"The infamous 'R' rating!" (spoken in a mysterious 'dooooom' voice)

[Falkon]

Why are so many movies rated "R", when we see everything that is in those movies in real life? I mean, movies these days have the infamous Restricted rating because of language, violence, and sexuality. But honestly. Try walking down the street, and if you dont see any type of violence, or language, or sexuality, then I will pay you money (of course I wont. And this doesnt count if you dont live near any people.)

Being a high-school student myself, It is hard for me to accept the Restricted rating on movies for this simple fact. I mean, anyone who has set foot into a high-school can vouch that, if it was a movie, it would be rated R in less than Ebert and Ropers heartbeats. Even if you ahvent set foot into a high-school, but are planning on it, youll see what I mean when you get there. In all honesty in my heart, I probably swear more times in an hour at school than the most violent movie out in theatres right now. Also, if you just walk thru a hall at school you will see some of the sexuality that would get movies the R rating: guys pantsing girls, unhooking their bras, feeling them up. But its not just about the girls either. Guys have the same thing done to them as they do to girls.

So why is it that movies are restricted to all under 17 (or 18, depends where you live I guess)??!!

[GuyYouMetOnline]

Question 1: What city do you live in? Where I live, there's barely anyone on the streets who isn't in a car. Therefore, there isn't any violence/language/sex. If you see that stuff every time you walk down the streed, then you probably live in the wrong part of town.

Question 2: What school do you go to? At my school, the closest thing I've seen to sex is a couple talking about how much they love each other while looking out a window. As for swearing, saying so much as '****' gets a stunned silence from the entire class. And yes, I'm in high school. If your school is like an R-rated movie, it's probably not the greatest school.


Personally, I think that the ratings are too lenient instead of too strict. If you dissagree, just go see Alien vs. Predator, which recieved a PG-13 rating, and see if you still dissagree.

[Transtic Nerve]

Simple answer to the question is the complete lack of reality that posseses every member of the MPAA. The people that rate these movies are actually kept secret, most of which are married mothers, who only care about the morality that their children will lack because they give too much thought to outter influences instead of the influence they actually give their children.

Yeah... thats why. Or something like that, which I'm sure is not really the answer, just what I think...

Persoanlly I think rating systems are ridiculous. It shouldn't be up to a secret group of people to decide what you can and cannot see, play, do, whatever... Cause lets face it, a group of 10 or 100 people can't possibly know what is best for the millions and millions of people that will see, play, do or whatever the product they are rating. Therefor, they are bogus.

[James]

[color=#707875]People who decide on ratings don't necessarily decide what you can and can't see, as such. Rather, they provide a guide as to what kind of content the film/music/game contains. That way, adults and parents in particular can make decisions about what they and their kids should be watching.

Of course, some ratings do physically restrict kids under 17 from viewing certain material...but I think there probably has to be [i]some[/i] kind of physical restriction in place, especially for really young children.

In terms of how ratings are chosen, I can only tell you what happens in Australia, where we have the OFLC (Office of Film & Literature Classification).

In order to become a representative/member of that group, you need to do a one day course, which basically goes through the various standards and the way in which materials are assessed.

So these ratings are not arbitrary or anything, they are based on some really specific guidelines across all types of media.

The only problem I have with ratings is that sometimes certain things are banned, because there is no rating for them or something. I think that there should be a rating to encompass all of these types of media, because I believe that an adult should be free to buy whatever they want in that regard.[/color]

[Brasil]

I really don't see what the problem is with the ratings system, honestly. I mean, if anyone is going to argue that Kill Bill didn't deserve an R rating, or that Apocalypse Now didn't deserve an R rating, or even Pulp Fiction or whatever, they need to re-think that.

I would never consider bringing a 5-year-old to go see Martin Sheen hacking up Marlon Brando...some college students I know couldn't take that sequence and/or film, like my ex. She's incredibly squeamish, which further makes me wonder why I started dating her. But that's beside the point.

The rating system is merely a guide, and the MPAA is there for a reason, and reviews are there for a reason: to assist moviegoers in deciding what they or their children are going to go see.

The MPAA, despite what some people want to believe, is not some evil and cruel fascist organization that's only concerned with suppressing all of our individual freedoms and expressive abilities.

Interesting tidbit about movie ratings: Star Wars: A New Hope was originally going to be rated G, but Fox felt a G rating would ostracize older audiences, as it may make the film look like a kid's movie. They requested it be rated PG, and they got it. I find that pretty neat. Only instance of a studio requesting a higher rating that I can think of.

