speech therapy works, it's in there to get laughs.
In related news I have no idea how The Social Network got a 12a rating...
But, yer, I wouldn't blame the MPAA...
They did the same thing with Bruno, if I remember rightly (at least they did in the UK) and it was almost exclusively a financial decision.
I've said before that I disagreed with the rating of The King's Speech here in the UK. The swearing was prolonged and for comic effect. On the posters it says 'swearing in a speech therapy setting' which is plain nonsense. That's not in there to illustrate how speech therapy works, it's in there to get laughs.
In related news I have no idea how The Social Network got a 12a rating...
But, yer, I wouldn't blame the MPAA...
Yeah this is a prod co/distributor/producer decision. Odd for sure, but it will be a good test to see if a rerelease does better.
Most of the people I know are offended to some extent by vulgar language. I obviously don't know everyone, but it seems to be true of America as a whole.
I heard on one DVD commentary that two F-bombs is an automatic R rating, so the director carefully picked where he wanted his one to maximize comedic impact.
Most of the people I know are offended to some extent by vulgar language. I obviously don't know everyone, but it seems to be true of America as a whole.
I heard on one DVD commentary that two F-bombs is an automatic R rating, so the director carefully picked where he wanted his one to maximize comedic impact.
The MPAA rating is completely arbitrary and out dated. The small changes like adding PG13 and specific tiny microscopic words to describe WHY it got the ratings are not diverse enough to cover why.
My sisters who have kids swear by the MPAA ratings like it's a federal law, but how can these people know what everyone will or won't find offensive? The MPAA has a tradition of allowing more violence over language and sexual content for a lower rating.
My sisters who have kids swear by the MPAA ratings like it's a federal law, but how can these people know what everyone will or won't find offensive? The MPAA has a tradition of allowing more violence over language and sexual content for a lower rating.
Though a fantastic film, I'm not sure "The Kings Speech" has a huge 12-17 year old audience. I'm kind of wondering why all the effort to modify something completely marketable as is.
In a drama film, words are the filmmakers primary tool to express, so I think it's especially important NOT to censor those films. I think re-rating edits are fine for action films, where swear words are more icing than cake in their use. Obviously there are action films that would be ruined also though, like Die Hard.
In a drama film, words are the filmmakers primary tool to express, so I think it's especially important NOT to censor those films. I think re-rating edits are fine for action films, where swear words are more icing than cake in their use. Obviously there are action films that would be ruined also though, like Die Hard.
Last edited:
I think the real problem with the MPAA is their treatment of sex and language versus violence, as well as their refusal to consider the emotional context of the content.
Ebert had something interesting to say about the digital censorship used to keep Eyes Wide Shut from receiving an NC-17 rating:
"The orgy, alas, has famously undergone digital alterations to obscure some of the more energetic rumpy-pumpy. A shame. The events in question are seen at a certain distance, without visible genitalia, and are more atmosphere than action, but to get the R rating, the studio has had to block them with digitally generated figures (two nude women arm in arm, and some cloaked men).
In rough-draft form, this masking evoked Austin Powers' famous genital hide-and-seek sequence. I have now seen the polished version of the technique, and will say it is done well, even though it should not have been done at all. The joke is that ``Eyes Wide Shut'' is an adult film in every atom of its being. With or without those digital effects, it is inappropriate for younger viewers. It's symbolic of the moral hypocrisy of the rating system that it would force a great director to compromise his vision, while by the same process making his adult film more accessible to young viewers."
Ebert had something interesting to say about the digital censorship used to keep Eyes Wide Shut from receiving an NC-17 rating:
"The orgy, alas, has famously undergone digital alterations to obscure some of the more energetic rumpy-pumpy. A shame. The events in question are seen at a certain distance, without visible genitalia, and are more atmosphere than action, but to get the R rating, the studio has had to block them with digitally generated figures (two nude women arm in arm, and some cloaked men).
In rough-draft form, this masking evoked Austin Powers' famous genital hide-and-seek sequence. I have now seen the polished version of the technique, and will say it is done well, even though it should not have been done at all. The joke is that ``Eyes Wide Shut'' is an adult film in every atom of its being. With or without those digital effects, it is inappropriate for younger viewers. It's symbolic of the moral hypocrisy of the rating system that it would force a great director to compromise his vision, while by the same process making his adult film more accessible to young viewers."
