Mpaa

[jackfaire]

I watched a movie yesterday called "This movie is not yet rated" it opened my eyes to what the MPAA is.

Here is what I used to think:

1) MPAA is a government mandated and run advisory board.

2) There are standard guidelines applied to every film equally.

3) The review is done with the film maker present.

Here is what I now know

1) MPAA is not governemnt mandated and is run by the very studios that are part of the people being rated introducing a huge conflict of interest

2) You are not allowed to cite precedent in how another movie with a similar scene was rated as defense of why your movie should be rated a certain way.

3) The review is done in private with raters whose identity is kept secret.

4) An appeal board is not made up of any of the raters.

5) Ratings are voluntary however Theatres do not tend to screen movies that are unrated nor ones rated NC17.

I believe that the MPAA is in practice a form of censorship due to it's close ties to the very people making movies. It effectivly allows them to prevent anyone from having their movie screened by theaters who do business with the very studios that make up the MPAA.

If the theaters were to start screening unrated movies (those refusing to be rated by the MPAA) it is indeed likely that the studios would make things difficult for those theaters.

I know people will argue that it's not unconstitutional on the basis that no one is preventing filmmakers from making the movies or from screening them in their own theaters etc however effectivly censorship is what they are doing.

How many times have any of you discovered a movie sitting on a shelf at an obscure video store that made you wish the filmmaker had made more movies but they couldn't because none of their work would ever be screened in a mainstream theater.

I believe that the MPAA should be treated as a monopoly and responded to accordingly.

Opinions?

[Hobbs]

It's private censorship, however, which is perfectly fine. Movie makers are allowed to show what they want, if they want.

How are you claiming it's a monopoly?

[jackfaire]

It's an institutional Monopoly.

MPAA is run by the major studios. Major studios can put theaters out of business by refusing to let them screen a movie until after other theaters in their area have already done so.

MPAA then decides what they want the public to watch and not to watch they place a rating on it accordingly.

For example.

Man and Woman making love in a scene - rated R

Man and Man making love in scene performed exactly like the previous scene 0- rated NC17.

If by making a movie the major studios don't like for whatever reason they can then slap an NC-17 rating on it and I can accept it then appeal it or I can deny it and market my film as unrated.

No major theater will screen my film because if they do they risk incurring the wrath of the major stuidos and this could mean death for their company.

This prevents me from competeing with other film makers.



Also I don't see being told what I can and cannot watch as being private censorship. If I want to read a book I go to a bookstore and buy it.

There are movies being released that I never even know about because it was given an NC-17 rating and had to release straight to DVD. Movies that if I am lucky enough to run across make me wish the person responsible for would make more movies and also ponder why the heck the movie got NC-17 when it is less risque than R movies I have seen.

Also the system endorses "Violence good, Sex bad"

[crashhelmet]

Jack has a point. I don't know if Monopoly would be the right legalese word for it, but if they decided to blackball someone or some group, they'd crush them. Definitely skirt the edge of anti-trust infractions.

CH

[jackfaire]

Jack has a point. I don't know if Monopoly would be the right legalese word for it, but if they decided to blackball someone or some group, they'd crush them. Definitely skirt the edge of anti-trust infractions.

CH

I don't think that what they are doing is techinically illegal in any sense.

It isn't a monopoly because not all of the studios are owned by the same company they just scratch each others backs.

It isn't technically unconstitutional because they aren't stopping people from making movies.

It's more something that we need to start lobbying our congress for to free our media from the grasp of the MPAA so that we can see movies we wouldn't otherwise see.

[HYHYBT]

It doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be wrong...

Not a monopoly, but could it count as an antitrust violation?

[Racket_Man]

but the MPAA can and DOES do somethings halfassed backwards

Anyone remember South Park:The Movie:Bigger, Longer and Uncut. when the MPAA first screened that movie they gave it an NC-17 rating (HMMMM I wonder why with all of those nasty curse words a Guiness record and all that cavorting Satan and Sadam do). well what did Parker and Stone do you ask????

They went back and re-edited the film and added even more cursing,blood, guts and Satan and Sadam things. they just changed a few lines iof dialogue. then it got screened again and got an R rating. wierd

the film was screened a total of SIX times by the MPAA.

here is a link to an Entertainment Weekly article back in 1999
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,272257,00.html

[lordlundar]

The proper definition of the MPAA:

1. The rating side is the same as the ESRB for Gaming, but controlled by the studios instead of a separate entity.

2. The executive and legal side is the exact same as the RIAA. (aka, mess with us in the tiniest way, and we will ruin the lives of you and everyone you know for at least 3 generations. And we will do so for no other reason that to keep our jobs)

Personally, I think the MPAA, RIAA, ESA, and Canadian equivalents really need to go the way of the dodo.

[jackfaire]

The proper definition of the MPAA:

1. The rating side is the same as the ESRB for Gaming, but controlled by the studios instead of a separate entity.
.

Whicih is my primary issue with them

[Red Panda]

I believe the MPAA was made so that the studios could regulate themselves without the government intervening. Personally I think its good. With all the movie out there its helpful for a parent to know "This movie is rated R, I don't even have to consider if its apropriate for my child" or "This movie is G, it is going to be fine." Not having any ratings would be a pain.

[Dreamstalker]

It isn't technically unconstitutional because they aren't stopping people from making movies.

If they jerk a filmmaker who doesn't have the deep pockets of a major studio around long enough, they can (by way of making it too expensive/time-consuming to get them to approve something).

[gremcint]

Then there is also their antipiracy stuff they do, here's a clue mpaa, If I pirate your movie then I won't see your antipiracy ad, think that through.

Also as for the you wouldn't steal a car bit, copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Further either them or the RIAA have been known to violate people's privacy and then use illegally obtained evidence in their lawsuits.

[AdminAssistant]

Also as for the you wouldn't steal a car bit, copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Yes it is. Pirating a movie is stealing. Just because 'the big movie studios won't lose much money' doesn't make it okay. Copyright laws not only protect major studios and music labels, but also small-time scholars/writers like me.

[daleduke17]

I believe the MPAA was made so that the studios could regulate themselves without the government intervening. Personally I think its good. With all the movie out there its helpful for a parent to know "This movie is rated R, I don't even have to consider if its apropriate for my child" or "This movie is G, it is going to be fine." Not having any ratings would be a pain.

The only way that not having ratings would be a pain is that parents would actually need to do the leg work to see if a movie is appropriate for their kid instead of seeing the arbitrary mark of a third party.

[Boozy]

The only way that not having ratings would be a pain is that parents would actually need to do the leg work to see if a movie is appropriate for their kid instead of seeing the arbitrary mark of a third party.

I don't think parents have that much time, dale.

Let's say a parent wants to take their child to a movie. If they can't depend on the review of a "third party", that means they have to watch the movie themselves before making a judgment on the film. They'd have to find a sitter for their kids, go to the movie, watch it, come home, get the kids, and go watch the movie again.

No one is going to do this.

Sometimes the opinion of a third party is a valuable thing.