[Transtic Nerve]

I don't think movies shoul dbe rated, instead should have a warning. Now you might see this as the same thing, but it's not. When you watch a movie on TV or HBO or Showtime, it not only has the rating of the movie but it gives the reasons why it was rated whatever... Partial nudity, adult situations... now I know movies at the theater also have this, but they don't tell you right at the theater, it only has the rating. If they dropped the rating and only said "this movie has nudity, adult situations, adult language" parents would know, hey, thats not a movie little johnny should see, when they may take him to an R rated movie, such as Romeo Must Die, where it was rated R simply for language and severe action or something, cause there was no nudity or adult situations or anything like that. Ratings aren't precise enough. Can you really tell me the difference between G and PG or even PG and PG-13... I can never tell and sometimes movies I think would normally be rated PG-13 are rated R or the other way around. I hear that if the F word is said more than twice ina movie it's automatically rated R, if not higher. Which I think is a ridiculous reason to rate a movie R when 80% of kids parents probably say ******* around them on a constant basis. I think the ratings should be more lienent. Anyway, yeah...

[Brasil]

I still don't see what the problem is with the movie rating system.

I can't see any point to your discussion about the reasons behind the ratings. Movies have the reasons, as do HBO and various other TV stations. If you read the movie listings in the paper or online, they show the reasons for the rating.

It's only when you walk up to the actual ticket booth where you will just see the letter rating, but this isn't due to any neglect and it's not sufficient support to say that the movie rating system should be abolished, because most of the time, it's merely a spacing issue. They need to give the movie title, logo, times, rating in a space of about a foot wide. They're simply not going to have space to put all of the reasons and such.

Regarding the points about Romeo Must Die, again, the reason you don't see the reasons is a spacing issue. And again, the reasons are printed nearly everywhere, so I don't see where your criticisms are coming from and/or what makes them valid, because the reality of the situation shows that it's a fairly well-executed system, albeit with a few flaws here and there, but those flaws more pertain to the actual rating itself.

For example, imagine my surprise when I saw that This Is Spinal Tap is actually rated R. Ever since I first saw it, I'd always thought it was PG-13. Turns out, it's considered a bit too risque for younger viewers. After watching the film again, I agree that it deserves an R rating, satire or not. It has mature/adult material that parents need to be made aware of. It's one of the more overtly deviant Christopher Guest/Rob Reiner pictures.

And, where are you getting this "80%" from? Where are you getting the "F-word said more than two times" from?

[Harry]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't think movies shoul dbe rated, instead should have a warning. Now you might see this as the same thing, but it's not. When you watch a movie on TV or HBO or Showtime, it not only has the rating of the movie but it gives the reasons why it was rated whatever... Partial nudity, adult situations... now I know movies at the theater also have this, but they don't tell you right at the theater, it only has the rating. If they dropped the rating and only said "this movie has nudity, adult situations, adult language" parents would know, hey, thats not a movie little johnny should see, when they may take him to an R rated movie, such as Romeo Must Die, where it was rated R simply for language and severe action or something, cause there was no nudity or adult situations or anything like that. Ratings aren't precise enough. Can you really tell me the difference between G and PG or even PG and PG-13... I can never tell and sometimes movies I think would normally be rated PG-13 are rated R or the other way around. I hear that if the F word is said more than twice ina movie it's automatically rated R, if not higher. Which I think is a ridiculous reason to rate a movie R when 80% of kids parents probably say ******* around them on a constant basis. I think the ratings should be more lienent. Anyway, yeah...[/quote]
You keep on talking as if these ratings actually mean anything. They don't.

[Falkon]

Ok, well all this brings me to my next point. Before I state this, I am saying this: I have no opinion on this next topic.

Ok, so a movie comes out in the theatres, rated R. X amount of months later it goes on television. Now, before you blatently say "PARENTAL CONTROLS!!" think about this: Almost every person I know who pays for television does not have parental controls. Little Johnny wants to see X movie, rated R, and, since it is on TV, he can, because his parents dont have controls on. Now, such an example of this is at my friends house. My friend is 15, in tenth grade, like me, and has two younger siblings: a sister in 4th or 5th grade, and his little brother in 7th grade. Both of them, as far as I can remember, watch "R" rated movies on TV. Defeats the purpose of this restricted rating, no?

[QUOTE]Question 1: What city do you live in? Where I live, there's barely anyone on the streets who isn't in a car. Therefore, there isn't any violence/language/sex. If you see that stuff every time you walk down the streed, then you probably live in the wrong part of town.