I lay the blame on theater owners, advertising outlets
and the movie goers.
The MPAA tried to offer a full on adults only category
but no newspaper or TV station will accept ads for NC-17
films and few theaters will book them. And movie goers
protest films they feel are rated incorrectly. Sometimes
even bad publicity isn't good publicity.
Frankly (and I know I am in the vast minority) I think
the MPAA does the best job they can in informing the
public about the content of a movie. It's the movie goers
who are lazy thus making their job more difficult.
and the movie goers.
The MPAA tried to offer a full on adults only category
but no newspaper or TV station will accept ads for NC-17
films and few theaters will book them. And movie goers
protest films they feel are rated incorrectly. Sometimes
even bad publicity isn't good publicity.
Frankly (and I know I am in the vast minority) I think
the MPAA does the best job they can in informing the
public about the content of a movie. It's the movie goers
who are lazy thus making their job more difficult.
I guess my link to the article, coupled with my headline for this thread, was a bit mis-leading. I don't blame the MPAA for the PG-13 version of King's Speech. I know that is simply a marketing thing from the distributor, or whatever.
My beef with the MPAA is how much violence they allow, vs. how much they crack down on nudity and language. I feel like this is backwards.
Anyway, in reference to this specific movie, I don't know how you could watch this movie, in it's original state, and think that it deserves an R-rating. The F-bombs that are dropped in King's Speech are completely different than those dropped in say, your average raunchy comedy. Different context, different meaning, different everything; it's practically not even the same word.
My beef with the MPAA is how much violence they allow, vs. how much they crack down on nudity and language. I feel like this is backwards.
Anyway, in reference to this specific movie, I don't know how you could watch this movie, in it's original state, and think that it deserves an R-rating. The F-bombs that are dropped in King's Speech are completely different than those dropped in say, your average raunchy comedy. Different context, different meaning, different everything; it's practically not even the same word.
The Gate Keepers and their collaborators.
Um, what does...
Does it simply mean that they do not want the original version being shown at any theaters?
This Film is Not Yet Rated is a fairly entertaining look at the MPAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
Um, what does...
...mean?
Does it simply mean that they do not want the original version being shown at any theaters?
This Film is Not Yet Rated is a fairly entertaining look at the MPAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
The MPAA tried to offer a full on adults only category
but no newspaper or TV station will accept ads for NC-17
films and few theaters will book them.
There's the problem. If you could make an NC-17 film, and have it not be box office death, it really wouldn't be an issue.
but no newspaper or TV station will accept ads for NC-17
films and few theaters will book them.
There's the problem. If you could make an NC-17 film, and have it not be box office death, it really wouldn't be an issue.
Although I do agree with directorik and Gonzo, regarding the NC-17 issue, that really has nothing to do with King's Speech.
F-bombs and naked titties should not be judged more harshly than killing people.
F-bombs and naked titties should not be judged more harshly than killing people.
I mean I agree. It's an arbitrary system that makes no sense. It beomes so critical in hollywood land because a HUGE percentage of the auience is teenagers. If you cut out teenagers you are cutting out tens of millions in box office.
Why do we censor and limit viewings of fantastic, and unrealistic violence and sex, while having things ten times as worse on any news network?
Yesterday the top headline in my country's most watched news network read: "Homless man found dead in the train tracks. His body was quartered"
Yesterday the top headline in my country's most watched news network read: "Homless man found dead in the train tracks. His body was quartered"
Discussing NC-17 is pointless. Not a single studio, big or small, has any interest in such films today. Right now we are seeing R as the new NC-17. Any filmmaker trying to make an R rated film has an uphill battle because the studios want PG-13 to be the end all be all due to money. EVERYTHING is now aimed at that rating and The King's Speech being chopped to it for the sake of money is the rudest example so far. I'm a big fan of the film and found the scene in question to be insanely funny. It's one of the most memorable scenes in the film and made my normally quiet wife laugh to tears because she was so taken by surprise.
Ron Howard is about to make a film version of Steven King's very adult Gunslinger books and it will be PG-13. Were this 1985 or even 1995, it would be an R rated production all the way.
