Mpaa

[AdminAssistant]

The MPAA isn't perfect, but I do not want the government to get its hands in this little pie. The FCC is bad enough.

Nearly all graphic sex scenes garner a NC-17 rating, not just same sex scenes. If you can see thrusting, tits, ass, and dick - it's NC-17. Full frontal male nudity is much rarer than female nudity and is usually deemed more graphic/explicit. Well, if a woman's just standing up, you can't really see her junk. A guy on the other hand, there it is. Besides sexual activity is deemed a private act not to be watched by others. Violence tends to be more public. Therefore, many people feel more comfortable watching people get shot, stabbed, beat up, explosions, etc. then they do watching two people have sex. Even I get squeamish watching a very explicit sex scene in a regular movie - I feel like I'm seeing something I shouldn't, y'know? (That's not counting the fact that 95% of the time the scene is nothing but an excuse to get a famous actress's tits on screen and has nothing else to add to the story.)

As far as kiddie stuff goes, there is a lot of pressure to have all kid-centered movies rated G, so that there's a bigger box office. I very rarely had problems at movies in the dangerous 80's - Land Before Time made me cry and The NeverEnding Story is a bit scary at times. But children's programming today rarely has any kind of violence (Where did Bugs Bunny go?) and always has an educational component. Lame.

[jackfaire]

One it wasn't the violence she had issue with it was the essentially cartoon version of we are borg. She was freaked out by people being possessed.

I will break this down so people understand.

I will not go to anybody who owns anything and ask them to tell me how they would rate themselves and then take that as gospel.

I am asking that a third party be responsible for rating the movies.

The government would be more transparent with the ratings system you would know who the raters are and it is more likely that they would be experts who study all children instead of a very small selection of parents that knows only their own children.

When I was a child there were no "violence is bad for kids" I didn't like violent movies for a long time. My older brother did. Every kid is different 5 - 9 parents in a room deciding what is good for millions of children all over the country doesn't seem practical.

[Red Panda]

You would know who the government raters were, which would make it easier to bribe them. They would also be experts on getting appointed to a position as a political favor.

[jackfaire]

You would know who the government raters were, which would make it easier to bribe them. They would also be experts on getting appointed to a position as a political favor.

The only people that would have reason and means to bribe them are the major studios.

Since the studios right now don't have to bribe anyone as they run the ratings system the only thing that would really change is that we would know every step.

We would be able to know if the original rating was an R but was pressured into an NC-17.

There would be some level of accountability where there is currently none.

Some of the former raters that they interviewed talked about how they would sometimes give a movie an R and then be pressured to make it an NC-17.

[Red Panda]

There is more then one studio. Why would repesenatives from multiple studios as well as the appeals board all conspire to give a movie from only one studio a more lucrative rating?

Besides you still haven't given any examples of a movie having its rating messed with because the studio liked it or didn't like it.

[jackfaire]

Besides you still haven't given any examples of a movie having its rating messed with because the studio liked it or didn't like it.

Fair enough I withdraw my complaint clearly if I cannot site one instance of abuse then my complaint that an organization that can determine whether or not a product is widely distrubted is run by some of the companies producing the product is inherently worrisome is completely invalid.

Personally I don't care if the MPAA can prove they are saints. I don't feel comfortable having any organization that controls the distribution of product having a conflict of interest which they do.

I will never take the word of someone whom isn't an independent third party.

I do not believe the MPAA was formed to "keep the governemnt from stepping in" I believe it was created because the same government was cracking down on censorship and the only way for them to keep censoring movies was to create a ratings system and ensure that no movie deemed inappropriate for everyone was allowed to be screened where they could.

I don't have examples because I am personally researching the examples given in the movie I saw. Again the issue I have is that in nothing else would we say, "Oh you make the product and you say it does this and deserves a rating of this and your competitors are shite? Okay that's good enough for me!"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's important to keep in mind that the individual studios are their own businesses and compete with one another. While one board member may be tempted to rate in favor of one of their films, the board is made up of members from multiple different studios. Coupled with the appeals and resubmission processes, it's fair to say that they've achieved about as much impartiality as can be expected (in the end, no one's impartial).