Question 2: What school do you go to? At my school, the closest thing I've seen to sex is a couple talking about how much they love each other while looking out a window. As for swearing, saying so much as '****' gets a stunned silence from the entire class. And yes, I'm in high school. If your school is like an R-rated movie, it's probably not the greatest school.


Personally, I think that the ratings are too lenient instead of too strict. If you dissagree, just go see Alien vs. Predator, which recieved a PG-13 rating, and see if you still dissagree.[/QUOTE]

1: I live in Park City, Utah. I go to a 9-12 grade school, about 2000 people I think. Park City has like 20,000 people all together, + or - a few thou. Plus, it is just normal behavior for a teenager to swear, have some sexuality, etc etc.

2: PCHS. The closest I have seen in terms of sex... lets see.. oh, yeah, I know a whole bunch of girls who have lost their virginity, many times in high school alone. As well, now I have no standpoint on this next statement, but according to Newsweek magazine, PCHS is one of the top 200 schools in the USA. To see someone not swearing here is like seeing someone walking down the middle of the street with a solid gold robot 5 stories tall next to him.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Didja' know that there's more of a content difference between PG-13 and PG than PG-13 and R? Interesting, no?

Now, back to the point, the MPAA is trying to assert a general concensus guideline to all the films they rate. So, sometimes, you might think that a film is too risque for a PG-13 movie, or too tame for an R rating, but as long as the films have a consistant ratings system, I don't see why it's an issue. I mean, if you really wanna' get into it, R films from the eighties would be considered PG-13 films today.

And, well, the main arguments against the MPAA system are rather sad. The movies will be shown on television later? Well, then, it's the direct responsibility of parents to monitor what their children watch. The kids already swear up a storm? Then it's the direct responsibility of parents to beat their little heinies until they stop. There's already sex and violence everywhere? If you don't want you kids exposed to that, then make the sex and violence go away.

Uh oh, I'm suggesting that parents actually parent. No one ever likes that.[/color][/size][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]I think that the movie ratings these days should be stricter than they are. The topics, situations and language present in R rated movies is present in real life. However, the extent to which these themes are explored is usually more extreme than what you see around you. With this in mind, I think it?s important that movies are given strict ratings to allow people going to movies, especially parents taking their children, to have an idea of what they?re about to see.

Nobody wants to take their little cousin or sibling to a movie that?s full of swearing, gory and disturbing violence, and sex. Well, at least I [I]hope[/I] none of you would. Children are obviously are more impressionable than teenagers or young adults, and it?d be nice if they retained their innocence for a while.

The current lax attitude towards TV, music and movie ratings, along with poor parenting, is the reason that we see sixth graders dressing like whores and ?going out?. The rating system allows parents who want to be responsible to protect their children from those influences they disapprove of until the children are ?ready?.[/color]

[Beorhun]

You see, the ratings system is different depending on what kind of movie it is. Even if the new star wars movie (not a great example, but bear with me) had a lot of violence and swearing, like enough to warrant a PG-13 rating, it would still slip through the cracks with a PG, because giving it a PG-13 rating would be breaking something that has stood with it since 1977, that Star Wars is rated PG. Unless the guys at the MPAA wanted to cause another stupid trivial pursuit question. I can see it now...

But to get back to the point. How do we know that the people at the MPAA aren't biased? I mean, come on, how else could AVP get a PG-13? I think that the ratings system in general is fundamentally flawed, not in its ratings, par say, but with the fact that there is no human on earth who is unbiased. But to get even closer to the point, the ratings system is rendered moot most of the time, because the vast majority of parents either hold their kid responsible enough or just flat out don't care whether or not their kid sees a rated R movie. I'm a freshman in High School, and over half of my grade has seen enough 'R' movies to make a college student uncomfortable!

However, that's just my opinion, I'm probably wrong.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Everything's rated 'R' in America. Even Collateral. O_o"

But anyway...

I think rating systems are important when it comes to movies that contain graphic violence and sex because parents aren't always with their children.

Even if the rating system was removed, as Transtic Nerve suggested, and we were simply provided with a warning, it wouldn't be acceptable to have ten year olds going in to see porn flicks or people having their arms ripped off and being beaten to death with them (though the latter is so unrealistic, no one would take it seriously--but I think my point gets across).

Movie ratings are weird sometimes, but I think it's for the greater good.

I find it kind of funny, however, that the content in movies rated PG-13 would only phase those under eight. Maybe.
The whole system is skewed by five years or so.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[James]

[color=#707875]America is insanely weird and sensitive with its movie ratings -- that's one thing that I think is true.

I remember some parents saying that they would fast forward the scary moments in Finding Nemo on DVD, to protect their children.