How many horror films today are PG-13? Nearly all of them! When I was young, they were all rated R. Anyone catch the PG-13 THE STEPFATHER? What a pathetic and bloodless/lifeless remake!
This all started when members of Congress (both parties, let's not make this political) found out that the studios were marketing R rated films to teens. Then the clampdown at the studios began and they figured out that PG-13 films were the top earners. Since that time the move towards PG-13 only films has become pretty much gospel. Countless films have been cut down just to get that rating.
The action film has been ruined by it. None are memorable anymore. When we think of great action films we look back decades ago. Imagine LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS, COMMANDO, TOTAL RECALL, PREDATOR, ALIENS, RAMBO, TRUE LIES, THE TERMINATOR, DIE HARD as PG-13 films.
Well, we can, with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, one of the ALIENS vs PREDATOR films and TERMINATOR SALVATION. And they sucked. Today's action films are mostly limp ass pieces of slop that no one remembers a week later.
Anyone remember SWAT? G.I. JOE? SURROGATES? FIGHTING? 12 ROUNDS? Good grief, I am having a hard time trying to remember ANY PG-13 action related film to list here.
It's rare that we get one. WANTED was a shocker. How did that one get out? The audience I saw it with were gasping and screaming because they were so shocked by the violence. Why? Because they hadn't seen stuff like that in years.
R rated comedies are even a tough sell today. Yet films like THE HANGOVER and TROPIC THUNDER prove they are bankable if they are funny!
As for The King's Speech... Who the heck under 18 wants to see that film?
I'm about to make a short film that is going to be hard fricking R rated. Part of me is making it just because I know that if I ever make it all the way to features, i won't be able to make anything other than PG-13 lameness.
Ron Howard is about to make a film version of Steven King's very adult Gunslinger books and it will be PG-13. Were this 1985 or even 1995, it would be an R rated production all the way.
How many horror films today are PG-13? Nearly all of them! When I was young, they were all rated R. Anyone catch the PG-13 THE STEPFATHER? What a pathetic and bloodless/lifeless remake!
This all started when members of Congress (both parties, let's not make this political) found out that the studios were marketing R rated films to teens. Then the clampdown at the studios began and they figured out that PG-13 films were the top earners. Since that time the move towards PG-13 only films has become pretty much gospel. Countless films have been cut down just to get that rating.
The action film has been ruined by it. None are memorable anymore. When we think of great action films we look back decades ago. Imagine LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS, COMMANDO, TOTAL RECALL, PREDATOR, ALIENS, RAMBO, TRUE LIES, THE TERMINATOR, DIE HARD as PG-13 films.
Well, we can, with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, one of the ALIENS vs PREDATOR films and TERMINATOR SALVATION. And they sucked. Today's action films are mostly limp ass pieces of slop that no one remembers a week later.
Anyone remember SWAT? G.I. JOE? SURROGATES? FIGHTING? 12 ROUNDS? Good grief, I am having a hard time trying to remember ANY PG-13 action related film to list here.
It's rare that we get one. WANTED was a shocker. How did that one get out? The audience I saw it with were gasping and screaming because they were so shocked by the violence. Why? Because they hadn't seen stuff like that in years.
R rated comedies are even a tough sell today. Yet films like THE HANGOVER and TROPIC THUNDER prove they are bankable if they are funny!
As for The King's Speech... Who the heck under 18 wants to see that film?
I'm about to make a short film that is going to be hard fricking R rated. Part of me is making it just because I know that if I ever make it all the way to features, i won't be able to make anything other than PG-13 lameness.
I don't quite understand this, but i'm not American so maybe i'm missing something!
The film is 'R' rated, yes? I though that meant anyone of any age could watch it, as long as they are accompanied by an adult?
I totally agree with Nate, this movie is not the kind of film that kids go to by themselves. If they wanted to see it, they'd go with an adult. Has this movie not been particulatly successful in the States? Personally, I think the distributors are just wasting money in making this change! The film just won Best Picture, suerly that'll put a few more bodies in seats, rather than messing about with a film that's perfectly fine as it is.
The film is 'R' rated, yes? I though that meant anyone of any age could watch it, as long as they are accompanied by an adult?