I'd be happier if you could point to a specific incident of the mpaa trying to pigeonhole a movie or give special treatment for monetary reasons. If it's just because they didn't like it, that's not due to a conflict of interest so much as their being human and a further divorced third party would also be susceptible.

[jackfaire]

I'd be happier if you could point to a specific incident of the mpaa trying to pigeonhole a movie or give special treatment for monetary reasons. If it's just because they didn't like it, that's not due to a conflict of interest so much as their being human and a further divorced third party would also be susceptible.

The movie "This film is not yet rated" requested an appeal and was told one of the rules of appeal is that, "You cannot cite precedent. You cannot point out how a similar scene in a previous movie earned the movie an R rating where we are giving your movie an NC-17 for the scene"

Without further research this is the most I can do. Honestly that bothers me if there is no precedent then what is the basis of rating a movie. I would like to know the actual standards being used.

[Red Panda]

So if a previouse movie got away with something it shouldn't have future movies can't. That sounds okay to me. Just because something was once apropriate it doesn't mean it always will be. Maybe a previouse movie did something horribly racist but because it was made in the 1940s that was okay then but not now

[Racket_Man]

So if a previouse movie got away with something it shouldn't have future movies can't. That sounds okay to me. Just because something was once apropriate it doesn't mean it always will be. Maybe a previouse movie did something horribly racist but because it was made in the 1940s that was okay then but not now

A very good example of this would be the 1969 film Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_&_Carol_&_Ted_&_Alice

this being the 60's it showed 2 couples in bed at the same time (see the article above for a script summary). in those times the film here in the US was rated R for strong sexual content (no violence no real naughty bits exposed just strong sexual content). if this film were to be released today my guess it would be given a very soft PG rating. films nowadays can show quick flashes of boobs and butts and still get a PG-13 rating.

[lordlundar]

I still say the ESRB is the better system. It is independent of not only the government, but also of publishers and developers. Any system where the production company has a controlling interest in the review board is inherently flawed.

[jackfaire]

So if a previouse movie got away with something it shouldn't have future movies can't.

I agree with this. However this is part of an appeals process for any legal trial,

"In the case of Moe VS Curly it was decided that this was the way it is"

Then the court points out why that does or does not apply.

In your example the movie maker would bring up the racist bit in a movie made in the 40s and the MPAA appeals board would state, "Sorry in this case that does not apply as that kind of racism is no longer tolerated"

In real life the way it happens is this.

"Sorry you are not allowed to cite precedent"

"Then how do I defend my movie?"

"Tell us why you think it should get an R rating"

"Well because the scene is there because it flows with the movie"

"Nope not good enough sorry" Meanwhile he was unable to cite the five other movies that had similar scenes over the last five years.

Precedent opens up the debate to be actual debate. Not being able to cite previous or similar ratings issues you basically are reduced to saying, "Cuz I say it should"

[Dreamstalker]

I HATE the RIAA and how they have a pretend police force with no actual police powers that run around and confiscate pirated materials

Or materials that aren't pirated, but "zomg it's on a computer and you don't own the actual disc".

In my view, DRM encourages piracy when it prevents a legitimately-purchased CD/movie/game from working properly (I've lost one optical drive to SecuROM and don't even get me started on Sony's piracy-preventing rootkit).

[Red Panda]

There was a deal recently where you could get four indepently made games off the internet for whatever price you chose. You could pay a penny for the games and still get them. People still pirated them in huge numbers. Goes to show that pirates will pirate anything no matter if it has no security features at all.

[Dreamstalker]

I heard about that...assholes. That bundle was for a good cause (yes, I paid a fair price).

DRM would seem to make the piracy problem worse, as a lot of pirates see it as a challenge to strip as much out as possible and make it so that future updates don't nuke it.

Yes, I once downloaded a crack for a game, but thanks to a bug in the original DRM it was unplayable otherwise (sadly, such a thing does not count as a defect for the purposes of getting one's money back).