I'm sorry, but that is incredibly backward. lol

But having said that, movie ratings generally don't do anything, as in, they don't physically stop you from viewing the material that you want (unless something is moved to a later time slot or whatever). The ratings are only there as a guide, to tell you what kind of contents are in a film. Although specifics are nice (like saying that something has adult themes or sex scenes and stuff), the ratings pretty much encompass that anyway (ie: you generally know what an R movie will have versus a PG-13 movie).

The only time that I dislike ratings is either when something gets banned, or it gets inappropriately rated (like an MA movie being rated R, though I don't know if America has MA or not).[/color]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Well I'm with James, Godelsensei and Alex on this one, an overall movie rating system is in there for a reason, people may not agree with the rating for every film but it's there for the greater good. The ratings are there as a guide to help parents decide what films may be suitable or in these cases unsuitable for their children to see. I find in my own experience that the vast majority of people who want more lax cinema ratings from the Irish Film Board are young people between the ages of 14-17 who hear about [Certain Film] that has all this "cool" stuff about it but it's 18s/R.

To be honest I think that's a little immature, there is a reason for films being 18s or R in American cases, take [b]Pulp Fiction[/b] for example, there is no way in hell that film didn't deserve an 18s/R rating. Why ?, think about it, how many people do we see die in that film, were are shown serious scenes of drug abuse, hell it even goes as far as showing us scenes of gang rape, now yes it is a good film but it does certainly deserve the rating it received.

As for Transtic Nerve's comments about films being given too high a rating because of stuff like violent content and bad language I think that it still does deserve an 18s/R rating because it does contain such material. Yes he makes the point that it's not adult situations involving nudity but things such as violence and bad language do rub off on children and can account as to why we have such a lax attitude towards violence in the media.

Heck games like Manhunt were banned for a very good reason; did they contain scenes of sexuality or nudity ? No, they just contained some of the worst scenes of violence ever scene in games. Now this is just my own opinion but I think that giving a film a high rating because of stuff like violence and language because it can have a negative impact on young people, the same way adult situations can.[/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

The movie rating system in the United States is bullcrap for two reasons:

1. It PHYSICALLY RESTRICTS some people from watching a movie, just in case you didn't know. It's a pretty general policy across movie theaters (yes, it's not a law, but a policy that they adhere to rather strictly, especially around where I live). This is true of R and NC-17 films only, but that accounts for a good amount of films. If you are under 17 and are not with your parent/guardian, good luck [i]sneaking in[/i].

The ratings serve as a guideline not just for people, but for movie theaters, who impose restrictions themselves. All parents need to do to keep their children from watching R films in the theaters is to not go with them (or not have an adult go with them, basically). But if a parent is too busy to go (and yet has no problem with his/her children watching R films), the child still cannot watch it. If you ask me, it's an unnecessary inconvenience rather than anything beneficial.

2. It is not very appropriate. I noticed that the examples you people gave in explaining why restrictions to viewing R-rated films are necessary all involved very young children. Godel's example was a 10-year-old, Alex's was a 5-year-old. Do you think your examples would've been just as poignant had you replaced those ages with, say, 16 or 15? I say no. Once you're past middle school, chances are you've had your share of that godforsaken "sexual education," not to mention swearing and possibly school fights. Watching Judge Dredd or Matrix movies won't taint your psyche, heh. Well, if it does, I think you need more help than a rating system can give you.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The movie rating system in the United States is bullcrap for two reasons:

1. It PHYSICALLY RESTRICTS some people from watching a movie, just in case you didn't know. It's a pretty general policy across movie theaters (yes, it's not a law, but a policy that they adhere to rather strictly, especially around where I live). This is true of R and NC-17 films only, but that accounts for a good amount of films. If you are under 17 and are not with your parent/guardian, good luck [i]sneaking in[/i].[/quote]
Again, how is this a problem? So a 16-year-old can't get into a theatre to see Apocalypse Now: REDUX or Debbie Does Dallas. So what? How is that some astronomical violation of basic human rights that constitutes people getting so upset over the ratings system? It doesn't.

And, those physical impositions are neither created nor executed by the MPAA, so I don't see how that is a valid criticism of the movie rating system. The theatres enforce the age restrictions, which are guidelines set by the MPAA, granted, but I think anyone who bases any argument on that is simply looking for something to get testy about.

Are you suggesting that theatres shouldn't strictly adhere to these age restrictions? Are you suggesting that theatres should let anyone and everyone into whatever movie they want to see?

And...so a 17-year-old tries to sneak into a rated-R picture and gets caught by security. Again, so what? What's the problem here?