I totally agree with Nate, this movie is not the kind of film that kids go to by themselves. If they wanted to see it, they'd go with an adult. Has this movie not been particulatly successful in the States? Personally, I think the distributors are just wasting money in making this change! The film just won Best Picture, suerly that'll put a few more bodies in seats, rather than messing about with a film that's perfectly fine as it is.
Yes, anyone under 17 has to have an adult with them to get into a theater, or rent/buy a dvd. Still, most parents won't take a kid to an R rated movie on principal.
It works like this...
It's difficult to get an adult out of the house, including to go to the theatre and see a movie.
It's virtually impossible (I know I have one) to keep a teenager IN the house.
Studios spend tens of millions of dolllars to drive teenager traffic to the theatre, especially on opening weekend. They make a little money on that traffic, but more importantly they then use those box office numbers to drive the DVD sales/rentals down the road ("the #1 hit movie of the summer!") where the real money gets made.
If you shut teenagers out of the equation by releasing an R rated movie instead of PG-13 you have just cut tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of your box office. Little Fockers is a lame retread rated PG-13. It will do half again as much box office as Black Swan (an academy award winning film rated R).
There are always exceptions, but as a general rule you are going to make the most money on a PG-13 film. Then you can release it unrated on DVD.
It's difficult to get an adult out of the house, including to go to the theatre and see a movie.
It's virtually impossible (I know I have one) to keep a teenager IN the house.
Studios spend tens of millions of dolllars to drive teenager traffic to the theatre, especially on opening weekend. They make a little money on that traffic, but more importantly they then use those box office numbers to drive the DVD sales/rentals down the road ("the #1 hit movie of the summer!") where the real money gets made.
If you shut teenagers out of the equation by releasing an R rated movie instead of PG-13 you have just cut tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of your box office. Little Fockers is a lame retread rated PG-13. It will do half again as much box office as Black Swan (an academy award winning film rated R).
There are always exceptions, but as a general rule you are going to make the most money on a PG-13 film. Then you can release it unrated on DVD.
I understand that by lowering the rating of a movie, you increase the number of people who can come and see your movie, I guess I just didn't think that parents would be so moralistic as to not take their child to see Kings Speech, if they should want to go.
Getting slightly off the original topic now, but the American ratings system has alway confused me slightly, and I can imagine why parents would be catious when choosing an R rated movie for their child. I mean, here in the UK, Kings Speech is rated 12A (the A meaning like the R rataing, but at 12 instead of 17) and Black Swan is rated 15. Both are rated R in the US. But then, films such as Hostel and Saw are also rated R in the US. Here in the UK they're both 18. Having films like Hostel and Kings Speech rated at the same level seems like a bit of a joke to me. Again, am I missing something?
And as for 'Unrated' DVD's, I don't know alot about them, as here in the UK everything must go through the BBFC. I've had a few 'Unrated' DVD's imported, but that to me just means they're uncut by the BBFC. Do video releases in the US not need to be rated? Can movies released on video have cuts forced upon them? Is there cencoership for home video? Would the distributor for Kings Speech have to release two versions, so that parents who took their child to see the PG-13 version wouldn't get confused and buy there child an R rated (or unrated) DVD?
Getting slightly off the original topic now, but the American ratings system has alway confused me slightly, and I can imagine why parents would be catious when choosing an R rated movie for their child. I mean, here in the UK, Kings Speech is rated 12A (the A meaning like the R rataing, but at 12 instead of 17) and Black Swan is rated 15. Both are rated R in the US. But then, films such as Hostel and Saw are also rated R in the US. Here in the UK they're both 18. Having films like Hostel and Kings Speech rated at the same level seems like a bit of a joke to me. Again, am I missing something?
And as for 'Unrated' DVD's, I don't know alot about them, as here in the UK everything must go through the BBFC. I've had a few 'Unrated' DVD's imported, but that to me just means they're uncut by the BBFC. Do video releases in the US not need to be rated? Can movies released on video have cuts forced upon them? Is there cencoership for home video? Would the distributor for Kings Speech have to release two versions, so that parents who took their child to see the PG-13 version wouldn't get confused and buy there child an R rated (or unrated) DVD?