[quote]The ratings serve as a guideline not just for people, but for movie theaters, who impose restrictions themselves. All parents need to do to keep their children from watching R films in the theaters is to not go with them (or not have an adult go with them, basically). But if a parent is too busy to go (and yet has no problem with his/her children watching R films), the child still cannot watch it. If you ask me, it's an unnecessary inconvenience rather than anything beneficial.[/quote]
And if the parent is neglectful or simply not around, the child doesn't get to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5: Teenage Bloodbath Cheerleader Orgy Part II. What a crime. I still don't see how this is a problem. In fact, complaining about it is seeming more and more ridiculous.

[quote]2. It is not very appropriate. I noticed that the examples you people gave in explaining why restrictions to viewing R-rated films are necessary all involved very young children. Godel's example was a 10-year-old, Alex's was a 5-year-old. Do you think your examples would've been just as poignant had you replaced those ages with, say, 16 or 15? I say no. Once you're past middle school, chances are you've had your share of that godforsaken "sexual education," not to mention swearing and possibly school fights. Watching Judge Dredd or Matrix movies won't taint your psyche, heh. Well, if it does, I think you need more help than a rating system can give you.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but I don't hear people screaming how media is poisoning the minds of our youth...intelligent, rational people, that is. The woman in Minnesota who tried to sue Married With Children is certainly a socially-removed individual, and does color the ratings/content control movement negatively, but that doesn't villify the entire rating system, and it shouldn't.

When we understand that the MPAA is [i]not[/i] a bunch of lunatics like the Married With Children neurotic, the MPAA's cause becomes much more noble than some want to believe.

The MPAA is not running around screaming bloody murder because 15-year-olds just saw Murder Death Kill and now are scarred for life. Furthermore, I seriously do not think that the rating system is in place to prevent psychological damage.

A more likely reasoning, and quite possibly [i]the[/i] reasoning, for the establishment of the rating system is to provide a set of guidelines for the entertainment industry and to prevent children and minors (who are not legally responsible for themselves for the most part) from accessing questionable material.

I don't see how this is a problem.

[James]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]The movie rating system in the United States is bullcrap for two reasons:

1. It PHYSICALLY RESTRICTS some people from watching a movie, just in case you didn't know. It's a pretty general policy across movie theaters (yes, it's not a law, but a policy that they adhere to rather strictly, especially around where I live). This is true of R and NC-17 films only, but that accounts for a good amount of films. If you are under 17 and are not with your parent/guardian, good luck [i]sneaking in[/i].

[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]I'm talking about adults and not teens. I was referring to TN, when he said that it was restrictive. My point was that if you're an adult, you can view whatever material you want, generally.

As part of my job I deal with OFLC issues all the time, and I know that the OFLC is pretty similar to the ratings board you have over there. There are specific differences when it comes to actual ratings, but just about every country has its own interpretation on that.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']Again, how is this a problem? So a 16-year-old can't get into a theatre to see Apocalypse Now: REDUX or Debbie Does Dallas. So what? How is that some astronomical violation of basic human rights that constitutes people getting so upset over the ratings system? It doesn't.[/quote]
It doesn't take an "astronomical violation of basic human rights" to get upset about something. I'm angry at HAL for not letting you use the c-stick in anything other than VS. Mode in Smash Bros. Melee, but it's not a violation of human rights. It's just stupid.

Of course it's not a matter of life or death, but certainly that's not anywhere near a valid excuse to [i]have[/i] the restrictions in question. Changing the speed limit on highways to 40 mph wouldn't violate human rights, but it would be an awful thing to do.

[QUOTE]And, those physical impositions are neither created nor executed by the MPAA, so I don't see how that is a valid criticism of the movie rating system. The theatres enforce the age restrictions, which are guidelines set by the MPAA, granted, but I think anyone who bases any argument on that is simply looking for something to get testy about.[/QUOTE]
No, you see, BECAUSE movie theaters enforce restrictions based on those guidelines, there are two ways to deal with the issue: one is to force the theaters to not enforce the restrictions (impossible); another is to make the guidelines a bit more lenient (or at least reduce the age limits).

[QUOTE]Are you suggesting that theatres shouldn't strictly adhere to these age restrictions? Are you suggesting that theatres should let anyone and everyone into whatever movie they want to see?[/QUOTE]
Why not? How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.

[QUOTE]And...so a 17-year-old tries to sneak into a rated-R picture and gets caught by security. Again, so what? What's the problem here?[/QUOTE]
The problem might be that a 16-year-old (once you're 17 you're ok, by the way...) who wanted to watch The Last Samurai or Glory or Saving Private Ryan or some other movie that doesn't fall into your "random title suggesting gratuitous nudity and violence" pile can't just because some people in it die in battle.

[QUOTE]And if the parent is neglectful or simply not around, the child doesn't get to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre 5: Teenage Bloodbath Cheerleader Orgy Part II. What a crime. I still don't see how this is a problem. In fact, complaining about it is seeming more and more ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Wow, what great points you make. If the parent is neglectful or not around, the child WILL get to see whatever the heck he/she wants, first of all (it's all downloadable off the internet, people). Second, your fake movie choice is very biased. Replace it with The Shawshank Redemption and see how the above paragraph reads. I find it interesting that you only look at one side of things, and from there come to conclusions concerning the entire situation.

[QUOTE]When we understand that the MPAA is [i]not[/i] a bunch of lunatics like the Married With Children neurotic, the MPAA's cause becomes much more noble than some want to believe.[/QUOTE]
The MPAA's cause isn't noble nor is it ignoble. They're just doing what the public wants; it's their job. It's how their data is interpreted by the industry that becomes a problem.

[QUOTE]The MPAA is not running around screaming bloody murder because 15-year-olds just saw Murder Death Kill and now are scarred for life. Furthermore, I seriously do not think that the rating system is in place to prevent psychological damage.[/QUOTE]
The rating system guides the restrictions which are certainly in place to "shelter" the youth. Whether this "sheltering" means prevention of psychological damage, or whatever, isn't even the point. Whatever the reason for the restrictions in place, they're there, and they benefit no-one but the protective yet irresponsible and distrusting parents.

[QUOTE]A more likely reasoning, and quite possibly [i]the[/i] reasoning, for the establishment of the rating system is to provide a set of guidelines for the entertainment industry and to prevent children and minors (who are not legally responsible for themselves for the most part) from accessing questionable material.
I don't see how this is a problem.[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned above, the problem is not in why the rating system was established, but how it directly affects everyone. But besides that, you say you don't see how what you just said is a problem. Well, it's right there, in the next-to-last sentence of your post. The word "questionable." Can you tell me what constitutes "questionable" material across the board for all 15 or 16-year-olds with all sorts of backgrounds and families? And if you can, would you say that [i]that[/i] material is present in every R-rated film? (You don't have to try; you know and I know that it's not.)

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]It doesn't take an "astronomical violation of basic human rights" to get upset about something. [b]I'm angry at HAL for not letting you use the c-stick in anything other than VS. Mode in Smash Bros. Melee, but it's not a violation of human rights. It's just stupid[/b'].[/quote]
So you can't use the C-stick in Single-player mode. Big deal. It doesn't matter.

[quote]Of course it's not a matter of life or death, but certainly that's not anywhere near a valid excuse to [i]have[/i] the restrictions in question. Changing the speed limit on highways to 40 mph wouldn't violate human rights, but it would be an awful thing to do.[/quote]
Why are you bringing in speed limits? Okay, lowering the speed limit would be an "awful" thing to do. Lord knows having people going slower on major highways would just be a terrible thing. Who cares?

Even here in South Jersey, you've got people going 30 over the 50 MPH limit, and they do get ticketed for it. Lowering the speed limit would increase the penalty for speeding. How is that awful?

Unless you're a reckless driver who continually pushes the limits, you've got nothing to worry about, so I can't see how the speed limit is supposed to relate to this discussion, or even to support your argument, because the only people who have a problem with the ratings system, it seems, are the under-age or those who simply don't like it, and they're the equivalent of speeders when you're drawing that analogy.

Again, you're still not proving that there's something wrong with the movie ratings.

[QUOTE]No, you see, BECAUSE movie theaters enforce restrictions based on those guidelines, there are two ways to deal with the issue: one is to force the theaters to not enforce the restrictions (impossible); another is to make the guidelines a bit more lenient (or at least reduce the age limits).[/QUOTE]
Okay, and why is there such a problem with how the rating system's age range is distributed? It seems pretty solid to me. I can't see any glaring faults with it. Am I missing something? Could you enlighten me as to what the horrors of how unfair the age ranges are?

I'm still essentially only seeing Freshmen in high school getting pissed because they can't get to see Freddy vs Jason.

[QUOTE]Why not? How much should we try to shelter other people's children? I am confused by this tendency to "protect people from themselves." Considering that most of the people who actually give two craps about the rating system are overly concerned and ignorant parents, if they really care enough they can take a more personal role in deciding what their children can and cannot do or watch.

The problem might be that a 16-year-old (once you're 17 you're ok, by the way...) who wanted to watch The Last Samurai or Glory or Saving Private Ryan or some other movie that doesn't fall into your "random title suggesting gratuitous nudity and violence" pile can't just because some people in it die in battle.[/QUOTE]
"Why not?" How about the simple reason that adult films would be open to everyone, and everyone could go see something like Saving Private Ryan, and be bombarded with some 15 minutes of graphic (incredibly graphic) violence? Saving Private Ryan is an amazing film, but don't you think there's a certain age range that wouldn't be able to handle those kinds of images?

I was walking out of the theatre when Saving Private Ryan was first released and all ages in there were absolutely drained of any color in their cheeks. But you're advocating lifting the age restrictions entirely. Interesting.

[QUOTE]Wow, what great points you make. If the parent is neglectful or not around, the child WILL get to see whatever the heck he/she wants, first of all (it's all downloadable off the internet, people). Second, your fake movie choice is very biased. Replace it with The Shawshank Redemption and see how the above paragraph reads. I find it interesting that you only look at one side of things, and from there come to conclusions concerning the entire situation.[/QUOTE]
Drop the sarcasm, please. It's not needed here and it's not desired, either.

Like I said about Saving Private Ryan, The Shawshank Redemption is another fantastic film, but it features some incredibly graphic images and scenes. I think the problem here is that you're failing to view things objectively, and somehow believe that since a movie like Shawshank Redemption is more "artistic" than Generic Teeny Slasher Flick #35464564, that it shouldn't deserve the same rating, or that because it has the same rating, that the rating system is flawed.

That is a flawed way to look at things, and as of this post, you've not given any other impression that indicates you view the situation differently from how I've just described.

[QUOTE]The MPAA's cause isn't noble nor is it ignoble. They're just doing what the public wants; it's their job. It's how their data is interpreted by the industry that becomes a problem.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's their job, so they shouldn't be villified for it. The rating system is totally objective, and so is the actual industry's application, interpretation, and execution of it. Unless you have some articles that prove theatres are actually "playing favorites" in who they admit to various films, then I'm afraid your argument that the industry is being subjective is null and void.

[QUOTE]The rating system guides the restrictions which are certainly in place to "shelter" the youth. Whether this "sheltering" means prevention of psychological damage, or whatever, isn't even the point. Whatever the reason for the restrictions in place, they're there, and they benefit no-one but the protective yet irresponsible and distrusting parents.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so, if you're a responsible parent, why would you have a problem with the rating system? If you're "with it," then there's no issue at all concerning what films your children are going to see, and that doesn't mean that the rating system is hurting you. In fact, for the responsible parent, the rating system doesn't hurt at all. It merely acts as the guide.

How is it an issue for the responsible parent? Simply, it isn't.

[quote]As I mentioned above, the problem is not in why the rating system was established, but how it directly affects everyone.[/QUOTE]
"The problem is...how [the rating system] directly affects everyone."

That's your primary argument here, so I'm isolating that. In the rest of your paragraph there, you're trying to lapse into subjectivity, when, clearly, the rating system is objective, and its application is objective, which makes your efforts useless, to put so fine a point on it.

The rating system and its application can be summed up in one sentence and one alone:

"You either have the necessary qualifications or you don't."

That's it, end of story. There's nothing more to argue after this point, because no amount of "Well, what is 'questionable' material" is going to be a worthwhile endeavor, because at that point, any discussion over what is defined as "questionable" is splitting hairs in a gray area. It either is or it isn't, just like OB's Rules.

[GuyYouMetOnline]

Siren, you're forgetting that unless you are 16 or older, [i]it is nearly impossible to see a movie without an adult[/i]. This is simply because you are not able to get a driver's liscense until you are 16. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a 5-year-old or even a 15-year-old is allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult, because [i]they can't get to the theater without an adult[/i]. And by the time you're 16, you're probably ready to see R-rated movies. So, in short, if a person under 16 sees an R-rated movie, an adult knows and is the one who got the kid to the theater in the first place.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Takuya]Siren, you're forgetting that unless you are 16 or older, [i]it is nearly impossible to see a movie without an adult[/i]. This is simply because you are not able to get a driver's liscense until you are 16. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a 5-year-old or even a 15-year-old is allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult, because [i]they can't get to the theater without an adult[/i']. And by the time you're 16, you're probably ready to see R-rated movies. So, in short, if a person under 16 sees an R-rated movie, an adult knows and is the one who got the kid to the theater in the first place.[/quote]
Your entire argument here is based on the idea that a minor without a driver's license is unable to get to the theatre without an adult, so therefore, because they are unable to both get to the theatre and get into the movie without an adult, the Rating system is broken?

I'm sorry, but when I was younger and was going to see...Scary Movie, I believe, I certainly did not have a driver's license, let alone a car, yet my mom drove me and my younger brother there. Not only that, though, she also went up to the ticket counter and gave us permission to go see the film.

If the adult will be driving the minor to the theatre (going to the theatre to begin with), there is no problem at all for them to simply go up to the ticket booth like my mom did back then. So, I don't see how your argument is valid if that's your basis.

What are you trying to say here, anyway? That the more effective method of age restriction in theatre attendance is simply the understanding that Little Bobby would be unable to ride his Tricycle to the movie theatre? That's what you seem to be saying essentially.

[GuyYouMetOnline]

Um, you kind of just prooved my point. Your mother drove you to see Scary Movie, and she bought your tickets. Therefore, she knew that you were seeing an R-rated movie. If she or your father hadn't taken you (or another relative, or maybe a friends parents. If you get a ride to the theater from a stranger, well, that's extremly poor judgement, and kids who do that kind of thing are probably the same kids who will choose to do things like smoking), then you wouldn't have been able to get to the theater to see the movie.

Oh, by the way, I seriously doubt that a little kid is going to ride his trike or bike or whatever to a movie theater unless he lives right next to it, or something (which is very rare). So, only a very, very, very small number of people under 16 are able to get to the movie theater without an adult to drive them, and nothing is this world is ever perfect. And don't you dare give some bull**** reply like 'I've aced tests' or something like that. You know what I mean.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Takuya]Um, you kind of just prooved my point. Your mother drove you to see Scary Movie, and she bought your tickets. Therefore, she knew that you were seeing an R-rated movie. If she or your father hadn't taken you (or another relative, or maybe a friends parents. If you get a ride to the theater from a stranger, well, that's extremly poor judgement, and kids who do that kind of thing are probably the same kids who will choose to do things like smoking), then you wouldn't have been able to get to the theater to see the movie.

Oh, by the way, I seriously doubt that a little kid is going to ride his trike or bike or whatever to a movie theater unless he lives right next to it, or something (which is very rare). So, only a very, very, very small number of people under 16 are able to get to the movie theater without an adult to drive them, and nothing is this world is ever perfect. And don't you dare give some bull**** reply like 'I've aced tests' or something like that. You know what I mean.[/QUOTE]But you didn't answer my question. What does the inability of children/minors in getting to a movie theatre have to do with the movie ratings? How is that a factor? What bearing does it have here? How does it help your argument that the movie ratings are...useless?

I do not see any point in bringing up how minors are unable to get to the theatre by themselves. A child's inability to get to the theatre independently from their parents has absolutely no bearing on the MPAA's rating system. A film's [i]content[/i] is the determining factor, not if a child will be able to get to the theatre.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean here, because, quite honestly, I can't find a point anywhere in your reply.

EDIT: Oh, watch your tongue, please. I don't curse at you, I'd appreciate it if you don't curse at me.

[Zeta]

I personally don't think that all the movie restrictions should be in place, specifically the 17 age limit on rated R movies. Usually, keep in mind this is usually, if I kid is at a movie theatre, their parents obviously know what movie they will be seeing. Just that fact alone, in my mind at least, gives them persmission to see the rated R movie. And if the people didn't believe them, they could easily call the kids parents. With my being 17, I don't have to worry about this though. But I do have a 16 year old brother who would like to see movies that are R, and are unable to unless my mom buys the tickets, or I go back at different times during the day and buy them. ^_^;;
Back when Mortal Kombat came out(I think it was MK at least) my mother dropped my brother, a friend, and I off in front of the theatre, in clear view of the employees. She knew what movie it was we were going to see, otherwise she wouldn't have let us go to the theatre at all. It being Pg 13, and I being 13 at the time, she just left us there to buy the tickets. They wouldn't even let me buy my own ticket, and I was 13. So then I asked if I could go inside and use the pay phone to call my mom. They wouldn't let me even do that because rated R movies were in progress. Now that is plain bull crap. The phones are near the entrance and they would be able to see that I wouldn't sneak into any movie.
I believe that the ratings should be a loose set of guideline, not something that should be followed to the letter. Many kids see rated R movies on television itself, it isn't something that is new to them. Kids see things just as bad on the news itself. Images of war and the like. Hell, kids probably even seen pornography nowadays if they have Digital Cable. And with channels like HBO showing rated R movies, kids watch them anyways.

EDIT: My apologies, my TAB key seems to not be working. -_-